Sitting of 12 June 1978

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

    Retail Price Index
    Mr. David Huntasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what has been the monthly increase in the retail price index for the latest available month.
    Mr. Neubertasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what was the increase in prices since February 1974 to the latest available date.
    Mr. Tebbitasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection when the monthly increase in the retail price index last exceeded 1·5 per cent.
    The Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Roy Hattersley): The retail price index rose by 1·5 per cent. in April: this was the largest increase since April 1977 but the smallest April rise for six years. The increase since February 1974 has been 91·3 per cent.
    Mr. Hunt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, accepting the last three months' figures, we now show a yearly increase of 11·2 per cent.? Will he accept that what he is doing in making these comments—particularly the comments he made in Birmingham—is exactly what Mr. Alan Fisher has termed "kite-flying before the election"? Will he withdraw some of the comments that he has made and face up to the reality of the continuing increase,
    632
    particularly in view of the last increase in the mortgage rate?
    Mr. Hattersley: What I said yesterday and what I am happy to repeat today is that the inflation rate will remain at or about the present figure for the rest of this year and that the inflation rate for 1979 is for the British people to decide when they decide the wage bill for that period. As for the three-monthly annualised figures, there is a Question later on the Order Paper on that subject, to which I look forward, because it is a very good figure.
    Mr. Neubert: After the Government's appalling record, which has seen prices all but double in four years, and after numerous fraudulent forecasts of better times ahead, how can the Secretary of State deny what all best-informed commentators are telling him, namely, that the inflation trend will be rising again by the end of the year and that it will probably be in double figures in 1979?
    Mr. Hattersley: I hope that, as this Question Time goes on, the hon. Gentleman will give an example of an inflation forecast that I have made which has turned out to be incorrect. As for other forecasters, I dealt in my speech yesterday in detail with two forecasters—the London Business School and the National Institute. The forecasts of both those institutions are more gloomy than the Government's view, and both are already wrong—indeed, one was wrong before it was published. It prophesied that the lowest point for 1978 would be 8·4 per cent. and we are already down to 7·9 per cent.
    Mr. Mike Thomas: In my right hon. Friend's view, is there some vested interest in the Conservative Party in some sort of damaging change in the rate of inflation? Are not the figures that he has given entirely reasonable, based ort every reasonable piece of statistical information available? Are the "well-known experts" to whom Tory Members refer in fact in Tory Central Office?
    Mr. Hattersley: No; the reason that these questions are persistently put, against all the evidence, is very clear. It is not so much that the Opposition believe that the inflaton rate will increase as that they actually hope that it will increase. What they want to do is

    633
    obtain narrow party advantage from national deterioration. The Government do not propose to allow that to happen.
    Mr. Adley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in view of the reply that he has given, we are not required to play for any narrow party advantage? Will he repeat loud and clear what he said—that inflation since this Government came to office has been 91 per cent.? What sort of celebration is he planning when it reaches 100 per cent.?
    Mr. Hattersley: First of all, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will at least struggle for some statistical objectivity. The trend of increasing inflation began 18 months before this Government came to power. The inflation rate is now much lower than it was when the Conservative Government left office. I refer again to every informed observer who makes it very clear that inflation in this country began with the Barber printing boom of 1973. Our achievement is that we have brought that under control.
    Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Is there not some statistical evidence that the rate of inflation might even fall before the end of this year and that there are experts who put forward that viewpoint? Will not my right hon. Friend agree that not only we on these Benches but the whole country will be behind him in his efforts to curb inflation and that the only renegades are a few Members on the Conservative Front Bench, who seem still to be following their dubious Gloucester index?
    Mr. Hattersley: There is a prospect over the next two or three months of some small improvement, but I do not want to go further than I went yesterday. The prospect for this country—the statistical certainty, as I described it then and describe it again today—is of inflation remaining for this year at or about its present figure.
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Who do the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister think they are kidding when they repeat their fraudulent inflation forecasts? Do they think that the people of this country have forgotten this Government's lies about the rate of inflation before the last election or that the same people will be fooled by this kind of electoral deception again? Will the Secretary of State tell the truth for once and say that
    634
    the effect of the fall in the pound since last January, of rising raw material prices, of rising interest rates and of rising national insurance contributions are bound to have an effect on inflation by the end of this year and that we shall be back in double-figure inflation by the second half of next year? Does he care to repeat his incredible prediction that inflation will be even lower next year?
    Mr. Hattersley: I do not think that the people of this country are very impressed by that sort of vulgar stridency. What I believe they understand is the achievement over the past 18 months in bringing inflation down from over 26 per cent. to under 8 per cent. I believe they also know about next year. I made clear yesterday, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister repeated the point many times during the previous week, that the inflation rate next year is something for the people to decide. If we have a reasonable wage round, inflation will remain under control. Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to contribute to the education of the people by telling us whether she and her party want a moderate wage round next year or whether they are not interested in that sort of thing.

    Food Prices
    Mr. Durantasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what has been the increase in food prices since February 1974.
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether he will give the increase in food prices since March 1974.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Robert Maclennan): The retail food index has increased by 99·8 per cent. since February 1974 and 97·6 per cent. since March 1974. However, the latest figures show that food prices increased by only 6·3 per cent. between April 1977 and April 1978, the lowest annual rate since June 1970.
    Mr. Durant: Will the hon. Gentleman take this matter more seriously than his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did a few minutes ago, bearing in mind the problems of housewives and the low-paid? Is he aware that, according to the Department of Employment Gazette,

    635
    food prices rose by 2·8 per cent. in the first three months of this year? That is a Department of Employment figure. Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that the increase in the national insurance contribution that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now to impose will affect the food industry badly, because it is labour-intensive?
    Mr. Maclennan: I welcome the opportunity to set straight the record of food prices. They have shown a very marked improvement over the course of the past year. Since last July, there has been a continual steady fall in the rate of increase. At that time it was 25·2 per cent. In December it was down to 10·6 per cent., and it is now 6·3 per cent. For much of that time, the rate of increase in food prices has been below the all-items retail prices index. Indeed, for the past seven months the figure has been below the rate of increase in prices generally.
    Mr. Buchan: Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the improvement in food prices as compared with certain other prices, almost every consumer domestic food would be cheaper if it were not for the higher lunacies of the Common Market? Is it not gross humbug for the Conservative Party, which brought us unprotected into the Common Market and added to the problem by its stupid amendment on the green pound, should now object to the situation it has created?
    Mr. Maclennan: We can take some encouragement from this Government's success in holding down, with increasing effect, the level of common price increase in the annual price negotiations in Brussels. In 1975, the common price increase was 9·6 per cent. In 1976, it was 7·7 per cent. This year it has been only 2 per cent.
    However, my hon. Friend is right to point to the effect of the greater devaluation of the green pound than this Government thought prudent. If it had not proved possible to phase that increase, contrary to the wishes of the Conservative Party, the housewife's food bill would have been increased by no less than £80 million. By the phasing, my right hon. Friend has been able to reduce that burden substantially, to £25 million.
    Mr. Knox: Will the Minister confirm that food prices almost doubled during
    636
    just over four years of Labour Government, compared with rather less than four years of Conservative Government? For the benefit of his hon. Friends below the Gangway, will he also confirm that British membership of the Common Market has been responsible for only a minute proportion of the increase in food prices during the past four years?
    Mr. Maclennan: If the Conservative Party had taken any steps at any time to indicate support for this Government's measures to reduce the rate of food price increase, the hon. Gentleman's remarks might be treated more seriously.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: In addition to the problem that has arisen because of the harmonisation of prices under the common agricultural policy, will my hon. Friend remind Conservative Members, when they talk about the recent measures of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that those measures were taken because of their amendments to the Finance Bill, whereby they have given handouts to the wealthy?
    Mr. Maclennan: My hon. Friend is entirely right. If my right hon. Friend the Chancellor had not taken the measures that he did over national insurance charges, to correct the consequences of the irresponsible Opposition treatment of the Budget, that treatment would have had serious effects on public sector borrowing and on the money supply, both of which the Opposition never lose an opportunity to remind us are important factors.
    Mr. Alan Clark: What does the Minister think would be the effect on food prices of distributing the various mountains of foodstuffs accumulated under Common Market regulations?
    Mr. Maclennan: My right hon. Friend has taken steps to release some beef from intervention to institutions, steps which will have a modest effect. But the level of the so-called mountains varies substantially from time to time, and it is not possible to give an exact answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.

    Inflation
    Mr. Montgomeryasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what was the rate of inflation

    637
    over the last 12 months; and how this compares with the rate of inflation in West Germany.
    Mr. Hattersley: The retail price index rose by 7·9 per cent. in the 12 months to April 1978. The rate of inflation in West Germany in the 12 months to April 1978 was 2·9 per cent., a difference of 5 per cent.
    Mr. Montgomery: Will the Secretary of State explain why we have done so much worse than the West Germans? Will he admit that, since February 1974, prices in this country have risen by over 90 per cent. compared with about 20 per cent. in West Germany? On that basis, the value of the pound in this country has dropped since February 1974 to 52·3 per cent. If we had had in this country West German rates of inflation, the pound would have been worth 83 per cent. of the earlier figure. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Labour Government have cut the purchasing power of the working man's income by about 30p in the pound?
    Mr. Hattersley: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has got his figures wrong or whether he has just got them out of perspective. As I told him in my initial answer, the difference between the German inflation rate and the British is 5 per cent. In February 1974, a month the hon. Gentleman chose and one in the last year of the Conservative Government, the differenece between the German inflation rate and the British was even wider. We have narrowed the gap between Germany and Britain during the four years of Labour Government.
    Mr. Heffer: Would not my right hon. Friend agree—he might not, because he is a pro-Marketeer—that the situation has developed very badly for us because of our entry into the Common Market, as compared with Germany, which was already in it and which has gained at our expense?
    Mr. Hattersley: That is not my interpretation of events, not because I am a pro-Marketeer but because I think that the events are slightly different from those that my hon. Friend described. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that, if we had not been forced to accept the common agricultural policy in its present form, price increases would not have been as high as they have been
    638
    over the past four years. I think that no one would argue about that. But that is not the major cause. The major cause is to be found in a number of other more damaging matters, such as the 400 per cent. increase in oil prices.
    Mr. Freud: Would not the right hon. Gentleman accept that in West Germany all political parties and industries subscribe to an incomes policy, and that this must be a major reason for the difference in inflation?
    Mr. Hattersley: I believe that. I believe that an incomes policy, which I put in its widest sense—I mean not an imposed incomes policy, and certainly not a statutory incomes policy, but a policy which plans the growth in wages—is an essential ingredient of a successful economy. It is one of the things we have achieved over the past three years, and one that I hope we can achieve in the future.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will my right hon. Friend tell hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery), whose economic illiteracy is exceeded only by his dishonest use of statistics, that for a real comparison between the two economies he should take into account West Germany's very low defence expenditure obligations, the fact that it already had a high level of food prices before we even entered the Common Market, and that it has a level of investment renewal that we should do well to emulate? Is it not high time we made changes that would bring us into line, not in the social market economy that the hon. Gentleman wants, but in terms of the reality of our status in the world, so that we can protect the consumer?
    Mr. Hattersley: Part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is essentially not for me but for others. My hon. Friend has highlighted the central theme of all the Questions we have had from the Opposition today, namely, an incredibly selective use of statistics. This is, I fear, a feature of prices Questions. We are about to get it later on, when false comparisons will be drawn with the three-monthly average.

    Industrial Costs
    Mr. Hodgsonasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection

    639
    what was the change in industry's input prices over the last 12 months.
    Mr. Maclennan: In the past 12 months the wholesale price index for the inputs to manufacturing industry has fallen from 348·1 in May 1977 to 341·8 in May 1978. This is a fall of 1·8 per cent.
    Mr. Hodgson: Does the Minister agree that this is an example of selective statistics—
    Mr. Gwilym Roberts: The hon. Gentleman asked for them.
    Mr. Hodgson:—since in the past three months the index has actually risen by 5·3 per cent.? Is he aware that that will be a 20 per cent. increase on an annual basis? If there is a 20 per cent. increase, will the Minister confirm that the retail price index rate of increase will be no higher at the end of this year than it is now?
    Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman must decide what figures he wants and, when he has decided, table the appropriate Question. I have given him precisely the figures for which he asked. They demonstrate that there has been a fall of 1·8 per cent. in the wholesale price index for last year. We should take considerable encouragement from that and, furthermore, recognise that it is evidence, if evidence were needed, that my right hon. Friend is wholly correct in stating that the rate of inflation in the remaining months of this year will be at or about the present figure.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: In view of the relationship between the value of sterling and input prices, is it not strange that Tory Members should pretend to protect sterling and yet, when it is necessary for the Government to take action to repair the damage the Tories caused by their vote on the Budget, they shout "crisis", thereby damaging sterling? Is this not hypocritical and unpatriotic?
    Mr. Maclennan: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I think that the patriotism of the Tory Party is beginning to be called into question generally.

    Bureaux de Change
    Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what representations he has received
    640
    from consumers about the trading practices of bureaux de change.
    The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. John Fraser): None, Sir.
    Mr. Rost: Is the Minister aware that the British Tourist Authority is most concerned that some bureaux de change are abusing foreign tourists by charging unreasonable rates of commission and giving unreasonable rates of exchange? Will the Minister take account of the fact that it is not surprising that he has not received any complaints since it is the foreign tourists who are being abused? Will he accept some responsibility for protecting the good name of this country as a trading nation?
    Mr. Fraser: What I do notice is that the hon. Gentleman is complaining about prices and profits but has always voted against any means of dealing with excessive prices or profits. I know that the hon. Gentleman has done some very good work on this subject. If he would be kind enough to send me the details, I will forward them to the Price Commission.

    Prices
    Mr. Jim Lesterasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what was the increase in prices over the past three months expressed at an annual rate.
    Mr. Hattersley: 11·2 per cent.
    Mr. Lester: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, far from getting figures wrong and comparing convenient figures, the Chancellor's 8·4 per cent., quoted for the convenience of the Government, was on the same basis? Can the Secretary of State tell me how he reconciles this figure with his confident assertion over the weekend? Does he not understand why many of us feel a scepticism which is shared by the general secretary of NUPE?
    Mr. Hattersley: I will try to explain to the hon. Gentleman. The three months about which he asked me include April, which is always a month of uncharacteristically high price increases. For example, in the three months including April 1974, which take in six weeks of Conservative Government followed by six weeks of

    641
    immediate Conservative inheritance, there was an increase of 24·6 per cent., twice as large as the figure I have just given. Hence my assertion earlier today that 11·2 per cent. for the three months including April is a very good figure which confirms my prognosis that prices in this country will remain for the rest of the year at or about their present level.
    Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the great likelihood is that the figure for the three months up to October 1978 will compare very favourably with the much-quoted 8·4 per cent. given by the Chancellor?
    Mr. Hattersley: It is important not to pick out any specific three-month period. The important thing is the overall trend. I understand why my hon. Friend picks those three months. It is important to ensure that inflation remains at or about its present level from now through October into 1979 so that we can build on this year's achievements next year. That is this Government's strategy. The Government's infation policy is not geared to any one month or date. It is geared to getting the whole inflation cycle broken and beaten down to the level of our industrial competitors.
    Mr. Whitney: When the Secretary of State defended his prognosis—as he has just called it—yesterday, speaking on Radio 4, one of the elements in this prognosis was that:
    "The exchange rate has been predetermined for the rest of this year."
    Can the right hon. Gentleman explain which exchange rate, tied to which factor? Was it to the dollar? Was it to the basket of currencies? How will he tie it and predetermine it for the rest of the year?
    Mr. Hattersley: Even with the benefit of reading, the hon. Gentleman slightly misquoted me. What I said, and what I confirm now, was that the basic ingredients of the inflation pattern for the rest of this year have already been predetermined, partly because there are lags in these matters, which the hon. Gentleman will come to understand. As to the measurement of the exchange rate, conventionally we now measure it against the weighted basket of currencies. Now that the hon. Gentleman has joined us in the House perhaps he will urge his Front Bench to tell us what they believe about
    642
    the exchange rate and to say whether they share the view of some of their friends in industry that it is too high or whether they share my view, which is that the exchange rate ought to be protected to help the consumer.

    Retail Price Index
    Mr. Tim Smithasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if he will give an estimate of the effect of the depreciation of the £ sterling on a trade weighted basis, since the Budget, on the retail price index.
    Mr. Hattersley: Roughly speaking, each 1 per cent. fall in the exchange rate adds about ¼ per cent. to the retail price index, within about 12 months. The trade-weighted depreciation since the eve of the Budget has been 1·4 per cent.
    Mr. Smith: Was it not the Budget which caused the subsequent fall in sterling? Did the Government fail to understand that the public sector borrowing requirement forecast for this year would be totally unacceptable? At the time of the Budget, was this outcome anticipated, and has it been taken into account in the forecasts which the Secretary of State made yesterday?
    Mr. Hattersley: I am astonished by the effrontery of the hon. Gentleman, who tells us that the public sector borrowing requirement in the Budget was too high but nevertheless supports a party which voted to make it £500 million higher.

    Legislation
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if he is satisfied that current legislation sponsored by his Department is operating in the interests of the consumer.
    Mr. John Fraser: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Adley: Is the Minister aware that he is one of the two, or possibly three, remaining members of the "Hattersley for King" club if he is really satisfied about current legislation? Is he perhaps suggesting that Mr. Alan Fisher, who used to be a sycophantic Socialist until this weekend, has either become a supporter of the Conservative Party or is as misguided as apparently the Government think the rest of the British public are about the success of the Government's

    643
    counter-inflation policy? When will Government stop trying to legislate themselves out of our four years of inflation and realise that it is only by reducing income tax, getting people back to work and giving them an incentive to work that they are likely to achieve their stated objectives?
    Mr. Fraser: I do not see what any of that has got to do with the Question tabled by the hon. Gentleman. With respect to Mr. Alan Fisher. I must say that the figures given by my right hon. Friend are reliable. The figures for this year are predetermined, and those for next year depend on the sort of wage agreement that we get later this year.

    Proprietary Drugs
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what study he has made of the Price Commission Report on the profit margins of proprietary drug manufacturers; and what additional steps he is taking to limit these profits.
    Mr. Maclennan: Consultations with interested parties about this report are in progress. My right hon. Friend will make a statement when these are concluded.
    Mr. Roberts: Does not my hon. Friend accept that much of the advertising in this area is quite unnecessary and unacceptable to the public? Does he agree that people generally, when we have this sort of report about prices in the drug industry, would expect many of these prices to come down?
    Mr. Maclennan: I have noted what the Price Commission had to say on this matter, as has my right hon. Friend. We shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's remarks in the consideration that we are now giving to the report.
    Mr. Buchan: Does not my hon. Friend agree that many of the costs which drug manufacturers adduce in favour of their profits are quite unnecessary and wasteful? Has not the time come to recognise that their main customer is the community and that this industry should be brought into public ownership by the community?
    Mr. Maclennan: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State
    644
    the for Social Services will note my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. Freud: While the Minister looks into the increasing profits of drug manufacturers, will he also examine the decline in profits of rural chemists, who are closing at a very fast rate, and perhaps do something about that?
    Mr. Maclennan: I am aware of the problem, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is due to a number of factors, some of which lie outside my province.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Is it not essential that proprietary drug manufacturers should be allowed to retain sufficient of their profits to be able to carry out future research and development, the cost of which can be very high?
    Mr. Maclennan: I think that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that my answers today have not been very forthcoming on this subject. I am afraid that I cannot be more forthcoming about the report until we have had time to consider it and what all the interested parties who have a right to make representations to us have to say.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will my hon. Friend consult the Department of Health and Social Security on this question of drug profits, since there have been innumerable examples of drug companies putting medicines on the market which have later proved totally unsafe, showing that they had not done their research? What is the purpose of retaining profits if the sole purpose is simply to get more profits without proper research into safety for the consumer?
    Mr. Maclennan: My hon. Friend makes a number of strong and forceful points. We have been in discussion already with the Department of Health and Social Security on the question of the profitability of the industry.
    Mr. Adley: The hon. Gentleman has just admitted that he has not been very forthcoming. Will he now give an answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) about the proposed nationalisation of the drug companies? Is this Government policy? Will it be the Labour Party's policy at the General Election?
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I hope so.
    Mr. Maclennan: I had hoped that the House would recognise that it would not be in the interests of those with whom I am in consultation to have announced substantive responses to the Price Commission's report at this stage. Those responses will be forthcoming, as, no doubt, will be responses to the suggestions which have been made by my hon. Friends, which go somewhat beyond the recommendations of the Price Commission.

    Inflation
    Mr. Simsasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what was the average annual rate of inflation between 1945 to 1951, 1951 to 1964, 1964 to 1970, 1970 to 1974 and from 1974 to the latest available date, respectively.
    Mr. Hattersley: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) on 6th June.
    Mr. Sims: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. I am sure that he will appreciate that the Question to which he referred was put down after I had put down this Question for oral reply today. Would not he agree that the figure quoted of 91·3 per cent. as the cumulative increase in prices since the Government took office is an appalling indictment of their stewardship? Would not he also agree that an analysis of the figures he quoted showed that during the period of office of Conservative Governments the increase in prices had been just over 5 per cent. while during the period of office of Labour Governments it has been just over 9 per cent.? Is not that one of the figures that the general public should take into account when deciding how much credence they should give the statement that the right hon. Gentleman made yesterday?
    Mr. Hattersley: I think that the British public have far more sense than the hon. Gentleman gives them credit for. The figures demonstrate two things—first, that the world, and Western Europe in particular, has had a period of increasing inflation since 1945, and the Labour Government have been in power for the last four years of that period; secondly, the hon. Gentleman picks his dates in an
    646
    arbitrary and what some people would regard as a trivial fashion. The dates he chooses are General Election dates, but the trends change between General Elections. As I have told the House many times—and will no doubt have to repeat again many times—the increase in inflation in this country, which we have at last brought under control, began in the late winter of 1972 under the Government of the right hon. Member for Sid-cup (Mr. Heath) with Lord Barber at the Treasury.
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Will not the right hon. Gentleman concede for once that the facts are that under successive Conservative Governments the rates of inflation, based on an average annual rate, are almost half of those under successive Labour Governments in similar periods of time?
    Mr. Hattersley: Even that supplementary question is not quite statistically right. But even accepting that it has some approximation to statistical accuracy, which is an achievement in itself for the hon. Lady, let me again make the point, which is the only point worth making, that there have been a number of factors which I wish that one day the hon. Lady would pay special respect to. For example, there was the 400 per cent. increase in oil prices in the winter of 1973–74. This is the sort of thing that determines inflation in this and other countries. The important point about inflation in this country is that it is coming down; we have stabilised the rate. That is in part the achievement of the British people as well as of Her Majesty's Government. I wish that just for once the Conservative Party would celebrate that achievement as something that is very well worth while.
    Mr. Kinnock: is my right hon. Friend aware that I do not know which I am most worried about—whether Conservative Members actually believe what they are saying, with all the stupidity and ignorance of history that that would involve, or whether they are doing it simply as a cynical stunt to try to convey to people outside that there is some coincidence between the rate of inflation and General Election dates? Would not that make people outside as stupid—which is inconceivable—as hon. Members opposite?
    Mr. Hattersley: Recent history demonstrates the point my hon. Friend makes. The Conservative Party was saying that inflation would begin to rise again in the early summer when it thought that there might be a spring election and wanted to suggest that things would only remain moving in the right direction until that election was over. Now the Conservative Party is making the same error and the same false prophecies again. My only pleasure in all this is that it will be proved right in one thing only—that is, that its constant hope that there will be national deterioration which will bring with it political success for the Conservatives will be proved absolutely false.

    Railways (Consumer Representations)
    Mr. Moateasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if he is satisfied with the arrangements for consumer representation on the subject of rail fares.
    Mr. Onslowasked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if he is satisfied with the arrangements for consumer representations on railway matters.
    Mr. Maclennan: Paragraph 35 of the White Paper on nationalised industries (Cmnd. 7131), published on 5th April, describes the Government's intention to extend the powers of the Central Transport Consultative Committee and in particular to give it a new power to consider the British Railways Board's general tariff structure.
    Mr. Moate: While welcoming the intention of the Government to give extra powers to the transport users' consultative committees to consider fare increases, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he can explain why, in the circumstances, the Government, on the recent Transport Bill, resisted amendments that would have achieved that result?
    Mr. Maclennan: The Government will introduce legislation to bring about the intended effect as soon as it is possible to do so.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: Will my hon. Friend congratulate British Rail on its initiative last weekend in giving the elderly the opportunity to travel free on the railways? Is not this a good example of public
    648
    enterprise which could perhaps be taken up by other enterprises?
    Mr. Maclennan: I have noted a number of examples of sensible promotional work by British Rail of this kind, and indeed its more recent statement that it is looking at the possibility of cheaper fares for families, too.
    Mr. Freud: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does free rail travel come under the subject of prices and consumer protection?
    Mr. Speaker: It is no good asking me.

  WALES

    House Building Costs
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Kinnock—Question No. 24.
    Mr. Kinnock: Question No. 24, Sir. This is unbelievable.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): If getting to Question No. 24 is unbelievable to my hon. Friend, I assure him that it is unbelievable to me as well.
    Mr. Kinnockasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will introduce legislation to seek to prevent house building companies from making price increases which exceed demonstrable cost increases between the time of an initial agreement with a purchaser to sell and the completion of sale to that purchaser.
    Mr. Jones: It would be extremely difficult to devise effective and enforceable legislation in such cases. Excessive price increases are best prevented by restoring stability in the housing market—which is the objective of the recent agreement with the building societies on lending levels.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is my hon. Friend aware that this may be yet another case of one of those famous misprints? I thought that I had put this Question down to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection.
    Is my hon. Friend aware that there are now several instances of firms building new houses and then, in between the time of the original agreement to sell and the eventual sale, imposing substantial increases in price, amounting to several

    649
    thousand pounds? Whereas in ordinary domestic transactions it is difficult to stop gazumping, it must be possible to introduce an interim contract which would hold firms to the original price plus any demonstrable cost increases. This would be a significant advance in protection for house buyers and families.
    Mr. Jones: Perhaps I should explain that my hon. Friend's Question was transferred to the Welsh Office by virtue of my right hon. Friend's responsibilities for housing in Wales. Gazumping is a problem which has concerned many of us for a very long time, but we nave to be careful in these matters that we do not introduce, or attempt to introduce, a remedy for gazumping which would be far worse than the disease.
    My hon. Friend is probably aware that, following detailed investigations of these matters in 1974 and in 1975, the Law Commission concluded that effective legislation against gazumping could work against the interests of the purchaser in many cases.
    Mr. Costain: Does the Minister appreciate that the way to control prices is to increase competition? Will he have a word with the Secretary of State for the Environment to ensure that land is made available for builders, so that they can build more and so that there can be more competition? The sort of case to which the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) referred, whether true or not, would not then happen.
    Mr. Jones: I believe that my hon. Friend's question was particularly concerned with the aspects which have arisen in Wales. The Community Land Act 1975 is working extremely effectively in Wales, and land is available for building in Wales.
    Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), in referring to the case I raised, to use the words "whether true or not"? I would certainly not dream of introducing or mentioning a case if it were not true.
    Mr. Speaker: I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) did not intend to make any imputation concerning the honour
    650
    of the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock).
    Mr. Costain: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I certainly had no such intention. As a matter of fact, the hon. Gentleman did not mention the name of the case. I gathered that it was a supposition and may or may not have happened.
    Sir A. Meyer: Will my hon. Friend—and no doubt the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock)—agree with me that it is most unsatisfactory for Questions on general housing policy to be transferred to the Welsh Office purely because they are asked by Welsh Members?
    Mr. Jones: I must admit that I am not responsible for the transferring of the Question. I am merely responsible for the answer.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Margarines and Vegetable Oil Products (Labelling)
    Mr. Mike Thomasasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to ensure that soft margarines high in polyunsaturated fats are labelled as such and that vegetable oil products containing saturated fats are differentiated from them.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): My right hon. Friend the Minister is awaiting a report from the Food Standards Committee on these questions. Its report will be available to all interested parties and its views on the recommendations will be considered before we decide what action is necessary.
    Mr. Thomas: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. In the meantime, however, is it not important that it should be drawn to the attention of those who purchase these products that it is incorrect to make the assumption that soft margarines in plastic tubs are always high in polyunsaturates and that many soft margarines sold in plastic tubs are just as damaging from the point of view of cholesterol levels as other margarines sold in other packages? Will he assure the House that steps will be taken to make sure that manufacturers do not try

    651
    to make margarines which are high among the dangerous products look the same as margarines which are not?
    Mr. Bishop: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern on this matter. He may know that, under the Labelling of Food Regulations 1970, a list of ingredients has to be given for most foods containing fats and oils. The fat or oil ingredient may be described simply as fat or oil, and the manufacturers may give information voluntarily about the fatty acid composition of their products. Any such information or claims will be subject to the general provisions of the Food and Drugs Act 1955. I am sure that the view expressed by my hon. Friend and others will be taken into account in due course.
    Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is vital to the health of heart cases that saturated fats should not be included in their diet? Is it not of vital health importance that the public should be given clear guidance, so that people under medical instruction may choose their diet carefully?
    Mr. Bishop: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's concern. I think that she and the public generally will know that foods which are usually high in saturated fatty acids are butter and other dairy products, cooking fat and red meat. The foods containing a higher proportion of polyunsaturated fatty acids are white meat, fish, some cooking oils and some soft margarines.
    I hope that this information, given at the Dispatch Box, will be of general interest. My right hon. Friend and the House may recall that the Government's White Paper "Prevention and Health", which was published last December, made recommendations which were very much in line with the comments made, and these factors will be taken into account.
    Mr. Robed Hughes: Is there not perhaps a possibility that, if we were to listen to all the reports on diet, the result would be that people would eat nothing at all?
    Mr. Bishop: The comments of hon. Members and of people outside the House, including those in the industry, will be considered. These are important matters and we hope to issue a report shortly.
    Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will the Minister please explain what is meant by the term "polyunsaturated"? Does he agree that it is a meaningless word and can mean nothing at all?
    Mr. Bishop: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that polyunsaturated and saturated fats should be more correctly referred to as polyunsaturated fatty acids and saturated fatty acids, since the terms refer to the fatty acid component of oils and fats, which are all compounds of glycerol and three different types of fatty acids. I could say much more. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes, I will willingly write to him on the matter.
    Mr. Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that I am beginning to be sorry that I started all this?
    Mr. Speaker: It was very interesting as we went along.

  SMALL FIRMS
  Mr. Rostasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he is satisfied with the progress he has made in his policy of assisting small firms.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Harold Lever): Yes, Sir, but I expect to make further progress in the months ahead.
  Mr. Rost: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the further tax on employment, the prices and credit squeeze and the rise in interest rates, all aimed at transferring resources from the private sector to help to finance the State's overspending, will make a major contribution to helping the small firms sector in this country? What is he doing about it?
  Mr. Lever: First, I doubt whether there are many impartial authorities who would accept the hon. Member's summary of the consequences of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's recent actions. My main reply to the hon. Member, however, is that the welfare of small businesses depends intimately on the general success of the economy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's measures were wisely designed to achieve a strengthening of the economy, and particularly its monetary aspects. For these reasons, I would expect the economy generally to be all the more confident as a result of those measures and that

  653
  small businesses will get their share of that benefit.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many small businesses, especially in fish processing, believe that they should be able to take advantage of the temporary employment subsidy? Has he had representations on this? If not, will he consider discussing with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how the level of temporary employment subsidy can be reduced to include these small firms?
  Mr. Lever: The fish processing industry has been singularly reticent in its correspondence with me. I must confess that I have had no such representations. In the light of my hon. Friend's comment, I shall certainly take this matter up with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  Mr. Bowden: What progress has the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster been able to make to help small businesses to obtain insurance cover for their products, particularly for those who are trying to open up markets in the United States? Is he aware how difficult this is?
  Mr. Lever: If the hon. Gentleman will specify more particularly what insurance cover he is talking about, I shall be very happy to look into it. We have done our best to extend the facilities for insuring certain risks with regard to exports, but we are talking of a very wide range of subjects. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if he gives me particulars—
  Mr. Bowden: I have done so.
  Mr. Lever: The hon. Gentleman has done so. I cannot recall immediately the reply that I have given to the hon. Gentleman or whether it has yet been through the official processes so that I can look at it myself. I can promise the hon. Gentleman that I shall take up any such points that he has made, and with even greater zeal any points that he makes in the future.
  Mr. Madden: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the additional resources made available in the Budget to the Development Commission are much appreciated because many of us believe that the Development Commission has a very important role to play in providing small industrial premises in
  654
  rural areas, thus supplementing the advance factory programme of the Department of Industry? Will he, therefore, do everything possible to encourage the Development Commission to continue its very good work in this area?
  Mr. Lever: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his encouraging comments. I completely share the view that he has expressed. I shall certainly do my best to encourage further achievement by the Commission.
  Mr. Freud: Is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster aware that slaughterhouses and abattoirs for which renovation grants are sought to comply with EEC regulations are eligible only if the grants are for more than £25,000? Whether or not he is aware of that, will he do his utmost to help my constituency slaughterhouse in Chatteris which needs £10,000, because it is ineligible under the current criteria for grant-aid?
  Mr. Lever: I am encyclopaedically interested in the problems of small firms. I must confess that I am not encyclopaedically erudite in the area which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I shall certainly look into this to see whether I can give any useful help to these gentlemen.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has had since the Budget from representatives of small businesses on the effects of the Budget on small businesses.
  Mr. Lever: In general, representatives of small businesses have warmly welcomed the measures in my right hon. Friend's Budget. But most feel that we have not reached the limit of what can be done to help small firms through the tax system.
  Mr. Lewis: Is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster aware that I must congratulate his private office on its efficiency, because a copy of the reply which he has just given reached me on the Letter Board before he or I had arrived in the Chamber?
  How can he give me an answer of this kind in view of the recent Budget? The right hon. Gentleman talked about not having reached the limit of the concessions that can be made to small businesses. The Chancellor of the Exchequer

  655
  has just imposed new burdens upon small businesses. If he has had to bring in this kind of Budget, how can he have any scope for giving more advantages to small businesses beyond what has already been done? This is urgently required because small businesses require further help, but how can the Chancellor do it in view of the situation which now obtains?
  Mr. Lever: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment upon the timing of replies. Unless he had a prophetic prescience not given to me, I took his Question to be referring to my right hon. Friend's Budget and not to the recent financial measures that were taken. That Budget was replete with very important concessions for small businesses. It was very warmly welcomed by most responsible people in that area. The recent financial measures were in no way specially burdensome on small businesses.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I said "specially". In other words, they fell upon the big and the small with total impartiality, unlike the Chancellor's Budget where there was special, partial and favourable treatment for small businesses. Therefore, I think that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken in supposing that in some way these recent measures would be specially harmful to small businesses. On the contrary.
  The hon. Gentleman asked where the money would come from for further measures. I cannot prejudice the Chancellor of the Exchequer's decision next year—
  Mr. Adley: What about next month?
  Mr. Lever:—but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the recent measures, which were mainly directed to monetary achievement, would result in a considerable accretion of revenue from indirect sources, namely, the national insurance contribution, in the next financial year. The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that the Chancellor has by no means come to the end of the consideration of reasonable potential tax concessions to small businesses.
  Mr. Corbett: I welcome the measures to help small businesses announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his April Budget, but can my right hon. Friend say what progress has been made about the consideration of some better
  656
  loan guarantee facilities for small businesses and what conversations he has had or is having—particularly in the inner city and new town areas—about the provision of small premises for those who want to start small businesses?
  Mr. Lever: With regard to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, he will appreciate that I am not departmentally concerned with it. But I can assure him that I have been in close touch with developments in the inner cities with a view to ensuring that that problem receives adequate emphasis, namely, the provision of premises to smaller firms which are liable to be squeezed out in much modern development. I am glad to be able to say that I and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have given considerable encouragement to developers to provide these premises. I am confident that the period ahead will see much better treatment for small firms with regard to premises than has been their experience over the last decade.
  Mr. Speaker: If we can have shorter answers, I may be able to call another two Questions.
  Mr. Silvesterasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent consultations he has held concerning the level of personal taxation as it affects the prospects of small businesses.
  Mr. Lever: I continue to receive representations on this matter from a variety of sources and I continue to bear them in mind.
  Mr. Silvester: Does not the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster think it odd that, in view of his present position, he felt unable to support attempts to reduce the burden of personal taxation when the matter was before the House?
  Mr. Lever: No. This is a question of timing—the proper time, the proper place and the proper amount.

  MINISTERIAL OVERSEAS VISITS
  Mr. Tebbitasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what have been the costs to public funds, and the cash value of benefits, derived from his visits abroad during the past 12 months.
  Mr. Lever: I have made one official visit abroad in the past 12 months, at a cost to public funds of £250. The cash value of the benefits derived from this visit is inestimable.
  Mr. Tebbit: We are not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman prefers not to put a cash value upon the benefits which have accrued to the taxpayer. Will he say whether on these trips abroad, or, indeed, at home, he still stands by the remarks he made in the television interview with Mr. Brian Walden in January, namely, that the higher rates of taxation in the United Kingdom should be reduced as a matter of urgency and high priority in the economic interests of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Lever: I have no difficulty whatever in confirming the wisdom of those remarks and the accuracy with which the hon. Gentleman has quoted them.
  Mr. Adley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as he is generally regarded in this country and, I am sure, wherever he travels as a civilised, witty and intelligent human being—in contradistinction to most of his Government colleagues—it might be a good thing if he travelled a bit more and others of his right hon. Friends travelled a bit less?
  Mr. Lever: Although that comment is obviously courteously intended, it could be taken in more than one way. Any welcome given to my absences, or the suggestion that they should be further increased, has to be considered with great care.

  MONEY SUPPLY
  Mr. Gowasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many representations he has received from the Duchy
  658
  of Lancaster about the rate of growth of the money supply.
  Mr. Lever: None, Sir.
  Mr. Gow: Is the Chancellor of the Duchy aware that, had I lived in the Duchy of Lancaster, he would have received one representation? Will he say whether he regards the figure for the increase in the money supply for the last financial year of 16¼ per cent. and the increase for the first two months of this year at an annualised rate of 24 per cent. as being a state of affairs which he regards as satisfactory?
  Mr. Lever: As for the last financial year, since I do not attach totem precision to these figures, I would say that the outcome was reasonably satisfactory.
  As for the last two months, I think that it is a mistake to turn monthly, weekly or daily figures into an annual rate. It is wiser to take these figures over a reasonable period of several months and then adjudge whether we are on the right course. If the hon. Member will be a little patient and seek to judge the annual rate of increase of the money supply in, say, three or four months' time, he will not have to alarm himself to the same extent as appears to be the case now.

BILL PRESENTED
  PARLIAMENTARY PENSIONS
  Mr. Michael Foot, supported by Mr. Joel Barnett, Mr. John Smith and Mr. Charles R. Morris, presented a Bill to make further provision with respect to the contributory pensions schemes for Members of the House of Commons and for the holders of certain Ministerial and other offices: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 143].
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [19TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.

  PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
  3.32 p.m.
  Mr. James Boyden: I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of the First Report from the Expenditure Committee in the last Session of Parliament (House of Commons Paper No. 169) on Preventive Medicine and of the relevant Government observations (Command Paper No. 7047).
  This inquiry of the Social Services Employment Sub-Committee took 14 months. There were 23 sessions of oral evidence from 33 interested groups of witnesses and visits were made to medical premises and ICI. There are two volumes of evidence—
  Mr. Robin Corbett: Good stuff.
  Mr. Boyden: As my hon. Friend says, it is good stuff, and I hope very much that those who are specially interested in the subject and in health services generally will take the trouble to look at some of the evidence from the witnesses and at the documents.
  One of the features of the Expenditure Committee is that very busy and very important experts are prepared to come to the House and give evidence and to assist the Sub-Committees in every way that they can. Very often they supply written evidence which takes them considerable thought and effort. The appendices and the volumes of evidence are not to be ignored.
  When I was a member of the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board, I must confess that I would have welcomed very much the kind of report that the Sub-Committee has produced. I can remember being inundated with reports on special services and special aspects of curative medicine, but I do not recall ever having any very constructive information on preventive medicine. The report before the House today would have given me rather more to do on the hospital board than I found in the atmosphere
  660
  prevailing at the time. So I congratulate the Committee on having produced a practical document which will be of considerable use to lay members of the various hospital authorities and of course to the lay public as well, to say nothing of general practitioners and a good many specialists.
  Looking at the high and increasing costs of the National Health Service, the Committee noted that the vast majority of that expenditure appeared on the surface to be for curative services and that a very small sum proportionately was spent specifically on preventive services. In a way, this picture is not entirely fair, because the line between curative and preventive medicine is not all that easy to draw, and the White Paper refers to this in a number of places. In any event, the general practitioner practises both. But by and large, the Committee was right to say that the preventive side had been neglected in various ways and that some effective prevention could in the end free resources of medical skill and facilities to tackle diseases which could not be prevented at present.
  This was the main reason why the Committee began its inquiry. The inquiry was partly the result of growing public interest in preventive medicine, and this interest was shared and fostered by the Department of Health and Social Security. But the inquiry has provoked further discussion, on the whole at a very high level.
  Ministers say in their White Paper that they are indebted to the Committee for adding to the public discussion of these matters. The Ministers concerned have throughout been most co-operative with the Committee. It is fair to say that the tone of that co-operation was set by my right hon. Friend the present Foreign Secretary, who gave evidence on 28th April 1976 in his capacity as a Health Minister. His evidence was very frank and fair, and he was very well prepared to go along with many of the major recommendations of the Committee and with the attitude the Committee was taking. I think that this is emphasised by the form of the Government's White Paper. They have gone further than merely giving a formal reply to the Committee and have covered a wider range of matters. One example of this concerns preventive medicine for the elderly,

  661
  with which the Expenditure Committee did not have time to deal.
  In my judgment, it is the best reply from Ministers for a very long time. From time to time we in the Expenditure Committee have criticisms to make—and I have made them here—of slowness and of rather superficial treatment of our reports. It is true that this report is not exactly a Concorde. It has taken its time. But, having arrived, it is thorough and constructive and it reflects very well the careful constructiveness of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) and her colleagues on the Sub-Committee and, as I say, for a long time the Government's response has matched the considerations of the Committee. Indeed, many of the points made by the Government in the White Paper invite a continuing dialogue from the Committee. I hope very much that this will occur.
  Some right hon. and hon. Members will know that in the last two years the Expenditure Committee has tended to move in the direction of a more continuous survey of public expenditure. Some of the criticisms which have been made of lack of control of public expenditure are a bit superficial. In the Expenditure Committee, there is now an annual review which all the the sub-committees do of their areas of expenditure, and there is much more a continuing review of those matters which have been raised, normally with the Government though not invariably, and which need further comment and further pressure for development.
  This White Paper offers many opportunities, and I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, whom I congratulate on being made a Privy Councillor, will be in the van in co-operating with the Committee in furthering this very helpful dialogue.
  Perhaps I may turn to the very last pages of the Government's observations which set out the way that they have handled the Committee's recommendations. At the end of the day, what action has resulted in really the test of the effectiveness of the Committee's work.
  Of 65 recommendations—58 main ones, plus some double-barrelled ones—the Government have accepted 24 without reservation and 17 with some reserva-
  662
  tions. By and large those reservations are very helpful and constructive. They are not the sort of reservations which damn the original proposition but those which carry the main recommendation forward. Therefore, two-thirds of the Committee's recommendations have been substantially accepted.
  Of the remainder, 16 are still under consideration. These are the ones that the Sub-Committee will have to get its teeth into in the future, but again, very few of the Government's comments on these recommendations are negative. Even of the eight recommendations which are rejected there are some in which the rejection is more or less sympathetically in line with what the Committee had been striving for.
  For example, if hon. Members look at Recommendations Nos. 26, 27 and 28 on smoking, they will find that the Minister's comments on these are designed to further the objective which was in the mind of the Committee. Hon. Members should read paragraph 71, on page 22, of the Government's report on sponsorship of sport by the tobacco manufacturers. Here the Government are in the process of negotiating with the sponsors in order to eliminate some of the worst effects of what is implied by sponsorship. That might not go quite as far as we had hoped, but at least it is a move in the right direction.
  As a second example, let us take coupons, which are referred to in paragraph 72. The Minister comments that coupons have almost disappeared, and
  "the Government is watching this development closely."
  That is a very convenient phrase, but I give the Minister the benefit of the doubt. I can imagine hon. Members having something to say about that, but I must point out that there have been Government reports on Expenditure Committee reports in which the Government have not even been watching developments.
  The same applies to fluoridation. The Committee asked for more research. Ministers, rather surprisingly, were very positive about this. Normally, research is a wonderful let out for Government and for inaction generally. But here the Government says that fluoridation research is not necessary because they know the answer. Good for them. I think that I am

  663
  going to be stabbed in the back over that, and perhaps in the front as well, but that is no uncommon experience for an ex-Defence Minister—
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Will the hon. Member not agree that this is a perfect example of the utter complacency of this Government? Having had a recommendation that there should be further research, the Government sweep it to one side and say that there is no need for it.
  Mr. Boyden: I would have thought that the hon. Member would appreciate the smack of firm government.
  I have a feeling that the actual recommendation of the Committee—and here I speak personally—was motivated by the need for a certain amount of consensus. Of course this is a weakness of the Expenditure Committee. We seldom have any great party controversy. Throughout this investigation the conflicts were not great. There were some, as hon. Members will see if they look at the proceedings of the full Expenditure Committee and the voting on some issues. Generally speaking, consensus is the way in which we can get reports out and get movement in certain fields. I praise this Committee and this report for a large area of consensus which is in the public good.
  Expressing another personal view, I am not sure about Recommendation No. 40 on fluoride research. However, I think that the Government handled it with a smack of firmness, and they are to be commended for it.
  A similar situation arises on Recommendation No. 57. Here the Committee asks the health authorities to give their percentage of expenditure on preventive medicine. Again, the hand of firm Government has been shown with the Minister saying that this is not practicable. Of course, that is a standard reply from Ministers and I shall be interested to hear my colleagues' views on this.
  Of the eight rejected recommendations, five were rejected in a constructive way which does not in any way derogate from what the Committee had in mind. Members of the Committee may argue one way or the other about this, but I am sure that it will not upset them very much.
  In several fields where the Committee has pressed for more resources—I pick out two, more dental hygienists and more
  664
  health centres—it is perfectly right that it should concern itself with these matters. A few years ago I campaigned hard for more dental hygienists. The matter has dropped out of my sights lately, and I was rather disappointed to find how few hygienists there are. Therefore, the Committee was right to say that we want more. Obviously, if there were enough there would be a great improvement in the dental health of the population, particularly children.
  At the end of the day the Government must decide the priorities and provide the cash. This again is partly a weakness of controlling public expenditure, or attempting to, through Committees which have no responsibility. In the end it comes back to Ministers who have to take that responsibility.
  I have always campaigned for health centres. When I was on the Durham County Council we made excellent progress with health centres—although it was a long time ago. But once again, I have not applied my mind to that matter much lately and I was delighted to see the answer that the Minister gave to the Committee's request for more health centres, because it is pretty encouraging. Paragraph 198 says:
  "At the end of 1976 there were 120 health centres under construction, most of which were likely to come into use in 1977 or 1978. A further 93 health centres were due to be started in 1977–78. Many others are being planned to come into the capital programme within the next few years."
  That is a substantial move forward and it has certainly taken us a long way from the days when we had to struggle to convince the public, the House and local authorities that health centres were a good thing. In these days of complaint about the National Health Service, there is considerable building of health centres. This is the kind of comment from the Government which shows nothing but good sense.
  There is the typical, comparatively minor matter of the Committee wanting taxation placed on harmful cigarettes. This arises in paragraph 75. The Government say that they are very sympathetic towards this proposal but that they are prevented from doing anything by the EEC. No doubt that will provoke some rather interesting replies from unexpected sources. It demonstrates the difficulties that the Government face in carrying out

  665
  these recommendations, and how much easier it is for us, without responsibility, to make recommendations.
  The Committee was absolutely right to concentrate on readily identifiable aspects of prevention where early practical action was possible. The report is not an academic exercise on prevention. It is entirely practical and will produce a great many changes for the public good.
  It is particularly important and interesting to note the concentration on what ordinary people can do to prevent themselves from getting ill. I do not know whether the parliamentary gymnasium arises out of this, but if hon. Members consider preventive medicine on themselves, that is a marked step forward.
  The points made in the report are made not solely with an eye to saving money or freeing resources but to improve the quality of life. There is much talk of improving the quality of life, but I believe that there is no area of activity in preventive medicine which will not benefit from the recommendations of the Committee and the stimulus to discussion provided.
  Health education is clearly a very important part of prevention, and the Committee's recommendation providing for increased financial support for the Health Education Council is sound and has been matched by a tangible effort of Government approval in the allocation of £1 million in the current year and in the next two years.
  I am also pleased that the Government have accepted the Committee's views about radio and television publicity. The media, directly and indirectly, can have a large impact in this respect. They are taking more interest in these matters, which can do nothing but good for the public in general.
  Great responsibility rests on parents and teachers and on those who are responsible for bringing up young people. The advice in the Committee's report is directed at parents and teachers as much as it is directed at anybody. In the same way, general practitioners have an extremely important part to play, and the Government entirely endorse the Committee's view about greater improvement in preventive medicine and the
  666
  training and education of nurses, health visitors and doctors in this field.
  In conclusion, I wish to emphasise two points. The education of children, preventive medicine as it applies to children and the general care of their health should be given top priority. Not only will this provide an investment for the future on economic grounds, but it will be an area in which the quality of life can be improved.
  A great deal of the Committee's comments amount to common sense and to a plea for self-control. It is easy to enunciate that concept, but it is much more difficult to see that it is carried into action. I very much hope that a wider public than Parliament and those associated with it will take an interest in this subject and will be in which ways they can get the best out of these recommendations.
  This report illustrates what is within the capacity of the Expenditure Committee, most of which is entirely laudable. The Sub-Committee has fixed on a sector of public expenditure which it can put into focus. That expenditure is of considerable concern to the public. The Sub-Committee subjected the matter to a thorough and searching review and took an all-party view. Such differences as existed were not based on party considerations, and the discussions in Committee will help to stimulate, debate, which can only be helpful to the Government and do nothing but good to the public.
  I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East on the way she drives her Committee and on the manner in which she leads its deliberations. She is a formidable Chairman and hon. Members respond to her lead.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Very formidable.
  Mr. Boyden: I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Committee, responds to that comment. My hon. Friend and her colleagues are most diligent—and I make that as a point of praise, not of criticism. The staff of the Committee is very small, and I can think of no better cost-effective exercise than the way in which this Committee operates. I congratulate my hon. Friend, the Committee members and its

  667
  staff who joined in making the report effective. I hope that, as the debate develops, we shall have the same enthusiasm among those who have not been on the Committee for the excellent work which it has carried out.
  3.55 p.m.
  Mrs. Renée Short: I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) for his kind words of support and I am grateful for his accolade to the Committee. I am pleased that he also commented on the high productivity rate of the Committee, particularly as we work with a very small staff. I believe that there is a good case for an improvement in its numbers.
  Preventive medicine is not new. It is about 150 years since the first measures of preventive medicine were introduced, and those occurred during the upheaval of the Industrial Revolution. People came into the towns from the countryside and were living in appalling conditions, involving overcrowding in poor dwellings. There was widespread pollution of water supplies, no proper sewage disposal, problems of air pollution, and the use of women and children in sweated workshops and factories. All these matters provided a backcloth for change.
  It was in 1848 that the first Public Health Act was passed, and that was the forerunner of many other mandatory Acts. Diseases such as smallpox, pneumonia, diphtheria and tuberculosis caused heavy loss of life among adults and children. Because of the existence of preventive medicine and the legislation that was introduced, many of those diseases have now disappeared. In those early days many women died in childbirth or as a result of horrific methods of illegal abortion. This led to a high death toll among women and girls. Gin was the solace of the poor and was given as a pacifier to babies and young children. The average life expectancy in those days was 40 years. Therefore, it can readily be seen that much progress has been made.
  Public Health Acts were passed regulating work in factories, and that legislation had a profound effect on the nation's health. All these Acts affected the nation's health, environment and life expectancy. It can be argued that the greatest benefactors of our people were not doctors
  668
  but civil engineers who were responsible for installing sewerage schemes, pure water supplies and so on. I hope that the doctors will not be offended by that comparison.
  In these days, in the very much better conditions in which we all live, we are nevertheless cencerned, as my hon. Friend emphasised, about certain areas of disease where environmental factors, personal habits, susceptibility to accidents and other factors indicate a higher incidence of disease, a rising death rate from certain avoidable diseases in some sections of the community, and hazards arising from the individual's own life style appear to be deliberately ignored or not understood at all.
  Better education is required to cope with preventable disease and we require a greater understanding of causes and effects. Such diseases not only cause premature death and unnecessary suffering to individuals and their families, but also place an unnecessary burden on those concerned in terms of cost and pressure on medical and nursing services within the National Health Service. This situation causes great anxiety. It must therefore be possible to relieve the National Health Service of some of this burden of self-induced disease and thus release resources urgently needed in other areas of the NHS by shifting resources from curative to preventive medicine.
  This was the background to our study, and it provided a vast collection of expert papers and oral evidence from a great number of eminent witnessses We were encouraged and helped in our inquiry by the medical and supporting professions in many varied areas. We received many opinions and reactions as a result of our invitation to witnesses to give evidence to our Committee. Since the publication of our report, we have received many welcoming comments, and I wish to take this opportunity of expressing our thanks to our witnesses, to those who showed us their work in medical schools, dental schools, health centres and clinics and to others who unsparingly gave us their advice and time. It was a rewarding experience and I hope that it forged strong links between Parliament and those working in the NHS at every level.
  I must also thank those who submitted written evidence. Our special thanks

  669
  are due to our Clerk, Miss Milner-Barry, who had the considerable and exhausting task of organising the whole inquiry, assembling the witnesses in order from one week to the next, and collecting, indexing and presenting the mass of evidence in the three volumes that are before the House.
  My thanks are also due to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who make it a pleasure to be a driving Chairman, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland described me. They gave great support to the work of the Committee.
  There were ways and means of hon. Members expressing their opposition to the report but the report was unanimous, even on the fluoride issue. I was entirely on the side of saying that enough research had been done. We know enough about the effect of fluoride. Experimental fluoridation schemes have been carried out. I should like to see the Minister taking a firm line about the addition of fluoride to water supplies. However, there were some hon. Members who were not so convinced. Unfortunately, one member of the Committee changed his view after hearing the evidence. It was, therefore, a compromise to say that more research should be carried out. I have been perfectly honest about that.
  We had to be selective in our choice of areas of investigation. The whole range of preventive medicine is so vast and goes into so many medical specialties that clearly we had to choose. We chose areas where we believed that there was considerable concern among both the profession and the public, where we felt that progress had to be made as rapidly as possible in educating the groups most at risk, and where progress could be made fairly quickly. Our recommendations have now been responded to by my right hon. Friend and his advisers.
  I hope that more consideration has been given to the recommendations where my right hon. Friend indicated that ongoing consideration was continuing. I hope that he might have had second thoughts about some of our recommendations that he felt unable to accept, or about those to which he felt unable to give further consideration.
  I must stress that underlying the whole of the report and the recommendations
  670
  is the need for more effective education in all matters affecting the nation's health and the individual's health. There is a special need to improve the health of women and children. We suggested that that need should be given priority, especially to promote good health among children.
  We were concerned to learn that at the time of the inquiry the income of the Health Education Council from the Department was only about £1 million a year. It is in competition with some of the big spenders that are advertising ways and means of undermining health, and that was clearly an inadequate sum. We were glad to hear of the allocation of a further £1 million to the Council beyond that to which my right hon. Friend is already committed. I think that the House will wish to hear of the further help that the Department intends to give to the Council.
  In pursuing our proposals for more education we recommend the reintroduction of the Radio Doctor programme, preferably at the high peak listening spot before the eight o'clock news in the morning. My right hon. Friend accepted that recommendation. I hope that he will tell us what progress he has made in consultation with the BBC.
  We recommend the strengthening of the health education content of teacher training embracing the range of preventive medicine in the report as a first instalment. We cannot emphasise too much how important we believe it is that teachers should be properly and adequately trained to deal with young children at school and young adolescents who do not receive the guidance and help that they should get from their parents in matters pertaining to adult relationships, such as sexual relationships. It is essential that teachers should be trained. Teachers who are especially interested in undertaking that valuable work in school should have special training courses to fit them for it.
  We recommend that preventive medicine should play a more important part in the training of medical students. It is amazing that it does not do so already when so many within the medical profession understand that it is an important part of medicine. I am sure that medical students learn much that is not completely relevant to most of

  671
  them when they go out into the great wide world to practise and to start treating patients, which they do not do when they are training. Therefore, we recommend that the content of medical training should be reconsidered in that regard.
  We recommend that community medicine as a career should be more attractive and should enjoy better status to attract more people into it. I understand that community physicians are now concerned about their salary increases vis-à-vis those given to clinicians. My right hon. Friend should also consider that matter.
  One of the areas that causes us most concern is smoking. I think that it is generally accepted throughout the country that smoking is a major area where firm action is needed. It is accepted by the medical profession that the smoking of cigarettes, in particular, causes lung cancer, coronary heart disease, and chronic bronchitis. The medical profession does not distinguish between low and high tar cigarettes. It considers all cigarettes to be dangerous.
  In 1976 the tobacco firms were spending no less than £15 million on cigarette advertising. That is apart from their increasing expenditure on sport sponsorship. Since our report has been available we understand that the British American Tobacco Company is intending to spend a considerable amount on sponsoring sport, thus propagating the entirely erroneous view that husky young sportsmen and tough young sportswomen may be equated somehow with cigarette smoking. That is unacceptable.
  The fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport has given approval to new expenditure in that area is surely a contradiction of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said only a month or so ago, when he stated that sponsorship of sport by the British American Tobacco Company and other cigarette firms was grotesque. Given the efforts of the Department to reduce cigarette smoking, it seems especially appropriate that my right hon. Friend should take action to reduce rather than increase the toll of premature death and disease caused by cigarette smoking. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will comment on that.
  It is most annoying that such an announcement should be made at the time
  672
  when the report is before the House for discussion and when the tobacco firms are spending a great deal of money on straight advertising. When the Health Education Council had its campaign against smoking about two years ago it was able to spend only £400,000 to counter the fantastic expenditure of over £15 million by the tobacco firms.
  It is worrying that more women are suffering from lung cancer. As more women in socio-economic groups 4 and 5 are smoking more, men and women in the higher groups are smoking less. There has been a worrying increase among men and women in groups 4 and 5.
  It is vital to give young people proper information about the consequences of smoking so that they never start to smoke. That is why the training of teachers is so important. There is evidence that children are starting to smoke while at primary school, not even waiting until adolescence. Clearly that has to be taken on board by the Department of Education and Science. That places great responsibility on teachers to guide their pupils on such matters and to give them a good example when they are in school. What they do at home is their business, but teachers must decide not to smoke in school if they are to give a good example to pupils. That means not smoking in the staff room either, because when a youngster knocks on the door to speak to a teacher and is met with clouds of stale smoke billowing out, it does not reinforce the teacher's example or teaching. That is a counter-productive exercise. I hope that the teaching profession will take it on board.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Did the hon. Lady's Committee receive any evidence about the rise in smoking among nurses in hospitals? Does she think that is perhaps a matter for almost greater concern, because those who ought to know better are not necessarily setting the kind of example that we want to see?
  Mrs. Short: I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Nurses ought to follow the example of the medical profession. Many doctors have now given up smoking altogether. Nurses should follow suit. Smoking caused 25,000 unnecessary premature deaths in 1974–75. Yet it is in this area that I find the Department's and my right hon. Friend's response the least satisfactory.

  673
  We had the opportunity to talk to Dr. Kjell Bjartveit who was responsible for the preparation of the Norwegian legislation which now exercises strict control over cigarette advertising, the availability of cigarettes for young people and so on. His report was highly encouraging. He was able to report a steady reduction in cigarette smoking.
  I had occasion to discuss this matter again at a medical seminar. I was glad to learn that the decline in smoking in Norway had been maintained. Yet our recommendation to follow Norway's example and to ban advertising except at the point of sale—that is, at the tobacconist's shop, not in the Press, on radio and television, in magizines and so on—was not accepted. Nor was our recommendation that cigarette machines should be available only in places where children do not have easy access to them.
  I found it even more surprising when my right hon. Friend refused to consider the need for a much stronger health warning on cigarette packets specifically saying that cigarette smoking caused lung cancer, coronary heart disease and bronchitis. That would be stronger than the warning on the packet now. Perhaps the Minister of State will tell us why these strong recommendations were not accepted.
  However, my right hon. Friend supported our recommendation that there should be more non-smoking areas in public places, including buses, trains, cinemas and so on. I hope that British Rail, London Transport and other bus companies will take this on board and eliminate smoking areas altogether. The smell of stale smoke and having to breathe in other people's smoke if there are not places available in non-smoking compartments is sickening to non-smokers. Smoke clings to hair and clothes, and the debris of cigarette ends and spent matches thrown on the floor is unattractive and dirty.
  I have tried, unsuccessfully so far, to persuade my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is a non-smoker, to raise the whole question of cigarette advertising and the specific matter of the Royal Warrant, which is given to certain cigarette manufacturers, with Her Majesty on one of his Tuesday visits. The consequences of cigarette smoking are now widely recognised, and it would
  674
  be a great encouragement to all who are concerned about the serious diseases which arise from the habit if the Royal Warrant were withdrawn from those firms. I hope now that it will be possible for that to be done.
  Mr. Clement Freud: Does the hon. Lady agree that in certain cases the Royal Warrant is exceedingly useful—for example, the picture of George V on a cigarette packet with the motto
  "By appointment to His late Majesty King George V".
  Mrs. Short: I understand that he died from lung cancer. In fact, four of our kings have died from smoking-related diseases. That makes it even more extraordinary that the Royal Warrant should be given.
  Mr. Freud: I thought that was a health warning.
  Mrs. Short: People do not see it as such. They are perhaps not as well informed as we are about the causes of royal deaths recently.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of cigarette smoking, may I ask her to comment on the lack of success of the recent campaign to get people to smoke what was known as new smoking material?
  Mrs. Short: I was going to come to that matter. The fact that so much money was spent on research into this smoking material and on its manufacture, packaging, promotion and so on indicates the steps which some tobacco firms will take to try to continue to make money out of this activity. All those millions of pounds could have been better used in some area of preventive medicine. It is sad that all that money, effort and resources were wasted in that way.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On that point, I hope that the hon. Lady—
  Mrs. Short: I have not given way.
  Mr. Winterton: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Short: I am sure that my right hon. Friend, for whom I have great regard, will catch Mr. Speaker's eye a little later in the debate. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to make this

  675
  point then. I have given way several times. I say that in all friendship.
  I should like to know my right hon. Friend's view on our recommendation for a significant increase in duty on cigarettes, which was being considered when the White Paper was published, bearing in mind that cigarette smoking has increased in certain sections of the population. I know that a small step was taken in the last Budget, but I do not regard that as a prohibitive increase. We want to see a considerable increase in tobacco duty so that people really will think two or three times before buying another packet of cigarettes.
  The attitude of doctors to alcohol is different from their attitude to smoking. The doctors in their evidence told us that reasonable quantities of alcohol could be beneficial. It is the abuse and misuse of alcohol which is dangerous and the incidence of drinking among the young which is so worrying. Violence in the family, foetal damage, road accidents, cirrhosis of the liver, absenteeism from work and other problems arise from the misuse and abuse of alcohol. We raise over £2,000 million in duty and tax on alcohol. We should like to see some of that money devoted to the education of the young about the dangers of alcohol abuse.
  The price of alcohol must have some effect on consumers, just as the price of cigarettes does. If it appears relatively cheap, consumption will go up. That applies particularly to the young who are able to go into supermarkets and buy alcoholic drinks, apparently with impunity in some cases.
  Diet also plays an important part in the promotion of good health and the avoidance of certain diseases. If only we could persuade parents to give children less sugar, sweets and chocolate, that would certainly help children, particularly the state of their teeth. It would also help adults and children in the slimming process, which causes such a lot of people so much concern. Some people say that they cannot give up smoking because they are afraid that they will put on weight. If they would look at their diets as well as giving up smoking, they would find it easier to avoid putting on weight. People who are overweight put additional strain on the heart and joints, so
  676
  it is to their advantage to try to lose weight.
  If children could be offered things other than sweets and chocolate, their teeth would improve. The nation's teeth are nothing to brag about. We have very poor teeth. Too many children lose too many teeth much earlier than they should. We spend £150 million a year on dental treatment. Yet our children's teeth are in a poor state. This is partly because they eat too many sweets and partly because they have never been told how to brush their teeth properly. We recommend that more dental hygienists should be trained and employed, and this is an important part of the job they would do. It is also an important job that teachers could do, especially teachers in nursery schools where children have to learn to brush their teeth as soon as they have teeth to brush.
  A high consumption of saturated fats can cause coronary heart disease. Housewives should be told much more about the food they buy, especially convenience foods. Then it is up to them to avoid what they understand to be dangerous.
  In order to improve teeth, we recommend that dentists working within the NHS should be able to use sealants and fluorides. The White Paper accepts this with some reservations. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend could tell us what those reservations are. Perhaps he can say why the proposals were not accepted wholeheartedly and what he intends to do about it. We have strong dental evidence to support the use of sealants and fluorides as being of great help, especially for young children.
  Of special importance to women is the provision of safe, efficient fertility control and an adequate number of day-care centres for the termination of pregnancies within the NHS. We have evidence to show that a day-care abortion costs £35 whereas an in-patient abortion costs about £112. My right hon. Friend has taken this matter on board and has agreed that some expansion of day-care facilities should be provided. Unwanted pregnancies, apart from the misery that they cause to the girls and women concerned, are a great financial burden on the NHS and local authorities.
  In 1972, Mr. W. D. Laing estimated the cost of an illegitimate child, by the time it reached the age of 16, at £4,400

  677
  to the taxpayer and ratepayer in providing care and facilities. That figure must have more than doubled by now. One can see the cost of not having an efficient and effective family planning service and proper education.
  Family planning advice is available now on the NHS for men and women. It is possible to get information locally about doctors and hospitals. We recommend that the same information should be available for women seeking abortions to save shopping around when their general practitioners refuse to help. Time is crucial if early, safe abortion is our aim. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to take this matter on board and will agree that it will be of good value to the NHS if it can be done.
  Another of our proposals was that one of the tiers of administration in the NHS should be removed. I am interested to see that in a research paper produced for the Royal Commission which studied the National Health Service entitled "The Working of the National Health Service", there is a thorough examination of the cost and the effect of the present administrative system of the NHS. The report calls it "top-heavy and over-elaborate" and says that it leads to extra work and delayed decision making. The conclusion of the research team, which was led by Professor Maurice Kogan of Brunel University, was that there were:
  "too many levels of administration and too much duplication of functions at the different levels."
  He went on to say:
  "The multiplicity of levels, the over-elaboration of consultative machinery, the inability to get decision-making completed nearer the point of delivery of services, and what some describe as unacceptably wasteful use of manpower resources were recurrent themes in most of the areas where we worked."
  That bears out the evidence that we took about the present administration system of the NHS. This is a major cause of the frustration and anxiety among nurses and doctors working within the NHS. This should be considered as quickly as possible so that all the frustration and delay can be removed. It is not only staff who suffer. Patients have to wait for long periods before they see a doctor, before they get a consultation, before there is any follow-up and before they are referred to a hospital for whatever treatment or operations they need.
  678
  My right hon. Friend has in our report a good deal of ammunition for many of the things that the Department is considering and would like to do. I hope that he will recognise our concern about the incidence of disease caused by the lifestyle of people. By education and proper instruction of parents and children, much of this can be reduced so that resources, which are never sufficient in an expanding NHS, can be transferred to the areas of medicine in which there are still acute shortages and long lists of patients awaiting certain specialist attention in hospital. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to answer the points that I have raised and that he feels that the report supports him in the work that he and his Department are doing.
  4.26 p.m.
  Mr. Robin Hodgson: I was not a member of the select Committee, so I begin by congratulating the Committee on a stimulating and interesting report. I congratulate the Government on being able to reply quickly to what the Committee said.
  I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) on what she said about education. If we are not careful and push this bandwagon too far too fast and do not carry public opinion with us, we shall be in danger of setting up a countervailing public reaction against what she and I are seeking to do.
  I agree also with what the hon. Lady said about the need to transfer resources to make sure that we get the maximum good effect from the money that we are able to spend on the health services. The figures in the report that show the amount spent on prevention, as against that spent on cure, demonstrated the point better than any figures or remarks that I might make.
  The definition of "health" in the preamble of the charter of the World Health Organisation reads:
  "Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing and not only the absence of disease or infirmity."
  If one accepts that as a desirable objective, one's approach to preventive medicine is considerably changed. If we support this reversing of traditional objectives, perhaps the Government's response to the Committee's report has been a little flabby in certain places.

  679
  For in reversing the traditional approach, we no longer exclusively consider sick people. We consider the population as a whole. We get away from the problem that we have now in that the NHS has become more of a national hospital service or a national medical service. If we could find ways of re-emphasising the health aspect at the expense of the curative side, perhaps we should be able to make greater strides toward the fulfilment of the World Health Organisation's definition of health. The aim must be to keep people out of the hands of the doctors—I mean that in no disparaging sense—because this would increase individual responsibility and cut costs.
  Every person who goes to hospital must be regarded as a failure of our health services rather than a success. It is no good Secretaries of State for Health and Social Services from whatever party proudly saying that more people were admitted to hospital this year, as if that were evidence of good stewardship. That is the wrong way to look at it. We should prevent people from going to hospital by not allowing them to become sick in the first place. This may seem Utopian, but there is a considerable need for urgency.
  Two groups in our population are particularly at risk to illness and particularly absorb resources from the NHS—the children and the elderly. Though there will not be a dramatic change in the number of children over the next few years, there will be a considerable increase in the number of elderly people. I was therefore slightly disappointed to see that the elderly rated only four paragraphs in the Government's response. While it is true that the number of males over 65 and females over 60 will rise only from 9·3 million to 9·7 million over the next 15 years—an increase of 400,000 or about 5 per cent.—the number of elderly and very elderly people will increase much more dramatically than that. The number of elderly, who are defined by the Department as being aged between 75 and 84, will increase from 2·2 million to 2·8 million. That is an increase of nearly 30 per cent. The number of very elderly, who are defined as those over the age of 85, will increase from 500,000 to 750,000—an increase of nearly 50 per cent.
  680
  I would hypothesise, though I have no figures to back it up, that the older a person becomes, the more he will be dependent on medical resources of one sort or another and the more value we shall get if we are able to find ways of preventing such elderly people from becoming ill in the first place.
  This is only part of my overall contention that unless people are encouraged to take more care of themselves and to take more responsibility, above all, for minor illnesses and ailments, the NHS will continue under intolerable strain. How do we do this? The hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East spoke about the need for education. I agree with that and I also emphasise the need for fiscal incentives. The hon. Lady mentioned some of these, but there are others to which I should like to refer later. We also need to create the right social climate and end the "smart-to-smoke" idea which can be carried, by analogy, into other areas of preventive medicine. This three-pronged approach—education, fiscal incentives and the creation of the right social climate—is a process which must go on through the lives of every citizen.
  It starts with every child being a wanted child. Much has been done in family planning, but there are still gaps in the service that need to be filled. There are still clinics where opening times are poor, the location is unattractive and where the doctors are of an age and generation which inhibits young girls from approaching them to discuss these delicate social questions. More needs to be done in that area.
  I do not want to stray down this next avenue for more than about two sentences, but we are concerned in the West Midlands about inequalities in relation to abortions on the NHS. Figures have been produced time and again to show that because of the activities of a handful of gynaecologists in the region, it is extremely difficult for women in the West Midlands to obtain an abortion on the NHS. The national average is 50 per cent. of abortions carried out under the NHS, but in the West Midlands it is 20 per cent. and in my constituency, the figure is 10 per cent. That is not very satisfactory and the Government could take action here.

  681
  We need to have a great deal more advice provided on parenthood. For example, I have heard in my constituency of mothers wanting to look after their children by feeding them fruit juice at a relatively early age. Of course, the juice contains sugar, which gets stuck in the child's gums, rests against the teeth for a long time and, even though the mother has acted with the best of intentions, the result is severe dental decay for the child. It is in that simple example, repeated many times in other areas, where an ounce of prevention and education is worth several tons of cure.
  In schools, the words "health education" have too often been nothing more than a euphemism for sex education. We need to expand this to cover diet and exercise—I was glad that the Committee referred to the need for exercise—and education about the future responsibilities of parenthood. For example, why is it not possible to have crèches or nurseries attached to some comprehensive schools so that in the last few years of their school life, pupils can see what parenthood involves by working with children? This would be a valuable way of ensuring that all sections of the community and all socio-economic groups have an opportunity to learn what parenthood and having children involve.
  Turning from childhood to adult life, I should like to refer particularly to the question of diet. The Committee's recommendation on fats was accepted by the Government only with reservations—and that is a great disappointment. The Committee said:
  "We recommend that information about fats should be placed before the public in order to show up clearly the risks from a high intake of saturated fats and to encourage people to moderate their fat intake or switch to polyunsaturated fats."
  The Royal College of Physicians' Report in 1976 and the McGovern Report in the United States seem clearly to have linked coronary heart disease with a high fat intake. The Registrar-General's figures show that out of about 600,000 deaths in this country in 1975, 300,000 were a result of coronary heart disease. The Government's own White Paper said that 3,500 beds a day were used by people under the age of 65 suffering from coronary heart disease. In that context, it is unsatisfactory that the Government
  682
  have been able to accept the Committee's clear suggestion only with reservations.
  We can also do a great deal more to improve the amount of information on food content. In a pamphlet entitled "Exemptions from Ingredient Listing and Generic Terms" the Ministry of Agriculture says:
  "We have for some time believed that it is no longer a defsensible argument to propose to a consumer, who may be a busy housewife, that to discover the ingredients of, for example, bread or ice cream she should visit the public library or buy the appropriate food standards regulation from HM Stationery Office."
  I know that this does not fall within the Minister's departmental brief, but I should like to know what the Government are doing to implement the recommendation of that study group.
  The Government have accepted the need for research into dietary needs, but what is going on in this area? I have read the annual report of the Medical Research Council for last year and it contains little about preventive medicine and virtually nothing about research into diet and dietary needs of different sections of the population.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East comprehensively covered the question of smoking. I add only that our successors in this House in 25 or 30 years' time will be amazed that we have allowed public advertising of a product which clearly has a linkage with major causes of death, namely bronchial disease, coronary heart disease and emphysema generally. We shall look illogical and stupid to succeeding generations for having allowed this advertising to continue when we are clearly in possession of facts that indicate, without a shadow of doubt, that there is a link between smoking and chronic ill-health.
  I wonder whether there would not be some benefit and value in considering the possibility of a reduction in national health insurance contributions if a person has annual screening against some of the more common diseases. This sort of fiscal incentive could encourage people to take advantage of such a screening process.
  I turn finally to research into what I understand is called iatrogenic illnesses, that is, those that are side effects of being treated for other illnesses. We have, increasingly powerful drugs that set up countervailing reactions. A constituent of

  683
  mine who was being treated for nerves—she lives in a multi-storey block of flats, a condition with which many hon. Members will be familiar—found that a side effect of the drug she was taking was that it gave her chronic vertigo, a condition which is not conducive to living on the twentieth floor of a block of flats.
  We need to discover much more information about such illnesses and more research should be done into the effects of the treatment of one illness on the creation of another. This is particularly important as we are using increasingly powerful drugs which are changing the basic metabolism of the body.
  The chronic problem of the elderly is loneliness. There have been many articles on this. Much loneliness shows itself in psychosomatic illness or nervous diseases, which are now believed to account for a third of the average doctor's caseload. Again, I was slightly disappointed in the Government's response. There was not much emphasis on the importance of building up the voluntary organisations which are so familiar with their localities and responsive to local needs and which can respond much more imaginatively to specific local interest groups than the rather more plodding although more thorough Government organisations. There is an increased need for home helps, health visitors and district nurses.
  If we are to have an effective preventive policy, it will be achieved only if we can get at people in the community, which will mean having non- or only partially medically trained people. This places heavy responsibility on the medical profession to respond constructively to this development. I understand that the medical profession are jealous of their position. After all, they take the ultimate responsibility for the treatment of patients and have done extensive training and their professional livelihoods depend on it being kept at a high level. Their professional standards are of worldwide approbation.
  But if prevention is to work and become effective, doctors will have to allow a broader range of people to become involved in the treatment of the public. They will have to allow less skilled people to have a primary role in preventive medicine. Has the Minister any thoughts about discussions with the
  684
  medical profession to allow such auxiliaries an important role in developing comprehensive preventive care?
  I have described the Government's response as a little flabby. There are two pieces of evidence for this. Paragraph 15 of the White Paper says:
  "Preventive medicine permeates to a greater or lesser extent the work of virtually all Divisions within the DHSS and this has been reflected in an administrative reorganisation".
  I accept that it permeates, but on the other hand administrative reorganisation is hardly what we are looking for. We are looking for evidence that we shall be able to move forward and achieve concrete results affecting the health of the community.
  The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) quoted from paragraph 247 of the White Paper as evidence of the smack of firm government. I hope that I do not misquote him. However, that paragraph says in part:
  "This recommendation is, however, one which presents substantial problems and one which the Government is unable to accept."
  That is hardly the smack of firm government—
  Mr. Boyden: The point is that the Government were not accepting the Committee's recommendation that there should be more research. There was enough known about it—that was the important point.
  Mr. Hodgson: I take the point on fluoride, but this is a reference to diversion of resources from curative to preventive medicine.
  Mr. Boyden: Perhaps I got the figures wrong. I was talking about fluoridation.
  Mr. Hodgson: Perhaps I have misquoted the hon. Gentleman in carrying forward his reference to the smack of firm government to the contents of paragraph 247.
  Hon. Members are perhaps over-used to tramping over familiar ground and this is a new field in which there is room for imagination, new projects, original thought, pioneering and flair. Flair is what is missing from the Government's response. Worthy it certainly is, but a little dull. I hope that the Minister will be able to bring some leaven to the subject when he replies.
  4.44 p.m.
  Mr. Clement Freud: In common with other hon. Members, found the Select Committee's report interesting and at times fascinating and I am sure the chairmanship was exemplary. If one must criticise, the only obvious criticism is that its terms of reference were too wide; it was virtually impossible to touch on all the subjects. Despite all those who accuse us as a nation of being medically cossetted, it should be remembered that a lower percentage of our gross national product is spent on health than is the case in France and many European countries—and it is certainly less than is spent by almost any country on the other side of the Iron Curtain.
  The point which comes out from the report is that medicine has infinite financial demands, especially if one considers some of the innovations, whereas finance in general, especially our finance, is finite. Obviously, there has to be a limit and we have other necessities than health—for instance, food, housing, education and transport, all of which are close and relevant to health.
  Over the years, medical science and technical innovation have seen the end of some disease. Thanks to hygiene and improved housing, vaccination and industrial safety schemes, we have helped to eliminate once common ailments. But alongside that process, new medical problems have arisen, some of which are actually brought about by our new hygiene, by our new leisure-conscious and mechanised life, by the extra stress of sophisticated work and by early retirement.
  In a ballad written in the 1920s, W. H. Auden made a point which was then believed to be only poetry but which later became virtually accepted by the medical profession. Writing of an old lady named Miss Gee, who had cancer, he wrote that the doctor came home to his wife and mused:
  "Childless women get it and men when they retire; It's as if there had to be some outlet for their foiled creative fire."
  It is now found that when people give up work or are frustrated in their ambition, those are the circumstances in which cancer proliferates.
  Greater wealth has led to more eating and drinking. Clearly, that has had its own problems. And the healthier lives we lead, even despite the new ailments, mean
  686
  a greater number of older people; therefore greater geriatric expenditure. So the workload will grow and our resources for health expenditure are likely to remain more or less static.
  I suppose that it is possible, although this can be no part of this debate, that one advocates the abolition of something else in order to find more money for health. The Diplomatic Corps or the Army could go. I have no great faith in those arguments either.
  With static resources, we have to decide how we should get value within the NHS. This debate is useful because it gives the House a chance to examine our processes.
  One of the difficulties about the new medical practices is that once it is decided that something is desirable in medicine—whether it be a new practice, a screening method or a diagnostic procedure—we decide to try to make it available to everyone because it is "a good thing". The present-day doctor's dilemma is not so much what to do as what not to do.
  The efficiency of our NHS and probably of any health service depends on four things: the number and the quality of the people who do the work; the adequacy or otherwise of the premises in which they do it; the availability and the effectiveness of the tools with which they work; and the administration whereby those three are welded together.
  I believe that in all four fields there are serious shortcomings. First, as a matter of urgency, we have to try to eliminate waste and duplication. My noble Friend Lord Winstanley gave a lecture not long ago at the Manchester Statistical Society, a print of which is available at a price of £1·50.
  He said:
  "Take for example the School Medical Service. (I am not making any criticism of school doctors who I am sure do their very best in difficult circumstances.) I have done sessions of School Medical Service work just for interest. I find that I am examining healthy child after healthy child after healthy child. Finally, when I come across one with a defect and the light of knowledge shines in my eyes as I say triumphantly to his mother, 'Oh, he needs his tonsils removing,' she says 'Yes, he's been on the waiting list at Crumpsall Hospital for four years'. Or I say, 'He's got flat feet'—'Yes, he goes regularly to such and such a place for exercises.' This is skilled medical manpower working in isolation that could be helping the general practitioner or the hospital services, but, because it is working

  687
  in isolation, it is very often merely duplicating their work. The School Clinic does useful work, but is so often used by patients merely as a sort of buckshee second opinion. They bring the child along to me and say 'What do you think it is?' and I say 'Well I think it's so and so', and on the way out they say 'We'll go and see the school doctor and see what he says', and they go and see him and he says something different, as often as not, which helps neither the child nor the parents nor me nor the school doctor. Please do not take this as an attack on the School Medical Service; I just mention it by way of illustration."
  He went on to the nursing services, talking about the health visitor who
  "will go and see a patient and talk about meals on wheels or invalidity allowances or whatever it might happen to be. If you say' And while you are there, will you give him an injection?'—oh no, that is the District Nurse, the working nurse."
  She does not do it.
  He also said:
  "Another example is industrial medicine where skilled, highly trained doctors are doing pre-employment medical examinations day after day, not at all sure what it is they are looking for or whether they will ever find anything, but often tying up highly technical and expensive resources in a field of activity the usefulness of which is questionable to say the least. Now do not suppose that I am dismissing industrial medicine; I am merely saying that some of the work done by the industrial medical services seems to me to be wasted work and that they could in fact spend much of the time better."
  Those medics in the House will appreciate that, for instance, a student would fail his medical examination if the psuedopatient whom he was examining said that he had a change in his bowel movement and the examinee omitted to answer that the patient needed a barium meal. Yet what chaos there would be in the medical service if every patient who had a change in his bowel movement went to the doctor and demanded a barium meal.
  Health education must be partly education of the healthy as well as education of the sick and of the doctors. Patients should learn danger signals and, above all, non-danger signals. Far too often a patient rings up the doctor and says "I have what I think is a 48-hour cold", and it is utterly pointless if the doctor replies "I have no time for you today. I shall come and see you the day after tomorrow."
  The doctor's criteria today are "Does it matter?" and then "Can I do anything about it?". The doctor's complaint is no longer "Why did you not come sooner?" but very frequently that the
  688
  patient has come too early, that patients come with a non-symptom which they identify as something somebody else had before he or she got something different. That is immensely time wasting.
  I would like to give a warning on statistics—which can be and usually are enormously misleading. Anyone who attended Question Time today and heard the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection answer Questions will have noticed just how misleading statistics can be. I read recently in a paper on the evils of consuming animal fats that in the United States in a 12-year period during which the consumption of liquid milk doubled, the average American woman's thigh increased in circumference by seven inches.
  Mrs. Renée Short: I do not believe it.
  Mr. Freud: This is a perfectly accurate statistic, but it is difficult to believe that the increase is connected solely with the increase in the sale of liquid milk.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is all that jogging.
  Mr. Freud: It is rather like the statistics on hanging. Those who are in favour of reintroducing the death penalty will tell us that since it was abolished crimes that were hanging crimes have increased by 450 per cent., without saying that muggings have gone up by 2,800 per cent, and that non-hanging crimes in general have gone up by 3,000 per cent., or whatever.
  What is indisputable in the matter of preventive medicine is that there are things that we now do that we should not do. That is what the debate has been about. Smoking is perhaps the most signal example. I believe that our mistake is very much in the attitude that we adopt as a nation towards nonsmokers. We seem to believe that it is natural to smoke and that one is a freak if one does not smoke. If one walks down a railway carriage one sees seven compartments with nothing written on the door and five with "No Smoking" on the door. For good measure, there is also one marked "Lavatory".
  Mrs. Renée Short: The hon. Gentleman means "Toilet".
  Mr. Roger Sims: It shows that the hon. Gentleman has not been on a train for a long time.
  Mr. Freud: Is it now called "Toilet"?
  Mr. Sims: Yes.
  Mr. Freud: I thought that it was called "Toilet", but that is such an ugly word that I expected them to have changed it by now.
  My point is that by the same token, if it were that unnatural, the extra compartment should have nothing on it and all the others should say "This is not a toilet" or even "This is not a lavatory". It would be much more sensible if a railway compartment that had nothing written on it meant that one did not smoke there. For good measure, there could be certain compartments with "Smoking" written on them and perhaps someone to see that people damned well smoked in them.
  The attitude is what I object to. Smokers are notoriously thoughtless. They never realise how desperately unpleasant it is for non-smokers to go into the polluted atmosphere, especially in cars and lifts. I suppose that it is good for me, because I am overweight, that I cannot use the lifts in the House because there is not one that has a "No Smoking" sign on it. Those who find smoking obnoxious or difficult to take are in a bad way if they are in a lift and are unlucky enough to have someone come in puffing a pipe or a cigar.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman should change to "Hamlet".
  Mr. Freud: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman's lunatic remarks if he wishes.
  Attention must clearly be given to smoking, drinking, diet and exercise. On the subject of exercise, it is very important to remember that if people could become breathless twice a day—no matter how—there would be much less cardio-vascular disease. If one prepared one's heart for shock by working it to its full extent, there would be fewer heart attacks, because the heart would be ready.
  However, it is also important to remember that none of these matters works in isolation. Although it is another statistic, and therefore open to doubt, I believe it to be a fact that carrying an extra 10 lb in weight is equivalent to smoking 20 cigarettes a day,
  690
  which means that none of us has a right to look down on the possibly suicidal mode of life of others, unless we abide by rules relating to smoking, drinking, diet and exercise.
  Let me quote again from Lord Winstanley:
  "It is time that we in the health services all look at what we are doing and asked ourselves whether what we are doing really is necessary and whether it is bringing any real help to anybody. It is time that we thought about standardising some of our procedures and requirements in the interests of economy of both time and resources. It is time too that we gave some thought to the business of cutting corners and taking risks on a calculated lather than a random basis. Finally it is time to persuade the public and ourselves to begin to put health back into perspective. We have got to do those things, all of them. The medical profession has to and I think the general public has to as well. The present road leads to chaos. Ever-increasing demands on resources which are fixed and an ever-increasing inability to cope, result in an ever-increasing requirement to cut corners, often in a very dangerous way.
  I will just give one final example of how we should start thinking about priorities again Look at the enormous waiting list for so-called "non-urgent" operations. Let me add that the degree of urgency in any particular operation rather depends on who is going to have it. If it happens to be your own operation, you tend to think perhaps it is not so non-urgent after all. Look at the social and economic consequences at the moment. Let me take a patient of mine, a worker in a heavy job, who has an irreducible inguinal hernia. He is the family breadwinner, with four children, and he has a wholly non-urgent complaint in the sense that it is not suddenly going to kill him. But he is unable to work and he may have to wait two years before it is operated on. During those two years the State may very well have to maintain him, his wife and his four children because he is unable to work, because he needs a non-urgent operation. I am not saying that economics should always take precedence over medical urgency, but I really do say that it is time we started thinking about these things and looking at the priorities that we give to certain things."
  Finally, I want to mention one matter which I did not see in the report and which has not so far been touched upon in the debate, except fleetingly by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson). I refer to the infant, the very young child. It has to be remembered that what is done in the first two years of a baby's life determines much in its adult existence. The multiplication of the fat cells determines whether the baby will grow up to be in the image of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale

  691
  (Mr. Smith) or in that of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). Perhaps that is a good point at which to sit down.
  5.3 p.m.
  Ms. Maureen Colquhoun: I believe that it is important, as a member of the Committee, to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) for the efforts that she made as Chairman of our Committee and for the results which she achieved with a Committee made up of what I would described as parliamentary individuals with many conflicting political philosophies. As hon. Members can imagine, we had our political moments. It says much for my hon. Friend's chairmanship that they were overcome.
  There was one area, concerning fluoridation of water, which cut across party barriers and upon which there was no choice but to agree to disagree. There was no consensus about that. There was merely total disagreement.
  The thread that ran through the inquiry was that, although Britain's Health Service is under attack—is it not always, not least by those who run it and do not necessarily believe in it?—it is still Labour's greatest achievement and compares immeasurably favourably with any system of medicine in the world, particularly in the United States of America where ambulance men still fight for the privilege of picking up lucrative insurance cases.
  Latterly consultants in this country have been pursuing private interests at the expense of public service. I have been a total critic of this practice, both in the House and in my constituency in Northampton, where a new private hospital is being built and where National Health Service facilities have been used for private, queue-jumping patients. It is common knowledge in my constituency, and in the constituencies of many of my hon. Friends, that a person can buy an operation privately rather than have to wait for the same operation on the National Health Service, which might not take place until next year or the year after.
  I hope that in considering this report my right hon. Friend will study the other, more serious, abuses of the NHS because
  692
  they are still an unthinkable cancer on a great and honourable service which has achieved honourable success. Despite all of its faults, and despite some of the consultants in Britain, we in the Labour Party still have reason to believe that Nye Bevan's introduction of the National Health Service amounted to a revolutionary and basically irreversible decision, which ensures that those in need receive medical attention and that those who are well pay for that attention. Such is the blend of Socialism and dignity, and long may it continue to survive.
  What I still do not believe is widely realised in Britain, because we constantly hear so much about cuts, is that this Labour Government have given more and more resources to regional health boards and from them to area health authorities while they have received less and less patient care for the money. This is something which must be remedied. Too many health authorities have built administrative offices to too high a standard, overlooking the point that their first motivation ought to be the improvement of patient care. Priorities have been wrong. I hope that my right hon. Friend will have something to say about that.
  There is no doubt that private practice in Britain has been a barrier to the NHS. It is up to those working in the Service to see that the barriers are done away with. NUPE and COHSE share this view and are showing the way ahead. Medicine has become highly scientific and centralised, with the general practitioners being the fundamental key to preventive medicine. More resources must be directed to them so that they in turn can give a more thorough service to those who really matter—the patients—particularly when it comes to the prevention of disease. This is the area where money should he spent. The Committee's report shows this up very clearly.
  A great many of the Committee's recommendations tell ordinary people what to do to avoid illness and premature death. The Committee totally believes that people must take more direct responsibility for their own health. It makes sense for public money to be spent in educating them to do this, in helping them to achieve that responsibility towards themselves. We have made many recommendations about health education, cancer screening for women, self-help

  693
  medicine—which is being practised in women's groups—abortion, dentistry, alcohol and tobacco. We have said that cigarette coupons should be abolished, and that cigarette machines should be available only on premises to which children do not have access.
  One thing we have forgotten to comment upon is cigarette smoking in schools. We should have included a recommendation on this subject. We know of the dangers and the appalling health risks and the cost to the community arising from heart disease, bronchitis and lung cancer. In short, we know that cigarettes are killers.
  It is extraordinary that so many of our young people in the fifth and sixth forms are allowed to smoke. I am a non-smoker, but I have three children who smoke, which I very much regret. They were never allowed to smoke at my table or in my sitting room, and it does not seem to me unreasonable that teachers should be able to resist allowing children to smoke in the lower sixth or sixth form common rooms. But the answer I have received is that there is nothing or very little that teachers can do about it. What an extraordinary example these schools are setting.
  In the light of the evidence we took, a really strong Government would ban smoking altogether, and I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government are prepared to introduce legislation at least to ban the advertising of tobacco and tobacco products except at point of sale, which is what the Committee recommended. That would be a significant advance towards preventive medicine if the Government had the will to do it. But unfortunately, if their response is anything to go by, they have no such will because, with respect to them—and here comes the nasty bit—I have never seen such a wet and weak-kneed response to a very strong Select Committee proposal as we have had from the Government on this subject. They simply say that they believe they should keep an open mind on the question of a total ban on cigarette advertising.
  Mr. Boyden: And an empty head, by the sound of it.
  Ms. Colquhoun: And, as my hon. Friend says, an empty head, by the sound of it.
  694
  What are the Government to do also about the question of the high-tar cigarettes being sold in the Third world? Is my right hon. Friend not prepared to ban them? Is the motto of the cigarette companies not rather reminiscent of the words of Goldsmith:
  "And honour sinks where commerce long prevails"?
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will give very serious attention to what we are doing to our brothers and sisters in the Third world, and particularly also to the activities of the British American Tobacco Company, which is making a very strong attempt to get into the British market. We read in The Guardian today that State Express, despite the fact that cigarette sales are falling in Britain, is producing an advertising campaign implying that sales campaigns for cigarettes are something to do with world ideological battles.
  The Government have a direct responsibility to do something about cigarette advertising rather than continue to sit on the fence and pretend that nothing very much harmful is happening. BAT is extending into what it calls the "free world". It is one of the main sellers of high-tar cigarettes to the Third world, and is trying to persuade Africans, South Americans and Asians to advertise, too. Perhaps there is not a great deal that the British Government could do about that, but they could put their own house in order and do something about the situation in this country, and, if they had the will, do something serious about carrying through, in the light of the evidence and of the Select Committee report, a complete ban on cigarette advertising.
  We were told in the Committee that it was the policy of the Department of Health and Social Security to encourage the development of water fluoridation schemes, and that the Department had made available £500,000 for assisting with the annual capital cost. Although we were told also that at present there were no plans to legislate for compulsory fluoridation, the Secretary of State told us that he felt that the time might come.
  As an opponent of the fluoridation of water, I must put on record that, after listening to the Committee's evidence of the Department's plans for preventive medicine, it seemed to me that its main plan, indeed the only plan that it had

  695
  available for preventive medicine, was to put fluoride in our water. When it was asked who had taken this decision, since Parliament had not, it did not appear to know. So I must protest very strongly about these plans. It has even been put to me that contracts are about to be signed, or were to be signed, by the Government with Rio Tinto-Zinc for the supply of fluoride. If there is any truth in that report, perhaps we can hear about it from the Minister.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Could my hon. Friend tell us why she is opposed to fluoridation? Given her commitment to the importance of preventive medicine, that the matter has been debated over many years, and the examples that where fluoride is in being it has shown itself to be safe and effective, why is my hon. Friend opposed to this useful, worthwhile and urgent measure?
  Ms. Colquhoun: We are not having a fluoridation debate, but my hon. Friend must have read all the arguments about fluoridation of water by its opponents. We have been a very active and intelligent pressure group, and I shall not delay the House at this stage by reading out reams of reasons why I am opposed to fluoridation.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Give us one.
  Ms. Colquhoun: I am not going to play this public schoolboy game. My hon. Friend knows very well what the opponents of fluoridation say, and we are just as entitled to have a say about the fluoridation of water as anyone in the Department of Health and Social Security who has not been elected to have a say. Certainly the fluoridation of water is properly the concern of Parliament. Why should not Members of Parliament be the ones to take the decision as to where the money available for preventive medicine should go, and if there is a body of opinion in the House which is opposed to fluoridation why should there not be a debate on it so that we can hear both sides of the argument and then make a decision? A lot more research is needed before such a decision is taken, and I was shocked by the Department's evidence to the Committee, by its attitude that the decision had more or less been taken, and by the reply from the Department to the Committee's report.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: My hon. Friend keeps threatening us about the anti-fluoride lobby. Will she tell us what more research is required? Fluoridation has been used for more than 30 years in many well-developed parts of the world, where it is to be expected that all kinds of precautions are taken and investigations made. In spite of that, there is no evidence of any value to indicate that fluoride in small amounts does anything but good. It causes no harm at all.
  Ms. Colquhoun: That is the point of view of my hon. Friend but it is not the point of view of the anti-fluoride lobby, which has an entirely opposite view. It believes that the research does not show what my hon. Friend claims that it shows. People want pure water. They do not want additives. Why cannot those who wish to have fluoride additives take tablets for the purpose, and permit other people to have unadulterated water?
  Dr. Miller: My hon. Friend knows the answer—
  Ms. Colquhoun: My hon. Friend says that I know the answer. The difficulty is that he is getting up and down and saying either that I know or I do not know, or that he knows and I do not know.
  Dr. Miller: Will my hon. Friend permit me—
  Ms. Colquhoun: I will not give way. Why should I continue to give way to my hon. Friend when he is playing games about fluoridation? I am making the perfectly proper democratic point that I am totally opposed to it. I do not like the Government's attitude to it, and I did not like the evidence given to our Committee about it by the DHSS. As an opposer of the fluoridation of water, I suspect that this policy will be foisted upon the British people and foisted upon Parliament without adequate discussion and debate.
  Mr. Corbett: I take the opposite view to my hon. Friend about fluoride. May I draw her attention to Recommendation No. 40 of the report, in which the Committee recommended that there should be more research into the long-term effects of certain levels of fluoride addition to water supplies? Concern was expressed in the Committee about the almost total

  697
  absence, in any of the countries which have used fluoridation for a number of years, of adequate long-term research into the effects of fluoridation. That was the point that we were making.
  Ms. Colquhoun: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. I suppose, in a way, that that was part of the agreement to disagree. It did not seem to be an unreasonable thing to do, with the Committee split very evenly up the middle.
  Another aspect of the Government's reply which I find very unsatisfactory to women concerns screening for breast cancer. We recommend in our report that radiographers should be trained in and used for the interpretation of mammography, and that a national breast cancer screening service, for women most at risk, should be introduced This recommendation did not receive very much support from the Government, despite the figures showing that 13,000 women died in the United Kingdom in 1975 from breast cancer.
  The Committee visited the British United Provident Assocation and saw—it comes hard to me to confess to this—its first-class facilities for breast cancer investigation.
  Mrs. Renée Short: And the Royal Marsden Hospital.
  Ms. Colquhoun: We also went to the Royal Marsden Hospital as my hon. Friend said. I was very impressed by the facilities set up by BUPA, and by the costings that it was able to make, as well as the efficiency with which people were dealt and the comfort that they received. We were given some very worthwhile figures of the cost of this sort of investigation. Here is an example where the National Health Service can learn a great deal about preventive medicine from private enterprise. It was a very interesting and informative visit, and I should very much like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider whether the kind of business costings done by a private medical group such as BUPA cannot be introduced into the National Health Service. Apart from this aspect of accountability, there is an agreeable environment in which women are able to undergo this kind of investigation. It could well be copied by the National Health Service.
  698
  The Government, in their reply to the Committee, should at least have admitted that facilities are not available for women. In fact, the Well Women Clinic at the Royal Marsden Hospital, which started life as the Well Women Clinic—the psychology of the name was very important—has now deteriorated, in that it applies to women who are thought to be at risk from cancer. There is not a great deal of preventive medicine in that kind of screening.
  The inquiry was wide-ranging. The Committee dealt with important issues concerning smoking, diet and health screening, and considered all the things which are absolutely vital if the NHS is to be a preventive medicine service rather than a disease service. I hope that the report will be of immense value to the House and of immense value also to area health authorities and regional health authorities. I hope that those hon. Members who have contacts with members of area health authorities and community health councils will ensure that those people have an opportunity of reading the report.
  It was a great pleasure to work on the Committee. I hope that the Government will be less wishy-washy than they have been in some of their attitudes to the report. I hope that they will have the will—they certainly have the ability—to act on some of the more difficult and controversial recommendations.
  5.28 p.m.
  Sir Bernard Braine: May I begin by saying how much I welcome the debate? It is long overdue. The House knows that I have an interest in the matter, in that for some years I have been chairman of the National Council on Alcoholism. In that capacity I should like to pay my tribute to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) and to those members of the Expenditure Committee who gave the problem of alcohol abuse so much consideration. I find the Committee's recommendations generally acceptable, although I shall have one or two reservations to make.
  There is no doubt that alcohol abuse—here I entirely agree with the hon. Lady—is immensely costly in human, social, and economic terms. It is a major

  699
  factor in the tragic story of battered wives, of child cruelty, of death and injury on the roads, and of accidents at work.
  I acknowledge straight away that the Government have been generally helpful to those of us working in this area. Their publications "Prevention and Health: Everybody's Business", "Better Services for the Mentally Ill", "Priorities for Health and Personal Social Services in England", have constantly reminded us of the need for primary and secondary prevention, for a multi-disciplinary approach to the problem, and for the development of services involving local authorities, social services and local voluntary organisations.
  In the last few years there have been some encouraging developments. But progress generally is still very slow, and in some parts of the country it is an uphill battle to get adequate services established on the ground. The National Council on Alcoholism and its affiliated regional councils are voluntary bodies but we now receive about £250,000 a year in public money from the DHSS, local authorities and area health authorities. This is perhaps an appropriate point for me to say that we are also very grateful to the officials of the Department of Health and Social Security for the advice and help which they so willingly give.
  I must declare my belief that the best way of tackling the problem of alcohol abuse is by this type of partnership between the statutory authorities and voluntary bodies. Again I want to emphasise—it is necessary to go on saying it—that there are still areas in this country where partnership of this kind is poor. Yet there is no doubt about the gravity of the problem of alcohol abuse everywhere. I was disturbed that members of the Expenditure Committee held out very little hope for adults who are already alcohol dependent. That is, I fear, a view which is commonly held. The Committee says in paragraph 142 that:
  "It may be that those who have already surrendered their freedom to choose whether, and how much, to drink, and are driven to alcoholic abuse are beyond any reasonable action by a well-intentioned legislature."
  It is a great pity that the Committee did not call for oral evidence from the National Council on Alcoholism. We would not have encouraged such a pessimistic view. I am, therefore, very pleased
  700
  indeed that the Government came down on the Council's side when they expressed their own view that
  "Adults who have already surrendered to alcoholic dependence or alcohol abuse are not beyond reach".
  That message must go out. The sufferers are not beyond reach. Indeed, the Advisory Committee on Alcoholism, which is a committee of specialists, in this field, maintains that a main ingredient of a prevention strategy is that people who may be developing a drinking problem should be encouraged to recognise the problem and to seek help.
  There are two areas where a break into the circle of excessive drinking at an early stage is possible and would have beneficial results. The first is at work, in the context of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. It is surprising that very little attention has been paid to alcohol-related accidents at the work place. The important Robens Report never mentioned alcohol as a factor in industrial health and safety. But the fact is that people with drinking problems do not cease to have those problems on a Sunday night. They take them to work on Monday morning. The relationship between drinking and road accidents is well established and is recognised by the general public. But the fact that problem drinkers have three times more accidents at work than the generality of workers is totally ignored.
  In research commissioned by the French Government it was found that alcohol was the main factor in 7·4 per cent. of all accidents. Where accidents involved a work stoppage the percentage increased to 15 per cent. Last year I was chairman of a working party which brought together a number of specialists. We went into this matter and found that people with drinking problems at work had five times the absence due to sickness as the generality of workers. The report of my working party recommended that industry should have a code of practice for people with drinking problems.
  It is absolutely essential that employers should encourage early recognition of problem drinkers so that their employees will seek treatment and rehabilitation during which their jobs will be safeguarded. The time has come not to treat this as a crime but as a condition which cries out for help.

  701
  In the United States more than 300 companies have adopted policies to help their employees with drinking problems. I submit that cost-conscious American companies would certainly not have formulated and implemented such policies unless they were cost-effective. The interesting thing is—and this is the answer to the Expenditure Committee's pessimistic view—that the recovery rates for alcohol dependents are in the region of 70 per cent. to 80 per cent.—well above the recovery rates for this country. I am confident that money spent to initiate health education and counselling programmes for problem drinkers will reap substantial benefits. American experience in this regard has been very encouraging and we in the National Council believe that such positive programmes in this country would lower costs, reduce absenteeism, improve production, increase safety, assure better decision making at every level, retain the services of skilled and valued employees, and reduce the heavy toll on the hard-pressed NHS.
  I note that the Government's reply to the Expenditure Committee's report accepts the view that research is needed to identify those drinkers most at risk and that a number of relevant research projects are being considered by the health departments, the Medical Research Council and the Health and Safety Executive. I hope, therefore, that the recommendation of my working party that
  "the Health and Safety Executive should commission research to assess in terms of financial costs the loss in production earning due to accidents, absenteeism, sickness and substandard work performance as a result of alcohol impairment"
  is being taken seriously. I am in no doubt that when the true costs of alcohol abuse are ascertained they will shock the nation. Only when industry has been shown the true costs will it find the means of tackling this seriously neglected problem.
  The second area in which we could break into the circle of excessive drinking is with regard to drinking and driving. Here, I am sorry to say, I find that the Government have been dragging their feet for far too long. This is an area where, on the Government's own estimates, road accidents caused by alcohol costs the NHS £6 million a year and the material cost to the community is about £80 million a year. The figures
  702
  leap upwards when one looks at the total human and economic costs of road accidents. There are grounds for believing that a high proportion of drinking drivers are alcohol dependent or problem drinkers and that at present the consequences of conviction are not sufficient to break their habit or motivate them to seek treatment.
  The Expenditure Committee report rightly shows very great concern about abuse by young people but appears to shy away from, or ignore totally, abuse by the middle-aged. The figures support my contention. It is, of course, a dreadful thing that the major cause of death for young male adults is a road accident with a raised blood alcohol level at the time of the fatality. Yet we should not be surprised. A survey published only last week in the consumer magazine Which? shows that the drink-driving laws of this country are now being extensively abused. This is not solely by young people. Why should young people always be dragged out as an example of what is going wrong with this society? The middle-aged and older drivers are equally affected. I do not have the time to go into the details of the figures now, but I could prove it if I had to.
  More than two-thirds of middle-aged drivers have a blood alcohol level of over 150 milligrammes at the time of their offence. Educational messages about the dangers of drink and driving will have very little impact on a driver who has developed a dependence on alcohol. In my view aiding and motivating the alcohol-dependent driver to seek treatment would make as valuable a contribution to reducing accidents as any educational campaign on drink and driving.
  It is a scandal that this House has not had an opportunity to debate the findings of the Blennerhassett Report. It recommended that those motorists convicted with a blood alcohol level of above 200 milligrams and recidivists should not have their licences reinstated after statutory disqualification until they could prove to the magistrates that their drinking no longer presented a problem. Implementation of these proposals would mean the screening of 16,000 convicted drivers a year. But the costs should be offset against improved safety on the road and less misery in the home. Can anyone dispute that such screening would be a

  703
  lifeline in society for countless numbers of problem drinkers and their families? We must always remember that it is the family who pay for the last round. It is the family who pay in embarrassment, fear, disruption and sometimes violence from alcohol abuse.
  Money is required for both primary and secondary prevention services. We cannot do anything very effectively without it. Many of my regional councils are run on a shoestring. Their staffs do not know at the end of each month whether there will be sufficient to pay their salaries. Although we are very grateful to the Department of Health and Social Security, there is still too often a failure by local authorities and area health authorities to accept their responsibility for financing the voluntary component of a service which in many areas is the only community-based service offered, despite the recommendations in the White Paper on "Better Services for the Mentally Ill". Hon. Members will remember the phrase in that document:
  "voluntary services have a part to play for many years to come. Area health authorities, separately or jointly, need to accept a degree of responsibility for their financial viability, and for the support their staff may sometimes need."
  I beg the Minister to indicate that he will use his best endeavours to persuade these authorities to face their responsibilities.
  I support warmly the recommendation of the Expenditure Committee that a larger proportion of the £2,000 million raised annually in duty and taxation on alcoholic drink should be spent on prevention. But I would extend it to those who are alcohol dependent and to their families, who also require counselling and social work support. In another place the noble Lord, Lord Kimberley, has raised the matter repeatedly of the Licensing Compensation Fund, which was established in 1904 to compensate landlords whose licences were not renewed in an attempt to cut the number of drink outlets and to help alleviate the widespread alcohol abuse of the time. Surely it is appropriate that the money held in that fund should be used to help alleviate the problem today.
  I congratulate the Health Education Council on its initiative in organising a mass media campaign on alcohol abuse in the North-East of England. The National
  704
  Council and our regional council in Newcastle have collaborated closely with the Health Education Council and been the focal point of the campaign. This has been a very good example of the way in which national and local agencies, both statutory and voluntary, can operate.
  The Advisory Committee on Alcohol, in its most interesting report, published recently, recommended using health education to alert people to the dangers of alcohol abuse and to encourage those with drinking problems to come forward for help. I am pleased to see that the Government accept that view. However, I think that they will have to be a bit more realistic in the amount of money that they grant the Health Education Council if future campaigns are to make sufficient impact, because the £175,000 which the Council was able to spend on alcohol campaigns from its increased budget of £1 million is paltry compared with at least £30 million spent on advertising alcohol by the drink industry. Let us, at least, get that matter into perspective.
  The Expenditure Committee had suggestions put to it for raising additional revenue but rejected them. The Government find difficulty in accepting the Committee's revenue proposals. Let me speak plainly. If we mean to conquer the problems with which alcohol abuse confronts us and if society means to control alcohol rather than having alcohol control it, the Government must recognise that more public money will be required to equip those in the front line to win this vital battle. If we mean business, we must stop playing games.
  I welcome also the Government's decision not to introduce any wild and reckless gamble with any further liberalisation of the licensing laws. Their answer to the report states:
  "At the present time the Government has no plans for legislation to change the minimum drinking age or to make major amendments to the licensing laws."
  That is a very sensible approach. Before any tampering is done, we need to be certain that changes will not increase consumption and alcohol-related disabilities.
  It is far too early to make claims about the changes in Scottish drinking patterns, since amendments to the licensing laws take at least five years before any judgment can be made. However, I know

  705
  that the early euphoria and claims by those in favour of liberalisation need to be treated with the utmost caution. The recent record of the Chief Constable of Strathclyde said:
  "The changes in licensing laws which came into operation towards the end of 1976 have now had a full year to prove themselves. I regret to say the decline in drunkenness noticed in early 1977 was not maintained and by the end of the year the level of drink-related offences had returned to their former level."
  Last week I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many road accidents where alcohol was considered to be a factor took place in Scotland between the hours of 8 p.m. and 2 a.m. in each of the years 1974 to 1977. I got the written reply on Tuesday 6th June. It showed that offences declined from 1974 to 1975 by 5·2 per cent. and by 6·1 per cent. from 1975 to 1976 but that they increased by 4·6 per cent. in 1977 from 1976. After the first six months of the operation of the licensing changes, claims were made about the success of the venture which now seem clearly to be, in the face of these figures, a little imprudent. The second six months showed a deterioration. Indeed, comparison of the last six months of 1977 with 1976 shows an increase in the number of drivers involved in accidents with a positive breath test of more than 14·1 per cent. during the period 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. Those figures show me, at any rate, that any tampering with the licensing laws at present, when we see the evidence of alcohol abuse all around us, would be a great mistake. Therefore, I support strongly the stand which the Government have taken.
  Finally, I congratulate the Health Department on its initiative to publish a separate consultative document on the mis-use of alcohol. I hope that the document will have the effect of informing public opinion more clearly about what is happening and what needs to be done and that it will encourage a more concerted, complementary approach by Government Departments and local authorities to the prevention of alcohol abuse.
  Dr. Griffith Edwards, a very distinguished witness was asked by the Expenditure Committee what he would do to reduce the cost of alcoholism and save money. He replied that there was a
  706
  great need for statutory organisations and Government Departments to get together, adding:
  "Alcohol problems touch labour problems, the Department of the Environment, problems with roads, then Home Office, the DHSS … but I say if you want more value for money first of all get better integration so that the left hand knows what the right hand is doing."
  That is simple advice, but it is quite crucial in this context.
  Perhaps from this debate we shall recognise that alcohol control policies are a public health issue and act accordingly. The problem of alcohol abuse is so great and the implications are so far-reaching for our society that the time may well have come for us to set up a specialist Select Committee of the House to look into the matter in depth and to carry on where the Expenditure Committee, which has done such a splendid job, left off. I recommend that course to the House.
  5.50 p.m.
  Mr. Gwynfor Evans: I speak as one who believes that the National Health Service is the greatest accomplishment of the State in our generation. I have derived great personal benefit from it. I am one of millions who has had an enormous amount of benefit from the ministrations of doctors and nurses in the NHS.
  Of course, there have been weaknesses and disappointments in the service, but these are inevitable. Some of the greatest disappointments spring from the aspect of medicine that we are debating today. It is probably unavoidable that the emphasis within the Health Service is on the consequences of the breakdown of health rather than on the maintenance of good health. It is no criticism of practitioners to say that the NHS has been disease-oriented rather than health-oriented. Members of the medical professional are educated in, the main, to deal with disease and ill health, and we are conditioned to expect that of the profession.
  I have heard that in China members of the medical profession are paid so long as those for whom they are responsible have good health. When the patient becomes ill, the doctors are no longer paid. I do not know whether that is true.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: This has been claimed for a long time. What I would

  707
  like to know is, who makes the diagnosis whether a patient is ill?
  Mr. Evans: I shall touch on this in commenting on the situation. The situation that I should like to see is one which may be thought to be Utopian—one in which people would visit their doctors once every year or two for a check-up, or for good advice on the best way of looking after their health.
  Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) is advancing a very sound argument. In answer to the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller), is he aware that in China, which I have visited, the emphasis in the health service is on preventive medicine? There are a large number of "bare-foot" doctors or medical auxiliaries who deal with small ailments and show people the proper way to take care of themselves. Undoubtedly this reduces the burden on the hospitals.
  Mr. Evans: I am grateful for that helpful intervention. I am sure it is underlined by the fact that matters of health are largely matters of education. The kind of education which our overworked doctors have been given hitherto trains them for dealing with ill-health and disease. Their education in anatomy and physiology does not train them so much to prevent ill health and disease—bodily or mental.
  It is no surprise to see, in these circumstances, that medicines are so often used to suppress symptoms rather than effect a cure. Often these medicines cannot affect a cure; the cure should have been made beforehand and the ill health should not have happened. One looks forward to the day when members of the medical profession are trained as thoroughly in promoting health as they are in combating disease.
  Dr. Gerard Vaughan: I think that the hon. Member for Carmarthen has misunderstood the present-day education of members of the medical profession, and he does it an injustice. There is a good deal of training today in good health. A great deal of medical advice is given to people on how to lead a healthy life. I think that the hon. Member's comments are rather out of date.
  Mr. Evans: I hope I am right in saying that there has been an emphasis on treating disease and ill health in the NHS up to now. I think that emphasis should change. I agree that there is a great deal of good work being done by doctors themselves in preventing ill health, but not enough is being done to keep healthy people healthy. That should be the main work of doctors. Many doctors have told me that they would much value refresher courses in health-promoting methods. However, more of that kind of instruction is being included now in courses at universities and colleges.
  The prevention of ill health is not just a matter for the medical profession, it is one for the whole of society. It is good to see increasing public attention being given to the need for physical exercise and the evils of drugs such as marijuana and cocaine and here we must also remember the effects of nicotine and alcohol, because these, too, are drugs. Today it is harder for people who smoke to excess to plead ignorance of the unhappy consequences of that habit. But here there is plenty of room for increasing the education of young people. That is also true of alcoholism. Because nicotine and alcohol are so socially acceptable as drugs, there is less vigour than there should be in trying to prevent their abuse.
  The fact is that the manufacturers of all popular drugs, whether they are legitimate or not, are immensely wealthy and powerful, and society must draw on all its resources to fight them.
  This is also true of some of our most popular foods such as white bread and white sugar, which has been described as "sweet white poison". The human body has within it all the resources necessary to prevent and recover from most diseases, given proper rest, exercise, nutrition and thought. There was a time when malnutrition was a terrible scourge in this country, as it is now for the greater part of the world's population. In the affluent West today, over-nutrition is the greater evil. We must be taught to eat properly. We must have the right quantity and the right type of food. Overweight is the cause of a great deal of ill health and the basic cure is to eat less. Diseases of the heart are often caused by the food we eat and by the amount of cholesterol that clings to the

  709
  arteries. From the health point of view the most important shop in the high street is the greengrocer. The value of fresh fruit and vegetables should be vigorously promoted. Great claims are made for some natural medicaments, such as lecethin which comes from the soya bean. These claims should be thoroughly investigated and, if confirmed, it would be a good thing of that kind of medicament, which is quite natural, were promoted by the NHS.
  On the subject of the health of the mind, which is closely linked with bodily health, we should always bear in mind the contribution of Christianity. I believe that ministers of religion should be trained in psychiatric methods to help people think most effectively in a healthy way.
  All these matters have claims to more time in our schools and colleges. I wish to say, in passing, that it is good that more children will soon be drinking more milk in schools. Although milk may add to the girth of those in middle age, we know that it is a fine food for children.
  These matters deserve more time to be devoted to them on the media. One recalls the astonishing success of the Radio Doctor during the war, when our diet was far more simple than it is today. I think it is true to say that the health of the people of these countries was better during the war than it was before the war, or indeed than it has been since. There is a lesson there for us all.
  It is on the subject of publicity for preventive medicine, in which nutrition—and therefore, food and drink—features largely that I wish to lay most emphasis. I believe that people are interested in health and are concerned not only for their own health but for the health of their children. Because people have a great interest and concern in this matter, I believe that television and radio programmes dealing with the subject would command a great deal of attention. I think that more attention should be paid on the broadcasting media to this huge and important subject.
  It is good to see more use being made of the media to promote health-giving habits, but not nearly enough is being done. The firms that produce foods and other products which cause so much ill
  710
  health have at their service incomparably more advertising space and time than do those organisations concerned in promoting good health. We cannot claim to be doing all that is possible to be done to keep people healthy until we ensure that as much time is given on the media to the promotion of good health as is given to the promotion of the products and foods that do so much damage. Far more space and time must be given to the promotion of good health through education in schools and through the media that applies and not only to children but to parents and adults in general.
  My main purpose in intervening in this debate is to add my voice to the demand for far more time to be given by the media to educate people in a healthy way of living. I hope that the Government will take this suggestion very seriously. I believe that as a result the National Health Service will benefit, as will its institutions, servants and, most important of all, our citizens.
  6.4 p.m.
  Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) and her Committee on producing such a useful report. There are one or two items which have been omitted from the debate so far, and I shall mention them in my speech. I hope that my hon. Friend will assure me that her Committee will examine these matters in greater depth.
  On a family note, I wish to deal with paragraphs 53 and 54 and I then wish to deal with the subject of child care and perinatal care. I have my wife's permission to say that she has had her breast removed. She was extremely well treated in a National Health Service hospital, and we owe a tremendous debt to that service. My wife had her operation five and a half years ago and she has since done extremely well. Indeed, she works a longer day than I do, and it is a great tribute to the NHS.
  My wife's good progress happened because she was caught early rather than late. I wish to go through the recommendations in the report with regard to breast cancer. Recommendation No. 53 a, on page 81, reads:
  "A national breast cancer screening service for the women most at risk should be introduced."

  711
  The Department's reply to that was "Under consideration". That recommendation should have been accepted.
  Recommendation No. 53 b reads:
  "The Secretary of State should expedite as a matter of urgency the production of reports by the working groups referred to in paragraph 274."
  The Department's reply to that was "Accepted with reservations." I would ask, what reservations?
  Recommendation No. 54 a reads:
  "Women should receive guidance in the techniques of self-examination of the breasts from their general practitioners."
  The Department's comment on that was "Accepted with reservations." Again I ask, what reservations? The House is hearing my voice, but I am making my wife's speech on this matter. I suppose she has probably more practical experience of this killer disease than anyone present in the Chamber.
  Recommendation No. 54 b reads:
  "It should become routine practice when a patient applies to a doctor for gynaecological advice for her to be examined for breast cancer."
  The Department's reply to that was "Not accepted." My question is, why not?
  Recommendation No. 54 c reads:
  "Full use should be made of 'self-help leaflets'".
  That recommendation was accepted by the Department. It was that kind of leaflet which helped my wife. Perhaps we should take more action on that recommendation.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has given me a helpful reply on breast prosthesis, but as yet the NHS is not fully aware of it. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) spoke of advertising and of informing the public of these matters by way of radio and television. This could be one way of putting over the message.
  I now wish to quote from an admirable summary by the Department on the definition of prevention. It reads:
  "Prevention in relation to health is either an attempt to prevent disease or disability before it occurs (primary prevention), the early detection and treatment of conditions with a view to returning the patient to normal health (secondary prevention), or the continuing treatment of disease or disability to avoid needless progression or complications (tertiary prevention)."
  712
  My wife had the benefit of secondary prevention.
  Let me deal with the matter of primary prevention, on which great difficulty may arise. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East has produced this report with the assistance of her colleagues. She and her colleagues worked hard at the task and have produced these recommendations. I would submit that the writing of the report was the most difficult part of it. No doubt the putting forward of recommendations was possibly the easier. The Department, on the other hand, has now accepted with reservations a substantial part of the report. However, the important aspect is not acceptance but implementation. When somebody clearly spells out what can be done for the good of the country and our society, surely we should implement that proposition straight away.
  I now wish to deal with the topic of perinatal care. For about two years I have fought a campaign in this House to bring about better perinatal care facilities. My major interest in past years has been the care of the disabled, but one day somebody said "Why do you not do something about prevention?" I had to admit that many people were ignorant of the amount of prevention that could take place. Perinatal care is a good example. Perinatal care is the care of the pregnant woman from the twenty-eighth week of pregnancy to the first week of the baby's life. If we compare our figures with those of Sweden—these are the figures of some years ago—we find that 4,000 babies in Britain die unnecessarily and 10,000 are born with a handicap that they need not have.
  Has the situation improved? In relative terms, the answer is "No". On the Order Paper today I had 28 Questions on perinatal care. As I was waiting to be called in the debate, I received a reply from the Department. The figure of 4,000, which has been disputed as being too high, has now increased, according to the Department, to 4,400. As there is a relationship between perinatal death and handicap of 2½ times, it means that the number of children born disabled unnecessarily has also increased. That is because the figures in Sweden have improved more than ours.

  713
  The difficulty is that we can be taught nothing further about perinatal care. The areas that have the best practice have rates that are better than those in Sweden. It is not the technology, it is not the medicine, it is a mixture of the way in which money is spent in some areas and the fact that we have social deprivation in urban areas. Those are factors that make a major contribution. However, area health authorities can do more by upgrading and retraining doctors and midwives. The hon. Member for Carmarthen was contradicted on that score, but I think that he was right.
  One of the features of the system in Oxford is that GPs are called in quite regularly to be updated on new techniques and new methods of saving life. The use of oxygen at the time of birth has been subject to much criticism. There are large gaps in retraining in that area. I am saying that basically if we get good perinatal care we shall in the long run save substantial sums.
  In 1966 the French decided that their priority of priorities in saving money to make more money available would be to spend more on perinatal care. They have proved their point overwhelmingly. It is intriguing that it was the French Treasury that made that decision. It is a decision that has paid off. If we get good primary protection and good secondary prevention, we shall be able to get larger sums allocated to tertiary prevention. It is in that area that the growth rate lies.
  Technology has a role in reaching the severely handicapped or the aged who are tucked away in their homes and left sometimes to rot. Technology could keep them in touch with the world if items such as Possum equipment were made available. I declare an interest because I am an unpaid director of Possum.
  The National Health Service has made provision and is making a growing provision for Possum and other forms of equipment. There is nothing worse for the elderly and severely handicapped than to be cut off from society and placed in isolation. If we can give them a means of controlling their environment, albeit their home environment, or a means of communicating by telephone, no matter how severely handicapped they may be,
  714
  we prevent a further development of handicap, sustain them and give them a fillip.
  We have had about 30 reports on perinatal care since 1945. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that when we get a report of any sort there is inevitably about one page of recommendations. On reading the reports on perinatal care, it could almost be said that the same man wrote them. There have been hardly any changes. They are almost the same to the dotting of the i's and the crossing of the t's. We have the evidence, we have the skills, and we have the knowhow, but we must have the will to produce better prevention. Reports are presented to the House for implementation either by Departments or by Parliament.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones). The hon. Gentleman has delivered an emotive but extremely well-informed speech. I share his views about not only breast cancel screening but perinatal treatment. I share his views about breast cancer screening because my late mother lost both her breasts through the disease of cancer. The disease ultimately contributed to her death. However, after her death I hope that she made herself useful, because she bequeathed her body for medical research. I entirely endorse the views that the hon. Gentleman has expressed. I agree that it is disappointing that the Department has not been rather more forthcoming on these important matters.
  I pay my tribute to the Chairman of the Social Services and Employment Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) is a highly controversial personality. She is a forthright personality. However, she is an extremely good Chairman. Even to members of the Committee who take different views from herself, she allows full debate on any controversial subject. It is a tribute to her that so many of the recommendations in the report ultimately were unanimous, and I pay my full tribute to the hon. Lady for the major contribution that she made to the report. It is a valuable report and I am delighted that it is being debated. The hon. Lady can always

  715
  be relied upon to produce a stimulating debate. Although the numbers in the Chamber are not great, I believe that the content of the debate will be widely read.
  It is appropriate also to pay a tribute, as has been done by hon. Members on both sides of the House, to the National Health Service, which celebrates its 30th birthday this year. Despite many difficulties and ups and downs, the contribution made by consultants, doctors, nurses and ancillary staff to the health and welfare of our nation cannot be adequately described.
  I believe that there should also be a private sector of medicine. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Colquhoun) paid tribute to BUPA and its medical centre. The hon. Lady indicated that she hoped that the Department—I am delighted that the Secretary of State is now in his place—would take some lessons from BUPA and the way in which it runs the medical centre. BUPA, together with the NHS, has a major contribution to make to the health of the nation.
  I shall discuss certain aspects of the report which are controversial. Many forthright statements have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House about smoking. However, the message that has come from all quarters—there are many matters on which we disagree but I put forward the principal message—is, "Stop smoking" or "Do not start smoking". It may be that the subsidiary message is "If you must smoke, reduce the risk". I take a somewhat different view from that expressed by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East. I do not believe in the draconian methods that she has advanced.
  Any strategy must take into account that the only way to succeed is through co-operation with the tobacco industry. Therefore, it is clear that the present approach to the problem by way of the voluntary agreement between the Government and the industry is the most fruitful. That view is shared by a wide body of opinion. I am not misquoting when I say that the Government described the three-year agreement announced in March 1977 as
  "a significant and valuable advance. The Government acknowledges the industry's co-operation in achieving this agreement."
  716
  It is important to get this statement on the record, because the industry goes a great way in co-operating with the Government over smoking and all that goes with it.
  I think that I must inevitably refer to advertising which features in the recommendations of the report. It is instructive to note how the Government's view on the effects of advertising cigarette brands has changed over the past two years and how their position is much nearer the realistic attitude adopted and held by the tobacco industry. In 1975, the then Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security, now the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, said:
  "There is good evidence that cigarette advertising increases cigarette smoking".[Official Report, 8th July 1975; Vol. 895, c. 317.]
  By contrast, the White Paper states:
  "Before the Government could support a policy of outright banning of cigarette advertising, the merits of doing so would need to be confirmed beyond doubt. The industry suggests that advertising is predominantly concerned with promoting brands."
  I know that there is doubt whether it is holding to that view from a purely commercial standpoint, but that argument is worth putting forward.
  "There is little direct evidence one way or the other about this and, if a ban had only a minimal effect on total consumption, it would doubtless be regarded as an unnecessary restriction on the liberty of the individual."
  Mrs. Renée Short: The hon. Gentleman must make clear that he supports Recommendation 23 in the White Paper:
  "Legislation should be introduced to ban the advertising of tobacco, and tobacco products, except at the point of sale."
  That recommendation was put forward by the Committee as a whole and there was no dissent from it. The basis of that recommendation was the Norwegian experience. I think that, unless I am mistaken, the hon. Gentleman met Dr Kjell Bjartveit when he talked to us about the Norwegian experience and its effects, which have been confirmed, as I said when my right hon. Friend was not present. I expressed my concern that that recommendation was rejected by him and I asked for the reason for it. However, I should make it clear that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) supported that recommendation.
  Mr. Winterton: I wish to make my position clear. I believe in democracy. I moved a number of amendments in the full meeting of the Expenditure Committee on matters relating to the tobacco industry. I declare that I have no interest whatsoever in that industry. Indeed, I am a non-smoker, except for the odd cigar after a particularly convivial dinner—and they are few and far between. I accept the majority view of the Committee. However, I did not support the majority view. I do not support that particular recommendation, althugh I accept it because it was the democratic wish of the Committee. I was a member of the Sub-Committee which produced the report, and I endeavoured during the discussions that took place to reflect another point of view. Sadly, although I had support from both sides of the Committee, my view did not prevail.
  I was about to move on to further areas of advertising. Before doing so, it is important to point out that many thousands of people are involved in the tobacco industry and in industries allied to it. I believe that at least 30,000 people are employed directly in the industry, and many more people in the retail trade depend for their livelihoods upon tobacco sales in one form or another. Therefore, in putting forward proposals which feature in the report, we are talking about the livelihoods of many thousands of people.
  It is worth while highlighting one particular area of advertising. Our national and regional papers are not in a particularly sound financial state. Some 8.1 per cent. of the total advertising revenue of the national Press in 1977 came from the tobacco industry. Inevitably whether we believe that is good or bad, any arbitrary decision on the banning of advertising through the media—particularly the Press—could have a substantial effect upon papers in this country. It is important that these points should be reflected in debating this report.
  I turn now to new smoking material. I have a constituency interest. Imperial Tobacco co-operated with ICI, and ICI is situated in my constituency. ICI has carried out considerable research and development into new smoking material. As we know, research and development, which led to the introduction of cigarettes containing substitute materials in
  718
  July last year, was pursued by the industry because it was advised that it was likely to make a significant contribution to the strategy both of reducing tar yield and of modifying tar to make it less hazardous to health which, it was believe, had the support of the Government. Indeed, the logic of the publication "tar" league tables by the Government surely rests on the premise in the White Paper that
  "the Government welcomes the advent of substitutes".
  The industry, sadly, has good reason for doubting that. At the time of the introduction of these new kinds of cigarette both ASH and the Health Education Council, each being organisations funded by the Government, conducted campaigns directed against the new substitutes in a thoroughly sensational and misleading manner, which I regret.
  I endeavoured to intervene earlier when the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East was speaking to ask whether she supported a smoking substitute or the new smoking material or whether she was absolutely opposed to it and, if opposed to it, was she not, as it were, adopting a position which would increase, not reduce, the problems. If the tar level in cigarettes is reduced, that is a contribution to making cigarettes safer, although they may not be totally safe. I am happy to give way if the hon. Lady wishes to intervene.
  Mrs. Renée Short: I made it clear that research and development and promotion of the alternative material in an effort to persuade people to switch from ordinary cigarettes was a waste of money. I said that money would have been better used in areas of preventive medicine. It was a waste of effort. The fact that the public decided that it was not a suitable alternative showed that the whole exercise was a pointless waste of time and money. As I said, the medical profession does not distinguish between high and low-tar cigarettes. Low tar cigarettes are dangerous, though perhaps not as dangerous as high-tar cigarettes.
  Mr. Winterton: I am not sure that all the medical profession would agree with the hon. Lady.
  The White Paper takes a more positive attitude towards substitutes. It suggests that the Government may have taken

  719
  more notice of the opinions of certain senior members of the medical profession, one of whom I will quote. Professor Sir John Butterfield, Regius Professor of Physics at Cambridge, stated in a letter published in the Daily Telegraph:
  "One earnestly hopes the successful brand(s) of new smoking materials contained in cigarettes will not be taken off our market. I personally—and I write personally—believe this important research and development programme should go on. There was no Health Education Council or ASH—Action on Smoking and Health—when the original filter tip was introduced. The fact that new smoking material seems to be capturing the market quicker than filter tips did is a credit to health educators, among others"—
  Mrs. Renée Short: It is not.
  Mr. Winterton: Yes, it is. There have been grave problems, but I should like to continue my speech. Other hon. Members can put their points of view. I am endeavouring to put mine. It is important that the other point of view should be put fully.
  Just as no one would have perceived how acceptable filter tips would ultimately become, is there not now a case for those who do not agree with smoking and those who do to pull together and encourage the use of the new smoking materials in order to make smoking, whilst smoking lasts and is available to people, a much safer habit and pastime?
  The reference to tobacco substitutes in the White Paper is inaccurate. Unfortunately, it fails to register the point that the tar created by burning NSM is far less carcinogenic than that from tobacco. I agree with the sentiments of the hon. Members who have spoken from the Labour Benches when they urged, as in the recommendations of our Committee, that there should be more non-smoking areas in public places. I share their view that no smoking should be the order of the day and that smoking areas should be the only places that are signed—I hope that such areas are few and far between—whether they be in halls, public places, cinemas, London Transport, on the Underground or on British Rail.
  One of the first things that I did when I came into the House, having met while travelling by train a member of the Cadbury family who was strongly opposed to smoking in public places, was to table a series of Questions urging British Rail to increase the number of "no smoking"
  720
  compartments in carriages on trains. After all this time British Rail has done this with a vengeance, albeit too late. I am delighted that it has taken such action.
  On this matter the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East and the hon. Member for Northampton, North and are in complete agreement. Much more could be said about smoking, but much has already been said and other Members may wish to contribute to this important debate. I shall therefore leave that subject.
  On the subject of alcohol, I must declare an interest as the non-executive chairman of an organisation called CAMRA Real Ale Investments Ltd. That is a fine, flourishing and progressive small company whose objectives are the promotion of traditional British beer in the traditional English pub. In addition, it supports the smaller breweries and wishes to give the discerning drinking public a genuine choice of the brews which they care to sample.
  Having declared such an interest, so that people know that I view the matter in an unbiased way, I direct one or two remarks to the subject of alcoholism. In many respects I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine). His views on the subject are well known. To every Member of the House the subject of alcoholism is of great concern. Over the last two to four years a great deal has been written and said on the growing problem of this disease, particularly, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East rightly and properly said" as it affects women and the younger age groups.
  Attention has been drawn by the Helping Hands organisation to the increasing number of admissions to psychiatric and general hospitals in England and Wales with the diagnosis of alcoholic psychosis and alcoholism. The Christian Economic and Social Research Foundation of New Zealand has indicated an increasing number of offences of drunkenness committed by persons under the age of 18 and by women under the age of 30 and suggested that it was due to easier availability of liquor.
  Dr. Griffiths Edwards, who came to our Committee—I did not agree with everything that he said in his memorandum—attempted forcefully to outline

  721
  the problem in great detail. In a recent series of articles on the subject, the Manchester Evening News—a newspaper in the area that I represent—described alcoholism as
  "A disease that can wreck your career, your marriage, your health, your entire life, and cause untold misery and suffering to those around you."
  Anyone who reads the newspapers will have read of many such cases of distinguished people whose lives have been destroyed because of an ultimate dependency upon alcohol.
  We must get the matter in perspective. Alcohol in short measure can be of considerable benefit. Perhaps it is because of some of the rules and regulations that apply that many of the problems that we face today are being encountered. Dr. Griffiths Edwards recommended steps to ensure that the real price of alcohol does not fall and that a moratorium be placed on the relaxation of licensing control. Some of these recommendations on controls and regulations feature in the Committee's report.
  Many people believe that this is a shortsighted view which could lead to gross inconvenience to the vast majority of the moderately consuming public and severe hardship to the small minority with a genuine drink problem who will continue to buy and drink alcohol privately whatever the price and restrictions placed upon the sale of alcohol. Many people do not believe that a relaxation in drinking controls will lead to an increase in alcoholism. Many people believe that such an argument is not proven, and there is strong evidence to suggest that those holding such a view may be right.
  We must realise the extent to which the Government depend upon the revenue from the drinking industry, whether it is spirits, wines or beer. Many members of the public would be amazed to learn of the extent of the tax element within the price that we pay for any alcoholic drink which is levied by the Government in one form or another.
  I turn now to the question of diet. Many stupid statements have been made about animal fats which have caused concern to the dairy and farming industry. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) commended the drinking of milk. Such foods, if taken in modera-
  722
  tion, particularly for those leading healthy lives, make a major contribution to our health. If more people ate natural foods rather than foods concocted and put in a tin or a packet, the nation would be much healthier than it is.
  Again, I declare a constituency interest. I represent a dairy area which is concerned about the matter. If I look unhealthy, the dairy industry is wrong. If I look healthy, the dairy industry is right. I drink at least one pint of milk a day and I eat plenty of bacon and meat. If I dropped dead, some people might be grateful, but I hope that that time is a long way off.
  I am covering a number of subjects and I wish to go on to another that is highly controversial. Certain recommendations relating to abortion were made in the report and are before the Government. I agree that there should be more sex education in schools, with particular emphasis on the importance of responsible and loving relationships. I make that point forcefully because sex education taught in a stark and animal fashion will cause great problems for young people and so much of the future of our country depends on them.
  I also emphasise the proviso in the recommendation
  "provided that the views of the parents have been considered in this context".
  It is important that young people should appreciate that sex is not just about the physical act, but is about a loving and caring relationship of two people. If this can be carried through and if more teachers can be taught the subject and can pass on what they have learned with care and dignity, the Committee's recommendations could make a major contribution to the health of our young people.
  I fully support the recommendation that contraceptive advice should be offered both to women having normal deliveries and to women having abortions. I have some difficulty with the other recommendations that we put to the full Expenditure Committee. I do not believe in free and easy abortions. I believe that they should be available only in cases of rape or when a woman's life would be in danger if a pregnancy went full term. I know that my views may not be shared by the House and that

  723
  many people outside believe that abortion should be available to young people and others who are in difficulty for one reason or another. I do not share that view, and I must state that fact clearly in the House. However, if the recommendations are implemented with humanity and care, maybe the dangers that I foresee will not be as great as I anticipate.
  I support what the hon. Member for Northampton, North said about fluoridation of the water supply. She was right to point out that people have other ways of protecting their teeth, whether by regular cleaning, diet or taking floride tablets. These methods are preferable to mass medication of the water supply, which can be against the interests of certain people. Some hon. Members may believe that the debate is over and that the case for fluoridation has been made without reservation, but I believe that that is not the case. There are countries in Europe and states in the United States of America that have withdrawn mass fluoridation for one reason or another.
  Until I am clear in my mind that mass fluoridation is good for everybody, young or old, I shall oppose it because I believe that there are better ways of dealing with dental decay and the problems that some young people have with their teeth. I fully support the views that were bravely put forward by the hon. Member for Northampton, North. In addition, I oppose mass fluoridation because I believe in responsible freedom and freedom of the individual and because I believe that mass medication goes against that philosophy.
  There are some first-rate recommendations concerning sport. In the House we have a "stamina room" which goes under the name of a gynasium. The word "gymnasium" conjures up an image of a lavish and large establishment. Our room is not lavish or large. It was opened by Mr. Speaker with some wise and well-chosen words and there were dozens of hon. Members buzzing around wanting to be interviewed by the media and to have their pictures taken. It is amazing and sad to see how few of those who came to the opening just a few weeks ago are now patronising the establishment. It may be that they cannot afford the subscription or cannot be bothered, but we do no ser-
  724
  vice to the people we represent when we urge that they should take exercise, but do not take the opportunity that is presented to us in the provision of such an establishment.
  The Services Committee has had to open the stamina room to almost all and sundry. The police, journalists, staff—almost everyone—are using it, but it is still not fully subscribed. Too few hon. Members take advantage of the excellent facilities which have been provided.
  Ms. Colquhoun: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that the workers in the House, including hon. Members, should be entitled to gymnasium facilities free of charge? His Committee recommends that private firms should provide these facilities. Is it not a total nonsense to suggest that we should turn our gymnasium into a small, elitist club with the sauna available to women Members only on Friday afternoons when they have done to their constituencies?
  Mr. Winterton: That is not quite true because I almost had a pleasant experience last Wednesday. I went to the gymnasium, thinking that it was open for male hon. Members and other men, when in fact it was a period allocated for lady hon. Members and other ladies. If I had not gone to the young man in charge of the gymnasium first but had gone straight into the changing room I might have been called in front of Mr. Speaker for unbecoming behaviour or, shall we say, an indiscretion.
  I sincerely commend to the House and the Secretary of State our recommendations on the subject of sport and exercise. In the first paragraph, we say:
  "Parents should encourage their children to walk to school where it is possible and safe to do so".
  We often receive correspondence from constituents urging that children should be given free transport to school. If more young people indulged in positive exercise at least once or twice a day, the health of our nation would be very much better.
  We have talked in the report about advertising, and perhaps the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, whom I congratulate on his elevation to the Privy Council, could spend some of the money that they have coming in to use in the

  725
  media to educate the public on the value of exercise. The Committee recommends:
  "The Department of the Environment and local authorities should be required to make more adequate provision for physical recreation in any future major developments or redevelopments both public and private, particularly in inner city areas".
  The catastrophic vandalism and hooliganism in our inner cities has increased dramatically in recent years. Adequate provision for exercise and leisure pursuits—leisure centres, running tracks, gymnasia and so on—is one area of public expenditure which I should not oppose.
  Another aspect deeply concerns me, involved as I am in education. In both primary and secondary schools there should be a compulsory period of physical exercise, whether for team games or for individuals, at least once a week. In some schools, this practice seems to have died out.
  If this House set a better example which got through to the public, we should become healthier in body and mind not just through jogging but through real physical exercise. That would surely be good for us all.
  6.51 p.m.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: I was grateful to be able to serve on the Sub-Committee—
  Mr. Robert Hughes: It seems that the only hon. Members who are being called are those who served on the Committee.
  Mr. Corbett: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, I have no control over that matter.
  In paragraph 304 of our conclusions and recommendations, we say that preventive medicine
  "… is literally a matter of life and death."
  Judging from the attendance at this debate, we have clearly failed to get that message across to hon. Members, let alone further afield.
  Increasing numbers of us are in danger of smoking ourselves to death, gorging ourselves into obesity, drinking too much or becoming so flatulent that some of us make extra and continuing demands on the NHS and many of us are unable or unfit to work. That is a sombre picture, but it is not overstated. I do not
  726
  wish to be pious. I am a pipe smoker, I probably eat and drink too much and I certainly do not get enough regular exercise. In that sense, I am a fully paid-up member of our society.
  In their response, the Government have put their finger on a central issue:
  "Some of the Sub-Committee's recommendations would need legislation which would limit the rights of the individual by legal, fiscal or other means."
  The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is against forcing people to have fluoride in their water, but he favours compulsory physical exercise for children and hon. Members. Those two views are not compatible.
  These matters must be faced, as the Government have tried to face them. If we are to start making inroads in this familiar problem, there will come a point when we consider not only whether to use compulsory measures but how and when. The Government have concluded that, since it is often society which has to foot the Bill for people's so-called rights to act with folly over their own health and that of their families,
  "The real question is not whether the Government should intervene but when and how."
  I agree, and I hope that the Government and the House will take these matters far more seriously.
  The report says that millions of pounds a year of scarce and much-sought-after NHS cash is tipped down the drain. It points out that at current prices £85 million a year is spent on the treatment of smoking-related diseases. That is leaving out of account the fact that, according to the latest figures, 17 million working days a year are lost as a consequence. In my constituency, just a tenth of that £85 million would provide the money we need for the first phase of our desperately needed new hospital. I am talking not about big flashy district hospitals but of something smaller. Nationally, £85 million could make a start on the first phases of smaller nucleus hospitals in 12 or 15 towns. That is the kind of money that successive Governments have presumably been content to see wasted.
  How we can tolerate—no one seriously disputes the facts given in evidence to us—the fact that about 50,000 people a year die needlessly through excessive smoking? The BMA disputes that figure and says that it should probably be nearer

  727
  75,000 or 80,000. That number of people will literally kill themselves year by year.
  I come back to the question of individual rights and freedoms. If the consequence of that kind of regular, persistent and abusive use of nicotine were confined solely to the individual we might then be right to say that the Government and the House should do nothing. But the consequences are not personal. Apart from the personal tragedies, there is an immediate consequence for the NHS. How many more families do we have to see fatherless or motherless or, in the case of one-parent families, deprived of their only breadwinner, and how many more tragedies do we need through self-inflicted wounds before this House summons up the courage to grasp this nettle? We are pussy-footing with the problem of cigarette smoking.
  The three-year agreement of which the Government give us notice in their observations is some kind of step, but I am cynical. Why should those who make vast profits from cigarette smoking voluntarily take steps to put themselves out of business? It is like the chief inspector saying to the local burglar, "Can we come to an agreement? Instead of burgling all the houses in that road you will only do every other one, or you will do only two rooms instead of four or five in each house."
  The tobacco companies are in business to make money—at best to sustain the present level of cigarette smoking if they can and at worst to put obstacles in the way of any slow-down which would lead to the disappearance of their market.
  As if that were not bad enough, 43 beagle dogs in Stockport are tethered and confined—
  Mr. Winterton indicated dissent—
  Mr. Corbett: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. The last time that I received a parliamentary reply on the subject there were 43 of them. They have been put there by ICI as part of an experiment to find a safe cigarette. Those dogs are muzzled and tethered for no medical purposes, but solely in the pursuit of profit. That was all that was involved in that disgusting experiment. I am amazed that any Government could give a licence for such experiments to take place. When it became known, not
  728
  with any help from ICI, that that was happening, the Government seemed to be powerless to stop it. It is not only human beings that are involved. We even go into the animal world to inflict—
  Dr. Vaughan: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the experiment he has chosen as an example was started at the direct request of the Hunter Committee? It was not started on the initiative of the tobacco industry.
  Mr. Corbett: I am most grateful for that intervention, but I must say, because I feel very deeply about the matter, that I still believe it was mistaken and misguided to abuse animals in that way, wherever the suggestion came from.
  There does not seem to be much disagreement in the House or outside that cigarettes kill—
  Mr. Winterton: Can kill.
  Mr. Corbett:—that regular and excessive use of cigarettes and tobacco is a killer—not "can kill", but is a killer. Even accepting that cigarettes can kill, we know that there is a big probability that the "can" will become "will". The Royal College of Physicians, the World Health Organisation and the International Union against Cancer all want the kind of tougher action that we propose in our report.
  The priority target group should be the young. The aim should be to try to stop them from starting to smoke, but that does not absolve those of us who are older from trying to get out of this addictive habit.
  A constituent of mine, a cigarette smoker, told me on Friday night that the House should be bold enough to take draconian steps. He proposed that we start this year with a ban on cigarette smoking by anyone under 15, moving on next year to the age of 16 and after that to 17, 18 and so on up the age scale, until we come to the point where there is a minority of us middle-aged and more elderly people who are using and depending upon this drug. He proposed that at that stage a licence should be issued, with tobacco products being available on prescription. That is indeed a draconian suggestion.
  Mr. Winterton: Unworkable.
  Mr. Corbett: One could say that about any law.
  I hope that the House, spurred on by the Government, will give a lead along those lines. Until it does, we shall see the continuation of the tragic and very expensive results of heavy dependence on nicotine. It will be said that this is a case where "they" know best. I think that here "they" do.
  We asked one of the witnesses at our evidence-taking sessions on another topic "What is the view of the medical profession about this?" He replied "Never mind the view of those in the medical profession about it. Ask them what they do." That was very sound advice for the rest of that inquiry. Research has demonstrated that an overwhelming number of people in the medical profession, particularly general practitioners, have given up smoking, much to their credit.
  I am sure that there is no argument about the points made about the Health Education Council. We were very impressed, not so much by what it had done, although that was impressive, but by what it wanted to do if it could obtain the necessary finance. We have heard about the totally inadequate amounts of money available to the council for its task, ranged as it is against those whose business is resulting in destroying good health. The council needs much more cash. I hope that it will be provided in our time.
  At the same time, I hope that we shall make a much better and more direct attack on those who sell cigarettes, an attack on the kind of basis we advocate in our report. I am extremely unhappy with the Government over our Recommendation 23, for example. They have not accepted—which I assume means in plain English that they have rejected—our suggestion that
  "Legislation should be introduced to ban the advertising of tobacco, and tobacco products, except at the point of sale."
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to tell us that he has thought again about this matter during the debate.
  Recommendation 26 was that
  "Cigarette coupons should be abolished."
  In their reply to the report, the Government say that they have no need to abolish them because the coupons have
  730
  nearly disappeared. What a beautiful opportunity it is for the Government to say "There are so few of them left that we should put our feet out and kick them into oblivion, and then take the credit for having achieved that wonderful state of affairs". There must be decisive action of that kind if we are to make a dent in this problem.
  There are two other areas with which I wish to deal. The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) mentioned the problem of alcohol abuse. I am aware of the great increase in the abuse of alcohol by younger and younger people in my area, and I am sure that many other hon. Members are aware of it happening in their areas. To my knowledge, at lunchtime in the main town in my constituency students are coming out of school and going to pubs for drinks and obtaining them. To be fair, I am sure that both teachers and publicans take all sensible steps open to them, but those steps are not enough if it is happening on the scale on which I am told it is happening in my constituency.
  I am told that on the main road outside the gates of another school, where clearly there is a strict regime, groups of students can be seen smoking at any lunchtime. It is not allowed on the school premises. At least in my day it was done furtively behind the bicycle shed. Now apparently it is done in the open.
  The hon. Gentleman was right to put great stress on the problem of alcohol abuse among the young, because it contains the seeds of great social menace for the whole of our society.
  The second area is exercise. It is all too often envisaged as people lifting great dumb-bells and leaping about on antiquated, frightening-looking machinery. On the Committee we wanted to do our best to get away from that image and approach the matter in a much saner and less frightening way. It seems to me that some developers and planners of many of our towns and inner city areas believe that people have lost the use of their legs. If we go on in that way, perhaps we shall. In such areas, the car is king. I agree with the hon. Member for Macclesfield that we need to put much more thought into the design of new estates and redevelopments to encourage people to walk, or rather to ensure that they have

  731
  to walk reasonable distances to get to some of the public facilities, such as shops and community centres. I am delighted to see that this is being done in one of the newer bits of the new town of Hemel Hempstead. At a new development at Grove Hill it is being done very sensibly, with nice underpasses. Perhaps I should not say this, but at present it has the bonus of providing illegal slopes for skateboarding.
  The Hertfordshire Area Health Authority and the Dacorum District Council have just launched a "Look after yourself" campaign, which is probably about the right psychological approach. Good health is something that is very personal. It cannot come out of a bottle. One cannot get a tablet for it. It is not available on prescription. The House has agreed this afternoon that it is a matter of sensible personal responsibility and determination to put into practice a number of things which too many of us regularly say on 1st January each year we shall do.
  I cannot leave this debate without commenting on that part of the report dealing with dentistry. It is appalling that 31p in every pound of the £200 million or so spent annually on NHS dentistry goes into the filling of permanent teeth. We are told that two-thirds of the school population has untreated dental decay while one-third of the adult population has no natural teeth. To describe the present position as an NHS dental service is, on the basis of my experience, a cruel hoax.
  It is virtually impossible in my area for anyone to be taken on to a dentist's list to have work done under the NHS. We should celebrate the 30th anniversary of the founding of the Health Service by declaring this year that the Government will start a full-time dental service to parallel that provided by general practitioners. That is the only way in which we shall overcome this appalling problem affecting the state of the nation's teeth. In a sense, this goes back to the arguments about rights and freedom.
  The existing rights in relation to dental health, whether it is the freedom to clean our teeth or not to clean them—the freedom to care for them is not as easy as that because of the non-availability of the NHS service—has led to
  732
  the nation's teeth being in the state outlined in the report. That is evidence enough for the Government and the House to say that the situation is intolerable and that something should be done.
  Finally, I choose what I suppose must be the most public place to make a pledge. I have been trying to give up pipe smoking and, as a result of reading this report and the Government's observations, I intend to have another try. I agree with those who have said that we are public people and should try to set an example. I did not smoke when I went around school. I noted the prints made by an hon. Member about knocking on the staff room door and being greeted by clouds of smoke. I will try, not for the first time—it is the third time—to give up pipe smoking. I hope that, having made this pledge in public, it will spur me on.
  7.13 p.m.
  Sir George Young: I am sure that the whole House will want to wish the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) every success in his resolution to give up pipe smoking. The hon. Member touched on a number of points with which I hope to deal in the course of my remarks.
  I take up first what the hon. Gentleman said about the smoking beagles. He reminded the House that three years ago a number of beagles were smoking cigarettes in an ICI laboratory. As happens in cases like this, an Early-Day Motion was tabled and was signed by no fewer than 204 hon. Members. Three months ago, to draw attention to the fact that 52,000 people—not dogs—are killed as a result of smoking cigarettes, I tabled Early-Day Motion No. 246. So far 55 hon. Members have signed it. I despair sometimes of the priorities of this House when we get such a disparity in concern about disease.
  The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead dealt with two points with which I particularly want to deal. The first was smoking, to which I shall return shortly, and the second was the important principles involved when we move into an area of preventive medicine. These are principles upon which the Government touched in their comments on the report in paragraph 17 entitled "Liberty of the

  733
  Individual". The Government point out that
  "Some of the … recommendations would require legislation which would limit the rights of the individual by legal, fiscal or other means … such proposals raise important ethical considerations".
  It is worth examining those considerations for a moment.
  It is common ground between the parties that investment in curative medicine has now reached the point of diminishing returns and that the improvement we can secure in the nation's health is through the less traditional, or preventive, medicine. What is a matter for debate within and between the parties is the relative roles of the Government and the individual in preventive medicine. With curative medicine there is no problem. The NHS is funded by the Government and the Government decide what services are to be provided, to whom, when they are to be provided and where. The individual is the consumer and the State is the provider. The relationship is simple. With preventive medicine the relationship is not so simple.
  On the face of it, responsibility rests exclusively with the individual. Decisions about what to eat or drink, whether to smoke or whether to take exercise, are decisions taken by the individual and not by the Government. There is, therefore, a temptation to adopt the argument we have heard this afternoon regarding preventive medicine and to say that the role here rests exclusively with the individual.
  The argument we have heard many times is that we in this House represent adults who are accountable for their views and actions and who may wish, at risk to themselves and no one else, to do things which doctors think foolish. The argument is developed by saying that one of the problems facing the country is the erosion of the responsibility of the individual, the insidious expansion of the involvement of the State, and that soon Members of Parliament will be banning skateboarding, potholing, tightrope walking and the like. The argument usually ends with people saying that if Members of Parliament got on with getting the country out of the mess they have got it into and left the people to get on with their own lives everyone would be better
  734
  off. That is an argument which, as it affects health, I reject.
  In a Welfare State the avoidable ill health and death of an individual are not just a matter of concern to that individual. He may have a family and the taxpayer will have to support that family because he cannot do so. If he needs health services, they will have to be provided out of the finite resources of the NHS. If an avoidable illness is treated, it often means that an unavoidable illness cannot be treated. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead said that £85 million was spent on treating wholly avoidable smoking-related disease. That is £85 million which is not available for curing unavoidable illness such as kidney failure, rheumatism and arthritis. It is unrealistic to claim that the actions of one's neighbour in relation to his health are of no consequence to oneself.
  Secondly, it is not the case that curative medicine, traditional NHS medicine, involves no loss of individual freedom while, by contrast, preventive medicine does. The NHS costs £6.1 billion each year to run and we extract from each individual roughly £100 a year. That diminishes the individual's freedom. He is not free to spend that money because the State is spending it on his behalf. With that as a background, is it outrageous to suggest that the activities which we know to be harmful, such as smoking and drinking, should be taxed more highly? If we are prepared to tax people's income to cure them, why are we not prepared to tax their expenditure to stop them becoming ill?
  My third reason is more general. There is constant pressure from our constituents to improve the quality of the nation's health. They look at international comparisons and at waiting lists abroad, comparing them with waiting lists here. They look at mortality and morbidity statistics and find that we do not do so well. There is pressure on us to improve the effectiveness of the NHS. If we say to our constituents that the only way to do this is to switch resources into preventive medicine to try to stop people becoming ill I think that they would support us.
  Such surveys as have been carried out show that even smokers would welcome higher taxation on cigarettes, a ban on cigarette advertising, and further restrictions on smoking on public transport and

  735
  elsewhere. No one I have yet met wants his children to smoke. It is not the case that tougher action on preventive medicine would be resented as interference by our constituents. I understand that 68 per cent. of smokers wish to give up the habit.
  My fourth reason for rejecting this traditional argument is based on what has happened overseas. Let us consider Norway, a European democracy, where, as far as I know, the freedom of the individual is valued as highly as it is here. Norway has recently taken firm action against cigarettes. In that country deaths from lung cancer are 110 per 100,000 people as against 410 in this country. Consumption of tobacco is 2,000 grammes per adult per year as against 3,200 grammes in this country. The Norwegians have just taken action against tobacco on a scale not yet contemplated in this country. Yet there has been no adverse effect on their democratic system or on the freedom of the individual. It is nonsense to say that putting fluoride in the water or banning tobacco advertisements is inconsistent with parliamentary democracy.
  Finland banned tobacco advertisements with effect from 1st March this year. Before doing so, a Select Committee was set up to look at the constitutional issues involved, such as the threat to free speech, the threat to the freedom of the Press and to freedom of expression, to see whether a restriction on sales promotion or advertising would offend those liberties. It was concluded that the original purpose of these constitutional liberties was to guarantee free criticism of the Government and not to assist the sales promotion activities of life-endangering substances. The Bill went through the Finnish Parliament without a single vote against it and was widely welcomed as a step in the long process of moving from a tobacco policy serving commercial and fiscal interests to one which is explicitly health oriented. I understand that in Australia a similar recommendation has been made by one of the parliamentary subcommittees.
  Therefore, experience overseas does not imply that it is a threat to democratic freedom if firm Government action is taken against smoking. Indeed, if one is to talk emotively about freedom, what about the freedom of children to grow
  736
  up in a society where cigarette-associated disease is as unusual as tuberculosis, cholera and typhus?
  Finally, on this general point, the House of Commons has already shown by its decisions on seat belts and crash helmets that it is prepared to intervene to protect the individual against the consequences of his own actions. Opinion in the House is changing. In 1956, when the Road Traffic Bill was going through, there was a proposal to make motor cyclists wear crash helmets. The Labour Opposition spokesman at the time condemned this as a gross infringement of personal liberty. I recently reread that debate and the consensus was that it would be an outrage. The proposal was therefore turned down.
  By 1973 such a law was on the statute book, put there by a Conservative Government. In a free vote on 1st March 1976, the House voted by 249 to 139 in favour of making seat belts compulsory in cars. That was on exactly the same principle that we are discussing—whether the House should protect the citizen from the adverse consequences of his behaviour—and, of course, the seat belts issue and the crash helmets issue raised difficult questions of enforcement which do not arise in the case of tobacco.
  Again, the number of lives saved is very different. The number of lives saved by the compulsory wearing of seat belts is 1,000 a year, but in the case of tobacco we are talking about a figure 52 times as great. So the House has already conceded one of the principles touched on in the Government's reply. I believe that our constituents will tolerate Government action to improve the country's health, and that if we are to make the best use of the resources of the NHS we have to be much tougher on preventive measures.
  It is against that background that I turn to the section of the Committee's report dealing with tobacco. It makes 10 recommendations which taken together form a cumulative package, the one reinforcing the other, to tackle smoking. I agree with every one of them. It is a matter of regret that the Government apparently agree with only one of them. It is worth emphasising that this report was unanimous, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short), the Chairman, has said. The members of the Committee represented all shades of

  737
  opinion in the House, and for the Government to treat those unanimous recommendations as they have is to treat the Sub-Committee in a rather cavalier way.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As a member of the Committee, I want to re-emphasise that, in fact, while all members of the Committee ultimately accepted the recommendations, it was not a unanimous report in the sense that everyone agreed entirely with everything said. I for one did not agree with many of the recommendations on tobacco or abortion.
  Sir G. Young: I accept what my lion. Friend says. I was quoting the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-Fast. I thought she said that the report was unanimous. If she was wrong to do so, I apologise.
  By their own admission, the Government rejected four of the recommendations, the most important of which was that legislation should be introduced to ban the advertising of tobacco and tobacco products save at the point of sale—legislation which already exists in other countries, which the World Health Organisation wants, and which is supported by the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Physicians and the International Union against Cancer. The argument for restricting advertising to the point of sale is that it gives information about cigarettes to those who wish to buy them, and to no one else, and prevents the tobacco industry from seeking to persuade non-smokers, particularly children, that smoking is normal and socially acceptable.
  The industry argues that advertising is simply a way of promoting one brand at the expense of another and that it does not enlarge the market as a whole. The Sub-Committee examined and rejected that argument. Indeed, if one thinks about it, the claim is nonsense. We can remember advertisements about summer holidays, about toothpaste or about oil for cars without remembering whose oil or toothpaste it might have been. Indeed, I recall the advertising industry a few years ago defending the amount of money spent on promoting rival brands of toothpaste by saying that advertising on that scale did not just promote rival brands of toothpaste but helped to promote dental hygiene. If
  738
  that argument is true of toothpaste it is true of tobacco as well.
  The response of the Government—and I think that it is the weakest response—comes in paragraph 70. There they say that the merits of an outright ban must be proved beyond doubt before they will support it, and that they propose to keep an open mind in the hope of fresh evidence turning up. If those are their conditions, nothing will ever happen. But that approach is consistent with what the Government did in 1965, when they banned cigarette advertising on television, presumably because they felt that its effects would be harmful.
  Nor is it true to claim that a ban would hold up the switch to lower tar bans, because the Sub-Committee recommended that the information should be available at the point of sale. To argue that advertising should be encouraged because the health warnings on the advertisements are valuable is sheer nonsense. If there were no cigarettes, there would, of course, not need to be a health warning, and since the purpose of advertising is to ensure that more and not fewer cigarettes are sold it is hard to see why the health warning on the advertisement is justification for the advertisement. Indeed, those who advertise presumably think that the value of the advertisement is greater than the health warning, for otherwise they would not advertise in the first place.
  It is worth emphasising that a ban on advertising is not just a step in itself but is part of a total package aimed at cutting down the consumption of cigarettes in the long term.
  The second recommendation that was rejected was that the health warning should be beefed-up. The Government are quite frank about the reason for this. In paragraph 79 they say that the wording
  "Cigarettes cause lung cancer, bronchitis, heart disease' … was not acceptable to the tobacco industry".
  If the Government policy on tobacco and preventive health measures is to be dictated by what is or is not acceptable to the tobacco industry, they might as well say so and we can immediately stop the debate on prevention as far as tobacco is concerned. But the Government should balance the distress and inconvenience caused to the tobacco industry and the 30,000 people who work in it

  739
  against their responsibility for the health of the community as a whole.
  On this theme, the Government go on to say:
  "The Government take the view tthat, in the overall context of the existing agreement with the industry, the value of agreed measures outweighs that of a health warning referring to specific diseases."
  I believe that the industry will agree to measures only if it thinks that they are not too harmful to its interests. One will not make progress if one insists on co-operation and agreement with the industry. I contrast this situation with what is happening in Sweden, which already has 16 different very strong health warnings and will shortly be introducing another 16.
  Two other recommendations rejected by the Government concern coupons and vending machines. Whilst these measures might have helped, I do not think that their rejection is as important as in the case of the other two recommendations I have just mentioned.
  I turn now to the two recommendations that the Government say they have accepted. One is so innocuous that they could hardly not have accepted it. It is:
  "That the present trend to provide nonsmoking areas in public places be encouraged to continue."
  Perhaps the Minister can tell the House what progress he has been able to make in that direction.
  The other recommendation which the Government say that they have accepted concerns sponsorship, which, like advertising, is a form of promotion. On 6th May 1976, the present Foreign Secretary, then Minister of State at the Department of Health and Social Security, wrote to me as follows:
  "I am under no illusion about sponsorship of sport by tobacco companies and I agree it is being used by them to advertise their products. The big increase in sports sponsorship by cigarette manufacturers has occurred since the ban on the advertising of cigarettes on television in 1965 and sponsorship has in many cases been used to circumvent that ban."
  Sponsorship has less to do with an altruistic wish to help sport in this country and more to do with finding a way around the restrictions on the advertising of tobacco.
  That view by the Foreign Secretary is shared by his successor, the present Minister of State. In reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr.
  740
  Craigen), the right hon. Gentleman said on 26th May:
  "Our view is that on health grounds any association between cigarette smoking and active sport is undesirable and should be strictly limited."—[Official Report, 26th May 1978; Vol. 950, c. 806.]
  However, it is not he or his Department with responsibility for what shall happen with sponsorship, but the Department of the Environment Minister responsible for sport, who holds totally different views on the matter, and it is his view, unfortunately, that prevails.
  The agreement between the tobacco industry and the Government, referred to in the DOE Press notice 691 on 15th December last year, makes it clear that it is the Minister responsible for sport and not the Minister of State at the DHSS who decides, for example, if a new sport not previously sponsored by the tobacco industry is to receive funds, and it is that Minister who can allow existing companies to promote their products more extensively by increasing their sponsorship. It is clear from what has happened since last December, with the State Express 555 campaign, that the Minister for Sport's rather relaxed interpretation of the scheme rather than the more restricted view held by the Minister of State at the DHSS is the one that has prevailed.
  The Daily Mail described this new campaign on 12th May as
  "The richest sports sponsorship to be devised in Britain"
  The British American Tobacco Company had not previously sponsored any sport in this country. Its campaign attempts to associate cigarettes smoking with sport in a way that has not even been tried before. Up to £2 million of State Express money will be used to finance training and coaching of young sportsmen who will then be used to promote, either directly or indirectly, this brand of cigarettes.
  The money passes through the Sports Aid Foundation, a semi-official organisation, thereby giving official blessing to the project, in direct contravention of Government policy as put forward by the Minister responsible for health matters. So annoyed was one of the vice-chairmen of the Sports Council at this involvement of the Sports Aid Foundation that he had the good sense to return his SAF tie to the organisation concerned.

  741
  The Minister responsible for health matters is against a link between sport and smoking. So is the Select Committee. The Government say that they have accepted this. But a few months after the Government statement, a tobacco company, which has not sponsored sport before, enters the market with the approval of the Minister for sport and commits £2 million on top of the existing E10 million to sponsor sports which have not previously been sponsored, such as athletics, football, racing and swimming. The Government speak with a forked tongue on this issue. It is time that the two gentlemen concerned were locked together in a room in order to find out whether they can agree on what Government policy is to be. They should be left there until they agree on a joint policy. The Government have let the tobacco industry off the hook, but this House should not let the Government off the hook.
  The remaining recommendations were either under consideration or accepted with reservations, the most important one being the recommendation for an increase in duty each year to achieve a price increase sufficient to reduce cigarette consumption. Last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer found compelling health reasons for increasing the tax on tobacco. This year—perhaps because it may be General Election year—he has found the arguments less compelling.
  Like some of the other measures proposed, this is not an instant solution but part of a total package aimed at removing tobacco smoking from this country. It is worth quoting, in conclusion, what the British Medical Journal in the issue of 18th March 1978, said about the Government's policy:
  "Sadly, the Minister"—
  that is, the Secretary of State for Social Services—
  "was vague about future Government plans, but there seems little prospect of early comprehensive legislation along the lines successfully pioneered in Scandinavia. Indeed, Britain has not implemented many of the recommendations of the World Health Organisation or even those included in the House of Commons Expenditure Committee Report on Preventive Medicine."
  The report goes on:
  "Thus, while the British smoking problem has long been worse than most, Parliament has
  742
  been slow to face its responsibilities. The current Government policy of negotiations and 'voluntary agreements' with the tobacco industry recalls Clausewitz's dictum, 'Statesmen and generals have at all times endeavoured to avoid the decisive battle, seeking either to attain their aim without it or dropping their aim unperceived.'"
  I find the Government's response to this section of the report deeply disappointing. The Government have not accepted the recommended strategy. In addition, they have put nothing in its place. The doctors have put the ball firmly in our court, but the Government have not even a racquet in their hand with which to put the ball back. Future generations will condemn us for the very lax way in which we have tackled the problem. The Government, under the influence of the tobacco lobby, have abandoned their overall responsibility for the health of the community. I condemn without reservation what the Government have done about the tobacco recommendations.
  7.33 p.m.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: I believe that the media are very well aware of what they are doing when they regularly televise matters concerning health, because it is a subject in which most people are very interested. Although we are not large in number, our debate indicates clearly that those who have attended and spoken in it speak with a great deal of knowledge at least of the preventive measures that they would like put into effect. They have spoken with a considerable degree of passion and dedication to the subject.
  It is a sobering thought that if we in this country banished every doctor, except those concerned with the control of epidemiological disease and those responsible for clean water and making sure that our food was not tainted, our mortality statistics would not indicate any noticeable increase. But morbidity is another story, and there is the rub.
  The Sub-Committee deserves to be congratulated, and I join in the congratulations of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) on the report which has been published. It is appropriate that on the eve of the thirtieth anniversary of the establishing of the National Health Service we should be discussing the element in the

  743
  NHS which was never really there, except in ephemeral form, from the beginning, and that is the prevention of disease and not just its cure.
  Many have described our National Health Service as a national ill-health service or a national disease service. That is a little unfair, because a good deal of work is done on prevention. A good part of the reason that we have not obtained the results we should have liked to obtain lies within people themselves. Seeing the remedies there, and able to seize them with their own hands, they do not seize those remedies, and carry on as they have in the past.
  I want to concentrate on the prevention of certain diseases and certain conditions. And I start with epidemiological conditions. We have come a long way since the days when diphtheria, whooping cough, measles, poliomyelitis and a host of other conditions, including smallpox, ravaged the land. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State—I congratulate him on his elevation to that lofty position—and his right hon. Friend, who is in a slightly loftier position, are still committed to the continuation of vaccination and inoculation of children, albeit with safeguards. There must be safeguards present, but I am happy to know that the control of epidemiological disease is still in our grasp, and that this is an element of prevention which is pursued and is producing results.
  A second large area where disease has to be prevented and can be prevented is that of cancer. It is not because they are not important that I shall not discuss cancers such as skin cancer. More can be done to prevent skin cancer by preventing the attack on the skin that is made by certain carcinogenic agents, but I shall leave the other cancers and concentrate, because of lack of time, on lung cancer.
  Lung cancer is a disease which, as we know, claims the lives of 30,000 people every year. Most of these 30,000 people, or a very high proportion of them, are certainly not in the very old age group. Indeed, with the increase in smoking in the last 50 to 60 years, the age group has become lower. Men even in their thirties, and certainly in the early forties, have been dying of lung cancer directly as a result of cigarette smoking.
  744
  I do not think there is much dispute nowadays about the relationship between cigarette smoking and cancer of the lung. The figure of 30,000 is a very large one, especially when we consider that this is something that could be prevented. But it is not just with lung cancer that cigarettes are so deeply involved. The figure of 30,000 deaths from bronchitis and emphysema is also a direct result of cigarette smoking. Again, many young people are involved here because of the fact that cigarette smoking increased tremendously for a long time. I am glad to say that in recent years it has not increased, but for many years it went on and on increasing.
  If we want to consider what happens when a group of people slops smoking, it is interesting to consider the medical profession. Twenty-five years ago the proportion of cigarette smokers among male doctors was roughly the same as among the male population generally. It might have been a little lower but it was not much lower. The lung cancer rate was the same for each group. The first report implicating cigarette smoking in lung cancer came out exactly 22 years ago.
  During that period there has been time to correlate statistics. It has been found that instead of roughly 70 per cent. of doctors smoking cigarettes, as they did 25 or 30 years ago, the figure is now down to 22 per cent., and the lung cancer rate among doctors has fallen in a proportionate fashion. As someone said "Do not ask the doctor what he thinks. Ask him what he does." It is sad to note that there are still 18 million cigarette smokers in this country and that in addition to the premature deaths which cigarette smoking causes it is estimated that about 50 million working days are lost as a result.
  The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) mentioned the new smoking material. This was lauded by the tobacco companies. It was a dismal failure, but not because of any campaign against it. The amount of money spent by those who opposed it was infinitesimal. I personally am in favour of anything that helps. Therefore, I was not totally opposed to NSM. However, NSM was killed—in spite of the ballyhoo by the tobacco companies—because smokers did not like it. It did not satisfy them. I can assure

  745
  the hon. Member for Macclesfield that the amount of money spent by those of us who, generally speaking, are opposed to the whole campaign was tiny. I shall not go on with a repetition of the hazards of cigarette smoking. They have been well covered. I agree with what has been said with regard to what the Government should be doing.
  I turn to the prevention of heart disease, which is another big area about which we have to take note. This applies especially to hon. Members. The hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) and myself are trying hard to get a medical surveillance scheme for Members of Parliament, because we here are perhaps subject to the conditions which many doctors believe make us liable to cardiac conditions. I should like to mention several areas in this regard. Much has been published and said about the relationship between the ingestion of saturated or animal fats and the incidence of cardiac disease, particularly fatty degeneration of the heart and coronary thrombosis.
  There is a school of thought of which there is an eminent spokesman—Professor Morris of the London School of Tropical Medicine, which believes that animal fats are deeply implicated in the causation of coronary heart disease. There is another school of thought which says that the ingestion of animal fats is not the problem and that it is too much sugar. This school is perhaps typified in this country by Professor John Yudkin, who is the Professor of Nutrition at London University. There is a divergence of opinion because absolute proof is almost impossible to obtain.
  I would say in passing that it is astonishing how little people know about their own bodies. Some people do not even know where some of their organs are. There are certain organs about which they know, but there are other organs about which they do not have a clue, for example, where they are placed in the body. A lot of nonsense is also talked about many of the so-called health foods or natural foods which are sold in health food shops. I believe that these are just confidence tricks on the public. There is really nothing wrong with most of the processed foods which we eat, although there may be some kind of psychological
  746
  value in imagining that one has food which is fresh. But it is probably no fresher than the food which we eat in other forms.
  As I was saying, there are differing schools of thought about food. A lot of common sense is needed in this regard. I am very much in favour of the message in the song "A Little of What You Fancy Does You Good". For example, if one really believes that the ingestion of too much fat is not good—there is a great deal of truth in that and, therefore, campaigns are waged against drinking milk or eating butter, eggs and cheese—then one has to think about sections of the population which seldom see large amounts of cheese, butter, eggs or milk. For example, old-age pensioners do not indulge themselves greatly in foods that the more affluent of us in society can afford to eat. One needs to have common sense in tackling problems such as this. It would be terrible to put the wind up people who are not liable to gorge themselves on huge amounts of cholesterol material just because some people are worried in case they take too much.
  The same applies to sugar. A lot of nonsense is talked about the dangers of chocolates, but it is all a question of how much of these one eats, whether one eats them in huge quantities or, as with alcohol whether one treats them with respect. To those of my colleagues who are worried about the foods they eat I would say that if they are swayed by the erudite words of those who claim that saturated fats are dangerous, the questions they must ask themselves is "Do I really want this huge steak with its runny fat with a load of chips or can I do without it?" or "Do I have to eat it every day?" There is no difficulty if one indulges in meals of that sort from time to time. Common sense is what is needed.
  There is also the question of stress with regard to heart disease. I need not emphasise this because I think that there is also a correlation between the incidence of certain heart conditions and the stresses to which people are subjected. Exercise is a matter which has been mentioned by several hon. Members. Again, one must be reasonable. There are plenty of people who do not take a great deal of exercise and who remain quite healthy. There are other people who take a fair amount of exercise and who suddenly

  747
  collapse. We do not know the reason for this. One must not expect the medical and scientific professions to be able to solve every problem which arises in much the same way as we as politicians seem to be able to solve very few of the problems which we are supposed to be experts at solving.
  I turn to dental caries. This is an area where better progress could have been made and still could be made. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms. Colquhoun) is not here, because she mentioned fluoridation. The point is that fluoride tablets, as she suggested, or other methods of giving it, are not the answer. There are two reasons. First, it is extremely difficult to obtain the exact dosage with fluoride tablets. The mother or father, or whoever is giving it to the child, cannot be quite sure whether it is better to give two tablets instead of one just in case they forgot to give the child a tablet the day before. There is a great difference between giving one part in a million, two parts in a million or more. I do not believe that it is right to put something in the hands of people especially where mistakes could be made with regard to dosage.
  But the more important argument against this is that fluoride is most effective while teeth are developing. It should not be left to parents, who may not be highly motivated, to give it to children. We all know that these are the very children most unlikely to be given it. They are the problem cases. It is the children who will suffer, and it is not right to permit future generations to suffer because their parents neglected to give them something that we could easily have given them.
  I noticed that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is leaving the Chamber. Before he goes, it ought to be said that his opposition to fluoridisation is based on the claim that there are better methods, although he mentioned none. I wonder whether he thinks that he drinks untreated water, and I wonder whether he would swim in an unchlorinated swimming pool.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I drink treated water, but it is treated to make it fit for me to drink. It is not treated to give me medication.
  Dr. Miller: I do not see any difference. The hon. Member is splitting hairs. It is not fit enough to drink if it produces dental caries in a child.
  Mr. Winterton: It cannot produce dental caries.
  Dr. Miller: I am saying that it if has not fluoride in it, caries can develop in a child. It is important to point out that fluoride has been added to water for many years without the slightest evidence that it causes any trouble, and there is no link between it and cancer in any part of the body.
  I want now to switch to three areas which have not been touched upon in the debate so far. The first concerns the prevention of deafness. In the Western world we have a growing problem of noise pollution, with a growing number of people who are becoming deaf as a result. The estimate of the number of people in this country who have some hearing impairment is about one in five, yet we do not have the same kind of facilities available for helping people who are partly deaf as we have for helping people who are partially sighted. It is worthwhile looking into this problem, even in young people. I believe that we shall have a generation of people liable to deafness because of discos, if they continue to listen to the pounding of a very loud beat for long periods of time.
  The second area concerns genetic disease. There are some diseases which can be prevented, and I should like my right hon. Friend to look into the possibility of preventing one specific disease—Huntingdons Chorea. I will not say any more about it, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will take that on board.
  The final area which has not been mentioned is the prevention of mental illness. This is perhaps the biggest problem that we have today. Certainly it will be the biggest problem in the future unless we tackle it. We have only to look at the hundreds of millions of tranquilisers and sleeping tablets ingested by people in this country over a year to realise the problem that we have in the incipient development of mental illness or the possible prevention of it by the simple method being adopted at the moment of taking tablets. I think that a lot more investigation has to be done in this.

  749
  In trying to push the development of preventive services we need a switch of our resources to the area of primary health care—to the family doctor—to encourage general practitioners in teaching their patients how disease can be prevented. When one thinks that only 8 per cent. of total expenditure of the National Health Service goes to the family doctor service and 12 per cent., half as much again, goes to the drugs which are used in the NHS, there is an imbalance which could well pay my right hon. Friend studying very carefully. The family doctor knows his patients well. He knows their families, their backgrounds and where they work. I think that it would be a very cost-effective method of tackling the problem if we made such a switch of resources.
  The National Health Service is an open-ended commitment. The expectations of people as a result of the technological advances which have been made, the new diseases which some people say have been invented and the new cures which can be used against these diseases, have made people expect a very much higher standard, which has led them to have greater expectations of what can be done than they had formerly. In that respect, we should be wary about talking about the finite resources of the National Health Service. In a matter as important as health, I do not think that we should easily use the word "finite". I think that we shall always find that, if we switch resources from one area to another and if we increase a little what we are spending on the NHS, we shall get results.
  With the reservations which right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned about cigarette smoking and one or two other areas, with which I agree, by and large I commend the Sub-Committee for its diligence. I hope that we shall get the results which have been indicated in the answers that my right hon. Friend's Department has given in its White Paper.
  7.57 p.m.
  Mr. George Thompson: I, too, welcome the debate on the report and on the Government's response to it, and I take the point made by the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) that one of the maxims we should adopt is moderation in our eating habits, and that we should follow our common sense.
  750
  Like the hon. Member for East Kilbride, I regret the absence from the report of a section on preventive mental health, but I understand why the Committee felt obliged deliberately to omit consideration of this sector. Perhaps it will have an opportunity to come back to it. However, in the Government's response to the report, I noticed some paragraphs devoted to the subject and the promise of a further paper on it. I look forward very much to that further paper and others which have been promised.
  I noted that the report stressed the value of the media in educating people. It mentioned the need to bring back the Radio Doctor. The White Paper pointed out very properly that on BBC Radio Scotland we have a Radio Doctor in the morning magazine programme "Good Morning, Scotland". I always find what he has to say of interest. He has one of those comforting, comfortable Scots medical voices. It might be useful to adopt him on this side of the border.
  I turn now, naturally, in the Scottish context to the subject of smoking because Scotland has a quite disgraceful record in the incidence of lung cancer, heart disease and chronic bronchitis compared with England and Wales, as the report points out. There is no doubt that excessive smoking lies at the back of this record, and I see no reason why the health warning on cigarette packets should not say so.
  I remain eternally grateful to a single Woodbine which I attempted to smoke at about the age of eight. I had purloined it from someone's five small cigarette packet that we had in those days. I am glad to say that after one or two draws I felt obliged to pull the plug on it and on what had resulted in my inside following this casual encounter with a Woodbine. I have never touched the weed since, and I do not propose to do so.
  I was disappointed to see that the Committee's Recommendation 23 was marked with a "D" in the Government's response, indicating that the recommendation had not been accepted. The Committee recommended that the advertising of tobacco and tobacco products should be banned except at the point of sale. It seems to me that this should be done. I am very glad that my own party's recent annual conference passed a resolution to

  751
  this effect and committed itself to promoting legislation in the Scottish Assembly, when it is finally set up.
  I am not trying to say that the SNP is taking a "less smokey than thou" attitude. I recall that when I was assistant national secretary one of the most unpleasant things that I had had to do was to put my clothes on the morning after a meeting of the national executive committee. They were absolutely full of smoke. I hope that the Minister will have another look at this matter, and come back with a more positive response to the Committee's wisdom.
  The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) stressed the need to ban smoking in school staff rooms. As one who has suffered from that in my time, I absolutely agree with her. One of the worst sights I remember in the school in which I taught was when three nurses came to carry out medical inspections of the pupils. As soon as the bell went for the interval they hurried to the staff room, lit up and smoked like chimneys. No doubt after that they went out to exhale their smokiness on to the pupils, some of whom were quite willing to be led astray.
  I agree that cigarette machines should not be allowed on premises to which children have access. I do not understand why the mere fact that provision to that effect would require legislation is thought to be a good reason for not accepting the recommendation. This Government do not have a renowned reputation for parsimony in legislation, as lawyers frequently point out to me.
  The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) made some good points about railway carriages. However, I think that he was speaking of the old-fashioned ones with compartments. Nowadays we have open-plan compartments, and despite the division in the carriages smoke often penetrates from the smoking section into the non-smoking section. Perhaps something should be done about that.
  The point was made that often smokers make non-smokers feel as if they are oddities. I sometimes give people lifts in my car and they ask me whether I mind if they smoke. As I have a majority of only 30, I do not find it in my heart to tell them that I do not want them
  752
  to smoke, but it is really revolting to have to empty the ashtrays afterwards.
  Mrs. Renée Short: The hon. Member should be tougher on them.
  Mr. Thompson: Perhaps after the next General Election I shall be tougher.
  When I was teaching in France it was a pleasure to go to the cinema because no smoking was allowed. There was a big interval between films when people could go outside and smoke. That was a much better arrangement than having non-smokers subjected to streaming eyes in the cinema.
  In my constituency we have seen what happens as a result of the habit of dropping cigarette ends. We had a large forest fire in Galloway and it is believed that it was caused by some less-than-careful visitor dropping a cigarette end.
  On the abuse of alcohol, once again we Scots have a poor record. Certainly we need more detoxification centres to treat alcoholics but we must aim at educating people in the sensible use of alcohol.
  I agree that prohibition is not a possibility as it would lead to just as many difficulties and ills as it would remove. However, I was a little disappointed to hear from the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) that, according to the chief constable, the abuse of alcohol has risen again in Strathclyde. We had hoped that the change in the licensing laws in Scotland recently would have promoted a more sensible use of alcohol.
  I turn to the problem of teenage drinking and drinking habits among schoolchildren. Inevitably those members of the school population who are over 18 are entitled to go into a public house, and there are others who are more than willing to go in with them. But a head master with reasonable control of his school should be able to cure this.
  In providing education about the misuse of alcohol we must ensure that this is fitted to the age of the child. I remember when I was a small boy some people came around with a caravan and showed us some specimens of livers in various dreadful stages of decomposition. It all went over my head and I had no idea what they were talking about. All I knew was that the head master was inclined to light up a cigarette and walk up and down while we were all listening.

  753
  The connection between drinking and driving is well known and I am certain that the House will have to tighten up the laws on this subject. In Scotland we are well aware of the action of alcohol in the incidence of violent crime among teenagers and young adults.
  I welcome the efforts of the Scottish Office, through its "Fit for Life" scheme, in promoting a minimum of physical exercise among the sedentary, the lazy and the community at large. As a student in Edinburgh I used to notice schoolboys carrying shoulder bags containing sports gear, taking a bus to school, two or three stops away. That seemed to be a complete contradiction in terms. Why did they take a bus when they could have walked?
  I also regret that so few people cycle these days. However, I do not blame them. I would be terrified to cycle in London as some hon. Members do. I congratulate them on their bravery. I would not even drive a motor car around Parliament Square, let alone cycle.
  One of the great changes that has taken place since I was at school is that individual sport is now encouraged just as much as team games. I did not have much liking for team sports; I did not fancy being kicked or even kicking other people. Pupils are now allowed to follow the sport of their own interest, and the one that best suits their physical make-up, rather than being dragooned into team sports.
  Recommendation 15 says:
  "We recommend that the career structure for doctors in community medicine should be improved, so that this increasingly important medical discipline may attract more, able candidates."
  I have recently had representations made to me about the need for such a structure for clinical medical officers in the community sector of the National Health Service. These medical officers used to be employed by the public health departments of the local authorities and they had a promotion ladder open to them into partly or wholly administrative posts. I understand that this is not so now. Clearly, if we are to have a contented community health sector justice must be done to these medical officers.
  I note that the Government have accepted this recommendation with reser-
  754
  vations. Perhaps the Minister will spell out what this means. Paragraph 236 of the White Paper is less than clear.
  A correspondent wrote to me as follows:
  "My own view and this is one with which I know some Chief Administrative Medical Officers and District Medical Officers concur, is that as a first step a new grade of Principal Medical Officer be instituted immediately. This would really be a restoration of a grading which existed in the Public Health set-up, and would carry some administrative responsibility. The salary scale would be that of the Medical Assistant grade."
  I shall be interested to know whether the Minister has anything to say on that matter. We must never forget that a sustained attack on social deprivation will produce major improvements in Scottish health in those parts of Scotland where a legacy of poor housing, overcrowding and poverty contributes to the high incidence of disease and infant deaths. Community health care depends on social conditions and on the way of life in each area.
  I look to a great improvement in the social and community psychology of the Scottish people as a result of selfgovernment—first through the Assembly, and later through a full scale Parliament.
  8.10 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I hope that I shall be forgiven for not taking up the remarks of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson), who believes that the psychological health—meaning presumably the mental and physical health—of the Scottish people is dependent on the Scottish Assembly or on the attainment of independence. Apart from those few remarks, the hon. Gentleman made a sensible speech and discussed the problems that we face. Those problems are not confined to any one part of the United Kingdom but are suffered by almost all people wherever they live.
  The Expenditure Committee should be commended on producing this report and certainly on succeeding in having it debated. Far too often Select Committees and their Sub-Committees meet, put in a couple of years' hard work and produce sensible recommendations which never see the light of day. The Committee produced its findings in February 1977 and the Government, somewhat

  755
  unusually in terms of speed, produced their response in December 1977. Here we are six months later discussing that report. That is a tribute to the Committee and to the importance of the subject of preventive medicine. It is worth noting that of the 58 recommendations made by the Committee, 25 have been accepted by the Government without reservation, 17 have been accepted with some reservation, and 14 are under consideration. In other words, only a small minority of the recommendations have been rejected.
  Having said so many good things about the report, it may seem a little odd or carping if I begin my speech by pointing to one omission from the subjects dealt with by the Committee. The Committee did not discuss the important subject of occupational health. I know that the Committee faced a wide remit in terms of preventive medicine. In paragraph 16 it says:
  "The scope of the enquiry was so wide that we have deliberately excluded from it certain areas which we nonetheless realise are of great importance. We have not considered occupational health nor, in detail, environmental pollution or preventive mental health."
  I hope that the Sub-Committee will continue its work and I will look seriously at the subject of occupational health. One of the biggest faults with the National Health Service, and one of the reasons that it has not lived up to its great expectations, is that we have only half a Health Service. In other words, we are concerned with the end result of disease. It is a curative service, and in that sense we have not a whole NHS.
  It has long been the desire of the Labour Party—a desire shared by the Labour Government—that we should have an occupational health service. Until we begin to attain such a service, we shall not be treating preventive medicine in any real sense. Much of the disease that affects people is influenced by the way in which people are treated in their environment and at their work.
  It is no use saying that we are concerned about the effects of smoking and various other aspects of life that affect health if we do not take into account the fact that people are subject to conditions of employment which are bad for their health. We hear a great deal from
  756
  time to time about the number of days lost because of industrial strikes but hear very little about the many greater number of days lost due to ill health. If we could have even the rudiments of an occupational health service, with regular check-ups and medical advice available at the place of work, I believe that much disease could be stopped—and if not stopped immediately, it could certainly be picked up.
  Part of preventive medicine also encompasses early diagnosis. Often by the time a person visits his general practitioner and is referred to a hospital specialist, and certainly by the time he comes to be treated for the disease in question, that disease, especially if it is of a cancerous variety, has gone so far that there is no cure. We have examples in recent times of illnesses caused in industry because of lack of knowledge and, I believe, lack of proper screening.
  Let me quote three examples. The first—and this was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller)—is the condition of deafness. If hon. Members have not seen the programme made by my hon. Friend put on by the BBC in Scotland, which gave Back-Bench Members of Parliament the opportunity to produce a television programme, they should take the opportunity to go upstairs and play the video cassettes relating to the programme on deafness. We should examine all these matters because they are most important.
  The second disease that I wish to mention is asbestosis. That disease came to light only because of the incidence of cases that were beginning to be reported. If a preventive medicine service had existed in industry, I believe that disease could have been picked up much earlier.
  Thirdly, let us take the condition referred to as welders lung. This is caused as a result of the fumes from that process and the varying gases that are now used to produce a cleaner and more efficient weld. Many workers who are vital to industry are now suffering from this disease because of the growth of these methods of production. I often wonder why it is that eventually it is the NHS which is finally held responsible for the care and protection of workers in industry. I wish that the industry would put a lot more of the money it earns into

  757
  the protection, care and health of workers. For too long industry, as in many aspects of life, has not been concerned about matters affecting the health of its workers so long as it has been able to produce its products.
  I now wish to deal with the subject of health education. The amount of money available for this purpose is quite pitiful. I am glad to see that health education is now becoming fashionable. I remember a great pioneer in health education who introduced the idea of the health visitor in general practice. I refer to the one-time medical officer of health of Aberdeen, Dr. Ian McQueen. Fifty-five years ago he begged the local authorities to spend money on health education and health visiting. He was then dismissed by many people as a simple empire builder who was concerned only with building his own prestige. Yet it is due to the work of such pioneers, who were willing to speak out in favour of health education when such thinking was unfashionable, that we are at last beginning to find greater recognition of the importance of health education and the achievement of better health through proper living standards.
  I wish now to deal with two somewhat more controversial matters. I refer first to the fluoridation of water supplies. I was astonished to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms. Colquhoun) say that she was an opponent of fluoridation, but when asked to give one reason for saying that fluoridation was bad, she replied that it was all documented. She would not give the House one reason for saying that she was against that process. She seemed somewhat hurt by the fact that we were pressing her for an answer. We were not trying to stop her saying that she was against fluoridation but were asking why she was against that idea. All the documented evidence clearly shows that fluoridation is effective, safe and worthwhile.
  Mr. Lawrence: The hon. Gentleman cannot possibly have read the minutes of evidence, Vol. II, of the Committee's proceedings, especially pages 216 and 217 where there is an assessment of a statistical analysis of cancer in areas which were highly fluoridated in the United States. That is one of a number of
  758
  examples that are set out in the evidence that was heard by the Committee. That is the sort of thing upon which the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Colquhoun) was basing her conclusions, and which she said was well documented. The fact is that it is well documented.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman must not misunderstand me. I was saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North was given the opportunity to put her views before the House on why she is opposed to fluoride. She declined to do so. She merely said that she was opposed to it. If we consider the evidence, it is clear that practically every paper that has been produced stating that fluoride is connected with cancer of the lung or of the bone, heart disease and other diseases has never been repeated by any of the authorities concerned. Nor have such papers ever been proved.
  It is worth quoting in full the Government's reply in paragraph 130 in "Prevention and Health". It is stated:
  "Improvements in dental health shown by studies in areas of the UK where fluoridation has been introduced provide ample support for the Government's policy. For example, the two published reports of the first five and eleven years of the official studies (Reports on Public Health and Medical Subjects Nos. 105 and 122, HMSO 1962 and 1969) showed considerable reductions in the amounts of dental decay among children in the study areas, compared with the unfluoridated control areas, where much smaller changes took place. One of the study areas, Kilmarnock, where similar improvements in children's dental condition had been observed, ceased to fluoridate its water supply in 1962; by 1968 caries in 5-year old children there had increased and reverted to substantially the same high level as in the unfluoridated control town of Ayr."
  It goes on to make various other statements and quotes the experience of Anglesey. It is said that fluoridation is an important and safe public health measure.
  Why is it that the opponents of fluoride will never produce any information that will stand up to examination about the incidence of disease? I have seen evidence precisely to the contrary.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the report that has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Colquhoun). It indicates that from 1944 to 1969 average death rates increased in both unfluoridated and fluoridated cities.

  759
  It is true that according to the table average death rates increased more in cities where there was fluoridation. However, it is interesting to note that death rates increased in both fluoridated and unfluoridated areas. That suggests that there must have been another factor involved.
  Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to that part of the appendix. That is so in every study that has been produced. Those who are opposed to fluoride in the water supply have conducted emotive campaigns. That is because basically they stand for what they say is pure water and echo the statements, for example, of the National Pure Water Association. They neglect the fact that there is no such thing as pure water or natural water. In many instances water has to be treated before it is fit for human consumption. I consider the addition of fluoride to be different in no way from the sort of thing that is occasionally done in other areas to provide good health.
  There are some areas where it is necessary to introduce iodine into the water. That is done because for reasons that no one knows for certain there has hitherto been a high incidence of goitre. It has been found that the addition of iodine into the water supply reduces goitre. Are we to say that the addition of iodine should be stopped although no one has made a great deal of fuss about it?
  In its original recommendations the Committee makes clear that political philosophy and political will are involved. It seems strange that it should be argued on the one hand that certain compulsory measures should be taken in various areas but not in others. It may be that those who take that view and who are opposed to fluoride have swallowed the propaganda of the National Pure Water Association.
  I turn to compulsion and the advertising of smoking, which is related in a sense to the freedom of individuals, which is often expressed by the anti-fluoride brigade. It is argued that there should be no intervention by the State between the individual and his right to do what he wishes as regards his health. It is said that there should be no imposition and that people should be free. That argument is extended to some extent when
  760
  we come to the advertising of smoking. It is said that there should be limits but that advertising should not cease altogether. Why is that said?
  It has sometimes been argued that we should lift the ban on the use of heroine and opium. It has been argued that the use of cannabis resin should be legalised. If it became a commercial proposition to provide cannabis resin in cigarettes, there have been rumours—I put it no stronger than that—that the cigarettes companies would be able to produce cannabis cigarettes for mass consumption. Where do we draw the line in the limitation of individual freedom?
  We all recognise that in the freest of societies there has to be some limitation. I am satisfied that where the line is drawn depends very much on the extent of the vested interest. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Macclesfield is not in the Chamber. I should have taken his speech in defence of tobacco advertising much more seriously if he had not qualified it with the caveat that he had a strong constituency interest, one of the tobacco companies having a factory in his constituency. It would have been much better if the hon. Gentleman had been speaking irrespective of that interest. There are times when we have to speak out even when our constituencies are involved.
  In my view the Government's response to the £2 million campaign of sport sponsorship by State Express 555 is utterly abhorrent. It is time that my right hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport is told bluntly that if our performance in the Olympic games, for example, depends on that type of sponsorship, we would rather do badly in the Olympic games. It is no great help to fitness if people have to smoke to provide the money. The significant feature about cigarette advertising is that it may be that the total number of people smoking is decreasing or that the number of young people taking up smoking is increasing, but there are sinister figures which suggest that consumption among those who smoke is increasing. That can only be because of the power of advertising and of sponsorship, particularly in sport.
  I congratulate the Committee on its report and the Government on their response generally, but we shall not begin to tackle health and preventive medicine unless we do two things. One is to meet

  761
  vested interests head on and the other is to have a proper Health Service. That means the urgent beginnings of an occupational Health Service on a national basis.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Shersby: As one who is not a member of the Expenditure Committee, but who nevertheless takes an interest in those aspects of preventive medicine which relate to health, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
  My interest, apart from the general one which we all share, is due to the fact that I have for a number of years worked in the food industry and have a close association with the sugar industry. Therefore, it is right that I should declare those interests at the outset. I believe that sometimes an interest in a particular industrial or food activity enables a Member to contribute a certain amount of knowledge which otherwise might not be available. I shall endeavour to make my contribution in that spirit.
  The Expenditure Committee's report is an important landmark, because the recommendations which have been made for Government action in a number of areas will in due course impinge on the life of every citizen. Therefore, I want to concentrate my remarks on two aspects of the report: first, diet and, secondly, dental caries.
  It is the generally accepted view, expressed in the Government's response to the Expenditure Committee's report, that ill-health in Britain today arises from over-indulgence and unwise behaviour. It is therefore said that the greatest problem for preventive medicine now lies in changing behaviour and attitudes to health.
  The principal aim of the Government's publication "Prevention and Health, Everybody's Business", which was published last year, accepted that the individual can do much to help himself, his family and the community by accepting more direct personal responsibility for his own health and welfare. It reminded the public that that responsibility was everybody's business and that it was in everybody's interest to adopt a healthier lifestyle. The document pointed out that smoking and related diseases, obesity and its consequences, alcoholism and drug
  762
  dependency are major preventable problems and that, in relation to all of them, positive action by the individual can lead to an improvement in health. The question then arises as to what action, if any, the Government should take to promote healthier living in the context of some of the major topics considered by the Expenditure Committee.
  The Government have indicated, in their response to the Expenditure Committee's report, that they believe that their responsibilities should be directed to ensuring that food sold to the public is safe and to increasing public awareness of the significance for their health of the choices that they make.
  The individual diet is made up of a number of different types of food and of many individual items of food. There are important differences between considerations concerning individual foods and foodstuffs and those relating to diet as a whole.
  There is no doubt that the public have a right to expect that, with regard to individual foods, what they eat is safe and is sold under hygienic conditions. It has long been accepted by the public that the Government have a duty to ensure both safety and hygiene, and all our legislation reflects that.
  With regard to diet, the Government point out that questions arise on the desirable balance of nutrients and show that most food is chosen having regard to taste, texture and price, not to its nutritional value.
  The White Paper states:
  "In connection with diet the role of Government is directed primarily towards assembling, assessing and disseminating information based on scientific evidence in the light of which individuals can form their own views and take their own decisions."
  That is in paragraph 135 of the White Paper. I find that one of the most interesting and encouraging paragraphs in that Command Paper.
  The White Paper also points out:
  "Issues in this field are complex. Individuals' metabolism and material circumstances vary and the present state of medical and scientific knowledge about the relationship between diet and health is incomplete. … It is sometimes more appropriate to bring facts to the attention of those professionally concerned with diet and health to enable them to give suitable advice to individual members of the public."

  763
  That, again, is contained in paragraph 135 of Cmnd Paper 7047.
  I should like to emphasise the importance of the statement in that paragraph in as much as it relates to the relationship between diet and health being incomplete. I entirely agree that it is far from easy for the Government to produce clear, straightforward advice applicable to the public in general. For this reason, I personally tend to become rather concerned when an agency of Government attempts to give such advice, as, for example, the Health Education Council is now doing.
  I think that the efforts of Government should be directed much more to those who are professionally concerned—to general practitioners, for example, as the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) said earlier. They are in a much better position to give advice which is tailored to the metabolism of individuals. That advice is better given to them than in a shotgun fashion to the public generally.
  As a result of the report of the Expenditure Committee the Government have indicated that during the course of this year there will be a preventive follow-up paper on diet and health which will explain in detail ways in which diet can assist in promoting health and avoiding disease. I understand that this paper will consider results of recent research in relation to different components of the diet and will discuss controversial subjects such as the amount of fat in the diet. I assume that the publication of this paper on diet and health in the preventive series will place before the public information which is based on up-to-date medical and scientific knowledge. I think that that will be the right approach to take.
  However, I hope that the Government will bear in mind that recommendations made in the light of medical and scientific knowledge need to be reviewed as new knowledge becomes available which sometimes contradicts the results of earlier research.
  Before we have any recommendations by the Government they are urged by the Expenditure Committee in paragraph 139 of its report to do so only where a consensus exists. What is a consensus? What will be the criteria used? I wonder whether the Minister will be able to tell
  764
  us that when he winds up the debate. I should like the Minister to assure the House that the Government will not regard as a consensus a small but persistent group of articulate critics of any particular drink or food whose views are unsupported by acceptable clinical or epidemiological evidence. It would be far better if the criteria for a consensus view included such bodies as the Medical Research Council, the Royal Colleges and, not least, the Expenditure Committee of the House of Commons and other appropriate bodies.
  There is another danger which I hope the Government will avoid when publishing any paper on diet and health as a result of the report of the Expenditure Committee. That is the danger of seeking to recommend specific dietary goals for the British people on the lines adopted by the Select Committee on nutrition and human needs of the United States Senate. I am glad that these were not recommended by the Expenditure Committee.
  Those who have studied the dietary goals recommended by the American committee and the furious reaction of the American medical profession will, I trust, avoid making the same mistake. I say this because the goals originally produced in the United States in 1977 met with so much controversy that revision had to be commenced almost immediately. In fact, United States senators, in their new foreword to the revised edition, went so far as to state this:
  "The American public would be in a better position to exercise freedom of dietary choice if it was stated in bold print … that the value of dietary change remains controversial and that science cannot at this time ensure that an altered diet will provide improved protection from certain killer diseases such as heart disease and cancer."
  I was interested in a report that I saw in the Daily Mirror newspaper recently of a letter to The Lancet by a distinguished scientist, Sir John McMichael, who believes that trying to change our food habits may be harmful in itself. He said in his letter:
  "It is better to trust to luck in respect of diet than to foster neurosis by the pretence that we can save lives by interfering with life habits."
  In a recent article in Food Technology, Dr. Robert E. Olson, chairman of the department of biochemistry at St. Louis University medical school, made the most

  765
  important observation on the whole business of dietary goals. As a physician he was concerned about the likelihood of inadequate nutrition in many segments of the population if the goals were adopted as national policy. The American experience illustrates clearly the dangers of trying to lay down strict goals as to what the public should or should not eat.
  We should remember that it is thanks to antibiotics and other magnificent drugs developed by our pharmaceutical industry that there are today only to remaining killer diseases, namely cancer and coronary heart disease, from which people normally die in middle age and thereafter. The fact that in 1978 people are living longer is one of the most important points that we have to take into account this evening. Compare that with the position in, for instance, the year 1920 when concern was being expressed about the problems of adequate nutrition—not over-nutrition as is the case today—and about the effect of killer diseases such as tuberculosis, pneumonia and diabetes.
  Having agreed that a paper on diet and health, providing information to the public in the light of which individuals can form their own views and take their own decisions, is a legitimate action of the Government, I am becoming increasingly disturbed about the action now being taken by the Health Education Council in its "Look After Yourself" campaign, the high point of which I believe is coming this month when there will be an all-out attack on British eating habits and an attempt to change them. I understand that television commercials are to be the spearhead of this campaign to persuade the British people to eat less white bread, sugar, fat and butter. Part of the campaign, rightly, is to encourage people to take more exercise.
  The HEC is coming close to the line between giving information and trying to persuade the British public to take a certain view in relation to their diet, namely to give up white bread, flour, sugar or fat. Bearing in mind that well over £1 million has been spent on the campaign, I hope that the HEC will take great care not to overstep the line.
  I draw to the Minister's attention another aspect of the campaign, namely, the nature of the advertisements appear-
  766
  ing in the national daily newspapers. I have one here which shows a large pair of plimsolls. The caption is:
  "You'd enjoy sex more if you had a pair of plimsolls."
  That is a very arresting advertisement, but is it suitable to be read by young children or many women who would find such an advertisement embarrassing? I do not think that advertisement is in very good taste. I hope that the HEC will concentrate on providing information which is based on hard evidence and not merely on opinion. There is no conclusive proof that eating butter and other saturated fats contributes to heart disease, although the evidence so far can be interpreted as pointing in that direction.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we need not wait until there is conclusive proof before warning people that there are indications of problems. If we were to wait, it would be too late and sometimes it is not possible to get conclusive proof.
  Mr. Shersby: I take that point, but when there is not conclusive proof, it is important that the nature of the campaign run by the HEC, with the backing of the Government, should reflect that and that we should not seek to give the impression that all these matters are cut and dried when, as the hon. Gentleman knows, they are not.
  One area of the report is of considerable interest because it refers to the controversy that has been before us for more than a decade—the fat or sugar controversy. This is concerned mainly with coronary heart disease. About 12 years ago, Professor John Yudkin, who was then professor of nutrition at Queen Elizabeth College, University of London, said that, in his opinion, sugar was the main cause of heart disease.
  I should like to contribute some of my knowledge of this subject. I hope that the House will forgive me if I take a little longer than I might otherwise have done because this is a subject of which I have special knowledge. As a result of Professor Yudkin's comments, a number of independent medical institutions of impeccable repute have undertaken a series of research projects, designed mainly to establish whether there is anything in the allegation that sugar is involved in the causation of coronary heart

  767
  disease. The hon. Member for East Kilbride referred to this in his admirable speech, which was a model of moderation and good sense.
  The sugar or fat controversy was one of intense interest to the Committee and was considered carefully in its evidence and report. The outcome is that while Professor Yudkin's views, which have been expressed over many years, were considered, they were not accepted by the Committee. Indeed, they have not been accepted by many leading members of the medical profession, but they have been responsible for the sort of investigation that has taken place not only in the United Kingdom but overseas.
  In order to assess the risk factors cited as increasing risk of heart disease, a joint party of the Royal College of Physicians of London and the British Cardiac Society examined the evidence and reported its findings as recently as April 1976. Commenting on the assertion that a high consumption of sugar was an important factor in the causation of coronary heart disease, the report stated:
  "At present there is no firm evidence linking intake of dietary sugar and Coronary Heart Disease and most workers do not regard a high intake of sugar by itself as an important factor in the aetiology of Coronary Heart Disease."
  This view refutes the suggested causative association between sugar intake and coronary heart disease mortality noted in many countries.
  In its report to the Medical Research Council, the working party said:
  "Evidence in favour of high sugar intake as a major factor in the development of myocardial infarction is extremely slender".
  It is not only in Britain that sugar has been under examination for more than a decade. In 1976, the US Food and Drug Administration issued an "Evaluation of the Health Aspects of Sucrose as a Food Ingredient", which was prepared for the Bureau of Foods by the Life Sciences Research Office, which stated:
  "It would appear that the primary dietary factors involved in cardio-vascular diseases are the nature and amount of fat in the diet."
  In view of the virtually universal clearance of sucrose as a dietary factor in the causation of coronary heart disease, it is hardly surprising that the Committee was more inclined to listen to the alternative view, first put to it by Professor Morris of the London School of Tropical
  768
  Hygiene and Medicine, that the main cause of coronary heart disease is saturated fats, mainly animal fats. There seemed to the Committee sufficient evidence to suggest that saturated fat consumption should be reduced.
  It is for this reason that in paragraph 247, the Committee recommended
  "… that information about fats should be placed before the public in order to show up clearly the risks from the high intake of saturated fats and to encourage people to moderate their fat intake or switch to polyunsaturated fats."
  That recommendation has now been considered by the Government and in their response they make it clear that they accept it but with reservations.
  That is right, because there is much further work to be done on the role of fats in relation to coronary heart disease. Presumably, however, the House will expect to see some comment on the role of fats in the diet appear in the follow-up paper on diet and health which is to be published this year. My case today is that any evidence of this kind should be brought to the attention of those professionally concerned with diet and health so that they can give suitable advice to the public who are their patients.
  I hope that the Government will ensure that the Health Education Council does not go off on a public campaign against saturated fats, because the evidence is still far from complete. What is needed is not preaching but advice to general practitioners, hospital dieticians and others after the evidence of the case of each individual has been carefully weighed.
  I was going to speak about dental health, but I wish to give my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) time to speak. I would only say that I hope the Minister will look carefully at the articles now being published in the dental magazine The Probe by Professor Douglas Jackson of the University of Leeds. He takes a different view from the orthodox acid attack theory which has been accepted by the medical establishment for many years as the main reason for the incidence of dental caries. Professor Jackson is concerned very much by the genetic factors in the causation of dental disease and his articles repay careful study. I hope that that will be borne in mind in any consideration of a paper on diet and health.

  769
  I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I am only sorry that more time is not available.
  8.53 p.m.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) on the excellent way in which she chaired the Sub-Committee, of which I had the honour to be a member. I wish that more of the public could see that much of Parliament's work is done in Committees of this kind, where the parties, although diametrically opposed in their political beliefs—it is hardly possible that two hon. Members should be more opposed than the hon. Lady and myself—manage to work together for the good of everyone. Although the work is not always exciting, it is constructive and, particularly in this case, very useful.
  I congratulate the hon. Lady on a tour d' horizon of our report in a very short time. Since I have only five minutes, my speech must be even shorter and I must give up the idea of a tour d' horizon.
  The achievement of the Sub-Committee was to focus attention on the need for more preventive measures. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) said, we tend to think of the National Health Service as a curative institution, pure and simple, when it should stop people getting ill at all. Prevention is not only better than cure but it is also cheaper, which is why a Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee was considering preventive medicine.
  I suspect that the Committee's failure will be that the Government, although our report will have interest for them and they are broadly in sympathy with our conclusions, will respond only to those recommendations that they were thinking of dealing with anyway. They will of course examine the others, but unfortunately there are entrenched positions, which those in power and with influence always seem to have in whatever activity, and they will not be altered by one millimetre as a result of anything we have said. If I am wrong, the Minister of State will happily tell me.
  The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) was a little too compli-
  770
  mentary to the Government. He said that whenever they rejected one of our proposals the Government were being constructive, and as an example of constructive rejection he gave the rejection of Recommendation 40, on fluoride. We recommended further research, and the Government said that it was not necessary. That is supposed to be taken as proof that they are being constructive. The hon. Gentleman ended by saying that it smacked of firm government. It may have done that, but it is hardly proof that they are taking our work seriously.
  If the Government are to make a beneficial response to our deliberations, they must do two things above all else. First, they will have to transfer a massive amount of their present resources from cure to prevention. That is the gravamen of most of our recommendations. Secondly, they will have to do whatever can be done in the media and elsewhere to get the public to help themselves to be healthier. Publicity is everything. It is too much to expect the Government to show flair at the same time as they are showing a clean pair of heels. But we need at any rate something to stir the imagination. That is necessary because the greatest advances in this field will have to be made by ordinary members of the public themselves and not by Governments.
  I should like to say something about fluoridation, because the regional health authority in the West Midlands is about to try to fluoridate the water supply of Burton and Staffordshire. It is staggering and alarming to see the degree of complacency of the Government's reaction to the Committee's recommendation and conclusions on fluoridation. Two questions arise from the issue whether the State should medicate the general water supply by fluoridation. First, there is the libertarian question: why should everyone in the country be forced to drink medicated water, whether it is good or bad for him or her, just because the Government—or, worse, bureaucrats—think that it would do them good? The Committee as such was not directly concerned with that issue. But we said:
  "As Members of Parliament we are—naturally concerned that any interference with the liberty of the subject should only be entertained where substantial common good would result."

  771
  The second issue is the scientific one: would fluoridating the general water supplies do good—that is, would the good that it might do far outweigh any harm that it might do? On that issue the Committee was directly concerned, and concluded:
  "We are unable to make any recommendation on the use of fluoride in the genera] water supply."
  We recommended:
  "That there should be more research on the long-term effects of fluoride."
  The Government's response, rejecting that Recommendation 40, says two things. The first is that the evidence is that there is a substantial improvement in children's teeth where the water is fluoridated—and about that there is dispute among scientists only over the degree of the improvement. It is not argued that no good comes from fluoridation at all.
  Secondly, the Government say that:
  "Extensive studies here and abroad have shown no harmful effect associated with"
  the recommended proportion of fluoride of one part per million parts of water. That is not only patent rubbish but is patently dishonest. In that response is enshrined a disgraceful refusal to look at, let alone try to deal with, a growing amount of evidence of possible harm. In that response is enshrined a quite deliberate refusal to examine whether the conclusions arrived at on certain data are scientifically justifiable. In that response is enshrined a quite deliberate refusal to acknowledge important areas where there is no evidence one way or the other and where there ought to be evidence before the Government act. In that response is enshrined a determination not to listen to the increasing body of scientists who are declaring doubts about the scientific justification for fluoridating the water supply.
  The sheer irresponsibility in the dental and medical profession about this problem is frankly frightening. I should have thought that any Government Department responsible for allowing the use of thalidomide, Eraldin, hormone pregnancy testings, to say nothing of Phenacetin—which required 75 years of use before it was discovered to be harmful—and tetracyclines—which took 10 years for the harmful effects to be discovered—would have had a stronger sense of responsibility
  772
  before letting fluoridation loose on an unsuspecting public.
  The public trust the Department of Health and the medical profession. They may think, reading the Government's response, that there is no opposition to fluoridation. Yet there is, if anything, a worldwide trend away from fluoridation. I draw the Minister's attention to paragraph 216 of the report which sets out the countries that are changing their minds on fluoridation. The public might imagine that the benefits from fluoridation are simply enormous, that as long as fluoride is taken it stops or greatly reduces tooth decay. Yet the Government's own publication "Fluoridation studies in the United Kingdom and the results achieved after 11 years", makes it clear that fluoride does not prevent tooth decay in children let alone adults but merely delays its onset by 18 months. Its effectiveness is essentially limited to children.
  The public might think that there is sound scientific evidence that fluoride works where it is present in 1 part per million parts of water in areas of the country where the incidence of dental caries is lower. Scientist after scientist has dealt with this. Professor Scorer, the professor of theoretical mechanics in the department of mathematics at Imperial College London and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Health, says:
  "I find that most of them"—
  that is medical and scientific colleagues—
  "are in favour of fluoridation, and assume that the surveys have been subject to the same scientific discipline as they are accustomed to in their own work. Unfortunately this is not so, and they are surprised to hear it, having accepted the idea of fluoridation without actually looking at the papers.…Actually almost all of it"—
  that is the evidence—
  "has been collected without applying scientific tests that would be normal in their fields, and so it has been accepted uncritically as long as it appears to confirm hopes."
  The public might think that there was no evidence or responsible opinion to the effect that harmful effects result. Yet the list of evidence concerning harmful effects is now quite long. Not only in the United States but all over the world there is evidence. There is evidence that the use of fluoridated water is discouraged for artificial kidney patients. There is evidence of awareness of the dangers of

  773
  dental fluorosis and skeletal fluorosis arising from large intakes of fluoride.
  Professor Carlsson, the head of the pharmacology department at Gothenburg University and an adviser to the Swedish Government, says that there has been far too little research into the action of fluoride on tissues in the body and that there are too many doubts. He was instrumental in getting the Swedes to stop fluoridating their water supply. At page 216 of Volume II of our report there is documented evidence concerning 10 of the largest unfluoridated cities in America compared with 10 large fluoridated cities in America. Two distinguished men, Dr. Dean Burk formerly with the United States National Cancer Institute for many years and Dr. Yiamouyiannis, the scientific director of the National Health Federation, have concluded that one-tenth of the 350,000 cancer deaths per annum in the United States is linked with the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies.
  It cannot be said that there is no evidence. What can be said is that in a debate of this length, or in the sort of time that hon. Members take to sit down and look at the evidence that exists, it is difficult to review it all.
  The truth is unhappily that the people's trust in the honesty of the reply that "Extensive studies here and abroad have shown no harmful effect associated with fluoride" is completely misplaced. There have not been extensive studies in Britain. We do not know, because no one has studied the question, how much fluoride one can safely ingest. We do not know, because no one has studied it, how much fluoride accumulates in the human body—and it is cumulative. We do not know how much of it accumulates in what we eat and one of the witnesses said that we come at the end of a poisonous chain. We do not know, because no one has studied it, what effect fluoride has on someone after 40, 50 or 60 years of drinking fluoridated water. We do not know why people have arthritis or some of the degenerative illnesses, so how can one say that it is not a result of fluoridated water?
  I can use one example, that of cystic fibrosis. Until recently no one knew why children, who were in fact suffering from
  774
  this disease, were dying in the early months of life. Only recently was this disease discovered.
  Medical science does not know the answers to all sorts of questions, and it is no use telling the British people "We have made extensive studies" when we have done no such thing. I was the Member on the Select Committee referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Wolverhampton, North-East who started off pro-fluoride and ended up against. I ended up against because I asked myself at the end "Where is the proof that fluoridation over a long period is not harmful?" Everywhere I saw people assuming that there was proof. The dentists relied upon the accepted wisdom; the Royal College of Physicians merely reconsidered the established evidence. Everyone ignored the evidence in America and all over the world where scientists were saying that fluoridation is too dangerous.
  I am not saying that all the evidence against fluoride is acceptable. What I do say is that it may be, and if it is a matter of "may be", is it not dangerous to take risks with people's lives, and to let undemocratic organisations force those risks upon us?
  The people's will on the question of fluoride has been tested from time to time in public opinion polls, and the public seem to be about 80 per cent. against the forced medication of our water. But it has never been tested in this place, and until the will of Parliament decides the matter after a full and thorough analysis of the situation it would be quite wrong for this House, let alone the Government, ever to suggest, after our report, that the case for fluoridation's harmlessness has been made out. The position is quite the contrary. The case is not proven, and we should no go ahead with the fluoridation of our water supply.
  9.9 p.m.
  Mr. Paul Hawkins: I entirely agree with all that has been said about preventive medicine, but I want to make one particular point.
  Surely our health services must be in a fit state to treat those people who can be cured before we burden them with another branch, for the National Health Service is in a critical state. The surgeons, the doctors, and the nurses,

  775
  with even a louder voice, have said so recently. I have taken up on behalf of doctors in my constituency their worries about the health services in my area, and I have corresponded with the Minister over a long period, and yet, I fear, he is still complacent.
  I want to make one point that has come home to me from my own family experience recently. I have 300 or 400 people in my constituency awaiting hip operations. Some of them have been waiting for two or three years, in great agony, yet knowing that if they could have the operation they could be cured of their pain. My wife waited for 12 to 18 months. She has now had the operation. She is walking as she has not walked for 18 months, and is free of pain. I have seen this with my own eyes. I have also seen it with other people. This operation has a rate of success of over 90 per cent.
  We ought to be able to put more money into this side of medicine, and into helping those who can be cured, so that we can give people freedom from pain.
  9.10 p.m.
  Dr. Gerard Vaughan: Anticipating that he may catch your eye in a few minutes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I, too, congratulate the Minister of State on his elevation to the Privy Council?
  We have had a long, very lively and very informative debate. We welcome these reports very much. I believe that the debate has shown the wide interest held among hon. Members in the House and has fully justified the excellence of the report which the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short)—it is very nice to be able to congratulate the hon. Lady on something—have brought before us.
  It makes great sense, of course, to prevent disease rather than always to be trying to cure it. My party is unequivocally behind the concept of preventive medicine and the need to extend its services. In 1901, a male child could expect to live to 48. Today, the same child could expect to live to 69. That is one of the measures of success of preventive medicine in recent years.
  We have covered a wide range of subjects in the debate, and it would be
  776
  impossible for me to deal with all of them in the short time available. I think that the Government have a great deal to answer for in the debate. Therefore I propose to keep may remarks rather short. We have had a passionate speech from the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) on alcoholism. We have had an equally passionate speech from the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) on the care of small children. I think that we all appreciated the remarks that he made.
  Two themes have come out in particular from among the wide range of subjects dealt with in the debate. One was the concern about smoking and the tobacco industry. The other was the concern about fluoridation and preventive dentistry. I shall come back to these in a moment, if I may.
  Although congratulating the Committee on its report, I would not go quite so far in congratulating the Government on their White Paper. One of my hon. Friends made a very pertinent remark about the Government's report being flabby and complacent. It is flabby, it is complacent, and it is very disappointing. In parts it reads rather like a script for a barn dance—one step forward, one step backward. I think that we were entitled to expect a good deal more from the Government. We were entitled to expect a better grasp of the opportunity which lies ahead of us today in this field, and a more constructive, vital, robust and enthusiastic contribution as to what should be done.
  We believe that a great deal can be done. We think that there is a real opportunity today for an effective role to be played in the field of preventive medicine. Indeed, we have taken this so seriously that we have set up a special committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing and Acton (Sir G. Young) to look into this subject alone.
  From the great range of subjects I should like to pick out three aspects on which to comment. The first of these is the aspect of perinatal damage and the whole field of birth, pregnancy and the care of new-born children. This is not the first occasion on which the hon. Member for Eccles and I have agreed on this subject.

  777
  My party supports wholeheartedly the current campaign to reduce not only mortality among infants but the number of damaged children which occur today. We shall do everything we can to pursue this campaign with vigour, flair and enlightenment. Not only is there the tragedy of a child who dies, the tragedy of a child who is deformed—which is a tragedy for the child himself—but there is the terrible tragedy for the whole family which has to bring up a highly damaged child for the whole of that child's life. For a great many children this can be prevented. We certainly want to see more done in this regard.
  Mr. Carter-Jones: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the damaged child, the hardship suffered by the child and the debt which we owe to the family. The difficulty is that very often damaged children outlive their parents and then become society's burden. Does he agree that an extremely good way of saving money is to improve perinatal care?
  Dr. Vaughan: I agree entirely. The sad thing is that when the parents die society often cannot fill the gap. For the unfortunate person it is like walking off the end of a gang plank. There is nothing there to help him. That is one aspect which we wholeheartedly support and want to see advanced.
  The second aspect relates to preventive dentistry. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland that the campaign for extending the number of dental hygienists and dental auxiliaries should be increased. We want to have more of these people. It is a tragedy that paragraph 125 of the report states that there will be two new schools. I would ask the Minister "When?". What is he doing about this? My belief is that he is doing nothing and that this is another one of those pious, wishful-thinking remarks that so often appear in this report.
  With regard to fluoride, my personal view is that fluoride is probably a good answer and should be carried out. I should like to see more in this report about the other methods, other than through the water supply, for distributing fluoride. For example, what is the Government's view about putting fluoride into milk, which could be directed at the age group—the children—who actually need
  778
  fluoride? What is their view about putting fluoride into salt? Perhaps that would be an alternative. The Government should have discussed this with us.
  Most of all, it is totally irresponsible of the Government to have left a situation where there is conflict and uncertainty between area health authorities, the health services, the water authorities and the local authorities as to what is expected of them. At the same time as encouraging those authorities to fluoridate the water there is the question for some of them about whether it is legal to do so. That, I suggest, is an area in which the Government should give direction and guidance, because this is something to which those authorities must have a clear answer.
  I turn finally to health education generally, to the Health Education Council and the extra £1 million. I think this is a good idea, but how worth while will it be? When one reads the second volume of the report from the Committee, one cannot help but be struck by the uncertainty in this area and by the number of people who gave evidence. In the present state of affairs there are not enough trained people to give proper health education. The Committee was not sure on which subjects they should be educating us. It was unclear whether this money was likely to produce a reasonable return. It would be a mistake, certainly for my party, to pour large sums of money into an area unless we are quite sure that it will produce a reasonable return. At a time of scarce resources we do not want to run the risk of taking money away from some other aspect of the Health Service in order to perhaps squander it in an area which is attractive but unrewarding. This is an area that we should want to look at.
  Mrs. Renée Short: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he does not accept the recommendation that teachers should be trained to give health education to young people?
  Dr. Vaughan: I accept that. However, I could not help noticing the number of witnesses giving evidence who said that they were unsure about the value of some of the suggestions put to them and about some of the research on which decisions about health education might be based.

  779
  Reading reports from other countries, we see that right across the world where health education is being developed people are asking who is to decide what the subject should be, what the standard of some attitude in health care should be, how it is to be arranged, and how can it be certain that they are the right standards. I do not want to make too much of this, but it is a matter of which we should be aware and to which we should give consideration. Health education can be very worth while, and I know from my own experience that, for instance, children coming into hospital are very poorly informed about how to clean their teeth, how to wash themselves, how to dress themselves and how to avoid some of the more common hazards. These are all skills which should be taught in their schools.
  I cannot see the logic, in the section on smoking, for saying that educating the young about the hazards of smoking is a high priority when, in the section concerned with education in schools, the Government say that they would not want to pick out smoking or alcoholism for special campaigns. I cannot see the logic of that.
  I cannot see why proper medical screening cannot be instituted for all children during their school careers. What is more, I cannot see why it should not be routine, when a woman goes to a specialist gynaecologist for advice on women's diseases, for her to be screened at the same time for breast cancer. I hope that the Government will take a more common sense and practical approach to these questions.
  The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms. Colquhoun) and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East both talked about the top-heavy, confusing committee-ridden administration in the National Health Service.
  Mrs. Renée Short: Who did it?
  Dr. Vaughan: This has been brought up before. It was four and a half years ago that the reorganisation took place. What have the present Government done about it?
  The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Roland Moyle): This is taking matters rather too far. We have set up a Royal Commission to advise us. If only Opposition
  780
  Members had done the same themselves before all the committees got going, we might not be in the mess that we are in now.
  Dr. Vaughan: The Minister must address himself to his own White Paper a little more than that. In it he will find the Government saying that they do not intend to make any changes in the administration until the Royal Commission has reported. That is not our view, and it is not the view of the nurses, who made their view known to the Secretary of State the other day when, after that extraordinary speech, he had to apologise to them.
  There is a widespread view among those concerned with health matters that something has to be done to free the people working in the National Health Service from the mass of committees which prevent their making day-to-day decisions. That cannot wait until a Royal Commission reports, and the Opposition have clear proposals for dealing with it.
  I do not see how the Minister can brush on one side the report from Brunel University, for example. A great deal is wrong. But the Government say that they intend to do nothing. That is an absolute travesty of what government should be about, and I call upon them to take back that section, to admit that something has to be done, and for the first time, to show a littlte true leadership and positive action to put the National Health Service back on its feet.
  9.24 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Roland Moyle): Perhaps at the outset I may be permitted on a personal note to thank all those right hon. and hon. Members who congratulated me on my recent appointment to the Privy Council.
  I am delighted that the House has found time to debate the subject of prevention and health because it is an opportunity which occurs only too rarely in our proceedings and one which the Government welcome.
  Apart from the contribution of the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan), this has been a debate in which there has been a tremendous amount of unanimity on both sides of

  781
  the House. If there is one subject upon which the Opposition should maintain a vow of silence it is the future organisation of the National Health Service. If there is one subject on which the Opposition totally lack credibility as a result of what they have done in the past, it is that. I pass this advice on to the hon. Member for Reading, South as a guide to his future conduct on such matters.
  I do not want to deal with party politics unduly because the whole debate has been devoted to a large measure of unanimity across the Floor of the House, even though there have been criticisms expressed from time to time, either of the Government or of the different lines taken by hon. Members.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden), speaking in his capacity as Chairman of the Expenditure Committee, for the constructive way he opened the debate. I thank him for saying that the White Paper was one of the best replies from the Ministry for a long time. I also listened with close attention to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short), who so ably chaired the Employment and Social Services Sub-Committee in the course of its inquiry into preventive medicine.
  There is a central and unifying theme which can fairly be said to have underlain much of what has been said by hon. Members on all sides of the House today. It is a theme which was admirably expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East and her colleagues in their report of April last year. They said:
  "We have tried to concentrate on areas where we felt that a small diversion of resources might have an impact in the foreseeable future. If the NHS is to continue to spend several thousand million pounds each year, it is vital that this money should be spent to promote the highest possible standard of general health."
  Nevertheless, prevention as a policy will always suffer from a handicap in competition for funds with other health policies—that is, that it seeks to prevent people from falling ill or suffering handicap or injury. In consequence it is rarely possible, for example, to point to a particular person and say that he or she is alive as a result of prevention policies
  782
  successfully applied when if they had not been so applied he or she would be dead.
  It will also always be dogged by a problem. To a large extent prevention seeks to alter life styles as a way of removing the possibility of falling ill, for example. Given that a not inconsiderable minority of our people demand the right to go to hell in their own way—to assert a God-given right to take a nose dive through their windscreens if they so wish—then it will be readily seen that practitioners of prevention will often be treading that narrow, obscure frontier between licence and liberty.
  This matter was also raised in connection with fluoridation by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms. Colquhoun) and the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who claimed that fluoridation was a matter for Parliament and that it should be debated here. I do not intend to discuss fluoride tonight because it is worthy of a larger debate on a more important occasion. My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) dealt with many of the points that have been raised and I do not wish to duplicate them.
  I mention these snares not to daunt the devotees of prevention, but merely to make us fully aware of what we face as we set off down a road that broadly has many attractions. Because this road has these attractions, because of the message in the Expenditure Committee's report—a message which commended itself in every way to the Government—and because of what we said last year in our White Paper on prevention and health, we took the matter up and responded to it in a way which made clear our view of the central role of prevention and health. I must tell the hon. Member for Reading, South that it is not a matter of one step forward and of one step back, but of 50 steps forward and eight steps back. That is a slightly different analysis from that which he advanced.
  The White Paper, as well as looking individually at the recommendations in the Expenditure Committee's report, went a little wider and took in such topics as mental health and, briefly, the occupational health problem, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) referred.
  In the White Paper we were able to accept, although with reservations, or to

  783
  set aside for further consideration, the great majority of the recommendations in the Expenditure Committee's report. In fact, we rejected only eight outright, although it may turn out to be the case that in the event we shall need to reject one more.
  I now turn to the subject of health education—a subject raised by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland, Wolverhampton, North-East and Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett), and the hon. Members for Burton and Carmarthen (Mr. Evans). They all mentioned the importance of education and publicity. I fully accept the need for growth in the work of the Health Education Council. We have taken action to make such growth possible. For the years 1977–78 and 1978–79 the Council has been allocated an extra £1 million and £1,281,000 respectively over and above its normal budget. I hope that it will be possible to maintain the current level of provision.
  The Council's total budget for 1978–79 is £3,020,000. The comparable figure at current prices for 1975–76, the year in which the Expenditure Committee first started its inquiry was £2,300,000. This represents an increase in real terms of 28 per cent., and that is no mean achievement in a period of severe financial restraint.
  As has been mentioned in the debate, the Council is devoting the bulk of the additional money we have provided to a national "Better Health" campaign, entitled "Look After Yourself". The main object of the campaign is to encourage members of the public to adopt healthier living habits. The first phase of the campaign was launched in mid-January. It is concerned with diet, exercise and smoking and health and is hinged on commercials and Press advertisements. That campaign has got off to an excellent start. A total of 670,000 members of the public wrote in for packs of pamphlets and other literature and health and local authorities and voluntary bodies have ordered a further 5 million items for distribution locally. Several large commercial undertakings are featuring the campaign. That campaign will remain a central feature in the Council's operational activities in the next year or so.
  Dr. Vaughan: Why have the Government not put special emphasis in education in schools on the dangers of smoking and alcohol? That is surely a most important matter on which to instruct children.
  Mr. Moyle: I shall come to that point later. I wish to deal with the Health Education Council's campaign. The second phase of that campaign, which has just begun, represents a slight shift of emphasis from exercise to diet, using the same basic pack materials and involving further advertising on television and the other media.
  In addition, we have increased the resources to the National Health Service in the current financial year by £50 million. Health authorities have been told that health education is one of the areas to which health authorities must give priority in planning the expenditure of this additional money.
  It should be borne in mind that the resources going into health education are in excess of the budget given to the Health Education Council as all health authorities have a special responsibility for promoting health education at local level. Joint financing arrangements are sufficiently flexible to allow local authorities and health authorities to propose health education measures for joint financing.
  In addition, we are beginning to reap the benefit of the initiative that the Government have taken in regard to the growth of the health education service. At the beginning of 1977 it was agreed that health education staff should be exempted from staff recruitment restrictions resulting from the need to save on management costs. We began a management cost exercise in April 1976 that was aimed at reducing the management costs of the Health Service to 5 per cent. over two or three years. Health education staff were exempt from those restrictions and reductions.
  In England and Wales the number of health education officers in post, including area health education officers, rose from 200 to 260 between 1976 and 1977. Since then we have taken on a further 44 officers and trainees. In the present economic climate that represents reasonably good progress. It means that in just

  785
  over two years there has been an increase of 50 per cent. in an important sphere.
  We are following up the publication of "Prevention and Health: Everybody's Business" with a number of papers to expand on the policies that were laid down in that document. In that consultative document, which was prepared jointly by the Health Departments, and in the White Paper of last December we promised that we would follow up with a series of booklets on particular aspects of prevention. The first two papers have been published—"Reducing the Risk—Safer Pregnancy and Childbirth"—in which my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) will be taking a special interest and "Occupational Health Services—The Way Ahead", which we published last December and in which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North will be interested.
  The second booklet was published by the Health and Safety Executive. As part of the long-term strategy we shall be publishing later this year a paper entitled "Diet and Health", and this we hope will in due course be followed by one on the avoidance of heart disease and one on alcoholism. The other subjects which we have in mind for the future include mental health, environmental pollution, in collaboration with the Department of the Environment, vaccination and immunisation and health education itself.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: In all the publications, some of which we have seen and some which we shall see, will the Government take note of the points made over and over again in the evidence to the Select Committee, and reinforced by my hon. Friends the Members for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) and Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) in the course of debate, that there is still a great deal of uncertainty about these areas of policy and that it is not possible to give clear, categorical advice that one thing is right and another wrong? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that his documents carry the doubts forward so that the public may make up their own minds?
  Mr. Moyle: The whole status of "Prevention and Health: Everybody's Business" was that it began as a consultative document. The main object of the papers that are being put forward following that
  786
  document are to promote discussion along lines that can be recommended with reason. The last thing that we would do—this was a point made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) in drawing attention to the appropriate paragraph in the White Paper—would be to attempt to lay down hard and fast rules from the centre that people must follow. That was the purpose of drawing attention to the fact that in the whole area of health and preventive medicine we are treading a difficult path between liberty on the one hand and proper advice and guidance on the other. I hope that that will explain to the right hon. Gentleman the line that we intend to take.
  Mr. Shersby: Will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to tell the House whether before the papers are published there will be any consultation in respect of "Diet and Health" with the British Nutrition Foundation, which as the Minister knows represents a wide spectrum of scientific opinion as well as the food and drink industries?
  Mr. Moyle: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman whether the British Nutrition Foundation is one of the bodies which will be consulted. The Department consults a wide range of people representing all kinds of expertise in a particular sphere before a document in this series is published. However, I shall check on the specific point that he has made.
  I turn now to a matter of considerable importance which my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles has made his own, but which I hope he will be able to make a subject in which the House will be interested. I refer to perinatal mortality. The hon. Member for Reading, South drew attention to the fact that perinatal mortality was also associated with perinatal handicap. Perinatal handicap involves not only a tremendous amount of human misery, but a tremendous amount of cost. The National Health Service has to provide special facilities for each handicapped child for life in an attempt to offset the consequences of infant handicap.
  Perhaps we should do better in terms of eliminating both mortality and handicap. My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles put forward one idea which I intend to follow vigorously. He proposed that area health authorities with

  787
  infant perinatal mortality statistics below those of the national average should be approached and asked what specific policies and decisions they intend to take in subsequent years with a view to reducing those perinatal mortality figures.
  Mr. Carter-Jones: Area health authorities with above the national average.
  Mr. Moyle: Above. It all depends how one looks at it: worse than or better than; above or below. I shall ensure that when we get the next statistics for 1977, which should be in the not-too-distant future, those area health authorities whose statistics are worse than the national average will be approached and asked to explain what they intend to do in the coming year to try to combat the problem.
  The problem, as my hon. Friend recognised, is as much a social as a medical one. Although something can be done by area health authorities to improve the perinatal mortality statistics and infant handicap by a process of adopting the right medical and health policies, the approach must be on a broad front. The analysis shows that babies are subjected to these unfortunate risks as a result of an overall total social picture. For example, in Newcastle only 13 per cent. of children were living in three inner city wards. Yet they provided 45 per cent. of infant mortality in Newcastle.
  'We find more and more that perinatal mortality occurs in a family where the father is probably an unskilled manual worker, probably an immigrant, and living in the core of our large cities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State drew attention to this aspect in his Eleanor Rathbone lecture in Bristol some little time ago. There must be a broad approach to this problem.
  One factor which emerges is that, in dealing with perinatal mortality, there has been no narrowing of the class differential barriers in these matters since the National Health Service began. In fact, the gap between the incidence of perinatal mortality among the social classes to which I have been referring and middle-class parents has, if anything, widened rather than narrowed during the 30 years since the foundation of the NHS.
  We are taking action with a view to trying to solve this problem. For
  788
  example, there was the launching of the rubella immunisation campaign. In 1976, 296,600 children were immunised in England and Wales. We are endeavouring to persuade young mothers to give up smoking during pregnancy. A campaign to persuade expectant mothers not to smoke has been a feature of health education for some time. We hope to introduce a routine screening service for neural tube defects as soon as this may be safely and effectively done.
  My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride raised the question of genetic counselling. To this end, the Medical Research Council and the Department of Health and Social Security have set up a joint working group to look at genetic counselling and clinical genetic research. The Clinical Genetic Society, at the request of the Department, has set up a group to look into the service needs for pre-natal diagnosis.
  We are looking, too, at how the role of the midwife might be developed. This is being undertaken by the health studies department at Chelsea College.
  Members of ethnic minorities, and in particular Asian communities, pose special problems, in that there is often a cultural and linguistic barrier which prevents their being drawn fully into comprehensive ante-natal care. A great deal is done to try to contact groups such as these with leaflets in their own languages. Two initiatives are in hand which may help to overcome these problems. The Department has just agreed to join the King's Fund in financing the production of a training package for health workers in contact with members of the Asian communities. We are also exploring the possible application of an automated history-taking device which might be very useful in antenatal clinics. Those are some examples of the positive research and action that the Department is undertaking with a view to backing up the policies we are urging upon area health authorities.
  The hon. Member for Reading, South said that the question of smoking had proved the most contentious question in this debate. I agree. I found it encouraging that every Member who spoke while I was present had nothing good to say about smoking. The sense of the debate was that smoking was a very unhealthy pastime and the sooner people

  789
  could be persuaded to give it up the better it would be for the nation as a whole.
  I agree with that view, because my advice is that the greatest damage to the health of the nation that can be conceived of is smoking and that, if people could be persuaded to give up smoking cigarettes, a substantial contribution would be made to the country's future. That is why the achievement of opposition to smoking is one of the major tasks of the Health Education Council, and of preventive health measures.
  The Government encountered fairly severe criticism because of their refusal to impose a ban on the advertising of cigarettes apart from at the point of sale. The general view was expressed that our policy of moving towards a reduction in smoking in agreement with the industry was possibly founded on the wrong principle.
  The criticism that we are wrong to be operating on the basis of working in agreement with the industry might have some validity if the policy were not leading to good results. In the period 1974–75, for example, the number of male smokers decreased by 4 per cent. What is even more encouraging, because up to now the number of women smokers has been increasing, is that over the same period the number of women smokers decreased by 2 per cent.
  Hon. Members may have noticed that in The Financial Times this morning it was said that during the period from April 1977 to April 1978 the number of cigarettes sold was reduced by 5·8 per cent. That is a noticeable reduction for a 12 months' period. I do not claim that the entire reduction is due to the policies of the Government. Some of the reduction may be due to the switch from ordinary size cigarettes to king size cigarettes, during which time smokers tended to buy fewer king size cigarettes than small ones. However, that is only part of the story. The general trend is encouraging.
  I am not prepared to accept that the whole basis of our strategy is necessarily wrong. The Government have an entirely open mind on whether there should be a complete ban on advertising cigarettes apart from advertising at the point of sale. We shall review our policies in these
  790
  matters in the light of evidence. It cannot be argued that, because cigarette sales are falling in Norway, Norway is on the right lines. We are in exactly the same position in this country, although we have not yet imposed a ban. Our policy so far has been to enter into agreements with the industry which are aimed at removing the glamour from cigarette advertising.
  The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) put in an urgent plea to support NSM. It is not a question of supporting it. On this matter I take technical advice. That technical advice is that NSM is no more dangerous than tobacco. As long as I receive such advice from Professor Robert Hunter's committee, I am constrained to take the line that I take. The advent of NSM provides a potential for moving towards a safer cigarette if it can be developed, but I shall not go further than that.
  The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), who is not in his seat, made a good point. He said that the whole of society in this country was based on the idea that it was natural to smoke and not natural not to smoke. As a result of a reduction in cigarette smoking because of the Government's policy over a period of years, those who smoke are for the first time in a minority and those who do not smoke are in a majority. Therefore, we should ensure that from now on our social arrangements change to meet that changed social pattern.
  More and more as time goes by it should be accepted that people who do not smoke have the right of the road on their side and that people who smoke have to defer to those who do not smoke, particularly in a public place. The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) criticised the Government about sports sponsorship.
  He accused the Government of speaking with a forked tongue and suggested that my right hon. Friend the Minister responsible for sport and myself should be locked in a room until we agreed. We were not actually locked up in a room, but we spent a considerable time together in a room. At the end of that time the Government's policy is the code on the sponsorship of sport by cigarette firms which emerged. That is the Government's policy in these matters.
  Mrs. Renée Short: Why did the Minister turn down the proposal for a more realistic health warning on cigarette packets? Why did he turn down the proposal to make cigarette machines available only in places where there could be adult supervision? My right hon. Friend has just mentioned sports sponsorship. Will he comment on the recent proposal of the British American Tobacco Company to spend more money on increased sponsorship in the face of what his right hon. Friend described as a grotesque situation?
  Mr. Moyle: I meant to mention the BAT advertising drive and I apologise for not having done so sooner. It is not a campaign that I like, but having carefully considered, before the campaign started, the advertising code that we have entered into with the tobacco industry, I could not find grounds for disallowing the campaign, and therefore it has to go ahead.
  We carefully considered the question of vending machines in public places where children are likely to have unsupervised access to the machines, but the number of machines in such places has declined rapidly because they are subjected to vandalism. We felt that it was not necessary to take action.
  The health warning that appears on cigarette packets was the one that we could agree with the industry. As it was stronger than the previous warning, we felt prepared to compromise on that point.
  Sir Bernard Braine: I have been listening intently to the right hon. Gentleman and I hope that he will refer to the scourge of alcohol abuse and its heavy cost in social and economic terms.
  Mr. Moyle: The hon. Gentleman was next on my list. He raised the subject of alcoholism, and there are a number of points that I wish to put to him. The Health and Safety Commission's medical advisory committee is setting up a subcommittee on mental health at work which intends to meet soon. The hon. Gentleman asked about alcoholism and industry and the sub-committee will consider, among other matters, the problem
  792
  of alcoholism and work and the recommendations of the Braine Report on alcohol and work. The sub-committee will consist of representatives of the TUC, the CBI and specialists in mental health. I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments to the Health and Safety at Work Commission, which has a major role in this area.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that part of the revenue from liquor tax should be set aside for health education. That would go against one of the major principles of revenue and expenditure in this country—that the product of a particular tax is never hypothecated for any particular policy purpose but goes into the general funds of the nation for dispersal in accordance with the decisions of the Government of the day. I cannot concede that point.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to drinking and driving and was discouraged by the lack of education. We feel that there should be more legislation on this matter, and the Department would certainly support proposals for making the wearing of seat belts compulsory, but this is one of the areas in our public life, as some hon. Members have mentioned, where some people feel that they have the right to take a nose dive through their windscreens if they wish to do so. The House of Commons seemed to agree with them when we last considered this matter. For that reason, we have not been able to make the progress that I would have liked.
  There are a tremendous number of questions to which I have not been able to refer. The best that I can offer hon. Members is that I shall write in reply to all the points raised in the debate. I hope that the House will take note of the report and that we shall be able to go forward and take action on it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of the First Report from the Expenditure Committee in the last Session of Parliament (House of Commons Paper No. 169) on Preventive Medicine and of the relevant Government observations (Command Paper No. 7057).

  KIDNEY TRANSPLANT OPERATIONS
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]
  10.0 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: I am delighted to have this opportunity, particularly after our last debate, of raising an important constituency case but in such a way that I hope it will help to illustrate a real national problem. I thank the Minister for being here because everything I say will be entirely pertinent to his role—and there will be nothing, I hope, that he will take as being critical of it. His own reputation in these matters is deservedly high. I do not seek to raise the case of Tonya Simpson in anything like a partisan spirit.
  What I have to tell the House is a sad but inspiring story of a very brave little child, of two courageous parents and of some dedicated and determined doctors. To look at Tonya Simpson—many people have had the opportunity to do that because of the television coverage of this case—one would think that she was an ordinary happy child. Indeed, to some degree, so she is.
  However, this apparently normal happy child was born with spina bifida, she developed hydrocephalus, and she was written off by many people. It is only thanks to the devotion of her parents and the skill and dedication, of the doctors who cared for her in Birmingham that she is alive today. Above all, it is due to her own indomitable pluck. I have never met or heard of a child with more courage. Unfortunately, in seeking to arrest the hydrocephalus—after a successful series of operations—her kidneys were badly damaged. She now suffers from chronic renal failure. So although she is not highly intelligent—one would not pretend that—she is an ordinary, bright, cheerful child who enjoys life but who faces death.
  Tonya's parents came to see me not only because they were naturally concerned about her but because they were more concerned, in a sense, for others and hoped that in her case a national problem could be highlighted.
  Considering all those who have chronic renal failure, especially children and even
  794
  more especially handicapped children, one comes into contact with deep human problems. In coming to me, the parents of this girl showed great public spirit, because they know, as I know, that, whatever the Minister may say tonight, Tonya's life is at risk even as I speak.
  As the consultant paediatrician who has looked after Tonya with such skill put it in a letter to me recently, her condition could suddently deteriorate
  "as a result of intercurrent infection or an uncontrolled rise of blood pressure";
  or, as Tonya's mother put it in much more graphic and heartfelt words,
  "It's like living with a time bomb. She might die at any moment."
  My plea to the Minister is essentially simple: if Tonya cannot be saved—I hope to God that she can—then at least let us make sure that she does not die in vain.
  The tragedy is that as things stand she will die, just like 22 other people in the Birmingham area alone over the last five years. The stark fact is that, during the next year, over 2,000 people—not counting those who are under five or over 60—will develop renal failure and that of those at least 100 will be children over five. Approximately 45 per cent. of those children, but only 33 per cent. in the West Midlands area, will be dialysed. Most of the rest will have been entered on the waiting list for death, in spite of the fact that almost all could have their lives prolonged, perhaps indefinitely, if there were sufficient dialysis and transplant facilities.
  The supreme tragedy is that it is not a question of there not being human skill available to deal with this problem. Doctors know how to treat these patients, but they cannot exploit that knowledge. Instead, they have to face the cruel dilemma—there can be none crueller—of deciding who shall profit from their skill and who shall not.
  Tonya's doctor explained the dilemma in a letter I received about a week ago. He said:
  "Because of the physical handicap associated with her spina bifida (she walks on crutches) and her mild mental sub-normality, she has not achieved a high priority rating amongst other patients, child and adult, queuing up for our extremely limited dialysis facilities."

  795
  The fact that Tonya walks at all, be it on crutches, and attends a normal school, is supreme testimony both to her courage and to the courage of her parents.
  The doctor added:
  "The real point is that she has as much right to what doctors would regard as the proper treatment for chronic renal failure as any other patient."
  I do not think that any hon. Member would dispute those words. The doctor, whose letter I found one of the most moving I have ever received, underlined the tragic irony of it all when he said:
  "The whole problem would be eased by having more dialysis facilities for one can maintain life more or less indefinitely with something like a 90 per cent. success rate by means of dialysis, and this can be used as a 'holding operation' until such time as a suitable kidney becomes available."
  The need for more dialysis facilities has been accepted by this Government, just as they have rightly accepted the need for promoting the kidney donor scheme.
  In a relatively brief debate such as an Adjournment debate, I do not want to rehearse again all the arguments that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and others have advanced with such skill in recent months. I am delighted and honoured to see the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) here, because I know that he takes a personal interest in these matters. I do not want to repeat the arguments, although I shall refer briefly to this aspect later. I want to state a few simple and frightening facts of which the House should be aware and of which I am sure the Minister is aware. I am confident that he is as anxious as I am that the facts should be set out and should be correct.
  Britain is, regrettably, very low down in the league table when it comes to treating patients with chronic renal failure. This is sad in more ways than one, because where we pioneered we are now following. Others are taking the lead. We are approximately thirteenth in the so-called league table of European nations. The mark of our own failure was brought out graphically in a recent letter to The Times which was sent by the head nurse of a renal unit in Brussels. In that letter this head nurse made these comments:
  "It is appalling to think that whereas everyone without exception has a right to a machine
  796
  in Belgium, in a country such as Great Britain, whose National Health Service has been a source of inspiration and an object of envy of so many countries, there are not enough machines available, with the result that the number of deaths due to kidney failure is higher than in the majority of neighbouring European countries. In Belgium, there are almost twice as many dialysis patients per million head of population as in Great Britain."
  Those are sobering thoughts.
  Another fact that I bring before the House is that in the West Midlands, a populous region with the great city of Birmingham as its heart, we are fourth from the bottom of our national league table in terms of the provision of dialysis facilities. What all this amounts to is that for a child to develop chronic renal failure today is as desperate as it was to get smallpox before Jenner and as tragic as it was to get smallpox after Jenner without having the benefit of the vaccination which he pioneered. For the handicapped child the situation is worse than ever.
  I make these remarks in no spirit of recrimination or bitterness. This is no party issue. I hope and believe that the Minister and I are at one. I am not making any criticisms of this Government in any party sense. What I am saying is that it is tragic that a service which was, and in some ways still is, the envy of the world, should be in this situation. It is incompatible with the idea of a National Health Service that we should have to tolerate a situation in which little children are not even entered into the survival statistics and where doctors are forced to spend agonising hours trying to decide who shall live and who shall die.
  I quote again from the letter written by Tonya's consultant:
  "I can assure you it is a most invidious task."
  He is referring to the task of choosing who will live.
  "Who is so elevated as to say without any sense of guilt that to treat a 55-year-old man with cancer of the lung is any more deserving than a 10-year-old child with chronic renal failure? The facts show that the results of chronic renal failure treatments are better than those of most cancer treatments, but surely our society which can afford so much money to bolster up ailing industries ought to be able to provide a better standard of health service. In other words, we should not have to he faced with these difficult decisions if more cash were available."
  There are two points which are particularly worthy of emphasis there. First,

  797
  there is the fact that dialysis and transplant treatments have a better chance of success than many other treatments, especially those for cancer. The second point worthy of emphasis—and here I draw upon figures produced by the European Dialysis and Transplant Association—is that it is within the 10 to 20-year-old age group that the best candidates for successful transplants are to be found.
  What do I suggest should be done? What do I hope to hear from the Minister tonight? First, I should like his assurance that the dialysis unit at the East Birmingham Hospital, for which the local Lions Club has worked so hard and raised well over £50,000, will now be built. It is already more than 18 months overdue. That is not the Minister's personal fault but he must regret it as much as I do. It must be built to keep faith with those who gave.
  I hope that the Minister will feel that he can point to that example of local fund raising throughout the country. He might even wonder, with his own splendid reputation in these matters, whether it is worth while creating something on a par with the Queen's Award for Industry for organisations such as the Lions, who do so much for others and raise such magnificent and enormous sums. So I hope that he will encourage, promise and reassure in that context.
  But beyond that I want the Minister to talk to the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer so that money can be found. I suggest that it does not necessarily all have to be new money. I suggest that we might have a critical look at the money spent on administration and on drugs within the NHS. Not sufficient doctors are cost conscious when writing out voluminous prescriptions. It may well be that some money could be found within the existing budget for the sort of facilities for which I am pleading.
  I also ask that the money recently provided for units could perhaps be used a little more flexibly than the Chancellor originally promised, so that those areas which need more staff rather than more machines can use it in that direction. I suggest also that perhaps the Under-Secretary of State could take up the suggestion by Lord Segal in another place, bearing in mind that the noble
  798
  Lord is a member of the Labour Party and a doctor of great experience, and perhaps commend to the Chancellor that he should allow people who give their kidneys to offset, as Lord Segal suggested, £20,000 and not have it subject to capital transfer tax. It might be an incentive to people to do something.
  I know that the Minister does not have authority to commit the Government to some of these things, but he has the opportunity to advocate them. Governments can act. When Ronan Point collapsed, new building regulations were brought in which, in effect, valued a human life at £20 million. I think Tonya's life is worth quite a lot, and I think that things along these lines could well be done. I think that the hon. Gentleman has the public on his side—
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): I hope that there will be the possibility of giving a full and considered reply to the speech of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) in the half hour that has been allocated for the debate.
  Mr. Cormack: I am coming to a close.
  The hon. Gentleman has the public on his side. Only today I had a moving letter from an ex-guardsman injured in Aden offering to give his kidney to Tonya. That is an offer that, unfortunately, it is not practical to accept for all sorts of reasons. I feel confident that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the situation is wholly unacceptable, and that it is totally wrong that a mother of a young child should have to say:
  "There is a shortage of staff as well as equipment. I can't even be trained to operate a machine yet."
  If the hon. Gentleman agrees, and does just some of these things, and just one extra life is saved in the next year, this debate will not have been in vain, even if Tonya Simpson does not live to read about it; but I hope and pray that she will.
  10.19 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) both for the manner and

  799
  the content of the speech with which he has opened this debate. I entirely understand his concern and welcome the opportunity he has given me to outline the steps my Department is taking to increase facilities for paediatric dialysis and kidney transplants.
  The hon. Member has drawn attention to the specific case of Tonya Simpson. She is now 10 years old and was born with spina bifida. She subsequently developed hydrocephalus, and operations were undertaken to arrest this condition. Unfortunately, however, the combination of infection and other problems led to renal damage. I understand that Tonya's condition is now stable and that she is not thought to be in any immediate danger, though eventual progression is virtually certain. It is always tragic when a child develops a life-threatening condition such as renal failure. The tragedy is not only for the child, but for the parents and family as a whole. Yet it is even more tragic when the child, as in Tonya's case, already suffers from other handicaps. The support and sympathy required by the family are then very much greater. In recent years, there has been much progress in helping disabled children to triumph over many of the handicaps which are imposed by their disabilities. As the House knows, I regard it as deeply important that we should give all possible help to the disabled, and not least to disabled children.
  It is gratifying that recent medical progress has made the prospect of successful treatment of children by haemodialysis so much brighter, and that the number of successful transplants has increased. There is still need to expand both forms of treatment, however, and I shall be indicating the initiatives we have been taking to promote further advance.
  Many factors influence the likely success of treatment either by dialysis or by transplant, hence the selection of patients. I am advised that the more additional disabilities or illnesses from which a patient suffers, the more difficult it is to carry out either form of treatment successfully. The difficult problem of selection of patients likely to respond to treatment is the task of the consultant who is responsbile for the treatment. It is a daunting and very onerous task which I am sure consultants carry out
  800
  with every sympathy for the patient and for the family. It is not a task I envy them.
  Tonya was seen by a consultant transplant surgeon in December 1977. He was of the opinion that, because of the small size of her blood vessels, and for other medical reasons, she would be unsuitable for long-term haemodialysis. The prospects of a transplant helping her were considered to be poor because of the risk of infection, and also because the transplanted kidney would eventually fail from the effects of the underlying condition which is causing Tonya's own kidneys to fail. Nevertheless, since it seems probable that a kidney transplant may at some time need to be considered, she has now been placed on the waiting list for a transplant operation at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham. Here I must emphasise that Tonya has not been fully assessed for dialysis because of the present stable nature of her condition and her other medical problems.
  I am advised that discussions are currently being held between the West Midlands Regional Health Authority and the Birmingham Health Authority (Teaching) on the expansion of the transplant unit at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, so that the numbers of transplant operations can be substantially increased.
  Moreover, a special new paediatric dialysis unit is being provided at the East Birmingham Hospital. It should be ready by the middle of next year. Until then, as a temporary measure, paediatric dialysis cases can be referred to one of the five dialysis units in the West Midlands Region or to paediatric units elsewhere in the country. It may be of interest to the hon. Gentleman also to know that plans are being considered by the regional health authority to expand, in the early 1980s, three of the adult dialysis units in the region.
  Naturally, I have deep sympathy with Tonya and her parents. I am assured that, should her condition deteriorate, a full and urgent assessment will be made of her suitability for dialysis or transplant. She will in any case be considered for the new paediatric unit in Birmingham when it opens. Tonya is, and will continue to be, in the care of a consultant paediatrician, and he will be seeing her again next month.

  801
  The question of children awaiting kidney transplant operations is one that is given a great deal of attention by my Department. It is estimated that about 80 children a year in the United Kingdom develop chronic renal failure in treatable form. In 1977, 39 such children were accepted for treatment by haemodialysis and/or transplant operations. The remaining children inevitably died. This was a waste of human life which caused my right hon. Friend very great concern, and in the last year he has announced several important measures aimed at improving the availability of treatment for patients with renal failure, and especially for child patients.
  The treatment of children by haemodialysis is a highly specialised form of treatment. It presents special problems for the clinician and requires the availability of specialised skills in the team caring for the children.
  My Department provided funds for the pioneering work done in this field at Guy's Hospital and the Royal Free Hospital. The successful studies there demonstrated the desirability of developing this work in special units, and the most pressing need seemed to be to develop additional centres outside London.
  In view of the very small number of patients involved and the highly specialised skills required, my Department accepted the advice of the British Association of Paediatric Nephrology that paediatric dialysis facilities should be concentrated in eight units in England, including the one to be opened at Birmingham next year. The aim is that each unit will inevitably accept a degree of commitment beyond the region in which it is situated.
  In order to assist regional health authorities in developing these units more quickly than might otherwise have been possible, in July of last year my Department wrote to the regions to say that £270,000 was being made available from the limited central funds reserved for special medical developments. We announced that the money was to meet, first, the capital cost of four additional machines to be used for child patients at each of six units outside London, and, secondly, to meet the first year running costs of a corresponding number of places on the home dialysis programme.
  802
  I am pleased to say that five of the six health authorities we expected to take up these funds, including the West Midlands, have indicated their intention of doing so. Proposals from two other regions are being considered. In addition, the recent consultative document on priorities for health and personal social services entitled "The Way Forward" has urged that there should be more paediatric dialysis provision. Children will undoubtedly benefit also from the rapid expansion in services envisaged by the Budget announcement of an extra £3½million for dialysis services, and from the £1 million recently made available for establishing several minimal care dialysis units.
  Children on dialysis who are awaiting transplants face many problems. They have to adjust to the need to spend long and boring hours on a kidney machine, which must be even more irksome for children than adults. The growth of the children may be retarded and, in many cases, there is the need to travel long distances for hospital treatment. When the child dialyses at home, as many do, strain is placed on the parents and siblings, whose life together as a family becomes restricted. Tensions can quickly result. Yet despite these problems many children cope with dialysis very successfully and over 65 per cent. of those on home dialysis have a satisfactory school attendance. For most of the children, however, the ideal solution is a kidney transplant.
  Although for a child the transplantation of a kidney is a more specialised operation than for an adult, recent results suggest an improving prognosis from transplantation. Increasing numbers of children are able to enjoy life, return to full-time education and have reasonably normal growth patterns. Unlike dialysis, there is no general shortage of facilities for carrying out transplants, but, as the House knows from the many announcements we have made, there is still a serious shortage of donor kidneys for transplant and not only for children but for adults.
  In 1977, there were 706 transplants using cadaver kidneys in the United Kingdom. This was an encouraging increase of some 22 per cent. over the previous year. Yet the list of patients waiting for transplant is still over 1,100.

  803
  The rate of transplantation in the United Kingdom is higher than that of most other European countries, but we still have a long way to go before the full demand is met. We have, therefore, adopted several measures to improve the supply of kidneys.
  First, a publicity campaign has been launched this year to encourage more people to become kidney donors. Kidney donor cards are now much more widely available. All general practitioners and chemists' shops have now received a further supply of cards and social security offices have them on display. Last month every civil servant in my Department received a card and consideration is being given to repeating this initiative in other Government Departments. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre at Swansea now includes cards when all first provisional driving licences are issued. Various sporting organisations have offered to help distribute cards to their members and the general public. Leading diary publishers have agreed to include a reference to kidney donation in their diaries and many other private organisations have offered to help. New posters have been issued which are displayed in post offices. So it will be seen that we have not been idle in this
  804
  direction and, over the next few months, we shall be exploring further new ways of increasing the distribution of kidney donor cards.
  There is not time for me to say much more in reply to the hon. Gentleman's speech. In order to stimulate public debate on this important issue, and to bring about an improvement in the supply of kidneys, my Department is to issue towards the end of the year a discussion document on possible amendments to the Human Tissue Act.
  I take this opportunity of asking everyone to consider becoming a kidney donor. I hope that everyone listening to this debate or who reads about it afterwards will discuss freely the question of kidney donation and that all who are willing to donate their organs on their death will do something positive to indicate their wishes—
  The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Price Control Orders
  Price Control Orders
  Electricity Pricing
  Electricity Pricing
  Sanitary and Hygiene Products
  Sanitary and Hygiene Products
  Price Commission
  Price Commission
  Consumer Advisory Service
  Consumer Advisory Service
  Perambulators, Toys, Cosmetics and Oil Lamps
  Perambulators, Toys, Cosmetics and Oil Lamps
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Flour
  Flour
  Cosmetics
  Cosmetics
  Tyre Pressure Gauges
  Tyre Pressure Gauges
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Prices
  Prices
  Interest Rates
  Interest Rates
  CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (ENGAGE MENTS)
  CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (ENGAGE MENTS)
ENVIRONMENT
  Broad Sanctuary Site
  Broad Sanctuary Site
  Nurses (Osborne House, Cowes)
  Nurses (Osborne House, Cowes)
  Domestic Rates
  Domestic Rates
  Argentina (Ministerial Visits)
  Argentina (Ministerial Visits)
  Liverpool and Broad Street Stations
  Liverpool and Broad Street Stations
  Water and Sewerage Rates
  Water and Sewerage Rates
  Historic Churches
  Historic Churches
  Caravan Sites (Cripps Report)
  Caravan Sites (Cripps Report)
  Ealing Town Centre Project
  Ealing Town Centre Project
  Urban Programme
  Urban Programme
  West Yorkshire
  West Yorkshire
  Windscale (Radiation Hazards)
  Windscale (Radiation Hazards)
ENERGY
  Nuclear Power Stations (Decommissioning)
  Nuclear Power Stations (Decommissioning)
  Brazil (Uranium Contract)
  Brazil (Uranium Contract)
  EUROPEAN AIRCRAFT COLLABORATION (SUBSIDY)
  EUROPEAN AIRCRAFT COLLABORATION (SUBSIDY)
TRADE
  London Airports
  London Airports
  Textile Imports
  Textile Imports
  Ivory Coast
  Ivory Coast
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Aid Programmes
  Aid Programmes
  LEGAL AID (PENSIONERS)
  LEGAL AID (PENSIONERS)
  POLICE (ASSAULT INJURIES)
  POLICE (ASSAULT INJURIES)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Wine Bars
  Wine Bars
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Prisoners (Correspondence)
  Prisoners (Correspondence)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
SOCIAL SERVICES
  St. Nicholas Hospital, Plumstead
  St. Nicholas Hospital, Plumstead
  Dreadnought Seamen's Hospital
  Dreadnought Seamen's Hospital
  European Community Citizens
  European Community Citizens
  Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital
  Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital
  Hospitals (Greenwich)
  Hospitals (Greenwich)
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Woolwich and Greenwich)
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Woolwich and Greenwich)
  Members' Correspondence
  Members' Correspondence
  Chiropodists
  Chiropodists
  Rural Practices Fund
  Rural Practices Fund
  Retinitis Pigmentosa
  Retinitis Pigmentosa
  Infant Mortality
  Infant Mortality
  Occupational Therapists
  Occupational Therapists
  Funerals
  Funerals
  One-Parent Families
  One-Parent Families
  Benefits (Women)
  Benefits (Women)
  War Widows
  War Widows
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Preventive Medicine
  Preventive Medicine
  Pay Beds
  Pay Beds
  Family Incomes and Benefits
  Family Incomes and Benefits
  Eltham and Mottingham Hospital
  Eltham and Mottingham Hospital
WALES
  Community Councils
  Community Councils
  Rates
  Rates
  Water and Sewerage Charges
  Water and Sewerage Charges
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Members' Cafeteria (Air Conditioning)
  Members' Cafeteria (Air Conditioning)
DEFENCE
  Ten Tors Exercise
  Ten Tors Exercise
  Service Personnel (Repossession Costs)
  Service Personnel (Repossession Costs)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Zaire
  Zaire
  Russian and Other Nationals (Official Documents)
  Russian and Other Nationals (Official Documents)
  Iberia Airlines Aircraft Collision
  Iberia Airlines Aircraft Collision
  Zambia (British Expatriate Workers)
  Zambia (British Expatriate Workers)
  Fort San Domingo, Taiwan
  Fort San Domingo, Taiwan
  Brazil (Uranium Supplies)
  Brazil (Uranium Supplies)
  Dominica
  Dominica
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Musicians (Training)
  Musicians (Training)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
  Income Tax (Wife's Earnings)
  Income Tax (Wife's Earnings)
  Company Cars
  Company Cars
  National Land Fund
  National Land Fund
SCOTLAND
  Factories (Glasgow)
  Factories (Glasgow)
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Infant Mortality
  Infant Mortality
  Shops (Rateable Values)
  Shops (Rateable Values)
  Rating
  Rating
  Technical Education
  Technical Education
  Tertiary Education
  Tertiary Education
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Day Care Centres (Strathclyde)
  Day Care Centres (Strathclyde)
TRANSPORT
  London Docks
  London Docks
  Road Accidents (Leicestershire)
  Road Accidents (Leicestershire)
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre
  Okehampton Bypass
  Okehampton Bypass
  Driving Instructors
  Driving Instructors
  Public Corporations (Employees)
  Public Corporations (Employees)
  Motor Cycles (Noise)
  Motor Cycles (Noise)
  Concessionary Fares
  Concessionary Fares
  Liverpool-London Night Train (Sleeper Accommodation)
  Liverpool-London Night Train (Sleeper Accommodation)
  Riby Crossroads, Lincolnshire
  Riby Crossroads, Lincolnshire
  Senior Citizen Railcards
  Senior Citizen Railcards
INDUSTRY
  Plessey Company (Closures)
  Plessey Company (Closures)
  Public Corporations (Staff)
  Public Corporations (Staff)
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre
  Post Office (Staff)
  Post Office (Staff)
  Sperm Oil (Imports)
  Sperm Oil (Imports)
  Chrysler Corporation (Planning Agreement)
  Chrysler Corporation (Planning Agreement)
  Rolls-Royce Avon Engines (Chile)
  Rolls-Royce Avon Engines (Chile)
  Lucas Aerospace
  Lucas Aerospace
  Telephone Cables (Prices)
  Telephone Cables (Prices)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Pigs
  Pigs
  Milk
  Milk
  Sugar Quotas
  Sugar Quotas
  Animals (Export)
  Animals (Export)
EMPLOYMENT
  London
  London
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
  Holiday Caravan Sites
  Holiday Caravan Sites
  Unemployment Offices and Jobcentres
  Unemployment Offices and Jobcentres
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Defence-related Industries
  Defence-related Industries
  Textile Factory Closures (Scotland)
  Textile Factory Closures (Scotland)
  Training (Women)
  Training (Women)
  Teachers (Scotland)
  Teachers (Scotland)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Intimidation
  Intimidation
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Statutory Boards
  Statutory Boards
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Shootings
  Shootings
  County Administration
  County Administration
  Social Benefits
  Social Benefits
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Coleraine (Police Station)
  Coleraine (Police Station)

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

THIRD LONDON AIRPORT
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any studies are now being made into the possible need for a new airport for London; and, if so, whether any such studies involve the resurrection of proposals for an airport at Foulness or Maplin (the abandonment of which was confirmed in the recent White Paper Airports Policy).
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, events since 1974 have confirmed that the Government's decision to cancel the Maplin project was correct. However, in its recent White Paper on Airports Policy the Government recognise that, in the long term, the construction of a
2
new airport is one of the options that should be considered. Arrangements are being made to establish an appropriate body to formulate advice on these longer-term options.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, would my noble friend accept that the abandonment of Maplin, and the confirmation of that decision in the Airports Policy White Paper published on 1st February this year, was admirable and a matter for congratulation? Would he also accept that his Answer this afternoon in that respect is thoroughly satisfactory, is again a matter for congratulation and indeed provides a timely opportunity for the rejection of some rather ill-informed speculation that has gone on over the past couple of weeks or so?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his kind remarks.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we from this side have been pressing the need for consideration of the requirement of a third London Airport towards the end of this century? Is it not the case that the choice that remains is, as it always has been, one between a new airport at Maplin and the development of Stansted?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: No, my Lords: as I understand the position it

3
lies between the development of Stansted, the conversion of a military airfield or a third choice.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, would the Minister agree that this document, Airports Policy, is really in tatters now, having regard to developments since then? How are we going to accept 72 million passengers in the London area by 1990 when first the Stansted development is cancelled, Luton development is restricted, the fourth terminal at London Airport is made subject to inquiry—its fate is in doubt and it will take many years to make—and, as to Gatwick, the inquiry has not even started? Is it not necessary not to have another consultative body but for the Government to take decisions on these matters without delay?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Lord himself has pointed out that a potential crisis period is 12 years away. I should have thought that it would be valuable to discuss the matter along the lines I have suggested, particularly since the 1974 report was in fact made invalid by the growth in numbers of wide-bodied jets which are being used.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are powerful arguments against any major expansion of Stansted because such a major expansion would spoil one of the most delightful country areas within reach of London?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the trouble seems to be, purely as a personal view, that no airport is welcome anywhere because we live in a small, crowded island.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, would the third choice to which the noble Lord referred actually be somewhere off the Essex coast, such as Maplin or Foulness?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think that that will be born from the collective wisdom of the Committee that will be set up.
Lord THOMAS: My Lords, could the noble Lord assure the House that
4
when a reconsideration about Maplin is put into being, full consideration will be given to the facts against Maplin, such as distance from London, bird strike, cost of erection and all that sort of thing?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am certain that these important factors will be considered.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that there is another possibility, and that is that there should be an airport on Severnside, which would be within easy reach of London because express trains could run directly from there to London? Would he not agree that such a possibility is one also to be taken into account, and therefore that there is every reason for consideration by the Government?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I understand that there is an Unstarred Question on the point made by my noble friend. Perhaps he would like to take that opportunity to express his views on the subject.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that so far as Maplin is concerned all the arguments which led to its rejection are just as valid today as they were over the nearly ten years of consideration, and that it would therefore have been an economic, environmental and indeed an aviation disaster?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as I said in my Answer to the noble Lord, events since 1974 have confirmed, in the Government's view, that the decision to cancel Maplin was correct.

ONE-PARENT FAMILIES: SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT
2.42 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why under their proposals 200,000 lone parents on supplementary benefit

5
will be given 60p less to keep their young first child than other families.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it has always been the case that the amount of supplementary benefit paid to a family has to be adjusted to take into account increases in National Insurance benefits and child benefit.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Does he recognise the fact that the Finer Report four years ago recommended that £2 over and above the supplementary benefit should be paid to the lone parent? Why has the Finer recommendation not been carried out?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it is misleading to talk of any families losing benefit when the child benefit is increased, for the simple reason that the Supplementary Benefits Commission is bound to take into account the needs of a family. Perhaps I should point out that for the ordinary family including two parents the child benefit in relation to the first child is £3 but in the case of a lone parent it is £5—there is an extra £2—and £3 a week for each subsequent child, the same as in a family with two parents. In a sense, therefore, there is, and has been for some considerable time, a special benefit for the first child so far as the lone parent is concerned. The reply to the noble Baroness's question about the Finer Report is that it is very much in the forefront of the Government's mind, but it would he quite costly to implement.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, is the Minister able to say how much lone parents are actually losing? Are they really losing 60p per week?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it is misleading to say they are losing money; they are not losing money. It applies only to lone parents who are in receipt of supplementary benefit, and there is an obligation on the Supplementary Benefits Commission to provide what a family needs. It is true that a lone parent at work will be getting the full £5 a week, but that the lone parent who is on supplementary benefit will still get whatever he or she needs for the family's support as a whole.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, can the noble Lord say why similar treatment is not meted out to those on National Insurance unemployment and sickness benefit? And will the Government consider increasing the child rates of supplementary benefit so that the lowest is at least as much as the highest rate of child benefit?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we are aware that what the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have said causes some concern, and we are studying the situation very carefully in the context of a review of the supplementary benefits scheme, but at this stage I cannot say more than that.

NURSERY EDUCATION BUILDING ALLOCATIONS
2.46 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many local authorities in England and Wales have not taken up their allocation of money for the years 1976, 1977 and 1977–78 for maintained nursery schools and nursery classes.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, nursery education building allocations were not taken up by 20 local authorities in the programme year 1975–76; by 31 in 1976–77; and by nine in 1977–78. In the same years, allocations were taken up only in part by 23, 10 and five authorities respectively. It must be understood that unless an authority applies for an allocation, none is made. In 1976–77 four authorities, and in 1977–78 51 authorities, made no bids for allocations. For the current year the Government have allocated £4·2 million to 59 authorities which made bids. So far, none has given notice of not taking up the allocations in full.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is there nothing he can do to encourage local

7
authorities—including, for example, Gloucestershire, which has not applied for anything at all—to do this very necessary work? In view of the fact that the population of pupils over five is going down, would it not be possible to allocate some of their classrooms which are spare in some schools instead of having to go to the expense of building, and so bring a larger number of the under fives into education?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, the answer to the second part of the noble Baroness's supplementary question is that that is being done. The answer to the first part is that the Government cannot—we are always having to say this from this Bench—tell local authorities on what to spend their money. However, I can point out that over the last two years there has been a £200 million under-spending on education. Though local authorities have been under a squeeze, the kind of figure about which we are talking was within their capacity. There are very different attitudes towards nursery education in different local authorities and I think it is a question of trying to convert them.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTER-HILL: My Lords, the Minister is suggesting that money allocated in rate support grant and intended for education is either not being spent or is being diverted to other services. If that is so, would the Minister suggest to the Secretary of State that the stage has been reached when the rate support grant should include certain earmarked provision so that the Secretary of State may be able to carry out national policy in education, whereas at present she cannot?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, the House will remember that my Secretary of State, if I may put it crudely, had a go at this not long ago and met with no support whatever from local authorities, and the Government have not thought it politic to enforce this. If a proposition came from a majority of local authorities that they would like something of this kind done, no doubt my Secretary of State would consider it very carefully.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that it is a
8
very grave issue when decisions of Central Government and indeed of Parliament are being flouted by local authorities who choose to spend the money in other ways or who have heavily overspent in some other direction?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I think the problem is that they have not spent it—not that they have spent it in other ways; the £200 million underspending indicates this. I think that I should add for the comfort of the House that, under the urban programme, the Department of the Environment has considered applications from 48 local education authorities in this context, and grants have been announced last week to 27 LEAs and five districts within local education authorities, which adds somewhat to the total who are doing something about this matter.

LAW OF THE SEA AND UN AGENCIES
2.50 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the accumulating problems related to navigation, they will propose that the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea should be integrated as a permanent institutionalised Agency of the United Nations.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE, (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, we believe that there are already adequate institutional arrangements, particularly the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, to deal with these subjects. The conference should concentrate on its task of completing a generally acceptable convention as soon as possible.
Lord BROCKWAY: Yes, my Lords, but is it not the case that there have now been seven temporary meetings of this conference, and that agreement has been reached on only one of the seven basic

9
issues? In view of the fact that the conference has to deal with so many issues—oil pollution, economic questions, fishing, coastal rights, mineral exploitation and landlocked rights, and new problems which will arise—is there not something to say for Elizabeth Young's proposal that this conference should be made an integrated part of the new economic authority of the United Nations?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, there is already a proposal, which is receiving fairly widespread support in the successive sessions of the conference, for an international seabed authority to deal with those matters which I know lie closest to my noble friend's heart; namely, the exploitation of most of the seabed and its resources for the assistance of developing countries. I would repeat that the first task of the conference in its successive sessions is to agree on a generally acceptable convention—a comprehensive one. There are institutions to which those conclusions could be put for implementation. If at that point it is seen to be necessary to add to institutions, no doubt the conference will have a look at that.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, in view of the fact that as a temporary institution the Law of the Sea Conference is taking a very long time to reach any decisions about anything, would it not be most unwise to encourage the conference by making it permanent?
Lord GORONWY- ROBERTS: My Lords, I was avoiding the suggestion that the conference itself should become permanent. A conference as a rule should not be encouraged to become permanent, but in this case the successive sessions are really made necessary because of the far-reaching, indeed radical, questions which have been put to the conference for discussion. These raise matters of sovereignty, of exploitation, indeed of research; and for that reason I believe that the conference should not be chided unduly for having a great many successive sessions. However, I take note of what the noble Lord has said about the need to avoid making conferences permanent.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, would it not be true to say that the fact
10
that the conference has had seven sessions is not a criticism of the sessions that have taken place, but rather an indication of the vastness and the difficulty of the problem? Here I disagree with my noble friend Lord Brockway; this is too big a problem merely to be shelved on to the United Nations.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is a matter of very great complexity and of very great importance. It is economically important. It is important from the point of view of the developing countries, and from the point of view of the landlocked and the disadvantaged. It is important from the point of view of internationally accepted rights of transit. One could go on for a long time listing these points of importance. I personally do not regret that the conference has taken time to deal with this vast complexity of extremely important questions. However, I repeat that conferences as a rule should not become institutionalised, and I once more agree, with alacrity, with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, at least on one point.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House whether the Government are doing more to concentrate the conference on the really important and urgent matter; namely, a régime for deep-sea mining in the high seas?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, indeed, my Lords; we have been very active in thinking about, and putting forward, practical proposals, and we have been acting with a great many countries who see this matter very much as we do. I will not detain your Lordships with detail at this stage, but the noble Lord himself will know that the thinking, and to some extent the agreement, on the way in which we should handle the resources of the deep seabed beyond the 200 mile limit—if I may put the matter in that way for the moment, without prejudicing what the conference may finally decide on the matter—and, additionally, the way in which the conference has addressed itself to the question of the institution that might prescriptively deal with that side of its work, are encouraging. Of course, I take note of what the noble Lord has said today and on previous

11
occasions; namely, that we should make our own interests very firmly known in the conference; and we certainly have done that.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, arising from the supplementary question by the Leader of the Opposition, and the supplementary question of my noble friend Lady Gaitskell, I wish to ask whether it is not a fact that the United Nations has now established an overall economic authority, and would it not be desirable that this new economic authority should co-ordinate the various activities, often overlapping, which are taking place on this subject?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that is certainly an important suggestion as to the future structure, control, and supervision of two-thirds of the world, and I would not off-hand dismiss what my noble friend has said. I tend to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and my noble friend Lady Gaitskell that the United Nations, through a new institutionalised authority, might not prove to be the right vehicle for supervision and implementation in this case; but let us see. Already we have fair agreement on the International Seabed Authority; I realise that I am anticipating this, but I am very hopeful about it. It is still early days to come to a comprehensive decision on the lines that my noble friend Lord Brockway has suggested.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Lord Garner to advance the Third Reading of the Internationally Protected Persons Bill from Wednesday the 14th to Tuesday the 13th of June.—(LordPeart).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SCOTLAND BILL
2.58 p.m.
Further considered on Report.
Clause 36 [Power to move rejection of certain Assembly Bills]:
The SOLICTOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey)The SOLICTOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey) moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 17, line 30, after ("a") insert ("reasoned").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment would provide that when the Secretary of State proposes to override an Assembly Bill he must set out his reasons for doing so in the statement which is required to be laid before Parliament. Your Lordships will recall that during the Committee stage debate on this clause (which was then Clause 35) an Amendment was moved by noble Lords opposite requiring the Secretary of State, in exercising this override power in relation to an Assembly Bill, to detail the amendments necessary to cure the defects which had led him to use that power. The objective was to ensure that the Secretary of State should identify the particular points which had led him to reject the Bill, thereby making it easier for the Assembly to meet points of objection. In debate I said that I thought the Amendment was inappropriate because this clause (now Clause 36) was concerned with policy override, and it was not the detailed drafting of the Bill that would be objectionable, but the policy underlying the Bill. I undertook to consider whether the clause could be amended in order to meet the Opposition's general point, and the present Amendment is the result.
Accordingly, as we see it, the statement will set out the points of objection in general terms, and then it will be for the Assembly to consider what action to take. It could, for example, drop the Bill, or drop parts of it, or try to meet the objections by amendment. In the Government's view, it would not be appropriate for Westminster to tell the Assembly in detail what action to take, much less to spell out the Amendents necessary to cure the defects as seen by Westminster in the Assembly Bill. I hope that the Government have met the substance of what noble Lords opposite had in mind, and I beg to move this Amendment, No. 99.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, the Government have certainly met my objective in moving this Amendment, and I think that all that is now necessary is to make sure—and we cannot do that in this House—that the standing orders which eventually emerge

13
for the guidance of the Assembly will allow a Bill to be taken back if a policy override should occur, so that the Assembly can then consider exactly what the noble and learned Lord has just been talking about and how they may, as it were, get back into the fold; and whatever the machinery may be will be a matter for them to deliberate upon and decide in due course. It seems to me that the noble and learned Lord and I are entirely at one on this, and all I have to do is to thank him for putting down this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.1 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 18, line 7, leave out subsection (4).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that this was discussed when we discussed Amendment No. 46. In Amendment No. 46 we made an amendment to Clause 19 to meet a point which was raised by the noble and learned. Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, in Committee; and the Amendment to Clause 19 now makes Clause 19 provide that if the Secretary of State is proposing to override an Assembly Bill on policy grounds under Clause 36, he shall not make reference to the Judicial Committee on vires grounds. This is a drafting change, not a new provision, and it follows from making it that we should now delete subsection (4) of Clause 36. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 37 [Power to prevent or require action]:
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 18, leave out lines 17 to 19 and insert—
("(b) that any action capable of being so taken is not proposed to be taken and that failure to take it would or might affect a reserved matter, whether directly or indirectly;").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, during the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, moved a drafting Amendment to what was then Clause 36(1)(b) but which is now Clause 37. The Amendment was not accepted at that time because I felt that,
14
although there was substance in what the noble Lord was saying, I ought to consult the draftsman. I felt unhappy about it, and I agreed to look at it. We have now looked at the drafting of the paragraph to see whether it could be clarified, and the present Amendment is the result.
With this Amendment the Government consider that it can be made clear that Clause 37(1) provides, as was always intended, that the Secretary of State can, subject to the public interest, override action which would have a detrimental effect on a reserved matter within the meaning of the clause and require action when failure to take it would have a detrimental effect on a reserved matter. The essence in both cases is prevention of a detrimental effect. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for his vigilance and help, and I hope that he is satisfied that the wording is better than it was. I beg to move.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord. It was not so much vigilance on my part as sheer incomprehension as to what the draftsman intended. I am glad this has been put right, and I am grateful.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.4 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 19, line 8, leave out ("each") and insert ("either").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I hope the House is noticing how accommodating the Government are being at this stage. I now move on to an Amendment of a slightly different character. This is Amendment No. 102, and it is intended to clear up what we see as a technical defect resulting from the group of Opposition Amendments which were made during the Committee stage to Clauses 36 to 38. Your Lordships will recall that the effect of these Amendments was to delete the provision whereby the House of Commons could confirm their Resolution with regard to an override order albeit that it had not been approved by a Resolution in this House. Clause 37 provides that the Secretary of State may issue a direction to prevent or require action by the Executive. Clause 38 enables the Secretary of State to revoke a subordinate Instrument by order.

15
Clauses 37(6) and 38(5) provide that the Instruments shall not have effect unless approved before the end of 28 days by both Houses, and that they shall lapse after 28 days have expired if both Houses are opposed.
This is the defect, then: if either House can block a direction or an order at the end of the 28-day period, it is illogical to require the opposition of both Houses before the direction or order can lapse within that 28-day period. The Amendments rectify the flaw by providing that while the direction or order shall cease to have effect unless approved by the end of 28 days by both Houses, it shall lapse before 28 days have expired as soon as one House opposes it. I am sure your Lordships will find that much easier to understand by reading it than from listening to it. I beg to move.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, as the main principle has been conceded by the Government here, all I really have to do, I think, is to welcome this Amendment. Perhaps the other way of saying what the noble and learned Lord has said is that it merely restores the situation to normal.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, perhaps I may make one comment on this because I think it points in a direction in which some of us in Procedure are thinking it desirable to go. It would surely be unfortunate if either House prevented the other House from considering these matters. It follows, therefore, that there has to be a very close liaison between the two Houses in working out how this is to be considered. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would pass this on, for what it is worth, to the authorities, both here and in another place.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I shall certainly do that because, of course, I recognise the force of the point that some such consultation, in order to avoid a result whereby only one House considered the matter, is absolutely essential. I am glad that that suggestion is on the record, and may be duly considered and note taken of it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Power to revoke subordinate instruments]:
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 20, line 4, leave out ("each") and insert ("either").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment of exactly the same character and to the same effect as the previous one. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.8 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 20, line 10, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, some time in the middle of the night a few weeks ago I regaled the Committee with a speech about hybrid Instruments and the effect of your Lordships' Standing Orders 216 and 216A. I do not propose to do so again, because I have had a letter from the noble and learned Lord which led me to suppose that if I put this Amendment down on Report there might be some chance of the Government accepting that in this Bill we should not have a universal exclusion of all possibility of petitioning against hybrid Instruments. If that is the intention of the Government, I am very grateful. I should have thought that the opportunities for the Secretary of State to make hybrid Instruments under these procedures were going to be few and far between. Nevertheless, that does not mean to say that I do not appreciate what the Government have done in meeting us on this: and, with the ardent hope that we shall have to say no more, I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I should explain that subsection (7) was included because the Government wished to avoid the possibility of an override order being frustrated for a long time by the application of Standing Orders 216 and 216A of your Lordships' House. But this was a case where we considered the matter again in the light of the Committee debate; we were persuaded by the noble Viscount and by the general tenor of the debate; and we have come to the conclusion that we can live with this deletion. I so intimated to the noble

17
Viscount, and the Government are perfectly content to accept the deletion of this subsection. Accordingly, we would accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 [Industrial and economic guidelines]:
3.10 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 104A:
Page 20, line 20, after ("1975") insert ("which are referred to in Schedules 10 and 11 to this Act as matters within powers of the Scottish Executive").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, something tells me that perhaps with this Amendment we have come to the end of the concessions. The purpose of this Amendment is twofold: clarification and explanation. We had an extensive debate and we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill (who seems to be disappearing for the moment from the Chamber) for explaining fully the issues involved in the handling of economic matters in Scotland with special reference to the Scottish Development Agency. I am bound to say—and I hope that neither the noble Lord nor anybody else will take offence—that the drafting here leaves much to be desired. Here we have in Clause 39 provision for the Secretary of State to prepare guidelines in relation to
"the promotion, financing, establishment, carrying on, growth, reorganisation, modernisation or development of industry or industrial undertakings".
That looks a very broad provision indeed.
Of course, it is only when you get on to Clause 61 and to Schedules 10 and 11 that you find what that is all about. Therefore the first point of this Amendment would be to alert the reader at that stage, rather than later on, to what is involved—certainly, as far as the Scottish Development Agency Act is concerned. There is another point and an important one. It was argued at an earlier stage that there was a balance here between what was being handed over and what was being retained. One of the matters which was retained was the provision in relation to selective financial assistance which is contained in Section 5 of the Scottish Development Agency Act.
If noble Lords will look at the Mar' shalled List, they will find that the balance referred to by the noble Lord, the Minister of State, now seems to have been adversely affected by an Amendment put down in the name of the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack. The Amendment is No. 155, an innocent-looking Amendment which says, typical of this part of the Bill:
"leave out ("3(1), 7 and 9") and insert ("3 to 5 and 7 to 9")."
This appears to be an important Amendment and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to explain its exact purport. If it relates only to grants made in the course of the operation of the industrial estates functions of the Scottish Development Agency, I do not think that there would be much objection to it; but if it extends to the investment, the industrial investment or the investment bank functions of the Scottish Development Agency, then I think that that would be quite a different matter. Those functions, as I understand it, are to be financed out of loans. I quite understand that any loans that are projected, so to speak, will be taken into account from the point of view of the calculations of the payment into the Scottish Consolidated Fund: but there is a ceiling under the loans that can be given under the Scottish Development Agency Act which is £200 million and which can be raised by order to £300 million.
One must consider what is likely to happen in the case of these guildelines. It is rather extraordinary, in view of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. He said that the guidelines will in practice delineate the boundaries of the executive discretion to be available to the Scottish Administration and are matters of great political sensitivity. These are matters of great political sensitivity. Indeed, they are; because, on the one hand, no doubt Scotland will be expecting to get rather more out of devolution than they have been getting in the past; whereas some of my noble friends seem to be determined that they shall not get any more and that this will he an annual battle that will go on. I completely sympathise with the Government in wanting to be even-handed in this matter, to make certain that payments of this kind are made in accordance with the needs of different parts of the country. We in Scotland always maintain

19
that the needs of Scotland are as great as, if not greater than, those of any part of the country; but this is where the political sensitivity arises.
The rate at which that loan is drawn down, therefore, is very important indeed. At the moment, it is not being drawn down at a very fast rate; but all the indications in the last report of the Scottish Development Agency are that it will go on being drawn down at an increasing rate and that the £300 million is not likely to last more than five years. When the guidelines— which, undoubtedly, will relate to this sort of subject, the rate of expenditure permissible in the year in prospect—are being considered they will, after they have been drafted, be the subject of an order. I have not put down an Amendment on this but I should like to think that the Government would consider this again; but it is perhaps unfortunate that it is going to be an order subject only to annulment in Parliament. I should have thought that in a matter of great political sensitivity it would be highly desirable to have the Affirmative Resolution procedure for an order of that description.
My Lords, that will not be the end of it. This matter will not, in any case, be within the terms of reference of the Assembly; but Members of the Assembly will receive it; and I should be surprised if the contents of the order were not debated, year by year, to form, so to speak, the industrial budget of the Scottish Assembly.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so, I wonder whether, perhaps, while addressing his remarks partly to Amendment No. 155, he has not misconstrued the line 6 Amendment on page 72; because what we are concerned with on page 72 of the Bill in line 6 are certain paragraphs of Schedule 2 to the Act and not the sections themselves. It may be that the matter affected by the Amendment is much narrower and of a more technical compass than the matters to which the noble Lord is referring. Amendment No. 155 to which he referred affects line 6 on page 72 of the print of the Bill and, as we see, that refers to certain paragraphs in Schedule 2 and not to the sections of the Act. I am sorry to intervene; but it may be that the noble
20
Lord has misread this. If he has, it may be as well to leave these matters until we reach Amendment No. 155.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, that may be so, but I was casting my remarks a little more widely because we are here dealing with the whole question of the guidelines. What it amounts to is this. As I say, whatever is done in the guidelines is going to be regarded as a matter of great importance in Scotland. I for one remain firmly of the opinion that it is a mistake to separate from the Secretary of State his economic function in respect of the Scottish Development Agency investment functions. If one has to decide between the convenience of the Scottish Development Agency in having to deal only with the Scottish Secretary—and, so to speak, from that point of view, the unity of the Scottish Development Agency policy—and the unity of the United Kingdom to which we all attach so much importance so far as economic policy is concerned, I would infinitely rather give preference to the unity of the United Kingdom.
I should like to remind your Lordships once again that the Government's original plan was to divide the functions of the Scottish Development Agency between the Secretary of State and the Scottish Secretary so far as supervision was concerned, the Secretary of State remaining responsible for the investment side and the Scottish Secretary dealing with the industrial estates side. That was changed and I suspect that it was mainly because it was felt to be a mistake to let the Scottish Development Agency deal with two Ministers, one in Scotland and one—as it seemed to be regarded—at Whitehall or Westminster.
The importance of this Amendment is that it is highly desirable at this stage to alert the reader and anyone who makes reference to these matters. One looks up such matters in the index and then finds the particular section that relates to guidelines. Then one finds that the subjects of the guidelines are far more restricted than they appear to be from reading this particular subsection and subsection 1(a) of Clause 39. The purpose of my Amendment was first of all to obtain an explanation and to make certain that this does not in fact go beyond the powers specified in Schedules 10 and 11 as being

21
conferred upon the Scottish Executive; and, secondly, to make certain that the balance referred to by the Minister of State with particular reference to Sections 5 and 7 of the Industry Act is not affected. That is to say that, wherever it is a question of selecting financial assistance, this will remain with the Secretary of State and will not be devolved. One of the reasons why this is important is that it should be financially entirely separate from the Scottish Consolidated Fund. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, the noble Lord, for reasons which he has explained, has gone a little wider than the Amendment would have led one to suppose he might do. As I understand the purpose of this particular Amendment, it is to alert the reader, as the noble Lord put it, and to make sure that the powers are restricted to those defined in the Bill. The Government's view is that this particular Amendment is unnecessary, and because it is unnecessary it is better that it should not be there just in case it should mislead and in relation to other parts of the Bill give rise to uncertainty where none need exist.
Under Clause 21(1), executive powers transfer to a Scottish Secretary only if they relate to devolved matters and are exercisable in or as regards Scotland. Under Clause 61, a devolved matter in relation to the powers and duties of a Scottish Secretary must fall into one of the three categories mentioned in that clause. That is to say, it must be included in Schedule 10 or 11 (as the noble Lord's Amendment also provides) or must be one in relation to which powers are directly conferred on a Scottish Secretary by some other provision of the Bill.
The powers of a Scottish Secretary mentioned in Clause 39(1)(a) are, by definition, powers relating to devolved matters. A Scottish Secretary can have no powers under the Scottish Development Agency Act which are not devolved to him by the Bill—and it is those which will be subject to guideline controls. Paragraph (a) does not create any additional powers. Therefore, the Government consider that the words proposed to be inserted would serve no legal purpose and would not make any difference to the meaning of the Statute. They could possibly lead to confusion in relation to
22
other provisions of the Bill because this wording, if the Amendment were accepted, would be rather different to the choice of wording used to deal with allied problems in the Bill. I ask the noble Lord to reconsider whether, simply for the purpose he has mentioned, it is desirable to put in wording which might cause difficulty elsewhere.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, plainly one would not want to put in a merely cosmetic Amendment, especially if it itself had a blemish. Therefore, I do not propose to pursue this Amendment. Life would have been made much easier for those of us working on this Bill, and also much easier for those who are going to work with the Bill afterwards, if we had had something of the order of a Keeling Schedule on the Scottish Development Agency, setting out exactly which powers were devolved in relation to the industrial estates functions and which were devolved in relation to the investment bank functions of the Scottish Development Agency.
The reason why there has not been a very great deal of talk from others on this series of Amendments is simply because of the great difficulty of knowing what one is talking about. Because of my previous experience in the Scottish Office and the Board of Trade, I naturally wanted to ferret this out for myself. It took quite a bit of ferreting out and I do not think that it is right. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 [Payments into Scottish Consolidated Fund out of moneys provided by Parliament]:
3.28 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 104B:
Page 23, line 27, at end insert ("together with—

(a) a calculation setting out a comparison of the proposed resources per capita for the year in question which would he available as a result of the approval of the draft order for expenditure by the Scottish Executive for purposes falling within devolved matters, with the resources per capita provided for that year for such purposes in England and Wales;

(b) a calculation setting out a comparison for the latest financial year for which figures

23
are available of expenditure per capita by the Scottish Executive and by Parliament on individual devolved matters and expenditure per capita on equivalent matters in England and Wales;

(c) a statement of anticipated expenditure per capita by the Scottish Executive and by Parliament on individual devolved matters arising under any statutory obligation existing at the time of the approval of the draft order;

(d) a statement of comparative needs and standards relating to the expenditure per capita on individual devolved matters in Scotland and on equivalent matters in England and Wales;

(e) a statement of the details of any formula or formulae involved in the determination of payments under subsection (1) of this section.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we discussed this point in Committee and we return to it now in slightly different form. At that time, I said that the drafting might possibly need amendment, and it still remains true that I am perfectly prepared to be told that the drafting of this Amendment could be improved. What we are dealing with here is, in the shorthand that these debates have developed, what has been called the "English backlash" issue.
The importance of it cannot be overrated. The question of how the block grant is negotiated is, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, said in our Committee debate, at the core of the Bill. The 1977 White Paper made it clear that it was estimated at that time that the block grant would cover something like 70 per cent. of the expenditure for which the Assembly would be responsible. So it is not a minor issue by any standards.
What has happened in the past, as we said at the Committee stage, is that Scotland has tended to keep quiet about the fact that the per capita expenditure in Scotland was higher than it was in England. I am almost tempted to use an expression which has been introduced to me for the first time in these debates and say that they have reserved themselves by silence. At any rate, knowing that they have been relatively specially favoured because they have had relatively special need, they have tended to keep quiet—but it is important to underline the word "relatively". I think this has generally been accepted throughout the country; but the question arises with the coming
24
of the Assembly, is it going to be so easily accepted by England as it has been in the past? During our debate on the Committee stage the Government made great play of the unreliability of per capita expenditure statistics, particularly if these are taken on their own, and indeed a number of noble Lords, particularly noble Lords behind me, were at pains to emphasise that they felt that these comparisons should be published not only for England but for England broken down into some of the regions, because then it was pointed out that global statistics for England could be misleading because they covered a good deal of regional variation.
I do not dispute that per capita figures are dangerous; indeed I cited a debate which has been going on for many years in bandying about statistics when we talk of figures of defence expenditure. Sometimes we talk about percentage of GHP and sometimes about per capita expenditure. But the Bill itself mentions "a statement of the considerations"— those are the words in the Bill. This is a good deal less specific than some of the suggestions put forward in the 1977 White Paper, where the Government talked about the possibility of having an advisory body and spoke of a promising approach relating the total of devolved expenditure in Scotland to comparable expenditure elsewhere in the country on the basis of relative need and expressing it as a percentage of comparable expenditure in the country as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, also pointed out that there was an implication that the Treasury had some kind of formula which they worked on in allocating funds to Scotland, and one of the purposes of this Amendment is to ask whether we could please be let into the secret of what this formula is. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, said in column 311 that it was "Slightly irresponsible" to pass legislation on such a major issue without saying on what basis some of these considerations were going to be taken. That is the purpose of paragraph (e) in our Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, responded to the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn that perhaps we might have a schedule of the kind of considerations which were used, by saying, in column 306, that he would think about it; and he

25
was still thinking about it in columns 312 and 313. I thought this might give us an opportunity of asking what the results of his considerations were, because I suggested at the Committee stage that this expression would not have been put in the Bill unless somebody had some fairly clear idea of the sort of considerations which were likely to be used.
Perhaps I can summarise what I am saying in this way: if we think that per capita figures are misleading on their own, what other comparisons do the Government want to suggest? Secondly, is there a Treasury formula or formulae, and, if so, what is it or what are they? Thirdly, do the Government still envisage an independent advisory body, as was referred to in the 1977 White Paper? If so, what will be its terms of reference, to whom will it report and who will pay for it? The purpose of this Amendment is to produce answers to some of these questions. I beg to move.
3.35 p.m.
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, I think this is an important Amendment and it gives the opportunity for the House to hear what the Minister has to say on a subject which will be of great interest throughout the Kingdom. If I may briefly give my own views on what the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench has just said, I think, as the Government Front Bench quite rightly said during the course of the Committee Stage, that per capita comparisons are of course misleading. Simple comparison, say, of the average temperature in Dorset with the average temperature in Sutherland on a given day is misleading as to the state of the weather; nevertheless it does give some indication as to whether it was generally hotter or colder in one county or the other. So the fact that comparisons are capable of misuse is not in itself an overwhelming argument against their production. They are in fact produced and are used regularly by academic and Government economists in order to determine whether or not expenditure, not only in the United Kingdom but also throughout the European Community, is on a level basis. I have no doubt that these figures will be presented and developed as the process of devolution in turn continues to develop. Secondly, the noble Lord referred to the question of the formula by which expendi-
26
ture is now allocated to the Scottish Office. Quite clearly there is such a formula, and certainly it must be adjusted from time to time and also tempered by political considerations; otherwise there would be no point in having a Cabinet.
I think myself that it is a useful view that this formula should appear in the Act of Parliament, at least in broad outline, so that we are aware of the broad considerations which the officials and the Ministers concerned are using in determining the allocation of funds. In general it seems to me wiser for more knowledge to be available for public discussion of this matter of vital importance than for it to be done behind closed doors. I would remind your Lordships that in successive Home Rule Bills for Ireland formulae were included in the Bills put forward for consideration by both Houses, so it is not entirely a new principle. And of course we can always refer back to the Goschen formula which has a long and honourable history.
I am very much attracted by the idea of an advisory committee which the Government put forward in the 1977 White Paper. I can see why they might be suspicious of such a committee, because it might tend to take from the Secretary of State the jurisdiction which quite properly is ultimately his. Nevertheless I should be most interested to hear what the noble Lord on the Front Bench has to say about this interesting Amendment. I think it comes fairly near to the heart of the matter with which in fact the debate about devolution is ultimately concerned—whether or not Scotland is getting a fair deal, whether it has had a rough deal in the past and whether it is perhaps being relatively comfortably dealt with at the moment compared with the rest of the Kingdom.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I hope that the Government will find it possible to satisfy Scotland that they are going to get a fair deal, because there is nothing worse than a discontented Scotsman. There has been an admission from the Opposition Front Bench that the per capita public expenditure in Scotland is higher than it is in England. By a remarkable coincidence I have in my hand an official document which sets out public expenditure per head per year, as applied to England, on the one hand, and to

27
Scotland, on the other. It seems to me that at present Scotland is getting a very fair deal, if not something in excess of a fair deal. For example, in education and libraries, science and the arts, public expenditure per person per year is £176 in Scotland and £149 in England. For health and personal social services, the Scots get £155 and the English £129. For housing, the Scots get £113 and the English £87. For roads and transport, the Scots get £55 and the English £22. The total public expenditure per head for Scotland and England respectively for those services I have mentioned, with a few others, is £948 and £754. So it seems to me that Scotland is doing very, very well at present. It also seems to me that my noble friend should be able to satisfy the Scots without promising them any further big grants in the future.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, could the noble Lord say what year he was talking about?
Lord LEATHERLAND: Yes, my Lords. This is what the official authorities call "the latest available year"—that is, the year ended April last year.
Lord STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving us those figures. I have long maintained that that is the situation, and the people who call themselves Scottish Nationalists have denied it. They have maintained that the English did themselves well on money collected from Scotland. That is utterly untrue and indeed has been for a very long time—I think since the 1880s, when one Lord Goschen produced a formula.
3.43 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTSH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, in the light of the lengthy discussion that we had on this subject in Committee, it will come as no surprise to noble Lords when I tell them that the Government are not disposed to agree to this Amendment. I hasten to add that this is not because of an unwillingness on our part to consider the proposals on their merits; it is because we have done so and found them to contain defects both of principle and practice. Consequently, we must advise your Lordships against them.
28
The main reason is that the 1977 White Paper, to which the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, referred—entitled Devolution: Financing the Devolved Services—explained, that spending on devolved matters is met from a number of other sources also: principally from local rates, borrowing for capital investment by local authorities and public corporations and the internal resources of public corporations themselves. The primary figure to fix is the total of devolved expenditure. We hope to do this, as your Lordships know, by a formula, but it will not be built up from a series of agreements as to spending on individual devolved matters.
Any meaningful comparisons on a per capita basis would have to relate to this total of devolved expenditure and not just to the block grant component of it, and still less to individual devolved matters. But just how meaningful can such per capita comparisons be? Doubts were expressed as to their validity at the time of our last debate by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie; and the noble Earl, Lord Perth, made his doubts known at the time. The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, expressed at least a doubt at column 314 of Hansard on 3rd May, 1978.
Such comparisons can take no account of differences in proportions as between school children and old people, of sparsity of population, of differing degrees of urban deprivation and so on. They are oblivious of the appraisal of needs which must underlie any equitable distribution of resources. They suggest unfairnesses, without providing a basis to judge whether or not they exist. Once the total of devolved public expenditure has been fixed, its breakdown into component parts will in practice be very dependent on the wishes of the devolved Administration as to the shares of public expenditure to be put at the disposal of local authorities, public corporations and the devolved Administration itself. In the case of the first two, the breakdown will depend on what contribution is to be expected from local rates and from the internal resources of corporations and on how the expenditure totals will be divided between current expenditure and capital expenditure to be met by loans.
The exact way in which all this is best handled cannot be decided yet because it

29
will depend partly on the domestic arrangements of the devolved Administration; but it is likely that the base-line of the statement to accompany the block fund order will be the forecasts of total expenditure on devolved matters included in the Government's public expenditure White Paper for the forthcoming year, with less firm figures for succeeding years.
Also there may well be, for purposes of comparison, the latest forecast of devolved expenditure for the current year and the out-turn for the previous year. It may be possible to break down some, at least, of these figures into their components; that is, local authority spending, public corporation spending and devolved Administration spending. However, we would not expect the statement to contain particulars as to how the devolved Administration intend to spend the block fund itself, since that will be a matter on which it will be answerable only to the Assembly. However, I have no doubt that the Assembly will want to know the intention of the Scottish Executive and that detailed forecasts will, therefore, be published in Scotland and will thus become general knowledge.
What information can sensibly be included in the statutory statement required under Clause 42(2) will depend on the working of the procedures I have described and on further arrangements that we can make only when the Scottish Administration is there to make them with. Within that general scope, the Government of the day will have to provide whatever the House of Commons of the day requires from it. That will depend on the changing issues of political concern, on changes in the availability of statistics and the methods of their presentation and, if we set up the independent advisory body to which reference was made at Committee stage and again by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, today, on the advice that we get from the advisory body. I hope I have said enough to your Lordships to make clear why the requirement to present supporting information is in the Government's view best left to the general terms of the present clause.
Perhaps I may now just explain why the Government, even if they were sympathetic to the general approach of the Amendment—and I have indicated
30
that they are not—could not agree to anything resembling what we have before us. I have already touched on a number of problems. First, paragraph (a) deals with a comparison of expenditure by the Scottish Executive for purposes falling within devolved matters; that is, say, two-thirds of devolved expenditure, compared with resources provided for these matters in England and Wales, which is, presumably three-thirds of the expenditure.
I shall not weary the House by analysing the whole Amendment but, as a further illustration of the problems which mentioned, I shall refer only to paragraph (b). Paragraph (b) calls for per head comparisons between expenditure by the Scottish Executive and by Parliament on individual devolved matters. But Parliament does not spend at all on matters devolved or not devolved, and, if it is the Government that are being referred to, they will not spend at all on individual devolved matters. Moreover, what the House of Commons will be approving is a total sum, with no regard as to how it will be spent as between individual devolved matters, and breakdowns of expenditure on that basis—which, I am advised, is an incredibly detailed one and quite impracticable—would not be relevant to the judgment which the House of Commons has to make. As an example, what possible sense could be made of per capita spending on, say, coast protection, marine works, deer, ancient monuments or crofting? Those are examples which I offer to noble Lords for their consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, posed one or two specific questions to me as he drew his remarks to their conclusion, and may I first make reference to the advisory body. As to whether or not we intend to set up such a body, I should advise the noble Lord that the advisory body is to be independent of the Government, and the arrangements for appointing and funding it will be the subject of discussion with the devolved Administration. As to the question of a Treasury formula, I am advised that there is no Treasury secret weapon for settling Scotland's share of public expenditure. Scotland's share is settled on an assessment of needs and will continue to be so settled. Over the last five years, Scottish per capita expenditure on geographically

31
identifiable matters has varied between 126 and 133 per cent. In the Government's view, that does not suggest any rigid special formula.
I have attempted to explain— albeit at some length, but I think that was necessary to clear the Government's position in this case—why the Government have to resist the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, I found very cogent many of the considerations adduced by the noble Lord who has just sat down. I certainly think that some of the information requested in the Amendment, which comes from the Opposition Front Bench, would be extremely difficult to get and to explain. The noble Lord himself has gone into the matter at some length, and with that part of his observations I would have no quarrel. But I wonder very much whether, in his concluding remarks, he did not tend to elide the emergence of a problem which necessarily presents itself, if devolution is to take place.
I think that men of good sense on both sides of the House will probably agree that the arrangements whereby monies are parcelled out between different parts of the United Kingdom are, in present circumstance, better left to the detailed consideration of the Administration and the Government. But once devolution has come into being, Parliament will be advised to make an explicit grant, and the grounds for that explicit grant will certainly be the subject of debate. Despite all that I have admitted as regards the difficulty of obtaining detailed figures, I submit that it is a matter of public interest that there should be devised and made public some series, or set of series, which in their continuity from year to year can provide an objective indication of the way in which policy is going. This does not seem to me to be at all a Party matter. It seems to me to be a matter which emerges inevitably from the logic of the fact of devolution, if it comes into being.
3.57 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I would only add a very brief word. I have listened with great interest to what the noble Lord on the Government
32
Front Bench has said. Anybody who has had anything to do with local government knows that finance is the most crucial of all matters, and it is very easy for people who will not have to find the cash to promise things. So far as I can make out, the Assembly will have a considerable block grant, and, as someone who has operated in local government in Scotland for many years, I know full well that we get very generous treatment from United Kingdom grants. But I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, that it is not known by the general public, certainly not in England, how generously the Scots have been treated for a very long time. So it is very important that in the new set-up there shall be some simple way of telling the public where ail this money comes from and how it comes, what it represents and what they are supposed to do with it.
It may well be that it is not possible to go into as many details as this Amendment suggests. Probably, the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, whose economic knowledge is unrivalled in this House, was quite right when he said that there are certain things which one cannot do. But I am sure that there are certain things which one can do and, listening to the noble Lord, what worried me was that I could not make out exactly what was to be the method to tell those people, both of Scotland and of England, how these grants are to be assessed and how they are to be known. Admittedly, their distribution will be, to a very large extent, in the hands of the Assembly, but the Members of the Assembly must still know how much money they will have to spend. It may well be that it is not possible to put so detailed an Amendment into this Bill, but somehow or other the public must know and understand. Because of the way that the Bill is drafted, I do not think that they can.
One of the troubles about this Bill—and there are many of them—is that it is so difficult for the public to understand what it all means. It would be a good idea if the Government could look at these problems with the eye of somebody who is going to try to make the Bill as simple as possible for the public in Scotland to understand. I am quite certain that the public in Scotland will not understand the Bill as it is drafted. If it were possible for something to be

33
put into the Bill along the lines of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, which made it possible for the public to understand how much money they are getting and how much better off, in some ways, they are with the block grant than the English taxpayer or ratepayer, it would be very useful and healthy. If the noble Lord cannot accept the Amendment, I think that at least he ought to have a look at it to see whether or not something else can be put into the Bill to make it understandable to the ordinary taxpayer and ratepayer in Scotland.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, an important but perhaps rather crude comparison might be drawn between the amount each year of the block grant for Scotland and the amount which flows into the United Kingdom Treasury from Scottish revenue.
4.2 p.m.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, my name was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, in relation to the discussion on this subject during the Committee stage. At that time I was certainly of the opinion that it might not be very wise to go into too much detail or to try to spell out exactly what form any statement should take which set out the considerations which led the Government of the day to put forward a figure for the block grant. If noble Lords will look at Clause 45, it says quite specifically that, together with the order for payments to the Assembly:
"…there shall be laid before that House…a statement of the considerations leading to the determinations to be made by the order".
In other words, there will be such a statement and the extent to which we have discussed it, during both the Committee stage and now, is, I think, helpful to the Government. However, I feel that if that statement were to be along the lines of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of which are all questions of statistics, the trouble about statistics, as noble Lords know, is that they can be interpreted in such a way as to mean anything. The noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, gave us a very good example of that.
34
I am not saying that the noble Lord's statistics are right or wrong, but having heard them one is bound to say, "Oh, well, the Scots have done very well". It may be that they have done very well in certain respects and that they have not done so well in others. I feel that statistics alone, as set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) and which are the "guts" of this Amendment, are not in themselves—I was going to say sufficient; indeed, they may be positively misleading. On the other hand, paragraph (d)—a statement of comparative needs and standards—is very different, for it is really the same as that which we find in Clause 45.
To a degree, my noble friend Lord Robbins went along with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and I go along with it, too. However, my noble friend said—and very rightly so—that over the years one would hope that a chain of statements would lead to a comprehension and an understanding of what was the general line of policy. I feel sure that that would develop after a few years, and that it is right that it should; but so far as I am concerned I feel, as I felt during the Committee stage, that while it is very valuable to have had these discussions, the Amendments, as listed today, would not, for the reasons which I have given, be suitable.
Lord HOME of the HIRSEL: My Lords, I find myself in very close agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, and with my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood. Until now, Scotland has done so well out of the United Kingdom grant that there has been every reason to keep quiet about it, but as there will be an Assembly these matters will have to become public. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, half accepted this. However, when it comes to the point I hope the Government will make available as much information on these matters as they possibly can, both to the people of Scotland and to the people of England.
I am not sure about this Amendment. If it were to be put into the Bill it would become a rule. If there is to be an Assembly, what we really want is guidance all the time in future years from the Government as to the amount of money that is raised in England and Scotland and, by and large, what it is spent upon. This will have to become public property,

35
so I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to the idea which lies behind this Amendment, even if they cannot agree to include it as it stands in the Bill.
4.7 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I reflect a little upon this point. The 11/80th formula arose I think, at the end of the 19th century. Probably it was not unconnected with the establishment about 10 years previously of the office of Secretary for Scotland. Government at that time was very much in the form of boards, and a the Scottish Administration became more independent, probably some kind of formula became necessary. Obviously the formula could not be applied with absolute flexibility, and gradually it was departed from.
I remember very well that I mentioned the formula in an Estimates debate on roads which we used to have in the House of Commons at one time, and that I was greatly taken to task on the grounds that the mileage of roads proportionate to population was very much higher in Scotland than it was in England and that their upkeep was very much heavier. There was an interesting feature about that debate. It took place at the time that a separate Scottish roads division was set up. Before then it had been part of the Ministry of Transport. My noble friend Lord Molson, who was Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the time, said, " You won't gain from this in Scotland; you will lose. You have been very generously treated, and you will find that the proportion will go down". And so it did. The proportion of expenditure on roads in Scotland compared with the total proportion of roads expenditure fell after Scotland obtained her own separate roads administration.
Whether or not there is a lesson to be learned from this I do not know, but it seems to me that we are now moving into a situation where a formula will have to be devised as the norm. If one looks at the figures of expenditure for the year 1975–76, which I believe appear at column 6890 in Devolution: Financing the Devolved Services, one finds that if one takes away trade and industry, agriculture, fisheries, forestry, food and the nationalised industries, the rest of the
36
proportions fall into a quite narrow band—a range between 9·4 and 11·8, 11·8 representing housing, which is the highest proportion of total national expenditure in Scotland. Far and away the greatest deviation occurs in trade, industry and employment because of the relatively heavy unemployment in Scotland and the difficulty of attracting industry to Scotland compared with elsewhere. That was way ahead—19·9 per cent. as compared with an average of 11 per cent. of total identifiable public expenditure.
These are the kind of considerations that arise and I do not see that an overall figure is at all meaningful. One might have to develop particular formulae to deal with particular cases, otherwise, in a situation which may not be changing very rapidly on the social side, one might be apt to get wrangles and disagreements which were quite unnecessary. I feel that the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for a joint committee is an inevitable one. There was one for Northern Ireland and I should have thought there was bound to be one for Scotland. I sympathise very much with my noble friend's objectives in this Amendment but I doubt whether, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has said, it would really prove to be practicable. However, one must think in terms of formulae over a period if one is going to avoid perpetual accusations coming from Scotland that Scotland is not getting what it is entitled to in terms of need. It is a difficult situation, but at some point or another I think we have to decide what, over a period of years, Scotland is going to require in terms of need, and stick to it.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I think we have had quite an interesting discussion but I am bound to say that I found the noble Lord's brief negative, vague and evasive and I was left with the impression that the Government simply had not thought what they meant when they put this clause into the Bill. I thought it was very fair when my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood said that at least they ought to put in something. I fully accept that it is easy to attack this Amendment. I took the precaution of saying so when I introduced it, because I realised that. However, I was disappointed that the noble Lord concentrated on the negative side

37
by pointing out all the difficulties with the Amendment. It is perfectly fair to do that provided he is prepared to offer us something to put in its place.
Clearly, because of the defects of this Amendment it is not appropriate to press it at this moment. If I heard it aright and I deduced correctly, the noble Lord said one quite specific thing—indeed, it was about the only specific thing that I got from him during the course of this debate. He said that he envisaged that an advisory body would be set up. He then quickly dodged down behind the sandbags again without saying anything further about the nature of the body, who was to pay for it or anything else apart from the fact that it was to be independent. That would more or less go without saying and that was a point made by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. We did get one other piece of negative information, in that the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, was told that there is no Treasury formula. The noble Lord used a happy phrase which escapes me at the moment, but at any rate we discovered that there is not one. I suppose that was useful in its way.
I found myself going in a curious circular argument when we started to try to work out how this is to be done. The noble Lord commenced by saying, "Once the amount has been agreed". Surely the whole point is how the amount is to be agreed. It seems to me that he starts with the answer and then works back to try to see how he is to justify it. He talks about the Government's forecasts of total expenditure without saying how those forecasts have been arrived at, on what consideration and what kind of levels were envisaged when those forecasts were finally produced. Indeed, there was a moment when I received the impression that the noble Lord was saying, "Well, I will tell you what we are going to do: we are going to decide the overall amount of money that is to be spent in Scotland and then we shall decide who is to be responsible for spending which bits of it. If you are lucky we shall give you a bit extra; but, let us face it, the overall figure is fixed right from the beginning". I honestly do not think that that is what people envisage. When we speak about negotiations about the block grant, surely we cannot start with
38
a set answer and then commence dividing up the cash.
I got the impression that the majority of noble Lords felt that the Government were being a little coy here and that they would have liked to see, not necessarily written into the Bill, at least some kind of assurances given by the Government as to what they had in mind. Really we have extracted remarkably little from the Government so far. As usual, the matter was neatly summed up by that politician who has had quite a lot of experience of the matter, my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel, who said, "We are seeking some guidance from the Government". I have been seeking to provoke the Government into giving some guidance, but thus far I do not seem to have been very successful. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, with the leave of the House. I do not wish to enter a Committee phase, as it were, but I thought that I had given a clear indication that the Government hoped to set up an advisory body and that that body will have to show very clearly the type of information and the basis upon which the various allocations and formulae are agreed. We cannot be more specific at this stage because we should need to talk about this with the Scottish Administration, once it is set up. That is the principal difficulty facing the Government at this time. It is the reason why I can agree with the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, but not be more positive about it at this time. Whilst I can agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said and indeed with what the noble Lord, Lord Home, said, I cannot be more specific at the moment.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord is doing his best to help us. I can only say that he is keeping his powder quite astonishingly dry, so far as I can see. I do not see any reason to prolong this argument today. I had hoped that the noble Lord would end by saying that he would put on his thinking cap and see whether he could not come up with something productive, even as late as the Third Reading. However, it is quite clear that we are not going to get that. I do not absolutely promise that we shall not have to do his thinking for him, but for the

39
present I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.19 p.m.
Lord VAIZEY Lord VAIZEY moved Amendment No. 105A:
Page 23, line 27, at end insert —
("(3) At the request of the Scottish Executive in pursuance of a resolution by the Assembly the Treasury shall in so far as is consistent with Community obligations and other criteria laid down by the Secretary of State cause the rate of any tax or taxes broadly based and general throughout Scotland to be raised or lowered as required by the Scottish Executive, provided that the net amount by which the revenue is so changed does not exceed 15 per cent. of the amount transferred under subsection (1) of this section; and the Secretary of State shall thereafter by Order cause a sum equivalent to the net balance raised to he transferred to the Scottish Consolidated Fund in addition to the sums transferred under subsection (1) of this section, or, as the case may be, a sum equivalent to the amount by which revenue from Scotland has been reduced to be withheld from subsequent transfers to the Scottish Consolidated Fund.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in tabling this Amendment it was not my intention to add to the difficulties of the Government because my admiration for the stamina of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and indeed the courtesy and efficiency with which they have dealt with the Amendments has been remarkable and I should like to thank them.
I want to revert for a moment to the last Amendment simply because it is germane to what I have to say on this Amendment. I thought that the answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, was helpful to a considerable degree. It is clear that a number of points to which we have been seeking answers will be met, but I think the prepared briefs make the position rather like a lawyer who brings a charge against a man that he has murdered his wife with an axe and also adds to it, in case that does not stand, that he has blunted the axe as well. If he cannot get him on one thing, he will get him on another. Some of the arguments adduced are really very minor indeed, compared with the importance of the matters which are under discussion.
In the Amendment, which is designed basically to give the Assembly powers to
40
impose taxes on the one hand or to relieve the burden of taxation on the other, we are entering a matter which I think is of great significance and importance. It is a matter that was raised in another place, it was raised here at Second Reading and we have had a substantial discussion on it at Committee stage: it is the principle that the Assembly should have powers to levy taxes, which is supported by the Liberal Party and also, I now find, supported by the Government, both in their White Paper and as recently as in the speech made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in the Second Reading of the Wales Bill. He said that in principle Her Majesty's Government were in favour of giving tax raising powers both to the Scottish Assembly and to the Welsh body but that they had unfortunately been unable to think how to do so.
So we are not discussing a matter of principle, in my view, which is dividing the great Parties of the State, or dividing Members of your Lordships' House one from another; we are debating practicalities. We are indeed in this Bill introducing a completely new constitutional principle, which is representation without taxation, and I imagine that we shall eventually have a Boston tea party in reverse, presumably when people sit in one of the harbours in Scotland throwing tea bags back into the ships. The suggestions by the experts about the powers of taxation that might be given to the Scottish Administration and to the Assembly were put forward in a paper of quite remarkable feebleness, and the feebleness was not because those who drafted it were particularly feeble-minded, but quite clearly because they wanted to get the answer No, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, said in the Committee stage.
The principle on which the Bill is drawn up is perfectly clear; it is that the present powers administered by the Scottish Office will, to some degree, be handed over to the Edinburgh Assembly, but no powers held by any other Government Department will be handed over if the Government Department can help it, and that applies obviously particularly to the Treasury and the agencies associated with it, and since the power of taxation is clearly one of these it is unlikely that that Department would have agreed that it

41
should find a means of handing over this power.
Before I explain the contents of the Amendment to your Lordships, there are two difficulties here which affect me. First, I shall listen with great care to the answer which the noble Lord on the Front Bench gives to the Amendment because I think it is very important indeed.I have no doubt whatever that if and when the Assembly is set up, within a limited period of time-
I would guess five years-an amending Bill will be introduced into the Westminster Parliament to give these powers to the Assembly. It is quite inconceivable that the Assembly can have any length of life without having taxation powers. That is a general point, and I think it is very important that the House should address itself seriously to this matter.
The second difficulty is that there is quite clearly a constitutional difficulty in any Amendment moved in your Lordships' House dealing with financial powers concerning the Parliament Act and our relationships with another place. It may well be that, if your Lordships carried this Amendment and it were added to the Bill in this House, on its return to the other place it would be certified that it was an invasion of the powers of the other place and in that case a debate could not take place in the other place —I am sorry to have a sentence so illconstructed that I have used the word "place" about fifteen times, but at least I did not use the word "situation". In that case, one of the purposes of moving this Amendment would have been frustrated, because one of the things I want to be considered in the House of Commons is precisely this point, and it seems to me this an opportunity to have this point considered by them in detail.
In the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, at Committee stage, as well as the kitchen sink and the blunt axe kind of arguments being adduced—those ridiculous remarks being made about the Scots perhaps raising the rate of income tax to 83 per cent. or whatever it was—the argument was put forward that the Assembly would have the power to increase taxes but not reduce them. I have sought to meet this in this Amendment by giving them the power to reduce as well as increase.
42
Secondly, quite clearly the powers have to be consistent with our obligations under our membership of the European Community, and also there has to be a general power exercised by the Treasury and the Secretary of State. Broadly speaking, what one has in mind is that taxes which are general throughout Scotland, which are broadly based—one has in mind things such as taxes on alcohol and on tobacco which are important revenue raisers—might well be used as a means of giving additional revenue to the Assembly, or alternatively letting the Assembly have things a little cheaper in Scotland, if they so wish.
This is, of course, a perfectly common feature of all federal constitutions. Anyone who has ever driven across the border from Maryland to Pennsylvania knows that as you drive across the price of cigarettes changes, the price of drink changes. If you take a train across Canada and get to the boundary of a particular Province the drink is whisked from your table; it is restored to you as you leave the drier shores of Manitoba. It is really not beyond the wit of man, as we know from all the federal countries in the world, to have taxation powers divided between the federal government and the local governments and for the rates of taxation to vary quite substantially. Of course, problems are raised. Cars are stopped as they cross from Pennsylvania toMaryland because the cars are full of cigarettes; the cigarettes are taken out by policemen and a case is brought. Nevertheless, these differences are inherent in any process of meaningful devolution, because what you mean by giving people devolution is that the standards of service and the costs of service will vary from area to area. If that is not the case then there is not any point in having devolution. My Lords, having said that, I should like to move this Amendment and see what the House thinks about it.
4.27 p.m.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: My Lords, in supporting this Amendment I would say that I wholly share the admiration which the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, expressed for the stamina, the ability and the other qualities of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. I only hope I live to see the day when these undoubted

43
talents will be devoted to a more worthy cause. I confess to one reservation in putting my name to this Amendment, and that reservation derives, of course, from my belief that this Bill is incurable, that it has certain fundamental and fatal defects which will remain after all your Lordships' deliberations and those of the other place are over. This, of course, must be a matter of judgment, but it is a judgment which I gather is shared by many of your Lordships, if not indeed by a majority of your Lordships, as by many in the other place.
Nevertheless, I support this Amendment because, of course, without tax-raising powers this devolution Bill is an altogether empty thing; it is a sham. And it is because it is an empty thing and a sham in that state that everyone with eyes to see, everyone who is not politically myopic, has become conscious of this, and this has contributed to some extent to the ever-growing cynicism and unhealthy public unease at the way in which we conduct our political affairs. If it remains an empty thing it will contribute in the future to further disappointment and discontent.
As I understand it, all Governments are very largely concerned, are they not, with raising and spending revenue? Surely to deny the Assembly the former is to invite its irresponsibility in the latter. That is remarkable for a Government whose principal spokesman on the Bill in this House has been much concerned to urge upon us a sense of responsibility and who has, indeed, been a little critical of the sense of responsibility in the other place. However, on the merits of this Amendment, I cannot add to what the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, has said. He has added much wisdom, if I may respectfully say so, to this matter which lies so much at the heart of this measure. I commend the Amendment to your Lordships.
Lord HOME of the HIRSEL: My Lords, naturally I associate myself with the comments of the two noble Lords who have just spoken when they referred to the qualities shown by the Ministers responsible on the Government Bench for the conduct of the Bill, although they will not misunderstand me if I say that as a Scotsman I shall reserve my final
44
judgment for Third Reading. However, since 1968, when I sat as a member on a Committee which studied these matters which have been the subject of so much debate in your Lordships' House in recent weeks, I have been convinced that should there be an elected Assembly for Scotland it could not live indefinitely on moneys raised by other people.
Therefore, it follows that the Assembly must, at least in my view, be able to raise some revenue for purposes which are judged by that Assembly to be in the national interest of Scotland. Moreover, unless the Government and those responsible for this Bill can find such a scheme, then we are indeed inviting friction because there will always be agitation in the Assembly to get more and more money from the United Kingdom Exchequer. It may be that some people I know, and some of your Lordships, feel that the Assembly, given the right to tax, would act irresponsibly. I do not believe that to be so. No one wants to be taxed. Constituents are a wonderful deterrent against pushing taxation too far. Nor would any Scotsman, I suggest, want to penalise Scotland by adding to taxation to a point where, for example, industrialists seeking to place a factory would choose England rather than Scotland. I think that the Assembly can safely be given powers to tax.
Now, for the first time in these Parliamentary proceedings, someone has had the temerity to put on paper the shape which such a tax might assume. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and those who support his Amendment, have been ingenious. He has defined the margins within which a tax would be bearable and acceptable. If the Government have a better idea, now they have at least the chance to put it forward and we have the chance to hear it in this House or, if not in this House, there is the chance for another place to study it. In my view nothing could be worse, as the noble Lord himself has expressed, than that, after a few years and after the maximum agitation, Parliament should then have to pass an amending Bill granting the right to tax. If we are to do it. at least let us do it now.
There cannot be any great objection to the Amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, has said, this happens in all

45
federations. Therefore, I should have thought that the noble Lord has done us a service today in putting on paper a form of tax. It may not be the right one, although I happen to think that it would work pretty well. Therefore, the onus is now on the Government to tell us whether they have yet found any way of meeting the point which so many noble Lords have made in the course of this debate. However, unless they can do so, I feel bound to repeat what I said on Second Reading: unless they can find a way in which the Assembly can raise some revenue—not too much, but some—then I think that the whole experiment for an Assembly for Scotland will fail.
4.36 p.m.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, the debate so far has been very interesting, but I also feel that what happened in Committee when I moved Clause 60, which was accepted by your Lordships, has been ignored by those who have spoken. Clause 60 specifically gave powers for the Assembly to put forward proposals to the Houses of Parliament for raising money. When that Amendment was carried the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, objected to it on the grounds that it talked only about raising money and not about reducing taxation perhaps pro rata. If it is interpreted only in that sense I should go along with what he said. However, when I moved the Amendment I did not have it in mind as only raising taxes and not reducing them. I visualised that it might well have been that the Assembly decided, for good reasons, just as has been outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, that it wanted to increase taxes in certain respects and it would so tell Parliament. However, at the same time it would make it, as I see it, contingent on their being able, if they wished, to reduce taxation in other respects. In other words, I believe that Clause 60 covers the main thinking which is behind the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey.
Let me put forward an example. If, which I think is not at present the case, forestry was devolved again, and if the Assembly wished to encourage forestry in Scotland then it might well say: "We should like to make additional grants for forestry in Scotland, but on the other hand we must raise some money and we
46
should do that by, for example, penalising development on prime land for building purposes". Thus we would get a sort of quid pro quo which might be to the general advantage of Scotland, the Assembly and Parliament.
I have mentioned Clause 60 because in my view, if your Lordships consider that clause, it will be found that it broadly covers the ground mentioned in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey. Having said that, it is useful to have perhaps a little more detail spelt out about the sort of thing that might happen. However, I should not have thought that it is wise to go as far as that detail, because even then it does not, in fact, become specific in any respect, and I well understand why: one cannot be specific at present. Therefore, I think that it is a very good thing that we debate this matter again, but I should suggest that Clause 60 in practice covers in the most general terms the point about the need to raise revenue. Moreover, I think that it has the advantage that when it goes to the other place it would probably not be considered to be a reserved matter and therefore not able to be discussed.
4.39 p.m.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I shall trouble the House for only a few minutes. There are aspects of this matter that cause me a great deal of worry. I share the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, that whatever one may do to the Bill it is still a bad Bill. When it reaches the Statute Book and comes to be applied the results will, in my judgment, be quite disastrous.
The discussions that we are having today upon this Amendment are, to some extent, academic. They are dealing with a situation in the future. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, made the point that if, when this measure is on the Statute Book, a new Assembly lacks access to sources of raising revenue, it will become an empty shell. I entirely agree with that. However, during my time as a Member of another place I have seen the effect of proposals, which were impractical, resulting in long delays before the steps that ought to be taken—often quite simple steps—were placed on the Statute Book.

47
I do not need to tell your Lordships that I know very little about Scottish financial measures. However,I have three granddaughters, all of whom have Scottish accents and who live in Scotland; they have learned the technique of all young ladies, including my daughters, because when occasionally they telephone me I can always answer, "How much?" Apart from that financial interest, I have no knowledge at all.
I want to invite your Lordships' attention to a practical problem, although it may well be that in doing so I am straining your Lordships' kindness at this point; however, I do not know where else to raise it. In Scotland the law regarding racecourses is different from the law in England, and that applies—and it is topical at present—to football grounds and sports grounds generally. The law is linked with what is called the "contractor's principle" and rates are raised upon the capital assets employed and not upon the revenue. It happens that this is the start of a seven-year period when there is a rating reassessment. For a moment I want to invite your Lordships' attention to Ayr, a fine racecourse and the equal of any racecourse in the United Kingdom; I think that Haydock would make fair comparison. Under the contractor's principle the rateable value for Ayr as from 1st April this year will jump from £7,450 to £67,400, which is a crippling charge and will ultimately render Ayr non-viable. Of course, the law ought to be altered in relation to all sports grounds in Scotland and they should be put on the same basis as those in England.
The fact that this measure is being considered seems to me to rule out any possibility of the law in Scotland being altered. Therefore, the question is this. What will happen to the five racecourses in Scotland; what will happen to the football grounds in Scotland, which have to undertake great measures of reconstruction? They will be placed in a very adverse position, with no possibility of the law being altered. One could say, of course, that if eventually there is a Scottish Assembly and it has powers to raise revenue, this is one of the things that it will do. I take leave to doubt that. In a later Amendment I shall argue that particularly in relation to racing one must look at the problem from the point of view of the
48
United Kingdom as a whole. I am saying that one cannot isolate the sporting activities in Scotland from those of the rest of these Islands. Therefore, if one imposes a rateable value of £67,000 at Ayr and its rates are of the order of £40,000 a year, whereas at Haydock they are only £7,000, then the balances are altered very unevenly, and this of course affects all sporting the activities of the Scottish people.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, raised the matter of forestry. This is a very important subject; it is very important to the livelihood and well being of the Scottish people. However, I suggest that the Scots as a whole—although this may not be the case at the moment—will be more interested in football, greyhound racing and racing and in what effect this will have on them, because that is part of the make-up of their daily lives. Therefore, I invite your Lordships' attention to this problem because I raise it as a practical problem which faces the racecourses and football grounds of Scotland as of this moment in the current financial year. I believe, that in fact, we have the cart before the horse. The practical problems should have been dealt with, but I understand and sympathise with a Government, which is up to their eyes in complex political problems, tending to say "We shall leave this"—as they leave many other things— "We will wait and see how this works".
If we wait to see how it works, I very much doubt whether Ayr, or indeed many of the football grounds in Scotland, will be able to undertake the measures of reconstruction that they should. For that reason, although I support the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, I hope that the Government will—not necessarily this afternoon-find some means of giving attention to this problem, which, even if they measure it in terms of votes, may have more votes in it, rather than worry about the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Perth.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, this, of course, is a Bill about Scotland. I have been present nearly every day that the Bill has been discussed. It seems to me that no one has asked what will happen to

49
England. I want Scotland to have the best, the most effective and helpful government possible. On the other hand, I was not particularly elected to look after or help to look after Scotland; I have to try to look after my part of the world. Of course, that area is very near to Scotland; I have always represented seats just the other side of the Border, and I have done so to the best of my ability.
However, I am beginning to get very worried when in all the discussions—some for and some against, some with good ideas and some with ridiculous ideas, as many Members have said—no one has said what effect the Bill will have on England, should it ever get on the Statute Book. Various of my noble friends have said that they want more money for industry in Scotland; so do we in the North of England want more money for industry—very much more. Therefore I thought that I should say something now. I do not like this Bill at all. I have no intention of voting for it on Third Reading, because I do not really think that anybody is going to consider what effect the Bill will have on England, and in particular on my part of the world. I do not like it and I shall vote against the Third Reading. If I get fed up with all the arguments I shall not even stay until nearly 11 o'clock tonight.
Lord TANLAW: My Lords, I shall make some attempt to revert to Amendment No. 105A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey. We, on these Benches, believe that this Amendment should not be lightly brushed aside. There are some very interesting points in it which, in spite of all the discussions that we have had on the Bill so far, have not really been touched on. However, I would just hope that the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, is considering in his Amendment only indirect taxation. So far as I can see, there can be absolutely no way in which one could make any distinction in income tax once one crossed the Border. Therefore, presumably the noble Lord is referring to indirect taxation and an opportunity for the Assembly to make a differential. My words are based on this. This is the principle about which we made speeches—no representation without taxation, or at least the right to tax; and in this case, reduced tax is something that we can support.
50
However, I am slightly worried by the support that the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, gets from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, which, in my view, is only a wrecking support. If I understand them correctly, they wish to support Amendment 105A only because it might try to wreck the Bill. I feel that this is perhaps not the way to assess this Amendment, which is technical, and I believe has been extremely well drafted, so far as it goes.
The only other question I have is whether the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, has considered the cost of tax collection. I believe that when he refers to
"the net amount of tax by which revenue is so changed",
the words of the Amendment do not mean "net after the cost of taxatio", because this will increase the overheads of the Assembly, however small or simple the tax may be. On the other hand, I believe that Her Majesty's Government and the noble and learned Lord should look at the possibilities of this Amendment—saving money for the United Kingdom taxpayer from the block grant, and in fact going some distance to rectify the per capita imbalance, which was discussed on the previous Amendment. Although this was explained, I think this Amendment could in some ways rectify this imbalance, or operate as a formula for rectifying it. If the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, can clarify the one or two points that we have raised, we shall see what will happen.
4.51 p.m.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, I agree with those speakers who have said that the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, has raised an absolutely fundamental point. I certainly agree with Lord Vaizey in principle. I gather that he was supported not only by his co-signatories to the Amendment but by no less an authority than the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, that representation without taxation is an empty gift. It will be a fundamental defect of this Bill if it goes forward without making some sort of provision for the Assembly to raise money, or to vary certain rates which are agreed to be suitable for variation.
I cannot believe that we are out of order in discussing this fundamental question.

51
It may be that Lord Vaizey's numerical suggestion would be resented in the other place, but surely we have not been reduced to the position of being precluded from discussing one of the most fundamental constitutional innovations in this century. Therefore I must declare myself to be in principle entirely in favour of the thought which lies behind this Amendment.
I would concede that the matter is difficult in the context of this particular constitutional innovation. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, referred with great force to the ease with which these things are managed in straightforward preparations. He gave vivid illustrations of the variation of certain taxes between certain States of the Union. If we were discussing a federal constitution for the United Kingdom, then there might be differences of opinion on detail, but I do not think that there would be any difficulties of a large kind.
We are not discussing federation: we are discussing what I am bound to confess to your Lordships seems to me to be an extremely draughty halfway house. The problem of dividing financial powers in the devolution proposed seems to me to be an extremely difficult one. I agree with what was said from the Liberal Benches, that so far as direct taxation is concerned —income tax, capital transfer tax, and so on—obvious difficulties arise at once. Trusts could be formed in other parts of the United Kingdom. The ingenuity of tax advisers would certainly not be unequal to the job of getting round that one. Therefore, Lord Vaizey's suggestion must essentially be concerned with indirect taxation, and prima facie that restriction certainly makes it much more plausible.
However, here is the difficulty: under present financial practice (and I am not condemning present financial practice) the tax instrument even as regards indirect taxation is used for more than one purpose —for more than one financial purpose, quite apart from matters of the ethics of certain kinds of consumption, and so on. There is an institution in our apparatus of indirect taxation which is called a regulator, whereby the Government of the day—and my remarks apply indifferently to one Government or another—attempt to influence the pace of aggregate growth or the pace of inflation, or maybe the pace
52
of deflation, by overall variation. It would therefore seem to me that under our present constitution it would be extremely difficult for the Government of the United Kingdom to leave an entirely free hand as regards even indirect taxation.
Of course, all that difficulty would disappear if we were discussing something which was more federal in appearance; something which operated under a written constitution whereby, if necessary, there could be appeal to the high Judiciary to discover whether a local variation of a particular tax was, or was not, within the constitution. I find it extremely difficult, at short notice, in the halfway house which the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues have so eloquently been defending, to think out ways to realise this division of powers. But I conclude by saying that I honestly think that it is up to the Government to give more thought to this matter, because if all powers of raising or lowering taxation are denied to the Scottish Assembly, nothing, in my opinion, can be more certain than this as a recipe for disunion.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, that this is a fundamental point; and particularly do I agree with his last remarks, when he said that if this problem is not resolved there could be trouble. I am sure we all look forward to the reply of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. Many deserved words of congratulation have been expressed to Lord McCluskey for what he and his colleagues here achieved, but one fundamental word of commiseration was left out. I understand that it is the noble and learned Lord's birthday—
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Earl FERRERS: —and I wish him many happy returns, but I commiserate with him at the fact that he is obliged to spend his birthday considering this Bill. I had always thought I had at least 10 years advantage over the noble and learned Lord, but I discover that I have only four days, and then four days the wrong way, and that is the only way in which I shall ever be superior to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, has sought to meet an important point by the Amendment. It is not just that if

53
Scotland wants an Assembly on its own, let the Scots pay for it. It is not the frivolous argument, "Let their own Assembly tax them". Nor is it simply a question of saying, "Let us give the Assembly power to tax if, after all, we are devolving powers". The real oint—these are my personal views—goes far deeper than that and was expressed by Lord Vaizey on Second Reading, when he said that every time the Assembly builds or does something the Assembly will be praised, and every time the Assembly does not build or does not do something it will be Westminster that is blamed. That is the fundamental objection which the Amendment seeks to meet. That situation, where the Assembly has the power to spend and does not have the power to raise money, could lead to confrontation, and it is the avoidance of confrontation which should be at the heart of all our consideration whatever our views on the Bill.
I am not an advocate of taxation, but if one devolves powers to the Assembly and if one makes them responsible for domestic issues but then one restricts the money available, there is likely to be trouble. The amount of money available is bound to be restricted—simply because there is never enough to go round—and that restriction will be bound to be put on by Westminster, and therefore it will be Westminster which will be blamed when anything the Assembly wishes to do but cannot do is not done.
My noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel was right to say that the Assembly would be careful not to over-tax because if over-taxing resulted in industry being driven away, that would have a deleterious effect on Scotland. The inference behind his remarks was that the electorate was a good bridle on the Assembly because people would not tolerate being taxed too much. I sympathise with my noble friend's view, but I am not sure that our experience in the United Kingdom as a whole would lead one to support it. When we seem to be over-taxed very greatly everybody complains like mad, but that does not seem to have a particularly curtailing effect on Chancellors of the Exchequer.
The Amendment seeks to meet a difficulty which the Government have themselves recognised but to which they
54
have been unable to find an appropriate answer. In their White Paper Devolution; the Financing of Devolved Services, the Government said that if the devolved Administration wished to have available a limited supplementary tax power and were ready to meet its administrative cost, the Government would certainly be willing to consider sympathetically any such proposals. The Amendment does not, therefore, run contrary to the Government's wish. It is an attempt to provide something on paper which as yet the Government have not been able to produce, and it is something which others might like the opportunity to discuss. I do not believe it conflicts with the proposal of the noble Earl, Lord Perth—it was an Amendment but it now forms a proposed new clause—because Clause 60 says that if the Assembly wishes to make proposals that power should be conferred on the Assembly, they may communicate such proposals to the Secretary of State. That is a far wider issue than the specific one which the Amendment seeks to put right, and I do not see that it is conflicting, nor would it be superseding.
5.6 p.m.
Lord KALDOR: My Lords, I apologise for not being present at the earlier phases of the discussion; I have only just arrived from my usual abode, which is not London. It is to me a matter of great importance that if the Assembly has devolved powers to do things, it must have the power to raise taxation to satisfy the aims and objectives which the people of Scotland, through their duly elected representatives, wish achieved.
A good analogy would be the difference between the amount of regional aid that is given by the Government to various areas, called development areas, out of general taxation, and the amount of regional aid we could expect to receive for example from the European Economic Community. We can agree that if we were left with only the regional support that is given to Britain from their own resources by the European Community —which resources are of course strictly limited by the contributions which various Member Governments of the Community make available for this purpose—whichever Government were in power in this country would regard such limits on economic aid to necessitous regions as

55
grossly inadequate and would wish them to be supplemented.
I could carry that further and say that the incidence of unemployment may be higher in Scotland than in the United Kingdom as a whole. In fact, generally speaking, it has been higher for most of this century. While the Government at Westminster do a great deal, through their general economic and fiscal policies to alleviate unemployment and in addition do a great deal to give specific support to the so-called special or development areas, I can quite see that the Government at Westminster might not give such a high priority to reducing unemployment in Scotland or to finding employment for the people born and educated in Scotland within the area of Scotland, rather than in the rest of the United Kingdom, and in that event conflict might arise.
In my opinion it would be absolutely legitimate for the Scottish Assembly to say, "We should be prepared to subsidise employment in Scotland out of taxes which are clearly and unequivocally levied on the inhabitants of Scotland and not on the rest of the United Kingdom". It may be said that there are certain forms of taxation the ultimate incidence of which one cannot be very clear on, but that if taxes are levied in Scotland it may affect interests in the rest of the United Kingdom, or possibly in the rest of the world. That is possible, and, therefore, one ought to have certain safeguards as to the forms of taxation. I am not trying to develop this theme here; it would be most improper to do so in this context.
I should like to support the Amendment, but to me it does not seem quite to meet the essence of the problem, just as the draft clauses of the Bill before us do not meet it, because they do not go far enough. I would not know exactly what form this power should take, and what safeguards should be embodied, and so I am not suggesting anything in concrete terms. I wish to say merely that in general I would very much support the idea that the Scottish people should be able to tax themselves for the sake of their own economic development, rather more than the British people as a whole tax themselves for the sake of the development of Britain as a whole.
5.11 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, first, I wish to thank noble Lords who have complimented us on our way of conducting the Bill. I find this to be very kind particularly as today is my birthday—a fact to which the noble Earl has drawn attention. Now I wish to turn to the substance of the points that have been raised in the debate. We have discussed the matter of taxation on a number of previous occasions. As the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, said, the matter was discussed in another place fairly fully. It was discussed during the Second Reading debate here, and we had two discussions at the Committee stage. One of them proceeded upon the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, when he succeeded in introducing into the Bill a new clause, which is now Clause 60. The other discussion was at about the same time, when we discussed the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, which was rather similar in wording to this Amendment.
Before I look at the details of the Amendment, I want to deal with one or two particular points that have arisen in the debate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, talked about the question of responsibility, and it was suggested by him, and, I think, by others, that if the Assembly lacked a revenue-raising power, that would lead to irresponsibility in spending. I can understand that complaint, but I suggest that the matter is not quite so simple as those who made this point suggested. The Assembly will be a body in receipt of a grant, and there are many other examples of bodies, though on a different scale, which receive their finance in the form of a grant. No such body is responsible for raising the money which it then is able to dispose of, but I do not think that it would be generally suggested that such bodies are irresponsible in the spending of their resources.
In practice there is bound to be much competition within the Scottish Assembly, and within the various interests reflected in that elected body, for the resources which are at the disposal of the Administration; and the sponsors of the various competing interests; both inside and outside the Assembly, will certainly be scrutinising with great care the spending of money on fields in which they are less

57
interested, apparently at the expense of the fields in which they would like more money to be spent. That would ensure a degree of scrutiny and, in my view, a degree of responsibility which those who have made this criticism have not properly recognised. There is perhaps more merit in Clause 60 than in the present Amendment, for the reasons that I shall go into in some detail, but it may be that, as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has suggested, Clause 60 does not raise the same constitutional problems as might be raised by the rather detailed terms of this clause.
My noble friend Lord Wigg referred specifically to the matter of race courses. Of course rating will be a devolved matter, and it will be for the Scottish Executive to exercise existing ministerial powers, and for the Assembly to legislate on the details of the rating system—but the details only. I think that the rest of my noble friend's concerns are not really matters that are vitally related to the terms of the Amendment.
I take seriously what has been said here by the sponsors and supporters of the Amendment, and I will not brush it aside. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, will not think that I am brushing it aside. However, there is a very important point to be made, which is as follows. The noble Lord rather thought—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, thought likewise—that the Amendment was largely concerned with indirect taxation. We looked at this matter in connection with the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, at the Committee stage, and I think that it is quite plain that in relation to the block fund which the Assembly would be likely to receive, and which would be of the order of £2,000 million, any sum which could be raised additionally by way of indirect taxation would be quite negligible. We do not see that the figures referred to in the Amendment are figures related to revenue from indirect taxation, but rather are related to direct taxation.
As I explained on the previous occasion, there are EEC restrictions on, for example, varying value added tax in Scotland as distinct from the rest of the United Kingdom. So one cannot use value added tax. When one discards that and other taxes for the same and similar reasons, one finds that the amount of money available from imposing a surcharge upon indirect
58
taxation is quite miniscule in the context of a block grant of about £1,870 million, which is the figure based on the year 1975–76. Accordingly, as I pointed out at the Committee stage, I believe that we are talking here, substantially, of an increase in—or, if one looks at the details of the Amendment, a decrease in—the amount that is raised by income tax, and really by no other tax, to give any substantial sum.
Before I look at the detail of the Amendment and criticise it, I want to refer to the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers—and I think other noble Lords, too—spoke of the possibility that the lack of taxing powers would lead to confrontation and conflict between the Assembly on the one hand, and the Government at Westminster on the other, upon the basis, I suppose, that having no power to raise its own money, the Assembly would be constantly asking for more from the Government, which would lead to conflict.
However, if the Scottish Administration had taxing powers, and brought these into play so as to vary the level of income tax and to increase income tax in Scotland, would it not therefore have to justify that upon the basis that it was forced to do so because of the niggardly attitude of those at Westminster? Thus, the possibilities of conflict and confrontation would be just as large. That is one of the difficulties of giving the Scottish Administration the power to raise any substantial sum by way of additional taxation.
I now turn to the Amendment itself and to its precise terms. I believe that the Amendment incorporates all the objections to which I drew attention when we discussed this matter in Committee, on Thursday, 4th May last. It has certain features similar to those of the Amendment in May, at Committee stage, which I accept and which I can only regard as wholly praiseworthy. But basically—and this is the fundamental criticism of the Amendment—it rests upon a fallacy. The fallacy is that there exists in Scotland, or in the United Kingdom, a choice of taxes—to use the wording of the Amendment,
"…taxes broadly based and general throughout Scotland…".
The Amendment rests upon the fallacy that there exists this choice on which it would be practicable to apply a surcharge.

59
The Amendment envisages a supplement with total proceeds of up to 15 per cent. of the block fund. Let us take the block fund as being roughly of the order of £2,000 million. Thus a figure of £300 million may be raised under the Amendment. The limit in the previous Amendment (which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls) was 10 per cent. So upon this basis one is looking for a possible raising in Scotland by surcharge upon a restricted number of taxes, of up to about £300 million. It is plain—and I demonstrated it with great clarity, I believe, last time, with detailed figures—that that would involve an increase in income tax, and a very substantial increase in income tax, even if other taxes were also to be increased at the same time. Estimates made of the proceeds of the principal taxes in Scotland in 1975–76 suggest that £280 million—that is, 15 per cent. of the block grant figure for that year—would have represented over 20 per cent. of the proceeds of income tax, and this is a massive variation for which to provide.
The Government have already set out, in the White Paper referred to, the objections which they see to the various supplementary taxes; and they are not objections taken as a matter of distaste by the Government, but real difficulty in relation to the cost of collecting the relatively small revenues, the difficulties with Community regulations and the like. But we have always made it clear, both in debate and in the White Paper and elsewhere, that the Government are willing to consider sympathetically any specific proposals for a limited supplementary tax—and I emphasise the word "supplementary" because the basis of financing must be the block grant, having regard to the fundamental decision which the Government have taken and which I do not think anyone has been able cogently to demonstrate is wrong. The Government take their stand on this ground and consider it wrong to imply, as the Amendment seems to us to do, that the very real problem of tax powers for the Assembly can be, as it were, ingeniously drafted out of existence. We admire the ingenuity and we have no criticism of the drafting; it makes the problem disappear. The problem nonetheless survives the ingenuity of those who move this Amendment.
60
This Amendment, to look at it in slightly more detail, does not merely attract all the objections which I sought to formulate on the last occasion: it attracts other and new objections, and it does this by providing—and I invite your Lordships' attention to its wording—that the Assembly should be able to resolve that United Kingdom taxes in Scotland are to be lower than taxes elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It is one thing to suggest that, in addition to contributing on a common basis to the United Kingdom pool of taxation and benefiting from this pool on a common basis of relative needs for public expenditure, the Scottish Assembly should be able to raise limited additional revenue of their own for special expenditure for which the block grant could not be expected to cater. It is quite another to suggest that the Assembly should be able to vary the incidence of United Kingdom taxes to the extent of 15 per cent. of the block fund. The Government do not consider that a power to vary United Kingdom taxes on the initiative of the Assembly is really compatible with the concept of economic unity.
Let me develop a point which I believe is very important in relation to the new piece of drafting in this Amendment—the power to lower taxes. It is surely clear to the House that the sums to be paid over to the Scottish Consolidated Fund will represent the view reached by Parliament, after discussion with the Scottish Administration, of what can be properly and fairly allocated to meet what are seen to be Scotland's needs. I am not suggesting that the sums to be paid over will in fact enable Scotland's needs to be met, but a view will be taken of availability of resources and of what are these needs. Of course, the resources will always be somewhat smaller than the needs. But if Parliament is then to decide that this is the sum—£2,000 million, or whatever it may be—to meet Scotland's needs for a particular year, can the Scots then come along the very next week, as this Amendment would empower them to do, and say to the United Kingdom, "Kindly reduce our United Kingdom taxes by 15 per cent., by £300 million?" Because that is what the Amendment would allow them to do; and, of course, to reduce the income tax burden by something of the order of 20 per cent. As I read the

61
Amendment, that seems to be possible. In other words, this Amendment would allow the Assembly to come forward, make such a proposal and really destroy at one fell swoop the whole basis upon which this Assembly is to be financed.
Under the Amendment, again, the Treasury would appear to be given no option but to raise or lower the rates of tax in Scotland if required to do so by the Scottish Executive in pursuance of a resolution by the Assembly. The only qualifications (apart from amount) are that the change in rates must be consistent with Community obligations and with the criteria to be laid down by the Secretary of State. He is given an ultimate and very considerable power. But no indication is given of what these criteria might be, or how they should be settled. This certainly seems to us to be a very loose way to deal with problems of this kind; and we believe that the proper place for provisions about United Kingdom taxes applying in a substantial part of the United Kingdom is in primary legislation at Westminster, and not by this kind of means.
This objection in principle, powerful though we believe it to be, is not the only objection to empowering the Scottish Executive to require the lowering of taxes. The proposition for the lowering of taxes carries with it the same liability to the charge of a bogus prospectus as the proposition for raising them. Just as it is wrong to suggest that options for additional taxation are lying around waiting to be picked up, as I said on the last occasion, in the back of someone's mind or in some cupboard, it is equally wrong to suggest that the resources available to the Scottish Administration are going to be so great in relation to their real needs that they will be able to produce painless spending reductions and pass on sizeable savings to Scottish taxpayers. So it is in my submission not politically real to suggest that the Scottish administration, having, as I have said, reached agreement each year as to what their needs are and what the block fund therefore has to be, can then turn round and say that their spending proposals are in fact not related to those needs but are only 85 or 90 per cent. of them, and thus the Scottish taxpayers are to be given a kind of taxation bonus.
Taxpayers elsewhere in the United Kingdom, as a number of noble Lords
62
pointed out, have in the past been ready to finance identifiable public expenditure in Scotland at a higher rate than in England because these rates were seen to represent Scottish needs. Indeed, over the last years—I think these figures have been referred to—the Scottish rate per head has varied between 133 and 126 per cent. of the rate South of the Border. There is no reason to expect any sudden transformation in Scotland's relative needs, but is it reasonable to assume that taxpayers generally would be content to make available to Scotland a block fund of the size likely to be needed if higher expenditure per head in Scotland was to be coupled with lower rates of tax in Scotland? It is difficult to think of anything better calculated than that to cause ill-feeling South of the Border, and to cause ordinary people to wonder about whether the Union should continue.
I believe the Government have always made clear that they would like to see a power for limited supplementary taxation. The Government have looked in vain for a tax that is suitable. They did, as your Lordships recall, propose one in the original White Paper—that was a surcharge upon the local rates—and that was greeted with a blast of criticism from all directions, including Members of your Lordships' House. The Government's position, which I believe to be honest and straightforward and which does not attempt to hide the problem, is: Let the Assembly be formed and let it consider these matters. If the Assembly can produce a tax which meets the criteria which we share with the movers of this Amendment, then it should be possible to come back to that. It may be five years, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, has said; it may be longer. We just do not know; but that is surely the honest and respectable way to do it. Let us start with the Assembly, with the block grant. Let us then see if they can come forward with a proposal which would enable them to raise revenue—a power which we should like to see them have. Then, if it can be done, let the United Kingdom Parliament legislate to do it.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I hang on to one sentence in the noble and learned Lord's reply. He said, in effect, that the idea behind this Amendment will not be brushed aside by the

63
Government. I hope that the suggestion contained in his last words about letting it wait for five years to see what the Assembly might do is not the only thing that the Government have in mind. I would suggest that, if they are not desirous of brushing aside the idea behind this, then before we get to Third Reading, and in the light of the discussions we had at Committee stage plus the discussions we are having now on Report stage, the Government really ought to make an effort to put something into this Bill so that, when it goes to another place, there can be a hook on which to hang a discussion there. That will give the Government extra time to find the sort of thing that might meet the point. Unless we have some Amendment which will provide this hook, it will not give the other place the chance to combine in trying to find the sort of answer that the noble and learned Lord had in mind—if it can be found.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I wonder why the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, does not regard Clause 60 as a suitable hook.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I do not, for the very reason that I think the noble Earl and the noble and learned Lord himself have given. It is not precise enough. Clause 60 is good, but it envisages some sort of delay. If you read Clause 60, there is no question of it being in the Bill when it becomes an Act. Indeed, it is very likely the hook that the noble and learned Lord had in mind when he said that after the Assembly had been in being for five years, maybe it would want to do something about it. I take it that it would be on the basis of Clause 60 that the Assembly would attempt to do something about it. I would suggest to the noble and learned Lord that that is perhaps a bit too late. If you allow the Assembly to be formed and if it is out of conflict that the answer to this is found, then I believe the damage may well be done. If the Assembly, in its early days, has to appear to battle for something, it could be that the things that some of us fear—fears, certainly, that I have that this Bill is full of conflict—will be proved all too early to be a fact.
The noble and learned Lord, supported, I think, by my noble friend Lord Home of
64
the Hirsel, suggested that if this Amendment or something like it were accepted there would not be any irresponsible spending, because Governments do not like to apply taxes. I think that that is true. That is an argument for an Amendment which gives them the power to raise taxes. If they have the power to raise taxes, then they must accept the odium that goes with raising taxes. I think that it is that odium that would bring about more responsibility in the way that they would want to make themselves popular with the electors in Scotland. My fear is not that they would be irresponsible; my fear is that they would give the impression of wishing to spend something, if they are under no obligation to raise the money that they have to spend and, therefore, earn the odium. I suggest that it is almost certain to happen. We have seen it happen in local government and all other authorities where they work on a block grant—and they are only human.
I have no doubt that the Members elected to the Scottish Assembly will go through all the same gimmickry in order to show how kindly they are and how popular they want to be. People will go through that anywhere where there are members elected. I maintain that what is likely to happen is that they will say: "The block grant is not enough; it does not enable us to give you the hospitals that we would like to give you or the sort of education we would like to give you and that it is our wish to give you—and it is Westminster which is preventing this. They will not give us enough money." The Assembly will say "We ought to get more money; otherwise we shall not be able to give you what you want and what we, your elected representatives, wish to give you."
If they have the power to raise taxes up to a certain limit in order to get money to provide whatever they wish to give, there is always the answer: "If you think it is as good as that, if you think that the Scottish people want it, there is no real problem about your raising the taxes. People would be prepared to pay the taxes in order to get this desirable thing that you have talked about." So long as they have not got that power, then, as elected representatives—and when you are elected, when you have the vote in mind, it is

65
amazing how generous you can be with somebody else's money—they will put forward all sorts of presentations as to what they would like to do and what would be desirable; and there will not be the possibility of having the brake put on of somebody being able to say, "If you want to do it, do it! You have certain taxation powers in order to get it done."
I believe that the irresponsibility is likely to arise not from giving them the taxation power but from not giving them the taxation power. That is the practical answer and it goes alongside the strong point made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, when he said that representation without taxation, as a principle, is a bad thing. If you add to that principle the practical point that I am trying to emphasise to your Lordships, one can see that there is every advantage in giving them the power. You are meeting the principle to some extent and you are giving them the power which will stop this irresponsibility.
I know that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, sometimes chastises me when he thinks I am giving the impression that the standard of government exercised by the Scottish Assembly will be below the level of anywhere else. But, no, I think it will be the same. The standard of Government when you give power to people and they have to get votes to retain the power, is suspect all down the line. That is the strength of this House. You must never be elected to this place. I differ front my noble friend Lord Home and Lord Carrington on that. Never be elected! You can never be impartial when you are elected because you are always wondering how the popular vote may be affected. Also, never be paid! The minute you get paid a reasonable figure you must justify the pay. The great impartiality and, therefore, the strength of this House springs from the fact that it is non-elected and not paid and the Members of this House are able to bring their skills to it with impartiality. That will not be the case with the Assembly. They are going to pay themselves and they are going to be elected and, therefore, will have all the frailties that are known to those who have gone through elections.
What may happen—and I know that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, will accept it
66
in the way it is intended on this occasion—is that you will have people elected to the Assembly and, on one occasion or another, they may have a majority who are prepared to twist the tail; and if they spend more of the block grant on, say, education instead of allocating sufficient for health or hospitals and other things which are within their power, then they can be left literally without money, having spent it on one aspect of their powers. This will make it essential for them to get more money to meet another aspect that has perhaps been almost deliberately neglected. I believe that that is a possibility that we must keep in mind if irresponsible groupings eventually get that sort of power. It would weaken the risk of that happening if they had this limited power to raise taxes. I think it would meet the principle and it would meet the practical considerations.
However, perhaps the most damning thing that the noble and learned Lord said about the whole Bill was when he turned over the coin and said that if you gave the Assembly power to raise taxes and it did so, then raising the taxes would make it unpopular and it would say, "We would not have to do it but for the Westminster Government." He said that that would cause the conflict. If, on whichever side of the coin you look—be it on our side, who want to give the Assembly the power because we say that if it does not get it, there will be conflict; or be it on the noble and learned Lord's side—does it not emphasise what a dangerous Bill this is as a whole that there does not seem to be an answer to one of the most fundamental questions that the whole Bill raises? This is an aspect outside this particular Amendment that we must keep in mind while examining the Bill.
On balance, I feel that to give them the power to raise taxes in order to remove from them the opportunity of saying that it is somebody else stopping desirable things being done is likely to produce less conflict. But you cannot remove conflict from this Bill. At one stage or another you are going to get it. On this particular aspect of it, I think that giving the Assembly power to raise taxes is likely to reduce the risk of conflict on this particular issue. That is why I am hanging on to that one sentence that the noble and learned Lord used: that the idea will not be brushed aside by the Government. I

67
hope that they will produce something that will give another place a chance to have a further look at this, so as to see whether they can find the words or some system to add to Clause 60 brought in by the noble Earl, and can do it so that we have not got to wait for the five years envisaged by the noble and learned Lord. If it has to be brought in after the Assembly has been in existence for five years, it will be brought in only as a consequence of conflict. Once the issue has been soured by conflict it is very much more difficult to get back to something like an equilibrium.
I do not know how the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, is going to deal with this Amendment. I accept very much the argument of the noble and learned Lord on the reduction of taxation. That was put in as a cosmetic. I do not think anybody thought there was a chance of the Government reducing it. The argument that the noble and learned Lord used on that is absolutely sound: the idea of reducing taxation when they were still getting a £2,000 million block grant would cause the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, to jump over the roof if her part of the world had to pay their part of this grant when taxation was being reduced. I accept absolutely what the noble and learned Lord said. With that removed from it, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will try to find some way before Third Reading of inserting something which will give his colleagues in another place an opportunity of facing up to the lesser of the conflicts. While one will not remove them one can get a lesser one, and that is what we should aim at.
5.42 p.m.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I shall be very brief indeed. I must confess that I was rather amused when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, say that these Scotsmen would not indulge in any irresponsible spending. That seems to be a truism; it seems to be in accordance with ancient custom. But I think that Clause 60 completely meets the situation. Let me read it:
"If the Assembly decides",
that is, Home Rule for Scotland, if I may put it in rough terms—
"that it wishes to make proposals that power should be conferred on the Assembly to raise by
68
taxation monies to be paid into the Scottish Consolidated Fund, they may communicate such proposals to the Secretary of State who shall lay such proposals before both Houses of Parliament".
"…who shall lay such proposals before both Houses of Parliament", if the Scottish Assembly decides that it wants to increase its own taxation. I think that the emphasis is on the right two places there: First of all, if the Assembly decides; secondly, if both Houses of Parliament agree. That gives Scotland the right to apply for increased taxation if it so wishes, and it enables the House of Commons, with its overall responsibility for taxation in the United Kingdom, to say whether or not taxation in Scotland should be increased.
That is everything I want to say, except, if one can visualise a situation where the Scottish Assembly were to bring about a considerable reduction in taxation, to look at the problem which will be raised by migration, emigration from England to Scotland. On the other hand, if the Scottish Assembly were to increase taxation over and above the level which is levied for the United Kingdom as a whole, consider the hordes who will be crossing the Border, coming south and crowding our already overcrowded cities. Speaking seriously, Clause 60 completely meets the situation.
5.44 p.m.
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, this debate must be unique: instead of having six Lords of Appeal speaking we have had three professors of economics—and for once all on the same side. I must say that the birthday of the noble and learned Lord on the Front Benches is a noble and honourable day in this House. The professors of economics would probably give him an alpha in jurisprudence and advocacy but, I am inclined to think, a gamma or perhaps a gamma-plus in political economy. The point about bodies already having the power to spend without the power to tax is not, if the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, thinks about it, a valid one. It is perfectly true that the area health authority where I live, which includes Charing Cross Hospital, has the power to spend money but not the power to tax. However, the area health authority for the Charing Cross Hospital area is appointed and not elected. That is a fundamental difference. People who

69
are elected naturally will expect to influence the amount of money spent.
Secondly, it is quite clear that by the use of a reductio ad absurdum one can make any proposals sound absurd. To suggest that my Amendment implies that there will be a rise of 20p in the pound in income tax in Scotland, not parallel to that in England and Wales, was an argument that the noble Lord produced in the Committee stage. I thought that it was so embarrassing on his lips that I chose at that stage not to reply to it. I think it is so self-evidently silly that I will not reply to it at this stage, because clearly one is concerned with the agreement in principle between us that the power to tax should be given to the Assembly. There is no difference in principle at all between the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Front Bench and myself in this respect. The only difficulty is that he cannot think of any taxes that can be increased. Therefore, if he agrees in principle, again as a matter of simple logic, in practice there must be some tax or other that can be increased.
Lord KALDOR: My Lords, the Amendment, as drafted, introduces a spurious symmetry by speaking of raising or lowering taxes. It is one thing to say that the Assembly should have a power to raise taxes in order to meet specific expenditure in Scotland; but if it is a question of power to lower taxes, surely it ought to make corresponding savings to the United Kingdom Government and couple the proposal with a reduction of specific expenditure which is a burden of the United Kingdom Exchequer. Otherwise it would be totally irresponsible.
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention. I am glad to say that when I learned economics at his feet I learned it properly, and I think that the last three lines of my Amendment deal specifically with that point. I was coming on to a point which the noble Lord, Lord Kaldor, taught 30 years ago at Cambridge; namely, that the notion of economic unity in the United Kingdom is perfectly consonant with the fact that the present levels of taxation throughout the United Kingdom, properly considered, at the moment vary from area to area. For example, if one
70
lives in Scotland one is in an area which at the moment is subject to the beneficial provisions of the availability of grants, because one lives in an area of economic development. This puts one in a favourable position vis-à-vis people who live in Greater London. Unless one considers taxation and expenditure together, the notion of considering economic unity is a highly abstract one and, if I may say so, it is the way in which lawyers think about it and not the way in which people concerned with public expenditure and raising revenue do so.
I am impressed that two men of such vast experience have spoken in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, spoke in support of the notion that the creation of an Assembly of this power without the power to levy taxes is a recipe for difficulty. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, pointed out that this halfway house between our present unitary State and federalism is one which is going to be a temporary transit camp, a kind of refugee camp on the road to dissolution. It is for that reason alone that I drafted this Amendment and supported Amendments moved in Committee stage.
If I may deal with the question of direct and indirect taxation which the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, raised, may I say that I had in mind principally indirect taxation: for example, the power to levy a hotel tax. Scotland is a very important tourist country. The Swiss Cantons have differential hotel taxes. I had in mind the power to vary the drink tax and the tobacco tax. Again, these are examples drawn directly from the United States which is not an unsuccessfully administered country; its cost of living taxation are lower than those here.
I would not rule out the possibility of variation in direct taxation. The unity of the island of Ireland economically has not been substantially affected by the existence of an independent Government in the Republic which has differential powers with respect to direct taxation. Having reflected on this matter, the balance of the argument lies with the people who have put down this Amendment. I am inclined to think that, in view of the weight of those who have spoken in its support, it is likely that if the House were to divide it would be carried.

71
I then come to the statement, which did move me, of the noble and learned Lord on the Front Bench which covered the question of conflict with the other place. This is a very serious matter, and that brings me to the whole question of Clause 60, the Amendment to which was carried by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, at the Committee stage. Personally I do not think that Clause 60 is an adequate substitute for the Amendment. Nevertheless I think that this Amendment carries with it the possibility of conflict between this House and another place which I should not like to see arise from an Amendment moved by a Cross-Bencher, moreover one who is generally sympathetic to the way in which this Government has handled this matter. With your Lordships' permission, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 [Limitation of capital expenditure financed by borrowing]:
5.52 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendments Nos. 106 and 107:
Page 25, line 29, leave out ("the British Waterways Board or")
Page 25, line 29, leave out line 36.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if it would be for the convenience of your Lordships, I propose to take Amendments Nos. 106 and 107 together. These two Amendments are consequential on the deletion of "inland waterways" from Group 15 in Part I of Schedule 10. They remove the British Waterways Board from the group of bodies whose borrowing requirements must be accommodated within the annual limit to be laid down under Clause 49. The bringing forward of these Amendments is consequential on the Amendment of Group 15 in Committee, carried, of course, against the Government's advice. They are brought forward without prejudice to the attitude which the Government may think it right to adopt on the matter of inland waterways when the Bill returns to another place. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 51 [Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General]:
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 107A:
Page 27, line 2, after ("Scottish") insert (",Welsh").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, subsection (4) of Clause 51 as it stands disqualifies the Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General from membership of the House of Commons, the Scottish Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. This Amendment extends the disqualification to membership of the Welsh Assembly also.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, is it not constitutionally dubious to take it for granted that Parliament is automatically going to follow a predicted course of action? After all, there is no such thing at the moment as a Welsh Assembly—it is even farther away than the Scottish Assembly—nor, incidentally, is there any Northern Ireland Assembly, which is also mentioned in the same subsection on page 27. Suppose that this noble House were to decline to give a Third Reading to the Wales Bill, which it has every right to do, what then?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I can respond to this extent: That my advice is that it is competent for me to lay this Amendment before your Lordships' House, and I do so.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would be kind enough to look at this point again, because the same thoughts are going through my mind as were expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I think the answer would be to insert the words "any Scottish or Welsh Assembly" as opposed to "the Scottish or Welsh Assembly". I do not see how you can possibly say that there is a Welsh Assembly when there may well not be. If the noble Lord would consider on Third Reading inserting the word "any", that would solve the problem.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am further advised that it is permissible to refer to bodies in a Bill which has had a Second Reading in the second House, as this one has.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 55 [Accounts Committee]:
Lord GRAY Lord GRAY moved mendment No. 108:
Page 28, line 18, at beginning insert ("The members of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment concerns Clause No. 55. The point is quite a simple one. We have now moved from the raising of revenue to the accounting for revenue received. Clause 51 has appointed a Scottish Comptroller and Auditor General. In Clause 54 the Scottish Secretaries are required to furnish him with accounts of the monies for which they are responsible. Clause 55 reads:
"The Assembly shall appoint an Accounts Committee, which shall examine and report to the Assembly…".
Subsection (2) provides:
"The Accounts Committee may include one but shall not include more than one person who is a Scottish Secretary or an assistant to a Scottish Secretary".
My points are two. First, is it the Government's intention that the Accounts Committee referred to in subsection (1) shall consist entirely and solely of Members of the Assembly or is that not their intention? If it is their intention that it should include only members of the Assembly, would it not be better to say so in the Bill? It is possible that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, will refer to exchanges between himself and me on Thursday night at about half-past ten o'clock in relation to committees in general, when he said that where the Assembly was appointing a committee it was safe to assume that it meant a committee of members of the Assembly. I entirely agree with him about that. I note that in the Wales Bill, page 8, Clause 17(3), in a rather wordy clause where the word "Assembly" is used three times they take the trouble to say:
"shall consist of such number of members of the Assembly as the Assembly may determine".
I think there might be the same doubt here. I beg to move.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, speaking, as I should not do, in a personal capacity just before I open my remarks, I have not yet quite got to the Wales Bill myself. However, I am going to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Gray, by re-running the same comment as I made to him last
74
Thursday night. In the Government's view the Amendment is unnecessary as its purpose is met by the Bill as it stands. I am advised that in the case of any Statute there is a presumption that unless express provision is made to the contrary, members of a committee or sub-committee must be members of the parent body. The clause as drafted accordingly ensures that all Members of the Assembly Accounts Committee shall be members of the Assembly, as does Clause 27 in relation to the appointment of committees generally to deal with devolved matters. Had the contrary been intended it would have been necessary to provide explicitly that persons who were not members of the Assembly could be appointed members of the committee.
I am also bound to say that in the Government's view it would be unwise to accept this and the following Amendment. To do so would raise doubts as to the interpretation of other statutory provisions relating to committees where no explicit requirement is made as to membership of a parent body. An example of that type of difficulty is that the Amendment to Clause 55 as presently proposed would immediately cast doubt on the right interpretation to be placed on Clause 27—a clause we have already passed by. That, in brief, is the Government's position.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill for that explanation. I certainly should not want to disturb other Statutes. I thank him for furthering my education in this matter and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
Clause 60 [Proposals for powers to raise moneys]:
The Earl of PERTH The Earl of PERTH moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 30, line 5, leave out ("they") and insert ("it").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the background is simply that I made a grammatical mistake in the clause. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, who pointed out that collective nouns

75
could be either singular or plural. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, made the same point. I had committed the crime of using the singular in one place and the plural in another place. If my Amendment is accepted, I shall be able to pass my exam without having to go back to school again!
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Matters within legislative competence of Assembly, and within powers of Scottish Executive]:
6.1 p.m.
The Earl of PERTH The Earl of PERTH moved Amendment No. 111B:
Page 53, line 9, after ("Libraries") insert ("(including access to the block giant, special purchase grants and the National Land Fund)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am afraid this will be a longer speech than I made just a moment ago. I should like to make two preliminary points. One is that I must declare an interest in that I am a trustee of the National Library of Scotland. The second point is that, with the permission of your Lordships, I will talk in a general way not only about my Amendment but also about that of the noble Earl, Lord Haig. I ask to be allowed to do this not because I want to speak specifically about his Amendment but because the whole of the trouble involved here has arisen from a happening during the Committee stage. That arose from his Amendment but it covered the two Amendments we are considering now.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl would kindly give way. I think it is inevitable that in our discussion of this Amendment, which is very similar to the next Amendment, we should be talking of common ground. But as it is Report stage and we can speak only once on each Amendment, I think it would give us greater flexibility if we could take them separately.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, I entirely agree with that and perhaps, if it is not out of order, I might make the point that, if your Lordships gave us leave at some time, we might want to "bend the rules" about Report stage, bearing
76
in mind that the whole of this trouble has arisen because of a mistake made at the Committee stage. However, perhaps I need not elaborate further on that at this moment.
At the time we were considering the Amendment by the noble Earl, Lord Haig, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, stated quite clearly, not once but several times during the debate, that special purchase grants would he available for the libraries, the museums and the galleries. At this moment I w ill quote only one example of what took place in our Committee stage debate. At column 805 of Hansard, on 9th May 1978, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said this:
"The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, made the point about special purchase grants. Extraordinary action by the Treasury will continue to be available, as now, and allocations can still be made to the galleries, and so on, of Scotland. I hope that this assurance clears up the point".
In her statement, she made it crystal clear that there were to be three sources of funds for the libraries and for the museums and the galleries: that is to say, the block grant; the special grant, about which the whole of this trouble has arisen, and the National Land Fund. Since the Committee stage, however, the noble Earl, Lord Haig, has received a letter which goes back on this undertaking and says specifically that the noble Baroness was incorrect when she said what is quoted in column 812 of Hansard of 9th May 1978. The letter says:
"I was incorrect in stating that if any special extraordinary circumstances should arise in which extra money needs quickly to be made available to save a very valuable work of art, then the Scottish Administration can come to the Treasury to make their case".
Let me say at this stage—and I say this with all the conviction and strength in my power—that I in no way blame the noble Baroness for what has happened. Nor do I in any way—and I know that I speak for all your Lordships on this—doubt her good faith. I could not do that. I am in no way criticising her. I am, however, criticising the brief which led her to say what she did in her letter.
I can think of only two possible explanations. One is that the Scottish Office prepared the brief and did not clear it with the Treasury and that the Treasury afterwards said, "Oh no, that won't do", or, alternatively, that the Government

77
themselves changed their minds. It does not matter which explanation is the right one because it comes to the same thing; the House was misled at Committee stage, and this is a lamentable affair.
What do we do now? So far as my Amendment is concerned, concerning the National Libraries, I ask that we pass the Amendment which allows us to have recourse for the libraries to the special grants as well as to the block grant and the National Land Fund. That would have been the position we thought we were in at the Committee stage. I only hope that the Government are reviewing this matter and, having heard the arguments deployed, will give way on this point.
So far, so good—or so bad. But, my Lords, this is not the end of the unhappy affair for, having now turned down in the letter recourse to the Treasury for special grants, the letter goes on to say this:
"The above-mentioned arrangements are, of course, without prejudice to the freedom of action by the Government to make funds available in any case it thinks fit for any purchase, whatever the circumstances".
If that is not the case of a door being ajar (which in the earlier part of the letter I had been told was closed) to make special representations to the Treasury, I do not know what is.
I am frankly appalled at the muddle in which we find ourselves, and it confirms my fears that no one, and certainly no ordinary person, be they connected with a museum or gallery or simply a person interested in saving works of art, can have any idea of how the present system works or of how it will work in the future for Scotland. Therefore, for the reasons I have given, I very much hope that the Government will reconsider their position and agree that, both for the libraries and for the museums and galleries, we can have recourse to the Treasury for special grants. As we are back, in a sense, at Committee stage I hope it will be accepted that if somebody does, for very good reasons, feel bound to ask leave of the House to come back again, this may be permitted.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has mentioned, it has come to light since the Committee stage that the Government
78
inadvertently misinformed your Lordships during the Committee stage, on the subject of special purchase grants. It is important that this should be corrected now in your Lordships' House, because it was in Hansard and was widely reported in the Press. As I indicated earlier, when the noble Earl kindly gave way to me, the same error applies to the immediately following Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Haig. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, is concerned with libraries and his Amendment applies to them. As I see it, my noble friend's Amendment covers libraries, but also applies to museums and galleries. So that there may be a difficulty about accepting both Amendments, if the House decides to take a decision on them. But perhaps I may come to that at the end of my speech, because when I have spoken I intend to suggest how the House might proceed because of that problem.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, I think that they are quite different. My Amendment includes access, whereas the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Haig, is to exclude. In other words, I am allowing that things shall be included, while he is asking that they should be excluded.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, there is, none the less, a contradiction, because it would be a curiously worded Act of Parliament which said "Libraries, including special purchase grants", if another Amendment took out special purchase grants for libraries. But there may be an additional point concerning the National Land Fund, which is in the noble Earl's Amendment. My own impression—and no doubt the Government have looked at this carefully, with their draftsmen—is that my noble friend's Amendment will also cover what the noble Earl, Lord Perth, wants to do in his Amendment. But it would be difficult to pass both of them, as they are at present worded.
The main point is that we accepted what was said to us in complete good faith about special purchase grants. This had been raised by my noble friend Lord Haig when he moved the Amendment in Committee stage, and it is a matter which I particularly spoke on when I followed him in the debate. As Secretary of State for Scotland, I had been concerned with

79
applying to the Treasury for money additional to the annual purchase grant quota, in order to purchase for Scotland some very special and expensive works of art, which today, if your Lordships go to Edinburgh, you will find are showpieces in the galleries and museums.
The noble Baroness said that the special purchase grants will continue, because they are not mentioned, the principle of the Bill being that something is reserved by silence. That is where the difficulty has arisen in the Bill. We then said "Right, we now understand that the special purchase grants will continue, and in the kind of situation where the Secretary of State decides that a Domenichino should be bought for the Scottish National Gallery—because it is something which would be very special in that comprehensive collection, where there is at present a gap—if there is agreement in the Government, the Treasury will then allocate a special purchase grant, with, of course, a limit to the amount which the agents of the Secretary of State can bid". We were told that, and the Government's assurance was that the present system would continue.
Indeed, when my noble friend Lord Haig wound up, he said:
"We have had a very interesting debate on this Amendment and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for her helpful reply, particularly about additional special grants, regarding which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, made a plea. I am most grateful for the assurance that we have been given on that point".—[Official Report, 9/5/78; col. 814.]
It was perhaps the most important matter that arose in that debate. The situation has now completely changed, because those of us who took part in the debate received letters, which the noble Baroness was very courteous in sending to us; but that was just the four or five Peers who took part in the debate. To my mind, the new information, which now contradicts what the Government said on that occasion, greatly alters the situation.
My noble friend Lord Haig will no doubt say more when we come to his Amendment, but the point which is now being corrected refers to libraries in this Amendment, as well as to museums and galleries, which are also dealt with in
80
my noble friend's Amendment. I suggest that when the debate on the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, is concluded, we might proceed to the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Haig, because I believe—and the Government may confirm this—that it covers everything in the noble Earl's Amendment. If it does not, then what I suggest is that there might be an opportunity on Third Reading to do any tidying up. But having examined the Amendments myself, I should prefer to pass my noble friend's Amendment, which deals with special purchase grants, and purchase grants for libraries, museums and galleries, and is not simply limited to libraries. I think that it also covers the National Land Fund.
6.17 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I think that perhaps I go so far with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. The Amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the one proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Haig, are so interrelated, that perhaps we can bear that fact in mind and have a general discussion on them and then take a decision on the two Amendments separately, at the end. Otherwise, I shall bore the House tremendously by giving something like the same reply to both Amendments, because the same facts apply. This might be simpler, but I am in the hands of the House.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, whatever happens, we have to take the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, before the other, and if we were to divide, or if the Government accepted the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that would make the second Amendment much more difficult to accept. It may be that the House will accept what the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has suggested, which is that some of us might be able to speak two or three times, which we would not have been able to do. I see the Deputy Chief Whip disapproving of that. But we have a right to speak once on each of these Amendments, so that perhaps my noble friend Lord Haig should speak now in this debate, because it is the same main subject, and should reserve his opportunity to move his Amendment later, so that he can speak briefly on that again, without going over the same ground.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, since the noble Lord referred to me, perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the mover of an Amendment has the right to speak twice.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: Yes, my Lords. We have accepted that all the way through, but it was he who made the suggestion. When I talk about speaking once, I am referring to all those Members who do not have their names to Amendments and are not in a position, therefore, to wind-up.
Earl HAIG: My Lords, at the Committee stage of the Bill, I moved an Amendment to reserve money spent on purchase grants to museums and galleries. My view was that the task of preserving our artistic heritage for posterity was a major one, and that we should be very careful how we were using our resources which, in certain events, might be inadequate. My belief was that to include all purchase grants in the block grant to the Assembly would be wrong. However, in view of the assurances given by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, that the special grants for important work would still be channelled direct from the Treasury and apportioned to galleries, with expert advice from the Standing Commission, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, and other Members of the Committee, took the view that since the lion's share of the purchase funds would be administered on a United Kingdom basis, the lesser annual grants might be devolved. This compromise did not have my support at the time, since I felt it was questionable how certain it would be that the Assembly would be able to allocate the large amounts needed, both annually and in special grant form, when other more materialistic needs in Scotland might have to be taken care of. As a past trustee of the National Galleries of Scotland, I can see that to separate annual purchase grants from special purchase grants would be difficult to operate in a fair manner.
The approach to the affairs of the National Galleries is from two directions. The first aspect has to do with the availability of works to students and others who want to learn about and enjoy their artistic heritage. The second aspect has to do with the purchase of pictures to
82
enlarge collections, to fill gaps, and, where necessary, to purchase works which hitherto have been on loan. In our last debate on this subject the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, stated that the purchase of pictures:
"cannot logically be regarded as separate from the other activities of the galleries".
With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, I would say that the acquisition of pictures has always been to a large extent independent of the administrative functions of the galleries. In fact, administratively speaking, the two functions—purchasing on the one hand and the administration of galleries on the other—are already conducted through separate departments. The cost of presentation and education and of salaries is subject to scrutiny by the Civil Service Department. The other function, involving the annual purchase grants, is subject to the recommendations of the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries, and the Civil Service Department are not consulted at all.
The special grants and the annual grants are, in fact, linked together. One is considered as a necessary addition to the other, to be given in special circumstances. All purchase grants are linked with the taxation system. I think in our last debate the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, suspected that the future affairs of the National Galleries of Scotland might cause the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, a headache. I must confess that the whole question of taxation causes me—and, no doubt, other noble Lords—a headache for a considerable part of the time. Certainly mine aches at the thought of the millions of pounds needed to preserve our heritage. Many lawyers and trustees will have their eyes on this Bill, not least to see how it affects the acceptance of works of art in payment of capital transfer tax. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, in his speech referred indirectly to the Sutherland Collection which is on loan and housed in our recently enlarged gallery in Edinburgh. The noble Lord said:
"If they were not kept there I would say that it would he a disaster not only for Scotland, but for the United Kingdom of Britain".
Before leaving the subject of purchase grants, perhaps I should mention that in the recent past all purchase grants have been devoted by the National Galleries of Scotland to the purchase of national

83
heritage calibre works rather than to works which might be considered to be gap fillers in the collection. This is due to the critical period in which we live. It does not apply, for special reasons, to the National Gallery of Modern Art or to the National Portrait Gallery, where they still continue to allocate some of their money to pictures which will fill the gaps.
Perhaps I may refer to the letter, to which my noble friend Lord Perth has referred, from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, in which she has withdrawn her assurances on behalf of the Government, made during our last debate. On that occasion, as has been said, the noble Baroness assured us that special grants would continue to be paid direct from the Treasury and would not be devolved. The noble Baroness has now put matters in a different light and I have had no alternative but to put down another Amendment to give the Members of your Lordships' House another chance to review the situation in the light of her letter.
I must thank the noble Baroness for what she has written. If there were any misleading element on her part, I absolutely understand that it was not at all intentional and I agree with and support everything that the noble Earl has said. Noble Lords will remember that it was her assurance that galleries would have access to "extraordinary money for extraordinary purposes" which carried so much weight in the last debate. In her letter the noble Baroness explained that her remarks had referred to the National Land Fund rather than to special purchase funds and that access would still be possible to the Fund in cases of special and urgent need.
I understand that the findings of the special Sub-Committee on the Future of the National Land Fund are due to be published this week. It may well be that the National Land Fund may be phased out and the money moved elsewhere. Possibly, so far as Scotland is concerned, money for special art purchases will go through the block grant. The noble Baroness has mentioned in her letter that the Government would be free to make funds available in certain places and that works appropriated through the
84
help of the National Land Fund would be allocated, in appropriate circumstances, to institutions in Scotland. My concern is whether there will be enough money available to pay for the retention of works of art—for example, some of the works now on loan from the noble Duke, the Duke of Sutherland, in Edinburgh, should they be put on the market, and whether there might he a danger of their leaving Scotland, either for London or for America. Perhaps when the noble Baroness comes to reply she could give us some information about the future of the National Land Fund.
Before I sit down, perhaps I may mention a remark I overheard while visiting the Cézanne Exhibition in Paris last week. An Englishman, admiring one of the last great portraits of the gardener Vallier, said to his companion how important it was for this painting to be available to the public rather than remain in a private collection. Perhaps he did not realise that the painting actually belonged to the National Galley of Washington; and, indeed, the majority of paintings in that wonderful exhibition had travelled over from America. Perhaps I might also mention the fact that the reproduction on the cover of the exhibition catalogue was of our Edinburgh Mont Saint Victoire.
The point of my story is to warn of the increasing erosion of works of art across the Atlantic. It is vital that we maintain a proper defence system, and the best way, in my view, is for taxes raised by the Treasury to be channelled by the Treasury, with expert advice, direct to the bodies who have the responsibility for maintaining our heritage.
6.28 p.m.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, I should like to begin by echoing the remarks made by all previous speakers regarding the statement made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and the letter which followed it. No one who heard the noble Baroness in previous debates could possibly entertain the notion for a moment that she was intending to mislead the House. No one reading her letter, which she was so kind as to circulate, could fail to realise that some mysterious change has taken place. I shall not follow the noble Earl, Lord Perth, in speculating as to the

85
source of this mystery. However, it is a matter of grave perplexity, and those of us who have had the business of administering gallery or library funds in the past must, I think, be a little disquieted by the obvious change of mind and the suspicions regarding the change of mind which must inevitably accompany it. But enough of that.
To the outside world, the anxiety which some of us display in this respect must be itself a matter of considerable amazement. If one considers in the abstract the principles relating to some reasonable devolution scheme on the planet Saturn, let us suppose, what could at first blush seem more reasonable than that among the subjects devolved should be the care of libraries, museums and galleries? I am sure that, stated in the abstract, that is a proposition which would seem to be good sense to those—I will not call them the unenlightened, but to those who have not had the responsibility for this particular kind of administration here and now in the United Kingdom.
What is at stake here? I speak with some diffidence as regards the libraries. I have had a good deal to do with libraries in the course of my life and I suspect what I am going to say is true there, at any rate so far as the world famous libraries are concerned. But I speak with absolute certainty as regards the affairs of national galleries. I was associated with the National Gallery in London for 21 years and I know the National Gallery of Scotland very well indeed since at one time I had business connections in Edinburgh which caused me to visit Edinburgh once a month; and I would usually sneak away from my business affairs to go and look at the masterpieces in that precious collection.
What distinguishes the concrete case with which Her Majesty's Government are confronted in this particular connection, from the abstract position which I have already stated, is this: What is at stake are objects of immense financial value. In the present situation of world markets they are at a degree of peril which until a. year—or is it two years?—ago, on the death of a certain American millionaire, had never existed to the same extent before. Now that the affairs of the late Mr. Getty are being cleared up, it is obvious that whatever distribution is
86
made among his various associates, there will remain as a residue in the hands of the trustees or curators of the comparitively small Getty museum North of Los Angeles, a capital sum, the interest on which will enable these people to outbid every other single national gallery in the world. That is a situation from which there is no escape by assigning the business of saving these treasures to the Scottish National Assembly and the limited sums that it will have at its disposal.
Of the precious objects which still remain in private hands in the United Kingdom I cannot say how many books there are whose order of importance is of the degree that I am contemplating. But if the Getty fund were available when the—what shall I say?—35 or 45 internationally top works of art which are in private hands in this country come on the market, it would only he within the competence of the Government of the United Kingdom to save them. These are the brute facts of the situation and I hesitate to think that representatives of a Government under whose Labour predecessors' auspices there was instituted a Ministry of Fine Arts, which has done so much to ease the position of those responsible for safeguarding the national heritage, can put their heads in the sand, confronted with this enormous danger and shrug it off by saying "Well, this can be a matter for the Scottish Assembly", and conjecturally perhaps for the Land Fund, whatever happens to it in the future, unless it is substantially enlarged.
After all, if I understand correctly the letter of the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, would not have been able to apply for a special grant for Scotland in respect of the Domenichino. That was not in lieu of death duties; it was a purchase from the Dulwich Gallery. I think I have said enough. In conclusion, I simply say that, were the few remaining masterpieces of art, archaeological remains and literary production still remaining in private hands to migrate on a large scale to other countries, from the cultural point of view it would be a disaster, the magnitude of which it would be very difficult to exaggerate.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, has spoken of the peril and I have no doubt it is very real.

87
The Bill as it is structured devolves the subject but gives no direct, clear method by which an essential element of that devolved subject can properly be handled. There is no assurance of the division between annual administration and grants which those who speak with authority, such as the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the noble Earl, Lord Haig, have said is essential and I should have thought that the experience of any one in galleries shows that it is essential.
I have no doubt that some reference to special grants must come into the Bill in one form or another. The Bill is quite silent on this point. It merely devolves the subject and leaves the rest open. Two methods have been suggested, one by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and one by the noble Earl, Lord Haig. The method of the block grant has the advantage of getting the Assembly behind the request. This is obviously in many ways an advantage, which I do not misunderstand. But I have to recognise how strongly the Assembly will demand some form of block grant. We must in fairness remember that block grants once made are at the free disposition of the Assembly.
I do not want to cast any slurs, but this is the way the Bill has been constructed and it is something one obviously has to look at and take into calculation. There is obviously a conflict in this field between what I might describe as the immediate needs, on the one hand and eternal values, on the other. This is a conflict which any democratic Assembly obviously has to face up to. We in many ways, through the National Commission for Museums and Galleries, have been very successful in doing so. But it is not an easy course to pursue, and I think we could not lightheartedly enter into an idea which does not recognise that there is this conflict, and that it will be always there.
The other method is the exclusion of the purchase grant altogether and placing the responsibility for the grants where the money is, in other words with the Treasury. I am not quite certain, taking the long and the short, which is the best way. I am a little inclined to think that the exclusion of these subjects, keeping them quite separate from the maintenance of the galleries and the arts, is probably the
88
surest way, and I am inclined to think that to put the responsibility clearly where money is available, which is, of course, through the National Commission for Museums and Galleries, the Treasury, is the correct place. I would only say this. I am sure we ought to put in something which will ensure that there is clear access to the source where special grants can be obtained. I think this House would he failing in its duty if it did not put in one method or the other.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, before I begin to reply to the Amendments, may I acknowledge the very generous way in which noble Lords from all parts of the House have received my letter explaining the misunderstanding and the way I came to misinform the House on the last occasion. I will try to do better this time. It is the Government's intention that the responsibility for the Scottish National Museums and Galleries and the National Library of Scotland should lie with the devolved Administration as part of its responsibility for education and arts in Scotland. The intention is that the devolved Administration should have control over all aspects of those institutions, including both their normal purchase grants-in-aid and any special purchase grants which the institutions may seek. In our view, it would be inappropriate for the Scottish Administration to be responsible for the overall development of the national institutions in Scotland, including their organisation, salaries and staffing, provision of accommodation and maintenance of buildings and their contents, and yet have no responsibility for the provision of funds for the purchase by the institutions of objects for their collections.
I am sure the argument cannot be—and I do not accept it—that the Scottish Administration will be any less conscious of the importance of purchase grants and of cultural and artistic matters generally than are the Government here at Westminster. The Scottish Administration will have very wide responsibility for the arts. It will obviously wish to draw up priorities and to develop coherent policies across very broad subject areas; that is what devolution is all about. On the practical level, it just does not make sense to give the Scottish Administration full responsibility for funding the national museums

89
and galleries but to preclude them from all responsibility for funding purchases for those collections—as if the building could be separated from the objects to go in it. This will not make for good administration, nor will it make for good government.
On the cultural level, it would be less than generous, and in my view gratuitously insulting, to suggest that the devolved Administrtion will neglect the importance of building up the national collections and preserving the Scottish heritage. I would have thought that the reverse is much more likely to be the case.
The Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, in so far as it devolves "access to the block grant and special purchase grants", is, in our view, unnecessary. Both the annual and special purchase grants are to be devolved and their cost will be met from the Scottish Consolidated Fund—the "block fund". It is perhaps not generally appreciated how large this fund will be. Based on the 1975–76 data, the White Paper on Devolution: Financing the Devolved Services, stated in Table 3 that the block fund would amount to £1,871 million. It will clearly be greater in money terms by the time the devolved Administration takes office. So if special circumstances arise and the devolved Administration considers that additional funds should be made available to a particular Scottish national institution to enable it to secure a particular object or collection of outstanding importance, it ought to be within the Administration's capacity to make whatever special purchase grants it considers necessary and to be able to do it quickly, with that amount of money in the block fund.
It is also important to say that these arrangements are, of course, without prejudice to the Government's freedom of action to make funds available, or to make purchases, in any case that they think fit for any purpose, whatever the circumstances. If the Government go ahead and buy some special object or picture or book which they think would be better housed in one of the Scottish institutions, then I am sure that is what they will do.
The case made by the noble Earl, Lord Haig, for reserving purchase grants is
90
based on the premise that these grants are linked to the taxation system, which will be outside the jurisdiction of the devolved Administration. While I agree that taxation policy may affect the number of important objects coming on to the market, I do not think it follows that decisions on the level of purchase grants necessary to secure a reasonable proportion of these objects for the national institutions need be taken by the same authority which decides the taxation policy. There is no reason why the devolved Administration should not take whatever steps seem to it to be appropriate to deal with any new situation that may arise from a change in taxation policy.
I feel that the intention underlying both Amendments in so far as they relate to the National Land Fund is the same, although the method of achieving the aim is different; it is to ensure that after devolution purchases made with money from the fund would be allocated, as now, to institutions in Scotland. I can confirm that that is the position that the Bill achieves as it stands. The National Land Fund itself is to be reserved as part of national finance and taxation, and if the fund continues to be administered broadly as at present then works of art acquired through the operation of the fund will be continued to be allocated in appropriate circumstances to institutions in Scotland as they have been in the past. So in this respect we believe Lord Haig's Amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Perth's Amendment would have the effect, perhaps unintentionally, of devolving to the Assembly legislative control over the operation of the fund in Scotland. This is totally unacceptable. But if the noble Earl's purpose is to ensure that the national institutions will continue to be eligible for works acquired through the fund, as I have explained, the Bill as it stands does not in any way prevent this. I know that there are very serious worries in the minds of noble Lords from Scotland, particularly about the possible future of the Sutherland Collection. It is quite obvious that if by some calamity it suddenly all came on to the market together then there would be considerable problems for both the Scottish Administration and, I should have thought, for the Government of the day as well. However, even in circumstances such as

91
death, some of these treasures might very well be taken in lieu of death duty and remain in the Scottish institutions. In other cases the block grant might be sufficient to buy some of the major ones.
If there is a real, desperate urge, but no money available, to buy any special part of this collection—if it ever came on to the market—or something similar then presumably the same procedure would take place as takes place now. There would be a public appeal issued and perhaps the Government here at Westminster, after representations from the Secretary of State, could make a similar amount of money available if the rest were raised by private subscription. That sort of thing is possible with or without the Bill.
The noble Earl, Lord Haig, was kind enough to give me notice that he planned to raise the question of the National Land Fund and the fact that we were awaiting the report which we now understand will be with us very shortly. However, the Government are still awaiting that report. Obviously we cannot say what is in it, because we do not know what is in it at present, and we do not know what procedures it will ill recommend about the acceptance of property in lieu of tax. It is possible that there may have to be changes in the operation of the Fund following the consideration of the report and whether the recommendations are accepted. However, at this stage it is obviously too soon to comment on that.
It has been a little worrying discussing the two Amendments together although the task has been made easier because they cover the same area. As we see it, the two Amendments operate quite separately. If both are carried, then the words in the first Amendment would qualify only libraries and the words in the second Amendment would certainly cover art galleries and, possibly, museums. As we see it, if only the second one is carried, then it would completely exclude from the legislative and executive competence of the Scottish Assembly the matter of purchase funds for libraries, art galleries and museums: these would all revert to the funds in Britain. Therefore, we think that there are problems with both of the Amendments. The Government's advice is that the Bill enables the
92
Assembly to do what it wants to to. It ought to have enough money in its block fund to be able to make its special purchases and to make them quickly so that works of art are not lost to the country.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, I am afraid that we have got ourselves into a rather complicated situation. I can only say that the Amendment which I tabled and that which the noble Earl, Lord Haig, tabled are both due to the muddle which was made by the Government during the Committee stage. We were given very short notice and tabled them at the end of last week.
With that background, let me make clear the situation as regards my Amendment. So far as the Libraries are concerned, they are perfectly ready ordinarily to be looking to the block grant to provide them with their funds for book purchases. However, we also want to be able to look directly to the Government for special purchase grants and for access to the National Land Fund. As I understand it, the Amendment which I have tabled at present does not give effect to that, partly because instead of a comma I should have inserted a full stop to make it clear that libraries are separate from museums and galleries. That being the case, I think that to avoid confusion it would probably be best for me not to press my Amendment this evening. However, I put your Lordships on notice that on Third Reading I shall want to table an Amendment which isolates the libraries from the museums and galleries as regards access to the block grant, but allows them access to the special purchase grants and to the National Land Fund.
It is all very well for the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, to say that the block grant will be some £2 billion and therefore there is lots of room for a special purchase grant. I should remind your Lordships that the Government's budget is 20 or 30 times larger and yet, when it came to the question of saving Mentmore and its treasures, they could not even agree to £200,000 a year for five years. How can the noble Baroness say that special purchase grants can come out of the £2 billion when the Government cannot do that when their budget is so many times larger? Therefore, it is essential that the libraries as well as the museums

93
and galleries should have access to special purchase grants—that is what it is all about—and should not rely on the block grant. It may very well be £2 billion, but that is nothing compared with the total funds which are available for these purposes.
Therefore, I shall not press my Amendment this evening. However, the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Haig, is another matter. If that Amendment is pressed and carried, then I hope that it is sufficient for me to say that when we come to Third Reading I shall introduce an Amendment to make one difference between the museums, galleries and the libraries—namely, that the libraries shall have access to the block fund and then afterwards to the others. I hope that that is acceptable to your Lordships.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, is it your Lordships' pleasure that Amendment No. 111B be withdrawn, which I understand to be the intention of the noble Earl, Lord Perth?
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, yes, that is my intention.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.57 p.m.
Earl HAIG Earl HAIG moved Amendment No. 111C:
Page 53, line 9, after ("galleries") insert ("(excluding purchase funds which comprise annual purchase grants, special grants and access to the National Land Fund)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I suppose that a comma has never caused so much difficulty to your Lordships. I have been amazed at the ingenuity of certain noble Lords in enabling us to overcome this problem. However, we have overcome the problem and I now feel that I have said enough in the two speeches that I have made and I do not want to say any more. It is now my pleasure and honour to move Amendment No. 111C.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly on this Amendment which arises from the mistake which the Government had written to several of us about. I do not expect the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, to repeat those comments which she made regarding the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord
94
Perth, which also apply to this Amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, has rightly pointed to the need to buy outstanding works of art when they are needed as central parts of collections in Scotland. Also, noble Lords have spoken of the need to stop their departure abroad. We believe that this must be done on a national scale and that there is a need for co-ordination at national level. The fact that we are now being told the opposite about special purchase grants from what we were told during the Committee stage is disquieting and raises doubts about the whole way in which reserved matters are identified in the Bill by silence. We were told that because special purchase grants were not mentioned in the Bill we could assume that they were reserved.
My sympathy goes to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, because it was he who explained this to us. Now we can no longer be sure about it. We were told that they were reserved because they were not mentioned. However, we must ask how many more subjects there may be which we have not been able to raise because they have not come to mind, but which, if we went into them, we might find were not mentioned but were not, in fact, reserved.
I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, withdrew his Amendment because it referred to libraries alone; as a result of the drafting that he has mentioned it would have been difficult for this Amendment of my noble friend, which refers not only to libraries but to museums and galleries. But the point is that if this Amendment is passed by your Lordships, the block grant will still be available for the administration of libraries, museums and galleries. It is simply the purchase of acquisitions which is dealt with.
I realise that in the case of libraries the purchase of books happens the whole time, whereas the purchase of works of art and objects of art by museums and galleries is probably less frequent. So there is a difference there, but I believe that my noble friend Lord Haig should now press his Amendment and, if it is successful, any drafting gloss that is necessary for libraries can, as the noble Earl said, be done on Third Reading. However, I certainly think that another

95
place should be given the opportunity to consider this important matter.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. He has made a point of fundamental importance, as did my noble friend Lord Selkirk. It is the point of construction legislation by silence. It is a very long-established principle in English law, which goes back nearly 300 years that when construing a statute there is a presumption that the legislature does not intend any alteration in the existing law except that which it expressly declares. That was established in 1708 in the Court of Common Pleas in the case of Arthur v.Bokenham where Thomas, Lord Trevor, Chief Justice, said:
"The general rule in exposition of all Acts of Parliament is this, that in all doubtful matters, and where the expression is in general terms, they are to receive such a construction as may be agreeable to the rules of common law, in cases of that nature; for statutes are not presumed to make any alteration in the common law, further or otherwise than the Act does expressly declare; therefore, in all general matters the law presumes the Act did not intend to make any alteration; for if Parliament had had that design, they would have expressed it in the Act.".
That illustrates the fundamental necessity for having some sort of Amendment in this way. That principle was reiterated much nearer our time, in 1952, by Lord Justice Devlin, who stated in the case of the National Assistance Board v.Wilkinson:
"It is a well-established principle of construction that a statute is not to be taken as effecting a fundamental alteration in the general law unless it uses words that point unmistakably to that conclusion.".
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, can help us. It seems to me that there are two reasons why noble Lords are worried about the way in which the Assembly is to be charged with the responsibility of purchasing for Scottish galleries. One is that they are worried that there may not be the will and the understanding to run the galleries properly or to give the support to the galleries that the galleries deserve. Frankly, this is a worry which I do not share. I think that an Assembly based in Edinburgh will have the will and the understanding to support the galleries which exist in Scotland.
96
However, the other worry is that they may not have the wherewithal. I am not quite clear about how the funds get to the Assembly. We are told that there is a very large block grant and that somewhere hidden in this block grant is a sum of money which, in normal circumstances, would be sufficient to allow the Assembly to purchase important works of art, if that became suddenly necessary. What is not clear to me is whether this would be enough in one year to do the sort of thing that might arise, or whether over a period of, shall we say, five or 10 years enough money will have come through in a series of block grants to build up a fund.
Indeed, it is not clear to me whether it would be within the powers of the Assembly to establish some sort of purchase fund. After all, when a Scotsman plays a tune on the bagpipes, before he actually plays a note he has to blow air into the bag. In this case if the Assembly is to have sufficient funds to meet the kind of thing about which we have been hearing, it seems to me that the bag has to be inflated to the size at which it will be capable of playing any notes that may be necessary or, indeed, any cadence which may be necessary.
Therefore, I should very much like to know whether the noble Baroness thinks that the Assembly will have powers to accumulate funds from the block grant without having the block grant diminished because it has not used them in a given year. I should also like to know whether, in her opinion, the amount available in the first year of the Assembly's life is likely to be enough to meet any emergency that might arise in the first year. I think that I have said enough to make the problem clear, but it is a worry and one which obviously lies behind some of the remarks made by noble Lords.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say that it will be for the Assembly to decide how it uses the funds at its disposal. If it thinks that the best way of doing this and of securing something for the future is to establish a purchase grant, it is for the Assembly to take the decision to establish its purchase fund. If it wants to build it up and is able to build it up over a period of years, all the better.

97
I can see the problem and what lies in the minds of the Scottish Peers present—for instance, if the whole of the Sutherland collection were to come on to the market at once. But we cannot legislate in case that should happen. That is something which we should all have to face and put our minds to very quickly if there was not enough money, if all these valuable things came on to the market at once and we did not want to lose them. However, on the straight question asked by the noble Viscount, the answer is: Yes, the Assembly can decide to set up a purchase fund, and, yes, they can build it up over the years.
The Marquess of LINLITHGOW: My Lords, I did not mean to intervene, but I have listened very carefully to the debate both in Committee and during this stage. I have been asking myself the questions which we have all been asking ourselves—namely, as it stands will the Bill make it easier for the Scottish galleries, museums and libraries to retain and augment their possessions? Is not the position to be altered, or, in fact, will it be made more difficult? From what I have heard—and nothing would give me more pleasure than to uncouch my lance and rush to the rescue of the noble Baroness—I do not think that she has satisfied the House. As far as I am concerned, what I have been listening to so carefully has, I fear, now persuaded me that this Amendment must be supported. I believe that in spite of all that has been said, owing to the Bill the Scottish galleries, museums and libraries are in greater danger of losing their possessions than they were before. Therefore, unless I hear something to the contrary, I must support the Amendment.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, I find myself unable to remain silent. I did not want to prolong this debate. However, I have always been amazed at the amount of time that this House is prepared to give to debates on works of art et cetera. No doubt what I am about to say will brand me as a Philistine in the eyes of many. I do not mind if it does. I imagine that if my noble friend rose and said that the Government were prepared to set up some special fund of £300 million or £400 million it would be very satisfactory to most noble Lords in this House; but it would be highly unsatisfactory to about 99·5 per
98
cent. of the citizens of this country. When I hear the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, talking about the possibility of Paul Getty's fund buying up some Scottish treasures, saying that this would be a national disaster, I think that he has used grossly exaggerated language, and that the priority given to the value of these matters is much too high.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, I used the words "national cultural disaster".
Lord BROWN: My Lords, it is still "national disaster", whether you add "cultural" or not. If we sounded out opinion in this country on the values we are putting on these things, the amount of time we are prepared to give them and the priority we give to this business of buying up works of art which the citizens do not know exist and many of which have never been on exhibition at all, I think we should be surprised. We shall find ourselves getting into a position where we have to compete with the gigantic offers being made largely by Americans owing to the tax laws that they operate, which allow museums and art galleries to get huge funds at their disposal.
We cannot go on like this. We shall have to lose some of these works of art, rather than divert sums of money which are necessary for other social priorities to this business of saving these works of art. I understand that many of the people in this House have grown up with treasured works of art in their family homes and I have not, but I understand the value that they put on these things. However, we have to keep a perspective on these matters, and, listening to this debate, I think that there has been an over-emphasis of a particular aspect of this Bill.
Earl HAIG: My Lords, in view of the uncertainty over this issue and in view of the words expressed, I am strongly of the view that I should press this Amendment. It is not just because of the major problems that the noble Baroness has raised—and others have talked about the Sutherland collection—but the ordinary annual problems. The fact is that art, as the noble Lord who has just spoken said, is not number one priority in the minds of the people. It may well be that if money is given to the block grant, there could be

99
money which should go to the galleries given to other needs. That is my main reason for moving this Amendment.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that the further consideration on Report be adjourned during pleasure until twenty minutes past eight o'clock.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.20 p.m. until 8.20 p.m.]
7.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (111C) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 46.

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Elton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Avon, E.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Mountgarret, V.

Balerno, L.

Ferrers, E.

Norwich, V.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Fortescue, E.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Belstead, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Onslow, E.

Birdwood, L.

Greenway, L.

Perth,E.

Bridgeman, V.

Grimthorpe, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Burton, L.

Haig, E.

Rathcreedan, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Reigate, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hylton, L.

Robbins, L.

Carrington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Romney, E.

Cathcart, E.

Inglewood, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Cockfield, L.

Killearn, L.

Sandford, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kilmany, L.

Sandys, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Seear, B.

Craigavon, V.

Kinross, L.

Selkirk, E.

Croft, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Swinton, E.

de Clifford, L.

Long, V.

Trevethin and Oaksey, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Lyell, L. [Teller]

Vickers, B.

Digby, L.

Manton, L.

Vivian, L.

Dundee, E.

Margadale, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Elles, B.

Minto, E.

Young, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Morris, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aylestone, L.

Gregson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Bacon,B.

Hale, L.

Samuel, V.

Balogh, L.

Hanworth, V.

Shepherd, L.

Birk,B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stedman, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Henderson, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Brown, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Collison, L.

Janner, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Crook, L.

Kaldor, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Thomas of Monifieth, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Thurso, V.

Diamond, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

McCluskey, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Northfield, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller]

Gaitskell, B.

Oram, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller]

Gordon-Walker, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Wynne-Jones, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

SCOTLAND BILL
Further considered on Report.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 111A:
Page 53, line 32, leave out ("Provision of") and insert ("Policy for").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we discussed in Committee why the Government had introduced the words "Provision of", and as a result of that discussion my Amendment now suggests

101
substituting in their place "policy for". In the Scotland and Wales Bill of the last Session the equivalent provision did not contain the words which the Government have introduced into this Bill and the Government's replies have not convinced my noble friend and I that they are necessary. I say "replies" in the plural because since those which we received in Committee I have received somewhat different replies in correspondence with Ministers, as I shall reveal.
Now I am proposing alternative wording, rather than the deletion of the words "Provision of", and my noble friend Lord Morris, in Amendment No. 112, has another suggestion, other words for the Government to consider; so they have the choice. I remind noble Lords that the concern about the words "Provision of" is that they could be interpreted as enabling the Executive to nationalise and then operate buses themselves—that is, to carry out further nationalisation—and we do not think that is something which should be devolved to an Assembly or its Executive. The Government, for their part, have said that there is no such intention.
The body who have been making representations to us, and I understand have been in touch with the Government about this, are the Confederation of British Road Passenger Transport and they are worried about this wording for the reason I have given. I mention them because they represent no less than 98 per cent. of the operators of buses in England and Wales and virtually 100 per cent. of operators in Scotland. I am not talking about independents. These are all the operators—local authorities, the Scottish transport group, everyone who runs passenger buses. Thus, this confederation represents all the operators, to all intents and purposes, and they feel very strongly about the introduction of these words.
In the Committee debate the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said that Schedule 10 defined the matters which fell within the legislative competence of the Assembly. He said:
"We are not concerned with having the Scottish Executive running buses, but we are concerned with defining what it is that the Scottish Assembly may legislate about."
But Schedule 10 relates not only to matters within the legislative competence
102
of the Assembly but also to powers of the Scottish Executive. One need only look at the heading to Schedule 10 to see that it covers both. There is therefore a power, as the provision is now worded, for the Executive to provide public passenger transport services; in other words, to run buses themselves. That is now accepted, and that brings me to the further reply which I received from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, in correspondence. In a letter to me he wrote:
"Among the wide range of options open to the Scottish Assembly for future legislation, as they are at present open to the Government, would be consideration of the further nationalisation of the road passenger services."
He has accepted that the wording is open to that interpretation.
Again, Lord McCluskey said in our previous debate, speaking of the words "Provision of" which we were seeking to leave out:
"The significance of the words derives not directly from their inclusion in this particular group but from the derogation from it in Part II of Schedule 10.".
>Lord McCluskey has helped us greatly with describing the construction of the Bill and particularly of the Schedules and the parts of Schedule 10, and so far, since his description, in my interpretations I have been proved to be right; I understand what he has told us. But in that statement he must have overlooked his previous words, because so far as public passenger transport services by road are concerned, there are in Part II of the Schedule no derogations whatever; there are derogations in paragraphs 8 and 10 on railways and freight by road, but there are no derogations on passenger transport. Thus, Lord McCluskey in that passage I quoted was again helping us by describing the intentions in the way in which Schedule 10 is constructed, but he overlooked the fact that there are no derogations concerning road passenger transport in Part II. On studying the comments made in Committee and on receiving this further correspondence from Lord Kirkhill, I must point out that the arguments which Ministers used in Committee are not sound.
Another point to bear in mind is the Government's White Paper issued in June, 1977, on transport policy, Cmnd. 6836, in which the Government used the words:

103
"…a rational and consistent framework of policy for planning and consumer choice"
as the Government's aim for the powers they should have. As a result, Lord Morris has taken those words out of the White Paper, from paragraph 42, and put them in his alternative Amendment, No. 112. Again, he is trying to help the Government by using their own words, to describe what I think we are both trying to achieve in this Schedule. I believe there is little, probably nothing, between the two sides of the House on the question of intention. It is the difficulty of getting the wording right in the Bill to ensure that there are no misunderstandings or wrong interpretations, made in good faith, by the courts later if there are arguments. We think the wording and its later interpretation matter.
Lord Kirkhill has agreed in the passage I read from his letter to me that further nationalisation is possible under the wording as it stands—he added that of course denationalisation is also possible—but our point is that it is not the intention, and the Government agree, that that should be a devolved matter. We therefore believe that some alternative wording is required and we have put forward these suggestions. I hope the Government have been doing some thinking on this subject, even though they have not put down an Amendment, and that it will be possible to achieve what we both want without the danger of causing even more anxiety to the Confederation of British Road Passenger Transport—who, as I have said, represent virtually every operator in the land, including all the local authorities who run buses—and trouble later on generally in interpreting the Bill.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy in his Amendment. He has argued the case very well, and I do not want to delay your Lordships longer than necessary, other than to remind you of what the noble and learned Lord said at the Committee stage, as reported at column 819 of the Official Report of 9th May. I entirely agree with this. He said that the words "provision of" are important. He went on:
"they make it clear that we are concerned with transport as a service, or rather an aggregation of services, and not as an industry".
104
I do not believe that the words do that. All we are trying to do is to help the noble and learned Lord to specify precisely the Government's intention, which was very clearly stated in their excellent White Paper of June 1977. This is the sole intention of the Amendment.
8.31 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, would it be convenient to the House if I were to speak to both of the Amendments; namely, the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morris? They appear to be interrelated.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I agree with that suggestion, provided the second Amendment can be moved separately, which would then enable any noble Lord to speak again if he wishes; otherwise a noble Lord who does not move an Amendment can speak only once in the debate.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I should like to proceed on that basis if it meets with the agreement of the noble Lord, Lord Morris.
Lord MORRIS: Yes, of course.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, Amendment No. 112 seeks to change the same words as Amendment No. 111A and, as I have just said, I should like to take these Amendments together because they are interrelated. They have to be read together with Amendments Nos. 117, 118, and 118A, which concern Part II of Schedule 10. Therefore, if I have the permission of your Lordships, I may perhaps refer to these Amendments in my speech.
Concern has been expressed about the wording of the first sentence of Group 10, of Part I of Schedule 10 and, in particular, about the words "provision of". I would agree that they are not words of particular elegance; but our task is to put this Bill on the Statute Book with as precise a legal effect as can be achieved. It is with this in mind that we have used the words "provision of". I shall try to explain to your Lordships the legal effect we are seeking to achieve, and why we believe that the words "provision of" achieve it.

105
As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has clearly pointed out, we wish to devolve in Group 10 legislative and executive competence in respect of the integration of transport services and the balance between different modes of transport, the frequency and location of services, the organisational structure of services, and the financial support for services. We do not wish to devolve any competence in respect of safety and other standards, or in respect of working conditions. How do we express this? First, we must bear in mind that we wish to devolve more in respect of some modes of transport than others, and more in respect of subsidies than other aspects. For this reason, some derogations in Part II of Schedule 10 are required. But to narrow the range of competence by derogation in Part II is always a second best. If the narrowing can be achieved by precision of language in the Groups in Part I, then that is what we must aim for. However, for such detailed matters as the Scottish Transport Group freight services, for example, Part II treatment is the best way. The position for safety and other standards, and working conditions, is simpler because these are not to be devolved for any mode of transport. There is, therefore, no purpose in including them in Part I, only to take them out in their entirety in Part II. We should not do so, provided we can express in plain words in Part I what we wish to devolve in a way which does not embrace matters which we wish to reserve.
In the Government's view, the use of the words "provision of", taken together with "subsidies", achieves precisely that. I know that there is some concern that the words "provision of" carry a suggestion that the Scottish Executive will provide transport services at its own hand. I would suggest that this is misconceived. Throughout Part I of Schedule 10 there are similar expressions. Group I (Health) refers to "investigation of maladministration", but there is of course no suggestion that the Scottish Executive will investigate the maladministration of the Health Service. Group II refers to the provision of roads, but there is no suggestion that the Scottish Executive will itself build roads, except to the extent that the Government presently do so.
106
The groups are phrased in terms which are suitable for legislative competence. The Scottish Assembly will therefore be able to legislate about the provision of transport, whether by local authorities, by passenger transport executives, by private operators, or by the Scottish Transport Group. The Scottish Executive will have only such powers as are given it by legislation. A Scottish Secretary, therefore, will initially have the powers currently exercised by the Secretary of State—which include certain powers in respect of the public sector services of local authorities and the Scottish Transport Group—and may subsequently have additional powers, or lesser powers, as a result of Assembly legislation. That point was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. It seems highly improbable that the Assembly would wish to give the Scottish Executive direct powers to provide transport services, but it might perhaps wish—as have Parliaments of both colours in recent years—to legislate in respect of provision by public sector operators, such as the Scottish Transport Group or local authorities. This seems perfectly reasonable to the Government, and we would not wish to exclude this possibility.
I believe, therefore, that both Amendments before us are unnecessary. The Bill at present achieves with precision what is required. I would also suggest to your Lordships that the Amendments would also be positively damaging. Amendment No. 112 would, I suggest, be especially so. It introduces a subjective word: "consistent". This would mean that the courts, in considering the vires of Assembly legislation, would have to determine whether it provided for a consistent framework for transport policy. I am sure that this is a task quite unsuitable for the courts. Amendment No. 111A does not have this difficulty, but it has others. It widens the scope of Group 10 of Part I so that it extends beyond "provision". I could not tell you the precise extent to which it is widened because the words "policy for" have less precision than "provision of". However my advice is that it is likely that it would widen the group to a greater extent than the Amendments offered to Part II of Schedule 10 would derogate from it. The Part II Amendments would successfully derogate safety standards of vehicles, but not other

107
standards of vehicles; and they would not derogate safety standards relating to drivers, or to the number of passengers. It is true that the Part III reservations for the Road Traffic Act 1960 exclude some of these matters specifically, but only in respect of buses, and not in respect of other modes covered by Group 10. I would, for instance, have to advise the House that the Amendments, taken together, would appear to devolve matters in respect of drivers and passengers of trains. I am sure that this is not the intention of their sponsors.
I hope, therefore, that neither Amendment No. 111A nor No. 112 will be pressed. I suggest that their effect is less certain than that of the present entries and, most probably, more devolutionary in an unclear and undesirable way. I can assure the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Morris, that the Amendments have led us to re-examine the existing wording of the Bill with great care, but my advice is that the Bill is precise; and it is more precise than the alternative formula which has been suggested.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, I must say, with the greatest respect, that it was very depressing to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, because he totally failed to answer my noble friend Lord Campbell's main point regarding the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, to my noble friend. The letter stated:
"It cannot be denied that among the wide range of options open to the Scottish Assembly is that they can consider further nationalisation of road passenger services."
The noble Lord did not answer that point at all.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I do not wish to get into a Committee debate but I replied to that point. I am accepting the point that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has made. I am not seeking to deny it.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, if I am wrong I do not hesitate to apologise to the House. Perhaps I should not have spoken at all, and I shall stop.
The Earl of MINTO: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, will know that I have a two-sided interest in this,
108
one as a traffic commissioner for Scotland and another as a regional councillor responsible for providing public transport. I think I should like to hear from the noble Lord that this in no way affects the transport policy and programme if it is left as it reads, because if it does then I think this would be going away from a guarantee that we were given at an earlier stage that the formation of the Assembly is not going to take away from regional authorities powers that they already have.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, we may get an opportunity on the second Amendment, when it is moved, to speak again if any noble Lords wish to, but on this one, which I moved, I should like to make two points. First of all, I agree that I think the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, very briefly said that he did not contest the point about the option being open for further nationalisation. I am sorry my noble friend did not register that, but I believe the noble Lord dealt with it very quickly because I do not think that it is a matter of argument between us.
However, what he has said brings us back to the Committee stage: really it would be much better to leave the words "Provision of" out altogether, as was the case when the Bill originally appeared during the last Session. They are not really necessary; the subjects are then clearly spelt out, and any derogations appear in Part II. Incidentally, because there are derogations in Part II which take railways out, I cannot see how my Amendment putting in "Policy for", would bring in railways; but I shall not pursue that one at this stage.
I would ask the Government to look again at this, because we have made a serious attempt, with the help of the outside bodies, who are the people who are more worried than anybody about this, to find other words to take the place of "Provision of" arising from what Ministers themselves have said. Apparently there are objections to them, but I still think that the Government would be well advised to take the words "Provision of" out and to leave it as "public passenger and freight transport services", et cetera. Everybody will know what we are talking about then, and there is no

109
fear that the Executive would start trying to run bus services themselves.
The second point is that I would ask the Government again to speak to the Confederation of British Passenger Transport, and to make contact with them. As I said, they represent 98 per cent. of all the operators of buses South of the Border, which includes all the public ones, the local authorities, and virtually 100 per cent. North of the Border. They represent the whole lot, and they are the people who are worried about these words. So I ask the Government to make contact with them again. This is something which really needs to be settled outside this House between those who are most concerned; but I must register that at the moment the Confederation are concerned. They represent virtually every bus operator, public and independent, in the land, and they are concerned about these words. I would have thought that the Government really ought to go back and see whether they cannot meet what seemed to me to be very respectful apprehensions by public bodies as well as private bodies. But at this stage I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord MORRIS Lord MORRIS had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 112:
Page 53, line 32, after ("of") insert ("a consistent framework of policy for").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy referred to my Amendment No. 112 and quite rightly observed that I took this wording from the Government White Paper on Transport Policy, Cmnd. 6836, of June 1977, which read:
"The Government will use its powers to provide a rational and consistent framework of policy for planning and consumer choice.".
I entirely accept what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, implied, that this wording reads rather like a Barbara Cartland novel, and that it is not exactly suitable, but it raises again the most important point, which was so eloquently argued by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, that the change in wording by the inclusion of the words "Provision of" puts a great deal of fear into the hearts of those people who are interested in public
110
transport, not only in Scotland but in the whole of the United Kingdom. Similarly, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy did, I would ask the Government to have a very close look at this again, because I feel it to be extremely important. However, in light of the observations made by my noble friend Lord Campbell on the previous Amendment, I do not propose to move this one.
8.48 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 54, line 6, leave out ("Crofting") and insert ("Grants, loans and subsidies payable in relation to landholders. Crofting, including grants, loans and subsidies payable primarily in relation to crofters, cottars and persons of substantially the same economic status.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical Amendment which the Government propose in order to lend greater precision to what is devolved by the "matter" of crofting. The previous wording in Group 13 of Part I of this Schedule referred merely to "crofting". Although this had the merit of brevity, I fear that it was at the expense of precision. It left an unacceptable degree of doubt as to whether it embraced all that we wish to devolve. We wish to devolve the law relating to crofting as a form of tenure, and there is no doubt that the present entry achieves this. But we also wish to devolve a range of grants and subsidies which are currently paid to crofters, especially in the Island areas. An example is a scheme whereby an artificial insemination service is provided at a subsidised rate for cattle in Lewis and the Uists.
The difficulty is that, while all these schemes are aimed primarily at crofters, they are not necessarily confined exclusively to them. The new formula therefore covers not only crofters but also cottars and persons of substantially the same economic status. The words "substantially the same economic status", I should point out, are a term of art to be found in other legislation—or so I am advised. The formula also includes the word "primarily", as it would be unduly restrictive if a scheme subsidised by the Scottish Executive was to be found ultra vires because not all its beneficiaries were strictly of the description used in the group. I should also explain the term

111
"landholders", used in the new formula. This, again, is a term of art. It covers certain types of smallholders, and derives from the Landholders Act, where it is defined. Landholders are akin to crofters, and it is intended that grants to them should similarly be devolved. But they are a distinct legal category with their own statutory grant system, and it is therefore necessary to mention them separately in Group 13.
I hope the House will agree that grants to crofters, landholders and similar categories are a suitable subject for devolution. I should stress that we are devolving only grants paid in relation to their special circumstances. The general agricultural support system is reserved in relation to crofters, as it is to other farmers. The formula we are proposing for Group 13 might appear long and complex, but the Government are anxious that it should be wide enough to allow the full range of current schemes for crofters and similar categories to be devolved, so that they are not fragmented between the Scottish Executive and the Government. I hope the proposition is acceptable to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, since the debate that we had at the Committee stage, the Government have certainly filled out this part of the Schedule. There was the single word "crofting" and the Government have decided to spell it out in this way. I have listened to what the noble Lord has said and I see no reason to dissent from his explanation, but I do find some of the wording in this proposed Amendment unusual; that is, the few words at the end. "Crofters" and "cottars" are words which are well known in crofting legislation. One comes across the word "cottar" and various other specialist words in the crofting Acts. But it is the additional words:
"and persons of substantially the same economic status"
which is an inexact category of persons. It is not the kind of description that one expects to find in legislation.
I wonder whether the noble Lord had himself seen this and had made enquiries to find out whether it was a term that had been used previously in crofting legislation
112
or in any legislation; because it may be difficult to draw any sort of precise line around that group of persons. I may be bowling a fast ball at the noble Lord but, on the other hand, I suspect that he thought the same as I thought on looking at these words. I should be grateful if he could say more about that description of persons in addition to crofters and cottars. He does not need to speak about them, for they are terms and groups which we do encounter in the legislation. But perhaps he could tell us more about this mysteriously described group whom, I think, it would be difficult to identify unless it is a group that has already been referred to in past legislation, is widely recognised and is not going to cause difficulty in interpretation.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, I do not find this wording particularly surprising. Until the most recent of the crofting Acts was passed there were a number of different categories of small holding in Scotland. There were land holders, statutory small tenants, crofters and so on. At the time when the crofting legislation was passed, it was given as an option to these people to apply for registration as crofts. In Caithness, for instance, whole hordes of statutory small tenants, land holders and so on suddenly became crofters. They became curious crofters because unlike the normal crofter they did not own their own houses. Some of them failed to become crofters but instead bought from their previous landlords.
As a result of all this moving around of status and caregories, there were people side by side with crofters who were on the "same economic status" as crofters and who had holdings of the same size and sort as crofters but who, because they had either bought their holdings or had not opted to register as crofters, were unable to get the same grants as their crofter neighbours. This was put right at a later stage—I forget when—when it was decided that the Crofters Commission would give grants to people who were of "substantially the same economic status" as crofters; in other words, they were merely making it so that somebody who had bought at the time when the crofting Act came in was not disadvantaged unfairly in the matter of grants as compared with his neighbour who had not at that time bought. In fact, I think that the

113
noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and the Government are perfectly correct in using this description. It is one very familiar to people in crofting areas and particularly in areas where there were a lot of holdings similar to crofts such as land holdings and statutory small tenancies mixed up in a crofting community.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, I am disappointed with this Amendment. I had the impression on Committee that the Government appreciated the difficulty which would arise for agriculture if this Bill became law. There were hints and good reason to believe that improvements would be forthcoming on this matter. Alas, it seems that this Amendment will only further confuse the issue. Group 13 would read:
"Tenure and management of agricultural land. Grants, loans and subsidies payable in relation to landholders."
The group then goes on to crofting. There is no definition of "landholder". Would the noble Lord tell us what, in fact, is a landholder? I reckon that I am a landholder but I do not think that this Amendment applies to me. I think there is nothing in the Bill which describes this. As far as tenure and management are concerned, there must inevitably be confusion on Third Reading if we do not move from the current position. On Committee, no noble Lord considered it necessary to make any alteration so far as the group referred specifically to as crofting; now the Government have seen fit to add what is really nothing more than quite unnecessary verbiage.
However, the Government Amendment has had one effect. Several noble Lords have asked me today about the wording, "persons of substantially the same economic status", to which my noble friend and the noble Viscount on the Liberal Benches referred. Alas, I have had to disillusion them; they were not eligible for these grants and loans themselves. I know that a number of us may well have been on the same economic status, but this was not what was required. These words have merely been taken from the atrocious crofting legislation and just to allow the Crofters Commission to pay grants and loans to those whom they consider fit to receive them. They can also give crofts to those whom they consider to be of similar economic status.
114
It is very widely defined wording and it is left to the Crofters Commission to decide whom they think fit to get loans or crofts. It is a little wider than the noble Viscount said, for it is not only on grants and loans; it is also those entitled to receive crofts. This is only one example of crofting legislation which ought to be abolished, but it is nothing like as bad as other parts of that legislation which give unwarranted discretion to Scottish landlords. The Amendment is not a good one but I feel that we should approve it at this stage so as to ensure further discussion on the subject elsewhere.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, may I say, with the leave of the House, that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, asked me two direct questions. I refer him to Section 14(1)(a) of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1961, Chapter 58, and also to Section 31(2)(c) of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955, Chapter 21. That is the reference. If I may respond to Lord Burton's question, may I say that the phrase "land holders" derives from the Landholders Act, where it is defined. If he has difficulty in locating it, I shall be able to put him in touch.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
9 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 113A:
Page 54, line 8, after ("salmon") insert ("migratory trout").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is to remove any ambiguity as to whether migratory trout are freshwater fish and thus come within the devolved competence of Group 14 of Part I of Schedule 10. As their name siggests migratory trout, like salmon, migrate to and from the sea but nevertheless they are associated more with freshwater than sea fisheries. It is therefore sensible that the devolved competence for freshwater fisheries should include migratory trout and the Amendment puts this beyond doubt. As with other fish, devolved competence is limited to the waters defined in Group 14. A side effect of this Amendment, which I shall explain more fully later, is that it is no longer necessary to have a specific entry in Part III of Schedule 10 for the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967. I beg to move.
The Marquess of LINLITHGOW: My, Lords, if I were a migratory trout I should prefer to be called what I am, which is a sea trout. "Sea" is also a shorter word. I should not like to he devolved anyhow.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, may I for once congratulate the Government on improving the Bill.
Lord KIRKHILL: Yes, my Lords.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 113B:
Page 54, line 14, at end insert ("or, in the case of the mouth or entrance of the River Tweed, up to the limit fixed under the Tweed Fisheries Amendment Act 1859 and the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1863.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, now we come to the comparatively simple matter of the Tweed Box. This is a minor Amendment to tidy up the definition in Group 14 of Part I of Schedule 10 of the seaward limits of devolved fisheries competence. I explained in response to Amendments on Committee stage that the Government's approach to seaward limits is that they should follow existing administrative limits. Thus the limit presently in Group 14 is that which currently applies to the district fisheries boards. However, the area off the mouth of the Tweed known as the Tweed Box is not administered by fisheries boards but by the Tweed Commissioners. The seaward limit of the Commissioners is established under separate legislation—the Tweed Fisheries Amendment Act 1859 and the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1863—and is not three but five miles. The Amendment has the effect of extending devolved seaward competence to the full five miles of that part of the Tweed Box which is North of the Border. We are proposing the Amendment after consulting with, and securing the agreement of, the Northumbrian Water Authority, and others closely concerned. I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I understand this Amendment is necessary, and presumably this matter was overlooked when the Bill was first drafted. Is the noble and learned Lord able to tell us that he also has the agreement of the Tweed Commissioners?
Lord BURTON: My Lords, may I thank the noble and learned Lord for the trouble that he has taken over this Amendment understand that the Tweed Commissioners are quite happy with this now, thanks largely to the noble and learned Lord. This was something which was obviously either not discussed or was overlooked in another place.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, any Bill may improve as a result of close scrutiny. This House has given this Bill very close scrutiny so far. That has enabled us to identify this point and make this Amendment. Perhaps the Tweed Commissioners are content partly because the Assembly cannot abolish them, since, as your Lordships know, this body operates in England as well as Scotland, and I can confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Burton, has said.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
9.4 p.m.
Lord WIGG Lord WIGG moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 54, line 30, leave out ("Betting, gaming and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmany, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and myself. It may be for the convenience of the House if at the same time I speak to Amendments Nos. 158 and 184 which are consequential upon the passing of Amendment No. 114, if that be the case. The points I want to put to the House start with Command Paper 6348, "Our Changing Democracy". As a result of that White Paper, the Home Office sent out a circular on 27th November 1975 to the Gaming Board for Great Britain, the Horserace Betting Levy Board and the Horserace Totalisator Board. At this point I am referring to statutory boards.
The Gaming Board gave very careful consideration to the proposals in the Government's White Paper. I invite your Lordships' attention to the fact that the Gaming Board, as a statutory Board, issues its annual report to both Houses. It is tabled in both Houses and it can be debated either in House. Copies are available to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office. I am not going to trouble

117
your Lordships with reading the extract from the 1975 annual report, except for this sentence, which says:
"We also believe that it would be more appropriate to consider possible devolution of gaining and lotterie? after the publication of the report of the Royal Commission on gambling".
It may have escaped your Lordships' memory that the Royal Commission on Gambling has been considering this vast subject—and vast it is—for some time and its report is expected next month. Perhaps it might be as well that your Lordships take into account that if they consult the annual report of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, which give figures showing the extent of gambling in this country, for the current financial year the sum wagered will not be less than £3,250 million. That is perhaps the largest of the activities in which the citizens of this island engage. There is a by-product of the revenue—if "by-product" is the right word—of not less than £315 million.
I remind your Lordships that the Gaming Board is a particularly powerful institution. Its chairman for many years was Sir Stanley Raymond, who was appointed by a Conservative Administration. His appointment was subsequently renewed by a Labour Administration and he followed me as chairman of the Horse-care Betting Levy Board. The evidence prepared by his board was under dealt with under his chairmanship. He was followed in that post by a very distinguished former civil servant—now a member of your Lordships' House—the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. As Philip Allen he was a very influential and distinguished Permanent Secretary of the Home Office. It was the Home Office which sent out this invitation. So the judgment of these men and these boards, answerable to both Houses, should not be taken lightly into account—at least, that is my submission.
The Gaming Board gave evidence to the Royal Commission and I am going to weary your Lordships by reading that evidence. I repeat that the Royal Commission's Report is due to be published probably within the next month. The Report reads:
"As to lotteries, the law and order issue does not arise in the same acute way"—
as betting and gaming
"but it must be recognised that any sensible system of control must apply both where a lottery
118
is organised and where the tickets are sold. Otherwise there are the kind of difficulties encountered with the Irish Sweepstake and the Malta Lottery, which involve wholesale breaches of Section 42 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963. Internal borders constitute no obstacle to the transmission of lottery tickets and there is every prospect that regional prohibitions would be confusing, and wasteful if not impossible to enforce".
I ask your Lordships to take that into account and then to go back, if you will, and read the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, to which I shall refer on more than one occasion.
In the debate which took place on 16th May, the noble Baroness said that the Government had in mind to introduce an amendment to this Bill to enable a national lottery to be run in Scotland—and that in the face of the recommendation of the Gaming Board. The Gaming Board's evidence went on:
"The Board see no substantial arguments specific to gambling in favour of devolution, but appreciate that there is a general contention for the devolution of control. Against this, the Board would say that, as regards gaming, local interests are cared for in the present system of licensing arrangements and the Board would see no substantial advantage, but considerable danger, in departing from the concept of a single Gaining Board for Great Britain."
In the general considerations set out above, the Board would see a host of practical difficulties in the way of any new arrangements which provided for instance, that the Board would continue to have responsibility for Great Britain but would act as an agent of the Welsh Assembly and would have an indeterminate relationship with a new Scottish Administration which would, in the words of the Government White Paper, be free to make quite new arrangements and terminate a particular body's responsibility in Scotland.
Coming from the source it did, one would have thought it a very powerful consideration indeed; and yet the Government propose that that evidence is completely ignored. The noble Baroness when she replied said that the Totalisator Board did not reply. The Horserace Betting Levy Board did reply and it is clear that they were opposed to devolution, so that the two statutory bodies are opposed to the concept of devolution.
Now I turn to the speech of the noble Baroness which caused me to divide the House on a previous occasion. And may I say that I will not be in any way less

119
generous than the noble Earl, Lord Perth, when he acquitted the noble Baroness of any sinister intent or indeed of any responsibility whatever for the parts of the speech to which I am going to refer. I have referred to her comments about a national lottery. I have no doubt that was in her brief. She then went on to say:
"The levy is collected by a sub-committee of the Levy Board, the Bookmakers' Committee, and although that Committee is not listed in Part II of Schedule 13, it should not be assumed that it is in any way unaffected by devolution. It is not there because its parent body, the Levy Board, is, and any Clause 64 order about the Board would take into account the Bookmakers' Committee "—[Official Report, 16/5/78; col. 234.]
If one tried all night one could not crowd more mis-statements into that statement. Every single point made here is wrong. The Bookmakers' Committee is itself a statutory body functioning under Section 27 of the Betting Gaming and Lotteries Act. It does not collect the levy.
When I came to reply to the debate I was somewhat amazed at what the noble Baroness had said, and I said so. I ventured to say that my opinion of her brief was such that originally I would have given the author seven days CB, but having listened to the reply of the noble Baroness I would certainly have given the author detention. Clearly he or she had never read the Act. As I said the Bookmakers' Committee is a statutory body functioning under Section 27; it does not collect the levy; it is not a subcommittee of the Levy Board; the Levy Board is not its parent. Its role is that once a year, or as often as may be, at the invitation of the Levy Board it makes recommendations for the levy. Either there is agreement, in which case the agreement has the force of law or, if there is disagreement, the matter is referred to the Secretary of State to determine, and he operates under the Act.
The noble Baroness was kind enough to write to me subsequently because I wondered what had happened, although I had a pretty shrewd idea. She said she fully accepted my explanation of how the Committee goes about its duty in practice, but she said that what she described was the statutory basis for activities. She then went on to say that she accepted that, in order to curtail a rather long explanation, she might have
120
created ambiguity about the Committee's rôle.
There was no dichotomy between the theory and practice in this case. What I described was what is in the Act, and it was not a question of a difference between practice and a statutory basis; nor was there any question here of curtailment. The statements made were wrong. I telephoned to the noble Baroness's office and said that the statements were incorrect, and she wrote to me again—for which I am grateful—to the effect that the Bookmakers' Committee collects a levy. She said she now understood that the statement was wrong and that she would be making a correction in the course of her speech tonight.
On this point, let me again repeat what I have already said: I completely acquit the noble Baroness of any intention to mislead the House. I am indeed sorry that she should have been put in the position that she has. It comes about from the very simple fact that the original circular was sent out by the Home Office, and Ministers and civil servants in the Home Office just do not understand the operation of the Act upon which they were commenting. Thus your Lordships were put into the position of "dead-heating" on the Vote, when I am sure that if they had been fully aware of the facts there would have been a majority in favour.
I want to keep what I have to say as short as possible and I have only one or two things more to add. I was interrupted by the noble Viscount, Lord Masseerene and Ferrard—and I do not complain about it—who asked about the position of the Jockey Club. I replied that the Jockey Club were not involved in this and that I was dealing with the statutory bodies. That is so. I am in no position, either then or now, to speak for the Jockey Club: that is not my intention.
However, the Jockey Club's position is indeed an invidious one. They were sent a copy of the circular, and one of their secretariat was kind enough to telephone me and make it clear that they did reply. They replied on the issue of devolution and naturally—I say "naturally" because it seems to me logical—were opposed to the splitting up of racing in a way which would inevitably result if the Government's devolution proposals go through.

121
Subsequently, they were kind enough to send me a copy of the circular letter which had been sent out and which perhaps I may read, just to make it quite certain that I fully endorse what has been said. They said:
"In view of the fact that the betting market knows no frontiers, the Jockey Club are concerned at the considerable dangers which might arise if betting legislation is not uniform throughout Great Britain. Unless the Levy, on which racing depends so heavily, is applied uniformly throughout Great Britain an inequitable and difficult situation will occur which will be to the detriment of British racing as a whole."
That point made by the Jockey Club leads me to deal with a point which was made from the Liberal Benches by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, who, if I may 'say so, operates at such an elevated level that one of his activities is clearly not going into a betting shop and having a bet. I congratulate him and I sympathise with him, too, because he has missed some of the goods things of life. He rather thought, so I gathered from his interruption, that it was quite a simple matter to have a second levy and for someone to lay down, I think the word he used was a "lien", upon the levy. It never seems to have occurred to his Lordship that some people bet in cash and others be on credit. If, for example, a punter in Glasgow went into a shop such as Ladbroke's, William Hill, or any bookmaker for that matter, and had a cash bet, it would be a simple matter for the Assembly, if they had the power, to say that there should be an additional levy for Scotland. But of course the same firms operate by telephone, and this is one of the things that happens in countries other than our own; so that, if an additional levy operated, all one would do would be to telephone to Berwick or wherever it happened to be, across the Border; and there could be no possible check at all on that—as indeed there is no check in other countries. The idea, therefore, that you can have a levy and enforce it merely by, as it were, publishing an edict is to completely leave out of account the fact that countries have no frontiers when it comes to betting.
It may even surprise your Lordships to know that one of the reasons for the weakness of the on-course market in this country is the considerable amounts that are wagered in South Africa and
122
Jamaica. For a brief period I advised the Jamaican Government and had an opportunity to watch this on the spot. It was quite astonishing to go into a betting shop in Jamaica at 10 o'clock in the morning—allowing for the difference in time—and listen to racing being conducted at Ascot, and to realise that very considerable sums of money were telephoned through from England to Jamaica, which meant that both tax and levy were avoided.
But, of course, there is one other factor to take into account, which goes to the heart of the Jockey Club's views. Whether it is racing in Scotland or in England, Scottish horses come South of the Border, Scottish jockeys come South of the Border and Scottish owners come South of the Border; while, conversely, English horses go to Scotland and English jockeys go to Scotland. The whole concept of betting and gaming in this country is on the basis of the United Kingdom. It has been organised very painfully, brick by brick and step by step, and I should have thought that there was now a very good system of control.
Ever since I was accidentally drawn into this field many years ago, I have always felt that it is part of our national genius that, faced with human frailty and weakness—certainly, this would be a weakness so far as those on the Liberal Benches are concerned—what we seek to do is not to suppress, because if we seek to suppress we must fail, but to control and, if we take public opinion with us, that control can be successful. That is what has happened through the functioning of the Gaming Board, which has taken on a very difficult task indeed, and has built up a system of licensing and supervision which ought to be a matter of national congratulation. Certainly, we should not smash and fragment it by putting it at risk of breaking into three pieces, which is what could result if the Government's proposals went forward unchanged.
Indeed, what we should be doing is destroying that which has worked effectively and entering into a no-man's-land, because I do not believe that the Government—and this certainly applies to the Home Office—have thought this out. That is one of the reasons why, with some reluctance, I mentioned the difficulties in which the noble Baroness found

123
herself. Her brief was bad, as the Home Office had not thought it out. I go further. I believe that any competent person, thinking dispassionately, would agree that the Government's proposals are a nonsense.
The Government are standing on them for one reason only; and I am aware of this because it is something which I remember from my brief experience as a Minister. The Home Office will not give up some of the powers which they possess, even though those powers have been handled very badly indeed. Indeed, the evidence which I gave in my personal capacity to the Royal Commission was on the lines that one of the things which the Royal Commission should recommend is that the duties at present discharged by the Home Office, under the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, should be transferred to the Department of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman—the Department of the Environment. That is what I believe ought to happen.
But that is not before your Lordships' tonight. What I am putting is that the proposals have not been thought out; that the statutory boards, which have a responsibility to your Lordships' House and to another place, have recommended in the strongest possible terms that devolution should not be accepted. It is unnecessary; indeed, the word "dangerous" is attached to it. Your Lordships have the evidence of the statement that I read from the Jockey Club which I introduced because I was asked a question and did not answer it then, as I was dealing with statutory boards. But I believe that there are present members of the Jockey Club who would be able to express the Jockey Club's views with an authority which I certainly do not possess. But I recommend this Amendment as being carefully considered, and as having the support and authority—and that does not mean me —of statutory boards of impeccable integrity and very great experience. My Lords, I beg to move.
9.25 p.m.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, I think I have said before to your Lordships' House that I have most vices but gambling is not one of them. It was not until I
124
heard this or a similar Amendment moved at the Committee stage—and I was so unimpressed by the reply of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, though I promise your Lordships that I have nothing against her, for my impression was that it was a bad brief, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, dealt with this point—that I got myself worked up about this situation. Now we have got ourselves into the position where, if this matter is devolved and similar devolution is allowed in the Wales Bill, we could have three Totalisator Boards and three Levy Boards. Who, then, will pay the tax and the levy when there is a Welshman betting on an English horse at Ayr?
This seems to me to be a proposal for pure Gilbertian muddle. That is one side of it. The other side is that when we get this Gilbertian muddle, crime, illegal gaming and everything else will move in because of the large sums of money involved when one is betting on horses. If there are to he different levies, different odds and different tax levels, then I would submit to your Lordships that this will be a very well prepared seed bed for the ungodly to move into and flourish. Therefore, may I suggest to your Lordships that we ought to keep one Tote Board and one Levy Board for one Kingdom.
Lord KILMANY: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. In doing so, I hope that I shall not take up too much of your Lordships' time; we have, after all, debated this matter before. We debated it on 10th May. I recollect that on that occasion I saw fit to put two or three questions to the noble Baroness who, I understand, was then in charge of the Bill at the Home Office. I do not know about the Home Office, but I think that the noble Baroness is, happily, still largely in charge of the Bill.
The questions which I put to the noble Baroness were whether she had consulted the Levy Board, the Tote Board and the Gaming Goard. Also, I think I made mention of the Royal Commission on Gambling. Of course, I received a very easy answer because it was rather a simple question. The answer in every case was, Yes. But what I should have asked, and what, if I may, I should like to ask now,

125
is whether any one of those four bodies had in fact intimated to the noble Baroness that they would like the contents of this Bill to be introduced?
On that subject we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, a statement of the Gaming Board regarding devolution, the chairman of the Board, Sir Stanley Rayhmond, had said in 1975, and indeed in his report in 1976 had published the words, "For goodness' sake do not devolve this subject". It is not for me to invent what advice in favour of this suggestion the noble Baroness or the Government received either from the Levy Board or from the Tote Board, but I should be astonished to hear that she had had any encouragement whatever from those two knowledgeable bodies. I speak for nobody except myself. I do not represent the Jockey Club; I do not represent the trainers or owners or anybody; just my humble self. I go to the races sometimes, and naturally on those occasions one discusses racing politics. From the experience that I have had I can truthfully say that I have not met a single owner who was in favour of splitting the Levy Board and splitting gambling legislation and the control of the Tote Board. Not a single trainer have I found in favour of that; not a single jockey; not a single employee of the race course—starter, handicapper, judge, or what you will—and certainly no clerk of the course has spoken to me in favour of splitting.
So I hope that the Government will take note of the fact that in introducing this they are introducing something that is unpopular with all the people on both sides of the Border who are interested in the sport (or one can call it the industry) of racing. Do they really want to go against what everyone concerned with racing believes to be good for racing? If so, why? What is the motive? It may be an unpopular Tory doctrine to the other side if one says that when a thing is functioning well one should leave well alone, but why not leave well alone? In fact there is not a ha'pennyworth of politics in this at all. Surely what we want is legislation for the good of the people for whom we are legislating.
On the previous occasion that an Amendment was proposed by the noble Lord this matter went to a Division. In that Division there was a dead heat—
126
an appropriate term where racing is concerned. There were 50 votes on one side and 50 on the other, and by the casting vote of the Lord Chairman—who had no option—the voting went against the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. Tonight I should like to hear the Government agreeing with our point of view without a Division; but if they feel that they cannot do so, then I hope that those noble Lords in this House who are keen to see racing get a "fair do" will not hesitate to vote for the Amendment.
9.33 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I should like to say a few words to support the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, although after his good exposition of his Amendment it is not really necessary to say anything. The noble Lord is quite right when he says that betting knows no frontiers. I bet, and I used to breed horses in a small way; I go racing quite a lot and I consider it would be madness to split up the Betting Levy Board. As the noble Lord said, the two statutory bodies are opposed to it; the Jockey Club and everybody in racing who is known to me are opposed to it. I imagine that most punters are opposed to it because, as the noble Lord has said, there might he a horse running in Scotland, but that does not mean to say that you will back it in Scotland; you will not put your money on in Scotland: you might put it on in London, in Manchester or anywhere. If there were three Levy Boards, one for Scotland, one for Wales and one for England, it would be impossible for the system to work.
I cannot understand the reason for this action. The only reason I can think of is that the individuals who have advised the Government in drafting this Bill cannot have any experience regarding betting and gaining. Of course they may be the better off for that in practical terms! If the betting levy was not spread uniformly throughout racing in the United Kingdom, racing would suffer very badly. What would happen to Scottish racing, Heaven knows! I think it would probably have to close down. I think I have said enough, but I do heartily support the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, in his Amendment.
Lord MANTON: My Lords, I have come here tonight to support the noble

127
Lord, Lord Wigg, in his Amendment. It is very seldom I speak to your Lordships' House, but I have been for five and a half years or so a member of the Horserace Betting Levy Board, and I am currently a Steward of the Jockey Club, so I am very closely involved in any potential legislation on this point. In fact, it is by no means a racing certainty that any Amendment suggested by Lord Wigg would always be thoroughly endorsed in every case by the Stewards of the Jockey Club, but on this occasion I am very happy to say that the Stewards do thoroughly support these Amendments.
The Stewards of the Jockey Club have the day-to-day responsibility of running and organising the horseracing industry. They do this by agreeing various criteria with the Horserace Betting Levy Board, who then provide the necessary finance. The Stewards' task, in my opinion, would be made immeasurably more difficult were they to have to deal with two, or possibly, as has been suggested, even three, different bodies, who may well possibly have different criteria. The task of administering racing would be made almost impossible if the income arising from the two levies could not be accurately assessed in advance. The Levy Board have to project about 18 months in advance, and if you have two differing rates between Scotland and England, and you do not know if the punter is going to be ringing up the country where the rate is cheaper, any estimates are pure "guesstimates". If betting were switched from one country to the other to take advantage of the lower rates of duty, the chances of developing meaningful long-term plans for the whole British racing industry would be diminished.
Furthermore, two separate levy boards would obviously be far more expensive to run and to administer; the overheads would be greater, and therefore the ultimate beneficiaries, namely the British horseracing industry, would suffer. The Jockey Club is responsible, among other things, for discipline and the proper conduct of racing on racecourses, where, as has already been said, there are very many temptations. I am extremely concerned that should the levy be devolved the opportunities for malpractice would be increased.
128
My Lords, racing in the United Kingdom is indivisible. There is a constant flow of horses, owners, jockeys, trainers, race-goers and punters over the borders. The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has already referred to the imminent report of the Royal Commission, so I do not intend to say anything further about that, except that in the face of this report, which is very imminent and should come out before the Recess, it seems quite extraordinary to be talking about these measures today. The Levy Board in 1976 were invited to submit to the Home Office their written observations on devolution. They urged most strongly that betting should not be devolved. They made the point that taxpayers in Scotland would continue to be taxed at United Kingdom rates and that the same philosophy should apply to the betting levy. Furthermore, they considered that the application of the levy must be uniform—and I stress the word "uniform"—throughout Great Britain. If not, an inequitable and difficult situation would arise, which would be to the detriment of British racing as a whole. I wholeheartedly support that view and hence the noble Lord, Lord Wigg and his Amendment.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, I do not quite see why the noble Lord, Lord Wigg and his supporters are sweating up so much. It seems to me that the enabling powers which are included in the Scotland Bill merely enable the Assembly to legislate, if it considers it necessary or desirable, on matters to do with gaming, betting and lotteries. It may well be that it would be willing to legislate in a manner that would be helpful to racing in Scotland. I do not see why one must assume that any legislation it would carry out would automatically wish to be harmful to racing in Scotland.
It is extraordinary that it should be assumed right away that any act of the new projected Assembly would immediately harm the interests of the matters which have been put under the legislative competence of the Assembly. I do not believe that that would be true and it does not really follow the normal pattern in Scotland. If we give people in Scotland some control over their own affairs they will try to make them even better than they

129
are in other countries. I am not mentioning any particular country but they feel an element of competition and try to meet the challenge.
If we deny this to the Assembly we may well be denying people in Scotland control over a facet of life whith they would wish to control in a slightly different way from other parts of the Kingdom, especially when it comes to the matter of gaming rather than of horseracing. Gaming includes such things as casinos and other establishments in which betting takes place. It might very well he that Scotland would wish to have regulations for those sorts of places different from the regulations which exist in other parts of the United Kingdom. I think that it is only right that the competence should be in the hands of the Assembly.
Therefore, it would be a great pity to agree to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. I think that he is worried about something which is not necessarily likely to happen and which certainly the racing folk of Scotland would not want to happen. They would not want their Assembly to harm their sport and nor, for that matter, would an Assembly wish to upset the Scottish punters. I am sure that there are a very large number of them and I do not think that it would wish to upset them unnecessarily or unwisely and spoil the sport of racing North of the Border. Therefore, I shall certainly resist the Amendment.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, as I understood him, was trying to suggest that it would be quite unthinkable for a Scottish Assemly to act unreasonably. It must therefore flow from that that it would be perfectly reasonable to assume the obverse of the case—that the Scottish Assembly could well behave unreasonably on this matter and it is that fear which I believe lies behind the Amendment.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I should like to follow up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, in answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso who raised the very, at first sight, reasonable question why, in this area, the Scots, if they want to take their own line should not take it. That kind of argument, of course, in the context of the Bill has, superficially, many attractions. However,
130
is not the point which perhaps the noble Viscount overlooked that what the noble Lord, Lord Wigg and the other noble Lords who have spoken in support of the Amendment are saying is that here is an area which knows no national boundaries into which it is undesirable to introduce an element of uncertainty which would make things worse rather than better.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we have debated this subject several times before, and I am sure that the House will not thank me at this time of the night, if I repeat at length the Government's reasons for including betting and gaming within the devolved matters. Nor do I think that my noble friend Lord Wigg will be persuaded to support our proposals. But perhaps I might try to convince him that they are not so ill-considered as he imagines.
Initially, may I endorse publicly what I said in the letter to my noble friend when he said on Second Reading that the Bookmakers' Committee did not collect the levy. He was quite right and I was wrong. I shall come to that point later. Before proceeding further, I think that it is worthwhile to remind the House of what I said before —namely, that social control, unless it broadly reflects the morals and standing of a society, is likely to be difficult to enforce, and Scottish opinions are not necessarily those of London. This is not to say that the Government do not recognise the essential law and order aspects of the subject we are discussing; but this in itself is not enough to deprive the Assembly of the responsibility of looking after these subjects.
If noble Lords turn to page 55 of the Bill, they will see the much wider-ranging powers the Assembly will have over the law in Scotland including a large measure of control over the criminal law. It will not be dealing in isolation with the criminal aspects of betting and gaming. I should perhaps remind the House that there are already differences between the law in England and that in Scotland, and I am not aware of any complaint that this has lead to a breakdown of law and order. I think that it is unreasonable to believe that an elected Assembly in Scotland would wish to create such a situation.

131
There has also been the suggestion that our proposals could lead to chaos in the betting field because of the cross-Border problems which could be caused by the differing levies in Scotland and England. I have already pointed out that the law differs in many respects North and South of the Border and chaos does not ensue because the law of one country takes account of that in the other. Our devolution proposals are not for the creation of a separatist Scotland, and within a continuing, unified United Kingdom there is every reason to suppose that commonsense and goodwill will prevail.
By devolving betting and gaming to the Assembly, we are not requiring them as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said, to produce different laws or practice, or necessarily even expecting that they will. We are only providing the ability for them to do so if this was looked for by the Scots, if they wanted it and if they judged improvements could be made. We are accused of not putting forward a concrete scheme for the post-devolution situation, but to do so would destroy the concept of devolution. The Assembly must be free to decide for itself what it wants to do. The Bill provides the framework and also includes, I would remind the House, the checks on its powers.
My noble friend referred to the question of a national lottery, but it is not the Government who plan to introduce legislation for a national lottery. However, it would be possible—and this is what I said earlier—for the Scottish Assembly to do so in respect of Scotland if that was what it wanted to do. Much of our discussion has centred on the bodies that operate in this field—the Horserace Betting Levy Board, the Horserace Totalisator Board and the Gaming Board, and tonight we have also had opinions expressed from the Jockey Club. Their existence is central to the whole concept of betting and gaming as it has developed in this country. To exclude them from our proposals would leave a very great gap in the Assembly's competence over the subject. It is essential that the structure should exist in the Bill to allow for their constitution and their functions to be altered. But surely the Assembly will take into account all relevant factors before it makes any move towards requesting a change in the existing arrange-
132
ments. It is a statutory requirement that it consults the bodies concerned. There is also the other safeguard in the Bill that a Clause 67 order is made by the Secretary of State and has to be approved by an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
I should mention the two points raised in an earlier debate about the public bodies by my noble friend Lord Wigg. As we have accepted, he admonishes me for inaccurately describing the function of the Bookmakers' Committee. Having re-read my words, as noble Lords have heard, I have written to the noble Lord and endeavoured to give the reasons behind it. My noble friend none the less was quite right at the Committee stage when he said that the Bookmakers' Committee does not collect the levy. He was right, and I was wrong.
Secondly, and rather more importantly, the noble Lord gave the impression that he thought the Government had not given due consideration to the views expressed by the Gaming Board and the Horserace Betting Levy Board against devolution of betting and gaming. I believe the phrase he used implied that their views had been consigned to the wastepaper basket. This was not, of course, the case, and I hope noble Lords will believe me. The Government carefully considered all the representations made to them both following the publication of the November 1975 White Paper and subsequently, including those made in Parliament. Modifications to the devolution proposals have resulted including, for example, the proposal to change from Negative to Affirmative Resolution in respect of a Clause 67 order. The views of the Gaming Board and Horserace Betting Levy Board were carefully considered, but for the reasons already given the Government decided that it was better for the original proposals to stand. The fact that the Government decided to stick by their original plans should not be misread as evidence that the views of those bodies were ignored.
My noble friend referred to the fact that a Royal Commission is sitting. That Royal Commission has not yet reported. It would be quite wrong for me to speculate or hypothesise about the Government's attitude towards a report which is not yet published, and I have no

133
intention of trying to do so. But the Royal Commission is aware of the Government's devolution proposals, and obviously its conclusions will take these into account.
My Lords, throughout these debates the charge has been made that the Government have not thought through their proposals. I hope that I have perhaps been able to assuage some anxieties tonight. I hope that the House will appreciate that if the devolution of betting and gaming is seen in the context of the whole structure of the Bill—with all the checks and balances it contains—it makes sense. In spite of the appeal by the noble Lord opposite for unity with the Jockey Club, the Levy Board, and the support which we know my noble friend has in this House for his Amendment, I hope that the House will not accept it.
9.53 p.m.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I think I can answer the noble Baroness and the noble Viscount on the Liberal Benches quite simply by reading two more short extracts from the opinions of the Gaming Board. When one looks at the composition of the Gaming Board, and the stature of its chairman, I think it is quite right to put those opinions in the balance against the opinions the noble Baroness has repeated tonight, which obviously had their origins in the Home Office—and I am sure that anybody making a book would certainly not start them favourites with their record on form. These are not my words, they are the words of the Gaming Board:
"Over the seven years of our existence, and in co-operation with the police forces of England and Wales and Scotland, we have built up a system of control for an activity in which the real dangers of infiltration by unwelcome elements are never very remote. We have heeded the lessons of countries where similar elements have become more than a threat to their social fabric. We believe that to dissipate that system could lead to the recrudescence of the evils that the Gaming Act 1968 was designed to halt."
I would commend those words to your Lordships as being worthy of consideration before any one of you, on either side of the House, goes into the Lobby against this Amendment. In their evidence to the Royal Commission, they said:
"At the heart of the Board's views is the conviction that gaming control is a matter of law and order which must be handled with consistent firmness throughout Great Britain if the present orderly system is not to be put in jeopardy.
134
As the Board have tried to indicate earlier in this evidence, the gaming interests are wealthy and powerful and would be quick to take advantage of any slackening of control in one part of Great Britain.
Let us consider what is in the balance. On the one hand there is the work, over the better part of 20 years, of the Horse-race Betting Levy Board, the Gaming Board and the Totalisator Board, and the work over two centuries of the Jockey Club and its system of control. Your Lordships have heard the statements of one of the senior stewards of the Jockey Club as to what the view is of the Jockey Club. I tender my evidence and opinion for what it is worth.
For over 20 years I have been involved, first as a member of the Racecourse Betting Control Board, and I was there appointed by a Conservative Minister and my appointment was renewed by a Conservative Minister, and as chairman of the Horserace Betting Levy Board and, more recently, I do what I can to help. We have the evidence here of the Gaming Board and the views, which we know are similar, of the Levy Board.
On the other hand, we have the views, expressed with grace, by the Minister, the views of civil servants, whose record in this matter, even on the evidence the noble Baroness has given tonight, leaves at any rate a little to be desired. I will not make any personal plea because it is for each noble Lord to make up his mind. I would only add that the issues are not minor. The turnover here is fantastically high and is growing; £3,250 million is wagered in betting and gaming and bingo and we in this country have chosen the path, rightly in my view, not to suppress. It is clear from this report that if you suppress, if you make a mistake, then as sure as night follows day there will be a recrudescence of illegal gambling, protection rackets and the like.
We in this country have been exempted from that and we are largely exempted—I say this as a member of the Labour Party—because it was a Conservative Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, who had the courage to introduce this legislation following the 1959 Election. It has worked. If it wishes, the Labour Party can claim credit for one simple fact; namely, that when it took power in 1964 the total amount obtained

135
by way of revenue was £33 million; today it is £315 million, no low sum. Indeed, I would go further. The only 100 per cent. successful policy that Labour Governments have introduced in raising revenue is in the field of betting and gaming. Is all of it to be thrown on one side in the pursuit of some nameless hope that perhaps, according to the words of the Liberal Party spokesman, if you just let the control go, throw all this experience to the wind, perhaps nobody will do any harm and, anyway, they mean well?
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Viscount THURSO: I did not say that, my Lords.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, the way to hell is paved with good intentions. I beg your Lordships not to follow that good intention because that, too, has not been very well thought out. I therefore intend to press the Amendment to a Division.
10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 114) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63: Not-Contents,40.

CONTENTS

Balerno, L.

Feversham, L.

Mottistone, L.

Belstead, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Gray, L.

Newall, L.

Burton, L.

Greenway, L.

Onslow, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Haig, E.

Perth, E.

Carrington, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Cathcart, E.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Romney, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hylton, L.

Sandford, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Inglewood, L.

Sandys, L.

Craigavon, V.

Killearn, L.

Selkirk, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Kilmany, L. [Teller]

Sharples, B.

de Clifford, L.

Kinross, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Denham, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Devonshire, D.

Linlithgow, M.

Swinton, E.

Digby, L.

Long, V.

Trevethin and Oaksey, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Manton, L.

Vickers, B.

Dundee, E.

Margadale, L.

Vivian, L.

Elles, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Minto, E.

Wigg, L. [Teller]

Elton, L.

Monson, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Ferrers, E.

Morris, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Balogh, L.

Janner, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Birk, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Stone, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller]

Collison, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

McCluskey, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Thurso, V.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Northfield, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Oram, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gregson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hale, L.

Samuel, V.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Seear, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Hatch of Cosby, L.

Segal, L.

Hood, V.

Stedman, B.

10.7 p.m.
Lord DE CLIFFORD Lord DE CLIFFORD moved Amendment No. 114A:
Page 54, line 32, leave out ("Licensing of dogs and keepers of dogs").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during consideration at Committee stage of the Motion, That Schedule 10 be a Schedule to the Bill, I raised this matter before your Lordships, and the noble and learned Lord kindly said that he would write to me, which he did, and I am most grateful. However, I still feel that the answers which he gave in his letter are not satisfactory. It is admitted that under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 the equivalent of county councils and borough councils can alter the licence fee charged for dogs, but Schedule 10, Group 20, the licensing of dogs and keepers, introduces a totally new principle. In 1974 the Government set up a Working Party on Dogs, which reported in 1975; and the principle about which I am asking was not changed by that Working Party on Dogs.
At the moment there is not a single dog licensed in the United Kingdom—not one. There are keepers who are licensed to keep dogs, but there is not a single dog licensed. Under this Schedule, powers are given to the Assembly to alter the principle of the whole business of licensing dogs. I feel that this is something which is a United Kingdom responsibility, and should not be the responsibility of the Scottish Assembly. I am rather reinforced in this matter because I have perused the Wales Bill, and these powers are not to be given to the Welsh Assembly. I fail to see why Scotland should be given the power to change the principle under which all the dogs in this country are licensed.
The noble and learned Lord pointed out to me that it was intended that the Assembly should have powers to amend the provisions relating to the keeping of dogs under the Guard Dogs Act and the Breeding of Dogs Act. I have no objection to that at all. What I have an objection to is the fact that a devolved Assembly should have the power to alter the basic principle under which dogs are licensed in this country, which the report of the Working Party on Dogs never suggested should be altered. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, the words, "licensing of dogs" are included in this Schedule in order to devolve the matters mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, in the Dog Licences Act 1959 as amended by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966. The provisions in that Act deal with the charges to be levied by local authorities for licences for dogs. I am not quite sure what the noble Lord meant, but I see that the Long Title of the Act is:
"An Act to consolidate certain enactments and Orders in Council relating to the licensing of dogs kept in Great Britain"
and Section 1(1) reads:
"There shall be charged in respect of any dog kept in Great Britain a duty of 7s. 6d. which shall be paid annually."
The reference to "keepers of dogs" which the noble Lord also mentioned is intended to devolve to the Assembly the licensing of guard dogs and of breeding kennels; that is to say, the matters contained in the Guard Dogs Act 1975 and the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973.
The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, asked me on 10th May whether the matters in the Animals Act 1971 were devolved. As I explained in my letter to him, that Act does not apply to Scotland, but certain matters covered by that legislation are devolved by virtue of being included elsewhere in other parts of Schedule 10. Thus, the matter of civil liability for damage caused by dogs is within the legislative competence of the Assembly by virtue of Group 24, which deals with civil law matters in Part I of Schedule 10.
The substance of the matter, in my submission, is that these are all essentially matters of local concern which should become the responsibility of the Assembly. Indeed, it is difficult to understand a view which suggests that somehow dogs is a United Kingdom matter and that the Scottish Administration cannot be trusted to deal with dogs; although they have been given wide-ranging powers in relation to health, education and the like. I know that dogs cross borders but I do not think that that is a reason for retaining these matters as United Kingdom matters only. Nothing in here relates to matters of rabies and the like which are reserved by other entries in Schedule 10. I hope that

139
the House will take what I believe to be the sensible view, that the matters here referred to are essentially matters of local concern. If the Assembly is not to be trusted to deal with these matters, they surely cannot be trusted to deal with anything at all.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, the wording is peculiar. You are not licensing a dog. We are constantly being told that if there is any expression used in an Act of Parliament it can be used again; so that one must be careful with the precise wording used. You are issuing a dog licence or you are issuing a car licence. You do not license a car; you are licensing someone to have a car. I would not have raised this matter, but we are constantly being told that somebody on a previous occasion has used what is not a clever expression. I only wonder whether, even in this Bill, we could not, perhaps, use words which mean what they say. I should like also to have an assurance about what happens to a dog licensed in Scotland which you have in the South of England. How do we know that the Scots will recognise an English licence or the English will recognise a Scots licence? I know that this is a silly point, but these things ought to be thought out. I wonder whether that matter could be considered.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, as the last noble Earl who has spoken said, has missed the point. Nowhere else in the United Kingdom can you license a dog; you can only license the keeper of a dog. To ask, "Why should the Scottish Assembly not be able to do this? "to my mind is rather foolish. The present Government set up the Working Party on Dogs which recommended no such power to do these things, and Scotland was included. I fail to see why this devolved Assembly should be able to change the principle on which dogs are licensed. I can see why they can change the principle of how one alters the licensing of keepers of dogs, but I cannot see why one should enable one Assembly in Scotland to license dogs but not one in Wales.
Lord McCLUSKEY: With the leave of the House, my Lords, may I say this:
140
there is nothing to stop the United Kingdom Parliament from licensing dogs if it chooses to do so. It so happens that the Acts which are consolidated in the 1959 Act do not do precisely that. The United Kingdom Parliament can license dogs if it so wishes. Why should the devolved Assembly be deprived of the same competence? I do not understand that there is some great, profound theological difficulty about licensing dogs just because it has not been done. The argument against one seems to be that just because it has not been done it should not ever be done.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: I am not convinced by the noble and learned Lord; but at this hour I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.17 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 55, line 4, leave out ("Schedule") and insert ("Group").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is a highly technical Amendment and involves no change in policy. It takes into account the remote possibility that some special circumstance might lead to need to delay the devolution of particular functions in Schedule 10 for a short period in the exercise of powers under Clause 81 (which deals with commencement) as read with Clause 77(2) (which deals with variations of orders). It has always been the intention of the Government to bring devolution of all the main functions in Schedule 10 into force on the same day. It is conceivable, however, that because of some particular circumstance it may be desirable to hold back the transfer of a group temporarily.
This Amendment makes clear that a flexible approach can be adopted to the implementation of Schedule 10 if circumstances make it desirable. It has no implications for the content of Group 23 itself. There is a corresponding Amendment, No. 201, to Schedule 16 on page 84 of the Bill which deals with the entry for the Public Records (Scotland) Act 1937. In the meantime, I beg to move this technical Amendment, No. 115.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 115A:
Page 55, line 33, leave out ("reserved") and insert ("scheduled").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is one of several Amendments related to Schedule 15. Noble Lords who have been following our investigations into this Schedule can be reassured that these Amendments now represent agreement reached with the Government about changes to the Bill. Indeed, the Government have already subsumed my earlier similar Amendments where they were replacing whole passages in the Bill. What they have done is to use the new term "scheduled function" instead of "reserved function".
Two questions arose at Committee stage. First: Why was Schedule 15 there at all? In the margin to the Schedule is a reference to Clause 79, but Clause 79 is only a definition clause and there was the definition of "reserved function", which is in the heading of Schedule 15. It seemed to be in limbo with no apparent direct connection with the Bill.
The second question which arose was how can one avoid ambiguity, because those matters which were not to be devolved were, in the terminology of the Bill, called "reserved matters". Yet here we have a term "reserved functions" and in the few places where one finds it in the Bill one might not have realised that it had a different and a special meaning. In correspondence with the noble and learned Lord and during the exchanges we have had in debates on the Bill, agreement has been reached to change the word "reserved" to "scheduled". This requires a change in the heading of Schedule 15 because it has been suggested that it should now be called "Local Government Bodies—Scheduled Functions". As your Lordships know, it is not possible to put down an Amendment actually to change the heading of a Schedule, so that I hope the Clerks of the House who make these changes will recognise that as a suggestion which has been agreed by the Government.
As regards the necessity for Schedule 15, the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has written to me and said
142
that because the Bill is concerned primarily with identifying devolved matters Schedule 15 is essentially the residue of matters dealt with by local authorities which are not devolved matters in relation to either a Scottish Secretary or the Assembly. That is one of the reasons why we can now restrict the Schedule to local government bodies—not local authorities because it covers other local government bodies such as joint boards. It is the residue of matters which are not devolved to a Scottish Secretary or the Assembly.
The question then arises, how are the grants to be paid, and by whom, for these services in Schedule 15? On this I gave the noble and learned Lord notice some days ago, and I received a letter from him today and I think I can save the time of the Committee by giving the gist of the letter—
"In so far as those services are funded by specific grants"—
the main example of this is the police service—
"these grants will continue to be made directly to local authorities by the Government under the existing statutory provisions. The Bill leaves things exactly as they are."
He goes on to say:
"In so far as the cost of scheduled functions is not met by a specific grant"—
and "scheduled functions" is the new term for functions in Schedule 15—
"it forms part of the residual expenditure of local authorities which falls to be supported under the rate support grant system."
So the noble and learned Lord has already given me an answer to the question of how the grants to these services are to be dealt with in future. I know that this, as well as the whole question as to why Schedule 15 should be in the Bill at all, was a matter puzzling several noble Lords.
There are subsequent Amendments. I have made the point about the need to alter the heading to Schedule 15 and I think this is a convenient point to make an explanation of the serious Amendments. Others will crop up later on but I think they can be taken formally.
10.25 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, on elucidating this extremely

143
obscure point to which I must confess I have been trying to find a solution for some time. I take it that Schedule 15 contains the only subjects which will be funded by specific grants. That is one question—I do not know whether there are any others. I imagine these will all be funded by specific grants.
I should like to ask one other question: can the Secretary of State fund by specific grant other subjects which are not in this Schedule? I think he ought to be able to do so, but if you lay down the subjects in the Schedules to a statute obviously you cannot change them about very quickly. If this is a fixed number of subjects which will be funded by specific grant, then I wonder why they are not called "scheduled subjects funded by specific grants" so that people will know where they are. This is quite important because local authorities receive grants from a quite different source and they will get those quite separately from the Assembly. I should have thought it would be worthwhile making clear whether this is a permanent division or whether it is merely one of convenience for the time being.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? In fact, in case I may have misled him, it is not all these functions which are financed by specific grants, but only some of them. Some of the other functions are covered by the rate support grant.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, it is all very well to say that, but it is not quite good enough. Many of the subjects are funded by the rate support grant, but that is through the Assembly. They are not specific grants which cannot he altered. Assembly grants can be handled exactly as the Assembly likes, and that is a quite fundamental distinction. A grant made by Parliament through the Assembly need not be paid by the local authority at all. That is quite an important point.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, perhaps I might deal with these points while they are fresh in our minds. All the matters which are covered by specific grant are included in Schedule 15, but Schedule 15 goes a little wider than that because it includes matters which are not
144
the subject of specific grant. That is how I think the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, understood it, and that is absolutely correct. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Secretary of State, should he so choose, from making a specific grant in relation to matters not under this heading. The Bill does not restrict his capacity in that respect.
Regarding the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, first, I think that in Committee we managed to make clearer what the connection was between the rest of the Bill and the term "reserved functions" as it then was. Now it is "scheduled functions" and the ambiguity has been removed. In both these regards I acknowledge with gratitude what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Campbell and Lord Drumalbyn. I think they have helped us to make the Bill clearer, though we may not have satisfied entirely the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk.
We agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said about the heading of Schedule 15, and no doubt that will be taken note of in the proper quarters. He was also right in pointing out that the heading should refer to local government bodies. We agree with him on that. With regard to the payments of grants, that has been covered by what I said earlier; but I would also confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said by paraphrasing what I said to him in my letter, which he received today. One other matter I am asked to bring to your Lordships' attention is that it would be possible for a Scottish Secretary who has access to funds which form part of the rate support grant to make specific grants from the funds available to him.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
10.28 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 55, line 40, leave out from second ("and") to ("other") in line 42 and insert ("as respects vessels").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this again is a technical Amendment concerned with pollution from ships at sea. It paves the way for related Amendments to Schedule 11.

145
The Government's intention is that the Scottish Executive should exercise powers under legislation relating to pollution from ships in territorial waters but that the Assembly should not be able to alter those powers. Indeed, to allow alteration would be undesirable because of the wider international implications of sea pollution.
At present, the Bill seeks to achieve this policy by means of paragraph 7 of Part II of Schedule 10. The paragraph seeks to constrain devolved competence to such an extent that only executive powers will, in practice, be devolved. However, on reflection the Government consider that paragraph 7 is not the appropriate means of achieving what is required. It necessitates such tortuous wording that the meaning is not entirely clear. Instead, it is now proposed that paragraph 7 itself should be phrased in terms which reserve pollution from ships at sea. So it will be clear, on the face of it, that the Scottish Assembly's legislative competence in respect of pollution from ships will extend only to inland waterways. The Scottish Executive will then, as a result of an Amendment to Schedule 11 which we shall in due course propose, be given executive powers under enactments in relation to pollution from ships at sea. We believe that this Amendment leaves paragraph 7 in a more intelligible form, and I shall return to this matter when I come to the Amendment to Schedule 11. My Lords, I beg to move.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I think that this arose from a remark that I made about clean air, and this is a very great improvement.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I should have acknowledged that. I was not, as your Lordships will recall, heavily in the middle of the clean air at the time. I think that it was my noble friend Lady Stedman who dealt with that. But I am happy to acknowledge the noble Earl's contribution.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
10.32 p.m.
Lord MORRIS Lord MORRIS had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 117:
Page 55, line 42, at end insert—
146
("7A. Requirements as to the construction and safety of motor vehicles and working conditions.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before speaking to this Amendment, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, whether I may refer to his rebuttal to Amendment No. 111A of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy? He will recall that he spoke to this Amendment while speaking to No. 111A, and he also referred to Amendments Nos. 112, 117, 118 and 118A, with our leave. I see that the noble Lord nods his head and I am most grateful to him. In his rebuttal on No. 111A, he specifically stated—and may I ask him to look back—that the words "provision of" were tidy phrasing with regard to the payment of subsidies. But, of course, "provision of" in Group 10 does not refer to the payment of subsidies, which comes in a separate sentence, and the words refer only to the first sentence. Will the noble Lord be good enough to bear that in mind when he makes his later observations?
Your Lordships will observe that the wording of Amendments Nos. 117 and 118 is precisely the same as that of No. 118A by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, except that it is upside down and split into two. In the light of that, and not wishing to delay your Lordships, I think that I should not move my Amendment and await the contribution of my noble friend on the Front Bench.
[Amendment No. 118 not moved.]
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 118A:
Page 55, line 42, at end insert—
("7A. Licensing or other authorisation of public passenger transport services by road. Requirements as to the construction and safety of motor vehicles and working conditions in them.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I was a little surprised that my noble friend withdrew at that moment, because I could have spoken on his Amendment and drawn attention at the same time to mine, No. 118A, which I now move. Mine is simply bringing together the two parts which he had divided into two, offering the Government a choice. I put down mine independently, but the result was that if the Government did not like one part of my Amendment, they could have dropped it and chosen the

147
other part by selecting one of my noble friend's Amendments. But my noble friend has explained the reasons for these Amendments. My object was the same, but I put them together in one. I think it would help if it were made quite clear that these matters are not to be devolved, but I should be interested to hear what the Government have to say. I beg to move.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, the Government would aver this evening to your Lordships' House that the Amendment is inconsistent with the type of devolution to which the House agreed on Second Reading. I would also suggest that the effect of the Amendment carried earlier in Committee was itself inconsistent with a real degree of devolution.
I do not think it is reasonable that a Member of the Assembly should have to tell his constituents, for example, that he is unable to do anything about the frequency of the local bus service because it is such a weighty matter that only Parliament can legislate upon it and only Ministers of the Crown can exercise executive powers. The Government's view is that if we are to have a responsible Assembly, we must first give it responsibilities.
The effect of both of these Amendments, although we are discussing at the moment only Amendment No. 118A, is to reserve equally matters in respect of long distance routes—I shall return to this question—and in respect of local bus services from one part of a town to another. Hence I suggest to your Lordships that Assemblymen should be able to respond to constituency pressure, at least at that point.
I put it to your Lordships' House in this form: is it really right that the Secretary of State for Scotland, who will have no other transport responsibilities, should have to concern himself with whether or not some local community organisation should run a minibus service? These are some of the difficulties that on a reading of the Amendment are suggested to the Government. But the Government have given careful consideration to what was said during the debate at
148
Committee stage, and I wish to respond positively.
First, it was suggested that the original entry for the Road Traffic Act 1960 devolved matters in respect of public service vehicle licensing as well as in respect of road service licensing. At Amendment No. 126A the Government want to lead in an Amendment as it relates to these matters, and it is convenient for me just to link through at this stage. It seems to me to be the reasonable thing to do, as we speak at this time.
I think that we are all agreed that public service vehicle licensing should be reserved. I have, therefore, had this matter checked, and I can assure the House that there is absolutely no way in which either the original entry or the modified version, which the Government will propose at Amendment No. 126A, devolves any aspect of public service vehicle licensing. If it did, we should have no hesitation in putting the matter right.
Secondly, concern was expressed about cross-Border services. I can fully understand the wish that the existing arrangements for the operation of cross-Border services should not be disrupted by devolution, but perhaps I could explain what the existing arrangements are, because there might be some misconceptions about them. The Road Traffic Act divides Great Britain into traffic areas, each with its own traffic commissioners. Scotland is a separate traffic area, so if a bus operator wishes to run a service across the Border today he needs the approval of at least two different sets of traffic commissioners. But it is true that he at least knows that he is dealing with traffic commissioners on both sides of the Border, not with different types of organisation. And he also knows that if he receives a road service licence from one set of commissioners, Section 137(1) of the Act enables that licence to be backed by other traffic commissioners without the need for an entirely separate application.
What the Government therefore propose, as we lead into Amendment No. 126A, as a direct response to the Committee stage debate, is to entrench the present administrative framework for road service licensing. Our proposed

149
Amendment would prevent the Assembly from giving the task of road service licensing to a body other than the traffic commissioners, and would prevent them from abolishing the present procedure of backing licences granted on the other side of the Border. I hope your Lordships will find that eventual Government approach to be helpful. I am anxious that we should resolve this in your Lordships' House rather than leave it until the Bill returns to another place. If we can do this it will enable us to give more constructive consideration to related transport provisions in the Bill, some of which concern other aspects of bus services, and it will allow us to consider how far we should devolve the road licensing provisions of the Transport Bill which was given a Second Reading by your Lordships last Friday. In fact I believe we should be returning a more coherent Bill to the other place were we to do so.
I have strayed ahead to a Government Amendment, but I thought it was appropriate to do so in the light of the interrelationship as I saw it between Amendment No. 118A and indeed Amendment No. 118, although it was not moved, and the Government Amendment which will subsequently be before your Lordships.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, I support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy—although now that the penny has dropped I think he will regret not keeping it in its original form. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kirk-hill, I considered this point and read the report of the Committee stage most carefully. I was anxious to assist the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, in specifically stating in that part of the Bill which covers matters not included in the groups, namely, Part 2 of Schedule 10, what the Government require. In the Official Report at column 819 of 9th May, 1978, he said:
"There will be no devolution as to, for example, construction requirements for vehicles. … There is no devolution in relation to safety requirements or working conditions, which relate to transport as an industry rather than the provision of transport services".
This Amendment would specifically state that policy as stated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. In the light of that, I do not quite understand why the Government are objecting to this Amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I had hoped that this would be regarded as a consequential Amendment following the decision which this House took in Committee and the way in which the Government themselves have been tabling consequential Amendments in order to enable the Bill to be complete when it goes to another place. To a great extent that has to be done by the Government because of the complicated way in which Schedule 10 is drafted. I had hoped that the Government would either table something like this or else accept this Amendment.
The most important point is that there is confusion arising from what was said in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and what has been said again today by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. The noble Lord spoke about the local bus services: it is not the local decisions which are at issue, it is having a uniform licensing system. Those are quite different matters. At present, it is a matter for local decision whether or not to grant a licence or a permit. Decisions can be taken locally in Scotland now and that would continue under our Amendments; but what we are trying to preserve is a uniform licensing system within which those decisions are taken, so that the whole passenger transport industry has a uniform system which it can understand and follow and where everybody knows where they stand.
So I must draw attention to the confusion which has occurred in Government thinking and which was repeated again today. We are not trying to take away local decisions; we are just trying to prevent a different system developing North of the Border, thereby making life far more difficult and possibly causing muddle and confusion, not only to the people operating the bus services but also to the passengers. I do not know whether the noble Lord wishes to reply.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I might intervene. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I was perhaps not quite as logically explicit in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, as I might have been, because I spoke mainly to the Government proposition, which I considered to be, as it were, a halfway house

151
between us. I am at one with the noble Lord that the construction and safety of motor vehicles and working conditions should be reserved, but I would point out that there are three reasons why the Amendment should not be pressed.
First, it is unnecessary in that there is nothing in Part I of Schedule 10 to devolve these matters. Secondly, to insert in Part II an unnecessary derogation would be damaging in its effect on the structure of Schedule 10; it would inevitably cast doubt on the efficacy of other derogations. Thirdly, the Amendment does not, I am advised, cover the range of matters which I assume the noble Lord, Lord Morris, has in mind. For example, it does not mention safety standards for drivers and passengers. I should perhaps have made that point more explicit; I failed to mention it earlier. I am further advised that the Government's Amendment No. 126A guarantees a uniform licensing system. The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, does take away local decisions from the Scottish Secretary, but of course I made that point earlier.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, the noble Lord has given us more than a trailer for the Government Amendment No. 126A. I hope that means that he does not feel he has to repeat it all when we reach that Amendment. The Amendments we thought would be consequential and helpful to clarify the Bill have not been accepted by the Government. I am not proposing to argue the matter further at this point. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 55, line 43, after first ("services") insert "provision of inland waterway services,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is one which adds the provision of inland waterway services to the matters listed in paragraph 8 of Part II of Schedule 10 as matters not included in the groups in Part I of the Schedule. This is necessary to complete the reservation of inland waterway matters on which an Amendment was carried in Committee against the advice of the Government. Provision
152
of inland waterway services might otherwise be held to be included in Group 10. This Amendment is brought forward without prejudice to the attitude which the Government might think it right to adopt on the matter of inland waterways when the Bill returns to another place. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 56, line 8, leave out paragraph 9.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I think those who are interested in the matter of aerodromes will recognise that this is simply a consequential Amendment following upon the decision taken in Committee to remove aerodromes from the devolved matters in Part I of Schedule 10. As I said in regard to the previous Amendment, this Amendment is made without prejudice to the Government's ultimate position on that. I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I would only say that this and the previous Amendment are the kind to which I was referring, where the Government, I know, are trying to make the Bill complete without prejudice to their position when it gets to another place. We accept this, and we are grateful that the Government draftsmen have done what would otherwise be a very complicated task for us.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lord, with your Lordships' leave, may I say that it is of course essential to tidy up the Bill so that if the ultimate decision is taken in another place to leave matters as they are in relation to the deletion of aerodromes, then at least the Bill will be workable and not confusing.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
10.50 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 56, line 20, at end insert ("other than those mentioned in Group 13 and those relating to arterial drainage works").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical Amendment, which in part is related to the Amendment concerning

153
crofting (No. 113) which we have earlier discussed. Paragraph 11 of Part II of Schedule 10 derogates principally from Group 13 in Part 1 of that Schedule. Its purpose is to ensure that the devolution of agricultural land in Group 13 does not carry with it grants in relation to agricultural land which are part of the wider agricultural support system. This paragraph 11 does successfully, but I am afraid that it also goes further by reserving two other types of grant which should be devolved.
First, there are the grants and subsidies in relation to crofters, land-holders and similar categories which are to be devolved by virtue of Group 13, the wording of which has been expanded by the Government's earlier Amendment. These are grants payable in relation to the special circumstances of those concerned, and should be devolved. Most of these grants are in relation to livestock rather than land and are not affected by paragraph II. But those which are in relation to land are reserved at present by paragraph 11, and this is not the Government's intention.
Secondly, there are grants in relation to arterial drainage. At present paragraph 11 reserves all grants in relation to agricultural land drainage. The Government intend that grants for field drainage and farm flood protection works under the Farm Capital Grants Scheme should indeed be reserved. But paragraph 11 would at present also reserve grants for protective works under the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act 1958. This is not the intention. Both these matters are put right by the proposed Amendment to paragraph 11. I beg to move.
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 56, leave out line 22.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 122 which proposes that a subject be devolved which the Government at present are not devolving; namely, the taking of censuses of the population. Therefore, it is not a one-way traffic as has sometimes been suggested, that our Amendments are taking away subjects from the proposed Assembly. Indeed, already in at least
154
two cases we have suggested that the Assembly might take on functions which we thought suitable but the Government opposed them. However, on this occasion I hope that the Government will agree to this Amendment, because the Bill allocates population statistics as a devolved matter to the Assembly and the Executive. The reference is page 54, line 24 in Group 19.
Population statistics and the taking of censuses of the population are very similar subjects which surely could go together and in our estimate could both be devolved. I realise that this might cause some inconvenience for the Central Statistical Office, but there is inconvenience in devolving almost every subject in the Bill. It is my recollection that the Secretary of State and the Scottish Office now have functions concerning the taking of censuses, separate from England and Wales. They can decide when to have a census in Scotland and my recollection is that they can decide on the points to be registered—for example, how many people have Gaelic as their first language, which is a matter of considerable interest on the West Coast and in the Western Isles and which may affect school curricula. Therefore, this is a subject which is, in any case, already dealt with separately in Scotland, and I should have thought that it was very appropriate to be devolved. I beg to move.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I should like to add a few words in support of my noble friend. There are all sorts of aspects of a possible census in Scotland which would not be appropriate to the United Kingdom. As my noble friend said, in Scotland we might want to know how many people speak Gaelic or even Lallans; we might want to know how many attend schools of this or that religion; we might want to know all sorts of things that are peculiar to Scotland and not to the United Kingdom. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, will appreciate this. This is what I call an "anti-apron strings" Amendment.
Lord TANLAW: My Lords, I should add a few words of my own bewilderment at finding that this subject is not devolved. As the Central Statistical Office has been mentioned, it is worth recording that it

155
might need all the help it can get. I recall that not so long ago it was able to produce the total population of the United Kingdom, but on the same table was unable to produce the number of deaths or births in the same period. On my inquiring how it could reach the total without actually knowing the number of births or deaths, it said that this was the best it could do, and that if I wanted any further details it would need more civil servants in order to produce such statistics.
There is a certain sort of mania about statistics which could perhaps be rationalised—as is done in the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy—to the extent that if you are devolving population statistics, in pure logic you should also devolve at least the responsibility of the Census. It would be helpful to hear the Government's view as to why this particular item is being reserved.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, that there is no mania on my part anent statistics. Indeed, I am usually totally confused by them. However, I think that it is agreed between us all that as much as possible in the realm of statistics should be devolved to the Scottish Assembly and Executive, and this is achieved by Group 10 in Part I of Schedule 10. However, in the Government's view, the Census is a different matter. It is the most important and comprehensive national population survey conducted by central Government. Much of the information derived from it is required for the exercise of what will be non-devolved functions, and validity of the Census for that purpose depends upon its being conducted at the same time and on the same basis and coverage for the whole of the United Kingdom. Without the entry in paragraph 22 of Part II of Schedule 10 the wording of Group 19 in Part I of the Schedule would include the Census. The exclusion will not preclude questions related only to Scotland from being included in the Census questionnaire. This will be able to be arranged at the request of the Executive where it is considered to be desirable and practical.
However, the Executive will have the power to collect statistics about the population in the period between censuses
156
on the basis of the Registrar for Scotland's other activities; for example, in registering births and deaths. That is a short but, I hope, cogent case which I put to noble Lords on behalf of the Government.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, my interpretation of that case is that it is just inconvenient for the bureaucrats not to do it in a centralised way. I think that that applies even more to many of the other devolved subjects. I must point out that when the Government opposed our Amendment on uniformity in passenger transport licensing, if the Bill had stayed as it was it would have made life very inconvenient for the operators of buses, both in the public and in the private sectors. When the Government opposed our successful Amendment to take the administration of aerodromes out of the devolved matters, again, if that had stayed in the Bill it would have made life very inconvenient and almost impossible for those administering aerodromes and the airlines. But no, that does not matter.
Then when we come to the salaries and conditions of service of doctors and dentists, I can tell noble Lords that it is not just a question of inconvenience. It was alarming to many of them when that was in the Bill; but, not at all; they appeared not to matter. When it comes to the bureaucrats and those in the Central Statistical Office, then, of course, it is inconvenient if this matter is devolved; it all has to be kept central. I do not accept the arguments advanced by the Government, but this is not a major point and I should not wish to press it at this hour of the night. I would only say that others, who will be put to a great deal of trouble over subjects being devolved and systems being upset, will think that it is really not a very good argument to try. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11 p.m.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 56, line 22, at end insert—
(". The initiation or holding of referenda.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, on the 9th May I occupied, at 11.29 p.m., three minutes of your Lordships' time in moving an identical Amendment. It is designed, of course, to prevent

157
the Assembly from holding, or initiating the holding, of referenda on any subjects, be they devolved subjects or undevolved subjects. After the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, had replied, I see from the Official Report at column 960 that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, commented that the answer given by the noble Baroness he had found rather disturbing.
Thereafter, after a number of your Lordships had expressed some sympathy with the aims and objects of this Amendment, with the exception—surprise, surprise—of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, at the conclusion of the debate said that many noble Lords on his side of the House had a great deal of sympathy with what I had said. I have opened the matter in that way and I shall be as brief and speedy as I can because again, alas, it is 11 o'clock at night.
I make no secret of the fact that I regard the referendum as an alien and a wholly undesirable intrusion into our constitutional arrangements. We have not had a great deal of discussion about this, surprisingly enough, in the course of the debates on this Bill. There was some reference to it. Some exchanges occurred between the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, at one stage which were quite exciting. We had an interesting academic exploration of the matter by the noble Lord, Lord Kaldor. I am sorry he is not here tonight. He called in aid the late Arthur Balfour and Dicey on the Constitution. It was an academic exploration of the subject. But I must say that in the real world in which, as a lawyer, I have had my life, while the referendum is perhaps a useful instrument for seeking the approval or otherwise of amendments to federal constitutions, it does not contribute significantly to the better conduct of affairs under a constitution such as the British Constitution.
So far as this Assembly is concerned, if it were left with the right to conduct referenda—and as I read the Bill, and consider what has been said about the Bill in the debates we have had in this House—it would seem to have the right to initiate referenda on either devolved or undevolved subjects. As I regard this I think this would be a dangerous innovation, although I shall not weary your
158
Lordships by the kind of instances I fear. I outlined them on 9th May. The danger is that a subordinate Legislature of this kind might be tempted—and it is not an unlikely thing; it is not a bogeyman conjured up from the imagination of an opponent of the Bill—to use the weapon of the referendum, as it were, to twist the arm of the Government at Westminster to achieve its objects in regard to such matters as the oil revenue from the North Sea, and so on. However, I shall not at this hour detain your Lordships longer.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, this is not a bogey conjured up by an opponent of the Bill, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, suggested some people might think; it is an important point and it is bad luck on his part that in Committee the subject came up at 11.29 p.m. and now, on Report, at 11 o'clock at night, because the attention paid to it is obviously of lesser impact at this late hour.
I share the noble and learned Lord's view that the institution of the referendum is an alien and undesirable intrusion into our constitutional affairs. I expressed my views on this in Committee and, as he said, that seemed to irritate, I thought infuriate, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, much to my surprise. I tried to point out that in my view the institution of the principle of the referendum was putting into the hands of individuals that which was the responsibility of Parliament, and that is the view I hold, though I accept that others hold a different view. The fact remains that we have had only one referendum and it is a constitutional innovation. Admittedly there may be others. If we are to devolve affairs, are we right to devolve the principle of the extension of the referendum to the Assembly? I should have thought not. If the referendum is to be extended, surely Westminster, not the Assembly, should determine whether the principle should be extended.
It would be possible for us to reach a collision course as between the Assembly and Westminster over the provision of a referendum, and so often we have said we want to avoid collision. The Assembly might pass an Act which was offensive to Westminster, and one can think of all sorts of examples. Supposing there were an Act an abortion and supposing

159
Westminstei took offence at that measure. Westminster would be entitled to use its reserve powers to repeal that Act. What, then, if the Assembly said, "Very well, we will have a referendum on the subject. This is a devolved subject, it is within our competence, and we will see what result comes out of a referendum". The inference is that the Assembly would seek to gain the support of the people of Scotland for a measure by referendum and the result, indeed the intention, could be a conflict with Westminster.
I suggest it is bad to devolve this newfound power of the right to hold a referendum to the Assembly. I hope the Government will, on reflection, agree that it would be an undesirable move and that if referenda are to be held, it should be up to Westminster to decide on what subjects they should be held.
11.10 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside. I suppose that I have taken part in more General Elections than almost anyone else in your Lordships' House over more years than I should like to say. I think that it would be a great mistake if this new elected Assembly did not put the power into the hands of its Members. I did not oppose the referendum on the EEC. I did not like it very much, but the suggestion was made, and I think that on the whole it worked very well.
I do not want referenda to be regarded as forming part of the Constitution, to be held when it is felt that Parliament or elected representatives are not likely to take the kind of decision which some people may want, or may not take the decision quickly enough. I believe that, where there is Parliamentary government, it is much better for Parliament to take the decisions. If there are to be referenda, they should be on a United Kingdom basis. I hope that a provision for holding referenda would be used only very sparingly. The elected representatives—whether they be in the United Kingdom Parliament, in an Assembly, or in local government—are the people who should take the decisions on these matters. We
160
should use the referendum method only very sparingly, and indeed I should be glad if it was not to be used again.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, I was a little puzzled by what the last three speakers—particularly the noble Baroness who has just sat down—said about the question of a referendum. We are not at the moment debating the constitutional value of a referendum, yet we must remember that there is to be one on the terms of this very Bill, and that referendum is to be for Scotland, and for Scotland only. Therefore, it seems to me that the principle is broken by virtue of the very fact that we are considering this Bill at the present time, and that the referendum is to be only for one part of the country. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was worried that the Assembly might pass a Bill which was repugnant to Westminster, and Westminster would then seek to defeat it or would defeat it. Surely, if it was a matter of real importance, it would be proper for the Assembly to show Westminster what was the opinion of the Scots on the matter in question. If it was shown that there were, say, 70 per cent. of the Scots who felt so strongly that they wanted to support whatever proposal had been passed by the Assembly, surely it would be useful for Westminster to know just that. Therefore, while I am not in favour necessarily of the frequent holding of referenda, there could be times when they would be useful not only for the Assembly but for Westminster as well.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has said, to the effect that we are not debating the wisdom of having, or not having, a referendum, or of using this kind of instrument frequently in our Constitution. I believe that that question is wholly irrelevant at the moment. The United Kingdom Parliament undoubtedly has the competence to pass legislation allowing for a referendum, or for more than one referendum. The only question is whether that competence ought to be accorded to the Scottish Assembly.
Some strange arguments have been used. I commented last time on the "in and out" attitude of the official opposition on this matter. I have read

161
reports of their Leader talking about having a referendum for the purpose of answering questions about closed shops in the trade union movement. I have recently read in the newspapers stories of members of the Opposition Party advocating a referendum on capital punishment. That seems to accord with the wishes of many in that Party, and so I am not quite sure where the noble Earl on the Opposition Front Bench stands on this matter.
To turn to the particular matter in question, let us suppose that some noble Lords object to the referendum on principle. What we are considering here is the question whether the Scottish Assembly should have the legislative competence to hold a referendum. In my view, it would be quite wrong to deprive the Scottish Assembly of such a competence. First, I believe that, in relation to non-devolved matters, it would be of great doubt whether the Scottish Assembly could pass legislation allowing for a referendum on a non-devolved matter, because I believe that that would be plainly open to challenge on vires grounds. Indeed, if it were not it would be plainly open to policy override under Clause 6, where the Government could invoke Clause 6 and, with Parliamentary approval, stop a referendum taking place on a non-devolved matter. In relation to a referendum on a devolved matter, in the instance figured by the noble Earl I think the answer given to him by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, is exact, and I need not repeat it.
We oppose this Amendment really upon the ground that it is an unreasonable constraint upon the Scottish Administration in devolved matters. I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, saying that she did not approve of this way of doing things; but, with respect, it is arrogant of this House and this Parliament to suppose that we do things perfectly. There are many countries in the world which use the referendum as an instrument of government, constitutional or otherwise, all the time. Why on earth should not other instruments be employed, and why on earth should not the Scots use such an instrument if they choose to do so? The noble Baroness said that it was a kind of abdication of responsibility by Members of Parliament. If they want to consult the electorate, let them do so. How do
162
we consult the electorate at the present time?
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: In a General Election, my Lords.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Indeed; that is just the point. The only way in which the Assembly can consult their electorate is once every four years, by means of a General Election. The alternatives to that are to read the newspapers, to read the correspondence columns in the newspapers, to listen to the representations of minority groups and pressure groups, or perhaps to watch the opinion polls; and I should have thought that it was at least arguable that within Scotland, a fairly compact and homogeneous society, it would be possible for the Scottish Assembly to use the referendum quite sensibly, as it is used in many other countries. We have seen an example of the use of it quite recently in the United States. So we do not believe that the Assembly should be deprived of this competence, the competence to take the advice of the electorate on a specific question —and there are all kinds of questions which I could instance.
There is one matter of the drafting which occurs to me. I have been looking at the definition of "referendum". looked at it merely in order to determine what was the plural, because this is a matter which is hotly contended. I did not find the answer to that, but the definition of "referendum" is:
"… referring of questions at issue to electorate for direct decision by a general vote".
That is the Oxford Illustrated Dictionary. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, has it in mind to prevent a referendum where the matter is decided by the consulted electorate, or whether he is also seeking to ban a consultative referendum. If that is his intention, the wider intention, it may well be that this Amendment does not achieve it; but it is not at all clear to me, from the wording he has chosen to use, what is his intention.
I suggest that it is wrong and quite arrogant of this Parliament to suggest that the Scots should not be able to use a different constitutional instrument if they choose to do so. It is not one which we have wholly neglected. We

163
used it in the case of the European Economic Community in 1975; it is intended to be used in relation to this Bill and the Wales Bill; and local referendums have been held in Northern Ireland. It is by no means a stranger to our Constitution. Why should we debar the Scots from employing it?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord for a point of clarification? Do I understand him aright that, as the Bill is constructed at the moment, there is the possibility, even if it is not a certainty, that the Assembly could hold a referendum on a reserved subject, one which is not devolved?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, first, as the Bill is constructed, the Assembly can legislate about any matter within its legislative competence. Of course, it may enact a measure in order to allow a referendum in relation to one of these matters. If, for example, the Assembly were to say, "We will have a referendum in relation to the neutron bomb"—which is not a devolved matter—then, as a matter of vires, that provision would be seen to be ultra vires and, accordingly, would be outwith their legislative competence. In other words, the constitutional instrument of the referendum adheres to the subject; and if it does not do so, it is ultra vires.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, one would not wish to be prolix, but the noble Lord focuses on vires. What worries some of us is that the referendum might be a handy instrument of mischief, should a group of people in control of the Assembly be so minded as to try to tackle Westminster on an issue which was ultimately one of vires. The noble and learned Lord has said that Parliament could stop them exceeding their own powers. How? By passing a law? With great respect, I know that legally Westminster could do that; but, in fact, there might be a mock referendum, there might be a referendum which for practical purposes would be an extended public opinion poll. Here is an instrument of mischief with all kinds of variations.
164
It is that elongation of mischief which alarms some of us. All that we are trying to do is to say: "Don't do it!" think that the noble and learned Lord is falling back on the "ifs and strings" argument. I do not want to be prolix. This is a cause of genuine apprehension; it is appearing to head straight for confrontation. It appears to put in the hands of the Assembly an instrument of confrontation which none of us wants. Therefore, surely it is better to keep it out.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to what has been said both for and against what is proposed in the Amendment. At this hour I am in great difficulty as to know what I ought to do. May I comment on some of the remarks that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, made. It is true that we are not debating the general principle of whether or not referenda are appropriate within our constitutional arrangements. It is not quite right to say that to raise that issue is wholly irrelevant to the Amendment. The noble and learned Lord seemed to suggest there was a touch of arrogance behind all this. It surprised me that those of us who feel strongly about the supremacy of Parliament should be accused of arrogance when the supremacy of Parliament has been one of the cornerstones of our Constitution for so many years.
It is true that many other countries use the referendum as an instrument for all kinds of purposes. I am not myself aware—the noble and learned Lord may be aware—of any country, whose constitutional arrangements approximate to our own, who make regular use of the referendum in that way. I think that, on balance, I shall not withdraw the Amendment but test the feeling of your Lordships' House on the matter.
11.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 123) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 31; Not-Contents, 28.

CONTENTS

Balerno, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Belstead, L.

Fortescue, E.

Newall, L.

Burton, L.

Gray, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Carrington, L.

Haig, E.

Sandford, L.

Cathcart, E.

Kinross, L.

Selkirk, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Lauderdale, E. [Teller.]

Sharples, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Denham, L.

Long, V.

Swinton, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lyell, L.

Vickers, B.

Elles, B.

Morris, L.

Wilson of Langside, L. [Teller.]

Elliot of Harwood, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Birk, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Stedman, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

McCluskey, L.

Stone, L.

Elwyn-Joncs, L. (L. Chancellor.)

McGregor of Durris, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Ely, M.

Northfield, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Thurso, V.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Perth, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Raglan, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Kaldor, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

JUDICATURE (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments to be printed.
  BROAD SANCTUARY SITE: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE CENTRE
  BROAD SANCTUARY SITE: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE CENTRE