Sitting of 6 December 1982

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE

    Cork Committee on Insolvency
    Mr. Heddleasked the Minister for Trade when he expects to announce his conclusions on the recommendations of the Cork committee on insolvency.
    The Minister for Consumer Affairs (Dr. Gerard Vaughan): I understand the wish of my hon. Friend that the Government should make an announcement on the recommendations of the Cork committee. I shall do so as soon possible. I am still waiting for replies from several major bodies which have been consulted.
    Mr. Heddle: Notwithstanding what my hon. Friend may feel about the commercial sector bearing too heavy a burden of the rates, is it not grossly unfair that local councils should have the same preferential powers as the Inland Revenue and be able to bankrupt a company for the non-payment of rates and thus prejudice the position of unsecured creditors? Will my hon. Friend therefore pay particular attention to Sir Kenneth Cork's recommendation on that aspect?
    Dr. Vaughan: Yes. The report contains complicated recommedations. I am trying to pull out one or two parts on which we can act to stop the various abuses. For example, I am seeing whether we can strengthen the powers to deal with directors who take advantage of their position.
    Mr. John Fraser: Does not the Freddie Laker fiasco prove the importance of legislating quickly? That matter involved the loss of £250 million of other people's money and 17,000 Skytrain ticket holders were left in the lurch, despite what Tiny Rowlands said in public. Now Sir Freddie Laker, with Tiny Rowland's help, is able to set up in business again. Does that not make the present insolvency laws a welsher's charter?
    Dr. Vaughan: It took the Cork committee a long time to report on this complicated matter. We must be careful, before introducing new legislation, to ensure that it benefits the people it is meant to benefit.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members will find a word other than "welsher". It is a loathsome expression.

    Manufactured Goods
    Mr. Knoxasked the Minister for Trade what was the value of exports of manufactured goods from the United Kingdom in the past six months.
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Peter Rees): In the past six months, exports of manufactured goods amounted to £18·4 billion.
    Mr. Knox: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the figure would have been higher if exchange rates had been more stable? What action do the Government intend to take to reduce the fluctuations in exchange rates in the EC and the wider world?
    Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend makes assumptions, and I do not know whether I am qualified to follow him into that uncertain area. My hon. Friend and the House will recognise that, at the end of the day, the stability of exchange rates is determined by market forces and that the Government's role can only be marginal.
    Mr. Archer: Does the Minister accept that the figures that he has quoted represent a deterioration in the annual balance of payments on manufactured goods since 1979 of about £2 billion? Does he view that with complacency or alarm? Will he take the opportunity to say where he stands in the controversy between the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Industry as to whether exchange rates are to be added to the list of matters for which the Government abdicate all responsibility?
    Mr. Rees: This is the first occasion on which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has appeared at the Dispatch Box in his new role. I congratulate him on his new responsibilities. I am sure that he will make a distinguished contribution to our debates.
    When the right hon. and learned Gentleman becomes more closely acquainted with these matters he will find that this year, taken with the past two years, will show a record surplus in our current account. Therefore, he is taking an unduly gloomy view of Britain's trading position.
    Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the terms of trade on which we attempt to export our goods to Spain are grossly inequitable? When will the talks about renegotiation and doing meaningful things in the Community end and when will some serious action be reported to the House?
    Mr. Rees: I know of my hon. Friend's deep concern about these matters. I know he feels that they have a particular effect on the area of which he is a distinguished representative.
    Mr. Budgen: That means that nothing will be done.
    Mr. Rees: It is undoubtedly true that there is a gross disproportion between the tariffs imposed by Spain on imports from the entire European Community—not only the United Kingdom—and those imposed on Spanish imports entering European Community countries. This is a matter of deep concern to the Government and to the European Commission. At my request the issue was placed on the agenda of the most recent Foreign Affairs Council meeting. I hope that we shall soon have an urgent report from the European Commission on the full

    571
    implementation of the 1970 agreement, to which the United Kingdom was a party, and on how tariff disproportions can be redressed.

    Heathrow Fifth Terminal
    Mr. Jesselasked the Minister for Trade whether his Department will give evidence when the public inquiry into the Heathrow fifth terminal moves to West London.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Iain Sproat): My Department has already provided evidence on the Government's airports policy during the Stansted phase of these inquiries, and have indicated that officials will give further evidence during the Heathrow phase if this is requested by the inspector or the parties.
    Mr. Jessel: Will the Department of Trade make it abundantly clear to the inquiry inspector that, although for technical reasons an inquiry into a fifth terminal had to be held and that a quasi-judicial position must be maintained during that inquiry, successive Ministers at the Department of Trade—including my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is in his place, and my right hon. Friends the Members for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) and for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), who are now the Secretaries of State for Defence and Employment—have repeatedly stated that it is Government policy that a fifth terminal at Heathrow should not be built and that there has been no change in Government policy?
    Mr. Sproat: Yes. I am sure that any officials who are called to give evidence will make clear the Government's policy.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend have uppermost in his mind the terms of the policy that he has just confirmed—a determination to diminish aircraft noise over west London? Will he do everything that he can to ensure that that policy is implemented and that we do not have a policy that will have the opposite effect?
    Mr. Sproat: I know that my hon. Friend has fought extremely hard for his constituents, and I am glad of this opportunity to tell him that the Government will do everything that they can to preserve a proper balance in those matters.

    Textiles and Man-made Fibres (Imports)
    Mr. Barry Jonesasked the Minister for Trade what is the estimated financial value of imported textiles and of man-made fibres in particular for the years 1980, 1981 and for 1982 so far; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Rees: With permission, I will circulate the figures in the Official Report.
    In the first nine months of this year imports of textiles were valued at £1,501 million cif, of which manmade fibres—staple fibre and continuous filament yarn—accounted for £254 million, or 17 per cent. of the total.
    Mr. Jones: Is not the message from the Copenhagen conference of Ministers that unjust and unfair import penetration must be countered strongly and urgently? Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the textile industry is still Britain's largest employer? What will the Government do to help this industry?
    Mr. Rees: We are within measurable distance of completing the last bilateral multi-fibre arrangement. The
    572
    only two countries waiting to sign are South Korea and Argentina. If and when the arrangement is completed—I have high hopes that it will be before the end of the year—we shall have a tougher MFA than the previous one. I hope that that will give some satisfaction to the hon. Gentleman and to the rest of the House. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern.
    Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister confirm that there has been a deficit in textiles and clothing over the past few years and that it makes sense to negotiate some planned trading arrangement through the MFA, and also with the Common Market, to ensure that our textile and clothing industries—which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) said, constitute the largest private enterprise employers in Britain—have a secure home base so that jobs in the industry are not diminished further? As the Minister knows, there has been a massive reduction of jobs in the textile and clothing industries over the past three years.
    Mr. Rees: I repeat that the clothing and textile industries can look forward to certainty and a sound measure of protection under the new multi-fibre arrangement. Clothing exports, which have been doing remarkably well, amounted to £750 million in 1979, £808 million in 1980 and £691 million so far this year.
    Mr. Woolmer: Does the Minister recognise that since 1979 210,000 jobs have been lost in the textile and clothing industries, which, with 580,000 workers remaining, are extremely important industries? Will the multi-fibre arrangement negotiations be concluded before next week's meeting of the Council of Ministers? If so, will the hon. and learned Gentleman make a statement to the House? If not, will he make a statement before the House rises for the Christmas Recess? It would be a tragedy for the workers and the employers if the House were to rise for the Christmas Recess without the fullest possible discussion having taken place.
    Mr. Rees: I am conscious of the number of jobs that have been lost over the past few years in the textile and clothing industries generally. I have raised the issue constantly at the Council of Ministers in Brussels. It is one of the reasons that has led the United Kingdom to take a prominent part in debates on clothing and textiles and to press for a strong MFA. I hope that the House will be reassured about the likely outcome of the MFA. It is for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the usual channels to decide whether a statement should be made by me or by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. I have no doubt that note has been taken of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
    Following are the figures.

    £ million cif

    1980

    1981

    (a) Textile imports of which:—

    1,636

    1,861

    (b) Man-made staple fibre and continuous filament yarn

    273

    301

    Source:
    United Kingdom Overseas Trade Statistics,

    (a) SITC/R2 Division 65, Groups 266 and 267, Item 847.11 and Subgroup 268.7 (part);

    (b) SITC/R2 groups 266 and 267, Sub-group 651.4 (excluding Item 651.48) and Items 651.71, 72, 73 and 78.

    Steel Exports
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Minister for Trade if he will make a statement on the relative steel exports of the United Kingdom, France and West Germany.
    Mr. Peter Rees: Steel exports for the United Kingdom for 1981 are estimated to have been 3·9 million tonnes, those for France 11·4 million tonnes and those for West Germany 19·1 million tonnes.
    Mr. Wainwright: Does the Minister agree that the figures are deplorable? Is it true that we have been losing ground over the past three weeks in the import and export of steel and that more imports have entered Britain than have entered West Germany, France and other member States? When will the Government do something to stop the destruction of the steel industry? Will it be left to suffer like the textile industry and other industries? I hope that the Minister will bear in mind that thousands of workers have been declared redundant in the steel industry and that the total will increase substantially until the Government take action.
    Mr. Rees: I know of the anxiety of the hon. Gentleman and of others about events in the steel industry, which have been evidenced in many recent debates, including one last week. I remind the House that the penetration of the United Kingdom's steel market is less than that of the Federal Republic of Germany or of France. The penetration of the United Kingdom market is 25 per cent. compared with 35 per cent. in the Federal Republic of Germany and 43 per cent. in France.
    Mr. John Morris: What estimate has the hon. and learned Gentleman made of the effect of various devaluations of the pound on steel exports? Will he consult the Secretary of State for Industry on what steps should be taken, pending devaluation, to save what remains of the steel industry from continued and unabated imports?
    Mr. Rees: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not right to say that there are unabated imports. We have secured a much tougher regime against third country imports into the European Community. I cannot give the precise figures that result from varying exchange rates. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will take comfort from the recent drop in the value of the pound.
    Sir Albert Costain: Does my hon. and learned Friend appreciate that the unnecessary steel strike last year has caused more imports to come into Britain? Is he aware that a number of firms in my constituency and in his are continuing to import steel, following their decision to import during the strike, when they had to get supplies from elsewhere?
    Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which I am sure has been noted by the steel unions and the British Steel Corporation. I hope that the restructuring operation will enable the steel industry to regain these lost markets before too long.
    Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Minister realise that the steel strike was not the industry's main problem? Is he aware that the industry's problems are the result of Government policies? Does he accept that account should be taken of the number of steel workers who are now redundant and not likely to get other jobs?
    Mr. Rees: If the Labour Administration had faced the problem of restructuring the steel industry, we should not have had such grave problems from 1974 onwards, and the shock would not have been as great as it has been.

    Tariff Barriers
    Mr. Dykesasked the Minister for Trade what evidence he has that new tariff barriers to trade between the Western world trading nations and Japan may be erected, to the detriment of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Rees: We have no evidence of any new tariff barriers.
    Mr. Dykes: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that encouragement. Bearing in mind that Japan has got away with a great deal in the past two or three decades in terms of free and fair trade, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be wrong and tragic for the Western nations to retaliate by erecting new barriers? Should we not persuade Japan of the necessity and indispensability of opening its markets to us and to other exporters in the Western world?
    Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. One of the Government's and the European Community's preoccupations is to persuade Japan to dismantle some of its trade barriers. Japan has been reducing its tariff barriers under the Tokyo round, and accelerated reductions will start in January. That may have been the result of the visit of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
    Mr. McNally: Is it not a fact that we continue to bark at but never bite Japan? Following the Prime Minister's robust words in Copenhagen, will the Minister assure us that the Community will now put together a package on open trade which it will invite Japan to discuss, and that if that fails we shall take unilateral action?
    Mr. Rees: Many discussions have taken place with Japan, and modest measures of liberalisation have been forthcoming as a result. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Community is taking action against Japan under article XXIII of the GATT.
    Mr. Archer: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his courteous reference to me earlier.
    In the first three quarters of this year this country had a trade deficit with Japan of £1,488 million. Does the Minister regard himself as having had anything to do with that? For example, has he noticed that at the Smithfield show the low-cost all-purpose tractor, for which so many small farmers are looking, is now on offer by the Japanese? Will he invite British manufacturers of agricultural machinery to discuss with him how the new challenge can be met, or is that not part of his job?
    Mr. Rees: I do not accept responsibility for every aspect of our trade. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must realise that Ministers have, not a marginal, but a limited impact on events of that kind. I am certain that tractor manufacturers will take note of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said. I suspect that it would be impertinent of me to tell them how to conduct their businesses.
    Mr. Chapman: In view of what the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said about the imbalance of trade, will my hon. and learned Friend

    575
    confirm that in the past 12 months Japan has exported to us goods to the value of £2,000 million more than we have exported to it? As most of the imports that we take from Japan are not vital, should we not insist on fair trade between the two nations?
    Mr. Rees: There is. It is on the basis that voluntary restraint arrangements have been negotiated.
    Mr. Park: Does the Minister agree that the covert barriers to trade between this country and Japan are the cause of greatest worry? Does he appreciate that the standards for cars exported to Japan are considerably higher than those required by the strictest state in the United States of America?
    Mr. Rees: We are constantly drawing the Japanese Government's attention to the barriers that we perceive to our imports. The Japanese have produced only modest packages of liberalisation measures over the past two or three years.

    Firms (Receivership)
    Mr. Altonasked the Minister for Trade what has been the change in the number of firms placed in receivership between the periods January to September 1981 and January to September 1982.
    Dr. Vaughan: The appointment of 1,288 receivers was recorded during the first nine months of 1981. The comparable number in 1982 was 2,225.
    Mr. Alton: Why is the number of firms going into receivership this year nearly double that of last year? Will the Minister confirm that so far this year about seven firms a day have gone into receivership? Does he agree that the only businesses that appear to be booming in Great Britain today are those dealing with insolvency?
    Dr. Vaughan: I do not accept everything that the hon. Gentleman says. This is a complicated matter. Since the beginning of 1979, 266,000 new companies have been registered, including 68,000 this year.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is not one of the reasons for so many companies going into receivership or liquidation the delay in the notification of information about companies to Companies House? Will the Minister do what he refused to do last Thursday and tell the House whether the Government are complying with the first and fourth directives of the European Community on the harmonisation of company law?
    Dr. Vaughan: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. During the debate I said that I would look at the point that he made, but I did not think it was relevant.
    Mr. Archer: The figures quoted by the Minister show an increase of 166 per cent. in liquidations. As the Government conducted their election campaign on the basis of giving a better deal to small companies, do they still hold the view that Governments are largely responsible for the climate in which small companies operate? Is the hon. Gentleman not troubled by the ever-escalating score of heartbreaks and lost jobs, or is it another matter on which the Government have given up trying?
    Dr. Vaughan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that we are taking steps to improve the economy.
    576
    The dramatic fall in inflation and the fall in interest rates will be of help to everybody. There are many new companies starting every day.

    Free Ports
    Mr. Proctorasked the Minister for Trade if he will list the organisations he has consulted with a view to promoting free ports.
    Mr. Sproat: We have had useful discussions with hon. Members, local government authorities, airport managements and industrial organisations. Further consideration of this question will now take place under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne). Both these and other interested parties will have an opportunity to present their views.
    Mr. Proctor: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful response. As free ports could create prosperity and jobs, will my hon. Friend and the working party consider setting up at least one free port at Aldergrove, Prestwick or Southend-on-Sea before the next general election?
    Mr. Sproat: We shall be going ahead with this inquiry as fast as seems reasonable. Within the scope of the inquiry we shall consider many places, including, no doubt, those mentioned by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Foulkes: Does the Minister agree that Great Britain has been slow to realise the potential of free ports? They are already successful in Ireland and Germany, and Belgium is now looking at the possibility. In view of the evidence given by the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, does the Minister agree that to put him in charge of any examination of the matter is to give it the kiss of death?
    Mr. Sproat: Not at all. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) will be as willing to listen to wisdom as any other member of the Government. I have no doubt that we shall benefit from the comments of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs when it reports soon.
    Sir Julian Ridsdale: Does my hon. Friend realise the huge advantages that Harwich would have as a free port? Unemployment there has in the past year and a half.
    Mr. Sproat: I am sure that Harwich will be one of the many places whose interests will be advanced by hon. Members on both sides of the House. We shall be delighted to consider each one.

    British Airports Authority
    Mr. Robert Atkinsasked the Minister for Trade what discussions he has had with the chairman of the British Airports Authority concerning that authority's future financial structure.
    Mr. Sproat: I meet the chairman of the British Airports Authority regularly to discuss all aspects of its activities and I expect to see him again early next week.
    Mr. Atkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the BAA has nothing to fear—indeed, quite the reverse—from an injection of private capital and privatisation? Will he tell the chairman how much he agrees with me and many of my hon. Friends that that should come about sooner rather than later?
    Mr. Sproat: The Government always have an open and sympathetic mind to privatisation. But the BAA is the subject of litigation by international airlines, at the heart of which is its ability to fix its charges. We are, therefore, restrained from going ahead as we cannot yet set out a prospectus when so much depends on its ability to fix the charges.
    Mr. Colvin: May I ask my hon. Friend not to close his mind to the full-blooded privatisation of the BAA, and in particular the three London airports, nor the semi-privatisation and perhaps municipalisation of the regional airports under its control in Scotland?
    Mr. Sproat: We are completely open-minded about that most important matter.

    Japanese Imports
    Mr. Sheermanasked the Minister for Trade whether he will introduce port of entry requirements for Japanese imports similar to those used by France and other members of the European Community.
    Mr. Peter Rees: No, Sir. Such measures would almost certainly not be compatible with our international obligations or our current domestic legislation. The French requirements are already the subject of complaint in the GATT and are currently subject to challenge by the Commission.
    Mr. Sheerman: Have not the Japanese been getting away with blue murder in international trade for many years? Is it not time for the Government to do what the French Government have done, not to secure unfair terms of entry for our goods, but merely to give notice to the Japanese Government that we expect the entry of our goods to Japan to be treated in the same way as Japanese goods coming here?
    Mr. Rees: That message has been loudly and forthrightly given, as will emerge from a later answer. However, I do not believe that it would advance the case of the United Kingdom or the Community to adopt measures subject to challenge in international and national courts.
    Sir David Price: Have not the French, as becomes them, found the most elegant method of, at one and the same time, pursuing strictly French national interests and, in theory, supporting an open trading policy? Are there not lessons for us all in that example?
    Mr. Rees: I would not challenge my hon. Friend's choice of adjective, but I am not sure that the French have substantially advanced their case by the methods that they are allegedly adopting. It is not elegant to be challenged in the European Court or before a GATT tribunal. Other methods can be just as effective to support the United Kingdom's interests.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister accept that, although the French method may not be elegant, it is effective, as they are applying 25 sets of regulations to stop Japanese penetration into their market and the Commission will not investigate all 25? Have they not been extremely successful in ensuring that Frenchmen are not unemployed because of excessive Japanese competition? Is not the Government's response of taking no step that might offend European rules and regulations extremely disadvantageous to our people?
    Mr. Rees: I should not like to comment in depth on the economic policies of a friendly power, but I point out that the French rate of inflation is considerably above ours and accelerating, as are its unemployment figures.
    Mr. Richard Shepherd: Will my hon. and learned Friend reconsider his answer to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) and recall that the West Midlands has a number of eminently suitable sites for port of entry control and a large labour force with the skill, and only too willing, to analyse the nature of manufactured imports? May I particularly commend Aldridge-Brownhills as having all the necessary features?
    Mr. Rees: Should we ever be tempted to adopt the methods recently canvassed—I hope that we shall not—I shall bear my hon. Friend's suggestions in mind.

    Tourism
    Mr. Adleyasked the Minister for Trade if he will publish the evidence he receives in the course of his review of tourism in Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Dormandasked the Minister for Trade if he will make a statement on the progress of his review of tourism as it relates to the responsibilities of central Government.
    Mr. Sproat: I have received a wide range of views from organisations and individuals in the course of my review. I expect to complete the taking of evidence by Christmas. I have encouraged everyone who wished to give me their views to be frank in their comments. It would be wrong to publish detailed evidence given to me on this basis of confidence, but I would expect to state the main themes that emerged from my consultations when I am in a position to make known the conclusions of the review in the new year. Some of the issues that have been raised with me affect the responsibilities of other Departments, and I am pursuing them with my right hon. and hon Friends.
    Mr. Adley: In case some members of the British Tourist Authority board have not been as frank with my hon. Friend as they might have been, may I point out that with its present structure it spends an inordinate length of time on unprofitable arguments among representatives of
    England, Scotland and Wales rather than doing the job for which it is well suited? If the review shows that legislation is needed to improve matters, will that be undertaken in this Session of Parliament?
    Mr. Sproat: I am well aware that others hold the same view as my hon. Friend. His point has been well taken into account in the review. We shall consider when legislation should be introduced when we see whether it is required.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: In this important review, will the Minister bear in mind the recommendation of the Stoddart committee to the effect that the Scottish Tourist Board should be free to promote Scotland overseas without going through the United Kingdom agency?
    Mr. Sproat: I shall bear that in mind. I am seeing Mr. Devereux in the near future and doubtless he will put the same view to me.
    Mr. Banks: In his review, will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that the Yorkshire and Humberside

    579
    tourist board has achieved a self-made operating income as a proportion of its total income that is higher than that of any other tourist board? Will he ensure that such effort is properly rewarded, by maintaining the level of grant from Government funds?
    Mr. Sproat: The Yorkshire and Humberside tourist board has every right to be proud of its achievements. We shall bear what my hon. Friend says closely in mind in any conclusions that we reach.
    Mr. McNally: Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that regional airports are a key factor in promoting package tours.
    Mr. Sproat: I certainly shall. I hope that Manchester feels pleased with the Department's recent decisions.
    Mr. John Fraser: Is the Minister aware that in the last year of the Labour Government the surplus on tourism was almost £700 million, while for the current year there will be a deficit of about £300 million? What is his explanation for the massive loss of £1,000 million? Does it not show that Britain on the dole is not the most attractive place to visit?
    Mr. Sproat: It shows no such thing. The hon. Gentleman's figures are inaccurate. The figure for last year was £286 million. This year we hope to do even better, the main reason being the value of sterling. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that as a result of the strengthening of the dollar this year we expect a 7 per cent. increase in tourists from America.

    British Airways
    Mr. Colvinasked the Minister for Trade in what circumstances his consent is required for the disposal of assets by British Airways.
    Mr. Sproat: British Airways do not require the consent of my right hon. and noble Friend for the disposal of assets, but the Government would expect to be consulted beforehand in important cases.
    Mr. Colvin: When my hon. Friend is consulted by British Airways on, say, the proposed sale of TriStars to the Ministry of Defence as tanker transports, will he give the proposal favourable support, as it would merely be a book-keeping transaction and not a question of buying a new product from overseas—as is the case with its competitor—and it might be a more equitable way of reducing British Airways' debt than by writing off loans?
    Mr. Sproat: It is for the Secretary of State for Defence to say whether his Department prefers TriStars or DC10s, but I have no doubt he has heard my hon. Friend's view.
    Mr. Foulkes: As the Britoil flotation was a fiasco, as British Airways' results for the first half of the year are very poor indeed, in spite of the accounts being massaged, and as every other European country is proud to have a flag-carrying airline, will the Minister abandon his private peccadillo aimed at selling off British Airways, send Sir John King back to where he came from and let the professionals run British Airways properly?
    Mr. Sproat: The short answer to all of those interesting and absurd questions is "No, Sir". I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman cannot join me and, I should have thought, all other reasonable people in giving a tremendous welcome
    580
    to the fact that British Airways have turned in a net profit of some £80 million for the first six months of this year. That is an almost miraculous turn around—
    Mr. Foulkes: A fiddle.
    Mr. Sproat: —and is a great credit to Sir John King and all the staff at BA.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does my hon. Friend agree that, notwithstanding the good management that BA now enjoy, unless the accumulated deficit is written off, there is no chance of BA becoming truly viable and able to float on the stock market? When does my hon. Friend intend to write off that accumulated deficit?
    Mr. Sproat: I am acutely aware of the heavy burden of £1 million of debt that past mismanagement and misdemeanours have loaded on BA. It is an important matter, upon which we have not yet come to any substantive conclusion.
    Mr. Woolmer: Will the Minister end the uncertainty and confirm that he will not sell BA off before the general election? Does he agree that a time of slump, uncertainty and over-capacity is the worst possible time to consider selling off a large airline and that the move could result only in a cut-price sale of a valuable national asset? Have the Government learnt nothing from the Amersham International and Britoil sales? Cannot the Government begin to understand the Stock Exchange, even if they cannot run the economy?
    Mr. Sproat: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first three questions is "No, Sir", "No, Sir", "No, Sir". With regard to the lessons to be learnt from Amersham and Britoil, the hon. Gentleman may be absolutely confident that we have learnt all the wise lessons that it is possible to have learnt.

    Japan
    Mr. John Townendasked the Minister for Trade, following the recent general agreement on tariffs and trade meeting, if Her Majesty's Government will take steps to persuade the Japanese to open up their markets to British goods and services to the same extent as United Kingdom markets are open to Japan.
    Mr. Peter Rees: The declaration of the GATT ministerial meeting explicitly recognised that imbalances are particularly detrimental to the stability of the international trading system. We and our EC partners will continue vigorously to press the Japanese to open further their markets to our exports.
    Mr. Townend: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Does he agree that on past experience it is unlikely that the Japanese will voluntarily concede what Britain is asking for? Therefore, does he agree that his previous answers and refusal to accept the tactics of the French will be received with disappointment by hon. Members on both sides of the House? Will he consider, rather than going to Aldridge-Brownhills, having safety checks on all Japanese cars at either Inverness or Caithness?
    Mr. Rees: I am not sure that those tactics would be of advantage to the British consumer. Nor am I sure that they would be compatible with United Kingdom domestic

    581
    legislation. I assure my hon. Friend and the House that we shall continue to press the case against the Japanese until their markets are open to our products.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: What good reason is there, either theoretical or practical, to seek bilateral balance of trade between the United Kingdom and Japan? Do the Government intend to aim at bilateral balance with all our other trading partners?
    Mr. Rees: No. We believe in the multilateral system, but, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, there is a considerable imbalance in our trading relations with Japan. That does not depend on a fair exchange of goods, but, to a considerable extent, on the fact that the Japanese market is less open than ours. That is why I express concern and will continue, with my right hon. and hon. Friends, to press the Japanese for fairer access to their markets.
    Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: Is the Minister aware of the increasing irritation of many large, respectable and reputable firms in Britain, especially in the electrical appliance industry, which are having their goods turned down by the Japanese on the ground that their machines do not meet the health and safety requirements set by the Japanese Government? Is he further aware that the Japanese Government seem to change their regulations depending on the country of origin and the type of product that is on offer? Will he therefore ask his advisers to look into this matter?
    Mr. Rees: This is obviously a matter for concern. If the right hon. Gentleman will give me details, I shall ensure that every case is investigated. I understand that the ombudsman that was set up by the Japanese Government to deal with alleged cases of unfair practices in these matters has received only two complaints from British companies. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to direct his friends in that direction, to make better use of the ombudsman, it is possible that jointly we shall achieve something worth while.
    Mr. Neil Thorne: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the imbalance has grown up over many years and that, whatever he may say about the actions of the Japanese ombudsman, British industry believes that the intransigence of the Japanese Government has been largely responsible for the adverse balance? Does he also agree that something positive must be done in the near future if employment opportunities at home are to be preserved?
    Mr. Rees: I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety. The Government and other Governments of the EC share it. That is why we have pressed, and will continue to press, the Japanese Government strongly. I must emphasis, however, that not all of the tariffs barriers are due to Japanese governmental intervention, if it can be so described. Many of the barriers are cultural. I must emphasise that the "imports ombudsman" has been going for only one year. It is a little early to judge whether he has succeeded.

    Insurance Markets (Regulation)
    Mr. Meacherasked the Minister for Trade if he will seek to appoint a roving inspector to assist in the proper regulation of the insurance markets including Lloyd's.
    Dr. Vaughan: At present I have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Meacher: Is it not clear that, even if the recent Lloyd's Act had been operative in the past year, the latest stream of scandals would almost certainly still have been neither detected nor weeded out? Does that not suggest, first, that there must now be statutory disclosure of all documents as fully as is required under the SEC rules, since that alone brought the Howden scandal to light, and, secondly, that power to investigate prima facie evidence of malpractice quickly should now be invested in an inspector accountable to the Secretary of State, not to the Lloyd's council?
    Dr. Vaughan: The hon. Gentleman will realise, with regard to rapid inspections, that we inspected the Minet allegations extremely rapidly. The investigation was started in two days and within a few days after that inspectors were appointed. We now have an Act that comes into full operation in January. Meanwhile, my right hon. and noble Friend has made our general anxieties about the subject quite clear. At a meeting at which I was present last week, the chairman of Lloyd's assured us that he would keep in close and regular contact with us.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the contribution of Lloyd's to Britain's invisible exports is too important for its image to be tarnished as it has been in the past few months and years? Will he make the seriousness with which hon. Members view the present activities in Lloyd's crystal clear to Sir Peter Green and other members of the council?
    Dr. Vaughan: I am well aware of that. We have made it absolutely clear. We should not forget that Lloyd's is the largest insurance market in the world. Every other insurance market does business with it because of its high standards of professionalism.
    Mr. Archer: Does the Minister agree that, as increasing opportunities exist for insurance frauds at international level, the public can be protected only by full international co-operation in detecting and prosecuting those who are responsible? Will the Minister therefore discuss with Sir Peter Green the allegation that Mr. Bill Allan made at the recent Dallas conference to the effect that he experienced a complete lack of co-operation from Lloyd's when investigating the Kenillworth scandal? Will he ask Sir Peter to assist those of us who want to retain international financial institutions in London by issuing a denial, an explanation or a promise of improvement?
    Dr. Vaughan: We received a warning just before the weekend about the Kenillworth scandal. I have carefully examined the reports that have been appearing in the press. The matter must worry us. I shall bear the right hon. and learned Gentleman's points in mind.
    Mr. Aitken: Does my hon. Friend agree also that it is essential to restore confidence in Lloyd's by putting an end to the present shambolic atmosphere of leaks, rows and scandals? Does he agree also that probably the best and quickest way to do that is to follow the apparent advice of the governor of the Bank of England and to appoint an independent chief executive of Lloyd's who would do the job of regulation which the present chairman and committee are so manifestly failing to do?
    Dr. Vaughan: I agree with the general tenor of my hon. Friend's remarks. We should now wait until the Act if fully implemented, which, after all, is a matter of only about four weeks from now.
    Mr. Cryer: Is this not an example of the Government's double standards? They are refusing to have any sort of regulatory device over Lloyd's, largely because about 100 Conservative Members are members of Lloyd's. Scandal after scandal breaks out in Lloyd's, yet very little is done. Government supporters went into the Lobby in support of the Lloyd's Act, which gives the council of Lloyd's massive immunities and at the same time attacked trade unions and, by means of legislation, tried to treat them in a highly discriminatory and savage manner.
    Dr. Vaughan: If I followed the hon. Gentleman correctly, I must say that I do not agree with a word of what he said. The 1982 Act was based on the belief of both the Government and the Opposition, as well as Lloyd's, that in principle the most appropriate form of regulation for a market as flexible as this Is self-regulation.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Is it so important that it cannot wait 10 minutes, so that I can take it at the end of Question Time?
    Mr. Lewis: It is, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Very well.
    Mr. Lewis: In response to the remarks of the hon. Members for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), I wish to point out that no Member of Parliament who belongs to Lloyd's voted on the Lloyd's Act.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Development Education
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received in the past 12 months about the level of Government funding of development education in the United Kingdom.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Neil Marten): Two organisations, one previously in receipt of a Government grant and the other still in receipt, have made representations. In addition, about 50 letters from members of the public about this issue can be readily identified from our records.
    Mr. Hooley: Is the Minister aware that the British Government currently give three-tenths of a penny per-head of population to this activity, compared with more than twice that amount given by Italy and Belgium and six times that amount given by West Germany? Is he not terrified that, if British public opinion is made aware of the abysmal poverty in Africa and Asia, it will be more critical of the Government's stinginess in the overseas aid programme?
    Mr. Marten: Not in the least, but I do not want to divert aid funds that should be devoted to the developing world to educating the British.
    Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: In the light of that remark may I ask whether it is the Minister's intention to end development education in 1984? Will that not do tremendous damage to aid prospects from this country in so far as voluntary societies will be less informed and less able to encourage their memberships to play an active part in assisting the poorest countries overseas, which is what they are doing at present?
    Mr. Marten: No. Development education can well be taught in school, which is the place to learn, as well as in the voluntary agencies, the Churches and so on. The Foreign Affairs Sub-Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman was then a member, was critical of our grant to the Centre for World Development. I have now changed this to a conventional accountable grant at the original maximum value of £150,000 this year and £100,000 next year. I still expect this organisation to be independent of offical funds by April 1984.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is this not a subject which even people of mediocre intelligence could study without the assistance of public money?
    Mr. Foulkes: That rules the hon. Gentleman out.
    Mr. Marten: I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend, because the Centre for World Development is a place to which all intelligent, semi-intelligent and subnormal people can apply for advice on the education that it proposes to give.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: Is the right hon. Gentleman not the slightest bit concerned about the figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley)? Does he not realise that development education is a vital aspect of education in this country, in the sense that people need education in unstable world economic conditions and the reaction that we ought to be making to them? Does he not also recall that the Heads of Government of the Commonwealth and the Archbishop of Canterbury, as well as the Select Committee, have criticised him heavily for withdrawing support for this aspect of policy?
    Mr. Marten: One gets criticised a lot by a variety of people for giving too much, too little and so on. Nevertheless, I still believe that it is up to our education system to educate.

    South America (Aid)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of United Kingdom overseas aid goes to South American countries.
    Mr. Neil Marten: In 1981, 1·2 per cent. of the gross bilateral aid allocated to individual countries went to countries in South America. In addition, a proportion of our contributions to multilateral agencies such as the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank and the European Community, went to South American countries. Figures for these multilateral contributions are not yet available for 1981, but in 1980 we estimate they amounted to nearly 5 per cent.
    Mr. Dalyell: What is the estimated figure available in the Minister's Department for the cash that would have gone to Third world countries but did not because it was used for civil and military purposes in the Falklands?
    Mr. Marten: The best way for the hon. Gentleman to learn the answer to that question is to await the statement on aid for the Falklands that will shortly be made in the House.
    Mr. Banks: Bearing in mind our long and historic association with Guyana, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that every possible consideration is given to requests from that country for development and loan aid?
    Mr. Marten: Yes. We consider every aid application from Guyana.
    Mr. Ennals: Why is the proportion so extraordinarily low? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is great poverty in Latin America? Would it not be a good thing to give additional assistance to the needy countries in Latin America in order to improve our relationships with them, which have inevitably suffered as the result of the Falklands war?
    Mr. Marten: Our policy is to direct most of our aid to the poorest countries, and in general South American countries do not fall within that category. South America has a developmental need, and many of its citizens still live in poverty. It is also important to Britain, both politically and commercially, and we have great historical ties with that continent.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply I beg to give notice that, I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

    Victoria Dam, Sri Lanka
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress on the United Kingdom funded Victoria dam in Sri Lanka.
    Mr. Neil Marten: I am glad to report that work on the Victoria dam is going ahead well. The dam is now more than half way to completion; the drilling of the power tunnel, which is three-and-a-half miles long, was finished last month; and the construction of the power station is well advanced.
    Mr. Chapman: I welcome that progress. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Victoria dam project is a good example of how British aid can most effectively be employed, not only in its funding allocation, which is perceived by the people to have beneficial results, but
    586
    because, as on this occasion, it is married to the expertise and skill of the construction industry? Will my right hon. Friend promote more such bilateral agreements?
    Mr. Marten: I cannot promise to promote more such bilateral agreements. This depends on demands from the various countries. I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a valuable project for the Sri Lankans, because the dam will provide 210 mW of electrical power, which will be a substantial contribution to Sri Lanka's power requirements. In addition, the irrigation benefits will be spread over 112,000 acres and will ultimately provide settlements for 50,000 farming families. Therefore, this project is of great benefit to the poorest people in the developing world.

    Asian Sub-continent (Aid)
    Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the level and quality of aid to the Asian subcontinent.
    Mr. Neil Marten: In the last financial year we provided £188 million bilateral aid for countries in the area. We expect to provide about the same amount in the current financial year. All the aid is given without interest or repayment. In addition, those countries benefit from British contributions to various international funds such as the World Bank, the European Community and the Asian Development Bank.
    Mr. Proctor: In view of the expertise that has been built up in Britain in the establishment of new towns, would my right hon. Friend consider using some of the aid to the Asian sub-continent for the creation of further new towns to house the outflow of migrants from Britain that is likely to occur during the next 10 years?
    Mr. Marten: It is for the developing countries to request aid for the creation of new towns. We always consider those requests.

Steel Industry
3.30 pm
Mr. Roy Hughes: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the British Steel Corporation's proposed redundancies in Newport, Gwent."
Despite the fact that we had a full-scale steel debate in the House last Wednesday, the Minister of State, Department of Industry did not mention the redundancies and the Secretary of State for Industry did not put in an appearance. In the few days since the debate, at the Orb works in Newport, which is part of the Associated Products Group, 214 redundancies were announced, at Llanwern, 350 redundancies were announced and at Whiteheads works, 197 redundancies have been announced. That is a total of more than 750 jobs lost in Newport.
It could safely be said that the crisis in the steel industry is due to lack of demand, and especially to the decline in our manufacturing industry. However, the flow of imports into Britain also gives cause for concern. The Government should now say "Enough is enough" to those imports, or there will be no steel industry in Britain.
Even more significant is the behaviour of some Ministers. Why were the redundancies not reported to the House during the debate last week, if only as a matter of courtesy? The omission displays negligence, or even a lack of courage. It certainly displays a lack of frankness with the House and it places in my mind a question mark over the integrity of those Ministers.
One could also ask about the Secretary of State for Wales. Why is he not standing up for the industry in our area—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must concentrate his argument on justifying why we should have an emergency debate.
Mr. Hughes: The Secretary of State for Scotland is standing up for the steel industry there. Perhaps the Secretary of State for Wales is afraid that if he were to tender his resignation it would be accepted.
The steel industry is vital to the economy of South Wales. The House is entitled to a full statement that will rectify and clarify the omissions of last Wednesday. I ask you to accept this motion for an immediate debate.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) gave me notice before 12 o'clock midday that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House
588
for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the fact that more than 750 new steel redundancies in Newport were announced on Thursday 2 December and the failure of the Secretary of State for Industry to notify the House of that development in the steel debate the previous evening."
The hon. Gentleman has brought to our attention a serious matter—redundancies in the steel industry. The House knows that, under Standing Order No. 9, I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the order but to give no reason for my decision.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.
Mr. Stanley Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept your ruling, but I wonder whether you could give the House some guidance. Last week about 6,000 jobs were lost in the steel industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) said, many of those jobs were lost after Wednesday's debate. The Government are supposed to be reviewing the matter, but while that review is taking place thousands of jobs are being lost and no account has been given to the House of Commons since last Wednesday. Would you give us some guidance on that?
Mr. John Morris: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) applied for a debate under Standing Order No. 9 on the somewhat narrow ground, although I appreciate his anxiety, of the new redundancy figures announced for Newport. However, more redundancy figures have been announced for Port Talbot. Would it have made a difference to your ruling if my hon. Friend had made his application, or if he or I were to make one tomorrow, for a debate on the steel redundancies in South Wales that were not disclosed in last Wednesday's debate?
Mr. Donald Coleman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not disagree with your ruling on my hon. Friend's application. My hon. Friend referred to the position following the debate in the House on Wednesday. However, this morning—my hon. Friend may not have heard this—his constituency sustained further blows because of redundancies at Whiteheads, which are additional to his figures. Will you consider a future application on this matter, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: The House is aware that I have listened carefully to the points of order and that I am well-versed with the situation. However, I must be guided by the factors that guide me in all the applications that come before me, and I cannot change my ruling.

Baby Seal Products
3.38 pm
Mr. David Ennals: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the failure of the European Community to impose a ban on Community imports of baby seal products and the British Government's decision to oppose a Community-wide ban."
I had hopes that it would be unnecessary to raise the matter under Standing Order No. 9, because I expected, naturally, that the appropriate Minister—who is in his place now—would wish to make a statement today. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that during business questions on Thursday I raised the matter with the leader of the House, who replied:
"The right hon. Gentleman raises a point which has excited deep feeling not just within the House but generally. I shall see that the point is brought to the attention of the appropriate Minister".—[Official Report, 2 December 1982; Vol. 33, c. 409.]
I can assume only that it was brought to the attention of the appropriate Minister and that he decided not to make a statement, although he was available to do so.
The matter is urgent, important and of great public concern. I am pleased that the British Fur Trade Association Incorporated agreed to the Government's request to recommend to its members a one-year voluntary ban on imports of baby seal pelts starting from March this year, when the culling season starts. However, that is an unsatisfactory way in which to deal with the problem.
The matter is specific, because, on the recommendation of the Nature Conservancy Council, the Commission proposed a regulation that would have been binding on all member States. For reasons that the Government have not explained—I had hoped that they would do so today—they opposed that recommendation and sought to persuade other countries to do the same. Yet the Government then expressed disappointment at the inconclusive outcome of the meeting.
The matter is urgent, because I understand that there is to be further discussion by the Commission on 17 December. The House is entitled to express its view in a more positive and committed manner than through the early-day motion, which has attracted more than 300 signatures, from both sides of the House.
The public importance of this matter is known to every hon. Member from the very heavy post that we have all received on the subject. Cruelty to inoffensive animals is always abhorrent to people in Britain and the annual baby
590
seal cull in the Canadian north is especially barbaric and arouses strong feelings among the people of this country. Millions have expressed that view, and the House itself should have the right to express its opinion.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman gave me notice before 12 o'clock midday that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the failure of the European Community to impose a ban on Community imports of baby seal products and the British Government's decision to oppose a Community-wide ban."
As the right hon. Gentleman and the House will know, it is not for me to decide whether the House shall discuss this important matter. That is not a decision that the House leaves to me. The decision is for others to make. I have to decide only whether there should be an emergency debate today or tomorrow on a matter which I know is of considerable concern.
I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his applicant to the House.
Mr. Ennals: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. So that the House is not under any misapprehension, I hope that you will confirm that I gave notice this morning that I would seek to raise the matter under Standing Order No. 9 only if the Minister failed to make a statement on the subject. That is why I said at the beginning that I had hoped I would not need to raise the issue. I had assumed that the Minister would make a statement—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has made his application. I must confess that, at that moment, I was more concerned that everyone should understand that I was not stopping the House from discussing this matter.

Baby Seal Products

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &C.
  Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I shall put together the questions on the three motions relating to the draft statutory instruments.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Commonwealth Foundation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1982 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Criminal Injuries (Compensation) Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Lang.]

Opposition Day
[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Inequalities in Health
  3.43 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I beg to move,
  That this House notes that there is little sign of health inequalities in Great Britain diminishing, according to the Report of the Working Group on Inequalities in Health; endorses their conclusion that the causes of health inequalities are so deep-rooted that only a major and wide-ranging programme of public expenditure is capable of altering the pattern; and condemns both the refusal of the Government to undertake such a programme of public expenditure and their general failure to act on the recommendations of the Report.
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: In 1977 the then Secretary of State for Social Services, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Enna1s), set up a working group to consider inequalities in health. To enable the working group to go deeply into this vital subject he gave it the following terms of reference:

  "(i) To assemble available information about the differences in health status among the social classes and about factors which might contribute to these, including relevant data from other industrial countries;

  (ii) To analyse this material in order to identify possible casaul relationships … and

  (iii) to suggest what further research should be initiated."

  The idea of such an inquiry arose because it had become obvious to many people, including those working in the Health Service, that there was strong evidence of inequalities, not only between one sector and another but between one region and another. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having understood that such inequalities could not be identified by using the normal statistics but required far more careful examination.
  The working group, which comprised extremely distinguished members under the chairmanship of Sir Douglas Black, decided that it should first examine what was meant by "health". It decided to take as its guideline the concept of health adopted by the World Health Organisation at its inception after the Second World War—that health was not just freedom from pain and discomfort but a positive sense of well-being. That seemed a sensible decision, as it became obvious that only by considering a number of factors could one begin to understand what had happened in this country despite 30 years of the National Health Service.
  The definition of health as a
  "state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity"
  summed up exactly what we sought to investigate. The working group realised that its task was complex and that there was no single, simple answer. It decided to base its work on that complex definition, because it believed that it was important to have a mixture of social and medical models.
  For far too long, health care in this country has been merely sickness care without necessarily including prevention or the extension of conditions that would enable people to live with the fullest possible benefit of all of their faculties. Existing information from a number of sources was therefore collated. The working group
  592
  decided to use the definition of class by occupation that is used by the Registrar-General, as it provided a simple and easily understandable way to present the important facts.
  The large number of in-depth studies involved took a considerable time, so the working group was still sitting when the Conservative Government took office, although it was clear that the work would soon be completed. The Conservative Government found the inquiry at best an embarrassment and at worst a matter to be got rid of as hastily as was decently possible. The reason for that is obvious. Far from being committed to destroying inequalities in society, the Conservatives believe in the maintenance of privilege. The Government soon became uncomfortably aware of the unequivocal nature of many of the findings in the report. It is one thing for the Conservative Party to identify the family as the core of its policy; it is quite another to do anything radical to deal with the real problems and difficulties facing family groups in this country. Child poverty and illness must be prevented.
  Not surprisingly, the Secretary of State and his predecessor found it embarrassing to have the inequalities in health spelt out in such stark detail and they were scarcely enthusiastic in welcoming the report. Indeed, they made sure that very few copies were printed initially and that it was difficult for people wishing to obtain copies to discover where they were available. That ploy, however, did not work, because the TUC was so impressed by the quality of the report and so incensed by the social differences that it revealed that it reprinted the report under the title, "The Unequal Health of the Nation". Furthermore, Penguin Books Ltd. chose to produce a paperback, because it realised that the information concerned every family in the land.
  The Government's response was not to hold a series of press conferences, as they have for many of their more superficial projects, but to suggest that the report put forward answers which were too expensive, too imprecise and, in the words of the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), that some of the matters in the report were the pipe-dreams of Professor Townsend. When such a useful and high-powered report is produced, it is extremely unhelpful if Ministers find it difficult to accept that it is a remarkable social document and cease to support it.
  The report is important to us, because it identifies the real causes of inequalities and the effects of those difficulties on the lives of the people of Britain. First, it identified the inequalities between people—the marked differences between the health care that is available for different classes. In Britain today, at birth and in the first month of life, twice as many babies of unskilled manual workers die as do those of professional parents. In the next 11 months of life, four times as many girls die and five times as many boys. The children of social class I can expect to live, on average, five years longer than the child born into a household where the head is an unskilled manual worker. Those differences are retained all the way through the child's school life and through his early teens. Only in his early twenties does he manage to catch up with the more privileged members of social classes I and II, and then the differences begin to appear again.
  Secondly, the report identified the differences between the provision and the use of health services. It drew attention to the fact that there were inequalities between

  593
  different areas of the country and, using mortality statistics, made it clear that where one lived and the income that one enjoyed had a direct effect on one's standard of life. That is called the inverse care law—good medical care tends to be least available to those in the greatest need and most available in areas where the need is smallest. The Government have done little to reverse that trend.
  The regional variations in mortality show, for example, that those who live in the South-East have a much lower mortality rate than those in the North-West, while those in the Northern region have a still higher rate.
  The Government tacitly acknowledged that when they appointed Professor Acheson to examine closely what was happening in primary care, because the report also identifed the fact that many of those most in need of good health care go more often to their general practitioner, but for one reason or another do not seem to get the benefit that they should from those visits. Professor Acheson reported that there were many difficulties with general practitioner services in inner cities. There were too many elderly GPs, too many inadequate single-handed practices, too many people with restricted lists and too few practices housed in adequate premises. The Government, who commissioned his report, have so far done little to improve the general practitioner service.
  Thirdly, the working group acknowledged that those were complex factors and that it was not just a matter of health care but, inevitably, bad housing, poverty and lack of preventive medicine, and also that the provision of social services had a direct effect on the health of the community. The group produced careful and considered analyses and many detailed policy recommendations. It said that it was anxious to give children a better start in life and that that was the point at which we could have the most effect on the health of our people. The working group said that it wished to encourage good health among the larger proportion of the population by preventive medicine and by educational action. With regard to the disabled, it said that we should consider not only the provision of services but the quality of life of the people who are suffering from some form of disability.
  The report was, however, merely echoing some other aspects of research that have been commented upon in the House. In June 1980 the Select Committee on Social Services produced a report on perinatal mortality. Although it concluded that there were four main factors, in all but the immediate causes social and economic factors played a major part. Those included poor education and poor housing, although it also stressed the contributory causes such as chemical, environmental and occupational hazards. The Committee said that while the perinatal mortality rate had been falling rapidly in Britain, it was still 50 per cent. above the best world rate, achieved in Scandinavia.
  The Under-Secretary of State, in a written answer on 8 June 1982—two years almost to the day after the publication of the report—listed the Government's responses. He claimed that perinatal mortality was falling more rapidly than ever before, but what he did not say was that the Committee had identified a major difference within that figure between social groups. For example, in 1979 social group I had a death rate of 10·2 per thousand, whereas the same figure for group V was 18·2 per thousand. For illegitimate births the rate rose to 19·3 per thousand.
  594
  The Select Committee described those rates as totally unacceptable and made a number of detailed recommendations. The Government's response was to point out that they were considering various policies and in the meantime were supporting the mother and baby campaign of the Health Education Council. If it were not so sad, that would be so little as to be laughable. In the financial year 1980–81 the Government spent £75,000 on supporting the mother and baby campaign, but in 1981–82 they cut the budget by £50,000, to £325,000. So much for their desire to do something about perinatal deaths.
  The working group report said that resources within the NHS and the personal social services should be shifted more sharply than ever before towards community care, particularly antenatal, postnatal and child health services. It also specified the need for home helps and nursing services for disabled people. It is therefore interesting to examine the Government's policies on personal social services since they came to office.
  The restrictions on local government spending have meant that two-thirds of local authorities have cut their personal social services budget for 1981–82. When the Government expenditure steering group for personal social services was asked to comment on expenditure plans for 1982–83 up to 1985–86, it estimated that there would be cuts of 6·8 per cent. in 1982–83, rising to 12·3 per cent. in 1985–86. Indeed, the group claimed that it would be impossible to achieve the current targets, because of the damage to services that would result.
  Even if the target were reached in later years, there would be compulsory redundancies among social service officers. The group said that as the cuts would inevitably be made at random, they would fall most heavily on those very domiciliary services that have the greatest effect on patient care in the community—meals on wheels, home helps and the fostering services. The group also said that some local authorities had already resorted to charges, even though the Select Committee on Social Services had made it clear that those charges undoubtedly deter some clients.
  However, the cuts do not end there, because, as local authorities are wary of committing themselves to the revenue implications of new buildings, there is an estimated 28 per cent. shortfall on capital spending. In other words, the personal social services—the arm with which the Government have said they are most concerned and which could be used as the spearhead of a campaign to reverse the trends identified in the Black report—are suffering very badly from the Government's economic plans.
  It is true, perhaps, that the Government have been looking at other areas of social spending, but what have they been doing in housing? Not only the Social Services Committee, but the Black report, in very definite terms, says that inadequate housing and inadequate social conditions contribute very strongly to poor health.
  The Government's policies towards local authorities have ensured that housing has suffered the most in successive rounds of public expenditure cuts. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities was so concerned that it carried out its own survey and discovered that there were 1 million dwellings lacking one or more of the basic sanitary amenities, 1·5 million dwellings in need of renovation, 800,000 houses statutorily unfit, 1·2 million council houses suffering from damp, and over 300,000 difficult to let.

  595
  Last year the number of building starts in the public sector was the lowest for at least 60 years—down to about 37,000. Completions in 1981 were 85,000 down on 1978, and there has been only a bare improvement in 1982. In addition, we see from the newspapers today that there is yet another Think Tank report which seems to be suggesting that only the most poverty-stricken will find it possible to obtain any form of public housing in the future, while others are being pushed increasingly towards taking on the burden of a mortgage, whether or not that is in their general interest.
  Council house rents will soon have increased by 135 per cent. since the Tories came to power. Meanwhile, the sale of good housing stock under the right-to-buy provisions has gone ahead, so that between October 1980 and March 1982 nearly 120,000 houses were sold, without a comparable replacement in the housing stock.
  In my constituency we see increasing numbers of people who, having taken out mortgages on their council houses, are now, because of the loss of employment and the other difficulties that they are suffering, unable to continue to support their own homes. They are in the intolerable position that, being unable to pay for their mortgage, they have to go back to the council authorities and ask if they can come to some arrangement to have the houses taken back. The opportunity to acquire a decent home and ensure that the children are brought up in healthy conditions is becoming much more difficult for those who are most in need.
  The working group says that we must give top priority to measures that will enhance family living standards. It says that one way to do that is to improve the family benefit level and to give a direct improvement in child benefit. The importance of that becomes clear when we not the answer that was given by the Under-Secretary of State to the effect that there are about 1 million children—the figure is not as accurate as it should be—living in families where the head of the family is unemployed and in receipt of unemployment or supplementary benefit. Yet one sees no obvious move on the part of the Government to improve benefits at any level. Indeed, far from doing that, since they came to office they have made it more difficult for those who have children to obtain a decent standard of living.
  The Black report says that top priority must be given to measures that will enhance family living and that the abolition of child poverty should be adopted as a national goal for the 1980s. Yet, since the Government came to power, those on any kind of benefit have been told that in future they will face clawbacks and readjustments and, if need be, a cut in their standard of living. Many other Conservative policies have affected adversely some of the most important needs, such as the level of heat in a home, and are affecting most the poorest in our society.
  It does not seem that the Government are prepared to follow any of the recommendations on matters which they could so easily control—the rate of benefit, the provision of public housing, the provision of health services, and so on.
  There is clear evidence that the Government not only object to the provision of cash but have a firm conviction that those who are receiving aid from the State should in some manner or other be made to feel aware of their inferior status.
  596
  The Black report made it clear that there were several things that could be done apart from improving benefits and providing public housing. It suggested that there should be an action programme for special areas. It mentioned 10 suitable areas and took as a guideline those with very high death rates. It said that in each of those areas experimental programmes could be introduced to see whether the care of mothers and pre-school children, the care of the disabled in their own homes, and preventive care projects could be improved.
  The report said that the results should be closely monitored and that the innovation should be the subject of rigorous experimental assessment. Such a flexible programme should be initiated as quickly as possible and would provide a great deal of useful evidence which could be used in other parts of the country. Inevitably, it would need to be funded by the Government, but the response should be carefully evaluated.
  The report suggested that special funding on the lines of joint funding for health and local authorities would improve the planning and the provision of services for the disabled and for the elderly. The response of the Secretary of State was to announce an extra £80 million this year, of which £60 million is already committed in terms of pay, so that there will be very little left over either for the projects in mental illness that the Secretary of State has identified or, for an improvement in children's services.
  We do not need to be asked what is needed. We know that there is a great divide between those in the higher social classes and those in social classes IV and V—those who suffer from poverty and from the lack of decent housing and education. We know that the Government have no intention of helping them. Indeed, the Government have promoted a positive drive in the opposite direction. They have increased the difficulties of the section of the community that is most in need.
  The Government do not particularly want any kind of publicity for the Black report, precisely because it reveals how those in social classes IV and V suffer throughout Britain. We need a massive injection of public expenditure if we are only to begin to reverse the trends. That expenditure must relate not only to the health services but to the provision of new schools, new hospitals and new personal social services.
  If there is to be a genuine programme to support community health care, we must not cut down on the number of nurses. We must not endure a situation in which 1,400 doctors are still unemployed. We must seek to put the money where it can be used to the best advantage.
  The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): I have been listening with care to the hon. Lady. Did she say that the Government were reducing the number of nurses? Does she not realise that there has been a substantial increase in the number of nurses?
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I was speaking specifically about the provision of primary services and services in the community. What is happening—and will happen increasingly in the inner city areas with the cuts next year—is that community nurses are finding it increasingly difficult to get employment. If the Secretary of State has not understood the effect of the cuts in local authority services and in the National Health Service as a result of his own policies, I assure him that at primary care level there will be a continuous running down of the services

  597
  that are most needed. He will find that an increase in the number of nurses in the hospital service will mean no provision over large areas where social services in the community are breaking down in the most dramatic fashion.
  Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Does my hon. Friend recall that the number of unemployed nurses rose in November to 8,800, an increase of nearly 1,000 since June?
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is the case. It is obvious that there will be growing problems of unemployment among nurses when the various regional health authorities find that they are unable to maintain the present standards of services. The Secretary of State constantly tells hon. Members how much money he is spending on the National Health Service. The right hon. Gentleman does not explain how four regional health authorities and the Merseyside region will next year experience difficulty, or how areas such as Oxford, which he has tended to attack for producing plans which he has described as over-dramatised and unreal, will maintain their present level of services when the effect of his economic policies becomes clear in coming years.
  The Government are anxious to achieve cuts in services by stealth. Whenever there is publicity over individual hospitals, such as Tadworth Court, or individual services, such as screening, the Secretary of State finds an interim sum of money to keep those services going. That is not the answer. The right hon. Gentleman knows that what he is doing is far more radical. He is aware that hospitals in areas where the need is desperate will close because they will not receive the same kind of publicity or the same support. Those hospitals will be a major loss to the communities that they serve. One suspects that the Government actually accept a policy of inequalities in health because it is part of their concept that the State should provide only a second-class service and not have universal provision paid out of taxation and free at the point of use.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: I agree with a great deal that the right hon. Lady has said. However, her speech, like the motion, refers to extensive, massive and wide-ranging increases in public expenditure. During the debate on the Loyal Address the Leader of the Opposition also referred to expenditure. Is the hon. Lady able to put a figure on this massive expenditure, so that hon. Members know what she means?
  Mrs. Dunwoody: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself with his usual patience, I shall explain what the next Labour Government propose. It is obvious that unless there is a change of Government both the personal social services and the National Health Service will face a desert of finance in the coming years. It is our intention to commit 4 per cent. to the increase in personal social services. By improving primary care it will be possible to achieve a direct effect on child poverty and child health. We intend to increase the child benefit as soon as possible, along with the maternity grant. We believe that both those benefits will have a direct effect upon the health of the child.
  If the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) is worried about finance, I suggest that he examines his own Social Democratic Party's plans, which
  598
  seem to have been largely lifted from the Labour Party, to get rid of the married man's tax allowance. The hon. Gentleman will discover that there is considerable scope for shifting resources from one group of taxation to another to benefit the children, who are our main concern. Our plans for expanding public expenditure allow for the fact that the health services should spearhead the changes that we want to see in the social pattern.
  If we are to build new houses and new schools, to improve our hospitals and to provide a much higher standard of primary care, it will be necessary to start soon on the changes that Black demands as a matter of urgency. Unless we achieve that kind of change, it is obvious that the 1980s will be the year in which social services provided in the community, within the hospital service and by local authorities cease to be the means of improving conditions for the majority of people. They will become the poverty struck, the abandoned and the sad deposit of the hopes of those who are most in need.
  There have been no plans from the Government for an improvement in preventive medicine. Even where action could have been taken—for instance, legislation over tobacco advertisements or sponsorship—it has been funked by the Government. They have accepted whatever the companies have demanded in terms of voluntary arrangements. They have done nothing to change the law. The Government must know that if the companies were to agree to a better warning on the effects of smoking on pregnant women, this would have a direct effect on the health of the children who most concern us. They have done nothing positive. Indeed, they seem to have ran away from the difficulty as fast as possible.
  The Opposition would undertake, as a matter of urgency, a programme to provide at least 10 action areas throughout the country. The areas would be those most in need and those where we could experiment with the provision of far better child services and far better primary care. It is obvious that we must take action to make better general practioner services available across the country. We must not accept that the health services exist only to prevent sickness at the lowest level. Instead, we should encourage the kind of health that gives hope to our people.
  The Black report is a well-thought-out, positive and constructive document. It represents a long-term policy, but it identifies some matters that can be dealt with immediately. The failure of the Government is that since receiving the report they have sought either to ignore it or to pigeon hole it so that it receives no publicity. The Government know better than most that if the real inequalities that exist between one section of the population and another were known the electorate would no longer support their health policies. A direct attack would take place upon a group of people who seem to believe that privilege can be bought and that the market place is the only means of deciding the future of the provision of health services.
  The Government intend, by stealth, to run down the lifeline services that could make all the difference to the health of the nation. One of Labour's first tasks on coming to office will be to see that the Black report is implemented urgently. Only by doing that will we begin at long last to bring some justice and some decency to those most in need, the sick and the old.
  4.18 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "notes the content of the Report of the working group on inequalities in health; congratulates the Government on the sustained increase in resources committed to the National Health Service; approves the progress which has been made in allocating resources more fairly between the Health Regions, and the emphasis which as been given to making the best use of the resources available; welcomes the announcement of special initiatives to secure improvements in health services to groups with particular needs; but rejects any programme of massive and damaging increases in public spending, in the knowledge that the maintenance of the Government's economic policy is essential to produce the steady increase in real resources that are required to ensure continued improvements in health care.".
  My first criticism of the speech of the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) is that she appears to believe that, by summarising chunks of the Black report, she has triumphantly overcome all the problems in it.
  It is worth remembering not only that the Black committee was set up by the Labour Government, but that its report set out what were thought to be the defects of a sustem over which the Labour Government had presided for six years.
  The Black committee has set out a comprehensive list of the problems facing Britain. I do not seek to disguise that. However, surely no one suggests that problems such as health care in inner cities and, indeed, the unequal distribution of resources are anything but long-standing. They existed long before the Black report listed them on paper.
  If the hon. Member for Crewe believes that all that is needed is a massive injection of public expenditure, she might explain why the Labour Government tried to control that and explicitly stated that runaway public expenditure would lead to runaway inflation, which would be against the interests of the sick, the elderly and the poor. That point was made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas).
  The hon. Member for Crewe might also reflect upon the fact that Sir Douglas Black's working group on inequalities in health was established in April 1977 when total spending on the Health Service was £6·8 billion. That constituted about 4·8 per cent. of the gross domestic product. This financial year, total expenditure on the Health Service is £14½ billion. That is a rise, related to the retail prices index, of about 20 per cent. Health spending now constitutes 5½ per cent. of gross domestic product.
  Next year, spending on the Health Service will be £15½ billion. All told, spending on health, social security and the personal social services will be £52 billion—about 43 per cent. of total public spending. The position is that spending on health, social security and the personal social services is taking up not a diminishing but an increasing share of public spending.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Secretary of State tell the Housé how much of the sum spent on the NHS is net of charges and how much of the sum related to social security is represented by unemployment benefit?
  Mr. Fowler: About half of the social security budget is made up of retirement pensions. However, as unemployment has increased, unemployment benefit has
  600
  increased. I should have thought that the hon. Lady would wish to applaud the Government for having sought to make provision for social security and personal social services.
  The hon. Lady's figures for personal social services were wrong, as were those for health. However, my major objection to the hon. Lady's speech is that it was too shallow by half. We need to go deeper in our analysis if we are to make progress in tackling many of the problems set out in the Black report.
  No one in the House would deny that an objective of our policy should be to give children a better start in life; to encourage good health by health education and preventive measures; to improve the quality of life of disabled people; to secure a quicker movement from institutional to community care; and to seek to tackle the inequalities in health between different parts of Britain.
  It is, of course, right that we should debate the health needs of the nation. It is equally right that we should debate all the policies which are necessary to tackle those needs. The hon. Lady is utterly wrong, because I in no way want to minimise the areas of need in Britain today. I certainly claim that the Government have taken important steps to tackle those needs. However, no one should be in doubt about the needs of many people in Britain or the demands that there will be over the next decade.
  Mr. David Ennals: The Secretary of State will know that I have a great interest in the Black report, having established the group which produced it and being a member of the Select Committee. Apart from the right hon. Gentleman's unfair reference to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) as shallow, I hope that he will not suggest that the study is shallow, because it is one of great depth. Will the right hon. Gentleman say precisely how many of the 37 recommendations in the Black report will be carried out by the Government?
  Mr. Fowler: I shall touch upon many of the recommendations, but the House would be here for a considerable time if I were to go through each one. I am not suggesting that the study carried out by Sir Douglas Black and his working party is shallow. That is not what I said. I said that the so-called solutions suggested by the hon. Member for Crewe were shallow.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: I hope that the Secretary of State accepts that to some extent I agree with him about the money that has been spent by the Government. In the circumstances, is it not extraordinary that lack of priorities—the main thrust of the Black report—and lack of imagination have meant that most of the inequalities during that period have increased rather than diminished?
  Mr. Fowler: Some have, but many have not. I shall deal with those matters later.
  I want to tell the House, and the public generally, that we should be in no doubt about the demands and needs of the Health Service and its connected services, not only today but over the next decade.
  The very elderly are increasing in numbers. By 1991 there will be 3½ million people over the age of 75, including three-quarters of a million over the age of 85. At the other extreme of the age scale, divorce rates have increased, creating one of the major reasons for nearly 1½ million children living in one-parent families. Among the

  601
  mentally handicapped—neglected for so many years—there are children and adults now in hospital who would be better served in the community.
  That will present an enormous challenge to the NHS and the social services. However, we should recognise—this point was absent from the speech of the hon. Member for Crewe—that parents, relations and neighbours can often give the kind of support that could never be provided by an outside body. Voluntary organisations often provide invaluable assistance, and a wise Government should recognise and encourage that source of help.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose—
  Mr. Fowler: I shall not give way for the moment.
  Central Government and local government cannot do everything by themselves. The aim should be to ensure that the total resources of the community for social care are mobilised.
  Mr. Bennett rose—
  Mr. Fowler: I shall not give way for the moment.
  What progress has been made over the past few years in meeting some of the Black report's major objectives? One of its major objectives was that children should have a better start in life. For example, it wanted to see better services for children under five. That is an area in which both the statutory and voluntary sectors have important roles. Already, over 80 per cent. of 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds receive education in nursery or infant classes or attend play groups. However, there are still important groups to help. Accordingly, some of the additional Health Service money that is available to be spent on central initiatives next year will be used for work with pre-school children. I intend to make £2 million available for that purpose in 1983–84.
  The emphasis will be on helping voluntary bodies which work with the under-fives and which support families with very young children. We already support national bodies working with the under-fives, and grants amount to almost £½ million this year. I now want to finance particular projects that would not otherwise get off the ground, such as schemes to help childminders to provide a more effective service by providing them with support, training and equipment. There are also home visiting schemes in which volunteers befriend and assist mothers who find life with small children difficult. These are often very effective and deserve to be encouraged.
  I also want to assist community self-help schemes which seek to provide day care for under-fives and support for mothers. We are still looking at the possibilities, so we may be able to add to the list. However, I stress that I am anxious that such schemes should benefit disadvantaged families: one-parent families, those on low incomes where both parents need to work, and those parents with very young children who need help in order to cope. I also want to see what can be done for young children from ethnic minorities, because we need to encourage schemes which are of particular value to them.
  Mr. Pavitt: I share the Secretary of State's desire to maximise voluntary support, but will he discuss an anomaly with the Treasury? Organisations sometimes provide care, especially in the form of residential homes for the disabled, comparable with that provided by the social services department of a local authority. The
  602
  anomaly is that local authorities are exempt from VAT whereas charities are not. Will the right hon. Gentleman give some incentive in that direction?
  Mr. Fowler: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is considering that matter. It has been put to him several times. However, nothing further can be said until at least the Budget.
  The Black report drew attention to another important area concerning care in childbirth. Again, the Government have taken a number of steps to improve services. First, we have set up the maternity services advisory committee. The committee recently published its first report, on antenatal care. Our objective must be to ensure that the services meet the mother's needs as an individual—and often in a more personal way—and that unnecessary waiting and other inconveniences are overcome through better practice. All women are entitled to a service in which their problems are treated sympathetically and in private. The report offered valuable and practical advice on how to achieve those objectives. Through the process of regional reviews, it will be possible to check that progress is being made in putting those recommendations into practice.
  I welcome the fact that the committee is now undertaking a comprehensive review of the whole range of care from the time that the mother believes that she has started labour until delivery. We are expecting that second report in the summer of 1983. I intend that it should be made the basis of further improvements.
  Secondly, I am extremely grateful to the Social Services Select Committee. I see, at any rate, one of its senior members in the Chamber.
  Mr. Ennals: There are three of us in the Chamber.
  Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to the Select Committee for its comprehensive report on perinatal and neonatal mortality, to which the Government published their response almost two years ago. We asked health authorities to take note of the Select Committee's recommendations and to work for further progress in improving maternity and neonatal services. Three-quarters of its many recommendations concerning detailed improvements to the NHS were remitted to health authorities for consideration in the light of local priorities and needs. The Select Committee has said that it intends to take evidence from four regional health authorities next spring. I am confident that, when it does, it will be able to confirm that considerable improvements are being made.
  Finally, the House will welcome the fact that perinatal mortality—that is, stillbirths and deaths in the first week of life—has been significantly reduced in the past few years. The latest perinatal mortality figure for England, at 11·7 deaths per thousand, compares favourably with the latest available figures for other European countries. For example, the figure for France is 13·8, for Belgium 14 and for Italy 17·4. For two years running now, perinatal mortality has fallen at the fastest rate since statistics were first kept more than 50 years ago—a drop of about 9 per cent. in 1980, followed by an even bigger fall of 12 per cent. in 1981. I very much hope that that progress will be continued.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: The Secretary of State has not answered my point. Although there is a drop in the death

  603
  rate, there is a considerable difference, within that figure, between social classes I and V. How does the right hon. Gentleman account for that?
  Mr. Fowler: That is right, and that is what the Black report points out. However, I shall come to that issue. In her selective use of statistics, the hon. Lady should recognise that the general trend—despite what she has said—has been significantly better in the past two years than it was during the past half-century.
  Several of the Black report's recommendations covered the important subject of community care. The report called for a shift towards community care, improvements in general practice, and the development of joint funding. The development of community care is a cornerstone of our policy, and we have made substantial progress. Our approach to it flows directly from a belief in the importance of the individual and the family. People should go to hospital only if their health care needs cannot be met in any other way. Indeed, most people would want that. That approach was stressed in the White Paper on the elderly, entitled "Growing Older", which emphasised the vital role that community services play in enabling the elderly to stay in their own homes. The purpose is to prevent or defer the need for long-term care in a residential home or hospital. Similarly, the review published in 1980 about services in England for the mentally handicapped starts with the fact that most mentally handicapped people live with their families or independently. We have sought to take that philosophy further by increasing expenditure and devising new ways of switching resources to meet the needs of the individual.
  The allocations for joint finance have increased year by year to nearly £85 million in 1982–83. In real terms, that is an increase of more than 35 per cent. in the past four years. However, in several respects the existing rules for joint finance have not provided the necessary flexibility that we all want. They are not doing enough quickly enough. That is the problem. There are still people in long-stay hospitals who would not need to be there if more community care were available.
  That is why we published our consultative document, "Care in the Community", and why we now intend to make changes in the administrative rules so that, for example, health authorities can transfer resources with patients for as long as necessary.
  The Bill that we have introduced in the other place will also enable health authorities to contribute to housing and education services. We shall also make a further £6 million available next year for joint finance to support that initiative. During the next five years, we shall reserve £15 million of joint finance money to support selective pilot projects to show how ideas for care in the community can be made a reality. That is real progress towards a better and more independent life for some of the most disadvantaged in our society. I hope that the whole House will welcome those initiatives.
  We shall also make special finance—more than £3 million—available for the development of primary care in inner cities. The initiative is the result of our consideration of the Acheson report on primary health care in inner London and of the Harding report. Both reports were published last year and were commended to health authorities as a basis for action. Broadly, we accept the
  604
  diagnoses made by Acheson and Harding on primary care in inner cities. The main problems are the disproportionate number of single-handed and elderly general practitioners, the low standard of some of the premises, the shortage of community nurses—I agree with what the hon. Member for Crewe said about that—and the problems of access experienced by some patients. Our initiatives will be directed towards tackling those problems. I hope to be able to announce our detailed proposals to the House shortly.
  The Black committee also laid great stress on the development of health education and prevention. Again, we have substantially increased the grant to the Health Education Council from £3½ million in 1978–79 to almost £9 million in the current year. Health education and prevention are crucial in a number of areas.
  I shall take one obvious example. The number of reported cases of whooping cough this year has risen to epidemic proportions. The latest figures show that there have been 13 deaths—10 were babies under one year old and two were infants under two years of age. The cause of the resurgence of the disease was the falling off over the years in the number of children who were vaccinated. That is why the Government have made strong efforts over past months to encourage parents to consult their doctors about vaccination. It is too soon to give the House the final figures on the response to the campaign, but there is evidence that parents are seeing the need to protect their own and other people's children and that there is an increased uptake of vaccinations. In one area, for example, take-up following the launch of the campaign increased by 13·8 per cent. for triple vaccination, and single vaccinations rose from 60 to 880. The results of a small national opinion poll in September and October suggested that over 60 per cent. of women with children under five are having those children vaccinated against whooping cough. That means that the take-up has almost doubled since the low point in the mid-1970s. That is an encouraging figure. I hope that it reflects a permanent trend.
  At the same time, there is a whole range of other problems where health education is crucial—for example, alcohol misuse and tobacco, about which my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health will say more. The report was right to draw attention to the dangers to health caused by smoking. Smoking is the greatest single preventable cause of disease and early death in this country. What is more, unfortunately, the message about the dangers of smoking has not got through to certain groups, or it has got through less than we would like.
  Following the example of the Labour Government, by agreement with the tobacco industry, we have introduced limits on the amount that can be spent on cigarette advertising on posters and in cinemas. We have given the Health Education Council additional money—over £2 million this year—specifically for anti-smoking campaigns. We have improved the presentation of the Government's health warning on cigarette packets and advertisements.
  I heard what the hon. Member for Crewe said about Labour Party policy, should the Labour Party ever come to power. By following the voluntary path, we have continued in the tradition and policy that the Labour Government laid down.
  Mr. Ennals: I want to make certain that the Secretary of State understands what he is saying. The Labour

  605
  Government entered into an agreement for three years. When the agreement started, most adults were smokers. We ran a vigorous three-year campaign, and by the end of the voluntary agreement most adults were non-smokers. The intention at the end of the three-year agreement was to take action to stop advertising, except at the point of sale. The right hon. Gentleman must understand that he has gone against that intention.
  Mr. Fowler: I shall look into that matter. Doubtless the right hon. Gentleman will tell me where the Labour Government's policy was made clear on that point when they entered into the voluntary agreement.
  Another problem that should cause concern to the House and the public is the misuse of drugs. A report was produced last week by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. It said that the misuse of drugs is a substantial problem. No one knows the exact size of that problem, but our best estimate is that probably about 40,000 people are now dependent on drugs of different kinds. Other countries undoubtedly have larger problems, but that is no reason to underestimate our problem. The experience of other countries shows how rapidly the problem can grow unless action is taken. We have made £2 million immediately available to health and voluntary organisations. We also intend to emphasise the dangers of drug taking, particularly to young people. I do not believe that we or the public should underestimate the danger of the problem that we now face.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has raised this matter. Will he take steps to ensure that all those who are addicted to drugs come under specifically chosen doctors? One trouble is that many doctors are playing an unfortunate part in permitting drug addiction to continue. Therefore, it is of great importance that all drug addicts are properly vetted. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that there are suitable long-stay homes or places for drug addicts so that their addiction can be eradicated? Will he liaise with the Home Office to ensure that any additional powers that are necessary are taken at an early date?
  Mr. Fowler: I give my hon. and learned Friend an assurance, particularly on his final point. We are liaising closely with the Home Office. In the near future, there will be a meeting to which we shall invite representatives of the medical profession. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that unquestionably there is a problem of irresponsible prescribing by a few doctors. We should not overstate it, but there is undoubtedly such a problem.
  However, the major problem is not over-prescribing but the criminal import of heroin, the illegal manufacture of amphetamines and the illegal trade that has grown up. Whereas in the late 1960s Britain was seen very much as a staging post to the United States, now too many of the illegally imported drugs stay here for users and for the illegal market. I assure my hon. and learned Friend that we shall do everything that we can to tackle an important social as well as criminal problem.
  The allocation of resources is at the heart of the debate. In allocating resources to regional health authorities, the Department has, since 1977, followed principles set out in the report of the resource allocation working party. Since then considerable progress has been made towards a more equitable distribution of resources among the regions. For
  606
  example, in 1977–78 the most deprived region—the NorthWest—was 11 per cent. below target. In 1982–83, the most deprived regions were only 6 per cent. below target.
  The Black report broadly supports the present method of resource allocation to regional health authorities. It agrees that the standardised mortality ratio used in the national RAWP formula provides the best available indicator of health care need when used in conjunction with information about the size and structure of the population. We accept that inequalities exist within the regions and that action will have to be taken to even them out.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To what timetable are the Government working to achieve a fair allocation? Will it be five years, 10 years or 15 years before it is achieved?
  Mr. Fowler: The timetable will depend on the spending plans that we are able to afford in the coming years. We want the inequalities between regions and inside the regions to be evened out as quickly as possible. A great deal has been done, but under this Government, as under the last, the policies and the progress of policies, such as resource reallocation, depend upon available resources.
  Before sloganising on the problem we should seek to understand what has happened throughout the Health Service's history. The Beveridge report of November 1942 contained a rough estimate of cost showing a flatline projection between 1945 and 1965 on the basis that the development of the Service would lead to a reduction in the number of cases requiring that service.
  The achievement of the National Health Service—it is a real and important achievement—is that it has developed a service which undoubtedly has made a major contribution to the health of the nation. It has also gone a long way—although as the Black report shows, not the whole way—to achieving the goal set by Churchill's coalition Government in 1944 which stated:
  "The Government want to ensure that in the future every man, woman and child can rely on getting the best medical and other facilities available; that their getting them shall not depend on whether they can pay for them or on any other factor irrelevant to real need."
  At the same time as the Service has developed, the costs of and the demands for it have rocketed. That is not in itself a criticism of the National Health Service. It is important that that is understood. Costs have increased in every country in Western Europe. Although I am sure that we can achieve more in efficiency here, the record of the National Health Service in containing costs stands comparison with virtually any other Western European nation.
  Costs have increased for a variety of reasons Medical advances have meant that many conditions which previously could not be treated successfully can now be treated. The fact that people live longer has meant a consequent increase in demand on both the health and personal social services. At any one time, 45 per cent. of beds in National Health Service hospitals are occupied by elderly people over the age of 65. Those two factors—medical advance and demographic change—taken together mean that there is an increase in demand of about 1·2 per cent. a year even to remain static.
  The problem of increasing, if not infinite, demand is one side of the coin. The other side of the coin involves finite resources. Health spending has to be limited in some way. We can certainly argue about what should be, but

  607
  there is no question about what has been. Under successive Governments in the past 10 years that has been recognised. In many ways, that is the most disappointing feature, if not of the Black report, of the discussion that has surrounded it. The report provides a statement of the problem. It provides an estimate of the type of resources that the committee believe would be required to put all its policy suggestions into operation. That cost is now about £5 billion a year. But the report says next to nothing about where resources of that size are to come from. In surveying the figures of the 1970s—that is what the Black report has done—it has imported some of the assumptions of the 1960s, one of which is that resources will automatically be available.
  There is no suggestion in either the Black report or in the speech by the hon. Member for Crewe of how the resources will be created. The only suggestions are about redistribution. The report suggests that the married man's tax allowance could be redistributed more effectively in the form of cash payments for children. That would save about £3½ billion, but it would also mean a big increase in tax bills. About 12 million married couples would be worse off because their tax thresholds would be lower. The question how that money is redistributed is at the heart of the discussion on the taxation of husband and wife, which followed the Government's Green Paper.
  The Government are still considering the many different views on the subject, but under any system there would be millions of losers. No system would pay for the proposals in the Black report, let alone the proposals put forward by the Labour Party. On that point, Mr. Peter Townsend, one of the authors of the Black report, is most informative. In his introduction to the Pelican summary of the report he attempts to provide an answer. He says:
  "The money for health is only not there if it is being spent on something else like defence or roads."
  I assume that by that mainly he means defence. I do not believe that even the Labour Party is currently suggesting that we should make further capital cuts that affect the construction industry. On the crucial issue of means, that brings us back to the familiar position. The Labour Party is making promises for increased spending without any idea of how the promises are to be implemented, apart from cutting into the defence budget. The Labour Party promises to do that before every election. It has had little effect, for the very good reason that the economies that can be achieved out of the defence programme do not come remotely near to paying for Labour Party ambitions.
  If any further warning is required, I suggest that the Opposition should examine the experience in France, set out in the newly published book of the Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust in which Professor Lacronique, who at the time of writing was the deputy director of health and hospitals in the Ministry of Health, wrote that the newly elected Socialist Government had increased public spending by the distribution of money to low-income families and the creation of 150,000 new Civil Service jobs, thus expanding the public sector. He said that the expected outcome of the new policy was a general growth in consumption which would allow the private sector to invest and create jobs.
  However, after one year of various incentives aimed at convincing private investors that the future was promising, the French Government realised in May 1982 that inflation
  608
  was becoming a major problem and decided to take drastic measures to fight it. In June 1982, it was therefore decided to devalue the franc, and the three-month freeze on wages and prices was decreed.
  In addition, the French Government have altered the basis of uprating charges to save money and they have introduced a board and lodging charge for hospitals inside the health service.
  Overlying all the specific problems mentioned in the Black report is the central issue of the view taken by the different political parties not only of the needs of the Health Service but of how those needs are to be met. The Government believe that the first essential is to base policy upon an economic strategy, which has resulted in lower inflation, which in itself must aid industrial recovery and which, in its turn, will provide the resources for health care. We reject policies that merely put us back on the road to higher inflation, which will affect the resources that can go to the NHS and the lives of most of those with whom the Black report is concerned.
  The second essential is continued support of the NHS by the Government and by those who work in the service. Over the past three and a half years the Government have shown that commitment and that commitment remains. We should remember that the Health Service is not there as a rallying cry for politicians or for trade union leaders. Its fundamental aim is to develop, to the best extent that resources allow, services to prevent ill-health and to cure or care for the sick and the handicapped. It is the individual patient who must come first in any health policy that is worthy of the name.
  Thirdly, we need to make the best use of available resources. In comparison with other countries in Western Europe, the record of the Health Service is a good one. That does not mean that further improvements cannot be made, and I know of no one in the Health Service who takes that view. The search for efficiency is not a threat to the Health Service. It is a way of ensuring that the maximum amount of resources is devoted directly to patient care. That is why we have taken a number of initiatives over the past 12 months, including the annual review by Ministers of the performance of regional health authorities against agreed management objectives. We are formulating and testing performance indicators and we have introduced a programme of scrutinies, with Sir Derek Rayner's help, into the efficiency of the Health Service's performance.
  Fourthly—I end with the point with which I began—we need to develop a partnership with all agencies in health care, including voluntary organisations and the private sector. It seems that there is beginning to develop an unbridgeable divide between the Government and the Labour Party. We do not agree with the attitude revealed in Labour's "Programme for 1982" towards voluntary organisations.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Fowler: That document reveals that the Labour Party wants to give priority to the care of mentally handicapped children but states:
  "We wholly reject the Tory assumption that voluntary organisations can or ought to take major responsibility for the care of mentally handicapped children leaving hospital."
  We applaud the efforts of voluntary organisations and we want to see a closer partnership in care for those who are in need.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Fowler: No, I shall not give way.
  The view of the hon. Member for Crewe, who leads for the Opposition, is that private medicine has no place in Britain today. That is the motion that she proposed with enormous gusto and undoubted sincerity at the Cambridge Union only two weeks ago. We are told that there are about 34,000 beds in private hospitals and nursing homes and almost 3,000 private beds in NHS hospitals. That compares with the provision in the NHS of about 380,000 beds in over 2,100 hospitals. In other words, the private sector is small compared with the National Health Service. Yet the bulk of private beds are in small nursing homes and not in private hospitals. They are used to look after well over 20,000 elderly people. Is it seriously being argued that we should turn our back on the provision of care, which by any standards is much needed, merely because it is provided by the private sector?
  It is about time that the hon. Member for Crewe recognised that the private sector is a mixture of voluntary, charitable and commercial enterprises, ranging from small nursing homes to modern hospitals capable of undertaking major surgery. Health authorities have had contracts to use some of these facilities for many years. About 3,000 beds in the private sector are used by Health Service patients. It is absurd to characterise such patients as some form of elderly elite. It is equally absurd for Britain to turn its back on the provision that the private sector offers.
  Mr. Ennals rose—
  Mr. Fowler: No, I shall not give way.
  The Black report identifies a number of important needs in our society. I do not seek to minimise those needs but I suggest that the real question is how we care and not whether we care. This is an area for serious policy and not for sloganising. The needs that the Health Service faces are likely to increase over the coming years. They can be met only by a combination of policies and by the development of the Health Service. That is essential and it must be underlined.
  At the same time, we believe that it is not only the Health Service that will meet the needs of society. A joint effort is required and a partnership, and the Government are committed to that approach. I ask the House to reject the motion.
  5.7 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: The House is fortunate at last to have an opportunity to discuss the Black report. It is a fairly turbid document. It does not make, by any means, the most pleasant of reading. It bears heavily the stamp of the sociologist's jargon but it is an extremely important report. We should be grateful to those who have sought to make it rather more intelligible and more widely known. The TUC, in its attempt to make the public more aware of the conclusions set out in the report, is doing an important job. The report shows clearly that good health and good treatment depend alarmingly on a person's background, his job and on where he happens to live.
  I regard the Government's attitude to the report as disgraceful. It is summed up all too well in the statement that appears on the first page of the document from the previous Secretary of State. He added together all the proposals in the report, produced a large sum and used that as an excuse for dismissing the entire contents of the
  610
  report. He showed no willingness to implement any part of the report. It may be that the Secretary of State is trying to pull back a little from the posture taken by his predecessor but that posture has coloured the thinking of the Department ever since the report was produced.
  The same computation—that massive public expenditure would be required to implement all the proposals in the report—has influenced the Labour Party's thinking. It has tabled a motion which is a commitment to exactly that sort of programme. I believe it to be over-optimistic in terms of what any British Government in the next two or three years will be able to mount. I do not regard the scale of the total need as any excuse for not committing Governments to doing as much as they can in the direction of the Black report.
  The Government seem to have dismissed the thinking that lies behind the entire report and the direction which it seeks to impose on our health services. What is more, they are pursuing policies that will make the inequalities even worse. There is a series of Government policies that has clearly been entirely uninfluenced by the demonstration in the report that inequalities based on social class and occupation are extremely severe.
  The emphasis that the Government are placing on private medicine involves the underlying attitude that the Health Service is the safety-net service. Anyone who assumes that private medicine has a major contribution to make to the nation's health is misunderstanding the dependence of the vast majority of people on all of the most important services that the Health Service provides. The emphasis on the private sector that has come to the fore in the Government's thinking on health, as in education, is an indication of a safety-net approach to the service, which is clearly affecting the morale and the enthusiasm of many Health Service workers.
  Mr. Fowler: It is not the Government's attitude that the NHS is a safety-net service. What view does the Liberal Party take? Does it support the right for there to be a private sector?
  Mr. Beith: The Liberal Party has never challenged the right of the people to spend their own money on what they choose. However, we have challenged from time to time forms of private provision that impinge unfairly on the provision for those who are dependent upon the State system. Some of the ways in which private medicine has operated have encouraged queue-jumping by allowing people effectively to buy consultants' time when that time could have been used better to reduce waiting lists in the State sector. We should never seek, however, to deprive people of the opportunity to make provision for themselves independent of the public service.
  At the same time, one cannot escape the Government's rhetoric which again and again promotes the private as against State provision in every sphere. It is my view and that of my party that the State must be the most important provider of most of the health services for most of the people. That is not reflected by the way in which the Government refer to such matters.
  I have specific complaints about Goverment policies. Their attitude to child benefit has been criticised even by some of their right hon. and hon. Friends. This failure to tackle the poverty trap promotes and increases inequalities in health and welfare. The destrucion of the school meals service and the removal of nutritional standards for school

  611
  meals is another example. Those examples have helped to contribute to a widening of inequalities. The Black report was written before steps were taken about the school meal service. The report lays heavy emphasis on the value of the school meals service in maintaining basic nutritional standards. It is a tragedy that a school meals service, based on nutritional standards which were built up so well over many years, has been destroyed in such a cavalier way so quickly.
  Furthermore, the Government have shown a feeble attitude towards prevention measures, particularly in relation to the problems created by smoking and alcohol. They have failed to tackle the issue of a ban on the advertising of cigarettes. Similarly, I cannot understand the Government's attitude to alcohol and the measures that need to be taken to deal with the enourmous range of problems that it creates. The Government's Central Policy Review Staff has published a major and significant report on the dangers and costs of alcohol in the community. The Government refuse persistently to publish that report. However, it has been published in Sweden. Why do the Government treat it as some vicious form of pornography, which can be bought only in Sweden and must not be allowed to appear on the home market?
  That fairly searching document costed many of the problems created by alcohol and gave pointers to policies that the Government should pursue to reduce the impact of alcohol. Alcohol has the most enormous consequences for ill-health and is one of the areas in which preventive measures could be readily and quickly undertaken. I appeal to Ministers to challenge the Prime Minister's refusal to publish the report. In a parliamentary answer a few days ago she once again refused to publish it.
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The hon. Gentleman is fair, normally. I am sure that he will concede that the report was written three years ago and has been extensively leaked. For some reason, it is being leaked again. In the intervening period, the Government published a substantial policy document called "Drinking Sensibly". I hope that he will accept that that shows the high priority that we have given to the problem. It suggests a policy equal to that of the Think Tank report.
  Mr. Beith: The hon. and learned Gentleman has the advantage of me because he has both documents. I suspect that there is an enormous gulf between the innocent little pamphlet "Drinking Sensibly" and the more far-reaching document produced by the Central Policy Review Staff. If the Minister thinks that it is out of date he can add to it, and not keep it concealed in a cupboard and available only on the Swedish black market.
  I criticise also the Government's failure to maintain the full momentum of the resource allocation working party—the RAWP formula—to even out regional inequalities. That is illustrated vividly by an article which appeared in "The Health Services" magazine on 1 October. This showed that every Thames region is over-allocated to a staggering amount totalling over £200 million, while other regions remain substantially under-funded. The Northern region, which has the worst mortality rate, has been climbing the league in terms of its under-funding and is no longer the worst, although it has still only 95 per cent. of its allocation and will not be fully funded until well into the 1990s.
  612
  The article showed the staggering differences in cost per case between hospitals in different parts of the country. Roehampton requires expenditure of £783 per case, whereas the Ashington hospital, which serves my constituency, allows £460 per case. Those are two non-teaching examples. There is a £200 difference in the average costs between teaching hospitals in the Thames areas and those in the rest of the country. The article points out that a difference of £200 per case amounts to £70 million a year
  "and could only be justified in terms of teaching needs if it could be shown that patients are dying like flies from the ministrations of those graduating in the provinces."
  As I assume that the Minister does not take that view, he must be puzzled by the remaining enormous differences in the levels of funding for London and elsewhere.
  Mr. David Crouch: The hon. Gentleman has spoken of the disproportion of allocation to the four Thames regions—I am a member of one—and the regions of the North. The cutback that the Government have attempted can be achieved only at a certain rate. Massive cutbacks cannot be made in areas that are still growing in population. That is the position in the Thames regions. Whereas London is becoming depopulated, the areas outside London are increasing in population. The hardships are there, and the cutbacks, that I believe should be made to benefit the Northern regions, can be made only at an acceptable rate.
  Mr. Beith: We are worried when we see insufficient progress made, and when we see that the Government's attitude to dealing with hard cases is different in different parts of the country. It puzzles hon. Members from more distant parts of the country to see cases in the London area which attract publicity such as Tadworth, producing new money and new commitments relatively quickly, while those in the rest of the country do not seem to have that effect.
  I shall compare the Tadworth example with that of the provision of neonatal care in Newcastle. The Newcastle region is estimated to need about 12 cots for babies weighing under 2½ lb at birth. There are only six. Part of that provision is due to outside funding and the generosity, for example, of the novelist Catherine Cookson, whose novels describe vividly many of the conditions that gave rise to lower health standards in the North.
  The consultants claim that they are being obliged to turn away babies who would live if they had the intensive care facility. The consultant in charge of the facility at Newcastle general hospital has said that since April he has had no alternative but to refuse admission to five critically ill new-born babies, four of whom died, from outlying hospitals. It is the consultant's view that many more babies could be saved, and others saved from lifetime handicap, if there were a larger provision for neonatal intensive care. The region has the smallest provision proportionately of any region in England. That deficiency continues and the RAWP process seems unable to make the recoupment necessary to correct it.
  The more distant regions of the country face other problems. Rural areas have the severe problem of access to medical services because of the costs of travel for patients and those who visit them. Berwick is 65 miles away from the main hospital centres, and there must be many other communities with a similar problem. Travel

  613
  to hospital from Berwick for a patient who does not need an ambulance can cost between £5 and £10 for each visit. A parent accompanying a child can face similar problems.
  The existing Health Service provision for travel is extremely cumbersome. It tends to work on the passport system—if one is receiving social security or family income supplement help may be provided, but otherwise there is none. I welcome what the development commission, encouraged by the Department of Health and Social Security, is doing to experiment in Cumberland with financial help to get patients and visitors to hospital. I hope that that scheme can be developed rapidly to help all rural areas.
  No one should pretend that limitless funding is available to the NHS. It is misleading for the Labour Party to suggest that we can embark on a massive new programme at this juncture; but we are entitled to ask the Government to do a number of things. They should consider the priorities, about which they say little. Do we at present need to put our money into complex high-technology treatments? Should we be concentrating on elaborate provisions for infertility and expensive test tube baby experiments? Are we getting rid of the big mental institutions fast enough and replacing them with community care? Is sufficient being done about the over-prescription of drugs and the prescribing of expensive brand-name drugs?
  The Government should also accelerate the redistribution to benefit underprivileged areas and make progress on the main strategic commitments in the report. The report says that children should have a better start in life; this involves improving child benefit and doing more about the care of young children. The quality of life should be improved for the disabled in the community, which involves a more constructive attitude to local government spending on such things as home helps. In the Government's terms that is bad spending because it is revenue spending on staff, but it is one of the most valuable forms of community service to enable the disabled and the elderly to live in the community. We should not encourage local authorities to regard it as undesirable expenditure.
  Prevention is the third element in the report's strategy. Most of the major triumphs in eradicating disease in the past century have been through preventive methods. Many more diseases have been cured by good plumbing than by a vast range of drugs. I am critical of the Government's attitude to prevention and their lack of vigour in dealing with smoking and alcohol abuse.
  Not a great deal will be done by a political party which sees State medicine as a safety net. Liberals such as Lloyd George and Beveridge built up the NHS; the post-war Attlee Government played a notable part in its development. An earlier generation of Conservatives came to accept it as an essential part of the nation's fabric. But we now have a new breed of Conservatives, who take a different view. They are wrong. I believe that the public consider them to be wrong and they want a free Health Service. The NHS should be so directed that good health no longer depends on class, wealth or occupation.
  5.22 pm
  Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I followed with interest what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed
  614
  (Mr. Beith) said. Both he and the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) mentioned the effect of the RAWP changes.
  The Secretary of State said that a 1·2 per cent. increase in provision was needed to keep pace with last year. For the North-West Thames region the increase has been only 0·7 per cent. Patient services are having to be cut. Sacking a few administrators cannot solve a problem of that scale.
  I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for his fluency and footwork, but I wish that he had a little more heart. He baffles me. On the Health Service, over-the past six months time and again he has made out that we are living in the best of all possible worlds, that the Government are doing more than any other have done and everyone is getting a better deal, and that we have more doctors and nurses and they are getting a better deal. But from our knowledge of our constituencies we know that that is far from true.
  The Black report puts its finger on the fact that the poor and the needy are still at the bottom of the heap. In the inner city area that I represent, my district health authority this week must decide for the financial year 1983–84 how many wards to close at the Central Middlesex hospital; whether to close wards and the casualty department at the Wembley hospital, or to close the whole hospital and lose 127 beds; whether to close the Pound Lane chest clinic; whether to close the Neasden hospital, which deals mainly with geriatric patients and the Leamington Park geriatric hospital; and it will be forced to cut back massively on care for the mentally disabled. It needs to find £1,090,000 from last year's estimates. The administration faces an impossible situation, yet the Secretary of State tells us that everything in the National Health Service is marvellous. I hope that his constituency, Sutton Coldfield, is in a better position than mine in Brent, South and Willesden.
  The right hon. Gentleman says that it is not what we do, but how we do it. It is also a question of how much we spend. If we are spending 5·5 per cent. on health care, 94·5 per cent. is left. The United States spends 9·4 per cent. of GNP on health care. I believe that a Labour Government could budget for an expenditure of 7·5 per cent., which would mean another £4 billion. If we take both private and public expenditure we find that people spend more on smoking, drinking and gambling than the Government spend on health and education. Black has made us look at priorities.
  I agree with much of what the Secretary of State said, but the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed is right to say that priorities are important. The Beveridge report of 40 years ago made comprehensive health care the basis on which the social programme should rest. Forty years later, this Black report is the most significant of all the many reports on the NHS. It goes straight to first principles. We should not be ashamed of having the highest possible ideals. I still claim that the NHS is second to none in any part of the world. It has a record of marvellous achievement. But we must accept that we have fallen short of the highest ideals, as Black points out. The way forward for the next 40 years is marked by its 37 recommendations. Let us not wait another 40 years before implementing them.
  The Government tried to sweep the report under the carpet, and we are debating it in Opposition time.
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Was not the report slightly tarnished by Professor Peter Townsend, a well-known Left-wing academic, expressing his strong personal views?
  Mr. Pavitt: I recommend that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens) goes to the Library and reads the Pelican edition for himself. Conducting a debate by labelling is elementary. He should read what Peter Townsend said in the preface to that edition. If the hon. Gentleman can challenge him on his factual information, he should do so. Nevertheless, let us not have a red smear approach to the debate. We should discuss the facts, what people have said, not make snap judgments by a mere label.
  The excellent motivation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) on RAWP failed because it was a blunt instrument. RAWP pointed out the need for much better resource allocation according to a number of criteria, but it failed to differentiate between facilities within each region. For example, it failed to differentiate between inner cities, which may be equipped with old Victorian property that lacks the engineering and industrial strength that existed for the previous 20 years, and the more affluent areas.
  RAWP also failed to differentiate between the morbidity demands upon GPs. For example, the figure is three times higher in South Wales than in Surrey. Black has put that right. He has given the House information that will enable us to put the matter right. The matter cannot be considered merely on a geographical basis. It is important to remember that the inequalities arise from social and economic causes. Black analysis occupation and class mortality, race and ethnic inequalities, housing tenure and child mortality, and the illness and class of people between one and five years. The report's findings do not need any argument.
  The Secretary of State realised, as does the House, that health cannot be isolated from housing, social conditions, unemployment and what happens in the community. Black has done that fairly. Higher income groups know how to make better use of the service. They receive more specialist attention and occupy more beds in better hospitals. The report studies consultations with GPs, hospital services and the prevention and promotion services. It reads like a textbook for the Opposition. Further committees to examine the subject are not required; the facts and figures are clear. The conclusion is that class differentials are the main cause of inequalities in health care.
  The courage of the Black report lies in its making comparisons with other countries. Those comparisons are illuminating. The right hon. Gentleman made extremely selective quotations, as usual. He compared what President Mitterrand has done in France with the NHS. Health provision under a clawback system is vastly different from the comprehensive system with which we are working. The right hon. Gentleman is not comparing like with like. I have the good fortune to be a member of the Council of Europe social and health committee. The material that we have examined of health provision in Europe does not bear out the right hon. Gentleman's contentions.
  I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State say that there had been an improvement in perinatal mortality. That did not deny the levels of infant, neonatal and
  616
  perinatal mortality in Britain since 1975. Until 1975, as Black shows, we were top of the league in child health. Since 1975 we have got worse. Black took up that point in an attempt to do something about it. He also showed how to help resolve this problem.
  Which of the 37 recommendations is the Secretary of State prepared to implement now? I have isolated 14 which I estimate will cost nothing extra. School health statistics, Government Department monitoring of police and accidents, and the national food survey can be coped with by the existing machinery of the Medical Research Council and the Social Services Research Council. The Secretary of State need only modify their programmes. Moreover, Black's recommendation for a research priority in the MRC and the SSRC could be absorbed in their existing budgets.
  I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's comments about trying to do something to help the Health Education Council with its campaign against smoking. Perhaps he will follow his predecessor's lead. The right hon. Gentleman may remember that his predecessor gave me the green light to introduce a Bill to stop all promotion of smoking except at the point of sale. The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) now the Secretary of State for Industry, gave that undertaking when he was in the right hon. Gentleman's job and, like a gentleman, he kept it. My Bill was never opposed by the Government Front Bench. When it reappears on 21 January for its Second Reading, if the right hon. Gentleman wants an easy way out he can come to the Dispatch Box and say that the Government will not block the Bill and that the House can make its own decision.
  When the right hon. Gentleman refers to an extra £2 million given to the Health Education Council to combat cigarette smoking, one must bear in mind the £100 million that is now being spent by the tobacco industry to promote sales. I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the way in which the agreement has been broken. No commercial advertising is permitted by the BBC, yet tobacco companies advertise through coverage of sports events.
  The Government's refusal to do anything but say hasty words and take no action about Black is a further erosion of the fundamental principles of the NHS. A recent meeting re-examined the threat of the Think Tank's proposed change for insurance. The Prime Minister said that the NHS was safe in her hands. One of my ambulance drivers gave me a quotation which I promised to put on the record. He said he felt as safe having a haircut by Sweeney Todd as having the NHS in the Government's hands.
  I recently had the opportunity to visit what I consider to be the Rolls-Royce of medicine—the Mayo clinic in the United States of America. It is a fine example of what resources can provide. I also saw the safety net at the bottom of America's health provision in the form of the Cork county hospital, which has 1,100 beds. I have seen nothing quite so bad in Britain in the past 30 years. If the Secretary of State is contemplating advancing an insurance system, the Health Service will be severely cut and a scarcely comprehensible increase in bureaucracy will ensue.
  Mr. Fowler: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware—if he is not he will be now—that the Government have specifically rejected the path towards compulsory private insurance.
  Mr. William Hamilton: For how long?
  Mr. Pavitt: I wonder how far and for how long that will remain the case. The Prime Minister rejected any mention of raising charges in the Health Service. Prescriptions cost 20p for five years, but they now cost £1·35. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to say that he will not raise them again. I could also give figures for dentistry and for opticians' charges. The Prime Minister has said before that she will not implement the Think Tank's recommendations. I can only go by the record.
  The plea from the Opposition to the Government is that they implement at least those recommendations of the Black report that do not require further resources. Secondly, when the Secretary of State pays lip service to changing resources to community care, let him back his words by passing the money over.
  5.39 pm
  Mr. David Crouch: I often follow the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt), but generous as I usually am, I cannot say much in favour of what he said today. The reference by the ambulance driver to Sweeney Todd was rather cheap, and did not fit the hon. Gentleman's normal contribution to this House. He also queried whether the Government were considering a compulsory form of insurance rather than State funding of the NHS. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State put him right yet again. It is no good the Opposition digging that up and believing that it is true, because it is not.
  I make my usual declaration that, as a director of a pharmaceutical company, I have an interest in the drugs industry. When my right hon. Friend spoke about drug dependency, I think that he was speaking about the occasions when drugs are not needed for health provision. He also used the word "over-prescription". It is, of course, possible to have over-prescription of drugs when they are needed for health provision. As a member of a regional health authority for many years, I know that patients are dependent, and happy to be, on drugs for ulcer and heart treatment, arthritis, nervous tension and many other illnesses.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will make it clear that he is not seeking to hurt those who are benefiting so greatly from the proper prescription of health-saving drugs.
  The 410-page Black report is important and interesting reading, but a document of that size is par for the course in the Health Service, and that worries me. Last week, we considered the Hunt report on cable television. My criticism was that it was too thin and did not say enough. We needed a six-hour debate to learn more about it. Good as the Black report is, it is far too thick and wordy and does not analyse or get to the point as crisply as it could. One must read the report to understand the 37 recommendations.
  The Black report is like many others that have appeared in the Health Service. In some ways, they dismay those of us who are close to the Health Service, because there is almost too much written evidence to digest. Yet it is important that we digest this thinking that affects so many areas of health provision and care. It is, therefore, important that such reports should be better crystallised.
  Many members of community health councils have also complained that they must digest this evidence, and they often find it hard to get to the nub of the arguments put forward for their consideration by specialists, academics, professional men and women and others.
  618
  We have had reports such as the one on cardiothoracic surgery in the South-West Thames region, and important questions must be determined as to where these specialist services should be performed within a region. We have also had studies on the provision of regional specialties. A document was issued about a year ago on the inadequacy of the GP service in London. That is a vital subject, in some ways every bit as important and more immediate than even the Black report, but we have not made much progress on it. I could list many other examples.
  In the last two years we have been overwhelmed with consideration of yet a further reorganisation in the Health Service and the creation of district health authorities. That produced much more paper work than the 410 pages in the Black report. In some ways, the Health Service is over-burdened with paper. We should therefore thank the Opposition for a debate on this report, because we shall at least be able to highlight the most important points that Black brings to our notice.
  Black has disclosed some serious deficiencies in the general provision of health care, but the report also points out that this is not the responsibility of the NHS alone. As every medical man would admit, the greatest contribution to health in the last 100 years has come not from drugs or doctors but from the provision of better drains, housing and general environmental circumstances. That is readily admitted by Black.
  The hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) has obviously studied this document carefully. She said that we must implement these recommendations, even though they will cost a great deal of money. We shall have to find £2 billion. It is all very well for the hon. Lady to say that now, but when I was working in the Health Service 12 years ago it was just as difficult to get money out of the Labour Government. In fact, it was more difficult because they introduced cash limits which were strictly applied. They had to be, because the IMF was sitting behind the Government ensuring that they were strictly applied.
  It may be that a future Labour Government would find this extra money, but that has not been so in the past. The old hospitals that existed under Labour are still there. Some of them are now being replaced, because the Conservative Government are building more hospitals. Personal social services were also bad under the last Labour Government. They are now being improved. The allocation of personal social services resources has gone up in real terms. I agree with Black that more resources are needed. The last Labour Government could not afford extra funds for the NHS, but they have been found by the Conservative Government. I cannot criticise the Secretary of State or the Government for not doing enough for the NHS, because, remarkably, provision has been increased in real terms. The cost is now £14 billion a year and will rise by another £1 billion next year.
  These are remarkable figures. In congratulating the Government, I do not feel smug, because I am concerned about the inequalities revealed by the Black report. Even so, at a time when we are strapped for money and cutting back in every Government Department, it is remarkable that the Government have succeeded in understanding that this is one Department in which we cannot afford to cut. We cannot spend as much as we would like, but we realise that we must spend more, and we have done so.
  Moreover, the redistribution of these moneys has been properly studied and much more needs to be done in that direction. We are making progress on evening out the

  619
  distribution of these limited resources. A total of £14 billion is still limited, but we are trying to do more for the areas in greatest need.
  Many more Government Departments are involved than the DHSS alone. The only reference that I shall make to the Black report is about recommendation No. 8 on page 357:
  "We do not believe there to be any single and simple explanation of the complex data we have assembled."
  That is so right. We should accept that sobering thought. Many Departments are involved and no single Department is responsible. Further on, the same paragraph states:
  "It is this acknowledgment of the multicausal nature of health inequalities, within which inequalities in the material conditions of living loom large, which informs and structures our policy recommendations."
  The recommendation should inform our thinking as to what should be done.
  The penultimate sentence of the paragraph states:
  "We have concluded"—
  taking one aspect that the working group believes is important—
  "that early childhood is the period of life at which intervention could most hopefully weaken the continuing association between health and class."
  That recommendation sums up the Black report and makes it a serious one for us to consider. A vivid point is made about the relation between health and the condition of life of different people in our country. A considerable task lies ahead and many Government Departments are involved.
  There are inequalities in life in Britain today and in health and safety because of the different ways in which different people live and work. There is danger to health in the Armed Forces, but there is also danger to health in other forms of employment. Coal mining and agriculture are two examples of dangerous industries, and in many factories industrial conditions are much more unhealthy than in healthy factories or in offices. Housing inequalities are produced by inadequate accommodation with poor sanitary facilities—even in this day and age—poor heating and poor insulation.
  The Ministers from the Department of the Environment are not here but we should be thinking about our housing conditions. We should consider how to protect people from the cold and from high energy costs. Better insulation of houses would be a big step towards achieving that.
  Are there inequalities in health provision? In theory, no. In practice, I believe that there are—or rather, limited inequalities. I have witnessed them myself. If one can afford it, one sometimes chooses to go to an NHS hospital for consultation or treatment on a private basis. One goes into a private room and sees a consultant, almost at the time that one chooses. A year ago, my wife broke her wrist and was treated as an emergency case. I went with her to the accident centre in Canterbury. She was treated excellently by a leading bone surgeon. At the time there was much ice on the roads and a great many people, both young and old, had fallen and broken their wrists or legs. There was a great queue. In successive weeks, I took my wife back to the hospital as a National Health Service patient. I felt that it was the best way to get the best service since I knew the hospital and consultant well. However, everyone was given the same hour of appointment—10 o'clock. Some were seen at about 1 o'clock. There is no excuse for that.
  620
  I have learnt more about the National Health Service by being a patient or by visiting patients than by sitting around a table in Croydon examining a budget. When one eventually saw the consultant or went into the plaster room, one got excellent service and advice. The setting was right, the X-rays and the treatment were correct and the people were nice, but it is not fair that one must hang around for two or three hours. One should be able to make appointments. We need not only money in the Health Service but better management. We must try to arrange matters so that people need not wait so long once they have entered the hospital.
  Every hon. Member is concerned that everyone should be able to obtain the best service and advice from the National Health Service. The Government must produce the help needed by the National Health Service both in resources and in interest. We must take an interest not just in providing money to build hospitals and health centres but in seeing how those establishments are run and what their real needs are by going there and finding out. We must also find out what the general practitioner needs. He is much too detached from the Health Service, although he provides primary health care. Equality might begin there, because some people may feel that they are not getting far with their general practitioner.
  The Health Service does not need—it is not mentioned in the report—more dedication from those who work in it. I never cease to be impressed by the dedication of Health Service workers, from the medical profession right down the scale to ancillary workers. Their priority is the entire public, not just a paying minority. That has never been suggested in the National Health Service. Some of the distinguished surgeons and consultants whom I have met have never suggested that they approach their patients on a basis of inequality. It goes against the teaching of the medical profession. I have never heard of preferential treatment being given to a person because of his background. However, someone with a disadvantaged background should have the opportunity to consult those persons of quality in the Health Service and should not feel that they cannot get near to them
  I watched the "Horizon" programme on television recently in which Professor Ian McColl was featured. I know him well, and I know how he works. I was impressed with his approach, which shows that such a person, who is professor of surgery at Guy's hospital in London, is concerned about medicine and people and not about the sort of people they are. We need not teach the Health Service that. We know that health workers are dedicated and have the correct approach to their profession.
  As the Black report said, we must continue to improve and support the Health Service with interest, better management and more resources as we can afford them. We must also improve housing, environmental conditions and industrial health. Not enough is done to improve health in industry and the conditions of work. We must educate our children to understand the requirement for better living and the achievement of better health. We must pay even greater attention to the education of the general public through the Health Education Council and other bodies.
  I am not interested in producing inequality. No one in the House is interested in inequality in health provision. I am determined that we should provide a better life and better health for all in our society. In the space of a few

  621
  years we have succeeded in increasing the provision of resources for the National Health Service and improving the distribution of those resources. Nevertheless, we still have a long way to go and many other Departments will need to be involved.
  5.59 pm
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Some hon. Members may be surprised at my taking part in this debate, as they may imagine that it concerns only England and Wales. On behalf of my party, however, I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on a matter that affects us all. As the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) said, not only the Department of Health and Social Services is involved. The report makes it clear that, amongst others, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be involved. In this context, I regret that not only no Minister from the Department of the Environment but no Minister from the Northern Ireland Office is here for a debate that affects the whole kingdom.
  I, too, pay tribute to the work of the National Health Service. I express my thanks to those who cared for me on many occasions. Compared with other countries, we are very fortunate indeed. Nevertheless, there is still room for improvement and I regret that the previous Secretary of State was apt to be dismissive of the Black report. I appreciate that it is a large volume and is perhaps not so specific as some would wish, but to dismiss it on the ground that it has not explained the fundamental causes for some groups suffering worse standards of health than others is a fallacy.
  I believe that the report is honest in not attempting to pin down specific causes. I am happy to share the view of the Royal College of Nursing that we must move towards a model based on caring for health rather than for illness. Can that be done? Certainly it will require a dramatic change in the nation's approach to these matters.
  About 20 years ago a colleague of mine was leaving the Altnagelvin hospital in Londonderry after visiting his wife when he met someone who had been used to the old hospital. That person suggested to him that an amazing amount of money had been wasted on the new hospital. My friend replied, "I suppose you are right. They tell me it was £5 million—just the price of a Vulcan bomber."
  Just recently, the nation marshalled its resources and its forces to protect 1,800 of its people in the South Atlantic. It should not be beyond our capabilities to assemble the necessary resources to provide for the health and care of the other 60 million. In making that comment I in no way deride the Government's defence strategies or the needs of the nation. I merely suggest that we must all give a lead in tackling the problem of caring for the nation's health. I suspect that in so doing we shall ultimately save vast resources, which could then be used in other spheres.
  In studying the report and trying to understand how resources should be allocated, I note that it gives the abolition of child poverty as the priority for the 1980s. I am very concerned that almost one-fifth of the decade has passed without much encouragement to believe that that objective will be realised by the end of the decade.
  Not long ago I spoke to some people engaged in the care of children. They shared with me some of their concerns and problems. I said to them, "Perhaps we need another Tom Barnado to awaken the nation to the needs of young people." We are apt to think that we are living in an affluent society, and that is true if we compare our society
  622
  with that of the past or with other societies, but we are blind to reality if we miss the heartache of the needs of the many and, particularly at this time, of the young.
  It is said that half a loaf is better than no bread, but I should like to say a word for Gingerbread, the organisation for one-parent families. I understand that Gingerbread members from the north of Ireland have written to the Prime Minister, and they have asked me to speak for them. I understand from them that, in keeping with inflation, as it were, child benefit was increased last month from £3·30 to £3·65—an increase of 35p. They have shown the Prime Minister what that increase will buy, by sending her a toilet roll. They also pointed out how much minced meat 35p will buy.
  The real tragedy, however, is that people on supplementary benefit have the increase deducted from their supplementary benefit and so are no better off. The Government are robbing Peter to pay Paul, and the people for whom the benefit was designed are worse off. Those who are working may gain the full advantage of the increase but a sizeable section of the community in the north of Ireland feel a sense of injustice.
  We are discussing preventive medicine in the care of children, having regard to a proper balance of their needs. I believe that this is one injustice for which the Government could find an immediate remedy. Some hon. Members will argue that funds are not available. I welcome the Government's scrutiny measures for the Health Service, but I suspect—from observation in the north of Ireland and an awareness of human nature elsewhere—that there may still be waste in the Health Service and that there are resources which, if they were not syphoned off in other directions, could provide immediate help for many.
  I give as examples, which can be used regardless of the immediate background of terror in Northern Ireland, and, indeed, echoed in other places, the problem of accountancy in a large department of the Health Service in the Royal Victoria hospital complex in the North of Ireland and the abominable waste as a result of the delayed programme of building the new city hospital block. I suspect that with greater supervision throughout the Health Service we could release large sums of money which could be put to the cutting edge of care as well as preventive medicine.
  I appreciate that Labour Members might not be altogether happy with my next illustration, because they are not keen on privatisation. We had an interesting debate the other day in the Northern Ireland Assembly on an Adjournment motion, the subject of which was the problems of the hospital at Portrush, which is used for elderly people. During that debate we were told that a member of a mixed delegation of local councillors, political leaders and leading citizens had asked the Minister whether, as the hospital had historically strong connections with the town and had been subscribed for by private donations, it would be possible, instead of closing it under the reconstruction proposals for the Health Service in that area, to restore it to the citizens, who would provide for its upkeep themselves. The answer from the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is an exponent of privatisation in the Health Service, was "No".
  I find that response difficult to understand, when those people were genuinely concerned to care for the elderly in their community. The Minister has admitted today that about 20,000 beds in England and Wales are used in the

  623
  private sector to care for such people. That was an example of an exponent of privatisation refusing people the right to care for the elderly in their community. It would seem that there is room for an advance in Government thinking to implement their concern to give the best service to the community at large.
  I appreciate that a great deal of help has been given to general practitioners by the provision of secretarial assistance. When such help is provided through the NHS for those involved with preventive medicine, the people concerned should undertake a course on the care of patients rather than one on the defence of doctors. Quite often, as a result of the screening process, people telephoning for appointments almost have to certify that they are dying before they will be seen. We must restore care for the patient as well as protection for the physician.
  I have friends in the medical profession, and I pay tribute to what so many of them do, but we are here today to debate a report which focuses the attention of the Government, Parliament, the profession and administrators on the concept of health care for the nation. Anything that can help at that level will be beneficial.
  I have no wish to delay the House unduly. I wish to demonstrate the concern of my party for the need to take steps to remedy the deficiencies in the nation's health services and to show that the redeployment of resources could ultimately save tremendous wastage.
  I understand from some American researchers with whom I have had contact that there is a growing awareness of what is commonly called the Left-Right syndrome, which is more apparent among families on a low income. In that context, a redeployment of educational resources to find the needy children at an early stage so that help could be given could deliver the nation from the apparent delusion that there are a large number of backward children, rather than children who need help to meet their problem at an early age. If such a redeployment were carried out it could in the long run release large resources now tied up in education and health care to be given to other areas. I am delighted to welcome the report and to have participated in the debate.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. William Hamilton: I am the first Scottish Member to take part in the debate, and I wish to register a protest immediately. It has been the practice of late that the Government automatically presume that a debate of this nature will be an English and Welsh affair. Although the report specifically mentions Scottish problems, no Scottish Minister is present and no Scottish Minister is present to reply to the points that I wish to make.
  In case the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) is looking around to see whether any other Scottish Member is here, I can tell him that no Scottish Tory is present. A Scottish Minister should be here to hear what is being said about the inequalities that are probably more apparent in the Scottish Health Service than even in the English Health Service, as is explained in the Black report.
  Table 3.8 of the report gives some startling figures about neonatal and post-neonatal mortality rates per
  624
  thousand live births by occupational class in Scotland. In Britain, we divide people into classes I, II, III, IV and V. Class I consists of wealthy privileged people.
  In 1946, the neonatal mortality rate in class I per thousand live births was 16·7, and, at the other end of the scale, in class V, it was 36·9—more than double. By 1975 there had been an overall improvement right down the line but the gap between them was very much the same—twice as bad among the poorest section of the community. The post-neonatal mortality rate tells a worse story. Among the richer people, the post-neonatal mortality rate was 5·5 per thousand live births in 1946 and 36·1 among the poorest section. by 1975, the figure had fallen to 1·8 per thousand live births in class I and 10·8 among the poorest section. I make that point to stress that the position in Scotland is as bad as, and probably worse than, the position in England and Wales.
  The Sunday Mail of 1 January 1980 had an article with the title
  "Cursed by the dram and fish and chips"—
  that was the title; it is not what I am saying. It dealt with the diet of the Scottish people and with their smoking and drinking habits, and argued that they were among the reasons why the health statistics in Scotland are much worse than the health statistics in England and Wales.
  In the article, Professor Ian Bouchier explained the brief of a team that had been established in 1980. It had been given £875,000 over seven years to engage in some research into why the health of the Scottish people was generally worse than that of the English and the Welsh. Professor Bouchier
  "explained the team's brief from the Scottish Office, which has given the seal of approval to the cash flow of £125,000 a year for seven years. 'We will be studying the Scots pattern of life to give us a clue to solving the problem. We will look at the Scots diet, smoking patterns and standard of living. There is evidence to suggest that people who smoke, are overweight and don't take enough exercise are prone to heart disease. Also their blood fat levels are too high'".
  I have referred to that article in order to underline some of the points made in the Black report. The Black report put great emphasis on the need for preventive measures, and the Government can be criticised a great deal for their relative lack of attention to those matters.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) referred to the Government's retreat in the face of the tobacco lobby. It is absolutely disgraceful. There is abundant evidence to show that smoking is a killer, yet the Government have retreated steadily in the face of the tobacco companies. The Prime Minister even took the step of removing from the Department of Health and Social Services the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who was greatly in favour of dealing firmly with the tobacco companies. In his place the Prime Minister put the lobby fodder for the tobacco companies.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), in his typical way, is making snide attacks on hon. Members. I ask him to compare the size of the health warning on a cigarette packet, today with the size of the health warning that he was content to have when his party was in power. It is substantially larger now than it ever was.
  Mr. Hamilton: The Under-Secretary of State should know his facts before he makes interventions of that sort. I have never supported the steps that were taken even by

  625
  my own Government. I was never a member of that Government. I have always taken the view that we should deal very firmly with the killers in the tobacco industry. That is what they are. They are murderers, and the Government are conniving with them. It is indefensible that that should happen. Having said that, I think that there are other steps to be taken in the preventive field that do not come within the purview of the DHSS.
  The Government's record in the provision of new or adequate housing—by whatever yardstick it is measured—is deplorable and the worst in living memory. The poorer or older the houses, the damper they are and the more difficult they are to heat so the dangers to health become proportionately greater.
  I am glad to see that there is now present a Minister from the Scottish Office, but he does not speak for the health services. The Minister responsible for the health services in Scotland ought to be present in the Chamber to hear what is being said about Scottish health problems. He was here earlier and might well have engagements elsewhere but his prime responsibility is to be here, listening to the debate.
  For several reasons, the Black report is very depressing. It demonstrates how our deeply divided class society reflects those divisions at almost every point in the provision of health care. The poorer a person and the poorer his environment, the worse his health is likely to be and the worse the health provision for him is likely to be.
  Simply by taking a train from King's Cross to the north of Scotland it is possible to find that the way of life, the environment, education, health and housing, become poorer and poorer the further north one goes. The charge that we are two nations becomes increasingly evident, and not least in the matter of health.
  One of the most depressing aspects of the Black report is that, after more than 30 years of the National Health Service, the divisions and inequalities have either remained the same or have in some instances got worse. No less depressing has been the Government's response to the 37 recommendations in the Black report. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) said from the Opposition Front Bench, from the outset the Government were prepared to bury the Black report. At £8, it was hardly likely to be a best seller in Fife. When the report was first produced there was not a copy available for every Member of Parliament, let alone every member of the community who wished to read it. The Government made every effort to prevent its publication. A surgeon in the National Health Service in Newcastle told me yesterday that he did not even know of the existence of the Black report.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred to the statement made by the then Secretary of State for Social Services—now the Secretary of State for Industry—in the foreword to the report, to the effect that the public expenditure involved in implementing the recommendations would be
  "quite unrealistic in present or any foreseeable economic circumstances".
  In that foreword he put the figure at £2 billion. It sounds a lot of money but at that time it represented less than 1 per cent. of the gross national product—an additional tuppence in the pound on public expenditure.
  626
  On 31 July 1981, less than a year later, I initiated an Adjournment debate on the Black report. The Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), who is now listening to the debate, wrote to me on 2 October 1981 explaining how the Government would respond to the 37 recommendations. In his concluding paragraph he said that
  "those recommendations to which we have been able to attach specific costs would exceed £4 billion per annum".
  Within 12 months of the senior Minister stating a figure of £2 billion, the junior Minister was stating that it exceeded £4 billion. Today, the figure of £5 billion has been mentioned. Hon. Members can attach no credibility to those figures. They have varied between £2 billion and £5 billion given by three different Ministers within the space of 18 months. Whatever the figure, my argument is that we can afford it. When anyone, especially a member of the Government, tells me that the money is not there, I challenge it. The money is there. What is absent is the will to spend the money on health rather than on other items.
  I have stated before, and repeat now, that at the time of the Falkland Islands war, started by the Prime Minister, there was no question of cash limits. The right hon. Lady's attitude was "Whatever the cost, we will see it through." To date, that cost has amounted to £2,000 million. All the bills have not yet been paid. When the Government say that the money is not there, I say that it is. It is the political will that is not there to reallocate the wealth that the country produces.
  The Secretary of State, when challenged, says that the Government spend an awful lot—much more than the previous Labour Government did—on the Health Service. Despite those claims, which the right hon. Gentleman never wearies of making, there is abundant, almost daily, evidence that things are happening that are destroying the Health Service. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed have given examples. An article in The Guardian last Friday was headed "Lack of cash puts 6,000 babies at risk". The article states:
  "Up to 6,000 premature babies are likely to be deprived of the intensive care they need next year because of the shortage of hospital facilities, it was estimated yesterday. A senior paediatrician, who asked not be named, described the situation as a 'disgrace'. One charity has received appeals for help from 55 hospitals. A panel of specialists has found that 22 of those hospitals are so short of money that they are in danger of being unable to treat the babies they have admitted. Intensive care facilities in London were described as terrible by a specialist who is tracking reports from around the country. But he added: 'By and large the more industrialised the region, and the further north you go, the worse it gets.'".
  The article goes on:
  "A survey has shown that a third of premature babies in the South-east who need intensive care are turned away because there are not enough cots or nurses in intensive care units."
  A specialist is quoted as saying
  "'All over the country people are being told that if they run out of money'"—
  he is referring to health authorities—
  "'they must close wards and sack nurses.'"
  As everyone knows—the figures have been given—thousands of nurses and hundreds of doctors are unemployed while those children are in danger of dying because the health authorities are not being given the money to enable them to live. At the same time, the Prime

  627
  Minister comes along and says that the Government intend to spend £2,000 million on the Falklands Islands war. That is the obscenity of present priorities. The article goes on:
  "Experts estimated that because of the closures"—
  that, is the closing of hospitals and wards—
  "half the 12,000 babies who are likely to need intensive care next year will not get it."
  The article adds
  "Professor Edward Reynolds, head of neonatal paediatrics at University College hospital, identified 22 hospitals where there was not enough money to look after the children that had been admitted."
  I shall give the names of those hospitals listed in The Guardian for the record. I hope that the Minister will refer specifically to them in his reply. The article states
  "Those hospitals are: Newcastle General, Newcastle-upon-Tyne; Morriston, Swansea; Rutherglen Maternity, Glasgow; Doncaster Royal Infirmary; Coventry and Warwickshire hospital, Bellshill Maternity, Lanarkshire; Barnsley District; Vale of Leven District General, Dunbartonshire; County hospital, Hereford; Odstock branch of Salisbury General; Royal Cornwall, Truro; Wexham Park, Slough; Cuckfield, West Sussex; West Kent General, Maidstone; Pembury hospital, Tunbridge Wells; Pilgrim hospital, Boston; Ipswich hospital; Stirling Royal Infirmary; West Suffold, Bury St. Edmunds; and three in London, South London hospital; Newham Maternity and Edgware General. Other hospitals reported to be in trouble include Killingbeck hospital, Leeds, where 30 heart operations on babies were cancelled in the summer, and which still needs £50,000 to hire nurses, and University College hospital, London, which has been forced to send babies to Cambridge because its own facilities are overloaded."
  A senior paediatrician in the South-West was quoted in The Guardian as saying "It's a ruddy disgrace." So it is. That is what Black was all about. Black described in great, some would say boring, detail—it is not boring to me or to those who are interested—the gross disparities of health provision between one class and another, between rich and poor, between North and South and between the industrial areas and the South-East. It is time for some Government to take control of the situation no matter—as the Prime Minister has stated—what the cost. The right hon. Lady was referring to killing people in a war. We are referring to saving people through the Health Service.
  I hope that the Labour Party will give the commitment at the next election, no matter what the cost, that we will implement the Black proposals.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Anthony Nelson: The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) was as provocative as he always is on these occasions. The hon. Gentleman was, however, unjust to my hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench in complaining that there was no Scottish Minister present. I think, in fact, the hon. Gentleman has had the privilege of having in attendance not only one but two Scottish Ministers. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) who, I understand, has specific responsibility for health matters, was present for the opening speeches, and my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart) came into the Chamber within a minute of the hon. Member for Fife, Central standing up. My hon. Friend has heard the whole of his speech. The hon. Gentleman could not have received a better service.
  In marked contrast, there have rarely been more than two or three Back Bench supporters of the hon. Member for Fife, Central in the Chamber. Yet the House is
  628
  debating an Opposition motion. It is, we are told, a matter of great interest to the Opposition. However, they do not seem able to muster sufficient numbers to put their views more forcibly and collectively.
  The hon. Member for Fife, Central spoke with vigour about the need for more public expenditure in this area. I pay him the compliment that he is at least consistent on the subject. That is where my agreement with him ends. I find the report disappointing. In many ways, it is a poor report. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) that it is a turgid document. It consists of over 400 closely typed pages set out in a most boring and ungraphic fashion. There are pages of graphs which could have been presented in a much more interesting and readable way. If those who are responsible for drawing up reports are incapable of doing so in a simpler and more appealing way, they should not be surprised if they have little influence on the course of events.,lb/>
  Many people would say that to commission a bunch of academics to produce a report on their vision of an equal society is wrong anyway, and that it is hardly surprising that we should have the range of recommendations that we see in the Black report. To my mind the inadequacies are not so much in the report's answers and recommendations as in the very question that the Black committee was asked to consider in the first place.
  It is typical of the Labour Party that it constantly dwells on the issue of class and equality. It seems to have a vested interest in maintaining the dichotomy of the class system. It must keep reminding people about the different social classes, because that is what it relies upon. In reality, the differences have been cut away in so many ways in the post-war years. Yet the Labour Party likes to remind us constantly about its people—the working class—about the image of sections of the community with whom it feels it has traditional affiliations, which it would like to maintain well into the future.
  That is not a realistic assessment of modern society. The question with which the committee was faced is not the real question to which we should be addressing ourselves in the provision of health care in Britain. For example, much is made of the differences which are evidently there in the health provision for the richer and the poorer elements of the community. More important are the differences within those segments of the community. We should be much more concerned about improving the quality and efficiency of the Health Service for everyone rather than concentrating on some of the report's recommendations. In other words, the report is blinkered inasmuch as it only looks at one specific problem—differences between social classes. There are other more pressing priorities in the Health Service that are worthy of attention and with which I shall deal in relation to my constituency.
  The social analysis contained in the report ignores one of the most pressing problems which will have to be dealt with in the future—the care of a much more aged population. That was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State today. While it is mentioned in the report, insufficient emphasis is laid on the obligation and responsibility of this generation of politicians to provide now for the future cost of facilities which will be needed by that much older population.
  Although the number of pensioners will rise only slightly by the year 2000, those over the age of 75 are

  629
  likely to increase by 42 per cent. In other words, there will be nearly half as many elderly people. We also know that elderly people already consume about seven times as much of the cost and facilities of the Health Service as the average person. That will be a major problem, not only nationally, but in those areas of Britain, such as my constituency, which have a higher than average proportion of elderly people.
  Despite my initial criticisms of the report, it made a few useful observations that should be inquired into in more depth and which probably have implications for policy. I noted in particular that mortality rates among women have increased, and that must be a matter of concern to all who try to ensure that there is a steady increase in the quality of health care for all people.
  There has been, and we welcome it, a significant improvement in antenatal facilities in Britain. If there is one area of preventive medicine which has been most markedly successful, it is antenatal care, where so many lives, both of children and mothers, have been saved because of diagnostic facilities and care before the birth of a child. I welcome the emphasis that successive Governments have placed on that most important aspect of health care. Therefore, it is particularly worrying to see that mortality rates among women have increased. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will be able to analyse some of the reasons for that when he replies.
  The report makes some interesting comments on school meals. While I supported moves to reduce the significant cost to the taxpayer and the ratepayer of school meals, I am rather worried about the consequences of that change. In a town in my constituency a substantial number of secondary schoolchildren roam around town every lunch break eating potato crisps and drinking Coca-Cola. I can think of few things of less nutritional value than Coca-Cola and chips. Not only are such items expensive, showing that the children could often afford a more nutritious meal, but there are also health implications for the future. I should like to return to that on another occasion.
  We may have to review the system of school meals. I notice from the report that about half a million school children in Britain are not claiming the free school meals to which they are entitled. Conservative Members should ask why that is the case and what efforts are being made to ensure that such children receive what they are entitled to—a proper, nutritious meal at school.
  Another aspect of the report of which I am critical is the extent to which it recommends that further inquiries should be set up. That is something I always look out for. It is interesting to go to a recommendations list and note that the first four or five recommendations are about further studies being undertaken. In the Black report, no fewer than seven recommendations are about changes in data-gathering systems, more information, more research and more studies. If I have a criterion for the value and effectiveness of a report, it is the extent to which it grasps the nettle of dealing with problems and proposing policy changes rather than just proposing further study groups—probably manned by academics once again—to look into the problems further. Not only are they ineffective and costly, but they defer the difficult decision-making process.
  I was also worried—this relates to my criticism of the committee's blinkered approach—about the simplistic way in which shifts of priority within the Health Service are proposed. The report talks about shifting resources to
  630
  community health. I am in favour of that because it has particular implications for my constituency. However, where should those resources come from? We are not told what area of health provision the report would like to do without. That problem is presumably left for the politicians to solve. It is insufficient for a report simply to identify a problem and demand a shift of resources without saying what criterion is being used to establish that one area of health care is less important and needy than another.
  One must be careful not only about the substantial public expenditure implications of the complete health programme proposed by the Black report, but about the extent to which it blithely calls for shifts of resources without saying from where the money should come.
  I agree with other hon. Members that we should emphasise preventive medicine. We did not need the Black report to tell us that. If we spend more money on that in the future, it will clearly be a good investment. It will reduce the much higher cost of curative medicine in the future. That is particularly applicable to dentistry.
  Some of the most effective and cost-efficient improvements could be made if a preventive dental programme were introduced in Britain. We know that about two-thirds of adults have no teeth. However, caries—dental decay—usually begins in the first 16 years of life. Clearly a fluoride programme would have major and beneficial implications. I am in favour of fluoride in public water supplies and I have argued for that point. I know that it is a highly contentious and emotive subject in the House, but whether or not one is in favour of the fluoridation of public water, a whole range of voluntary fluoridation schemes could be used as part of a preventive dental programme to reduce substantially the incidence of caries in adults.
  I think particularly of such things as fissure sealants, by which fluoride is put into cracks in the teeth, and the topical application of fluoride, which is a relatively expensive process that ensures that a coating of fluoride gives a child useful protection against decay. I encouraged my wife to give my children fluoride tablets every day, which can be purchased from the chemist. That is most important. I am not sure whether they can be obtained on prescription, but they can certainly be purchased.
  We should do much more to draw attention to the benefits of the voluntary use of fluoride. I would be in favour of fluoride mouth washes in schools. Again, the system would be voluntary and, if parents objected, their children could be withdrawn from it. However, it would have a major and beneficial impact on the extent to which children lose their teeth and have fillings. The cost would be relatively minor compared with the cost of dental treatment.
  One of my main reasons for wishing to speak is that I am very concerned about the impact of some of these issues on my constituency at Chichester. I represent a large rural constituency and as a result there are difficulties in the coverage of health care and in financing it. Those difficulties are, of course, common to other areas. In addition, there are many elderly people in my constituency. The number of those aged over 65 in the Chichester health authority area is twice the national average. About 24 per cent. of the population are over 65, compared with 15 per cent. in the country as a whole.
  The difference is even greater when it comes to the over-eighties. About one-fifth of them suffer from

  631
  considerable senile dementia. For example, in 1981 there were 8,000 people in Chichester over the age of 80. That is about five per cent. of the population and double the national figure. By 1991, there will be another 3,000, of whom 600 will need constant care. That has major implications for the share of health resources that should be devoted to such an area and—as local authorities will be well aware—for housing policy and sheltered accommodation programmes.
  I am particularly concerned about the extent to which the characteristics of my constituency are not reflected in our share of health resources. That observation is relevant, because my area is generally regarded as fairly affluent yet many people are very poor. It is significant that one in three pensioners in my area receives supplementary benefit. I know that the figure is higher elsewhere, but that is still a considerable proportion. Of my constituents, one in 10 claims supplementary benefit, which is some indicator of the lower levels of income that they receive. For them, in particular, the provision of a good Health Service and of community medicine is important. They have nothing else to fall back on.
  In March 1982, I wrote to the chairman of the South-West Thames regional health authority. I subsequently had a meeting with him to express my grave concern about the serious underfunding of my district. That concern is shared by other districts with rural characteristics in the regional health authority area. We strongly believe that we are the poor cousins within our region and that we have suffered not only from the relatively low share-out of resources that the Thames regional health authorities have obtained, but from the distribution of resources within that authority.
  On the basis of the resource allocation working party formula—the system for allocating resources used by the Department—we are about 20 per cent. underfunded. Chichester health authority obtains 5 per cent. of the funds within our region, yet we have 10 per cent. of the population. Comparisons of staffing per head of population show that our staffing levels are by far the lowest in the region. Clearly, we are under a considerable strain in trying to provide facilities for a very far-flung community. We are currently underfunded by about £10 million in relation to the RAWP formula that is used for allocating money to the regions. That is a serious problem, not only because my constituency is treated as a poor cousin, but because, understandably, resources have been concentrated on areas of specialty in London.
  There comes a point at which one must question whether it is right to concentrate more and more money on maintaining highly sophisticated—admittedly much-needed—facilities in central London, when areas such as mine are grossly underfunded. Now that the regional health authorities have rightly been asked to make further efficiency savings, we hope that due account will be taken of the pressing problems in Chichester when deciding how those savings are to be borne by the districts involved.
  The problem of the elderly will not go away. Considerable resources are being mobilised to deal with the problem, but the implications for health policy have not been fully considered. Several hon. Members have criticised the Government's housing policy and have said that it is quite inadequate to meet the problem and to make up some of the differentials referred to in the report. However, I take issue with those remarks. The
  632
  Government are doing a great deal to improve the position—for example, in help with home improvements—and are encouraging local authorities to pay up. There is an open-ended commitment enabling people to apply for home improvements grants during this financial year. There is evidence that efforts are being made to tackle the problem.
  In the years to come, local authorities may have to do more in providing accommodation for the elderly. Greater stress must be laid on keeping people in their own homes for as long as possible, not only because that is what people want, but because it will prove to be, in practical, logistical terms, about the only way of dealing with the problem. The problems of a much older population will be serious and pressing and it is unsatisfactory solely to demand more of Government, with all the ensuing financial implications. We must also broadcast the implications of that change in the structure of our population. We should emphasise that community and voluntary care are essential if we are to deal with this and other social problems.
  The report is poor and inadequately presented, and it asked the wrong question at the beginning. Its thinly disguised vision of a Socialist nirvana and of a society of full equality is not only impractical but would have major and damaging consequences for public expenditure, which the Government are absolutely right roundly to reject.
  7 pm
  Mr. Mike Thomas: I hope that the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) will forgive me if I do not follow him precisely. I sympathise with the problem that he raised about the pressure of the London and other sophisticated institutions on the budgets of the regions containing those institutions. However, I suspect that the average facilities and health care available to his constituents still exceed those available to my constituents in Newcastle upon Tyne, East and to the constituents of other hon. Members.
  As I listened to the Secretary of State I was reminded of a nostrum by which I have tried to abide in politics—never wholly to believe what the statisticians tell me if all my personal experience, common sense and observations tell me something different. The Secretary of State was honest enough to concede that, despite the resources and cash that have been put into the National Health Service and the social services in the past three years, and indeed in the years since the NHS was founded, gross inequalities in the provision of health care persist throughout the nation. Despite the strictures of the hon. Member for Chichester, I submit that those serious inequalities require redress. One of the functions of the NHS, the Government and the State is to redress some of those inequalities. In a more reflective moment, with a little less perjorative polemic on his mind, the hon. Gentleman might agree with me about that.
  We know that the inequalities are still there. There is evidence that they have been getting worse rather than better in some areas, as the Secretary of State in his reply to my intervention was gracious enough to concede. There are inequalities of geography. It is wrong that where one lives—not just which part of the country, but which street and which neighbourhood—should determine the likelihood of one's dying in the first year of one's life or one's life expectancy. That is a powerful factor, brought out not just by Black, but by other research material.

  633
  We know that in the regions RAWP is an ineffective mechanism during a period of slow growth. It produces the problems that the hon. Member for Chichester described in areas where there is already above-average provision. It does not do much to redress the problems of the below-average regions.
  We know that differences relating to jobs, income and what might be called social class still persist. Those differences were outlined correctly by the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody). The unpopularity of the group into which one's illness falls is a powerful factor in the quality of the health care that one receives under the NHS. It is fatal to be in an unpopular state of ill health. The patient will find himself or herself in a long-stay institution where the provisions are rudimentary. Despite the best efforts of the staff, the patient will be less well cared for than if he were in an acute hospital with a dramatic condition.
  The essence of the Black report, which the two-party criss-cross which is part of the functioning of the House has obscured today, was that it presented to us the challenges of priorities and imagination that face us if we try to do something about the inequalities that Black, however imprecisely, managed to document for us. The Government have had little sense of priority or imagination. I shall give one or two examples.
  The Government have worthy objectives and have made worthy statements and issued worthy publications on community care. However, to take the simplest example, we know that in many areas there are now fewer home helps and less capacity to conduct proper community care because of the Government's approach to local government spending. It would be nice if the Minister would tell us in his reply, or in the Official Report, how many local authorities have more and how many have fewer home helps than in 1979. The Association of Directors of Social Services has told us repeatedly in reports that there have been cuts in those areas, despite the statistical three-card trick that the Government continually pull on us.
  When we consider the NHS today, common sense tells us that it is remarkable that the Government have managed to spend so much money and have so little impact on the volume and quality of service provided. I suspect that there is little to show for the money that has been spent. If we spent more time in the NHS measuring the output and a little less time measuring the input, we might have a better understanding of what has been achieved by the input of cash in real terms since the Government came to office.
  A classic example relates to the employment of nurses. Statistically the number of whole-time equivalent nurses may have gone up since the Government came to power, but I doubt whether the amount of nursing care that is available to patients has increased.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: It has.
  Mr. Thomas: Why do we not talk about that rather than the nonsensical statistics about whole-time equivalent nurses, which hide a number of other factors connected with the reduction in nurses' working hours and other matters? The figures do not relate to the amount of nursing care that is available to patients.
  The classic example of the irrelevance of the Government's approach lies in privatisation. We
  634
  constantly hear the Government say that there should be privatisation, private medicine and private health care—all hollow phrases. I do not believe that private health care should be banned. If people want to spend their post-tax income on private health care, they should be free to do so. We should not seek to prevent the facilities being provided for them to do so. However, the idea that that brings more resources to health care for the vast majority of people is utter rot. If the Secretary of State does not believe that, let him come to areas such as Newcastle upon Tyne and say how private health care is assisting people in the inner cities who are living in some of the most difficult circumstances, in some of the most inadequate housing and with some of the most severe problems of unemployment. None of the people in my constituency or in hundreds of others would benefit in any way from the extension of private health care. It would do nothing to redress inequality.
  The Labour Party's approach, personified in its motion, is perilously little better than the Government's approach. It is not right to give the impression to the House and the country that in some way a magic wand can be waved and the resources will be available to solve all the problems. Let us look at the list that was given today. The hon. Member for Crewe stated that 4 per cent. more would be spent on personal social services. She stated that the Labour Party wants to increase child benefit. We are in favour of increasing it and of keeping up its real value. The hon. Lady referred to the maternity allowance. Social security commitments were made, but the downside political cost was not mentioned. The Secretary of State referred to it and to who would be the losers if one were to make rearrangements on the lines suggested by the Social Democratic Party to attack poverty. We propose to move towards more benefits for children and families with children. We have quantified the situation precisely. We have said who the losers would be. We are prepared to state that honestly. The Secretary of State was right to criticise the Labour Party, which has studiously avoided doing so.
  We have said that if our proposals, which are only in "Green Paper" form at the moment, were to be implemented, people on one and a half or two times average earnings might pay in tax and national insurance contributions about £5 a week more in 1982 terms. That is the price that must be paid if we want to redistribute in favour of families with children and the poorest families.
  We shall have to consider the precise form in which we put our proposals to the electorate. We have made no secret of the downside cost of them. Such honesty to the electorate is extraordinarily important. All we know from the Labour Party is the increases in spending that it says it would make. We know none of the costs and none of the tax and public expenditure implications.
  The hon. Member for Crewe has committed her party to "massive"—and that was her word, not mine—increases in expenditure on health, education and housing. The other day I asked somebody to cost the proposals in Labour's programme and the first shot estimate, at 1981 prices, was £35 billion. That is a negation of the Black report approach. Black says that we should accept that one cannot by magic increase real expenditure. We must decide our priorities and have the courage and skill to deploy finances towards those priorities.

  635
  The Labour Party estimates that to take account of demographic change would require increased spending of 1 per cent. per annum. The Secretary of State today said it should be 1·2 per cent. I accept that. Abolishing charges—as the Labour Party proposes—would cost another £450 million. Labour's programme is not credible. It is dishonest to speak to the House and the country in such terms.
  Social Democrats want to be honest about cost and resources. Let us be honest about the motion. No Government, whether Conservative, Labour, Liberal, Social Democratic or Nationalist in the next Parliament will be able suddenly to undertake
  "a major and wide-ranging programme of public expenditure".
  The money will not be there, and it is wrong to kid people that it will.
  One can observe procedures working as they should not when people troop in and out of the official Opposition spokesmen's offices. We must be honest and say that priority given to one area means that less priority will be given to another. That is not the approach of the Labour Party. Any group or organisation, voluntary or not, will be told by the Front Bench that all is well and that everyone will win and have prizes. In the real world not everyone can win.
  The hon. Member for Chichester mentioned the dilemma of deciding how much money we spend on improving long-stay facilities and how much we spend on high-tech medicine—the most expensive and sophisticated part of the NHS. Such decisions are extraordinarily difficult. We have to be clear. My party wishes to tilt the balance away from high-tech towards proven procedures which improve the quality of life for many more people. But we do not pretend that it is possible to do both.
  Mr. Crouch: That is worthy, but does the hon. Gentleman realise what he is saying? He is saying that he would restrict renal dialysis and kidney transplant operations, for example. He is saying that he would restrict cardio-thoracic surgery, which means condemning people to an earlier death. Does he mean that? The public are beginning to accept that, because of advanced scientific achievement, life can be prolonged. Does the hon. Gemtleman mean to deny that? I understand his thinking, but he must be realistic.
  Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman knows from his extensive experience that already we have to make such decisions. Renal dialysis and heart and kidney transplants are already subject to political decision. The Secretary of State, in his unenviable seat, and his colleagues in the regional health authorities have to decide how many heart transplants can be afforded in a year. They have to decide how much dialysis can be afforded and how many kidney transplants can take place. That happens now. Such questions must be faced, not ducked, if we are to talk seriously about redistributing resources.
  The first priority of any incoming Government in 1983 or 1984 will be to reduce unemployment. Thank goodness that is a "win-win" game. We must regard employment generation and putting people back in work in the context of the great need for manpower in the caring services. That may be a cost-effective way to put people back in work.
  The home help service is a simple example. For relatively small sums we could recruit substantial numbers
  636
  of home helps and so improve for many the quality of life and their ability to stay in their own homes. I hope that women's liberationists will forgive me for mentioning another benefit. Home helps tend to be women, and that means that we could also increase the incomes of some of the poorest families. Often, if the husband is a low earner or unemployed, the ability of his wife to find a part-time job, in home helping for example, could make the difference between a family living on the bread line and having a reasonable existence and some budget flexibility. In that respect a number of priorities walk hand-in-hand, and we should look for more examples of this.
  The construction industry is experiencing grave economic problems. Putting money into rehabilitation projects—not just homes, but in some of the outdated buildings in the NHS—would be an ideal way of combining the priority of employment generation and improving health and social services.
  We must examine the capacity to make savings in other NHS areas. It is a terrible condemnation of the Government that they have not yet seen fit to publish the Greenfield report on more effective prescribing. That report recommended an extension of the practice, commonly used in NHS hospitals, of substituting the cheapest available variety of a drug for the brand name written on a prescription to general practice and community pharmacy. It is possible to do that. If it happened over a period, it would save us substantial sums.
  The Government cannot have it both ways. They constantly tell us that they want to save money on the drugs bill, but they refuse to do anything about it. It is no use falling back on the argument about the turnover of the pharmaceutical industry and its relationship with research. Nobody wants to inhibit genuine innovative research by the industry. But one cannot save money on drugs without the NHS spending less on drugs and therefore the pharmaceutical industry's income being less than it would otherwise be. If the Government do not seriously intend to save money on the drugs bill, they should say so. If they do not intend to save money that way, we must be clear that we shall probably spend 20 per cent.—£200 million to £300 million—a year more than we would otherwise have to spend.
  Apart from being honest about resources and costs, we must stop assuming that we must work from the top down when trying to redress inequality. One of the reasons for continuing inequalities in the Health Service and social services is that the administrative arrangements are inadequate. We are familiar with the problem in relation to urban aid. The RAWP formula is not dissimilar. When urban aid became part of the Government's administrative machinery, long discussions took place and, by the time that everyone had been squared, the redistribution almost did not happen. I recall that Barnsley suddenly found itself getting the least urban aid in the country while Bournemouth was getting the most per head of population.
  We are in dire danger of that happening again. That is why we propose an independent body running what we have called an employment and innovation fund, which would receive applications from below, judge them against criteria laid down by Parliament and make grants to health authorities, local authorities, voluntary and private organisations when such organisations made applications that met the criteria that had been laid down.
  There is a reason why some of the areas listed in the Black report stay at the bottom of the pecking order, and

  637
  that is in part related to administrative arrangements. We know that they have problems, but surely they would have tended to rise at least slightly up the scale in the absence of difficulties with the existing administration. We must also be prepared to experiment.
  Let us say that Age Concern has found a successful way to help certain categories of elderly person to stay in their homes in, for example, Chichester. Age Concern could apply for some funds for the purpose of undertaking an experiment to ascertain whether that approach would work in, for instance, Newcastle upon Tyne. We seem never to be prepared to do anything, unless we can do it for everyone. We never experiment. We never reorganise part of the NHS to see whether a new method will work before spreading the reorganisation to the rest of the Service. The reorganisation is always wholesale. The Conservative Party seems to engage in wholesale reorganisation every time that it comes into office. We must familiarise ourselves with local experiments. If they work, we can spread them. If they are unsuccessful, we can stop them. This will enable us to adopt a more flexible approach to problems. We must try to break some of the problems that have existed, despite everyone's best intentions, for the past 30 or 40 years.
  Lastly, we must put greater emphasis on prevention. The key to the overuse of the Health Service by children of blue collar workers and of the poorest groups in the community is their underuse of the preventive end of the Service, in so far as it exists, in the early part of their lives. For example, we are all aware of the real problems involved in getting proper antenatal care in some of the poorest areas of Britain and in getting people to use available services. The Black report's health action area proposals and take-up would be most valuable in trying to engender a greater awareness of the available services.
  It is ridiculous that we continue to allow the tobacco industry, which we know produces a product that is harmful to the health of almost everyone who uses it, to associate its products with sport, youth and glamour through sponsorship. We allow it to evade the ban on television advertising by having signs naming its products and even replicas of packets of its products at the back of every snooker hall, cricket ground and tennis court. The funds that the industry makes available could not be cut off at the drop of a hat. A method would have to be devised of replacing its funds with others over a period. The approach of successive Governments to prevention has been ambivalent. I cannot believe that, with the present Government, it is unconnected with the contributions of the companies concerned to the Conservative Party's election fund and running expenses.
  No one will solve any of these problems overnight, but we should try to do much better in tackling them. We should not kid the electors, as the Government do, that effective action is being taken. That is manifestly not right. However, we should not, as the Labour Party tries to pretend, believe that a change of Government and a massive influx of public expenditure would also solve the problem overnight. That will not happen either.
  The two-party battle tends to become more and more irrelevant to the real problem. The argument in the House becomes less and less an argument about realities. The only solution is to elect either a Government composed of Social Democrats and Liberals, or a group of Social
  638
  Democrats and Liberals large enough to prevent either of the two old parties from taking the position that it would like to adopt on its own.
  7.25 pm
  Sir Bernard Braine: Whatever view one, might take of the report that we are discussing, this is a useful debate, and one that we should have held before. There are indeed inequalities in the provision of health facilities between one area and another, and there have been since the inception of the National Health Service. It has been the business of successive Governments to try to reduce them and even them out. It should be the business of Governments to continue to do so.
  I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). I was unable to square his strictures with the fact, whatever the other failings of the Government may have been, that there has been an increase of 5½ per cent. in real terms in health expenditure and that there are more nurses and doctors in our hospitals than ever before. Of course, there are still not enough, but we must keep matters in perspective. I shall look forward, therefore, to hearing what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say in reply. The speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) was more to my taste. It seems that he at least has his feet on the ground.
  I intervene on one aspect which has been dear to my heart since I left the Ministry of Health some 18 years ago. The report that we are discussing correctly emphasises the need for the prevention of ill-health. In paragraph 8.88 it recommends
  "that national health goals should be established and stated by Government after wide consultation and debate. Measures that might encourage the desirable changes in people's diet, exercise and smoking and drinking behaviour should be agreed among relevant agencies."
  I agree.
  The House knows that for nine years I was the chairman of the National Council on Alcoholism. I have consistently advocated such a programme. Yet it has been largely ignored where alcohol education has been concerned and the problem of abuse has grown rather than diminished. I am sorry to say that there is a direct correlation between the level of consumption of alcohol and the volume of alcohol abuse. The consumption of alcohol has risen by one-third since 1971.
  In official quarters it is now believed that there are about 750,000 people in Britain who have a serious drinking problem and need help. If one adds to that figure their spouses and children, the probability is that one in 15 of the population is experiencing the true cost of alcohol excess. Pressure upon our health services, as a consequence, is becoming intolerable. In the past 10 years admissions to NHS hospitals for the treatment of alcoholism have doubled, deaths from alcoholism have trebled and deaths from liver cirrhosis have increased by a third. What is significant is that more women are requiring treatment and children are becoming increasingly affected.
  We have had warning after warning on this subject. The Royal College of Psychiatrists in a notable report a few years ago stated:
  "Society is in many ways trying to have its pleasure, deny its responsibilities and hand the problem over to the courts or the

  639
  caring agencies. We believe that an undoubted message for the future is that prevention has to be strengthened and that this will eventually mean all of us drinking somewhat less."
  It warned against any weakening of licensing law and any proliferation of outlets for the dispensing of alcohol. How many more agencies have to issue similar warnings before Government, Parliament and responsible bodies take note? The Government's own advisory committee on alcohol included among its strategies the recommendation that:
  "Legal restrictions on the availability of alcohol should be reinforced vigorously and should not be changed until there is sufficient evidence to do so without causing increased harm."
  The Government's Think Tank said exactly the same and its report was suppressed.
  It is ironic that those who call for a relaxation of our drinking laws often cite what they describe as the civilised drinking of the French. That belief has even been advocated in this House. During the past 20 years successive French Governments have attempted to introduce more stringent controls. The present position in France shows the magnitude of the damage which can be caused by alcohol when there is insufficient control. Consider the facts: 40 per cent. of the deaths on the road are alcohol-related compared with 20 per cent. so far in Britain; deaths from cirrhosis of the liver are 10 per cent. greater than in Britain; half of all general hospital beds are occupied by patients with alcohol-related illnesses and 40 per cent of the expenditure on health care is for the treatment of such illnesses.
  One does not have to look into the crystal ball to see what is likely to happen when one consults such a record. We are on the same road. No doubt we shall be told that the Minister has sought to influence public opinion by the publication of his discussion document on prevention and health called "Drinking Sensibly". It is a useful document. It says:
  "The consequences of alcohol misuse for the individual include accidents of all kinds, long-term ill health, damaged family life, social isolation, loss of career and job prospects, violence and crime."
  If we wanted to find a common denominator between road accidents, the filling of hospital beds, marital breakup, non-accidental injury to children, assaults on children, and crime generally, the police and magistrates would tell us that it is alcohol misuse. The social cost is immeasurable.
  The warnings in the Government's pamphlet are not misplaced. It tells us that programmes to help widen understanding among the general public of the health risks of alcohol misuse are important to any emerging strategy. It calls for continued recognition by Parliament and Government of the fact that health and social implications should be among the factors taken into account when any action affecting consumption of alcoholic drinks is under consideration.
  Thus, the Government appear to take seriously the implications of alcohol misuse, but I find a complete contradiction between their words and their actions. During the past 10 years the licensing laws have been progressively weakened. Magistrates now grant licences virtually at the drop of a hat. We have allowed drink to be purchased in supermarkets at whatever hours they choose to be open. The latest development is that of the Unigate company, which brings milk to the doorstep, and
  640
  which is now experimenting with the selling of wine on the doorstep. It seeks to become an agent of the drink trade.
  I asked the Home Secretary whether the Home Office had been consulted about the experimental sale of alcohol by milk roundsmen in certain areas of Essex and other counties in the South-East; the possible legal implications, and whether any approval had been given to such a scheme. The answer was:
  "The company has not consulted the Home Office about the legality of the scheme, which we have no power to approve or disapprove. It has provided the Department with only limited details of it. The responsibility for enforcing the law falls on the police."—[Official Report, 1 December 1982; Vol. 33, c. 196.]
  We are talking here about prevention, yet the Home Office, which is responsible for the licensing laws, has been presiding over the steady weakening of such laws and washing its hands of developments which may have dire consequences for a problem that the Department of Health and Social Security sees of major importance.
  Mr. Tom Benyon: I understand my hon. Friend to be saying that the fact that magistrates are not tough enough when dishing out licences bears some relation to drink abuse. How does my hon. Friend account for the fact that in Sweden, where advertising and dispensing of alcohol are more restricted, the problems of drink abuse are much worse per capita than in this country?
  Sir Bernard Braine: It is controversial whether advertising has any impact on the problem. Sweden is a bad example. If one looks at this country's drink abuse problems in relation to those of other countries, one sees that we are well down the league table. France, Germany, Russia and Scandinavia are well ahead. We should learn from that.
  Between the two wars we were regarded as being one of the most sober nations on earth, whereas before 1914 we had the reputation of being heavy drinkers. The improvement was due to our model licensing laws. It is only during the past 10 years or so that we have deliberately started to weaken them. It has been the policy of successive Governments not to intervene. The Minister knows the consequences: increased pressure on hospital beds, increased abuse and complaints by teachers of children engaged in under-age drinking coming back to school in the afternoon the worse for drink; more deaths on the road. Many hon. Members know the facts. They are no laughing matter. Drink abuse is one of the most serious social problems facing our country. It is not good enough for the Department of Health and Social Security to issue documents such as "Drinking Sensibly", impeccable in its argument and unchallengeable in its facts, when it is the policy of other Departments, and the country's attitude, to be utterly indifferent to the consequences.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he does not believe that the advertising of the product has any effect upon its sales? Surely the reason we want a severe ban on the advertising of cigarettes except at the point of sale is that we know that it will have a great effect. Why does he think that that is not true of alcohol?
  Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Lady misunderstands me. Perhaps I did not make myself clear. My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) was seeking to get me to admit that advertising did not have a great

  641
  influence, using the example of the Swedish experience. I believe that liquor advertising should be banned, but I did not see how his intervention helped the argument.
  The Royal College of Psychiatrists has already warned us, in a most sensible and frightening report, that either we control alcohol or it will control us; that we are reaching a stage where there will be severe health damage. In the light of the French experience, we should draw back; the time is now. The Government cannot, by themselves, change people's drinking habits, but they can ensure that the facts are laid before them. Children should be taught the facts about alcohol in school and teachers must be made aware of the problem. Magistrates should not grant licences ad lib. We need more than the publication of documents. The Government should give a positive lead and condemn the way in which our defences against alcohol abuse are being progressively lowered.
  7.41 pm
  Mr. Stan Thorne: The length of the last speech may be due to the fact that less than 2 per cent. of the Conservative Party is in the Chamber. That has been true almost throughout the debate. More than 2 per cent. of the Labour Party is in the Chamber. The Conservatives are prepared to filibuster on a subject that is extremely important to the majority of the British people.
  The Black report conclusively shows that disease is a class issue. Data on social class first published following the 1911 census drew attention to the problem. Even before that Professor Benjamin Moore wrote about the prevalence of a disease called chlorosis, which is a form of anaemia and is, happily, no longer seen. Domestic servants, shop girls and other indoor female workers were particularly prone to the disease.
  A lecture by Sir John Brotherston, the chief medical officer for Scotland, in 1976 gave prominence to the class incidence of disease. He underlined evidence that the gap between the incidence of disease in social classes I and V might have been widening compared with a generation ago, and the finding was confirmed by the Black report.
  It may be said that the report revealed nothing new, but it presented its evidence in a challenging and telling form:
  "Recent data show … at birth and in the first month of life twice as many babies of unskilled manual parents (class V) die as do babies pf professional class parents (class I) … a class gradient can be observed for most causes of death, being particularly steep in the case of diseases of the respiratory system. Available data on chronic sickness tend to parallel those on mortality."
  The report concluded that
  "much of the evidence on social inequalities in health can be adequately understood in terms of specific features of the socio-economic environment; features (such as work accidents, overcrowding, cigarette smoking) which are strongly class related in Britain."
  The conclusions merely update Benjamin Moore's observations over 70 years ago.
  The thrust of the Black report is clear: material deprivation is a significant factor in differing disease rate. The health of a foetus, birth deficiencies, death from chest diseases and from accidents are all class related. Some poor people may live in Chichester. In my constituency many are forced to live in high-rise flats in Avenham and St John's, or in bad housing in Preston, North. For many Lancashire working-class people, material deprivation lasts through life. The report uses statistics derived from
  642
  one part of Lancashire. The present Government and past Governments have urged people to look after their health, but they are not given the means to do so.
  At Question Time recently the £11 million given by the tobacco manufacturers was referred to. It may have been by this Minister. The money was conditional on its not being used for anti-smoking propaganda. What a commentary on the morality of our capitalist system! The sooner that we have a total ban on cigarette advertising the better will be the prospects for good health, particularly among the young. I am so convinced of that that I recently gave up the habit and have suffered no adverse consequences, hon. Members will be sorry to hear.
  The situation revealed by the Black report has considerably worsened since the Government came to power. Cash limits and local authority services cuts as a result of the reduced block grant mean that many more people on unemployment or supplementary benefit, and one-parent families trying to care for two or three children on the fourteenth floor of a block of flats, are likely to suffer ill health. The problem is concentrated in certain areas and is considerably exacerbated by the Government's performance.
  Arising from the doubling of unemployment in the Preston area and for the historical reasons shown in some of the geographical area investigations, the report shows that material deprivation has escalated. One of the major recommendations of the Black report is action to eliminate child poverty. I welcome the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody). I only hope that when Labour is returned to power—as it will be next year—we shall fully grasp some of the remedies that she suggested. They are unlikely to emerge from the present Government.
  Labour must recognise the real urgency that will exist when it takes office next year. It must be prepared for the pressure that will be imposed by the privilege who are anxious to protect their economic interests. Just as the Prime Minister has refused to be moved from her policies that are designed to extend the life of capitalism, so must Labour adopt an equally ruthless approach in the interests of working-class people, which includes the 5 million unemployed.
  There should be no doubt that Labour will have to take forceful action to attack poverty. Local authority services are especially relevant in that context. Many hon. Members have described the areas in which we are failing miserably to provide adequate services. Only a real Socialist programme of a planned economy, with a shift in motives and values from private profit to public use, can achieve a major change in poverty and health in Britain. It is towards that goal that the next Labour Government must work.
  7.52 pm
  Mr. Tom Benyon: The debate opened in the traditional way. The Opposition gave us the impression that if only they were in power they would implement the entire Black report in a short time. I have yet to see any evidence to suggest that they could do any better than the Conservative Party, if only because of the considerable difficulty that even they would have in finding the wherewithal to do it. I wonder whether they would hack away at the hospital building programme and other capital programmes that we, as a Government, are now embarking on, to find the additional money.

  643
  Several Opposition speeches inveighed against the Government's lack of progress in implementing the report. One of the principal reasons why we have not made faster progress is entirely to do with the Opposition. They have backed the debilitating health dispute. That dispute has diverted the Government from constructive work to ensure that the pounds that are spent on the Health Service go on health care, dealing with the problems of the aged and implementing the programme outlined in the report. If there has been delay and if we have had difficulties in implementing the report, the Opposition are partly responsible. They have backed the incredibly time-wasting and debilitating health dispute that the country has suffered unnecessarily for almost the whole of 1982. The amount of political energy that has been wasted on that entirely unnecessary dispute is to a large extent the Opposition's responsibility—the same Opposition who are crowding the Chamber.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose—
  Mr. Benyon: I should like to get stuck in a bit more. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I get a little more into the swing of things. The Labour Party backed the strike with the same enthusiasm as it backs every strike. Perhaps when I allow the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) to intervene with his characteristic persuasiveness, he would like to tell me what strikes the Labour Party has not supported. Perhaps he would like to do that now.
  Mr. Bennett: I wanted to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is convinced that health workers are getting an adequate sum of money or whether they should get a little more. I should have thought that if he studied the jobs that were being done by many people in the Health Service, he would not be prepared to do them for the money that they receive. What is more, I suspect that he would be only too willing to go on strike for more. Most strikes are justified and most people do not like giving up their money. They like to receive their income. It is extremely difficult to persuade people to go on strike. They usually do so only if they are provoked.
  Mr. Benyon: Although I find the hon. Gentleman's intervention of considerable interest, I believe that the health workers as a group are the greatest beneficiaries of the lower levels of inflation that we are currently enjoying. I also think that if the Government's cash limits were smashed down—that is the intention of both the Labour Party and the trade union movement—the people who would suffer most would be the health workers, whom the party of which the hon. Gentleman is a member and the trade union movement purport to support. I thought that the way in which the miners backed the health workers for a 12 per cent. increase yet wanted a 32 per cent. increase themselves was extremely cynical. If they really believed that they could persuade the sensible people in my constituency that they were sincere in that backing, they set about in a peculiar way.
  Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Stockport, North could not name one strike that the Labour Party has not backed. Its popularity is so low that it hoped to win some support by climbing on the bandwagon of sympathy for the nurses and the other health workers. We hear many dream
  644
  policies from the Opposition. Trying to obtain a coherent spending policy or any words of financial confidence is as difficult as trying to nail a jelly upon the ceiling. We have been diverted by the dispute from the problems that are encapsulated in this excellent report.
  As we have been operating against a background of a substantial recession, the Government's record is one to be reasonably content with, although a great deal of progress remains to be made. I am pleased that there is increased spending in the joint finance programme to the extent of 35 per cent. I am also pleased to see that there has been progress with regard to reducing infant mortality. Another relatively small but nevertheless important point is the extension of the distribution of maternity grant to the 16-year-olds, the unmarrieds, the wives of prisoners and students.
  Much has rightly been said about the need to spend more money and time on preventive medicine. The amount of money that is wasted on, and caused by, smoking, drinking, lack of exercise and eating unsuitable foods is a major contributing factor to the problems of ill-health in Britain. As far as I am able, I would like, with a great deal of humility, to make a original suggestions about how we might make a small contribution to improving the health of the nation and persuading the young not to smoke. First, it would be a good thing if the doctors could also take upon themselves the role of educating the patients who go to their surgeries. They are in the best possible position to explain to their client the dangers of lack of exercise, excessive alcohol consumption, smoking and eating nothing but crisps, tomato ketchup and more crisps. When doctors see their clients, they should perhaps give some unsolicited advice.
  Why cannot we persuade British Rail to have carriages called "Smokers"? At present, British Rail has "No smoking" carriages which give the impression that the status quo is to smoke. People who wish to emit disgusting smells can then do so in a carriage marked "Smoker", which will give the rest of the population the correct impression that no smoking is the norm and the status quo. That may seem a small point, but at least it is constructive and original. In addition, it would cost nothing and I believe that it might even persuade the young and susceptible that no smoking is the norm. That would be a small step forward.
  I should also like to see a tightening up on cigarette advertising. I believe that if adults wish to smoke, it is none of my business to try to stop them and, indeed, that I would be wasting my time were I to do so. I am also worried about attempts to snuff out all our national vices, because I am convinced that if we stop one, another, probably more harmful, vice will manifest itself.
  On the other hand, I am against the young being deluded into smoking or drinking by mendacious advertising which suggests that somehow smoking and drinking is glamorous, enables people to get jobs and attract the opposite sex. More effort, particularly with regard to liquor advertising, is called for.
  I also hope that the Government will encourage the purchase or production of a product called Nicorette—a nicotine-flavoured chewing gum whose success in the prevention of smoking has been remarkable. Currently, doctors are not allowed to prescribe Nicorette, and only private patients are able to avail themselves of its beneficial effects. Such people are broadly in socio-economic groups A, B and C plus, and I doubt whether

  645
  they benefit most of all from Nicorette. The ones for whom I am concerned are in socio-economic groups E, F and G. Given a wider audience, I believe that Nicorette would have a beneficial effect.
  I also agree with hon. Members who have spoke against alcohol abuse. We can overdo our anxieties about cigarette abuse, although we should strive substantially to reduce the incidence of smoking. On the other hand, alcohol abuse is much more serious. I have yet to hear of anyone beat his wife, fall downstairs, smash up cars, kill people in motor accidents or commit child battering because of smoking, but I have heard all those stories about alcohol abuse.
  I have also read the DHSS pamphlet, and I am aware that when a Government are concerned about something they produce a book on the subject. At the end of their foreword, the four Secretaries of State optimistically state:
  "We hope that the booklet will be widely read and discussed."
  With the title "Drinking Sensibly", with such an author as the DHSS, and at a price of £2·95, post extra, I am sure that booklet No. ISBN O 11 will be the toast of the saloon bars up and down the country.
  This exciting booklet could perhaps be the first of a series. Propriety stops me imagining what the title of the next booklet might be. However, there is a fundamental flaw in this publication. I am sure that it is a serious attempt to get at the root causes of alcohol abuse, but it fails to mention the incidence of unemployment which I regard as one of the most important reasons for alcohol abuse. I cannot imagine how such an omission can be made in what is reported to be a serious production.
  To talk about the problems of drink without talking about the problems of unemployment is like talking about the problems of hunger without referring to the absence of food. If anyone wants to know why people drink so much, he can do no better than watch a video of that excellent television programme "The Boys from the Black Stuff' which encapsulated more of the despair and misery faced by the unemployed than anything contained in the DHSS booklet.
  I should like to suggest some practical steps that the Government could take to improve the welfare of those in severe distress. They should seriously consider the removal of VAT from charities, many of which are trying to battle with the enormous problems which are outlined in the Black report and with which the DHSS cannot cope.
  I should also like the Government to increase the grants to many of the voluntary agencies. All of them do superb work. I mention in particular the charity New Horizon, the creation of Lord Longford, who has worked tirelessly and long in the maintenance in New Horizon, which looks after the young and dispossessed in central London. Many of those young people are victims of drug and drink abuse. Other agencies, such as Centrepoint and Girls Alone in London, all come under the umbrella of the West End Co-ordinating Voluntary Services Group which was doing sterling work long before Ken Livingstone and his excesses at county hall. The Government should consider more generous provision for those agencies. As the problems of unemployment and drug and drink abuse mount, the pressure on our voluntary agencies becomes tougher. I pay public tribute to the people who work in those agencies. The Government have done much, but I hope that they will again look at the budgets of those
  646
  organisations, read their reports, realise how much their work loads and client lists have increased, and do what they can to ease the position as fast as possible.
  There are ways of helping to implement parts of the Black report which the Government cannot afford at present. One such way is to release more cash within the present NHS structure, which I believe to be enormously wasteful. The Government should look again at the possibilities of privatising the NHS cleaning and catering services. Why cannot that be done? Is it yet another step in what has been called "manic Thatcherite monetarism" that we must abide by cash limits to such an extent that we must start dismantling the NHS? Will such emotive phrases flow around this Chamber? That would be a tragedy. In the Socialist paradise of Sweden and other Scandinavian countries, cleaning and catering services have been privatised and are run far more efficiently than ours. As we examine ways of saving money, we can improve patient care and implement more of an excellent report. We must examine ways of streamlining services and reducing waste as far as possible.
  One thing that we must not do is to give the impression to the loyal and excellent administrative and auxiliary staff in the NHS—the argument can be widened to the entire Civil Service—that, in our search for economies, they are at fault because they are working in inefficient structures. In Oxfordshire, many of those who work in the Health Service and many civil servants, who do an excellent job, believe—the Government did not intend them to get this impression but none the less they have received it—that because they work in a structure that does not enable them to give of their best, it is their fault. The Government should take steps to ensure that those people, who give loyally of their time, do not believe that we are blaming them for the waste problems in the public sector. It would be a great injustice to do so and it would also be electoral folly, because many of them voted Conservative at the general election and must do so again if—as I am sure we shall—we are to remain in office. We must be extremely careful how we tackle waste problems.
  When we have solved, or come near to solving, some of the waste problems in the social services, I hope that some of the money that will be released will go to improving the lot of many who are seriously socially deprived because of the severe economic problems that they face. Some of the elderly—certainly some people in Oxfordshire—are immensely short of money and live incredibly frugal lives. The lives of many of those people would be made much happier and healthier if they had more money to spend on warmth and proper food. Part of preventive medicine should ensure that those who live on tiny incomes have the wherewithal to supply themselves with warmth and food so that they do not finish up in hospital.
  Some war widows in my constituency and elsewhere, who are over the age of 80, do not receive State retirement pensions. There were 5,300 such people recorded on 18 September 1981. It is incredibly sad to see such ladies, whose husbands have given their lives to the service of this country, being completely neglected by successive Governments since the War. Such people are not in a position to lobby me or any Member of the House. They cannot march into our Lobby and protest. How disgraceful it is that they have been completely forgotten. Yet they have been forgotten.

  647
  It would cost about £2 billion to eradicate all the health inequalities, but, instead of begging for the moon, we should consider that it would cost only—I have more respect for these figures than for some that we bandy about the House with such gay abandon—£5·4 million a year to pay a full annual pension to the war widows. The money spent would be a reducing commitment for the Government who decided to pay it. It could be used to provide an age allowance of approximately £140 at the age of 75 and double the sum at the age of 80. If the Government decide to do that, it will strike a chord in hon. Members on both sides of the House and no one will believe that the Government have not done an excellent job.
  8.14 pm
  Mr. Gareth Wardell: The report "Inequalities in Health" was published in 1980. In the same year the Social Services Committee published its second report "Perinatal and Neonatal Mortality", paragraph 102 of which states:
  "We were extremely concerned to hear repeatedly from witnesses that mothers with high-risk pregnancies, and seriously ill infants, were being turned away from neonatal intensive care units and associated maternity hospitals because these units were full."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) referred to an article in The Guardian last Friday. It stated:
  "Up to 6,000 premature babies are likely to be deprived of the intensive care they need next year because of the shortage of hospital facilities."
  That article also contains a description of the charity Baby Life Support Systems—BLISS—receiving appeals for help from 55 hospitals because they have been forced to turn away babies.
  Already 22 hospitals have been identified as having insufficient funds to look after the children that have been admitted. One such hospital is Morriston hospital in West Glamorgan, just over the border from my constituency. Yet on 29 November, in answer to my question about which centres that provide perinatal and neonatal care do not provide intensive care facilities, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales said:
  "Each special care baby unit in Wales provides some degree of intensive care facilities."—[Official Report, 29 November 1982; Vol. 32, c. 50.]
  If the information in The Guardian is accurate,
  "some degree of intensive care facilities"
  at Morriston hospital, at the very minimum, leaves a great deal to be desired.
  The serious growth of long-term unemployment also affects health. I shall refer especially to West Glamorgan. Since the publication of the Black report, the rate of increase between October 1979 and October 1982 in the number of persons registered as unemployed for more than 52 weeks was 280·6 per cent.—the fastest rate of growth of any Welsh county. In the Gorseinon unemployment office area, 19·8 per cent. of persons registered as unemployed had been unemployed for more than 52 weeks in October 1979, but the figure rose to a staggering 38·5 per cent. in October 1982. The figures for the Pontardawe employment office area were 22·3 per cent. and 38·4 per cent. respectively.
  648
  The Manpower Services Commission paper of October 1982, entitled "Long-Term Unemployed", states on page 8:
  "There is some evidence that long-term unemployment has indirect effects on health, particularly mental health and psychosomatic complaints and that the health of the dependants, particularly wives, may suffer as much or more than that of the long-term unemployed individual."
  The report of 10 May 1982 by the House of Lords Select Committee on Unemployment states on page 56:
  "When visiting Northern Ireland, the Committee were given evidence suggesting that rates of infant mortality, which are higher there than the rest of the UK anyway, became higher still in unemployed families, perhaps because of low nutrition resulting from loss of income."
  The Black report highlighted the difference in the infant mortality rate between socioeconomic groups. In West Glamorgan in 1979–80 the infant mortality rate in socioeconomic group I was 7·2. In group V it was 18·8.
  I view with trepidation the future gap in infant mortality rates consequent upon the health effects of the scourge of long-term unemployment that we are now experiencing. If the work of Professor Dugald Baird, the distinguished professor of obstetrics at Aberdeen university, is taken to heart, we should be even more worried about what will happen when the girls now being born themselves give birth in 16, 17 or 18 years' time
  We have heard very little today about the Black report's prescription for an anti-poverty strategy. That is now more urgent than ever, given the scale of long-term unemployment.
  A key statement—perhaps the key statement—in the Black report appears on page 302. It is that
  "we believe that pride of place in a comprehensive anti-poverty strategy must be given to the greater equalisation of wealth and of other resources".
  In a parliamentary reply to me on 2 December the Secretary of State for Wales gave the distribution of gross weekly earnings for male workers over the age of 21 years in full-time work in the Principality. According to his reply, 9·5 per cent. of males earned less than £80 per week and 28·5 per cent. earned more than £150 per week. In West Glamorgan in 1979–80 the perinatal mortality for socio-economic group I was 7·2. For group V it was 27·1.
  In paragraph 20 of the Government's reply to the second report of the Select Committee on Social Services on perinatal and neonatal mortality, referring specifically to the perinatal mortality rate, this crucial statement appears:
  "The Committee made it clear that they saw the greatest scope for improvement in the elimination of regional and social class variations. The Government agree."
  As the Government agree with the need to eliminate social class variations in order to reduce the perinatal mortality rate, perhaps the delay will end when the Minister replies to today's debate. We hope that he will give notice of the Government's intention to apply the central message of the Black report by launching a massive programme to achieve greater equalisation of wealth and other resources. I am sure that the people of Britain will benefit tremendously as a consequence.
  8.25 pm
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell). I agree with everything that he said, especially his analysis of the economic causes of health and social inequalities. I was also pleased to hear a Conservative—the hon. Member for

  649
  Abingdon (Mr. Benyon)—stress unemployment as a cause of alcohol abuse. I certainly endorse all that has been said about that and press the Government for action. It is clearly unacceptable to hon. Members on both sides that major reports on these matters should be suppressed or not properly published. The Government should respond adequately to the demands of hon. Members on both sides of the House and take further the campaign initiated in "Drinking Sensibly".
  Inequalities are increasingly to be seen both in the health care needs of the population and in the resources made available to meet those needs. There are geographical and spatial inequalities between the relatively deprived rural and inner city areas and the rather better endowed surburban areas. There are also class, income and educational inequalities, from which further cultural inequalities arise. Conservative Members persist in saying that they are not in the business of creating inequality, but inequality reproduces itself. Indeed, a thesis of a leading intellectual light of the Conservative Party—the Secretary of State for Education and Science—is the so-called deprivation cycle. Although I do not subscribe to his particular version of that cycle, I believe that inequalities are being reproduced through economic and social policies that are inadequate to meet the needs of the population.
  The importance of the Black report lies in the fact that it dealt with social policy not in isolation as a client-based policy relating to a particular section of the population, but as a subject closely linked with the economic context in which social policy is paid for. Indeed, the expenditure-led policy—or rather, the cuts-led policy—of the Conservative Government has shown how dependent social policy is on the economic context in which it operates.
  I wish to stress the regional and national disparities within Britain that emerge clearly from the data set out in the report. I draw attention to the data on mortality rates in the various regions and nations of the United Kingdom. Paragraph 2.4 points out that there have been historical changes in the regions, and says:
  "Using mortality as an indicator of health the healthiest part of Britain appears to be the southern belt (below a line drawn across the country from the Wash to the Bristol Channel)."
  That part of Britain was not always an area of low mortality. In the middle of the nineteenth century there were comparatively high death rates in the South East of England while nations, such as Wales, and regions, such as the north of England, had a better health profile. Over the years the position has changed. Indeed, it has reversed itself. Natural factors do not determine mortality as an indicator of health. Social, industrial and occupational factors create the inequalities in the standardised mortality ratios for each part of the United Kingdom.
  The figures of 117 for Wales I and 113 for Wales II are particularly appalling. One of the reasons for the theme figures is the incidence of extractive occupations, heavy industry and metal working in Wales. Studies made by the Welsh Office and medical sociologists show the contribution made by employment in heavy industries to the incidence of mortality and ill health in Wales.
  What concerns me about the figures is the absence of analysis which would enable us to determine precisely the causal links between class and health. Conservative Members have stressed in interventions that too often in the Black report there is a demand for reliable statistics,
  650
  but it is clear that, without reliable statistics, it is not possible to monitor the effects of policy. We do not have reliable statistics which link the need for medical treatment with the social or occupational class of the patient. Neither do we have that information available in the health and personal social services statistics. Indeed, the Welsh data are even less reliable than the English data.
  As we do not have reliable data, we are not always able to pinpoint the changes that take place over a period and the link between the causes of ill health and lack of health provision and the class make-up of our society. We are not able to examine how the NHS has acted as an agent of equality or inequality in contemporary Britain. We are not able to evaluate the changes that have taken place, because of the lack of official statistics of the rate of outcome of medical therapy by occupation or social class of the patient. Until we have such data, we shall be unable to examine the implications of the NHS as an agency for greater health equality.
  Taking the basic indicator used by Black and RAWP, which I have outlined tonight, mortality rises inversely with the falling occupational rank or status of both sexes and at all ages. For the first month of life, twice as many babies of unskilled parents die as babies of professional parents. In the next 11 months of life four times as many girls and five times as many boys die. Those who have been or are currently the parents of young children must be moved by such statistics because in our personal and family lives we always seek to do the best we can for our children. However, we realise that we are bringing up children in a society where class divisions make the life chances of other people's children worse than our own. The inequalities continue from the cradle to the grave.
  Inequalities of the division of labour within society are causes of greater ill health among working-class people, many of whom are involved in hard physical labour. Unemployment and job insecurity result in an inability to prepare for old age. Old age is a time when lack of resources affects health more directly than at any other part of the life cycle.
  Two years ago, a DHSS report estimated 7 per cent. malnutrition among a sample of elderly people. I suspect that, with the more harsh operation of DHSS rules on supplementary benefit and exceptional needs and so on, that figure will have increased. The relatively wealthy. the upper middle class, are better able, having had a stable job pattern, to prepare for retirement through their index-linked pensions. They are able to have a relatively healthy retirement or old age, whereas people who have not had those advantages during the work cycle suffer and often do not have very good health in old age or retirement.
  Throughout the life cycle there are clear indications of deep inequalities, and they are getting worse. One of the most disturbing sections of the report is the analysis of the trends of inequalities. Not only are we starting from the base of a class-divided society in terms of the level of health and the provision of care, but there is a progressive deterioration. There has been a lack of improvement. Indeed, there has been a real deterioration in the health experience not only of class V but of class IV relative to class I, judged by mortality indicators during the 1960s and the early 1970s. I shall not detail that information. It is available for hon. Members who want to consider it.
  The mortality rates for males are higher at every age than those for females, and in recent decades sex differences have become relatively greater. For men of

  651
  economically active age there is greater inequality between classes I and V in the 1970s than there was in the 1950s and the late 1940s.
  We are witnessing a deterioration and a widening of the class gap in our society. Conservative Members who attack Opposition Members' experience of a class—divided society should read the statistics and realise that in some senses—in terms of health care, education policy and so on—we are becoming more of a class—divided society. When the statistics for the period of the Conservative Government are published, it will be seen that class divisions have sharpened. It will also be seen that regional and national divisions have sharpened.
  I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of State for Wales in his place, because one of the most disturbing statistics is that life expectancy in Wales is not improving relative to Great Britain as it is in Scotland. Throughout the 1970s, in Wales the life expectancy at birth increased by 0·6 years, in Scotland by 0·9 years, and in England by 1·2 years.
  We need from the Welsh Office a study of the reasons for the far higher level of mortality and morbidity in Wales. We also need a specific study of why life expectancy in Wales is not improving, and why the gap in life expectancy between England and Wales is increasing. We need, in effect, a study by the Welsh Office in similar terms to the Black report, so that we may know the reasons for the inequality of provision between Wales and the rest of Britain, and for the inequalities within Wales.
  It is essential to look not only at the definitions of health need but at the way in which health care is delivered. This is an aspect of inequality which has always concerned those who represent regions or areas of relative deprivation, whether inner city or rural. The use-need ratio in terms of social groups and also in terms of regions and localities aggravates the situation. This is the inverse care law to which the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred specifically in opening the debate.
  One aspect of the problem has been set out by Cartwright and O'Brien in their paper on social class variation in health care. Some hon. Members have suggested that there are no general practitioners or health care personnel who differentiate in favour of middle-class patients, but the evidence seems to be otherwise.
  Studies of the way in which patients are treated show that middle-class patients tend to have longer consultations than working-class patients. More problems are discussed with middle-class patients. In the study, general practitioners were shown to know more about the background of their middle-class patients. They had more information from them and communicated more information to them. Although working-class patients tended to have spent a longer time within the practice, doctors seemed to know far more about the middle-class patients. Even at the point of receiving care, it seems that there is an imbalance in the distribution and availability of the service.
  As in other aspects of education and social policy, middle-class parents tend to make better use of the National Health Service than working-class people. There is a need to examine the manner in which these services operate at the point of delivery. Many hon. Members will have talked to clients of the social and the health services
  652
  who have experienced difficulty in relating to the professions. They often feel that there is a professional domination of the client. It is necessary to see how the services can be made more democratic at the point of delivery so that people do not feel inhibited by the presence of professionals, whether social workers or doctors.
  I have already referred to trends showing a greater and widening degree of inequality in various areas. One of the most disturbing figures is that for infant mortality. The Government rightly state that there has been some improvement in infant mortality rates, although the Black report stresses that in this area Britain lags behind. In Wales, the position is becoming worse. I see that the Welsh Office Minister is already consulting about this matter.
  Statistics issued by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on 23 November show a higher number of deaths among children before the age of one in Wales. The figure was 12·6 per thousand for Wales and 10·9 per thousand for England. The figures for Clwyd and Gwent are particularly distressing at 16·5 per thousand and 15·2 per thousand, respectively. The Welsh Office should use its equivalent of the Black study to explain why the figures for Gwent and Clwyd are among the highest in Britain.
  There is a need also to initiate health education campaigns. The appalling incidence of heart disease in Wales make it one of the worst areas in Britain in this respect. I echo what was said in relation to Scotland by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). The Welsh Office should take a more active campaigning role in health education in Wales.
  There is a need especially to examine child development. It is crucial that the Black report's recommendations on school health statistics should be carried out by the Department of Health and Social Security and the Welsh Office. On such matters as the measurement of height and weight, there is a need for clear class-based distinctions to be assessed if we are to tackle inequality. There should also be more effective research into the routine collection and reporting of accidents among children. It is necessary to ensure that the priorities set out for the school health services and child care should be implemented.
  The Government's failure to come to terms with the recommendations made in the Black report and by the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts on school meals must be stressed. I was disgusted by the response to the unanimous Select Committee recommendation that basic nutritional standards should be assessed by a working party. The Government threw out that idea. In an inadequate response, they suggested that, even if there were recommended standards, it could not be guaranteed that pupils would eat the food prescribed and that previous experience of national standards showed that most of the food provided was wasted. Paragraph 954 of the Black report states:
  "School meals are intended to provide about one third of the daily allowance of nutrients and energy for a child."
  The ham sandwiches offered in Leicestershire and elsewhere provide barely one-sixth, let alone one-third, of the daily allowance of nutrients. Therefore, it is essential to consider the report's recommendations on free school meals. We should revive that campaign.

  653
  In addition, we should stress the need for day care for pre-school children. It is at that age that we can intervene most effectively to put right the gross inequalities that are still being encountered in our society.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The House is indebted to Sir Douglas Black and his committee for the report. I am particularly indebted, as are my hon. Friends, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) for his initiative in commissioning the report some years ago.
  I am particularly thankful for the way in which the report spells out the regional variations in health care throughout the United Kingdom. We are debating tonight the same old issue that has been debated on many occasions—the problem of the two nations. There are those whose health, relative to their occupational class, is worse. I do not blame the Government for that problem. It has taken many decades to develop, and successive Government have presided over surges and contractions in health care. However, in the present condition of high unemployment the problems that are thrown up need extra special consideration and solution.
  The Labour Party argues that the Government have failed to come forward with policies to tackle the problem. There is a need to redress the imbalance that have been created within our system. One of the most notable imbalances that has emerged from the report relates to life expectancy. I am one of those who were brought up to believe that life expectancy was not relevant to social conditions at home but was more a thought that passed through one's mind when considering the problems in the Far East—certainly in India and Pakistan, where we hear that it is commonplace for people to live only into their late thirties and early forties.
  The report throws up the problem as it arises in the United Kingdom. Paragraph 2.22 says:
  "Average life expectancy provides a useful summary of the cumulative impact of these advantages and disadvantages throughout life. A child born to professional parents, if he or she is not socially mobile, can expect to spend over 5 years more as a living person than a child born to an unskilled manual household."
  That is a dramatic statement. It suggests that occupational class and its effect on a person's maturing will have a direct impact on life span.
  Those factors will have motivated such people as Aneurin Bevan in the 'thirties, when he was considering the embryo National Health Service, which was eventually set up as a result of his help and forceful debate in the 1940s.
  Those anxieties are perhaps eclipsed in the report by the problems identified in the section on stillbirths and infant deaths by sex, age and occupational class. I shall not go into that matter now, because it has already been commented upon by many hon. Members. In the post-neonatal period—that is, babies aged between 1 and 11 months—there is a five to one greater probability per 1,000 female children of those born into occupational class I surviving as against those in class V. That is a dramatic statistic.
  Some weeks ago an argument seemed to be taking place in the media. The Minister was required to reply to statements by the Baby Life Support Systems group. It apparently found that one-third of premature babies in the South-East in need of intensive care were being turned
  654
  away. As has been mentioned, 55 of the hospitals contacted during the survey had appealed for additional resources. I am told that a radio interview took place within hours of the statement being made on the survey. I am sure that the Minister will intervene to tell me if I am wrong, but I believe he said that the problem was worse in the Northern region. He might care to qualify that in his concluding speech, but he appeared to suggest that in other parts of the country the problem was worse. He seemed to be trying to allay the anxiety of those in the South-East in that way.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: It is right that I said that, but the hon. Gentleman has put my remarks in a false context. I pointed out that the report had been commissioned by the region, which had identified the problem. I also pointed out that we had accepted the report and that we were hoping to deal with it. I think that I answered a question that implied that London was particularly badly served. I pointed out that London was by no means the worst area and that the Northern and Yorkshire regions were both in greater difficulties. I was trying to answer points made earlier about the tendency of the media—the radio and the press—to concentrate excessively on the problems of London while disregarding the fact that there are often more pressing needs elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman should agree with me about that.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am glad that the Minister has intervened. His comments on that occasion were raised with me by several people in the region and I told them that I would raise the issue on the Floor of the House in the hope that he would intervene. That is precisely what the hon. and learned Gentleman has done and I am sure that all those in the region who are interested in this subject will take note of his remarks.
  Hon. Members should consider the research carried out into problems in the North. Problems of health care within the region relate, to some extent, to unemployment. Mr. Malcolm College, an academic at the polytechnic in Newcastle, has carried out some interesting research. He surveyed the medical records of about 200,000 people living in the North Tyneside area. He established that there was a strong correlation between early death and unemployment. He found that the number of deaths due to heart disease was up to 50 per cent. higher in areas that were characterised by chronic unemployment, with deaths from bronchitis and lung disease twice the average, and deaths from lung cancer three times the average.
  Mr. College theorises that joblessness creates stress that leads to high blood pressure and physical deterioration. He also found that the health of the whole family is affected by the breadwinner's loss of employment and that often there are increases in perinatal care.
  In another recent study of unemployment and health—the subject of many contributions in the House—Leonard Fagin found that health problems played an important part in the adjustment to unemployed life. He did case studies based on family interviews. Because of the small size of his sample and the exploratory nature of the study, he could draw only speculative conclusions about the link between the health histories of the case families and employment status. Yet his discussion introduces many of the foundations for such a link. He describes the psychological effect of joblessness on the individual and the family, and indicates that stress may be the mechanism by which unemployment can lead to illness.

  655
  On page 113 of "Unemployment and Health in Families", he says:
  "Stress may be related not only to what is lost, for instance, the financial and psychosocial rewards of work, but also to the difficulties subsequently imposed on the family by unemployment such as poverty, worrying about making ends meet, changes of roles and conflict within the family, resentment about depending on the state, social condemnation, pressures to find a new job, and accepting lower standards. Stress is sometimes dealt with by an increased consumption of alcohol and tobacco".
  That was the point made by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine).
  He stated further:
  "The sick role, as we have seen, offers too many a spurious and temporary respite from the tension experienced by being out of work, due to the reduced responsibilities and the care and attention that accompanies it."
  Both those pieces of research show that there is a clear link between unemployment and ill health. The objectives of the report are to consider possible causes of inequality and the implications for policy. Further research is suggested. A considerable amount of research should be done on a more formal and in-depth basis by a research team sponsored by the Department of Health and Social Security.
  In the debate we have talked about how health care has developed and the link of mortality with unemployment. The Government have always sought not to respond. I remember many occasions in the past few years when we have asked questions about the link between ill health and unemployment and the Government have sought to avoid making it appear that they accept that that link is of any relevance and that it should be a determinant in the way in which resources are allocated.
  In the areas of highest unemployment—whether it is the South, the North or Scotland—special problems exist in the communities. Somehow a responsibility must be placed on the Government to respond by ensuring that adequate resources are made available to deal with the problems.
  The report makes some recommendations on school meals. One is that they be provided in schools, without charge. How do the Government respond to that? If, as we are led to believe, an examination is going on in the Treasury and the Cabinet of the married woman's allowance, and if resources are to be made available—the Secretary of State said that £.3½ billion might be made available if the changes were to be proceeded with—might it not be in order for some of that money, instead of being allocated to child benefit, to be channelled direct to the schools meals service to work towards the introduction of a free school meals service throughout the United Kingdom, not just for those without, but for those with, so that everyone enjoys free provision irrespective of income?
  There are a number of other recommendations on health education. I wonder what the Government's response is to them. There is also the provision of additional moneys for housing in deprived areas. Some of my hon. Friends referred to the relationship between respiratory conditions and bad housing. Surely there can be a consensus in the House that if that link is proven money should be provided for the deprived communities where the incidence of that form of ill health is highest.
  8.57 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am pleased to have a few minutes to stress my view that there is a major unfairness in the way in which resources for health are allocated. We need to do much more to reallocate them fairly.
  The Labour Government did well to set up the RAWP and to start to implement its recommendations. I am convinced that not only is it a question of reallocating health resources between the better and less well-off regions and then reallocating in the regions so that the deprived areas in the regions get their fair share of resources is equally important that we reallocate resources between the well-off—those who are able to take full advantage of the Health Service—and the least well-off, who cannot take full advantage of it.
  This morning I visited Shawfold, a special school in my constituency. It deals with children with learning difficulties. I talked to some children who were about to leave school. I was struck by the fact that the majority appeared to have a health problem. It is a happy school, but the children are not in good health. In conversation I discovered that the majority come from areas with the worst housing in the constituency. The children have three handicaps—learning difficulties, health problems and living in poor housing.
  We should try to take away the multiple disadvantages of such children. The Black report stresses the disadvantages that so many people suffer. Most of the debate has been depressing, but as a result of concerted efforts by both parties in the past 20 years progress has been made.
  Early this morning I looked out and was depressed by the mist. But then I remembered that at least the mist was relatively clean. Twenty years ago that mist would have been appalling, thick, black smog. By a concerted effort Governments have given the country relatively clean air, not just for the rich, but for everyone. That has made a tremendous difference to everybody's life prospects. If we can rid the atmosphere of smog surely we can do the same in relation to tobacco and lead in the atmosphere. It is a question of will. We could do a great deal if we remembered the clean air campaign.
  The campaign was based on the carrot as well as the stick. The Government should offer some carrots to encourage people to give up smoking. They could ask for smaller national insurance contributions from people who can honestly say that they do not smoke. They certainly cost the Health Service less money. Why cannot the Government decide that people using lead-free petrol pay less tax on it? The Government should offer a few more carrots as well as using sticks to improve public health generally. Prevention is better than cure.
  We should ensure that the Black recommendations are implemented and that we have equality of opportunity in health rather than the inequalities brought to light in the Black report.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Terry Davis: The Black report is the report that the Government did not want. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) said today, and several newspapers and magazines in the national and professional press said at the time, the report by the working group on inequalities in

  657
  health was made available by the Government—I do not say published—only grudgingly, with bad grace and with as little publicity as possible. Only a handful of copies were produced initially. Not enough were produced to provide one for each hon. Member. The Secretary of State for Industry, said that it was being made available for discussion, but I understand that he did not even bother to send a copy to the major health authorities.
  Frankly, I must tell the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) that if he looks into what happened he will find that his strictures on the authors of the Black report for its poor layout and presentation are misplaced. It is his Government who bear the responsibility for its appalling layout, its poor reproduction and the failure even to correct typing errors.
  Although more than two years have passed, the Government have still not arranged a debate on the report in the House of Commons. That has been left to the initiative of the Opposition and the initiative of individual Labour Members—notably my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central.
  Nevertheless, however much the Government dislike it, the Black report will not go away. It does exist, and however great the embarrassment of the Government when confronted with its findings, they cannot successfully question the validity of those findings.
  As my hon. Friends have explained, the working group found that there were tremendous inequalities in the health of people in different occupational classes. These inequalities exist for both sexes and at all ages. At birth and in the first month of life a baby born into the family of an unskilled labourer is twice as likely to die as a child born into the family of an accountant or lawyer. During the next 11 months the position gets worse. Four or five times as many children die in the families of unskilled labourers than in those of accountants and lawyers. The ratio fluctuates at different ages but this inequality exists throughout life in all age groups and for almost all diseases and causes of death.
  The statistic which perhaps best illustrates the problem is the calculation of what this inequality meant in terms of deaths from 1972 to 1974. The working group compared death rates in families of professionals such as accountants and lawyers with those among the families of the partly skilled and unskilled. The latter group included the families of agricultural labourers and postmen as well as labourers and cleaners. The Black report records the results, which cannot be challenged. If both groups of families had experienced the same death rate, 74,000 people would not have died. There were nearly 10,000 children among the 74,000.
  The Black report also shows that although the health of all social groups improved during the first 20 years of the National Health Service, the improvement was less for those in partly skilled and unskilled jobs than for professionals. It follows that the inequality has actually increased.
  All these points have been drawn to the attention of the House by my hon. Friends during this debate, but I should like to emphasise one other point. The Black report shows that there is not only inequality between the families of professionals and those of the partly skilled and unskilled. There is not a simple division. In fact, there is a gradient. The health of the family of a bus driver or of a skilled engineering worker may be slightly better than the family of an agricultural worker or an unskilled labourer but it
  658
  will still be worse than the health of the family of a clerical worker, whose health in turn will be worse than the family of a school teacher, and there is still a gap between the health of that family and the family of an accountant or lawyer. So the true cost of inequality in health is much more than 74,000 lives as shown in the Black report.
  The evidence of these findings is so overwhelming that it cannot be denied. This was admitted by the previous Secretary of State, who is now the Secretary of State for Industry, in a speech delivered in Cardiff 18 months ago. His Under-Secretary of State tried subsequently to suggest during an Adjournment debate arranged by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central that death rates might not be the right way of measuring health and ill-health. To some extent the Under-Secretary of State is right. There is a difference between mortality and morbidity. Mortality statistics are an imperfect measure of ill-health. As the Black report explains, the statistics on morbidity are entirely inadequate. In the absence of anything better we must use death rates. This has the advantage of emphasising that we are discussing matters of life and death. In any case, it is not open to the Government to cast doubt on the analysis in the Black report because it is based on mortality. This Government and previous Governments have used standard mortality ratios as a basis for the RAWP formula and an attempt to achieve a fairer allocation of resources in the National Health Service.
  However, the Black report is concerned not only with inequalities in health. It is clear from the report that these inequalities—indeed much of the ill-health that afflicts the British people—are themselves the result of other inequalities.
  The Black report could well have been called "Inequalities and Health" because it attributes inequality of ill-health and the worse health of the families of unskilled people to a combination of disadvantages inherent in being poor. It is not just the inadequate income, which my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) described, but also bad working conditions, worse housing, worse education and inadequate nutrition. Since the report was published, Sir Douglas Black has said that his view is that it is an inescapable fact that poverty leads to ill-health. However much the Government may squirm, they cannot deny the truth of that statement—that there is inequality in health and a connection between ill-health and other inequalities. The question therefore is: What shall we do about it?
  I will come to the Secretary of State's speech, but first let us examine the Government's immediate reaction to the proposals of the Black report. "Reaction" is the right word to describe the report's foreward. The previous Secretary of State simply rejected all 37 proposals out of hand because he said that the amount involved could he more than £2 billion a year. He suggested that that was "unrealistic in present or any foreseeable economic circumstances". He did not say "not yet" or "not this year" or "not next year". He said "not in any foreseeable circumstances". There was no attempt in the foreword to cost each recommendation for public discussion. There was no attempt to take account of the possible savings to be derived from people's better health. There was just the bald statement that it would cost £2 billion which could not be afforded now or in the foreseeable future. In other words, the Government accept that inequality exists and will always exist and that nothing can be done about it. In short, we had the politics of no hope.

  659
  It was an inadequate response and the Government soon switched to a different tack. It became fashionable for Conservative spokesmen to say that they did not intend to act on the recommendations of the Black report because there was no guarantee that the recommendations would work. As we all know, that is a classic excuse for inaction. Two more years have passed; another 74,000 people have died; and we have this debate.
  We expected the Secretary of State to tell the House exactly what the Government intend to do about the 37 recommendations. We have been disappointed, of course. Let me emphasise that we do not expect any Government, and certainly not this one, to implement all the recommendations in their entirety or overnight, but we do expect Government, including this one, to make a start and to make progress. Instead, we have the usual mixture of self-justifying assertions and careful evasions of the point.
  The Secretary of State says that the budget for the National Health Service has been increased under this Government. Putting aside the fact that it is always necessary to spend more on the National Health Service in order to stand still, as the Secretary of State admitted during his speech, it is now clear that the Secretary of State has simply not understood the Black report. It is not a matter of spending more on the National Health Service. That may well improve the nation's health, but the point is that we need to spend some extra money in such a way as to attack the inequality of ill-health. We need to concentrate some extra resources on improving the health of the poorest people in our society. It is not a matter of spending more on treatment; we must concentrate on prevention. We applaud the extra resources for the National Health Service, but we are debating inequality in ill-health and the Black report says that if we look at the experience of the past 30 years, we see that a general improvement in health does not affect the pattern of ill-health. I repeat that the Secretary of State has misunderstood the whole point of the Black report.
  Instead of telling us what the Government have done or intend to do about each recommendation, or why they reject most of the recommendations, the Secretary of State simply rehashed the speech that he made a month ago on the Gracious Speech. He said something specific on only two or possibly three of the recommendations. The Secretary of State announced the provision of £2 million to expand the care of under-fives and he told us that he would ensure that the money benefited the most disadvantaged families. That is very welcome, but what else did the right hon. Gentleman say about the recommendations? He told us that the Government have established an advisory committee on the problem of perinatal and neonatal mortality, but he showed a profound misunderstanding of the report in referring to the welcome and rapid decline in perinatal mortality in the past two years. He does not understand that we are anxious, not only about the rate but about the pattern. That is the inequality and he did not even mention it.
  The Secretary of State referred to community care, about which there is a great deal in the report, but again he understands that section of the report only imperfectly. He simply outlined an extension of the policies of this and the previous Government. The report suggested something else. The right hon. Gentleman referred exclusively to the transfer of mentally handicapped or elderly people from
  660
  hospitals to the community. That was the policy of the previous Government and has been the policy of this Government since the election. The authors of the report argued for more resources to be devoted to care in the community for people already in the community. They recommended extra resources as part of the strategy to break the links between poverty and ill-health. That was not what the Secretary of State was discussing.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to even more extraneous issues, such as the misuse of drugs. From my correspondence with the Minister for Health he will know that I share the Government's anxiety about drug abuse. I have pressed them to take action against those who encourage the misuse of drugs and other substances. But that important problem has nothing to do with inequality, health and the Black report. That part of the Secretary of State's speech was irrelevant to the debate.
  Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is solidly lecturing the House about everyone's understanding of the report but his own. First, the report deals with health education and disease prevention. Does he not understand that health education would help to prevent the misuse of drugs? Secondly, when will he deal with the central point about resources? If he does not deal with it, everything that he has said is a fraud.
  Mr. Davis: If the right hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I shall not only answer his point in my own time, but explain in a little more detail what the Black report is about as he has obviously not read it thoroughly. He is quite right to say that the Black report refers to health education and prevention. It refers to those subjects in such a way as to reduce inequality in health care. It is irrelevant to say that we should therefore discuss the misuse of drugs in today's debate.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the second part of the Secretary of State's question. We should like an answer. He underestimates the Government's estimate of the cost of implementing the Black report which, as of 31 July 1981, was £4,800 million according to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. There is much talk of a major, wide-ranging and massive programme of public expenditure. Will the hon. Gentleman now tell the electorate how much it will cost?
  Mr. Davis: I have already said that that is precisely what I propose to do. If the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) had not intervened, my next words would have been "I shall now deal with the alternative." As the hon. Gentleman has raised other points, I shall try to remember them. I shall discuss what the next Labour Government will do and the costs later. Regarding the detailed point of £4·8 billion, or the £5·5 billion that was mentioned today, I mentioned £2 billion because, as the hon. Gentleman will find if he reads my speech in Hansard tomorrow, I was referring to a response by the previous Secretary of State, who is now the Secretary of State for Industry and who estimated that the cost would be £2 billion. I was making a direct reference. That is why I referred to £2 billion.
  It did not escape me that the Secretary of State today referred to the cost of implementing Black as being £5·5 billion. Every time the Government mention the matter,

  661
  their estimate of the cost of implementing the Black report escalates. What is more, we have no details about how the £5·5 billion was calculated.
  I shall now deal with the alternative.
  If the Government cannot or will not act on the message of the Black report, at least the Opposition can make it clear that the next Labour Government will put the attack on inequality at the centre of their programme.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: How much?
  Mr. Davis: That does not mean that we will implement all the recommedations overnight. That was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) in a debate two years ago. Some of the recommendations are extremely expensive and constitute what the previous Secretary of State described as a major and wide-ranging programme of public expenditure. No one in the Labour Party claims that we can do everything at once. The difference is that, unlike the present Government, we do not rule out expenditure on that scale in any forseeable economic circumstances.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: What scale?
  Mr. Davis: What we do promise is that the next Labour Government will make an immediate start.
  First, I shall deal with the recommendations for specific measures that are to be undertaken by those who are responsible for health and social services.
  Sir William Clark: There seems to be some controversy as to whether £2 billion or £5 billion will he spent on implementing the Black report. The hon. Gentleman said that if his party ever gained office, it would make a start on implementing the report. If a Labour Government will make a start, whether with £2 billion or £3 billion, from where will they get the cash? Will they increase the standard rate of tax or VAT, or will they borrow more money?
  Mr. Davis: I should pay more attention to the hon. Gentleman's intervention if he had been present throughout the debate.
  Sir William Clark: Answer the question.
  Mr. Davis: I shall answer in my own time. I am running out of time because of interventions from the Secretary of State's hon. Friends who are anxious to avoid the Government being embarrassed any more. The emphasis of the next Labour Government's policy will be on prevention of illness and the measurement of progress in achieving that aim.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: How much will it cost?
  Mr. Davis: The next Labour Government will take immediate action on the recommendation for the programme of health education to be greatly enlarged, with a special focus on schools. We shall therefore involve not only the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of Education and Science, but district health authorities and local education authorities.
  In this general area of health policy, we recognise the importance of cigarette smoking as a cause of illness and death. Indeed, it is probably the most important cause of ill-health in Britain today.
  The Black report shows that whereas people working in the professions have drastically reduced their smoking, there has been an increase among unskilled workers and
  662
  their families. This is probably one of the most important causes of inequality in ill-health as well as one of the most important causes of illness. The next Labour Government will therefore ban all cigarette advertising. The cost to the Health Service budget will be nil. In terms of reduced demands on the Health Service, the benefits over the years will be enormous.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: We have been asked to vote on a motion that refers to
  "a major and wide-ranging programme of public expenditure".
  I agree that we should ban cigarette advertising, hut where is this programme and when will the Labour Party be honest enough to tell the electorate what it will cost?
  Mr. Davis: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I shall outline the whole programme. My hon. Friend did not interrupt him, but he seems constantly to be making speeches. Hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that the hon. Gentleman is engaged in a constant search for self-justification. If he contains himself, he may learn something to his advantage. Indeed, he seemed to echo the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody), with one exception—that we could not afford it. The hon. Gentleman and his allies stand convicted of willing the end but not the means. That is not surprising, because whereas Conservative Members represent those who have and Labour Members those who have not, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East merely represents his own ambition.
  The next Labour Government will also legislate, if necessary, for a stronger health warning on all packets of cigarettes and pursue the other recommendations in the Black report relating to the tobacco industry.
  The Black report also contains a group of recommendations for a wider strategy of social measures affecting working conditions and the need for more emphasis on occupational health, better housing and improvements in the care of elderly and disabled people. Had I not been interrupted so often, I would have outlined more of our action on those recommendations. Instead I shall turn to the third and most important group of recommendations affecting children.
  It is not only a matter of the 10,000 unnecessary child deaths that took place between 1972 and 1974. Ill health in childhood affects health later in life. An impoverished childhood increases the likelihood of an early death. That is why the Black report urges that the abolition of child poverty should be adopted as a national goal for the 1980s. What has been the Government's response? There has been nothing but silence. There was not a single reference to that challenge in the Secretary of State's speech.
  The Labour Party accepts that challenge, and the next Labour Government will adopt the abolition of child poverty as a national goal.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: How much will it cost?
  Mr. Davis: As a first step, the next Labour Government will act on the recommendation to increase child benefit. We are committed to an increase of £2 a week for each child, which today would mean a child benefit of £7·85 per week. That would cost £1·1 billion.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowmanrose—
  Mr. Davis: That compares with £5·70 recommended by the Black report, but that was at November 1979 prices. Its figure today would be £8·70. I am anxious that we

  663
  should have a fair comparison of what the next Labour Government will do and what the Black report recommended. A sum of £7·85 is not £8·70 in anyone's money, but it is a lot better than £5·85, and we shall not stop there. We shall continue to increase child benefit in real terms, not only in line with the cost of living.
  Sir William Clark rose—
  Mr. Davis: It is not only a question of providing more money for families with children and the attack on child poverty. The Black report makes many other recommendations to improve the health of children, such as better access to antenatal and child health clinics, better day care facilities and closer links between the school health services and general practitioners.
  The Secretary of State said that he would provide money next year for some of those things. However, what about the provision of school meals for all children as a right, and at no charge? Of course, school meals provision is expensive. The Government have estimated that the cost would be £200 million at Black report prices.
  No one could give a commitment that the next Labour Government will immediately find the necessary money for such a major step forward in social provision, but we shall restore the school meals service to the same level in real terms as existed when the Labour Government left office. That restoration will be directly contrary to the direction in which the Government have travelled. The Government have removed the duty placed on local education authorities to provide meals at a standard price of a prescribed nutritional standard and they have allowed the authorities to provide what they like and to charge as much as they wish, which has inevitably resulted in a reduction in nutritional content and higher prices, with fewer children taking the meals.
  Finally, I turn to one of the least expensive but most far-reaching recommendations in the Black report—that the Government should finance a special health programme in a few selected areas. The working group suggested that there should be 10 such areas, where the death rate is highest, and that £30 million should be set aside for the programme.
  The Secretary of State did not refer to the recommendation at any point in his speech. He did say that he would provide £3 million for the development of primary care in inner cities. That provision is welcome, but the Secretary of State made it clear that it was a response to the Acheson report and not the Black report. The distinction is important because the whole emphasis of the Acheson report is put on the general practitioner and the ancillary services surrounding the family doctor. The Black report recommends something different. The authors recommend that the special programmes in selected areas should include better and more specialised clinics for children and their mothers, with more health visitors and special attention given to health education in those schools. There would be experimental anti-smoking programmes and a special screening service aimed at those groups at special risk.
  The Labour Government will go much further. We shall develop primary care in its widest sense in those selected areas. Primary care will include not only general practitioners and community nurses but dentists, dental therapists, opticians, pharmacists, home helps and
  664
  chiropodists. We shall develop the NHS as it should be developed and we shall do it in those areas that have the worst health in the country.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe gave a firm commitment to act on that recommendation of the Black report, and act on it we shall.
  The only Conservative Member to grasp the importance of the Black report is the hon. Member for Chichester. He is absolutely right that this report is about equality and inequality. The attitudes of the Conservative Party and the Labour Party to the Black report reflect their differing approaches to equality. However, the hon. Gentleman is completely wrong to suggest that the Labour Party wishes to maintain the existing class system. On the contrary, the Black report's message, which the Labour Party accepts, is that if we wish to attack inequality of ill-health, we must attack the other inequalities between the social classes. By working to reduce the differences between the social classes, we attack the whole class structure of our society.
  The Conservative Government did not want the Black report. They are embarrassed by its conclusions and their policies are in direct conflict with its most important recommendations. By contrast, the Labour Government commissioned the report and we accept its conclusions without reservation. We regard the report's recommendations as a challenge to be taken up by the next Labour Government. The theme of the report will run through the work of that Government in all Departments.
  9.34 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) was that of a political strip-tease artiste. He promised much, but in the end he revealed little. He revealed little of what matters most of all—how much public expenditure he would commit a future Labour Government to. By implication, that means expenditure additional to the growing public expenditure on the Health Service that this Government have undertaken.
  I am not sure why the hon. Member for Stechford felt so inhibited because, as the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) showed in her speech, she is rarely inhibited by such matters when she puts forward figures for suggested growth percentages year by year. If she does not believe that our figures are enough, she adds a little more. One always gets the feeling that the hon. Lady will add a nought to any figure that is disappointing to her audience. Public expenditure is the key question that underlines all the ambitious points made in the debate and, for obvious reasons, the Labour Party failed to answer it.
  The Black report and the debate did not receive the reception that the hon. Member for Stechford alleged. It was not rejected wholeheartedly by the Conservative Party. We made no attempt to conceal the report, and we are making no such attempt now.
  Mr. Ennals: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Clarke: No, not yet. My time has been curtailed a little and for understandable reasons, I wish to continue my remarks a little longer.
  The report was commissioned by the Labour Government in 1977. That was an appropriate time for them to commission it because they had cut NHS expenditure in 1975 and in 1976. The report was finished and ready for publication during the lifetime of this

  665
  Government. The then Secretary of State is accused of hiding it, but it was publicised. More than 100 copies were circulated to every newspaper, which is not the usual way of keeping a report secret. It has been published and reprinted, and about 2,600 copies have been sold. More than 1,000 free copies were distributed. I am sorry that there has been a last-minute rush on the report and that no copies are available in the Vote Office, but we shall make more available. It is nonsense to suggest that any attempt has been made to suppress it.
  The debate concentrated on inequalities in health care between social classes. The debate is directed totally towards the difference in health care received by the social classes. That led to my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) to complain about the excessive emphasis on class distinctions in health care, although it became obvious that the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) regarded health as entirely a class issue, and the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas), on behalf of Plaid Cymru, was not far behind him.
  However, the Government do not criticise Professor Black and his colleagues for concentrating on class distinctions, because that was the only remit given to them by the Labour Government. They were instructed to examine differences in health status between the social classes, and that is what they attempted to analyse. Not every Member of the Conservative Party tried to challenge the conclusions of the report. There are inequalities, there always have been inequalities but there should not be such great inequalities between social classes. The Black report sheds some light on them. It may have disappointed some Labour Members who read the report that its class-based analysis is hedged about with more qualifications than most of them were prepared to acknowledge.
  It is unfortunate that the only category that can be used for convenience is occupation. The report is full of explanations as to why that is not a wholly reliable basis. For example, it does not always reflect differences in income. Class I includes clergymen, while class V includes dock labourers, yet the average docker receives more income, whatever other problems he may have, than the average clergyman.
  Comparisons were also made of mortality rates. Some hon. Members were prepared to concede that that, too, is a rough and ready guide to health inequalities, but no one is denying or trying to minimise the problems. I hope that the Labour Party Front Bench representatives are not saying that the only criterion that they will adopt in deciding all their health priorities is inequality based on social class. The report is of value only in shedding light on that one aspect of the many problems and inequalities that must be taken into account in making policy.
  I take one obvious example of the difficulties that arise if one relates only poverty or social class to need and health care. For a long time, East Anglia has had lower average earnings than the rest of the country. Certainly, it has far less than the RAWP target in funding for health services. Yet longevity there is greater than anywhere else in the country and the rates for ulcers, coronary heart disease and many other major killers are lower than elsewhere. That is not surprising when one considers the general environment of East Anglia, but it emphasises the problems that arise if all one's priorities are based on the assumption that a narrow analysis of social class will solve all the problems of health care.
  666
  The inequalities and deficiencies in health care with which the Government seek to deal include not only inequalities between social groups but inequalities between regions, between districts within regions and between different services and types of care and the way in which they have developed in the past. Our policy therefore takes into account not only the social inequalities and the recommendations of the Black report but the fact that, in allocating extra resources for the Health Service, we must work out better planned overall priorities to deal with all the various needs and inequalities. Indiscriminate spending in pursuit of just one aim will not get us very far.
  The hon. Member for Stechford claimed that the Government's increased spending on the Health Service was in some way irrelevant to the Black report. Nevertheless, however unwelcome this may be to the hon. Gentleman, that increased spending is an essential background to the debate. Presumably, in his tentative remarks about higher expenditure, he was talking about even greater expenditure than the Government have achieved. We are therefore entitled to point out that since we came to office spending has been 16 per cent of RPI, with a 5·5 per cent. real growth in services, and the share of GDP going to health has been increased from 4·7 per cent. to 5·5 per cent.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) said that we should stop talking about financial input into the Health Service and start talking about output in terms of patients. I am glad to tell him that in each of the three years 1978–81—the period for which we have figures relevant to the Conservative Government—the number of patients has increased by 3 per cent., accident and outpatient cases by 1 per cent., day cases by 3 per cent., obstetrics cases by 2·9 per cent., and geriatric cases by 5·1 per cent. The number of persons visited by health visitors has increased by 1·3 per cent. and the number treated by home nurses has increased by 1·7 per cent. Those are all annual increases. Therefore, not only has the Health Service never had more money and resources and never employed more doctors and nurses but it has never treated more patients both in hospital and through the domiciliary services.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: The Minister may be pulling the statistical three card trick satisfactorily, but here the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) is right. None of those results, whether or not they have been achieved, explains the fact that, so far as we can tell—and this is the serious purpose of today's debate—the inequalities in the Health Service remain largely untouched because within that blanket provision a reorientation of priorities towards the groups that need it most, which I agree are not necessarily class groups, has not taken place.
  Mr. Clarke: It was the hon. Gentleman himself who asked for those figures. As for redistribution, I shall explain exactly what we are doing. The major inequality highlighted by both sides in a debate of this kind is in the regional distribution of resources, and that is what has concerned Governments most. The Government have concentrated on the application of RAWP principles within those growth figures and have continued to redistribute growth money between the relatively better off and the relatively deprived. The moment one tries to go faster, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member

  667
  for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who was supported by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt), one runs up against the sheer practicality of trying to speed up the redistribution in the face of the real problems in London and the surrounding areas. Within those restraints, and following RAWP principles, we have altered the share away from Thames regions in favour of the Northern, the North-Western and the Trent regions, which are deprived and always have been, and the Anglia and Oxford regions, where there are growing populations.
  Within the regions there is also a need to shift priority between districts. It is not only in the South-East that some city areas have had a declining population and comparatively good resource provision whereas the population outside the city area has grown and not been served. When one examines the Government's legitimate claims for increased spending on the Health Service and then considers why one hears so much from outside by way of protest and complaint, one finds that the difficulty faced by the Government or by any Government who seriously try to tackle, as we do, the alteration of the balance of resources in the tackling of inequalities is that those who are at the lesser end of priorities begin to complain and react. Hon. Members on the Labour Benches are by no means among the last to react.
  The distribution within regions is as difficult as the distribution between regions. Central London, central Manchester and central Liverpool have falling populations and quite good levels of resources going to their hospitals while the populations of Essex and Medway in the South-East are increasing. One can compare Liverpool, which has a declining population but is somewhat over-resourced in RAWP terms, with Warrington, a poverty-stricken town nearby—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) should refer to his hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. Hoyle), who has not spoken in the debate but is waiting for a redistribution to Warrington.
  This illustrates the complexity of policy and explains why we still have conflict against a background of increased resources. Even those arguments about geographical redistributions disguise other complications. Provincial Members are apt to say about, for instance, inner London, that it is plainly over-resourced in hospital services and in acute beds. That is correct, but inner London is underprivileged in primary care, particularly in the provision of general practice. That is why the Government commissioned the Acheson report and will act upon it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has earmarked £3 million of new money specifically for that purpose next year.
  We have also tried to make priorities between resources. In competing for growing funds, if one is eliminating inequalities one must make a judgment about which particular services need to be advanced. The House knows that we have been trying, as we feel we must, to give higher priority to comparatively neglected problem areas—for example, the care of the elderly, the care of the mentally ill and the care of the mentally handicapped. We have concentrated on care in the community, as the Black report emphasised. My right hon. Friend dealt with that perfectly relevantly in his speech by showing the increased spending on joint finance and so on.
  668
  Black recommended that people should be given a better start in life. The Government have not rejected that recommendation. One way to get to the root of inequalities is to do something about perinatal care and to ensure that children are not deprived of health care. The hon. Member for Crewe derided the Government's support for the Mother and Baby campaign of the Health Education Council. That was perfectly valuable support. The hon. Lady did not mention the other action that we have taken since then in other areas of health to improve perinatal care.
  The Government's new Employment Act requires firms to give mothers time off to visit antenatal clinics. The maternity grant we pay by way of income has been made non-contributory, so that this year about 60,000 more women—mainly single and low-income women—will qualify for maternity grant that they would not previously have received. In particular, following the Select Committee's report, we have given added impetus to the setting of better perinatal standards. We have set up the Maternity Services Advice Committee, which has produced its first excellent report on antenatal care and is now preparing a report on care in labour. We are discussing with the committee how best to handle progress towards a check list of good practice in maternity care to enable health authorities to improve their maternity care. The fact is that perinatal mortality rates are improving, and they have improved more over the past two years than ever in our history.
  It was asserted by Opposition Members that although perinatal mortality rates were dropping, somehow the class basis remained. Of course there remains a gap, but it is not true that the gradient of relationship between social classes has remained unchanged. It is because the perinatal figures were worse for classes IV and V that the biggest improvements in perinatal figures have come in the lower social classes.
  I can give figures for six years going back to 1975–76. In social class I, the figure dropped from 13 to 9·7 per 1,000, and in social class V from 26 to 17·5 per 1,000. We have all concentrated on classes I and V, which are numerically very small. The better comparison is between classes II, III and IV, which are much larger.
  Wherever we can, we are giving higher priority to perinatal care and identifying where the real inequalities exist. The combination of our regional policy and our service policy can be seen in the North-West region, where we find the highest incidence of under-weight births and very bad perinatal statistics. That is why, in our new accountability system of regional reviews, where we discuss regional strategies with each of our regional health authorities, we have concentrated with the North-West region on giving particular attention over the next year to the improvement of everything from the availability of family planning to the provision and use of special care baby units. That is the kind of choice of priority objective that we have to pursue.
  I was asked by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) and the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) about the problem of premature babies. Of course we are trying to tackle that problem. I was accused of having said that the problem is worse in the North. I said that in answer to the inevitable London-based lobby that exists on all these subjects, because some of the London-based specialists in hospitals are nearer to the television studios and it costs less for the Fleet Street

  669
  cameras to get there. [Interruption.] If the Opposition are led into following every populist campaign in this cause, they will increase the inequalities between regions and not make them less.
  The problem of premature babies was identified in a report in the South-East produced by the regional authority, which had already said that it was accepting it. We are glad that the authority is accepting it. The problem arises because of the pace of medical advance. We are now able to deal with very underweight premature babies who would have died or been regarded as untreatable five and 10 years ago. All over the country we must now seek to keep up with medical advance. We shall give the matter higher priority in the North-West and in the North as well as in the Thames region, in order to keep up with medical progress.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister confirm that the figures he has given, particularly in relation to the ratio between social classes, show that there has been no change, and that even though the decline overall has been real, the ratio is still the same? Also, the North-West contains Mersey, which will have direct cuts next year.
  Mr. Clarke: The North-West does not contain Mersey for Health Service purposes. The hon. Lady and I exchange figures frequently. It may be perverse, but there is a Merseyside regional health authority, which is Liverpool, and there is a North-West regional health authority, which is Manchester and its environs. [Interruption.] If the hon. Lady will table a parliamentary question, I shall publish the full figures, from which it will be seen that the ratio has not changed significantly. There has been some improvement, and because the figures were so much worse for the lower social classes compared with the higher social classes, the biggest per capita improvements have been for the lower social classes. No purpose is served by arguing over the figures. Both the Opposition and the Government want the pattern to improve in the manner that the hon. Member for Stechford has urged. Over the periods of the previous Labour Government and ours, the pattern has improved slightly in the right direction. There has been a dramatic improvement nationally in perinatal mortality rates. This has happened as a result of the policies that the Government continue to pursue.
  There is insufficient time to describe the Government's other priority areas. We cannot be accused of pursuing a health policy that does not seek to deal with inequality. We have chosen priority areas for which we have reserved expenditure for next year to improve standards up and down the country. We are especially keen on the pump-priming schemes recommended by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) to establish good practice on an experimental basis in one area which can then be extended.
  In next year's spending, the Government have been able to provide full provision for the pay settlement and for some growth. We are funding from a sum of £22 million new initiatives for the elderly, the mentally ill, the senile and the demented. Those groups have suffered inequality in the Health Service regardless of social class. There is a need to get mentally handicapped children out of hospital. In addition, drug abuse, improved health care in the inner cities, day care for the under-fives and intermediate and non-custodial treatment for young
  670
  offenders are disparate areas but all selected on a basis of comparative past neglect and service need. This is a much better approach to health policy than to allow ourselves to be carried away by an analysis of social class and the basing of all priorities on that analysis, as the Opposition have done.
  I have been asked a number of questions about prevention. There have been claims that the Government should impose a total ban on cigarette advertising. The Government have tightened up significantly the restrictions on advertising. Our approach means that cigarette advertising is accompanied by a much more prominent warning and a reminder every time someone sees an advertisement. I invite those hon. Members who believe that a ban on advertising would cause a drop in consumption to study the experience of Norway—
  Mr. Pavitt: The figures for Norway show a tremendous difference in the number of under-15s starting to smoke.
  Mr. Clarke: I have the figures for Norway, where cigarette advertising was banned in 1973. Since that time, smoking by men has reduced from 51 per cent. to 43 per cent., but smoking by women has increased from 32 per cent. to 33 per cent. In this country, there has been a reduction in smoking during the same period from 52 per cent. to 42 per cent. among men. and from 41 per cent. to 37 per cent. among women. A bigger reduction in smoking has occurred in Britain with our restrictions while in Norway there has been an increase in smoking by women. This shows that it is not the case that a ban would stop smoking.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) made a formidable speech about alcohol abuse. My hon. Friend mentioned licensing hours, which have been a matter of some controversy in the past. He referred to the Think Tank report and also to "Drinking Sensibly", He remarked that "Drinking Sensibly", produced by the Government, was impeccable in argument and unchallengable on facts. That, coupled with the additional assistance given to voluntary organisations, plus the reform in drinking and driving legislation, with which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I were engaged in our previous Department, is evidence of the Government's commitment. It has been claimed that "Drinking Sensibly" is not selling adequately. Perhaps we should have had the document leaked, like the Think Tank report. That would have created a great deal of interest. Perhaps we should have leaked the Black report. Then we should not have been accused of concealing its contents from the newspapers. We have done the report justice and we do not dispute its analysis. We have a sensible, rational and planned approach to health, not the class-dominated approach of the Labour Party, drawing the wrong conclusions.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 289.

  Division No. 24]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

  Adams, Allen

  Bagier, Gordon A.T.

  Allaun, Frank

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Alton, David

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

  Ashton, Joe

  Bidwell, Sydney

  671

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Homewood, William

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Hooley, Frank

  Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)

  Huckfield, Les

  Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Buchan, Norman

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Campbell, Ian

  John, Brynmor

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Cant, R. B.

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Clarke,Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)

  Kerr, Russell

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Cohen, Stanley

  Kinnock, Neil

  Coleman, Donald

  Lambie, David

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Lamond, James

  Conlan, Bernard

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Cook, Robin F.

  Leighton, Ronald

  Cowans, Harry

  Litherland, Robert

  Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Crowther, Stan

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Cryer, Bob

  McKelvey, William

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)

  McMahon, Andrew

  Dalyell, Tam

  McTaggart, Robert

  Davidson, Arthur

  McWilliam, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)

  Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)

  Deakins, Eric

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Dewar, Donald

  Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)

  Dixon, Donald

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Dobson, Frank

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Dormand, Jack

  Meacher, Michael

  Douglas, Dick

  Mikardo, Ian

  Dubs, Alfred

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Eadie, Alex

  Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

  Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  English, Michael

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Newens, Stanley

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Ewing, Harry

  O'Neill, Martin

  Faulds, Andrew

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Field, Frank

  Palmer, Arthur

  Fitch, Alan

  Park, George

  Flannery, Martin

  Parker, John

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Parry, Robert

  Ford, Ben

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Forrester, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Foster, Derek

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Foulkes, George

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)

  Race, Reg

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Radice, Giles

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  George, Bruce

  Richardson, Jo

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Golding, John

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Graham, Ted

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Robertson, George

  Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Harman, Harriet (Peckham)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Silverman, Julius

  Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  Home Robertson, John

  Soley, Clive

  672

  Spearing, Nigel

  Weetch, Ken

  Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)

  Welsh, Michael

  Spriggs, Leslie

  White, Frank R.

  Stallard, A. W.

  White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Stoddart, David

  Whitlock, William

  Stott, Roger

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Strang, Gavin

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Wilson, William (C'try SE)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Winnick, David

  Tilley, John

  Woodall, Alec

  Tinn, James

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Torney, Tom

  Wright, Sheila

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

  Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wardell, Gareth

  Mr. Allen McKay and

  Watkins, David

  Mr. George Morton.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Alexander, Richard

  Critchley, Julian

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Crouch, David

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Ancram, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Arnold, Tom

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dover, Denshore

  Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)

  Durant, Tony

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Banks, Robert

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Bendall, Vivian

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

  Eggar, Tim

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Best, Keith

  Eyre, Reginald

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Farr, John

  Blackburn, John

  Fell, Sir Anthony

  Blaker, Peter

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Body, Richard

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Feltcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Forman, Nigel

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Bright, Graham

  Fox, Marcus

  Brinton, Tim

  Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

  Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Fry, Peter

  Brotherton, Michael

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Buck, Antony

  Goodhew, Sir Victor

  Budgen, Nick

  Goodland, Alastair

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Gorst, John

  Burden, Sir Frederick

  Gow, Ian

  Butcher, John

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Gray, Rt Hon Hamish

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Greenway, Harry

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Grieve, percy

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Grylls, Michael

  Churchill, W. S.

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Hannam, John

  Cockeram, Eric

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Cope, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hawkins, Sir Paul

  Corrie, John

  Hawksley, Warren

  673

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Heddle, John

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Parris, Matthew

  Hicks, Robert

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Pawsey, James

  Hordern, Peter

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Pollock, Alexander

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Porter, Barry

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Jessel, Toby

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Renton, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Kimball, Sir Marcus

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Knox, David

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Lamont, Norman

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Lang, Ian

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Rossi, Hugh

  Lee, John

  Rost, Peter

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Luce, Richard

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Shepherd, Richard

  MacGregor, John

  Silvester, Fred

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Sims, Roger

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Smith, Dudley

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

  Speed, Keith

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Speller, Tony

  Madel, David

  Spence, John

  Major, John

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Marland, Paul

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Marlow, Antony

  Sproat, Iain

  Marten, Rt Hon Neil

  Squire, Robin

  Mates, Michael

  Stainton, Keith

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mawby, Ray

  Stanley, John

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Steen, Anthony

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stevens, Martin

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

  Mellor, David

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Stokes, John

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Stradling Thomas J.

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Moate, Roger

  Tebbit, Rt hon Norman

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Moore, John

  Thompson, Donald

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Morrison, Hon C.(Devizes)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mudd, David

  Trippier, David

  Murphy, Christopher

  Trotter, Neville

  Myles, David

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Neale, Gerrard

  Viggers, Peter

  Needham, Richard

  Waddington, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Wakeham, John

  Neubert, Michael

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Newton, Tony

  Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)

  Normanton, Tom

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Waller, Gary

  674

  Walters, Dennis

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Ward, John

  Wilkinson, John

  Warren, Kenneth

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Watson, John

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Wells, Bowen

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wheeler, John

  Mr. Carol Mather and

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Mr. Anthony Berry.

  Whitney, Raymond

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments):
  The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 245.

  Division No. 25]

  [10.14 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Crouch, David

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Alexander, Richard

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Dover, Denshore

  Ancram, Michael

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Arnold, Tom

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Durant, Tony

  Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

  Edwards, Rt Hon N.(P'broke)

  Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)

  Eggar, Tim

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Banks, Robert

  Eyre, Reginald

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

  Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Farr, John

  Best, Keith

  Fell, Sir Anthony

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Blackburn, John

  Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)

  Blaker, Peter

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  Body, Richard

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Forman, Nigel

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

  Fox, Marcus

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Fry, Peter

  Bright, Graham

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Brinton, Tim

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Brotherton, Michael

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Goodhew, Sir Victor

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Gorst, John

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

  Gow, Ian

  Buck, Antony

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Budgen, Nick

  Gray, Rt Hon Hamish

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Greenway, Harry

  Burden, Sir Frederick

  Grieve, Percy

  Butcher, John

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Grylls, Michael

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hannam, John

  Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hawkins, Sir Paul

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Hawksley, Warren

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Cope, John

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Cormack, Patrick

  Heddle, John

  Corrie, John

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Hicks, Robert

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Critchley, Julian

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  675

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Pawsey, James

  Hordern, Peter

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Pollock, Alexander

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Porter, Barry

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Jessel, Toby

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Renton, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Kimball, Sir Marcus

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Knox, David

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Lamont, Norman

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Lang, Ian

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Rossi, Hugh

  Lee, John

  Rost, Peter

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Luce, Richard

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Shepherd, Richard

  MacGregor, John

  Silvester, Fred

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Sims, Roger

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Smith, Dudley

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

  Speed, Keith

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Speller, Tony

  Madel, David

  Spence, John

  Major, John

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Marland, Paul

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Marlow, Antony

  Sproat, Iain

  Marten, Rt Hon Neil

  Squire, Robin

  Mates, Michael

  Stainton, Keith

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mawby, Ray

  Stanley, John

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Steen, Anthony

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stevens, Martin

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

  Mellor, David

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Stokes, John

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Moate, Roger

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Moore, John

  Thompson, Donald

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mudd, David

  Trippier, David

  Murphy, Christopher

  Trotter, Neville

  Myles, David

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Neale, Gerrard

  Viggers, Peter

  Needham, Richard

  Waddington, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Wakeham, John

  Neubert, Michael

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Newton, Tony

  Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)

  Normanton, Tom

  Walker, B. (Perth )

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Waller, Gary

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Walters, Dennis

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Ward, John

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Warren, Kenneth

  Parris, Matthew

  Watson, John

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Wells, Bowen

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Wheeler, John

  676

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Whitney, Raymond

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Tellers for the Ayes

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. Anthony Berry and

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Mr. Carol Mather

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Faulds, Andrew

  Adams, Allen

  Field, Frank

  Allaun, Frank

  Fitch, Alan

  Alton, David

  Flannery, Martin

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Ford, Ben

  Ashton, Joe

  Forrester, John

  Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

  Foulkes, George

  Bagier, Gordon A.T.

  Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

  Freud, Clement

  Beith, A. J.

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  George, Bruce

  Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Ginsburg, David

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Golding, John

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Gourlay, Harry

  Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)

  Graham, Ted

  Bradley, Tom

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Harman, Harriet (Peckham)

  Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Buchan, Norman

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Campbell, Ian

  Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Home Robertson, John

  Cant, R. B.

  Homewood, William

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hooley, Frank

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Horam, John

  Cartwright, John

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Howells, Geraint

  Clarke, Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

  Huckfield, Les

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

  Coleman, Donald

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Cook, Robin F.

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cowans, Harry

  John, Brynmor

  Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

  Crowther, Stan

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)

  Kerr, Russell

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Davidson, Arthur

  Kinnock, Neil

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Lambie, David

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)

  Lamond, James

  Deakins, Eric

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Dewar, Donald

  Litherland, Robert

  Dixon, Donald

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Dobson, Frank

  Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

  Dormand, Jack

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Douglas, Dick

  McCartney, Hugh

  Dubs, Alfred

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Dunnett, Jack

  McKelvey, William

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Eadie, Alex

  Maclennan, Rober

  Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)

  McMahon, Andrew

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  McNally, Thomas

  English, Michael

  McTaggart, Robert

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  McWilliam, John

  Evans, Loan (Aberdare)

  Magee, Bryan

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Ewing, Harry

  Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)

  677

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Silverman, Julius

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Soley, Clive

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Spearing, Nigel

  Meacher, Michael

  Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Stallard, A. W.

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

  Stoddart, David

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Stott, Roger

  Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

  Strang, Gavin

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Morton, George

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Newens, Stanley

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Ogden, Eric

  Tilley, John

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Tinn, James

  O'Neill, Martin

  Torney, Tom

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Wainwright, R.(Colne V)

  Park, George

  Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

  Parker, John

  Wardell, Gareth

  Parry, Robert

  Watkins, David

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Weetch, Ken

  Pendry, Tom

  Wellbeloved, James

  Penhaigon, David

  Welsh, Michael

  Pitt, William Henry

  White, Frank R.

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Race, Reg

  Whitlock, William

  Radice, Giles

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Richardson, Jo

  Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Wilson, William (C'try SE)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Winnick, David

  Robertson, George

  Woodall, Alec

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Roper, John

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Wright, Sheila

  Rowlands, Ted

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Sheerman, Barry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe and

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  Mr. Derek Foster.

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Mr. Speaker Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House notes the content of the Report of the working group on inequalities in health; congratulates the Government on the sustained increase in resources committed to the National Health Service; approves the progress which has been made in allocating resources more fairly between the Health Regions, and the emphasis which has been given to making the best use of the resources available; welcomes the announcement of special initiatives to secure improvements in health services to groups with particular needs; but rejects any programme of massive and damaging increases in public spending, in the knowledge that the maintenance of the Government's economic policy is essential to produce the steady increase in real resources that are required to ensure continued improvements in health care.

  Customs and Excise
  10.26 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jock Bruce-Gardyne): I beg to move,
  That the Customs Duty (Personal Reliefs) (No. 1) Order 1968 (Amendment) Order 1982 (S.I., 1982, No. 1591), a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th November, be approved.
  The order has essentially two purposes. One is to call a halt to the practice that has developed of substantial imports of beer and lighters under duty-free concessions in circumstances which give rise to the strong suspicion that they are being imported for commercial rather than for personal use. The second is to make a modest amendment in the rules governing the duty on particular types of spirit. I shall deal with the two aspects in succession.
  First, the imports of beer and lighters. Under the Customs Duty (Personal Relief) (No. 1) Order 1968, beer and mechanical lighters come within the allowances which are granted for goods other than tobacco, spirits, wines, perfumes and toilet water for which tight limits are prescribed. For goods other than those that I have specified, there is an allowance for up to £120 worth of goods that United Kingdom residents returning with purchases made in another member State of the European Community may import. A great deal of beer and many mechanical lighters can be bought for £120. At present £120 will buy about 300 litres of beer.
  In recent months enterprising groups of three or four people have been sharing a van to bring back several hundred pounds worth of beer at a time. The frequency of such importations leaves no doubt that significant quantities of beer are being imported for resale. That also applies to lighters. The amount of beer imported through Dover and neighbouring Channel ports grew from 32,000 litres in May to over 430,000 litres in October. To stop the abuse article 2(3) restricts the permissible import of duty-free beer to 50 litres and duty-free mechanical lighters to 25 in number.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is it merely speculation, or does the Minister have clear evidence about the use of imported commodities?
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: It is difficult to collect specific evidence. Customs and Excise could only establish beyond peradventure that commodities were being used for commercial purposes if it followed them through to their eventual destination and consumption. That is not practicable for the quantities involved. An increase from 32,000 litres to 430,000 litres in five months suggests something more than personal consumption.
  The limits restrict traffic to a generous level for personal use.
  The order also covers the quantity of spirit that may be imported duty and tax-free. The quantity differs according to alcoholic strength. Under the 1968 order, three litres of spirit not exceeding "38·8 degrees of proof' or one and a half litres of spirit exceeding that strength may be imported. The amending order provides for the dividing line to be expressed as "22% by volume". The change comes into effect from the beginning of next year. It was provided for by section 7 of the Finance Act 1977, which was thereafter implemented by the 1979 order introduced by the Labour Government.

  679
  An order made under section 13 of the Customs and Excise Duties (General Reliefs) Act 1979 requires an affirmative resolution if it restricts the amount of relief given by a previous order. That is why this provision requires approval by the affirmative resolution procedure. The 22 per cent. is not an absolutely strict conversion of 38·8 degrees proof. The strict conversion would be 22·2 per cent. by volume, but the House might accept that 22 per cent. is a more convenient figure. I emphasise that, so far as we know, there is no spirit in normal commercial traffic that will be caught between the old limit equivalent of 22·2 per cent. and the new 22 per cent. limit.
  The practical effect in terms of trade and imports is zero. Because there is a small downward correction, it is necessary for the order to receive the approval of the House under the affimative resolution procedure.
  The major issue relates to the traffic in beer and lighters. I hope that the House will agree that the commissioners of Customs and Excise could not allow the exploitation of allowances for beer and mechanical lighters to continue on the scale that it has reached. The limits are not ungenerous. They cater adequately for the reasonable needs of travellers.
  The House will be aware that the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, in its fourth report, has queried the compatibility of the order with the relevant Community directive. I am advised that the order is intra vires, because the need to ensure that duty-free imports are intended for the personal use of the importer is deemed to be overriding.
  On that basis, I ask the House to approve the order.
  10.36 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: The history of duty-free concessions shows that there has been greater clarity and accuracy since they became statutory. This is a much more sensible way of operating.
  The order limits the amount of duty-free beer to 50 litres and the number of duty-free mechanical lighters to 25. It may be thought that this is comparable because there must be abuse in respect of both items. The Minister has not dealt with lighters. He gave the relevant figures for imported beer. That was useful, and showed how such importation had undergone a startling increase, but he did not give comparable figures for lighters. I am as worried about lighters as I am about beer.
  The figures in the ready reckoner produced in the Autumn forecast show that duty relief is about 14·3 per cent. per pint on beer. That excludes the extra charge of VAT. Fifty litres would yield a duty rebate of 50 times the 14·3 per cent, and then the pints must be converted into litres. I calculate that, exclusive of VAT, bringing in 50 litres of beer would save 12·63.
  In section 3(2) of the Finance Act, the duty on lighters was increased from 20p to 50p under protest from the Opposition. If someone brought in 25 cigarette lighters bearing a duty of 50p each, the duty saving, exclusive of VAT, would be £12·50. The two concessions amount to £12·63 for beer and £12·50 for mechanical lighters. The hon. Gentleman has not given the figures—I should like him to do so now—to show how the importation of mechanical lighters has become the problem that he says it now is. The main consideration—which the Minister completely left out—appears to be rough equality in duty
  680
  advantage. Should that be the consideration in bringing about these changes, or is it really because the goods are being imported in quantities for a commercial purpose? The Minister must give the figures for mechanical lighters to show that they are being imported for a commercial purpose.
  The 50 litres of beer could be brought in for other than a commercial purpose. Several people could well bring in that amount for one or two parties, particularly during Christmas time, and they could consume that beer within a week or so. It is not an unusual quantity, However, if someone were to bring in 25 lighters, it is difficult to imagine anything other than a commercial purpose. There is a marked difference between the use that can be made of 50 litres of beer and the use that can be made of 25 lighters.
  Last year, we sharply increased the duty on lighters. It is up to the Minister to show that the increase in duty on lighters has led to the possibility of abuse. There may well be some slipshod thinking here, because the two amounts of duty relief are so close that people may mistakenly think that these two items are comparable.
  What other articles are being considered for limitation? If there is abuse in respect of cigarette lighters and beer, there may well be so in other areas. What other articles have been considered for limitation, and are the Government thinking in terms of future regulations on this point? Matches could be one possibility, because thanks to the Finance Act 1982, there has been a considerable increase in the duty on matches. That struck us at the time, and still does, as ludicrous. Nevertheless, it could have certain consequences about which the Minister should inform the House.
  The second proposal is that there should be a change from proof to percentage volume. Is this the last flicker of the Sikes proof system, or does it exist elsewhere in our legislation? I recall that 100 proof measured the alcoholic content which when mixed with a quantity of gunpowder sustained a flame. There was a certain romance about that and it lasted for a considerable time, but, although that system was efficacious, it needed to give way to a more precise measurement.
  Under the old Sikes system, any weaker or stronger liquid could be compared with the 100 proof. That system lasted through many years of increasing accuracy in measurement, and all who have a nostalgic interest in the subject will feel that the percentage of alcohol does not convey the same kind of awe as degrees proof.
  The Minister said that 38·8 proof was not precisely equal to 22 per cent. by volume. The Economic Secretary said that there was nothing on the borderline. I do not know the extent of his consultations, but if he were to be shown that there is a borderline figure he may wish to reconsider the matter. The new system will come into force in one month's time. How much notice was given to the trade for the purpose of changing labels to adjust to the new regime?
  Those are my main points, but, depending on the Economic Secretary's replies, I may need to raise the matter again with the Leader of the House.
  10.45 pm
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: I share the anxiety of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) about lighters. I shall air the matter briefly and try to provide further reasons why the House should

  681
  reconsider the matter carefully, notwithstanding the fact that it was considered in the Statutory Instruments Select Committee. I hope that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will consider this aspect of the matter in his reply.
  Whatever protests were made in 1981, when the Finance Act brought in a swingeing increase in duty, the present duty on lighters is irrational. The matter must be reconsidered because of the European Community aspect. The Government have the opportunity, even if this order is passed, to reconsider the plight of the distributors of lighters and the consumers who wish to purchase cheap lighters but who find it increasingly difficult to do so.
  It is interesting that four countries in the Community levy customs duties as well as VAT on both matches and mechanical lighters. The two have always been linked in the past. Those four countries are Denmark, Ireland, Italy and the United Kingdom. The British excise duty is heavier than that of any other country. The tax on matches is now £1·15 per short standard—or 7,200 matches—and 50p on each lighter, as opposed to 20p before the Finance Act 1981. On disposable lighters, which normally retail at about £1 to £1·25, the tax is now an onerous proportion of the total retail price, excluding VAT.
  In April 1981 there was a 150 per cent. increase in duty, but it must be extremely frustrating to the Treasury that the revenue from that tax is negligible. Despite some reluctance in the Treasury, I managed to extract from it last week the fact that the yield for 1981–82 was £16·4 million and in 1980–81 it was £9·6 million. However, most of that revenue comes from matches and only £3 million comes from mechanical lighters.
  The European Commission has always taken the view—quite legitimately—as do many people in Britain, that the main aim of an excise duty is to raise revenue and that the duty is valid only if the yield is sufficiently great, bearing in mind the expenses incurred in obtaining it. For beer and other main consumption items, that is probably unarguable, but it does not apply to mechanical lighters, which have a small market that is growing smaller as a result of the imposition of this onerous duty.
  A colleague of mine who is a European Member of Parliament recently asked in the European Parliament whether the Commission was still in pursuit of the objective of harmonising duties on tobacco, alcohol, wines, beer and oil and abolishing duties that produce negligible or tiny revenues. The answer was an emphatic "Yes". That is indeed the aim, and it should surely also be the aim of the domestic Exchequer.
  The duty on lighters remains a significant irritant for consumers, importers and manufacturers alike. People in the business in Britain rightly point out that the Commission's proposals for harmonising consumer taxes other than VAT provide that member States should bear it in mind that excise duty should not affect products which may be regarded as essential or ordinary everyday products for normal living. Although beer might come into that category, the yield makes it impossible for the domestic Exchequer to consider abolition. Matches and lighters, however, should surely fall into that category.
  There is now overwhelming evidence that the heavy duty imposed has almost entirely destroyed the market in Britain. Alas, there are now no significant domestic manufacturers of cheaper lighters. Indeed, one of the reasons for the order is that the extremely heavy duty encourages smuggling. In every way, therefore, the duty
  682
  seems illogical and irrational and no more than a bureaucratic continuation to please the Treasury of a duty that is indefensible in all inherent terms. That is the whole purpose of the special order.
  The Government still have the opportunity to reconsider the duty on lighters whenever they like. It is entirely unsatisfactory for all concerned. Consumers wishing to buy a cheap product have to pay far more because of a duty that yields less to the Treasury than it costs to raise. Manufacturers and importers are selling far fewer lighters. Even well-known companies in this country have either already gone out of business or are on the verge of doing so, so the Exchequer is left to collect a diminishing amount of money. If one or more United Kingdom companies manufactured a cheap lighter to help consumers, the situation might be different in that there might be a case at the margin for protecting a domestic industry, particularly a re-emergent industry. That is not the case, however, as I believe that the only lighters now manufactured in the United Kingdom are high price luxery lighters.
  The Economic Secretary is a wise and sensible person. Therefore, even if he cannot make any changes on the other imported products covered by the order and the abuse that I freely concede goes with them, I hope that he will seriously reconsider the plight of the cheap lighter sector.
  10.52 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer (Keightey): I wish to comment on the fourth report of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, of which I am Chairman. The Committee drew special attention to the order because
  "there appears to be a doubt whether it is intra."
  The Minister, not unexpectedly, took the view that it was indeed intra vires.
  Paragraph 4 of the report states:
  "Council Directive 69/169/EEC provides that goods in travellers' personal luggage shall be exempt from VAT and excise duty if they have no commercial character and their total value does not exceed a specified monetary limit."
  Here, however, in addition to the specified monetary limit a limit of 50 litres of beer and 25 lighters is being imposed.
  Article 3.2 of the directive states:
  "Importation shall have no commercial character if they

  (a) take place occasionally and

  (b) consist exclusively of goods for the personal or family use of travellers, or of goods intended as presents; the nature or quantity of such goods must not be such as might indicate that they are beig imported for commercial reasons".

  That is a general guideline. It is perhaps unsatisfactory, but it is all that the Treasury has.
  As the Select Committee report makes clear, the provisions of that directive
  "have direct effect in accordance with the principles laid down by the European Court, and … give rise to rights enforceable in the courts of the United Kingdom in accordance with sections 2(1) and (3) of the European Communities Act 1972."
  The Committee does not make a judgment about the merits of the order; it is concerned simply with whether the order is within the framework of the legislation on which the Minister has to operate.
  The Commissioners of Customs and Excise gave a curious explanation in the supplementary memorandum, which is printed in the report to the House and which has been mentioned by the Minister. The directive states that
  "importations shall have no commercial character".
  A number of qualifications are then given. The Commissioners of Customs and Excise say that

  683
  "imported goods are subject to the rule that their nature or quantity must not be such as might indicate that they are being imported for commercial reasons. This constitutes an overriding qualification which is not capable of being displaced by evidence that the goods in question were in fact imported for non-commercial reasons."
  That is an extraordinary explanation.
  A person may arrive with 60 litres of beer for a party which a dozen people will attend. They would be capable of absorbing such a quantity of beer. As he has never done this before, it will be occasional use. But, even if he provides the customs officer with an invitation to the party and with the names and addresses of all those likely to be present, such evidence is not capable of displacing the authority that the Treasury has produced to limit the importation to 50 litres. Therefore, the Committee reported to the House that there did not appear to be any sound basis for the application of the limit either on beer or on lighters beyond the qualifications laid down in article 3.2 of the directive. The Minister may say that that is unsatisfactory.
  Many of us—this was not the common view of the Committee—regard directives from the Common Market with no great affection. None the less, the Committee has a duty to examine the authority of such orders and to report. The Minister has had his advice and we have had our advice. Our advice, from the Speaker's Counsel, is that there is a doubt about the vires of the order. The Committee had to take that matter seriously. I hope the Minister will take the report seriously as the Committee was established to ensure that Ministers excercise their powers accurately and do not produce instruments that go beyond the defined powers.
  The Committee has drawn the attention of the House to this matter. I do not propose to divide the House. I hope that, at the conclusion of our short debate, the Minister will go back to his advisers to see whether an amending instrument is required to conform to the directive and the recommendations of the Committee.
  10.58 pm
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: We have had a useful short debate on the order in which a number of questions have been raised and comments made. I should like to deal with them in a somewhat reverse order by beginning with the comments of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer).
  I freely confess to him that when one is among lawyers one is on dangerous ground. It has to be conceded that establishing beyond a peradventure when items are imported for a commercial purpose rather than a personal use presents considerable problems.
  The hon. Gentleman has fairly quoted from the directive which lays upon us the obligation to ensure that duty-free importations should not have a commercial character. The problem we are up against is that once one is dealing for example, with substantial quantities of beer, it is extremely difficult for the Customs and Excise to judge in the period available, without severely delaying traffic, precisely how much is being brought in. The limit of 50 litres has been chosen with a view to establishing a fairly generous point that would be amply adequate for any conceivable personal use.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that someone coming in with 60 litres of beer—that is quite a large amount—might invite the officer of Customs and Excise to attend the party
  684
  to see that the beer was consumed on the premises. Unfortunately, the Customs and Excise has neither the time nor the manpower to respond enthusiastically to invitations of that kind. I recognise the authority with which the hon. Gentleman speaks as chairman of the Select Committee. I shall study his remarks. The best legal advice I am given is that the order is intra vires and that it is necessary in the light of recent developments to fulfil our obligations under the directive, especially the obligation to ensure that importation is not for commercial purposes.
  It was for the reasons set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) that I looked sceptically at an import duty on lighters. Although my hon. Friend is correct in saying that lighters manufactured in this country are essentially those at the top of the range, it has to be recognised that the manufacturers would not take enthusiastically to the abolition of the duty. My hon. Friend was suggesting, I believe, that the yield from the duty was less than the cost of collection. I assure him that that is not the case, certainly following the increase in duty in the 1981 Budget.
  This is one aspect of our duty structure that needs to be kept under review for the reasons that my hon. Friend has explained. I cannot give any undertakings, but I accept the argument advanced by my hon. Friend for considering whether the yield and the cost of collection and the risk of smuggling justify the continued imposition of the duty. We must also bear in mind the position of the domestic manufacturers of lighters, who, as I said, would not be keen to see the duty go.
  I apologise to the House for dealing with these points in reverse order, but it is easier to do so. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) mentioned consultations and the possibility that certain spirits might fall within the gulch between 22·2 per cent. and 20 per cent. or, to put it the other way round, between 38·8 per cent. and 22 per cent., which is the amended order in this range.
  The alcoholic strength of whisky, brandy, rum, gin and vodka is at least 36 per cent. by volume, so they are miles over the top and could not possibly be affected. Most liqueurs also have a strength well in excess of 22 per cent. by volume, with the two exceptions of advocaat and anisette. I must admit that they are not my normal bedtime drinking, but some people have acquired a taste for them. The percentage of alcohol in advocaat is 20·5 per cent., which, again, is well short of the margin between the old and the new dividing line, and in anisette it is 26·3 per cent., which, again, is substantially above the dividing line.
  I am assured that there is no known instance of the 22 per cent. dividing line in practice detracting from the existing duty-free entitlements under the legislation which this order will replace. It was not felt necessary to conduct consultations because the order did not seem to have any impact on the trade.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: A variety of new cream liqueurs have come on the market this year. I should have thought that it would be essential to have consultations about those innovations which were designed for sale in the Christmas trade this year.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I shall certainly see if there are any exceptions, but I am assured that there are no spirits

  685
  or liqueurs at or about this dividing line, and, therefore, no known instance where the trade would be affected. However if the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, or any other hon. Member, has evidence to the contrary I shall be happy to examine it.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked whether degrees proof still survived in any shape or form and asked about the Sikes system. I must admit that he caught me wholly off-guard on that. However, I am advised that the Sikes system has now been removed from general revenue law and that Customs and Excise has sold off its Sikes hydrometers as souvenirs. If the right hon. Gentleman would like one, I am sure that we could find him one. I cannot, off the cuff, say whether proof exists in any other non-Revenue legislation, but, if it does, I am not aware of it.
  The right hon. Gentleman's main point was that mechanical lighters had been dragged in on the coat tails of the new regulation to control imports of duty-free beer. I understand that recently there have been several instances in which travellers have been found with substantial quantities of manufactured lighters. I have not got any up-to-date figure for the rate of growth in such traffic, but there was a prosecution after a traveller came into the country with 600 lighters. By any stretch of the imagination, that was hardly likely to be for personal use.
  The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne suggested that 25 might be too handsome a limit to have for lighters and that nobody would want to bring in 25 lighters for personal use. I must admit that in bygone days, when the differential between the cost of lighters in France and the United Kingdom was much greater than it is today, I brought in perhaps half a dozen lighters for my own personal use. I found it well worth doing, because the
  686
  lighters did not last long and were easily lost. Therefore, a certain number of lighters can reasonably be expected to be imported for personal use. However, I accept that 25 is a pretty handsome limit.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: My argument was not so much that 25 was a handsome limit but that, while it was hard to imagine bringing in 25 lighters for anything other than commercial use, it was easy to see that, in practice, 50 litres of beer could be brought in for personal use. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) went into the details. The amount of duty saved is such a coincidence that it almost seems as if equality of duty saved was the motive.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: There is no particularly sacrosanct figure for either commodity. After all, 50 litres of beer is a pretty handsome allowance for anybody. If I met the right hon. Gentleman on the quayside at Dover and he was bringing in 50 litres of beer, I would be mildly surprised. [Interruption.] I would not dispute that 25 lighters is perhaps on the generous side, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. The line should be drawn at the point at which people would have considerable difficulty in proving that they were really bringing in a greater quantity for personal use. In the circumstances, the limit of 25 lighters and 50 litres is not unreasonable.
  On that basis, I hope that the House will give the order a fair wind.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Customs Duty (Personal Reliefs) (No. 1) Order 1968 (Amendment) Order 1982 (S.I., 1982, No. 1591), a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th November, be approved.

Orders of the Day

  CONWY TUNNEL (SUPPLEMENTARY POWERS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 72 (Welsh Grand Committee), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Question agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Ordered,
  That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Three by the Committee of Selection.
  Ordered,
  That there shall stand referred to the Select Committee—

  (a) any Petition against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than 13th December 1982, and

  (b) any Petition which has been presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled-up Bill or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the said Committee,

  being a Petition in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents.
  Ordered,
  That if no such Petition as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) above is presented, or if all such Petitions are withdrawn before the meeting of the Committee, the order for the commital of the Bill to a Select Committee shall be discharged and the Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
  Ordered,
  Than any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Select Committee shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents upon his Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Members in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition.
  Ordered,
  That the Committee have power to report from day to day the Minutes of Evidence taken before them.
  Ordered,
  That Three be the Quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Cope.]

  CONWY TUNNEL (SUPPLEMENTARY POWERS) [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the Secretary of State to acquire certain land and construct and carry out certain works, and to confer on him certain other powers, for or in connection with the construction, maintenance and improvement of a tunnel which he is authorised under the Highways Act 1980 to construct across the Conwy Estuary as part of a special road, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under the said Act of the present Session.—[Mr. Cope.]

  Industry and Employment (Hayes)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Hunt.]
  11.15 pm
  Mr. Neville Sandelson: However late the hour, I make no apology for returning yet again to a subject of great concern to every family in Hayes and Harlington. I intend to be fairly brief, but I shall not mince words, as I feel considerable personal anger and frustration at what has happened over the years in the area that I represent.
  Time and again since I was elected in 1971 I have drawn attention, both in Parliament and outside, to the progressive decline of industry throughout London, particularly the west London area. Only last year, in March, in a debate in the Chamber I called for a fresh appraisal of London's problems and the adoption of an entirely new regional approach. Looking through my files today I found that as long as 11 years ago, almost to the day, on 10 December 1971, I said in the House:
  "The closure of long-standing industrial firms in the area has become a contagion which shows no sign of abating and, together with unremitting waves of redundancies, unemployment hangs like a black cloud over a once-prosperous and stable industrial community. The shock effects of large-scale unemployment in areas such as this run far deeper than in areas inured to it by past experience."—[Official Report, 10 December; Vol 827, c. 1782.]
  That was 11 years ago. Today, following the last two or three years of deepening recession and inflexible monetarist policies, that contagion has become an epidemic. Closures of medium and small firms are now a monthly routine and fresh redundancies the weekly norm. Since 1979, the industrial blight in Hayes has become an economic blizzard as more manufacturing units have put up their shutters and more workers have been forced into unwanted idleness.
  The position has greatly worsened lately, but it is only right and fair to say that the causes of unemployment go back a long way and that there can be no instant solution. I recognise that. On the local level, over the past decade successive Governments have turned a blind eye to the progressive decay. That may be one reason for the apathy and disenchantment with both Conservative and Labour Parties, which so many people in my constituency feel.
  Throughout all those years the political complexion of whatever party was in office has made no significant difference to the people of Hayes and Harlington. The problems were apparent, but the policies remained unchanged. Periodically the faces of Ministers from both parties changed, but the same bland assurances have come from them all. Meanwhile, industry has continued to erode and unemployment to grow.
  Perhaps there is a minor chink of light, which I hope will grow into a major prospect in due course, though it is a long-term trend, in the Stockley park project, which holds out hope of new commercial developments in the Hayes area and is welcome to the people of Hayes. The project has been approved by the borough council and the GLC. I understand that the Minister might be able to say something about the future of that project.
  The downward trend has become so widespread throughout the area that it would be absurd to relate in detail again the statistics of decline. All industries in Hayes and Harlington have been affected. I could send the

  689
  Minister a long list of the firms in my constituency which have closed for ever, been forced into liquidation or moved elsewhere under the pressure of London's high costs. A recent example is Callard and Bowser, a firm of high repute and a good employer in the area for many years, which has to move to South Wales because of the high cost of rates in London.
  Unemployment in Hayes is nearly 8 per cent. and is the highest locally in living memory. I hope that the Minister will not say that that is below the London regional average, which in turn is below that in other regions. That will give no satisfaction to my constituents. Indeed, it would be on par with telling a man who suffers paralysis as a result of a car accident that he is lucky to be alive.
  I ask the Minister to state bluntly whether he sees a serious long-term future for manufacturing industry in the London area. Do the Government intend to permit the continued sell-out of manufacturing plants engaged in modern technological production and their replacement by service industries which, useful though they may be, can provide employment for only a fraction of the present work force? If they do, thousands of skilled and semi-skilled workers and their children in my constituency face a bleak future.
  Is it not an outrage and a tragic waste of a major national asset that such a cohesive work force, highly trained in specialist engineering and electronic production, should be pitchforked, like so much industrial scrap, on to the labour market to queue for the few unskilled jobs that become available in hotels and warehouses or for people prepared to wheel trolleys at Heathrow?
  Long-term and youth unemployment figures are mounting. The local scene cannot be divorced from the national scene. Month after month the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or one of his acolytes, confidently assures the nation that the recession is coming to an end, that economic recovery is round the corner; yet the economic crisis deepens under the weight of blinkered policies obstinately pursued.
  Last week's trade figures showed that the balance of trade in manufactured goods had swung from a substantial surplus last year to a deficit in the first 10 months of this year. We are now importing more manufactured goods than we are exporting and heading for the first peacetime annual deficit in manufactured goods for more than a century. The condition of many industrial firms—this is as true of Hayes as elsewhere—remains so weak that a continuation of the present level of orders would spell disaster for them in 1983, swelling yet further the unemployment figures. Far from becoming more competitive, Britain is showing a sharp deterioration in competitiveness, and this must sooner or later have serious consequences for the rate of inflation, which is the sole jewel in the Prime Minister's diadem.
  We must get Britain back to work and we must get Hayes back to work. Labour's policies, I need hardly say, lack all credibility and the country views them with total disbelief. No hope lies along that road. But clearly there must be a controlled reflation of our economy and much more done to encourage small businesses, which are still over-regulated. The Social Democratic Party has advanced carefully thought-out plans for economic revival, including plans for the long-term unemployed and long-term job creation. Above all, we must initiate a major
  690
  programme to improve the further education and training of our children and make it more responsive to the needs of industry.
  When industrial collapse and unemployment hit Hayes, traditionally a bastion of industrial prosperity, the country really is in trouble. I hope that the Minister will not fall back on anodyne remedies. My constituents are too worried for that sort of thing. They hope to hear from the Minister what prospects of work there are for this industrious and responsible community, and above all what future their children have to look forward to. These have become the burning issues for an increasing number of my constituents.
  11.27 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John MacGregor): I congratulate the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) on securing the Adjournment debate. He has often expressed concern in the House about his constituents' interests, as I would expect from an assiduous Member of Parliament. He has been outspoken in their interests as he sees them, just as he was outspoken in his critical comments on his old party. I admired him for that. I did not have quite the same admiration for his speech tonight. If he will forgive me for saying so, it was long on expressions of concern but short on analytical thinking and description. I do not intend to fall back on anodyne remedies, but, as I listened to the 30-seconds worth of remedies that the hon. Gentleman offered, I thought that his own adjective for them was apt.
  The hon. Gentleman has talked in general terms and has not gone into detail, except about one or two areas of his constituency. I have more or less torn up my notes, and I shall take up the hon. Gentleman's argument by talking about economic policy in general.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested the Britain is currently importing more manufactured goods than it is exporting. As the Prime Minister made clear at Question Time on 2 December, we must study the figures carefully. The monthly figures of imports include cost, insurance and freight, and exports are given as free on board. Cost, insurance and freight is, to quite a large extent, a credit to Britain in the invisibles that we earn. The balance of payments figures show both imports and exports as free on board and relate directly to manufactured goods. Against that background, we find that for the first nine months of the year there was a surplus on manufactured goods. It is important to make it clear that a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman was quoting about import figures comes in under invisibles.
  The second point that the hon. Gentleman raised related to service industries. I am sure that he did not mean to exaggerate, but it is important that, in his constituents' interests, the point is clarified. I assure him that I recognise the importance of manufacturing to his area of west London and to the country as a whole. We should not overlook the increasing importance of the service industries, not just in our advanced economy but in his constituency. I am sure that he did not mean that service industries employ only a fraction of the present work force.
  I shall look briefly at the past, because I have heard the hon. Gentleman's indictment of past Government policies which led to the present position. He said that they go back a long way and that there is no quick solution. He was talking about prescriptions which involve Governments

  691
  whom he appeared to support for many years. I recognise that he was one of the Labour Government's strongest critics.
  The background is important in relation to the redundancies and closures that are taking place in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I have been through the list of redundancies and closures, and time after time the factors quoted are reduced demand or world-wide shortage of orders. We see in Hayes and Harlington and elsewhere the impact of the world-wide recession and the kind of factors which have led to Great Britain's uncompetitiveness and higher costs over many years. One of the most important factors is inflation. We were so often paying ourselves more than we were earning that our unit labour costs rose much faster than those of other countries. There was the impact also of higher industrial costs and higher interest rates on average in this country compared with overseas.
  I want to start by looking at today's overall economic position, because we are making considerable progress with the factors that led to the problems faced by so many of the manufacturing industries that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Inflation was reduced to 6·8 per cent. in October. The importance of that is that Great Britain is now below the average of the OECD countries, whereas under the Labour Government Great Britain was consistently at the top of the inflation league.
  The hon. Gentleman said that inflation was the only favourable point to which we could look. That is not so, because interest rates have come down substantially compared with a year ago; productivity is improving; output per head in manufacturing industry is now 12 per cent. higher than at the end of 1980 and 6 per cent. higher than the average for 1979; and unit wage and salary costs in manufacturing rose by only 5·5 per cent. during the year to the second quarter of 1982—a rate that compares favourably with the United States of America and France. Company profitability has improved from the low levels experienced during the first quarter of 1981. Further improvements can be expected as a result of the considerable effects of recent Government policy in helping with industrial costs. It is important to point out that with the measures taken in the past six months on interest rates, the reductions in the national insurance surcharge, the recent announcements about standstills in gas and electricity prices and in a number of other ways, a substantial change has taken place in industries' costs.
  I recognise that it will take a considerable time to reverse many years of declining competitiveness. We have still a long way to go. As the hon. Gentleman said, there is no quick solution. I accept that there is no quick and easy way out of the world recession.
  I recognise the problems of factory closures in west London where employment in the manufacturing sector forms a higher proportion of employment than in Greater London generally. In the current recession companies are ensuring their long-term viability and competitiveness by rationalising their productive capacity. Many firms in Hayes are doing just that. It means severe and difficult short-term decisions, but companies need to adjust rapidly to world economic changes. Hayes is fortunate to be close to centres such as Uxbridge and Heathrow where employment opportunities in the office and service sectors have grown in recent years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not disparage the impact that those sectors can have.
  692
  The service sector in west London is still relatively buoyant and in the longer-term should compensate for the decline in manufacturing in the area. The construction of Heathrow terminal 4 has given a boost to local employment. It is expected to provide 3,000 to 6,000 jobs by 1985. In addition, Trust Securities Limited is to develop a science park and leisure facility at Stockley Park which could create up to 5,500 jobs. With the changing industrial structure and the introduction of new technologies, science parks will play an important part in economic growth. Leisure facilities are also developing. The developers at Stockley Park are awaiting the outcome of a derelict land clearance application, which is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. After my earlier conversation with the hon. Gentleman I checked the position. The application is receiving urgent consideration.
  In spite of the recession, unemployment in Hayes compares favourably with that in other parts of London. Residential-based male unemployment was only 7·9 per cent. in October in Hayes compared with 12·4 per cent. in Greater London as a whole and 20 per cent., for example, in more disadvantaged areas, such as Brixton. The figures are higher in other parts of the country.
  I take it that the hon. Gentleman accepts the importance of regional policy in concentrating aid on the areas of greatest need. Hayes has problems but no one could say that it was an area of greatest need. In March 1981 the hon. Gentleman stated:
  "Regional policies, properly directed and applied, are a
  vital Government responsibility, but each Government in turn have treated London as a milch cow for every other region."—[Official Report, 13 March 1981, Vol. 1000, c. 1170.]
  I have looked in vain to see what SDP policy is.
  Let us consider what steps the Government have taken to assist industry from which west London might benefit, apart from the general economic policies that I have mentioned. We should recognise their applicability to areas such as Hayes. The first is the suspension of industrial development certificates which legitimately caused great anxiety in areas where natural development might have taken place but for the certificates. Almost a year ago—4 December 1981—I announced the suspension of IDCs and that came into effect on 9 January. Any company contemplating any size of investment in a non-assisted area need no longer seek permission from the Government.
  Mr. Sandelson: I pressed for that and am grateful to the Minister for taking action.
  Mr. MacGregor: I was glad to do so.
  I also wish to draw attention to industrial innovation support. The hon. Gentleman has in the past talked of the importance of the new technologies. Perhaps because of concentrating overmuch on regional development grants, all parts of the United Kingdom ignore the fact that much support for innovation is available from my Department. It takes the form of aid under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act to assist with new development in the national interest that would not otherwise take place.
  Since May 1979, nine projects have received assistance totalling £32,500 on project costs of £125,000 in the Hayes area.
  With regard to support for innovation and the microprocessor application project, the Government have committed £140 million in the current year. That is double

  693
  what it was in real terms when we took office. Several firms in Hayes have already taken advantage of that assistance. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that nothing like enough has been done, and I hope that he will continue to publicise the existence of the schemes.
  I shall now deal with employment schemes. The hon. Gentleman referred to those of his constituents who are unemployed. I appreciate his worry about them. I am aware of the redundancies that have taken place in the past year or so in the Hayes area and the effect they have had. Nevertheless, the area benefits from various employment schemes under which support or training is available. They include the temporary short-time working compensation scheme, from which 265 people have benefited since the beginning of 1981. In addition, the following training places are available in the area. There are 672 places on the youth opportunities programme, of which about 390 have been taken. In the community programme for over 18-year-olds, which replaced the community enterprise programme, there are 250 places. Under the training opportunities programme there are 87 places and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the skillcentre at Perivale has 305 places and that at Twickenham has 389. These measures should ensure that the work force is equipped to take full advantage of the opportunities when the upturn comes.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the impact of rates on local businesses. He will know that the Conservative administration in Hayes has made strenuous efforts to keep the rates down. I am sure that he would also agree that the policies currently being pursued by the Greater London Council are hostile and inimical to many businesses. It is always important to stress that ever-increasing rates drive businesses away to other areas.
  I have looked into matters with regard to Callard and Bowser. It is a complicated matter. The hon. Gentleman will know that details of individual applications for regional selective assistance are commercially confidential, so I cannot go into full details. However, other factors were at work. The hon. Gentleman will know that the previous company was making losses and that there were problems about the premises being inefficient and ageing. The new company's decision to concentrate in South Wales was not simply due to Government incentives; other factors were involved.
  Mr. Sandelson: I did not intend to make any criticism of the management of Callard and Bowser. Having had discussions with the management, I fully realise the reasons for its decision to leave Hayes. I merely mentioned
  694
  it as an example of a firm being driven out of the area by factors such as the high rates that many companies in my constituency have to endure.
  Mr. MacGregor: I understand that point. The Conservative council is doing all that it can to help. I am worried lest it should appear that Government selective financial assistance is simply encouraging jobs away from the hon. Gentleman's area to others. I assure him that supported projects must demonstrate that they benefit both national and regional economies, not just shuffle jobs round the country. The effect of an award of regional assistance on employment elsewhere is taken into account when determining whether a company should receive a grant.
  I do not want to mince words. I accept the hon. Gentleman's criticism of the Labour Party, but what 1 find extraordinary, both in his speech and in all that I have looked at in "Back to Work"—the SDP's policy document—is that they are full of flowery phrases and expressions of concern, but devoid of policies that add up. The talk is of selective reflation. Any form of reflation involves having to choose how to reflate. Selective reflation is, therefore, just a camouflage for saying "Reflation" but the SDP does not want to face the realities of reflation, because it knows what they are. One of those consequences, as has often been acknowledged by some Social Democratic Party spokesmen, is higher interest rates. It is precisely high interest rates that many companies now find inhibit expansion and add to costs.
  Equally, the SDP's policy depends on an incomes policy, but it is not spelt out because it knows that it is unworkable. The hon. Gentleman talked of small business policy. I have been through the list and found that all these policies could have been adopted by the Labour Government. They are simply developments of what we are currently doing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Conservative Government have their heart in and have acted upon small business policy. His new-found party—the SDP—is simply trying to jump on the bandwagon to see what Conservative clothes it can steal.
  Mr. Sandelson: That argument can apply in reverse in other areas. For example—I make no complaint of this—the Conservative Party is at present advancing a programme of trade union reform that is simply—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at fifteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Roger Jackling
  Mr. Roger Jackling
  Franks Report
  Franks Report
  Exocet Missiles
  Exocet Missiles
  Armed Services (Ministerial Responsibility)
  Armed Services (Ministerial Responsibility)
  Joint Intelligence Committee
  Joint Intelligence Committee
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Detained Persons (Statistics)
  Detained Persons (Statistics)
  Immigration Rules
  Immigration Rules
  Young Offenders
  Young Offenders
  Emigration Assistance
  Emigration Assistance
  Drake Hall Open Prison
  Drake Hall Open Prison
  Holloway Prison
  Holloway Prison
  European Commission of Human Rights
  European Commission of Human Rights
  Citizens Band Radio
  Citizens Band Radio
  Metropolitan Police (Training and Recruitment)
  Metropolitan Police (Training and Recruitment)
ENERGY
  Standing Charges
  Standing Charges
  Chile (Enriched Uranium)
  Chile (Enriched Uranium)
  Heating Systems and Insulation
  Heating Systems and Insulation
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Child Benefits
  Child Benefits
  Sterling Exchange Rate
  Sterling Exchange Rate
  Land Compensation Acts 1961 and 1973
  Land Compensation Acts 1961 and 1973
  Steel Imports
  Steel Imports
  European Community
  European Community
  Falklands Campaign
  Falklands Campaign
  Customs and Excise
  Customs and Excise
  IMF Guidelines (Extended Arrangements)
  IMF Guidelines (Extended Arrangements)
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
  Retail Prices Index
  Retail Prices Index
  Laker Airways
  Laker Airways
  Tax Allowances
  Tax Allowances
INDUSTRY
  Steel
  Steel
  Manufacturing Advisory Service
  Manufacturing Advisory Service
  Design Advisory Service
  Design Advisory Service
  British Steel Corporation
  British Steel Corporation
  National Physical Laboratory
  National Physical Laboratory
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Tourist Industries
  Tourist Industries
  India
  India
  Turks and Caicos Islands
  Turks and Caicos Islands
  Providenciales
  Providenciales
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Mr. Gaston Thorn (Visits)
  Mr. Gaston Thorn (Visits)
TRADE
  Japan
  Japan
  British Exports
  British Exports
  Exports (Free and Equal Access)
  Exports (Free and Equal Access)
  West London (Aircraft Noise)
  West London (Aircraft Noise)
  GATT (Meeting)
  GATT (Meeting)
  Platinum and Vanadium
  Platinum and Vanadium
  British Manufacturers (French Controls)
  British Manufacturers (French Controls)
  Table Wine (Licensed Premises Sales)
  Table Wine (Licensed Premises Sales)
  British Airways
  British Airways
  Reinsurance Market
  Reinsurance Market
  Spain (Car Imports)
  Spain (Car Imports)
  European Community (Balance of Trade)
  European Community (Balance of Trade)
  Special Steels (United States of America)
  Special Steels (United States of America)
  Steel Industry (Unfair Competition)
  Steel Industry (Unfair Competition)
  Hillingdon Investments
  Hillingdon Investments
  Titanium (Imports)
  Titanium (Imports)
  Textile Industry
  Textile Industry
  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Commercial Whaling
  Commercial Whaling
  French Minister (Talks)
  French Minister (Talks)
  Clothing Imports
  Clothing Imports
  Exports
  Exports
  Micro-computers (Imports)
  Micro-computers (Imports)
  Republic of Ireland
  Republic of Ireland
  British Merchant Shipping
  British Merchant Shipping
  Hotels
  Hotels
  Manufactured Goods
  Manufactured Goods
  Gliding Facilities, Portmoak
  Gliding Facilities, Portmoak
  Sterling Exchange Rate
  Sterling Exchange Rate
  Argentina
  Argentina
  Steel
  Steel
  European Community (Trade Documentation)
  European Community (Trade Documentation)
  Insolvency
  Insolvency
  Motor Vehicles (Odometer Readings)
  Motor Vehicles (Odometer Readings)
  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  European Community
  European Community
  France (Alcoholic Beverages)
  France (Alcoholic Beverages)
  Steel Imports
  Steel Imports
  Live Cattle (Imports)
  Live Cattle (Imports)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Mauritius
  Mauritius
  Official Communications
  Official Communications
  Television Programmes (Disarmament)
  Television Programmes (Disarmament)
  Turkish Peace Association
  Turkish Peace Association
  Chile
  Chile
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Asian Arts Festival (Hong Kong)
  Asian Arts Festival (Hong Kong)
  Israel
  Israel
WALES
  Roads (Fencing)
  Roads (Fencing)
  Historic Buildings
  Historic Buildings
  Area Health Authorities
  Area Health Authorities
  A44 (Goginan-Ponterwyd)
  A44 (Goginan-Ponterwyd)
  Schools (Governing Bodies)
  Schools (Governing Bodies)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Housing (Belfast)
  Housing (Belfast)
  Private Hospitals
  Private Hospitals
  Lear Fan
  Lear Fan
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Medical Education
  Medical Education
  School Attendance (Enforcement)
  School Attendance (Enforcement)
  Examination Results (Publication)
  Examination Results (Publication)
  Private Education (Statistics)
  Private Education (Statistics)
  Schools (Governing Bodies)
  Schools (Governing Bodies)
  Schoolchildren (Religious Beliefs)
  Schoolchildren (Religious Beliefs)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Shop (Sale Restrictions)
  Shop (Sale Restrictions)
EMPLOYMENT
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Maternity Pay
  Maternity Pay
  European Social Fund (Greater London)
  European Social Fund (Greater London)
  Youth Training Board
  Youth Training Board
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Birmingham
  Birmingham
  Retail Prices Index
  Retail Prices Index
  Unemployment Statistics (Liverpool)
  Unemployment Statistics (Liverpool)
  Unemployment Statistics (Penistone)
  Unemployment Statistics (Penistone)
  Unemployment Statistics (Walthamstow-Leyton)
  Unemployment Statistics (Walthamstow-Leyton)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agricultural Export Subsidies
  Agricultural Export Subsidies
  Dairy Products (Surpluses)
  Dairy Products (Surpluses)
  Spanish Fishing Fleet (Access)
  Spanish Fishing Fleet (Access)
  Turkeymeat
  Turkeymeat
  Strychnine
  Strychnine
  Poisons
  Poisons
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
  Children's Council
  Children's Council
  Special Hospitals
  Special Hospitals
  Secure Units
  Secure Units
  Mr. and Mrs. Harper
  Mr. and Mrs. Harper
  Hospital Accommodation (West Midlands)
  Hospital Accommodation (West Midlands)
  Mobility Allowance (Appeals)
  Mobility Allowance (Appeals)
  Irradiated Food
  Irradiated Food
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Heating Allowance
  Heating Allowance
  Accrington
  Accrington
  Children's Allowance
  Children's Allowance
  Mental Hospitals (Staff Training)
  Mental Hospitals (Staff Training)
  Psychiatric Patients (Treatment)
  Psychiatric Patients (Treatment)
  Ethnic Communities
  Ethnic Communities
  Retirement Pension
  Retirement Pension
  Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill
  Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill
  Miss Sheila Rossall
  Miss Sheila Rossall
  Pensioners
  Pensioners
  Low-income Families
  Low-income Families
  Industrial Injuries and Diseases
  Industrial Injuries and Diseases
TRANSPORT
  Motor Coaches (Speed Limits)
  Motor Coaches (Speed Limits)
  A45 Allesley, Coventry
  A45 Allesley, Coventry
  Vehicle Licences
  Vehicle Licences
  Dipped Headlights
  Dipped Headlights
  Heavy Lorries
  Heavy Lorries
  M25 (Service Areas)
  M25 (Service Areas)
  A38
  A38
  Trans-Pennine Motorway
  Trans-Pennine Motorway
  A390
  A390
  Smoking
  Smoking
  Mileage Recording
  Mileage Recording
ENVIRONMENT
  Horses (Memorial)
  Horses (Memorial)
  Merseyside Task Force
  Merseyside Task Force
  Land Registers
  Land Registers
  Rates (Business Properties)
  Rates (Business Properties)
  Homeless Persons (Newham)
  Homeless Persons (Newham)
  Land Compensation Acts
  Land Compensation Acts
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Local Authority Rates
  Local Authority Rates
  Severe Damp
  Severe Damp
  Commercial and Industrial Properties (Sales)
  Commercial and Industrial Properties (Sales)
  Environmental Pollution (Report)
  Environmental Pollution (Report)
  Salford
  Salford
DEFENCE
  Nimrod Aircraft
  Nimrod Aircraft
  Gannet Aircraft
  Gannet Aircraft
  Falklands Campaign (Costs)
  Falklands Campaign (Costs)
  Burdwood Bank
  Burdwood Bank
  HMS "Fearless"
  HMS "Fearless"
  Hercules Aircraft (Medical Assistance)
  Hercules Aircraft (Medical Assistance)
  RFA "Fort Austin"
  RFA "Fort Austin"
  Falkland Islands (Police Investigations)
  Falkland Islands (Police Investigations)
  Royal Yacht "Britannia"
  Royal Yacht "Britannia"
  "Ailsa Princess"
  "Ailsa Princess"
  Falkland Islands (Exclusion Zone)
  Falkland Islands (Exclusion Zone)
  HMS "Endurance"
  HMS "Endurance"
  Warships (Fire Control)
  Warships (Fire Control)
  Merchant Ships
  Merchant Ships
  T2400 Submarine Project
  T2400 Submarine Project
  SS "Uganda"
  SS "Uganda"
  Falklands Campaign (Insurance)
  Falklands Campaign (Insurance)
  Danish Ferry "England"
  Danish Ferry "England"
  Argentine Forces
  Argentine Forces
  Falklands Campaign (Casualties)
  Falklands Campaign (Casualties)
  Argentine Carrier "25 de Mayo"
  Argentine Carrier "25 de Mayo"
  Conqueror Class Submarines
  Conqueror Class Submarines
  "General Belgrano"
  "General Belgrano"
  Falkland Islands (Ammunition Stocks)
  Falkland Islands (Ammunition Stocks)
  Requisitioned Ships
  Requisitioned Ships
  Sea King Helicopters
  Sea King Helicopters
  South Atlantic (Fuel Supplies)
  South Atlantic (Fuel Supplies)
  Nuclear Weapons
  Nuclear Weapons
  HARM Missiles
  HARM Missiles
  Air Staff Target 1228
  Air Staff Target 1228
  University of Cardiff (Grant)
  University of Cardiff (Grant)
  HMS "Conqueror"
  HMS "Conqueror"
  Tanker Aircraft
  Tanker Aircraft
SCOTLAND
  Unemployment Statistics (Glasgow)
  Unemployment Statistics (Glasgow)
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Temporary Employment Measures
  Temporary Employment Measures
  Young Persons (Unemployment)
  Young Persons (Unemployment)
  Job Protection and Job Creation Schemes
  Job Protection and Job Creation Schemes
  Job Losses (Glasgow)
  Job Losses (Glasgow)
  Redundancies (Glasgow)
  Redundancies (Glasgow)
  Multiple Sclerosis
  Multiple Sclerosis
  Seal Cull
  Seal Cull
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Torness
  Torness
  Poison (Birds and Mammals)
  Poison (Birds and Mammals)
  Dornoch Firth Crossing
  Dornoch Firth Crossing

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

Gatwick Airport: Development Delays and Costs
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: 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 why it was necessary for 2¼ years to elapse between the conclusion of the public hearings of the inquiry into the development of Gatwick Airport and the announcement of their decisions by the Secretaries of State, and why work on this development is not yet authorised to begin; and what has been the cost to public funds and to the British Airports Authority of these proceedings.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the Inspector's report, which took eight months, contained many recommendations for consideration by the Government. In September 1981 new air traffic forecasts were made available which my right honourable friends considered to be material. In a letter to all the parties in November they expressed a preliminary view that it would be right to grant outline permission for the second terminal. However, they invited the interested parties to make written representations on the new forecasts before a final decision was taken. This procedure lasted until August 1982. My right honourable friends announced this final decision on 9th November last. It will now be necessary for detailed plans to be approved by the local planning authority, and other conditions of the permission to be met. The directly assessable cost to the Exchequer of the inquiry
2
was £96,000; this does not include some establishment costs not separately available. Expenditure incurred by the British Airports Authority on the inquiry is a matter for the board.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that comprehensive reply. May I ask him whether he is really satisfied that it was necessary to follow a procedure which, in the words of a learned judge,
"went beyond time and encroached upon eternity",
in order to decide what is not a very difficult issue?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, that may well have been a learned judge's opinion; but, on the other hand, there is another opinion which says that two and a quarter years is not considered to be unduly long for this process, bearing in mind the requirement for further representations which arose.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I do not wish to disagree excessively. The remark about encroaching upon eternity was made by Chief Justice Cockburn in the last century.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am sure he would have great expertise on airport inquiries.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, while not rising on a legal point, may I ask the noble Earl whether the Government still adhere quite firmly to their Statement that 25 million passengers per annum will be the maximum permitted at Gatwick? Additionally, can he give the House any indication as to when the work at Gatwick will be completed and/or actually when the new extension of the terminal will be in use?—because the two might not be the same date.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I cannot confirm the answer to the noble Baroness' first question because I do not have the information at my fingertips. As regards work on the second terminal, provided the necessary planning and investment approvals are forthcoming, the British Airports Authority hope to start preparatory work on the site during the spring of

3
next year. It is estimated that the earliest that the first phase of the terminal can come into use is 1987.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, will the Minister be kind enough to write and confirm the figure of 25 million passengers being the maximum per annum to be permitted?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I shall be happy to do so. I was not aware that the noble Baroness needed that confirmation.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, has the Minister any idea whether this decision will affect the decision at Stansted?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, my understanding is that the inquiry at Stansted is going ahead on the assumption that the second terminal will be built at Gatwick.

Nuclear Attack: London Survival Rate
2.38p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: 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 they agree that even on their own 1980 "Square Leg" assumption of a nuclear attack in which there would be no direct hits on the capital and only 13 megatons exploding in five outlying areas, the survival rate in many London boroughs would be nil and, if they disagree, what is their own calculation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Elton): My Lords, "Square Leg" was a military exercise, in which attack assumptions were made to test military plans. In the immediate vicinity of the assumed bomb bursts, few people, if any, would have survived. Elsewhere in London there would have been millions of survivors, as would be the case in any part of the United Kingdom on any realistically foreseeable scale of attack.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that out of 33 London boroughs, survivors could be expected in only approximately half of those boroughs? Is it not irresponsible to insist upon London boroughs carrying out full nuclear preparations and civil defence exercises when it is known in fact that the possibility of any reasonable survival rate does not exist?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have to say that I find it odd that the noble Lord should say in one breath that survivors might be expected, on his admission, in half the London boroughs, and say at the same time that no provision should be made to increase their ability to survive. I would add in the national context that the intention of our policy is to present a credible policy of deterrence, and this is part of it.
Lord George-Brown: My Lords, may I ask the Minister who it should be —possibly the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney? Also, could we be allowed to ask, through the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney—
A noble Lord: No!
Lord George-Brown:—to ask the Soviet Parliament which, as I understand it, meets only twice a year, to ask whichever authority it is which runs Moscow, the very same Question which is put here and to ask whoever it is who runs Moscow then to ask the Supreme Presidium of the Soviets what their answer is to the very same Question?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord's interrogatory process outruns the bounds of possibility. If it could be in action, my Lords, I would require more than two Sessions a year to answer the questions the noble Lord would ask of that body.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the time seems to have arrived when my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney puts down these Questions in order to frighten us and to frighten everybody—
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Shinwell: when in fact all that happens is that he is frightened himself?
Lord Elton: My Lords, anybody who tries to frighten the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is pursuing a lost cause.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, is it not now unrealistic to expect that there could be many survivors from a nuclear attack, in view of, first, the United Nations expert statement that a nuclear weapon has now been created which is 4,000 times as deadly as the one which fell on Hiroshima—
Lord George-Brown: Tell Moscow!
Lord Brockway:—and, secondly, that the preparatory committee of the Medical Association's investigation says that, even in the deepest shelters, people will be choked to death?
Lord Elton: My Lords, there is a good deal of misapprehension and some inaccuracy in the assumptions that underly the noble Lord's question. Be that as it may, the concern of Her Majesty's Government is to see, first, that a nuclear war does not arise; and, secondly, that if it does the maximum number of people shall survive under the best possible conditions. Both those aims require a credible and effective system of civil defence.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister consider it profitable to talk in terms of expected survival, when the defence potential remains a wholly unknown factor?
Lord Elton: Indeed, my Lords. I am often at pains to avoid pursuing hypothetical questions in the House, but the weight, direction, location and number of nuclear strikes in a war on this country, if it took place, cannot be predicted by us, because we would not be pressing the button. We are concerned to see that the button is not pressed. The way to do that is to make people on the other side realise that there is a credible response. To make that reponse credible, we have to arm ourselves against the possibility of war and the need to see that members of this country, who are your Lordships' fellow citizens, survive in as a great a number, and under as great a chance of recovery, as is humanly possible. That is the aim of this policy.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, would the Government consider cheering us up a little bit by making the next assumption not the "Square Leg" assumption, but the "Silly mid-off" assumption?
Lord Elton: My Lords, as I am a rowing man, rather than a cricketer, I shall not answer that question for fear of catching a crab.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that it would be an appalling shame, if the very existence of the Soviet Union should in any way prohibit any Member of this House or another place, or any other British person, from making full use of our democratic facilities? Would he further agree that all the horrendous figures which have been quoted in this Question Time apply equally to citizens in the Soviet Union and America, and that what is really wanted—and perhaps our Government could give a lead-is that there should be parliamentary concern expressed in the Soviet Union and, equally, the United States of America? We should challenge them to do that, so that, perhaps, we could band together to give humanity a lead away from the most probable of all holocausts and back to sanity.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is beyond the competence of any British Government to alter the constitutional arrangements in the Soviet Union. But that said, I trust that those who live on the other side of the Iron Curtain realise that they are as exposed as we are to the consequences of any nuclear exchange and that we have a mutual interest in seeing that it does not occur.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the nobleLord aware that it so happens that I have asked the question suggested by the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, not in Moscow but in Leningrad, of the city soviet which is in charge of that city? The answer I received was that, although there are military preparations for the possibility of nuclear war, there are no civilian preparations, as they take the view that any nuclear war would result in wholesale destruction, and that there is so little possibility of human survival that it is undesirable, unnecessary and, indeed, absurd to make preparations for it. In these cicumstances, would the Government, even if they wish to make a pretence of the possibility of survival, at least refrain from enforcing upon local authorities an action to a pretence of survival in which they do not believe?
Lord Elton: My Lords, it would be useful if the noble Lord, in his next opportunity to question the supposedly democratic institutions of the Soviet
6
Union, would take the opportunity of preaching the lesson, which I have tried to preach to him this afternoon, that it is in the interests of all of us to avoid nuclear war, and of saying that this country is prepared to contemplate the possibility, in order to avoid the likelihood.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: Answer the question!
Lord Alport: My Lords, may I ask the Leader of the House whether she does not consider that the process of this Question and Answer has been an abuse of the normal Orders of this House? Does she not also consider that if a matter is to be discussed in this House at this length, with information given to the House by the questioner, it should be in the form of a debate and not a starred Question?
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): My Lords, on all matters relating to the length of time that a particular Question runs on, I try always to act as the voice of the House and suggest that we move on after a given period of time. This has, in fact, happened on quite a number of occasions recently. But I am quite sure that the whole House will have taken note of the point which the noble Lord, Lord Alport, makes about the length of time which is spent on particular Questions.
Lord George-Brown: But, my Lords, may I just ask—?
Several Noble Lords: No!
Lord George-Brown: My Lords, the House may say that if it wishes. But may I just ask, if propagandists are going to make their propaganda for—
Several Noble Lords: What is the question?
Lord George-Brown: My Lords, your Lordships may say what you like. But if propagandists are going to make their propaganda for things which will do our country down, it has to be for some of us to resist, and if we are to resist it will take rather more time than the noble Lord, Lord Alport, thinks is right. May I ask, therefore, that we do not fall into the trap of allowing the propagandists to make their point and rule out those who wish to resist it?
Baroness Young: My Lords, there was nothing wrong with the Question which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins asked. He was completely entitled to ask it. Other noble Lords may ask Questions of a contrary view. It is all part of Question Time in your Lordships' House. I think it would now be the wish of the House that we take the next Question.

European Community Development Policy
2.49 p.m.
Lord Oram: 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 what attitude the United Kingdom Minister took to Mr. Edgar

7
Pisani's Memorandum on the Community's Development Policy when it was discussed at the EEC Council of Ministers (Development) on 8th November 1982.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government welcomed the memorandum as a useful basis for discussion of Community development policy. We supported those ideas aimed at improving the quality and effectiveness of Community aid, but expressed reservations about certain ideas, principally those which implied a substantial shift in the balance of aid expenditure from bilateral aid to the Community aid programme.
Lord Oram: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his Answer, may I ask whether it is not the case that the Minister representing Her Majesty's Government put forward a rather negative point of view when he suggested that we should not raise the expectations of the developing countries? Is it not the case that Mr. Pisani's paper not only presents very clearly the deteriorating position of the poorest countries in the world but puts forward constructive proposals for extending the Lomé Convention both in time—indeed, without a time limit—and geographically? That being so, was not an opportunity missed to back up the Commission's progressive views? Would it not have been much better if our Minister, and other Government Ministers, had taken a much more positive line?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, is referring to a small article which appeared a few days ago in The Times. The media always like instant action upon anything which is discussed in the EEC, but in this case that is simply not practicable. My honourable friend was rightly cautious after the Council meeting, because this is a very substantial document which runs to more than 50 pages and covers a wide range of aid, trade and economic issues. Only a selection of the more important ideas were discussed at the Development Council on 8th November and, more recently, at the Foreign Affairs Council on 22nd and 23rd November. Further consideration of the issues will continue well into the New Year. I quite agree with the noble Lord that one of Mr. Pisani's points is that there should be more emphasis on the poorest countries. I am happy to say the Government consider that Mr. Pisani produced a very good analysis of why aid has not always gone to the poorest—either inside the countries or to the poorest countries themselves. So far as the reconstitution of the Lomé Convention is concerned, that convention is running in parallel with Mr. Pisani's memorandum. Until the memorandum is fully discussed it will be difficult to see what bearing, if any, it will have on the renegotiations.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord ensure that one of the anomalies considered during the next few weeks in the discussions to which the noble Lord referred is the enormous surpluses produced by the Community? For example, millions of tonnes of fish are dumped in the sea and food fit for human consumption is converted into animal feed.
8
Does not the Minister consider this to be scandalous when millions of our fellow men are living below subsistence level?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is unfortunately not the case that the various surpluses to which the noble Lord referred are the most cost effective way of giving food aid. Around two-fifths of Community aid is already in the form of food, most of which comes from Community surplus stocks. We would not wish this form of aid to be increased. It is not a good idea to base food aid on the back of surplus disposals, which is the idea that the noble Lord has in mind. Often the Community cannot supply appropriate types of food, and often there is a double effect by spending money upon buying food from one neighbouring country in order to supply another which is actually in need.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, in answering my noble friend Lord Oram the noble Lord spoke of an article in The Times and suggested that the media want instant action. Would not the noble Lord agree that it is action which we are asking for, without the adjective? The Pisani document has been discussed, as the noble Lord said, twice in November: first by the Council of Ministers and then by the Foreign Ministers. The noble Lord says that it will be discussed in the New Year. Is the noble Lord able to say by whom the document will be discussed, and when?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I said that it would be discussed well into the New Year, which means that it will probably take up to June. It will be discussed in the Foreign Affairs Council and also in the Development Council, both of which I understand meet every month. Furthermore, this is a long and complicated document. Action, I am quite sure, will follow—but neither instant nor immediate.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, if I may refer to the reply which the noble Lord gave to my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penhros, we all know that there are difficulties and that they create distortion in the trade in some of the countries to which food aid is given. We hope, however, that these difficulties will not be used as an excuse for stopping that aid or not doing our best to get it to the right places at the right time.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, indeed it will not. The object of the exercise, in the Government's mind, is to make existing aid more effective.
Lord Oram: My Lords, is not the important point the attitude which Her Majesty's Government are to take in the forthcoming discussions to which the Minister has referred? Is it not the case that both under the leadership of Monsieur Cheysson, who is now France's Foreign Affairs Minister, and under the present leadership of Mr. Pisani, the Commission takes a much more forthright and progressive attitude towards aid and development matters than either this Government or some other member Governments? Ought not the Government to take this opportunity to change their attitude and be more forward looking?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government's attitude on all EEC affairs is always to be as positive as they can be without damaging the intrinsic interests of this country. This we shall continue to do.

Gibraltar: Dockyard and Economic Support
2.57 p.m.
Lord Merrivale: 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 they will outline the various alternative ways, also carefully studied by the Gibraltar Government, by which they propose to fulfil their obligation to support Gibraltar's economy; and whether they will quantify over a reasonable period of time the Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary work which will be undertaken by the naval dockyard with a view to bringing about a measure of confidence to the people of Gibraltar, bearing in mind that no final decisions about commercialisation are to be taken until discussions, between officials of both Governments and A. & P. Appledore International Ltd., and consultations with other parties directly concerned, have been completed.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, if it is decided to establish a commercial dockyard in Gibraltar, Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to transfer the necessary land and assets to the Gibraltar Government free of charge, to provide funds to cover essential refurbishment and re-equipment and certain other initial costs. We are also in touch with the Gibralter Government about their revised request for development aid submitted in September and we hope to make an announcement soon.
As the noble Lord clearly recognises, the amount of naval work to be undertaken by the commercialised dockyard is a matter for discussion. Our officials will again be meeting those of the Gibraltar Government and with A. & P. Appledore International later this month. I would expect this matter to be considered further on that occasion; but final decisions may take longer to reach.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his Answer. May I ask him whether or not he agrees that many see the short-term outlook for Gibraltar as very pessimistic, while the long-term outlook is viewed by some with only qualified optimism? Could the Minister therefore indicate, to a greater extent than he has so far, the amount of refit work which will be undertaken over a period of years—if he could indicate the years it would be useful—on Royal Fleet auxiliaries and on mine hunter refits? Could the Minister also say whether, from now on, any work will be undertaken on Leander class frigates?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, first let me say to my noble friend that the changes will be phased according to the negotiations which are taking place. Thus it is very much in the mind of Her Majesty's
10
Government to ensure that the workload covers the interim period, which may be prolonged, while the plans for commercialisation of the dockyard take shape. In the end, we believe that those plans may well be able to make a very substancial contribution to the future economy of Gibraltar and to the viability of the dockyard. It is, in the main, the Royal Fleet auxiliaries, and the work appertaining to them that we shall keep in Gibraltar, which will provide a relatively large load in the interim.
Lord Blyton: My Lords, is the noble Viscount the Minister aware that in considering Gibraltar and the refitting of ships in Gibraltar, he ought to remember the River Tyne, where 26 per cent. are unemployed, where five shipyards have been closed down, and which cannot get any naval contracts?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I note the noble Lord's points and his sentiments. In a changing situation there was, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, no possibility, if we were to keep the maximum expenditure on front line units for the Royal Navy, of maintaining the huge dockyard structure that we had for Royal Navy work. We do believe, however, that the commercial alternatives, of which A. & P. Appledore International's has been chosen as the most likely, may well provide a viable future in present circumstances for the important Gibraltar dockyard.
Lord Vernon: My Lords, now that the dust of the Falklands war has begun to settle, is it not time that Her Majesty's Government took a rather more positive view towards the long term future of Gibraltar, in conjunction with the Spanish Government, than they have hitherto done?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, the noble Lord must await the White Paper on the Falklands for any changes of emphasis that may seem desirable from that. But the Gibraltar base will be retained, just as Portsmouth base is retained. Bases are quite different from dockyard support, and unnecessary expenditure on the tail and administration of our fleet is not a help to maintaining the most effective fleet that we can.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister about the workers and the Moroccans in the dockyard? How many of those people may lose their jobs? Will they receive redundancy pay, and will my noble friend assure them that they will not be replaced by Spaniards, because they came in and did a very good job when the Spaniards' trouble began?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, let me assure my noble friend Lady Vickers that Gibraltar dockyard workers, for all the purposes of redundancy, are United Kingdom citizens, and they are fully entitled to their redundancy pay. Let me then say that at this stage, with discussions currently going on with officials which will be continued this month and next, it is far too early to know the quantity of redundancies, either in the middle term or longer term; I have already covered in my Answer to my noble friend Lord Merrivale the question of the shorter term.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, after all the postponements which have occurred, can the noble Viscount tell the House what prospects there are now, under the new Spanish Government, of implementing the Lisbon Agreement of 1980? As the noble Viscount will be aware, there were great expectations that something could be done because this would greatly improve the climate of opinion as between our two countries. Perhaps the noble Viscount can say whether any progress is now likely?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition will recognise that although this is an overlapping subject to a high degree, it is a separate subject. We very much hope that the Lisbon Agreement, which was unfortunately held up during the Falklands operation, will be implemented by the new Spanish Government. It is too early for me to say anything definite as to when they will do so.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend will say something about the Moroccans, about whom I particularly asked, because they are not United Kingdom citizens? Will they receive redundancy pay?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Vickers invariably asks me something which I have to promise her a letter to answer; on this occasion, that it is!

National Heritage Bill
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the National Heritage Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

Clause 1,

Schedule 1, Part I,

Clauses 2 to 8,

Schedule 1, Part II,

Clauses 9 to 15,

Schedule 1, Part III,

Clauses 16 to 21,

Schedule 1, Part IV,

Clauses 22 to 28,

Schedule 2,

Clause 29,

Schedule 3,

Clause 30,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 31 to 33,

Schedules 5 and 6,

Clauses 34 to 36.

—(The Earl of Avon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Mobile Homes Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My
12
Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bellwin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Lord Bishopston Lord Bishopston moved a Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
Prohibition of premiums
(".—(1) Any person who, as a condition of the making of an agreement under this Act or the approval of the assignment of such an agreement, requires in addition to the sums payable in pursuance of the agreement the payment of any premium shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Any person who, in connection with the making of an agreement under this Act or the approval of the assignment of such an agreement, receives any premium in addition to the sums payable in pursuance of the agreement shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100.
(4) The court by which a person is convicted of an offence under this section may order the amount of the premium to be repaid to the person by whom it was paid.
(5) Proceedings for an offence under this section may be instituted by any local authority.
(6) Where an offence under this section committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary, or similar officer of the body corporate, or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
(7) Where any premium is paid and the whole or any part of that premium could not lawfully be required or received under this section, the amount of the premium or, as the case may be, so much of it as could not lawfully be required or received, shall be recoverable by the person by whom it was paid.
(8) For the purposes of this section, "premium" includes—

(a) any fine or other like sum;

(b) (subject to paragraph (c) below) any other pecuniary consideration in addition to the sums payable pursuant to the agreement; and

(c) the excess over the fair market price of any price paid for the mobile home,

but does not include any discount of commission provided for by this Act.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 11 standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. It might be helpful in moving this amendment if I were to refer to last Thursday's Committee stage very briefly. I rather feel that many noble Lords, interested people and organisations outside who read last week's Committee proceedings on the Bill must have been very disappointed with the Government's reactions to the amendments which have been tabled. The noble Lord the Minister will know better than I that he has received a great many representations over a period of time from organisations representing people such as mobile home owners and residents, Shelter, the National Consumer Council and others—and there has been a great deal of publicity in the press. I believe that many people, like myself, welcome the Bill not for what it contains but for the opportunity it gives us to deal with

13
some of the anomalies, injustices and evasions not covered by the Mobile Homes Act 1975.
We all know that there is unequal bargaining power between the site owners and mobile homes residents. We have already received reminders of how many such residents are elderly people—I believe the figure is 25 per cent. Some are young people and some are probably not able to express their views about their rights as they should. So this Bill was welcomed as an opportunity to look at some of these outstanding injustices.
If the Bill becomes an Act, as one anticipates it will, then site owners and others will say that Parliament has just passed this legislation, that it is bang up to date, and that therefore it is a fair Bill. But surely the noble Lord the Minister himself must know that there are many loopholes in this Bill which need closing up during the period when this legislation is going through its various stages. I only say this because I hope that the Minister is prepared this afternoon and at later stages to concede either some amendments or the spirit of some amendments in order that we may progress in making the Bill even more effective. We do not want a Bill that is balanced one way or the other either in favour of site owners or residents, because of the possible consequences to which the noble Lord the Minister has referred.
I believe we ought to close some of the loopholes—and the amendment to which I am about to speak is certainly directed towards one of those. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will be able to put into practice the impression which he gave in all sincerity at Second Reading, that he was prepared to look at some of these matters sympathetically, to see what could be done. In this new clause we want to stop site owners from requiring or receiving a premium in connection with mobile homes. This will be roughly in accordance with Part 9 of the Rent Act 1977. Perhaps I ought not to mention that Act or the Housing Act 1980, because the noble Lord the Minister does not seem to think that either should apply to mobile home owners. Certainly we do not want those two Acts to cover all the varying but in some ways similar circumstances which apply to mobile home residents and site owners, but we do think they have some merits so far as security and the prevention of abuse are concerned. The noble Lord the Minister may recall his own department's report of 1977, which, on page 11, said of the 1975 Act:
"The Act does not appear to deal with premium payments of any kind if they are charged outside the terms of the agreement and it is not yet certain which, if any, of these additional charges are open to challenge in the courts. Connection charges and premiums charged to new residents entering the site seem usually to be paid outside the terms of the agreement".
I think that quotation from the Ministry's report of a few years ago outlines the need for action.
The extra charges may take many forms, including £100 or much more for the agreement itself, for merely making the agreement. One can see that there are reasons for many other charges, such as service amenity charges and so on; but it seems to us that premium charges have no justification whatever. Unless the measure actually says so, the practice, which now causes so much trouble, expense and worry to so many residents, will continue. So we want to stop
14
the taking of premiums on the making of an agreement under the Act or on the giving of approval to an assignment. It is a form of key money which is quite unjustified.
I would like to know whether it is the intention of the Government that the owner shall be entitled or otherwise to make a charge for offering an agreement under the Act or for giving approval to an assignment in accordance with paragraph 8 of Schedule 1. If so, they should say so. But if the Government say, "No, that is not the intention", then clearly there is justification for the amendment. The new clause makes it clear that such a charge should not be either demanded or received. This applies to all charges, whether imposed as part of the statutory agreement or outside it.
The amendment prohibits premiums. It is modelled on Part IX of the Rent Act 1977; the wording is very much the same as in this amendment. That has worked well, as I understand it, and it allows for recovery of premiums actually paid. I believe that the Committee will be well advised to support this amendment, and the Minister will be well advised to support the idea of making it quite clear that the Government are against premiums by putting that in the legislation. In that way they will help those who are not blessed with a solicitor—as are people who purchase other forms of homes—to deal with titles and similar matters. This will make it clear beyond all doubt that the charging of premiums on top of all the other charges which may be quite necessarily incurred is quite unjustified. I beg to move.
3.13 p.m.
Lord Avebury: I am sure the Minister will appreciate from the correspondence in the DoE that this is a matter which concerns mobile home occupiers almost as much as the level of the actual charges imposed. I think one should say also that it is not quite as simple a matter to deny the payment of key money to the owner of a mobile home site as it is in the case of furnished rented properties. The noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, mentioned the 1977 Act. The provisions go back earlier than that, in fact to the Rent Act of 1968. Parliament considered that it was wrong that premiums should be charged in that manner for the granting of an agreement to occupy a furnished letting. On similar reasoning, we would say that it is fundamentally inequitable for premiums or key money to be charged as a condition of the granting of an agreement under this Bill or under the Mobile Homes Act which preceded it.
In many cases the site owner is also selling the mobile home, and he can simply charge a little more than he would otherwise have done so as to obtain a concealed premium. The amendment we are now proposing to your Lordships tries to cope with this by extending the meaning of the word "premium" to include any sum over and above the fair market price. There can be many ways in which such sums are charged, as appears from paragraph 342 of the department's 1977 document:
"Residents may have to make a number of lump sum payments, often amounting to several hundred pounds and in some instances much more than that. These may be in the form of connection charges, a premium or contribution to development costs to enter the site, or within a 'package deal' price for the sited home. The

15
commission is payable to the site owner where the home is sold on site to a third party, or a discount on the price paid if the site owner buys it himself, at rates of normally between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent. of the sale price".
The DoE document goes on to say that there should be an implied covenant that all charges of whatever nature should be reasonable, with the ability to refer disputes to arbitration.
In this Bill the court is required by Clause 2(5) to see that charges are just and equitable, and that should certainly apply to any sums demanded in respect of improvements or new facilities. It would be helpful if the Minister were to say something about the ability of site owners to charge sums to the existing residents for the recovery of any capital expenditure which may be incurred—for example, on new drainage, in which there is frequently some attempt to make a levy on existing occupiers—not as key money or premiums for coming on to the site but as a condition for allowing them to remain in possession of the pitches which they already occupy.
This is a very widespread problem, as can be seen from some of the documents; for example, that from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux talking about the 15 per cent. charge payable to the site owner. The memorandum of the National Consumer Council speaks of representations which they have had from a number of sites, including one in Nottinghamshire, which refers to at least one mobile home site which has been sold three times and each time the site owner has received a 15 per cent. commission and increased the pitch fee. We have received representations from the leader of the East Hampshire Liberals, which conducted an intensive local survey on problems faced by mobile home occupiers in that area. He says that they are indignant about the 15 per cent. commission which owners take on any sale, especially when some homes can now cost up to £20,000. So we are not talking about sums of a few hundred pounds, as the DoE document mentions; we are actually talking in this case about a sum of £3,000. If the mobile home changes hands, as in the Nottinghamshire case, three times in a year the site operator has made £9,000 out of a single pitch without lifting a finger.
If we allow such an enormous loophole to prevail in the Bill. I really do not think we are doing our job. If the noble Lord says that our amendment does not meet the evil to which I am addressing myself, then I hope he will say that he is seized of the problem and that the department will look at it very closely. Then perhaps the noble Lord will come back before Report stage with comprehensive amendments to the Bill which will take care not just of the premiums or key money charged for entry on to the site but all the other charges which may be levied on the unsuspecting mobile home owner, who goes on to the site imagining that once he has entered into an agreement for a pitch fee that will be the end of the matter and he cannot be caught for any other amounts. In fact, as we have seen from the examples which have been drawn to our attention, this is far from the case and owners may be faced with enormous imposts which it would be very difficult to pay. This is really one of the most serious loopholes in the Bill. I very much hope that the noble
16
Lord will accept this amendment, but if he cannot I hope that he will come forward with proposals of his own before we come to Report stage. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: In response to the opening observations of the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, that there may be those who are disappointed having read some of our proceedings last Thursday, may I say first that I am sure they will be offset by those who will be very relieved having read those proceedings. As comes out again and again in our discussions, there are two sides and two groups of people whom we are seeking to protect. I only wish, if the noble Lord felt so badly about what he calls the evasions not covered by the 1975 Act, that someone at that time would have tried to anticipate the things to which our attention is being drawn today. Of course, we do not want loopholes, but one needs to know the definition of a loophole. One person's loophole is apparently something that is very desirable to others. That is what we are trying to protect in seeking to get the best Bill that we can.
The effect of the new clause is to make it a criminal offence for a site owner to charge a premium either as a condition of granting an agreement or as a condition of approving the assignment of an agreement, although it allows the charging of commissions and discounts on sale. I am not sure that it would achieve what the noble Lords have in mind. It may be helpful if I explain what the Bill already does in this area. The Bill imposes an absolute duty on site owners to offer agreements to all residential occupiers—those on site at commencement and those whom they allow to come on to site subsequently. There are no conditions on that offer and it is open to occupiers to accept the agreement freely. The Bill does not, therefore, allow a site owner to charge a premium as a condition of offering an agreement. Nor does it allow him to charge a premium as a condition of approving the assignment of an agreement. All he can charge on assignment is his commission—or discount—on the price of the mobile home. It is the case that the Bill does not make it a criminal offence to charge premiums in this way but I do not believe that criminal action is either necessary or desirable here. I would take some convincing that it was.
The Bill will, therefore, already achieve at least part of what this new clause, as drafted, sets out to do. But I suspect that its promoters, as they have said, have a rather different target in mind—that is, the premium that site owners charge new occupiers who bring new homes on to their sites. Let us be very clear here. These premiums are charged not as a condition of granting an agreement, but, in effect, as a condition of granting the right to station the new mobile home in the first place.
It is not our intention to prohibit this sort of premium. What often happens is that a prospective occupier identifies a new mobile home that he wants to buy and agrees with the site owner that he should bring it on to site. The site owner then arranges the transportation of the mobile home to the site and charges the occupier both the costs of transportation and connection and a proportion of the overall price as a "premium". We do not believe that this sort of premium should be prohibited, for two reasons: First, an occupier can very easily find out how much a site

17
owner plans to charge on this basis. If the premium is excessive, he can simply go to another site. He certainly does not have to accept it. It is not a surprise or something about which he does not know.
Lord Avebury: Is the Minister aware that there is a shortage of sites in this country? We are not faced with a completely free market. It is like the market for rented homes, where Parliament prohibited the charging of key money. Therefore, does not the noble Lord consider that these charges ought to be fair and reasonable, as is provided for on the weekly pitch fees under Clause 2(5)?
Lord Bellwin: Perhaps I may be allowed to finish what I want to say and we can then debate this in the normal way. The noble Lord says that there is a shortage of pitch sites. That is not my information. In any case, this is a matter of supply and demand. The noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, so often refers to the Rent Acts. I in turn so often refer to the shortcomings of the Rent Acts and what they have done to reduce the availability of accommodation. The same must surely apply in principle here. That is why on Second Reading I said that what we do not want is a Rent Act type Bill.
I come back to my point about the opportunity for the occupier either to accept or not to accept a site that is offered. That seems clear enough to me. Surely a site owner who attempts to charge excessive premiums is likely to find himself without any occupiers beause no one will pay more than he can afford or pay more if he can do better elsewhere. Secondly, these premiums represent an important part of a site owner's income. The result of prohibiting them would be increases in pitch fees for all occupiers, unless we were prepared to control the level of pitch fees, which we are not. I do not think that such a result is in the interest of occupiers as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to levies on existing residents to pay for capital works. A site owner can only recover charges that are provided for in the agreement. If the agreement offered to an occupier allows the site owner to make such charges in a way that the occupier considers unreasonable, surely he should challenge the agreement when it is first offered to him. The site owner cannot go beyond what the original agreement says.
Your Lordships will have gathered that the Government do not want to accept the amendment, but in saying that the one point I do accept is that it is a difficult area. Whenever one seeks to do what we are doing in the Bill, and to find a balance, there are those who feel that the weight of advantage is going to one side rather than the other. It is not easy to get the balance exactly right, but I believe that on the whole we are doing that.
Lord Bishopston: I am sure that the Committee is very disappointed with the Minister's reply. He talks about being fair between the two sides. I felt that his reply was well balanced on the side of both in that in one respect one point applies and in another something else applies. I gather the Bill does not allow a premium, but does not prevent it. It does not make it an offence to charge a premium. The Minister went
18
on to give an impression that a premium was not possible under the Bill but later said that the premium represents an important part of the site owner's income. Therefore, he accepts that a premium is payable and I think I am right in saying that he justified it as a proper part of the site owner's income. I can imagine that site owners will be keeping a copy of today's Committee stage debate relating to the Minister's comments to that effect. I am sorry the Minister said that because he is saying that the site owners have been quite properly charging premiums and that he does not intend to make any changes.
We all know that people going on to these sites have to accept, and rightly so, many charges—connection charges, service charges, amenity charges, and so on—but the premium is quite unacceptable. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said that there is a shortage of sites and I believe that is the position. One might say that if the mobile home owner does not want to accept any part of an agreement he can go elsewhere, but that may not be easy. One can have premiums imposed after one is on the site, and one cannot suddenly take away the mobile home and plonk it somewhere else. It is not as easy as all that. That is quite unacceptaable.
However, the point is that we are not asking for something new. If the Minister turns to Section 119 of the 1977 Act, he will see that the wording in our amendment regarding prohibition of premiums and loans on grants of protected tenancies is not dissimilar. Therefore, it is a criminal offence under the 1977 Act. I am not suggesting—and I have said this many times—that we should make a blanket change in this Bill from all that the 1977 Act and the 1980 Act provide, because this Bill has a much more limited range of provisions. But we feel that, if the Minister believes that premiums are unjustified, then he ought to put it into the Bill so that there is no doubt whatever about it in the minds of site owners or residents living in mobile homes. I rather feel that his final comment, that the premium represents an important part of the site owner's income, is not only accepting the position but also justifying it. I hope that the Committee will support the amendment and help to keep the balance between the interests of site owners and of residents.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I should like to support what my noble friend has said about the rather confusing statement of the Minister which I, too, could not quite follow. Surely, if we allow a loophole, then someone will take advantage of it. As I understand it, we are trying to prevent the loophole whereby a site owner makes some money on top of what he deserves anyhow. Surely the Minister must agree that the new clause makes it explicit that such charges should not be demanded or received—indeed, this applies to all charges whether imposed as part of the agreement or outside it. As the Minister said, the point of the Bill is to keep a balance between those two aspects, and in this case I do not think that he has followed that up in what he has said.
Lord Bellwin: I should like to make a last observation. I am not sure what the noble Baroness means when she says that the site owner may charge "on top of what he deserves". I do not know what the noble Baroness meant by "what he deserves". I should

19
have thought that he would say to someone who comes along wishing to place a mobile home on his site, "This is what I want from you". It is then up to that person to say that the amount is too much, it is not acceptable or, "What you want is not acceptable". It is up to that person to decide and if he does not want it then he does not take it. If the site owner is asking more than the amount that anyone will pay, then he will not get anything from anyone. It seems clear enough to me. It is quite straightforward.
Lord Avebury: I do not want to prolong this discussion. However, one point that has not been mentioned is the reluctance of the local authorities to grant planning permission and site licences for new mobile home parks. I am sure that the Minister is well aware of that and that the department is familiar with the arguments that local authorities put forward against the development of these sites and the imposition of obligations on a local authority as a result of having mobile homes within its area. It cannot be disputed that the use of mobile homes as a form of residential accommodation is highly unpopular among planning authorities, who resist to the teeth the development of any new ones. That is why I said in my earlier remarks that there is a shortage, particularly in certain areas.
The noble Minister may be correct in thinking that there are some parts of the country where there is a sufficient number of mobile home parks for the would-be occupier to make the kind of decision about which he was talking. If he finds on entering into negotiations with a particular site owner that the premiums charged, the connection fees, the siting charges and the commission all add up to something which he is not prepared to pay, he can say, "All right, I will go to the other mobile home park just down the road". However, there are certain counties, one of which, to my knowledge, is Hampshire, where there is not a superabundance of these sites and the person who wishes to live in a mobile home does not have a choice. He may have already committed himself to this form of living. He may have retired shortly before and want small accommodation because he cannot sustain the burden of looking after a house. He may move into a mobile home because he thinks that it will be easier to look after, and he may not have the ability to pick and choose in the manner that the Minister portrays. That is why I believe that he needs the type of protection that the amendment would afford him and, therefore, it is really necessary to have it written into the Bill.
Lord Jaques: It appears to me that the Minister is contemplating two agreements. First, there is a verbal agreement which does not come under the Bill—for example, when the caravan owner wants a site he seeks out the site owner and they come to a verbal agreement that he will pay "X" in order to put his caravan on that site. Secondly, the Minister seemed to be contemplating that there would at a later date be a written agreement as provided for by this Bill. Is the Minister contemplating a verbal agreement and a written agreement?
Lord Bellwin: Not at all. The noble Lord has not read the Bill at all, because if he had done so he would have seen that what is proposed is that for the very first time those coming onto a site will have the right to receive a written offer of an agreement—something which they have not had previously. The mobile home owner has the right to have the notice in a form that the Secretary of State will prescribe. It will not be just any type of odd notice. If he does not get it, he has redress. So what we are proposing in the Bill is a whole advance on what was in the 1975 Act. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who was deeply involved in that Act, and even, I think, in earlier legislation of this kind, will be the first to confirm that what I am saying is correct. We are here trying to protect the interests of occupiers of mobile homes who in the past have not had this type of protection. We are going a long way down that road, and because we are going so far down that road, quite naturally there are representations made to us by those on the other side of the fence who feel that we are going too far.
We are trying here to get a balance in doing justice and in making a tolerable situation for both sides. There is no question at all of two agreements. There will be the right to have a written agreement so that there will then be the kind of take-up to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred last week as not having occurred because people did not know that they had that right. Now we are bringing in a form that will not only ensure its existence but will make it obligatory to tell people that it is there in a written form. That is what we are doing and that is all that we are doing. But, when I say "all", it is a very big "all", because it is trying to keep a balance between the interests of all parties.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: Will the Minister tell me how the inclusion of this clause would jeopardise the interests of the site owner?
Lord Bellwin: As I said previously, if we try to impose restrictions on the right to charge what is called a premium for the kind of services that I mentioned previously—namely, cost of transportation, cost of connection, and so on—then we shall be imposing restrictions upon them regarding something which we think it perfectly proper for them to do, because they are able to tell the prospective occupier of the home what it will mean to him if he wants to come to their site.
I thought that the point which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, made as to availability was a very fair point, in that I am sure that there are parts of the country where it is much harder to get a site than in others. I accept that point and I would not try to say otherwise. However, when you try to strike a balance and to do something for everyone you do not get the ultimate that you would like to see everywhere and you compromise in the end to get the best you can, and that is really all that we are doing.
Lord Jacques: In the absence of this amendment, would an owner who charges a premium, allows the caravan to come on to the site and then later offers an

21
agreement which makes no reference to the premium which the owner has already received, be committing an offence under the Bill?
Lord Bellwin: The Bill says that it will be obligatory to offer an agreement. The terms of that agreement will be those which we will prescribe. We said earlier when discussing this matter that we were having consultation now upon the level of what the discount should be. We have had long consultations with all sides on this Bill and we have listened carefully to representations. We have brought the Bill to its present stage by taking notice of what all the interested parties have wanted to do. As the noble Lord will appreciate, we continue to receive representations. We continue to get them until the end of the proceedings. However, the Secretary of State prescribes what the notice should say and what has to be involved in an agreement, and whether anything else goes on outside certainly has nothing to do with the Bill.
Lord Bishopston: I do not wish to detain the Committee for more than a moment, but in relation to what my noble friends have said, I would remind the noble Lord the Minister of the DoE report of 1977, which, at paragraph 356, says:
"It is also unclear how far the Act"—
and that refers to the Mobile Homes Act—
"has succeeded for those who have agreements in outlawing certain restrictive practices. The Act does not appear to deal with premium payments of any kind if they are charged outside the terms of the agreement and it is not yet certain which, if any, of these additional charges are open to challenge in the courts. Connection charges and premiums charged to new residents entering the site seem usually to be paid outside the terms of the agreement."
That, of course, is another loophole, because not only can you charge a premium, but you can do it one way or the other. This point has not really been answered by the Minister. I hope the Committee will make it quite clear in the interests of all concerned by putting the amendment—or terms like it which the Minister might introduce later—into the Bill.
3.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 86.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Amherst, E.

Collison, L.

Amulree, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Ardwick, L.

Darwen, L.

Avebury, L. [Teller.]

David, B.

Aylestone, L.

Denington, B.

Bacon, B.

Diamond, L.

Banks, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Barrington, V.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Beswick, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Birk, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Bishopston, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Blyton, L.

Gormley, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Hale, L.

Brockway, L.

Hampton, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hanworth, V.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Byers, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Caradon, L.

Jacques, L.

22

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Shinwell, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Leatherland, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Listowel, E.

Stone, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Milverton, I.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Molloy, L.

Vernon, L.

Oram, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Paget of Northampton, L.

Peart, L.

Walston, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, 1.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Rea, L.

Whaddon, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Seear, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Sefton of Garston.L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

McFadzean, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Mancroft, L.

Alport, L.

Margadale, L.

Ampthill, L.

Marley, L.

Atholl, D.

Melville, V.

Auckland, L.

Merrivale, L.

Avon, E.

Mersey, V.

Bellwin, L.

Mottistone, L.

Brookes, L.

Mountevans, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Newall, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Northchurch, B.

Clancarty, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Onslow, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Orkney, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Porritt, L.

De Freyne, L.

Reigate, L.

De La Warr, E.

Ridley, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rugby, L.

Derwent, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Dudley, B.

St. Davids, V.

Ebbisham, L.

St. Just, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Sandford, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fortescue, E.

Soames, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Spens, L.

Gainford, L.

Stamp, L.

Greenway, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gridley, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hayter, L.

Swansea, L.

Hill-Norton, L.

Swinton, E, [Teller.]

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Thorneycroft, L.

Killearn, L.

Trefgarne, L

Kinloss, Ly.

Trumpington, B.

Kinnaird, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Vickers, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Vivian, L.

Lloyd, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Long, V.

Wise, L.

Loudoun, C.

Young, B.

Lyell, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 4 agreed to.
3.50 p.m.
Clause 5 [Interpretation]:
Lord Bishopston Lord Bishopston moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 23, leave out ("the arbitrator") and insert ("an arbitrator appointed for this purpose by the President for the time being of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors").
The noble Lord said: There is still hope yet of getting some satisfaction, but the last amendment was very important and it rather revealed the Government's attitude to the measure. Despite their fine words about

23
providing a balanced Bill, in fact the Government do not seem to be prepared to put in those amendments, or the substance of them, which we feel are essential to clarity and justice. This amendment, which I am moving with Amendment No. 13, is very important indeed. There have been many representations made about it.
One should look at one or two parts of the Bill to see exactly what it has to say. The purpose of these amendments is to be sure that the arbitrators who are appointed—or the arbiters in Scotland, I suppose—are really independent, because without fair arbitration there is no justice. The Bill refers in various places to the powers of the courts. I am a magistrate, and those who are aware of the work of the magistrates' courts, the county courts and other aspects of justice, get the impression that there are people sitting on the Bench who are fair-minded and are prepared to consider all aspects of cases put before them and come to a fair conclusion.
However, in this Bill Clause 5 says:
"… unless the context otherwise requires—
'the court' means—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, the county court or, where the parties have agreed in writing to submit any question arising under this Act or, as the case may be, any agreement made under it to arbitration, the arbitrator;

(b) in relation to Scotland, the sheriffor, where the parties have so agreed, the arbiter;"

Therefore, the court can be an arbiter or arbitrator.
If one is going to expect the justice, the fair-mindedness and the impartiality of the courts, one has to ask whether the arbiter, or arbitrator, is so fairly-minded to look at the cases put before him and to come to a fair conclusion; but the Bill gives no assurance that that is the case. There is no identity mentioned in the Bill as to who the arbitrator should be. One has to have regard to the kind of people living on mobile home sites. Many are quite capable of looking after themselves, of reading the small print, of looking to see what their rights are or indeed their responsibilities. However, there are many people, not only on mobile home sites but in any other kind of accommodation, who do not find it easy to work out these matters. Therefore, a site owner who is not as fair-minded as one would expect could suggest an arbitrator who was tilted in the direction of his own particular interests.
The fact that the arbitrator may have to be agreed between the parties is no case at all for anticipating justice because there are problems of pressures and harassment, and so forth, which can be applied to the site tenants, to the mobile home owners and occupiers, and they may not be able to understand parts of the agreement. It will be of course the site owner, under the Bill, who will have to produce the text of the agreement, and it can easily be that the significance of any part of the agreement is not appreciated by those who will be affected by it. Therefore, we have a situation where there is potential unfairness at a time when we are seeking to keep the balance of fairness between the two, and the bargaining power is not equal. After all, the mobile home resident is on the site by the kind permission of the site owner and he, or she, is the one who can set the pace.
The seriousness of the position arises when we turn from the interpretation of Clause 5, which says that "the court" can mean an arbitrator, to page 5, Schedule 1, paragraph 6, where you get such aspects as:
"[Termination by court]
(1) The court shall be entitled to terminate the agreement if, on the application of the owner, the court is satisfied that the occupier is not occupying the mobile home as his only or main residence."
It also goes on to say in sub-paragraph (2):
"The court shall be entitled to terminate the agreement",
for various reasons if,
"the mobile home—
(a) is having a detrimental effect on the amenity of the site;".
We are not dealing with a court, with a judge, or magistrates, who are concerned with impartiality and justice. We can have one part of the interpretation of Clause 5 which says that the court can be an arbitrator, and there is no limitation on who the arbitrator should be. It could be a friend of the site owner; it could be his brother-in-law, or his agent. If poor Mrs. Smith, who is being asked to come to an agreement, is asked whether she will agree to Mr. Brown or Mrs. Green to arbitrate and the site owner says, "Well, I think we can trust their impartiality. I am sure you will agree to that", she may say, "Well, that is all right". There is no limitation in the Bill as to who the arbitrator shall be.
The seriousness is underlined in paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 1 which says that the agreement can be terminated if,
"the mobile home—
(a) is having a detrimental effect on the amenity of the site;".
Who is to say what that really means? What is meant by having a detrimental effect on the amenity of the site? This is a matter of opinion. I submit it will even defy the good sense and impartiality of what we know to be a properly constituted court, much less an arbitrator, who may not be all that impartial. We believe that there should be an amendment. I am sure that the Minister, in his fair-mindedness, will accept the principle anyway.
The amendment says:
"an arbitrator appointed for this purpose by the President for the time being of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors."
That is not an unusual clause, or requirement. It is in many areas where impartiality is expected, and it is left to the Institution. Indeed, if the Minister would like to suggest another body—a professional body whose recommendations, I am sure, will be really accepted as being impartial—I think we will accept it. This question of restricting the area of the appointment of arbitrators is very important, especially when security of tenure on the site is at risk, and mobile home residents can suffer a real sense of injustice.
Many organisations are concerned about this—the National Consumer Council and Shelter, for instance—and let us remember that we are not talking about an arbitration service. The Bill refers to "an arbitrator", not "an arbitration service"; if it did, one would have greater confidence in its impartiality. As I say, it would be easy for a site owner to pass off a relative, friend or employee as an independent arbitrator, so making the mobile home resident vulnerable.
Those are some aspects that the Committee should consider when viewing the amendment, and I feel that, unless the Minister either accepts the amendment or is prepared to name an alternative impartial or professional body to help in this situation, the amendment should be supported. We are here trying to close yet another loophole in the Bill, one which seems to be wide open.
Lord Bellwin: To listen to the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, one would think we were introducing some wicked legislation seeking to impose a great new regime on all mobile home occupiers in order to grind them into the dust.
Lord Bishopston: Many think so.
Lord Bellwin: Need I remind the noble Lord yet again that the Government are introducing the Bill and that he is trying to find what he calls loopholes to ensure, I presume, that the interests of one side are not disadvantaged? That is fine and is what a Committee stage is supposed to be about; but that is not the only thing we are doing. Need I say yet again that we are trying to get a balanced situation so that all the parties concerned have all their interests properly protected? If we cannot get to that optimum situation, we are concerned to get as near to it as possible.
So that the noble Lord shall have no doubt, I say straight away that I do not accept the amendment. I, too, am a magistrate and therefore appreciate the impartiality and expertise of magistrates. The Bill provides for disputes to be settled by the court; it defines the court in England and Wales either as the county court or, if the parties agree to submit to arbitration any questions or agreements under the Bill, an arbitrator. In Scotland the court is either the sheriff or, again, if the parties have agreed to arbitration, an arbiter. The Bill does not attempt to define who the arbiter should be.
The effect of the amendment would be to restrict the choice of an arbitrator to a person appointed by the incumbent president of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. I believe that to be an unnecessary and, indeed, unwelcome restriction. I do not see why a site owner and occupier should not be able to choose the arbitrator they want. I do not for one moment question the ability of the president of the RICS to make a wise choice, but there may be a person known locally to both site owner and occupier who would be perfectly competent to arbitrate between them and who would not cost very much. Is it really necessary to remove from the parties to the dispute the ability to choose who the arbitrator should be? For all his virtues, the president of the RICS cannot know everyone who would make a good arbitrator, and dare I say that his choice would not be likely to be cheap?
It may be said that the site owner would try to impose his own choice of arbitrator on the occupier. But the person appointed must be agreed either at the time of the dispute or else be one provided for in the agreement under the Bill. If both parties do not agree, the dispute goes to court. It would be foolish of a site owner to persist with his own choice of arbitrator to the point at which the occupier demanded what would normally be a more expensive and drawn out process in court.
26
I shall not speak at greater length on the subject, otherwise I should have to bring a mobile home here, considering the time it would take to get through these proceedings. I would only say that I believe the amendment is unnecessarily restrictive and, for that reason, I cannot accept it.
Lord Avebury: The Minister did not deal with the second point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, about the relationship of the definition in Clause 5 and the powers of the court in Schedule 1(6). As the noble Lord pointed out, the parties may have agreed in writing to submit any question arising under the Bill to arbitration, and when they do that the arbitrator may take the place of the court. According to the definition, the court is then given power in Schedule 1(6),
"to terminate the agreement if, on the application of the owner, the court is satisfied—
which means the arbitrator—
"that the occupier is not occupying the mobile home as his only or main residence".
Is that what the Minister really wants? Does he want to give such sweeping powers to the arbitrator—not the court—to deprive the resident of his occupation on the grounds that he is not occupying his mobile home as his only or principal residence or that it is having a detrimental effect on the amenities of the site? The noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, explained clearly that he did not think this was a suitable matter for an arbitrator to decide, that it should go before the county court and that the reference in the definition clause to the arbitrator should be limited to the clauses of the Bill and not extended to the schedules. I should be grateful if the Minister would deal with that point before we part with the amendment.
Returning to the substance of the matter, we are in some difficulty because, as I understand it (the Minister appeared to confirm this in his reply) while the parties to an agreement may decide to submit any question arising under the measure to arbitration, unless they specify who the arbitrator shall be or how he shall be chosen at that point—when, as the Minister said, he will be a person agreed at the time of the dispute—there is no provision to say what should happen when a site operator and occupier cannot agree. They then reach an impasse and that is not a satisfactory state in which to leave the legislation.
In other words, there may be a dispute which causes enormous difficulty for either the occupier or the site operator—the Minister will see that I am being even-handed here—and while the dispute can be resolved only by reference to an arbitrator as provided for in the agreement, the parties have not been able to decide who the arbitrator shall be. In that situation there is no means of resolving the dispute under the Bill. I do not think that is what the Minister would like to see; he cannot want the provisions more or less left in mid-air.
We must provide, if we are to leave the provision saying that the arbitrator may be a person appointed "under the agreement", for what happens when a dispute arises and there is no person acceptable to both parties. That is the nub of the question to which the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, was addressing himself, and while I am tempted to agree with the Minister that perhaps a person appointed by the president of the

27
RICS might not be cheap, at least he would introduce an element of certainty into the Bill, one which is at present lacking.
Lord Bellwin: Perhaps I might answer now that one point as to what happens if the parties cannot agree on who the arbitrator should be. As I understand it, at that point the court will have to adjudicate, and that is where the matter ends. The amendment says the person should be appointed by the president of the RICS, whereas the Bill aims at leaving it to the parties themselves. Only if they cannot decide who the arbitrator should be will the court decide. I suspect that in almost all cases they will be able to decide. In the odd cases it might not be possible to decide, but that is the way with most legislation in any case. But to seek to say who should make the appointment is not, I think, at all related to what we are trying to do.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I did not think that in introducing the amendment the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, was suggesting that the Government were proposing to grind the faces of the poor, and certainly I make no such suggestion. If I may say so, I can think of no one less likely to be concerned to grind the faces of the poor than the Minister, who has opposed the amendment. I should have thought that there was everything to be said for an amendment to this effect, not in order to prevent Government, or anyone else, from grinding the faces of the poor, but in order to avoid people feeling that perhaps advantage has been taken of them in the original agreement.
I should have thought that there were many precedents for statutory and other provisions regulating the appointment of arbiters, if not by the president of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, then at least by someone else. For instance, in Scotland it is not at all unusual for a provision to be made in statute, or otherwise, for the arbiter to be appointed by the sheriff, which would ensure an appearance of impartiality. I am as surprised as is the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, that the Minister should resist the amendment, which I should have thought cannot conceivably do any harm, and might do some good.
Lord Jacques: The Minister has made it clear to the Committee that what the Government are seeking is—in his words—a balanced situation. I submit that in order to secure a balanced situation steps must be taken in the Bill to ensure that any arbitrator who is appointed is independent—that is to say, does not belong to one side or the other. If that is accepted, I must ask the Minister whether, if he does not agree to the present amendment, he is prepared to consider another amendment which would ensure that the arbitrator is independent. I ask that question because by such a provision we seek to achieve the objective which he himself has in mind—a balanced situation.
Lord Bellwin: If, as the Bill states, it is for both the parties themselves to agree who the arbitrator should be, then no one is appointing anyone at all. It is the two parties who themselves have to agree who is to be the
28
arbitrator. It is only if they cannot agree that we have a situation in which (as was pointed out), in Scotland, the sheriff and, in England, the court will have to be the means of arbitration, if one may put it that way. But I cannot think of a position that is less of an imposition than one where the parties themselves have the right to decide who their arbitrator shall be. No party should impose an arbitrator upon another party; it does not arise. If the noble Lord and I were the two parties, he might say, "I want X to be the arbitrator", and I might reply, "I am sorry, old boy, but I prefer Y". He might ask, "Why?" If the noble Lord were to say "No, I don't agree with your suggestion", then I would say, "Let's see if we can find someone who we can both agree should be the arbitrator". I am fairly certain that we should find someone; in fact with the noble Lord involved I am certain that we should. But, if we could not decide on an arbitrator, then we should go to the court and it would decide. I do not see where the difficulty is there.
Lord Jacques: The Minister must know that in many circumstances the position is not so easy as he has made out. What happens is that there is a young man who is anxious to find a site for his caravan. He has found work, and he wants to find a site for his caravan. He finds a site, it is a suitable place, the rent is not unreasonable, and when he looks at the agreement he sees that Mr. X has been appointed as arbitrator. He regards that as unimportant. So far as he is concerned the main things have been agreed: he wants to get on to the site and get to work. He regards the name of the arbitrator as being of no account. But, if the Bill remains as it is at the moment, the person appointed could in fact be the agent of the site owner; he could even be the brother-in-law of the site owner. Surely if the Government want a balanced situation, they should ensure by means of the Bill that any arbitrator is in fact an independent arbitrator.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs; I should like to add a few words. The Minister spoke about the relative virtues of an arbitrator, but surely there is only one important virtue. It is not a question of whether he is tall, thin, rich or poor, but simply whether he is impartial. The major objective must be to find an arbitrator who is impartial. There might be a danger in leaving the situation as it is at present under the Bill, and, as my noble friend has said, there might be an occupier who has not understood the position. I am quite sure that it is not the same with the Minister, but the minds of some of us become a complete blank when we look at the small print in agreements. So why leave the danger in the agreement when it could be avoided in some other way?
Lord Bellwin: I really do not want to go on about this question, because otherwise we shall be here for several days, but, if what we are talking about is an arbitrator mutually agreed by both parties, I just cannot see how there can be any problem regarding someone reading the small print. If that is not independent, what is independent? I should have thought that an arbitrator appointed in that way would be far more likely to be regarded as an independent and acceptable

29
choice than would anyone who is imposed by someone else, no matter how well-meaning and able he or she may be.
Lord Jacques: But I must point out to the Minister, as my noble friend behind me has pointed out, that over the years Parliament has often taken the view that it is absolutely essential that the arbitrator agreed by the parties should have the approval of an authority concerned with arbitration. The kind of provision that is contained in our amendment is already in many Acts of Parliament. If Parliament has decided that the provision has been necessary in previous Acts, why is it so absurd now, as the Minister is trying to imply?
Lord Campbell of Croy: I should like to add a few words to the debate, because it seems to me that a sledge-hammer is being taken to try to crack a local nut. Many people in my area in Scotland would certainly object to what it is proposed to add to the Bill—which is, that an arbitrator, or an arbiter, as he would be in Scotland, must be appointed by someone in London, instead of someone who could be agreed upon locally.
Lord Jacques: All we are trying to get from the Minister is an assurance that there shall be an independent arbitrator. If some other method of securing that objective is appropriate to Scotland, well and good. We are not trying to force on the people of Scotland something that they do not want—that is a red herring.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I think that other rural areas, or areas remote from London, would probably feel the same. Why should someone based in London appoint an arbitrator for all kinds of local areas when the parties themselves can agree on someone?
Lord Wilson of Langside: I do not want to take a sledge-hammer to crack what might be a very small nut. However, will the Minister correct me if I am wrong in thinking that, in the kind of situations to which the provisions will relate, it is reasonably foreseeable that one party to a written agreement may sign it, apparently agreeing to the appointment of an arbiter, and will not at all understand the implications of the agreement because he does not know who is the arbiter?
Lord Bellwin: I do not see how one can agree to an arbitrator if one does not know who he is. One would not agree unless one knew who he was. I really do not follow the point.
Lord Gore-Booth: I should like to return to the already over-travelled suggestion that if there could be a formulation which included a clearly understood interpretation of the term "agreeable to both parties", if a wording could be found for that, surely it would be the solution.
Lord Bellwin: What can be more agreeable than the right of both parties to agree among themselves to appoint an arbitrator? I can think of nothing that would be more satisfactory. I am really astonished to find that we are now into another half hour on the amendment.
Lord Bishopston: I think we are in need of some kind of arbitration, and I hope we do not have this by means of a Division if it can be avoided, as it can be by the Minister saying that this is clearly something which needs looking at again. From all the debates which have been held in your Lordships' House and in another place the Minister must know the position on mobile homes; and he will have read the debate in another place on 9th July, when Mr. Nicholas Lyell and his honourable friend Nicholas Baker took part in an adjournment debate on this matter. If one reads the terms used by those two honourable Members on the Minister's side of the House (I am not sure whether I would be in order in quoting them) I think one finds that they say, in effect, that in practice the Mobile Homes Bill is riddled with flaws, anomalies and loopholes.
Only about a third of the mobile home residents have agreements at all, and there is a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding, as well as a lack of knowledge about rights and, indeed, responsibilities, on both sides—and lots of harassment, too. It is in this situation that the site owner can say, "I think that, as we cannot agree, we ought to have Mr. X or Mr. Y to look at this, and I think I can recommend someone who will do it fairly"; and many people will be pressured into accepting this because of fear of possible consequences, to put it no higher than that.
I think that if we could only get some assurance that the arbitrator would be appointed for his impartiality—we are not insisting on the RICS; it could be the Law Society (and it is not unusual that the chairman of the local law society should help on this matter) or some other body—it would be acceptable. What we are trying to do is protect the people who, albeit they will have to give agreement to whoever is appointed, will be assured that the person appointed is going to be fair and impartial. Indeed, I must not mention the rent officer again because the Minister loses control, almost, when I do, but if it was somebody who has experience in this kind of thing and who knows something about the problems, then this would be additionally helpful. But all we want is for the Minister to say, "This is a matter which has taken a little time, it has concerned your Lordships' Committee; I will have a look at it and come back at Report stage".
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 12) shall be agreed to?
4.23 p.m.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 67; Not-Contents, 94.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Amherst, E.

Briginshaw, L.

Avebury, L. [Teller]

Brockway, L.

Aylestone, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Bacon, B.

Byers, L.

Balogh, L.

Caradon, L.

Banks, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Beswick, L.

Collison, L.

Birk, B.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Bishopston, L.

Darwen, L.

BIyton, L.

David, B. [Teller]

31

Denington, B.

Listowel, E.

Diamond L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Oram, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rea, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Fulton, L

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Shackleton, L.

Gormley, L.

Shinwell, L.

Hale, L.

Stedman, B.

Hampton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Hanworth, V.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stone, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Strauss, L.

Jaćques, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Jeger, B.

Vernon, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Walston, L.

Kennet, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Leatherland, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Lyell, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

McFadzean, L.

Atholl, D.

Mancroft, L.

Auckland, L.

Margadale, L.

Avon, E.

Marley, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Melville, V.

Bellwin, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brookes, L.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Milverton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mottistone, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Mountevans, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Newall, L.

Colwyn, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cottesloe, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Onslow, E.

De Freyne, L.

Orkney, E.

De La Warr, E.

Pender, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Penrhyn, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Porritt, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Reigate, L.

Eccles, V.

Rugby, L.

Effingham, E.

St. Davids, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Sandford, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Soames, L.

Fortescue, E.

Somers, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Stamp, L.

Gainford, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Strathspey, L.

Greenway, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gridley, L.

Swansea, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swinfen, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller]

Hankey, L.

Terrington, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Teviot, L.

Henley, L.

Teynham, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Thorneycroft, L.

Kearton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Trumpington, B.

Kinnaird, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Vickers, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Vivian, L.

Long, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Loudoun, C.

Wise, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Agreements under Act]:
4.30 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 5, line 16, at end insert ("; and
(d) be in such form and include such terms as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(3) Regulation under this paragraph—

(a) shall be made by statutory instrument; and

(b) may make different provision with respect to different cases or description of case, including different provision for different areas.")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 14 which stands in my name and in that of the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston. This deals with the point that cropped up indirectly on Amendment No. 11; that is to say, the right of the Secretary of State to prescribe the form of any agreement which may be reached between the occupier and the site operator. It seemed to me, from the remarks made by the noble Lord the Minister, that he was under the impression that the Secretary of State already had these powers because he said (and I took down the words) that the terms "will be that which we will prescribe". Later he said, "the Secretary of State prescribes what the notices shall say has to be involved in the agreement". So that if the noble Lord thinks that this is already within the powers of the Secretary of State, then I am sure that I need not spend much time in moving this amendment for he will already be on my side.
What the Bill actually says is that there are certain matters which have to be included in the agreement and these are specified in Part II of the schedule. Also there is a reference at the beginning of Part I of the schedule to some other matters which have to be specified. But this is not an exhaustive list. It does not include, for example, anything about the choice of arbitrator, which we have just been discussing. If the noble Lord thinks that the right way of approaching that question—and I know that we have disposed of it—would be that the site operator and the occupier, right at the start of their relationship, should agree on whom the arbitrator should be, or, if they do not specify a name, how he is to be appointed, then obviously that ought to be one of the matters laid down in the agreement. Then there does not arise the sort of dispute that we were talking about just now. It is because we were anxious that the agreement did not have to be as comprehensive as we thought it ought to be that we were discussing the possibility, at any rate, of these disputes arising.
Another very important matter which is not mentioned anywhere in Schedule 1 is the right of the site operator to lay down the rules which have to be observed by the occupiers. These rules can sometimes be very onerous. I do not suppose one would find it today but I have mentioned a case that came to my attention when I was first a councillor, some 21 years ago, a case of a site that was in my ward where the rules included a provision that no one should have a baby on the site. The person who came to me was desperate because she had become pregnant and was afraid that this was a contravention of the rules which would result in her being evicted from the site. That was a long time ago and I do not suppose that there are very many site operators who would seek to impose a provision of that sort today.
We want to ensure that the regulations made by the Secretary of State should include provisions regarding the site rules so that they do not impose the kind of onerous conditions that may be the result of an unequal bargain: because we are not talking here about an arm's length transaction in which the parties have equal powers—as the noble Lord the Minister would like to see. We on this side of the Committee agree with him that if one is talking about a free bargain in an open market between partners of equal powers, that would be absolutely wonderful; but in the conditions of shortage of supply and excess demand and the shortage of housing accommodation generally which impels people to look to mobile homes as an alternative to residential accommodation, then the bargain is very often an unequal one with the powers of the parties being extremely disparate.
Although we very much welcome the fact that in Part II there are certain matters which are enshrined in an agreement as of right—such as the right of the occupier to quiet enjoyment or, in Scotland, the right to undisturbed possession of the mobile home, which is fundamental—we think that many other equally important things are left out. In order to avoid having to specify them all in great detail in the Bill and in order to avoid the kind of inflexibility which would arise from trying to foresee every possible eventuality, in this amendment we should like to give the Secretary of State the powers that the noble Lord the Minister thought that he possessed already. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: Perhaps I can clarify this. This amendment is designed to amend the way in which the Bill deals with the contents of statutory agreements by adding a system of "model terms". The Bill currently provides, in Part I of Schedule 1, a list of requirements with which agreements must comply, in precise terms. Part II of Schedule 1 lists those subjects which an agreement must cover. It does not say how they are to be covered because that is a matter which site owner and occupiers will work out between them in the light of local circumstances. If an occupier does not like the way in which these subjects are dealt with in the agreement that is offered to him, he can ask a court or an arbitrator to change them.
The amendment would enable the Secretary of State to prescribe model terms for agreements, presumably in addition to the provisions in the schedule. We do not believe that the Secretary of State would wish to use that power. I think we must be absolutely clear what is meant by model terms. They simply provide a model agreement. Unless they are accompanied by controls on the content of the agreement, they do not go significantly further than the Bill already does. Let me give an example from Part II of Schedule 1. Paragraph 2 provides that an agreement must cover the,
"review at yearly intervals of the sums payable by the occupier in pursuance of the agreement".
A model term on this point would presumably say something like, "The sums payable are to be reviewed annually, taking into account" et cetera. Unless we are prepared to specify the et cetera, this sort of model term would go no further than the Bill already does; and we do not want to fill in the rest.
34
There are other subjects on which it is not for us to say whether there should be rules or not. Let us take Paragraph 4:
"the preservation of the amenity of the protected site".
It is not for us to say whether there should be rules about cats and dogs or not. I do not believe that model terms would significantly improve upon the approach the Bill uses and I ask noble Lords to reject this amendment. I do not see this in quite the same way as previous amendments. I am anxious, as is the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to get this right. We are talking now of definitions. I do not think it is a question of "desirable". I do not think the amendment is necessary. I shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord may wish to say further on the matter.
Lord Bishopston: I should have thought the Minister might be more forthcoming on this matter, because although we do not want to restrict or put too much in the Bill there is a need to give more guidance than is in it already and to have more safeguards. We think there would be room for substantial unfairness and injustice in agreements if we do not pass this kind of amendment. It would be very difficult for people who are not legally qualified to challenge the terms of such agreements. Of course, we are also concerned with agreements which can be terminated, and then the security of tenants is also affected. I am sure—we are unbiased as well—it will be in the interests of the site owner also to have this clarification and I hope that, whatever the Minister's response may be to this, the matter can be looked at before the later stages.
Lord Avebury: Just one further word in response to the Minister's invitation to clarify the purpose of the amendment. If I may take up where he left off about cats and dogs, the point is that under Part II of the schedule the site rules do not have to be included among the matters concerning which provision has to be made, and so the agreement between the occupier and the site owner could be completely silent regarding site rules. What I should like to see as a very minimum is for the Secretary of State to have power to prescribe additional matters for which provision has to be made in the agreement, so that in his wisdom he might see his way to treating the rules as something to be included in the agreement and not to be treated as something separate from it.
As I said earlier, we ought also to include provisions for arbitration. That is not going quite so far as the model agreement, because the model agreement might include very detailed provisions regarding the keeping of pets, and so on, as the Minister has mentioned. But the actual existence of the site rules and their incorporation in the agreement is something which I should have thought the Secretary of State would want to consider. Therefore if the department is not prepared to go down to the roots, as we have recommended, and to the kind of detail that would be required in a model agreement, then at the very least the Secretary of State should have power to add to the matters which are dealt with in Part II and which have to be covered by any agreement.
Lord Bellwin: I think that is slightly on a different tack. Clearly, I cannot accept this amendment but I want to read what the noble Lord has said: that I

35
certainly will do. I must say that I do not feel any differently at all as I stand here, but I will certainly read what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Avebury: In that case, I shall be happy to seek your Lordships' permission to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.)
4.46 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 6, line 3, leave out ("at the end of a relevant period")
The noble Lord said: I think it will be convenient if we considered Amendment No. 19 with this one. I beg to move Amendment No. 16. As I see it, the Bill seeks to improve the system of agreements which was brought in under the 1975 Act. As I have been listening to my noble friend the Minister, it appears that he is building on the 1975 Act, which I remember going through this House when the party opposite were in government. From what I remember of those days I think the then Government thought they were providing a system of agreements which was the best balance possible at the time. Since then, in the light of the experience of the past seven years, problems have been thrown up and we are now trying to reconstruct the system of agreements and to improve them. I do not think it could be said that in 1975, when the Act was going through, the Government of the day thought it was going to be riddled with loopholes.
I think that the whole system of agreements needs to be improved now. Paragraph 2 of this schedule reads:
"The court shall be entitled to terminate the agreement at the end of the relevant period if, on the application of the owner, the court is satisfied that, having regard to its age and condition, the mobile home—

(a) is having a detrimental effect on the amenity of the site; or

(b) is likely to have such an effect before the end of the next relevant period."

The aim is clearly to attain high standards of accommodation. As I am sure your Lordships know, there are mobile homes which do have a detrimental effect on the amenity of the site, to use the words of the schedule, or are likely to do so. These homes are usually occupied by elderly people and they are usually mobile homes which are themselves ageing or sub-standard. The general run of site owners will normally allow those elderly people to live out their lives, if they wish to do so, in those mobile homes without requiring them to be replaced even though they may be sub-standard. That, I think, is a principle with which all sides of your Lordships' Committee would agree.
It would be wrong if those homes could be sold by the existing occupiers to further occupiers who were not ageing or living out the rest of their lives in a home they had previously occupied. As the Bill stands, the owner cannot exercise the right until after the first relevant period. The amendments will allow the owner to apply to the court at any time from the commencement of the agreement. I think that will deal with the circumstances which I have described.
Lord Bellwin: This amendment and Amendment No. 19, which is consequential upon it, would have a considerable effect on the operation of agreements entered into under the Bill. The Bill at present provides for agreements to last indefinitely but for site owners to be able to apply to the court every five years to terminate an agreement on the grounds that, having regard to the age and condition of the mobile home, it is having a detrimental effect on the amenity of the site or is likely to have such an effect within the next five years. This amendment would remove the restriction on the timing of applications to the court. It would mean that a site owner could apply to a court every year, or more often if he so chose, for termination on these grounds. It would mean that occupiers would never be secure in their homes.
In considering this amendment, I think it is important to bear in mind the other provision in the Bill for a site owner to terminate an agreement. A site owner can terminate on the grounds of breach of a term of the agreement. Part II of Schedule 1 requires that one of the matters that must be covered in an agreement is the maintenance of the mobile home by the occupier. So, if an occupier does not maintain his mobile home properly, the site owner can terminate the agreement on that ground. More specifically, if an occupier allows his home to fall into a state of disrepair through mistreatment or total neglect, the site owner should be able to terminate the agreement on these grounds.
The site owner does not need to be concerned about an irresponsible occupier who does not maintain his home. He does not need, in those circumstances, to use paragraph 6 of Part I of Schedule 1, to which this amendment relates. Paragraph 6 is concerned with the circumstances in which a mobile home deteriorates, through no fault of its occupier, to the point where it has become an eyesore. We believe that five years is a reasonable period within which to give an occupier security against termination on this ground. This amendment would leave an occupier unable to feel secure against termination on this ground at all. So really it is a question of time yet again; and here I am arguing the case from the other side, so even-handedness I most certainly do claim, despite what might have been thought or said earlier. We are just trying to get it as right as we can. The 1975 Act took the matter a certain stage forward. Loopholes have appeared and it has not worked as well as it might have done. The present proposals are welcomed by just about everyone. What is not welcomed is some of the detail, and that is why we are here in Committee trying to get it right. On this occasion, I cannot accept the amendment of my noble friend and I have tried to explain why. Even if that does not satisfy him, I am sure he will understand.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I fully understand my noble friend. I hope that he will look at the situation that I have described. Certainly, the intention of the amendments was not to cause the uncertainty which he mentioned, but to see whether there was a way of preventing an elderly person, for example, who was specially being enabled to stay on, passing on the mobile home to somebody else who was not in that position. But I hope that my noble friend will look at

37
this, to see whether there is any way of putting this in the Bill, even if my amendments do not do it satisfactorily. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bishopston Lord Bishopston moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 6, line 7, leave out ("having a detrimental effect on the amenity of the site") and insert ("unfit for human habitation").
The noble Lord said: I do not want to involve myself in family disagreements on the other side, but I must say that I was very much on the side of the Minister. If I had commented on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, I should have said that it would give insecurity to have a termination at any time. But, apart from that, there is the problem of defining what is meant by the words,
"detrimental effect on the amenity of the site".
The Minister was helpful and gave other areas where a site owner can, quite properly, have the safeguards which we should all want for the maintenance of very high standards. This is absolutely essential on sites of this kind, and I am sure that many residents are as anxious as anyone that amenities on sites are maintained at the highest possible level.
Amendment No. 17, with which I should like to take No. 18, sets out to strengthen the criteria for allowing the termination of an agreement due to the condition of a mobile home. I think the Minister will be well aware of the practice whereby some site owners expect the residents to buy new homes at certain periods—probably much too often—for the benefit of all concerned,
It is very difficult to argue in what kind of situation a mobile home has a detrimental effect on the amenity of a site. Certainly, it would be very difficult for the courts to apply this kind of definition, and we believe that it would be helpful to everybody concerned, not least the courts, if we had the definition which is in the amendment, so that we leave out the words,
"having a detrimental effect on the amenity of the site",
and insert the words, "unfit for human habitation". I recognise, as I am sure the Minister will, that amenity values are not easily defined. He may not be happy about the words, "unfit for human habitation". He may wish to have another look at this before the later stages, and I hope that he will do so in order that we can make progress. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: We go from one side to the other, and the noble Lord will probably not be too surprised to know that I cannot agree with his amendment either. The Bill provides that every five years a site owner may apply to the court to terminate an agreement on the grounds that, having regard to its age and condition, the mobile home is having a detrimental effect on the amenity of the site, or is likely to do so within the next five years. The effect of these amendments would be to make termination on these grounds much more strict, by entitling courts to terminate only if the mobile home is actually "unfit for human habitation". I think that that goes too far.
The term "unfit for human habitation" is a phrase used in—dare I say it, in view of what the noble Lord said a few moments ago?—the Housing Act 1957 and
38
applies in that Act to houses. It does not apply to mobile homes. But, even if it did, it would impose a far stricter condition on this ground for termination than would be appropriate in this Bill. The 1957 Act lays down that, for a house to be unfit for human habitation, it must be so far defective in one or more of a number of ways that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition. That test is, quite simply, too strict for a mobile home.
The life of a mobile home is a finite one. There must come a point when the external condition of the home has so far deteriorated that it has become an eyesore on the site and that it is having a,
"detrimental effect on the amenity of the site",
even if it is, in the strictest terms, still fit for human habitation. At that point, it will begin to reduce the value of the site as a whole. Not only will the site owner suffer if the mobile home is allowed to remain on site in that condition; so, too, will the other occupiers, particularly if they wish to sell their homes. I believe that most people involved with mobile homes—occupiers as well as site owners—would accept that a mobile home which fails the test which this Bill imposes should not be protected by an agreement under the Bill.
May I quickly make one further point? The test which the Bill imposes is not a trivial one. It is that, having regard to its age or condition, the mobile home has, or is likely to have, a detrimental effect on the amenity of the site. I do not believe that the courts, or an arbitrator, would lightly terminate an agreement on this ground. I think that it is an appropriate test and, with respect, I suggest that the test proposed in the amendment is not appropriate, which is why we cannot accept it.
Lord Bishopston: I do not wish to go on for too long, but this also concerns security. It is easy for any landlord who wants to exploit, or to get rid of, a mobile home resident, to say that a mobile home is having this kind of effect on the amenity. The test is used, as we know, on many occasions when a site owner wishes a tenant to buy a new van or a new mobile home, and to buy it from him as part of the conditions. It is subject to exploitation. While I recognise some of the points made by the Minister, it is very difficult to define the words in the Bill at this stage. It might be useful if the Minister, and my noble friends and I, were to look at this point between now and the later stages. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.]
4.58 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 6, line 12, leave out ("five") and insert ("three").
The noble Lord said: I suggest that the following Amendment, No. 21, should be considered with No. 20, which I now move. This is a small point, but I hope that the Government have given it some thought. The court is here required to try to decide the future condition of a mobile home based on expert evidence, and it has been suggested that it is more likely to arrive at an equitable decision if it is required to predict over

39
a shorter period than five years. Therefore, this amendment and the subsequent one shorten the period from five years to three years. The purpose of the paragraph in the schedule does not seem to be impaired, in any way, by making the period shorter and I shall be glad to hear the Government's reaction. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My understanding is that the reasoning behind my noble friend's amendments is that it would be difficult for a court or an arbitrator to judge the life of a mobile home over a five-year period. The hypothesis is that a mobile home might, in fact, be capable of lasting only a further two or three years. In such a situation, the court would either have to make a decision that was harsh on the occupier by terminating his agreement immediately, or one that was harsh to the site owner by forcing him to keep a home on the site beyond the end of its life. But the court or the arbitrator will have the benefit of expert advice in considering the life of the mobile home. It does not seem unreasonable to me to expect them to be able to look five years ahead. In a case where the view of the court was that the mobile home would last only two more years and therefore that the agreement should be terminated, there would be nothing to prevent a site owner from allowing an occupier to remain on site on the same basis as that of a statutory agreement.
Perhaps I should make the point that termination of an agreement is not the same thing as eviction. Under the Caravan Sites Act 1968, a site owner must separately apply to the court to remove a mobile home from his site. But the main reason why I cannot accept this amendment is that I believe occupiers should be able to know they are safe from the possibility of losing their agreement for five years at a time, provided that they do not breach the terms of the agreement.
I should have thought that five years was a reasonable period of security. I respectfully suggest to my noble friend that three years is not. The Mobile Homes Act 1975 gave an initial period of security of five years to all those who took agreements under the Act, whatever the state of their mobile home at the time. This Bill should not give any less. I hope that my noble friend, who I am sure will want to consider what has been said, will see the equity of that suggestion and will not press his amendment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I am grateful to my noble friend. The last point which he made—security for five years, which is continued from the 1975 Act—is the most important. Therefore, I shall not press the amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Listowel): Before I call Amendment No. 22, I should point out to the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 23 to 27.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 6, leave out lines 24 to 41 and insert—
40
("(2) This paragraph applies only if the occupier has given to the owner at least 14 days prior notice before agreeing to sell the mobile home and to assign the agreement.").
The noble Lord said: The Bill provides for the first time that nearly every mobile home occupier will have an indefinite right to remain in occupation of a pitch, so long as he conforms with the terms of the agreement. The corollary, one would have thought, is that he should have freedom to transfer that agreement to anybody he chooses. However, when we look at paragraph 8 of the schedule we find that the occupier has first to offer to the site operator the sale of his mobile home at a fair market price, less a discount at such rate as may be provided by the Secretary of State. There are certain other provisions which similarly restrict the occupier's right to transfer his mobile home at a price which is lower than that which would be paid by the site operator.
We are saying that these rights of the site operator to have pre-emption rights over the sale should be eliminated altogether and that the occupier should have the right to sell to whomsoever he chooses, within reason. The amendment provides that, instead of all these restrictions on transfer and the offering of the mobile home to the site operator before he can go outside and look around the market, the occupier simply has to give notice of his intention to sell to the owner. This would give to the site owner the opportunity, if he wishes to do so, to make an offer higher than he thinks would be received from outside. It means that the Minister's principle of maximum possible freedom of sale within the market and arm's length transactions would be complied with, because the site operator would have to compete with everybody else if he wished to acquire possession of this particular mobile home.
I cannot understand why these rights should be contained in the Bill, except that the custom has always been for a site operator to have the privilege of first refusal at a special price, which is normally something like 15 per cent. below what the market will stand. We have to remember that the site operator continues to receive rent or periodic payments for occupation of the pitch during the transitional period between one occupier and the next. He is not forfeiting anything as a result of the transfer of occupation from the existing owner to somebody new, so why should he suddenly receive a completely uncovenanted benefit of a sum, which may be as large as £3,000, for doing nothing else but give his assent to the transfer of an agreement from one person to another?
I do not need to waste the time of the Committee by outlining many of the detailed cases of abuse which have been drawn to our attention. I am sure that the Minister knows them as well as any of us on this side of the Committee. They have been a very severe thorn in the flesh of people living in mobile homes. Even where they are not immediately contemplating the sale of their dwelling, there is always in the back of their minds the knowledge that if they did have to move they would be at the mercy of perhaps an unscrupulous site operator in charging an enormous fee by way of consent to the transfer. This is a very outdated provision which finds no place in a modern Bill which attempts, as the Minister said a minute ago,

41
to bring up to date the mobile homes legislation and to eliminate the abuses which still remain from the 1975 Act. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: The first point I should like to make about the amendment is that I do not believe it would achieve what the noble Lord has in mind. It would remove the right of first refusal for the site owner but it would not stop him from charging commission. With this amendment the Bill would be silent about commission. The site owner would be able to make the payment of commission a condition of approving the assignment of an agreement, so long as he did not fix the commission at so high a level as to amount to an unreasonable withholding of consent. What the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, wishes to achieve by the amendment is clear, but it will be no surprise if I say that, unless the noble Lord can say something else to convince me, I fear that I shall be unable to accept his amendment.
I said in my speech on Second Reading of the Bill that we were issuing a consultation paper on commission and discount on sale. That consultation paper invites views on the maximum level of commission and discount that the Secretary of State should prescribe. It does not offer the option of prohibiting commission and discount altogether. Very few of those who replied to the consultation paper we issued in February this year advocated outright prohibition. It was clear that most occupiers believed that a certain level of commission and discount was justified—to reflect the site owner's level of investment in the site—though they felt that 15 per cent. was too high.
The new consultation paper will enable those who respond to give their views on what the maximum level should be, and our intention is to bring forward an order to prescribe a maximum level in the light of the views expressed. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the level we prescribe will be significantly lower than the 15 per cent. prescribed under the 1975 Act, but that will depend on our consideration of the responses to the consultation paper. I do not believe that there is a demand for outright prohibition of commission and discount, given the effect that would have on the level of pitch fees charged to all occupiers.
The other effect that the amendment would have would be to remove a site owner's right of first refusal on a mobile home. Site owners believe that this is a valuable right because it enables them to buy an aging home, or one that is out of place, and remove it from their site. Provided that the occupier is protected by the right to a fair market price on his home, less a discount, he should not suffer as a result of this provision. The Bill enables an occupier to claim a fair market price.
There is another point on which there was relatively little comment in the earlier responses to the consultation paper; that the worst abuses in this area, to which the media have drawn attention, have arisen where the occupiers concerned did not have agreements under the 1975 Act. Your Lordships may remember my saying before that one of the intentions of our proposals for the Act is to bring to the notice of everyone the rights they have, because we believe that
42
perhaps the reason why only one-third of people had such agreements was that they did not appreciate what their rights were. It is essential that those rights are brought to their attention in such a way that they can never claim, "We did not know". We said that it had to be done clearly and in simple terms, in a form which the Secretary of State will prescribe, because we thought that was much of the reason for the shortcomings of the 1975 Act.
Again, I have not yet seen a convincing case for removing the right of first refusal. The amendment—and I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would agree—is a very sweeping amendment. We believe it goes too far. There is some merit in what the noble Lord has said so far as I am concerned, but the amendment goes much too far. For the reasons I have given, which I do not wish to repeat, we cannot accept the amendment—certainly, not as it is.
Lord Bishopston: As the noble Lord the Minister believes in the market economy, will he at least take a look at the right of the site owner to have first refusal? If the site owner has to consider buying the caravan or mobile home in competition with others, this is preferable to the kind of monopoly start which the Bill gives him at the moment. Will the Minister look at that?
Lord Avebury: The most important point that the noble Lord the Minister was making was that the discounts or premiums reflect to some extent at any rate the investment which the site operator has put into the land to make it suitable for a caravan site. On that I would say that originally, when the site came to be developed, the site operator sold new caravans to the residents for occupation on the pitches and he was entitled to a commission as a person running a business selling mobile homes. The example I gave earlier was taken as an indication of what the earnings level might be from these sales; a twin unit home might cost £20,000 and, if his level of commission was 15 per cent., the site owner would get £3,000.
What we are saying in this amendment is that the site owner should not receive another £3,000 every time that particular mobile home changes hand, because the original payment he received partly reflected the investment he made in the site—although £3,000 a pitch would be a very modest level of investment these days. For the remainder of his capital, he would hope to recover this in the form of the pitch charges he makes at weekly or monthly intervals for occupation. Therefore, he should not expect another sum on top of that every time that particular mobile home changes hands, when he has done nothing whatsoever in respect of that for which the payment is made.
I suppose the most I can hope for on this amendment is to impress this view on the noble Lord the Minister and ask him to take it into account when the level of commission or discount prescribed by the Secretary of State under the Bill is being decided. It would be helpful if we could have some indication of the direction in which the department's mind is moving before we lose the opportunity to discuss it on the floor of the House or in Committee. The Minister

43
has hinted strongly that he believes that 15 per cent., which has been usual in the past, is certainly on the high side; and I was delighted to hear him say so because I warmly agree with him. But even if one was to receive only 10 per cent., with the site operator receiving perhaps £2,000 every time a mobile home changes hands, this is still an enormous sum for doing nothing. I will not press this amendment to a Division, but I shall be grateful if the noble Lord the Minister, before we take our leave of him, will say whether or not we are likely to have any further indication of what is in the Government's mind before we leave the Bill.
Lord Bellwin: The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has referred to a figure of £20,000, but, as he will be the first to agree, not all mobile homes cost £20,000. If he seeks my view on a figure of 15 per cent., I cannot give this until the results of the consultation paper are in. I hinted that many might think that 15 per cent. was too much—and certainly the situation which the noble Lord has described is of a kind which, I am sure, was never anticipated. If the noble Lord wants a further comment from me it will only be that, as I hope I have intimated, I believe there is some merit in the points he was making, and that we shall have to wait for the results of the consultation paper. I do not think that I can go any further than that today. I have said enough to intimate how we feel in general about this point—unlike some of the earlier points on which I was taking a more vigorous line, if that is the right term.
Lord Avebury: That is certainly a more encouraging reply than we have had on some earlier amendments. I believe it will be best if we delay further consideration of this point until we know the results of the consultation paper, which I understand will not be known during the proceedings of this Bill. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 6, line 24, at end insert ("in writing").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 23 and I propose that the following four amendments be considered with it. This amendment concerns a very simple point and one which I made at Second Reading. We are dealing with the sale of mobile homes and I believe that the procedure for these transactions should be formal. Unless my noble friend Lord Bellwin has reason to indicate that it is not necessary to put in these words, I consider that the formality should be prescribed in the Bill. This will avoid misunderstandings and disputes later, when transactions are being made. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: Again, I am in some difficulty. These amendments would affect the procedure by which a mobile home is sold. The Bill uses the same procedure as the 1975 Act. When an occupier wishes to sell his mobile home, he must first offer it to the site owner at a fair market price less discount. If the site owner decides not to buy it at that price and the price is subsequently reduced the occupier must give the
44
owner another chance to buy the mobile home at the new price, again less discount.
The effect of these amendments would be to require, each time the home was offered to the site owner, that the offer was made in writing. The 1975 Act does not require the offer to be made in writing, and I am not aware that the absence of that requirement has given rise to any serious problems that way—it just occurs to me that I do not know how one describes "that way" in Hansard—as opposed to the occupier having his rights brought to his attention. This would be an extra burden on occupiers in what is already a difficult area; the question of whether a site owner should have this right of first refusal at all is quite controversial. There is no doubt that it places him in a relatively strong position in relation to an occupier who wishes to sell his mobile home. I would not have thought that we should consider imposing an extra burden on an occupier to make his offer in writing unless there is very clear evidence that it is necessary to do so. If my noble friend feels that there is great evidence to show such a necessity then I will gladly listen, but I cannot accept this amendment as it is. I suspect that it will not be possible for him to do so, but it is only on that basis that I will say other than that we cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. I am glad to hear that there have not been difficulties on this point resulting from the similar provisions in the 1975 Act. If my noble friend is satisfied that this does not need to be put in writing, in the form of a formal transaction, then I am glad to propose that this amendment be withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 24 to 27 not moved.]
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 6, line 45, at end insert—
("(2) In this paragraph the expression "member of his family" means a wife or husband, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, stepfather, stepmother, son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter, stepson, stepdaughter, brother, sister, half-brother, half sister.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, which is on another of the points to which I referred in our Second Reading debate. This is the degree of family relationship in this part of the schedule. When my noble friend replied to the Second Reading debate he said—and I can absolutely understand this point—that the Government preferred not to put in any degree of relationship but to leave it entirely open, so that the matter could then be dealt with by the courts. That is a point of view which I understand. But I think the courts might need some guidance as to whether it should be a close relationship or a second-cousin-twice-removed relationship. I cannot resist giving some examples that have come up. Someone has done a little research for me on cases which have come up in litigation concerning statutes where no relationship has been defined. For example, there was an application for a housekeeper; that was not accepted. There was an application for a man masquerading as the tenant's husband; that was not accepted. There was the case of a mother-in-law who had only visited from time to time, and that was not

45
accepted. We can all perhaps agree that those are not the kinds of relationships which are intended, but it does show that applicants do come forward, and the courts may well be besieged with a large number of cases where the relationship is a distant or even a remote one.
I am aware that in this part of the schedule it is necessary to have the site owner's agreement, but it also states that this must not be unreasonably withheld. So the site owner has to agree, but on the other hand he cannot unreasonably withhold his agreement. The degree of family relationship is, therefore, something on which I think those who have to deal with these situations would need guidance.
The paragraph which this amendment inserts is taken from legislation; it comes from the Workmen's Compensation Act. That is an example of legislation where it has been included in the past. I would hope that perhaps my noble friend and the Government would find a way of using this as an example of the kind of relationship that should be followed in this part of the Bill. I beg to move.
BaronessWootton of Abinger: I wonder if the noble Lord can make it clear whether in this context "son" and "daughter" would include adopted son and daughter?
Lord Campbell of Croy: As far as I am concerned, I think they would.
Lord Avebury: I wonder whether it would be convenient to take at the same time Amendment No. 29, the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, and myself, which takes into account the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I rather hoped that that one could be dealt with separately.
Lord Avebury: I thought the Committee had agreed that we would take them together, but I am perfectly happy to deal with them separately. It seems to me illogical because they are both addressed to the same point.
Lord Bellwin: I was not aware that they were to be taken together. I am quite content to deal with the first one. This is not a long matter, and I think there is a greater measure of agreement on this than might be apparent at first sight.
Lord Avebury: I am quite happy to leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, to deal with his amendment and then come to mine later.
Lord Bellwin: We are talking here about the intention to restrict the scope of the term "family" in paragraph 9 of Part I of Schedule 1. This paragraph enables an occupier to give his mobile home and assign his agreement to a member of his family approved by the site owner. It is a new provision, not taken from the 1975 Act. We have put it in because we think that an occupier should not, in selling his home to a member of his family, have to pay a commission
46
to the site owner. If we consider, for example, a husband and wife whose marriage breaks down, the husband has the statutory agreement and he leaves the family home. Without this provision the only way that he could be sure of being able to transfer the home and his agreement to his wife would be to sell it to her.
Site owners are worried that without some limitation on the scope of "family" this provision might be abused. A gift might be made to an imaginary second cousin in North America simply to avoid paying commission. I think the danger of this sort of abuse can be exaggerated. The site owner does have the right to refuse his approval to a recipient if he considers the gift to be a sham.
There is also a risk that by defining "family" we might unfairly exclude someone who should not be excluded. My noble friend's amendment, for example, excludes from the definition people living together as husband and wife who are not actually married. I do not underestimate the concern of site owners on this point. I am also aware that there are recent precedents in legislation for the definition of "family".
As it stands, I do not think I can accept this amendment, because I think it is too restrictive. If my noble friend is prepared to withdraw it, I will undertake to consider the possibility of inserting an alternative definition at a later stage during the passage of the Bill. I think that this is a valid point of concern. If we can deal with it in that way, I think we may get a solution that will satisfy more or less everyone.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for his reply, having obviously taken this into careful consideration since Second Reading. He has raised the point about the common-law wife. I think in Scotland arrangements usually do cover a common-law wife in this sort of case. I do not know whether a similar position exists south of the Border. That is the kind of point that one would need to take into account in considering this. In view of what my noble friend has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 6, line 45, at end insert—
("(2) In this paragraph, "member of his family" shall have the same meaning in relation to the occupier as the expression "member of the original tenant's family" has in relation to the original tenant in Schedule 1 to the Rent Act 1977.").
The noble Lord said: If I may continue where the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, left off, it was apparent in the discussion we have just had that if you try to specify exactly in the Bill the degrees of consanguinity to which the privilege of transferring the occupation of a pitch without fee is extended, you are going to be in difficulties because there are always going to be exceptions of the kind mentioned, the common-law wife, the adopted child. On the other hand, one agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that perhaps some indication should be given to the courts of what Parliament intended.
Therefore, one looks for parallels among recent precedents in legislation. We believe that a fairly close parallel is to be found in Schedule 1 to the Rent Act

47
1977, where we were concerned with the transfer of tenancies in similar circumstances. We think this provides a model which would give some guidance to the courts when they come to decide to what kinds of relative it would be appropriate for an agreement to be transferred. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: I would say, similarly, to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that it is clear that there is concern on both sides of the Committee that some sort of definition is needed. I gladly undertake to consider the possibility of inserting a definition at a later stage. I hope that will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and that he will feel able to do as my noble friend Lord Campbell did. We will see what we can come up with.
Lord Avebury: I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Bishopston Lord Bishopston moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 6, line 45, at end insert—
(" .—(1) If any question arises whether the withholding of an approval required by paragraph 8 or 9 above was unreasonable it is for the owner to show that it was not.
(2) Such an approval—

(a) may be validly given notwithstanding that it follows, instead of preceding, the sale or gift in question;

(b) cannot be given subject to a condition, and if purporting to be given subject to a condition shall be treated as given unconditionally; and

(c) shall be treated as given if unreasonably withheld.")

The noble Lord said: This amendment stands also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. Briefly, the purpose of the amendment is to bring the arrangements for giving the approval—that is, of the assignment or gift—nearer to those detailed in the Housing Act 1980. In other words, the burden of proof should be on the owner to show that lack of approval was not unreasonable, that approval may follow the sole assignment or gift, that the approval cannot be made conditionally and that approval should be treated as given if unreasonably withheld. The drafting of the amendment is on the basis of the 1980 Act but, like most amendments, is capable of some improvement. With those brief words of introduction, I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: The Bill allows an occupier to sell his mobile home and to assign his agreement to a person approved by the site owner. It also allows him to give his home to a member of his family approved by the site owner. In both cases the Bill provides that the site owner's approval must not be unreasonably withheld. This amendment would impose very tight restrictions on a site owner's ability to withhold approval. It prevents him from imposing a condition on his approval, provides that his approval shall be treated as given if it is unreasonably withheld, and requires him to show that the withholding was not unreasonable. This is yet another point at which the Bill follows the precedent of the 1975 Act. And it is another issue on which I am not aware that the 1975 Act has given rise to any problems. Here, again, I must ask whether we should be changing the provisions of the 1975 Act without a very good reason for doing so.
48
The amendment uses wording drawn from Section 82 of the Housing Act 1980. Since that Act was passed by this Government—I took it through your Lordships House—I would not dream of criticising its wording, but I wonder how relevant is the precedent. Section 82 is concerned with a tenant's right to improve his house or flat. These provisions are concerned with a mobile home occupier's right to transfer the ownership of his home. The crucial element in this amendment is the occupier's right to proceed if approval is unreasonably withheld. It is clearly important that a renting tenant should be able to get on with improving his home if the landlord is being difficult about the improvements. It is a matter between the tenant and the landlord and it is unlikely that anyone else would be harmed by the improvements the tenant is making.
However, the transfer of the ownership of a mobile home is a very different matter. This amendment would put the occupier in an extremely strong position and the site owner in a fairly weak one. I am not sure that it is right that the site owner's ability to exercise his right of approval is so weakened, either in his own interests or, frankly those of other occupiers on the site. An example may point out the difficulty I see here. There are a number of mobile home sites which cater only for retired people, where the occupiers have chosen to come on to the site for precisely that reason. Suppose that one of those occupiers wishes to sell, or give, his home to a young couple with small children. The site owner will withhold approval, but this amendment might very well encourage the occupier to go ahead with his gift or sale. The site owner would have to go to court to enforce his view and retrospectively cancel the transfer of ownership. In the meantime, the other occupants of the site would have their lives disturbed in precisely the way they wanted to avoid. I could give more extreme examples but I do not think that that is at all unlikely.
Here again we are trying to balance the relative strengths of the occupier and the site owner. For the reasons I have given, I think this amendment tips the balance too far towards the occupier. The Bill uses exactly the same approach as the 1975 Act and I am far from convinced that it is wrong to do so. It has not led to problems, so I do not see why we should proceed with such an amendment when it appears to be unnecessary and could lead to the sort of problems that I have mentioned.
Lord Bishopston: The amendment seeks to give the same kind of facilities to the tenants of mobile homes as to other tenants which have been referred to on a number of occasions today. I have another amendment which deals with the same section and it may well be that the matter will come before the House at a later stage. I am grateful for the Minister's comments and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 6, line 45, at end insert—
(" . The occupier shall be entitled to give the mobile home and to assign the agreement to any person by virtue of a testamentary disposition.").
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak briefly on this amendment. We seek to allow the occupier to leave his mobile home and the benefit of his statutory agreements in his will. Therefore, it goes beyond Clause 3 which only allows a member of the family already in residence to take over on the owner's death. I draw attention to the fact that many who have spoken this afternoon referred to the fact that there are many middle-aged and elderly people who are moving to mobile homes. They might have spent the whole of their redundancy pay to become, for the first time, an owner-occupier. They might have already sold a larger house to raise capital and enable them to maintain their standard of living when they moved into the mobile home.
For that reason I ask the Minister to think seriously about the amendment. The majority of these elderly residents want to maintain their independence. That is why they have gone for something smaller and compact. By doing so they can continue to look after themselves. Therefore, they do not normally want anyone else living with them. They have moved to a mobile home in order to maintain their independence. They welcome visits from their children and their grandchildren. Their families are happy that they are living independent lives. Therefore, it seems strange that, when we have people who have entered the owner-occupier field and are trying to be independent, we penalise their families when they die.
This amendment has no party political bias. I am appealing to the Minister on the grounds of common justice. I say that because this House, above all organisations, believes in the hereditary principle. Many noble Lords pass on their homes to sons and daughters and to others in their family. If they believe that it is important to pass on what they have worked hard for, and their parents have worked hard for in the past, is it not right that the mobile home owners, who have very humble homes compared with some homes owned by noble Lords in this House, should not also be able to pass on those benefits when they die?
A strange situation exists when one considers the difference between leaving benefits when one dies and passing on benefits when one is living. I am referring to Clause 3 and what we have been discussing on Schedule 9. I am asking the Minister to maintain a balance between the gifts of the living and the gifts of the dead—to put it as simply as that. We are asking that the same privileges of giving shall apply. If a will is left, and it accords with the proper procedure, that should apply.
In conclusion, if the noble Lord says that he will not consider this proposal, can he tell us what other class of owner occupier is prevented from leaving, in a will, the home that he lives in to the person of his choice? Are we to discriminate against a very small group of people? If the noble Lord says that this is a matter that can go through the courts to be adjudicated, I point out that it is a matter which has been through the courts and has been adjudicated upon. Because we are operating under the previous Act of Parliament, quite obviously the people who have been left out are the families of the owners of mobile homes. I hope that the Minister will keep the balance and will perhaps give me a very favourable reply. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: I should like to add a few words to what the noble Baroness has put to the Minister with such eloquence. If the old people living in this mobile home do not have any close relatives to whom they wish to leave their property but they have a close friend who has been very good to them in their retirement to whom they may wish to transfer the benefit of this asset, under the Bill, as presently drafted, they would not be able to do that because, as the noble Lord has pointed out, gifts and assignments are only to a member of the family approved by the owner.
Even if we assume that that is extended to a testamentary disposition, it still would not mean that the occupier could leave the mobile home in his will to a person who is not a member of his family. As a result, when the executors come to realise the assets and discuss the matter with the site operator, he can point out to them that the mobile home is worth absolutely nothing at all unless it is on the site. Of course, he then has them over a barrel because he car, charge a very large commission for agreeing to accept the person named in the will as the new occupier when he does not have to do so under the provisions of the Bill. It will be a source of immense profit to the site operator to be able to impose that type of condition on testamentary dispositions unless we have something like this amendment written into the Bill.
Lord Bellwin: Let me say at once that I applaud unreservedly the vigour with which the noble Baroness pressed the virtues of home ownership. I sincerely hope, as one who spoke not without some passion on this whole subject at the time we dealt with the Housing Bill which gave the right to buy, that the noble Baroness will use equal eloquence to persuade her colleages in another place to withdraw their intentions, so expressed, of taking away from tenants of council houses the right to buy and that they, too, should have the right to have all the inheritance—virtues which the noble Baroness so properly proclaims and to which I too, adhere.
I am aware that the relatively narrow provisions in the 1975 Act have caused some concern, unlike the earlier point that I was making when I said that one reason for not moving away from certain parts of that Act was that they had not been shown to have been working disadvantageously. In this case the noble Baroness is quite right when she says that there has been some concern about the application of that Act. But if we are to consider the possibility of extending the 1975 Act provisions which the Bill adopts, it must be on a narrower basis than the amendment.
Let us consider the effect of the amendment. It will enable an occupier to leave his mobile home, his agreement and all the benefits that went with them to anyone he chooses. His heir would be entitled not only to sell the mobile home on site and recoup its value in that way, but also to live in it and enjoy the full security which an agreement under the Bill will provide. There would be no way in which the site owner could influence the use which the heir made of the home.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I quote again the example I used in an earlier amendment. On that occasion we were considering the right of a site

51
owner to withhold approval from the sale or gift of a mobile home. I quoted the case of a site occupied entirely by retired people on which one occupier sold his home to a young couple with children. I made the point that the other occupiers of the site would be forced to put up with the resulting disturbance until the site owner could enforce his right to withhold approval in court.
This amendment will have an even more serious effect than the last one. A retired person on the site quoted in my example could leave his home to a young couple and there would be nothing that the site owner could do about it. There is no question here of whether the site owner's approval was considered reasonable or not: it would not be needed. I think that both the site owner and the other occupiers of the site, who perhaps chose it precisely because it was only for retired people, would be very well justified in complaining that their lives had been unfairly disturbed. This amendment will provide the only point in the Bill which will enable a new occupier to come on to a site without the site owner having any say at all in whether he will fit in.
Having said that, I think I am bound to say that the issue of inheritance is one on which we would not want to rule out the possibility of considering some change in the Bill's provisions. I have explained why I think the amendment goes too far and could lead to problems. However, if the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment, I think that I have said enough to indicate to her that I am sympathetic certainly to the philosophy of what she says. Indeed, that goes without saying and I hope that she would not expect otherwise from me. I give her that assurance and perhaps, in the light of that, she may feel able not to press the amendment.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I thank the noble Minister—it must have been the way in which I smiled at him! I readily withdraw the amendment on the undertaking that he has just given. Perhaps it will be possible for us to talk about another amendment or I could leave it to the Minister to bring forth an amendment at the Report stage. I am heartened by what he said so long as we achieve the principle in which our amendment is enunciated. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees, (Lord Nugent of Guildford): The next amendment is Amendment No. 32 followed by Amendment No. 33. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, is not in his place and so we pass to Amendment No. 34.
[Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.]
Lord Bishopston Lord Bishopston moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 7, line 9, at end insert—
("Service charges
11.—(1) If the occupier requests the owner in writing to supply him with a written summary of the costs incurred by the owner in respect of services available on the protected site in the relevant period defined in sub-paragraph (4) below, the owner shall do so within six months of the end of the period or within one month of the request, whichever is the later.
(2) The summary shall set out these costs in a way showing how they are or will be reflected in the sums payable by the occupier and must be certified by a qualified accountant as in his opinion a fair summary complying with this requirement and as being sufficiently supported by accounts, receipts, and other documents which have been produced to him.
(3) The occupier may require the owner in writing to afford him facilities for inspecting the accounts, receipts, and other documents supporting the summary and for taking copies or extracts from them and the owner should then make reasonable facilities available to the occupier.
(4) The relevant period mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above is—

(a) if the relevant accounts are made up for periods of 12 months, the last such period ending not later than the date of the request; and

(b) if none are made up for such a period, the period of 12 months ending with the request.

(5) In this paragraph "qualified accountant" has the same meaning as in Schedule 19 to the Housing Act 1980.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 34. This amendment concerns service charges and it aims to help the occupier to get more information or, indeed, accurate information about service costs. There has been some mention today of the charges which can be levied on mobile home residents. We believe that it would be in the interests of the residents and of the site owners if there were written information as required in the amendment. After all, the amendment says;
"If the occupier requests the owner in writing to supply him with a written summary of the costs incurred by the owner in respect of services available on the protected site in the relevant period",
and so forth, it shall be provided. It goes on:
"The summary shall set out these costs in a way showing how they are or will be reflected in the sums payable by the occupier and must be certified by a qualified accountant",
and so on, Surely that information is something which all people concerned in the transaction should have. It is rather interesting that there is no requirement on the site owner to publish any accounts in the light of the charges which he seeks to impose upon the occupiers.
The amendment gives the occupier the right to information on service charges and the information may be needed by the court or, indeed, by an arbitrator—a matter which we have debated this afternoon. In many places if the site owner is a good owner he will be giving this information; if he is otherwise, then surely the mobile home residents have a right to the information?
I draw the attention of the Minister to paragraph 8.1.7 of the Department of the Environment report, which concluded:
"In addition, residents should have a right to certain information about the costs of services analogous to those already enjoyed by private tenants and leaseholders".
Therefore, I believe that the amendment provides for a written summary of costs, certified by an accountant, supported by receipts and so forth. This should be willingly given by any good site owner.
I should like to turn to another point which is not directly associated with that but which is involved. This matter may come within the preview or the consultation that the Minister has in mind. He mentioned earlier the new consultation which he is having with all those concerned; I believe he mentioned it in relation to commission. How many bodies have already been consulted and what action has already been taken? I understand that Shelter have

53
not automatically been consulted and they had asked to be able to make submissions. I believe that other bodies, such as the National Consumer Council, have not yet been requested for their views. This is purely a question of information which may help all those concerned with this legislation. With those comments, I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: In the course of his reply, I wonder whether the Minister could remind the Committee of the point we had reached as regards the matter of electricity charges, which used to be a very difficult area to resolve when there was a supply of electricity to a site that was metered at a single point and not separately to the individual mobile homes? I know that the area electricity boards were very keen that every mobile home should be separately metered and then, of course, no difficulty would arise. But the problem of apportioning supplies that were received from a common source was a very difficult one to sort out and in many cases led people to think that they had been unfairly overcharged, and in some cases it was possible to prove it. Although the electricity boards were always quite ready to entertain representations from people living in mobile homes that their charges were excessive and to look into the matter, site operators were never happy about electricity officials coming on to the site, measuring the amount that was being consumed by particular residents and seeing whether or not the charges were fair. Therefore, I think that notification to the residents of that particular charge, to the extent that sites are still commonly metered, would be a very helpful way of ensuring that the charges are properly apportioned as between individual residents.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I should like to make one very general point to the Minister. Would he not agree in principle that, on the assumption that mobile homes are being used and will continue to be used more and more as permanent homes, the rights of these home-dwellers should in every possible way—and this amendment is a typical example—be brought into line with those of people who have lived and continue to live in ordinary houses? This is an important point which underlies so many of the amendments.
Lord Bellwin: On the latter point, I do not know whether or not more people will tend to use mobile homes. They may indeed. The likelihood is that they will. As to whether it will be other than at the margin in relation to the totality of housing, I should think probably not. If the noble Baroness is right in her assumption, all the more reason we should make sure that we have a Bill like this, that it is the best Bill we can get, and that we do the best we can. I do not think that there is any difference between us on that.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, about consultation, so far we have sent copies to the representatives of site operators, to the Mobile Homes Residents' Association and to any other bodies that have asked for it. We will willingly send copies to anyone. Of course, we will willingly pick up the cases to which the noble Lord referred, now that he has mentioned them. It would perhaps be useful for me to
54
repeat on the record that if anyone has not had a copy—and I shall check to make sure that we have covered all who we think ought to be included—we shall gladly send him one.
Lord Avebury: I did ask the department and they said that the consultation letter was not available. If it is now available, may we have copies?
Lord Bellwin: There is absolutely no reason why anyone should not have a consultation paper. There can be nothing secret about a consultation paper. Why not? I shall gladly undertake to see that this is so.
Lord Bishopston: I thank the Minister for his comments on that and I anticipate that he will automatically be in touch with many organisations and individuals who may have made earlier submissions on his previous documents.
Lord Bellwin: If anyone has made submissions and has not had a copy, of course, we shall send him one. We would not want to start trying to discover anyone who we thought might be given one or ought to have one. But those who want one clearly should know. I certainly undertake to do that.
Turning to the amendment, I think that we must be very careful here—this is the last amendment of this Committee stage and I have said it on several of the earlier amendments—not to draw false comparisons between the position of mobile home occupiers and tenants of flats. They are two very different sets of circumstances. Schedule 19 to the 1980 Act gives flat tenants the right to information about the costs incurred when they pay variable service charges which will often be separate from the rent, and that is right. But mobile home occupiers are in a very different position. They do not normally pay one sum for rent and another sum for service charges. They normally pay pitch fees, which include both rent for their mobile home site and service charges and which are not directly related to increases in costs. No matter how much information they were given, it would not be of any use in challenging the level of pitch fees unless the agreement itself tied the level of increases to increasing costs.
The Bill does not prevent an occupier from seeking more information about the charges he is asked to pay. If he considers that the agreement offered to him contains too little information about the yearly review of sums payable by him or the provision of services available on the site, there is nothing to prevent the occupier from challenging that agreement. The Bill already provides in Part II of the Schedule that agreements must make provision on these matters. We do not think that it is justified or, frankly, practical, or even necessary to go further.
I shall conclude on the point of electricity charges which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised. It depends on what the agreement provides for. If what is contained in the agreement as regards charges of any kind does not seem reasonable, then the occupier should challenge it at that stage. It seems to me that that is the answer to that particular problem. If the noble Lord would like us to go further on the point, of course I shall do so.
Lord Davies of Leek: This is a tangential point. I apologise for being late, but as a result of battling with fog and human beings in cars I have found it rather difficult to get here. However, I am delighted that I am here at this point. Fairness to the owner of the land and fairness to the people living in mobile homes comes into account when we are dealing with water services. The Severn-Trent Water Authority Bill is before this House and deals with water services. They want their committee meetings to be held in secret, with no press allowed. The inhabitants of mobile homes in country areas and the inhabitants of cottages in country areas often find that they pay as much for water services as people pay in the metropolitan areas and in the towns. Something should be done to get a relative payment of charges which is in ratio with the supplies to those areas. The noble Lord is a wise Minister. Does he take my point? I think he does. I could make out a long argument on this, which could go on for minutes, but I think that I have spiked down the point. Will he bear this in mind, because it is important to the rural areas of Britain and to the seaside towns where mobile homes are situated?
Lord Bellwin: I can only say that the noble Lord got here just in time. The last sentence of the last amendment of this Committee stage, and he just made it. It is always a pleasure to hear him anyway. I think I have the point he makes about the water. I do not think that it is relevant to this Bill at all, but I promise him—and he knows that if I say it, I will do it—that I shall talk to colleagues and, if it is felt in any way that there is some merit in bringing it forward, then of course I will. I truly do not think that there is, but he knows that I will do that.
Lord Bishopston: If my noble friend had been here a little earlier I am not sure that he would have been so keen on giving the compliments to the Minister that he has. However, this is the last amendment. The reason for moving this amendment, among others, was, as the Minister knows, that there is controversy where you have, say, metered services as to how much should be paid for gas, electricity, and so on. He knows that charges for electricity often spark off controversy, and this kind of amendment would help to eliminate that. The Minister has been forthcoming on this, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

Abortion (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
6.2 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. What a happy coincidence it is that this is the day of St. Nicholas, or Santa Claus, the patron saint of children, for this is a Bill about children. In this connection. I should like straight away to clear up a misconception. It is claimed by some that the only issue at stake is the right of freedom of choice of women to control their own fertility. This claim is based on a serious error.
56
Nothing in the 1967 Act or anywhere else in the law gives a woman such a right, and therefore the Bill cannot diminish the right which does not exist. I cannot emphasise too strongly that the issue at stake is this: under what circumstances should it be lawful to deprive an unborn baby of life?
Now I should like to go into the background. First, let me cover the legal background. There are three Acts which are relevant to the present situation: the Offences Against the Person Act 1861; the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929; the Abortion Act 1967. The present Act which makes abortion prima facie illegal is that of 1861. The 1929 Act made it an offence—the offence of child destruction—to kill a child capable of being born alive, and gave as prima facie proof of the capacity for live birth 28 weeks. The Abortion Act 1967 does not alter these two statutes. What it does do is to exempt a doctor from culpability under the 1861 Act if two doctors hold the opinion in good faith that the balance of risk favours an abortion.
To quote the 1976 Act, they must agree:
"that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, or of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated".
There is also the provision in respect of a risk of a handicapped child, with which my Bill is not concerned. It is fair to say that when Parliament passed the 1967 Act it intended to legalise abortions on medical grounds, physical or psychological, but not to provide, in the words of the sponsor of the law in this House, Lord Silkin, "a general licence to a medical practitioner to carry out an abortion on anybody who desires it". That comes from the Official Report of 19th July 1967 at column 163. If Parliament had intended to legalise abortion on request, the Act would have said so.
Unfortunately, from the outset the abortion law proved to be open to widely and grossly different interpretations. It cannot be disputed that considerable numbers of doctors used the Act as a basis for granting abortion on demand, and no action is being taken to stop them. Doctors promoting such a policy justify their actions by the so-called statistical argument which claims that the statistics show that the risk to the life of the pregnant woman is smaller if the pregnancy is terminated in the early months than if it is allowed to continue. Incidentally, this argument is probably fallacious, as it fails to compare like with like. My Bill in any case would make the argument irrelevant.
In terms of numbers, the result has been a holocaust. For example, in 1981 in England and Wales the total number of abortions, including non-residents, was 162,454. Indeed, on present trends, the number of abortions in the United Kingdom since the Act came into force in 1968 will pass the two million mark by next March. Put another way, the number of abortions in England and Wales is at the rate of one baby aborted every three minutes, day and night, seven days a week. This state of affairs has caused persistent concern—not least in Parliament. Following two attempts in the other place to tighten the law, the Lane Committee was set up and reported in 1974. From evidence that it received, it admitted that abortion on demand was being practised, but stated that this could be curbed by

57
departmental action. It has not been curbed. Three further major attempts in the other place to tighten the law on abortion were agreed in principle at Second Reading by substantial majorities but failed because of the lack of time and the difficulties of getting a Private Member's Bill through Parliament.
Now to the Bill itself. It proposes that the risk of continuing the pregnancy to the mother or existing children must be a "serious" one, and that it must be "substantially" greater than the risk of having an abortion. This would of course not disallow abortion on genuine medical grounds of substance, but it would rule out abortion for trivial reasons or abortion on request.
It has been claimed that the words "serious" and "substantial" are difficult to define. Legal advice that I have been given is that, although it may be difficult to frame a definition for general application, it would be a simple matter for courts to apply the words in particular cases. It is relevant to note what the Solicitor-General said in the other place on 4th December 1979, in Standing Committee C at columns 350 to 352 of the Official Report, when Mr. John Corrie's Bill was being considered. This Bill contained the words "serious" and "substantially".
The Solicitor-General drew attention to a certain flexibility in the words, but said that this was not necessarily a disadvantage. A court would assume that Parliament intended a test more stringent than 1967, but less so than 1929. He further said that without the word "substantial" the test of "greater risk of continuing the pregnancy than terminating it" amounted to a very slight test. The introduction of the word "substantially" would make the test more stringent and more than a merely statistical evaluation. In passing, I would say, my Lords, that you will surely have noted that the words "serious" and "substantial" already appear in the 1967 Act in Section 1(1)(b), which deals with the risk of a handicapped child being born. If they perform a useful function there, why should they not be inserted here?
I turn to the effect of the Bill on those concerned; first, doctors and nurses. It will no doubt be pointed out to me that the BMA and other representative bodies of the medical profession do not at present appear to share the concerns that have been expressed about the workings of the 1967 Act. However, in their current handbook on medical ethics, published in 1980, the BMA describes as a "problem" the fact that the Abortion Act can be interpreted as allowing abortion on request. Well might it have been considered a problem when interpretations of the law by doctors are so widely different as to amount to virtual anarchy. Is it not the case that because of the vague wording of the 1967 Act, doctors find themselves under great pressure to make decisions which are primarily, and sometimes exclusively, decisions based on social factors? Doctors now find themselves having, in their words, to "play God" in many cases. More than one doctor has told me that it would be a great relief to him if the law were amended as proposed in the Bill.
I would also mention those doctors and nurses who, on religious or ethical grounds, are reluctant to become involved in abortions without serious medical justification. Despite the let-out in Section 4 of the
58
1967 Act, such people have either to condition themselves to do that which their conscience opposes or to get out of gynaecology altogether.
Next, I deal with the pressures on women. Those who oppose the Bill will, no doubt, lay much stress on the danger that women refused abortions will resort to back-street or criminal abortions. That is, of course, a factor to be taken seriously, but it must not be exaggerated or even accepted without question. Records show that deaths to women resulting from abortions have indeed gone down since 1967, but this is only part of a trend which started long before then and largely results from advances in medical science and antibiotics. There is no direct evidence that a reduction in legal abortions would be accompanied by an increase in maternal deaths because of abortion. Indeed, in certain Iron Curtain countries—Bulgaria, Poland and Hungary—where abortion laws were tightened in 1973–74 after a period of abortion on demand, such deaths are now the lowest in their history.
But there are other kinds of pressures on women, as letters I have received have shown to me. It must surely be obvious that women today are treated by men in a more cavalier way than ever before. It is more difficult for a woman to say "No" to the sexual act than it used to be, not least because abortion is held up as an extension of contraceptive measures. When the so-called worst happens, and a pregnancy occurs, it is only too easy for the man concerned to wash his hands of the whole business and put the woman under pressure to have an abortion, regardless of the dangers to her health or of her own convictions. Such pressures come also from employers and, sadly, also sometimes from the woman's parents, who may be embarrassed if the child will be illegitimate.
One story illustrates those pressures. I have received a letter from a girl aged 15½ who a year ago was in a children's home when she discovered she was expecting a baby. She was examined by a lady doctor who said she was 16 weeks pregnant and that she would not give her an abortion. However, the head of the home was determined that the girl should have an abortion. She took her back to the hospital to see another doctor, who said he would do the abortion and gave her a week to make up her mind. Then, to quote from the letter:
"That week was hell for me. The staff were all trying to talk me into aborting my baby. They even tried bribing me. They told me that if I had an abortion, they would take me out and buy me a lot of nice clothes. One of the staff told me that my baby would probably be dead anyway. The head of the home told me that if I went through with the pregnancy and had the baby, I would never love it and it would never love me. When finally I had to go back to the hospital, the children's home packed all my stuff in a bag and handed it to me … my social worker, my sister, even my mother, were all telling me to have the abortion".
I am glad to say that the girl resisted those pressures and her baby is now a beautiful girl of eight months.
The right to life of that baby is what the controversy is all about. For that baby, life started in some form at the moment of conception. The early weeks of her existence in the womb saw the physical development of her body happen almost incredibly quickly. By 30 days her main organs were already in recognisable form and she had a heart pumping blood she had made herself. In other babies, electric brainwaves have

59
been recorded as early as 40 days, and this must indicate that the mind has started to develop. In this connection, Professor Sir William Liley, generally regarded as the father of foetological medicine, has stated:
"We know the baby is responsive in utero to touch, to light, to sound and to stimuli which at least you and I would consider painful".
The evidence of the Bible is that Jesus was fully man from the moment he was conceived by the Holy Ghost, later to be born of the Virgin Mary. We also read that John the Baptist, who was,
"filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb",
reacted to the presence of the baby Jesus when they were still both in the womb. As a Christian, therefore, I must consider the unborn child as part of God's creation, made in His image, and I must therefore try to offer him or her the same love, care and protection in law as any other child. My Bill is a step in that direction.
In the Old Testament Scriptures, which Christians, Jews and Moslems all regard as authoritative, the killing of children is linked with the worship of idols. Even if not all of us would equate abortion with the killing of children, it is plain to see that society has set up idols of selfishness, convenience, expediency and irresponsibility. It is so much easier and less costly to abort a woman's pregnancy than genuinely to help her and her child, or even to help men face up to their responsibilities towards them.
That is by no means to say that I do not have strong feeling and sympathy for the doctor or social worker who has to decide the proper course of action for a woman in hard and depressing circumstances who finds herself pregnant. I wish to make it perfectly clear in this connection that the Bill would not prevent a doctor from authorising an abortion in cases of genuine trauma or depression.
But ought we not to ask ourselves what is wrong with our society that so many women find themselves in this position today? As long ago as 1972, Sir John Peel told a national conference of nurses that available evidence indicated that the Abortion Act had engendered a social atmosphere which encouraged irresponsible sexual behaviour. Current statistics show the truth of what he said. Today, the rate of illegitimacy, despite the number of abortions, is the highest since records were kept.
Of course, it is not only the 1967 Act which has fostered an irresponsible attitude to sex. Apart from some sections of the media, especially some teenage magazines, there are also highly irresponsible books recommended for schools study by the Health Education Council itself, some of which apear to me to say that in sexual matters anything goes provided you enjoy it, and abortion is always there as a long-stop.
My other reason for sympathy with doctors and social workers in these cases is the lack of facilities on offer to support those women who decide to go ahead with pregnancy. Apart from the social services and adoption agencies, such organisations as Well-Care, LIFE, Let-Live and Lifeline, of which I am a patron, make a valuable contribution in this field, but their resources are limited. Therefore, I can well understand
60
that the doctor may feel that there is no course open to him other than either to authorise a termination or to condemn the woman to battle on unsupported in distressing circumstances.
But there is another course. Let me illustrate it by quoting a case that is right up to date. There is a girl aged 17, who recently found herself pregnant. Her family were hostile, and the boy friend was uninterested. A social worker put her onto Well-Care, whose representative got in touch with LIFE. Her immediate needs were somewhere to live and general support. She was offered temporary accommodation in the home of a family. Before the birth she will go to a mother and baby home until six weeks after the birth. She should then be able to find her own accommodation through the council, but she will continue to be given the kind of support that she would normally expect from her family.
That story seems to me to illustrate society at its most callous and society at its most caring. How we deal with this kind of case and therefore with the unborn child who is at the heart of it will sooner or later be reflected in other fields; in other words, in our treatment of the chronically ill, the handicapped, and the aged. God forbid that it should ever be acceptable in this country for any person to be killed off solely because he or she is inconvenient, or is a burden on someone else. Unfortunately that is exctly what has happened as an unintended effect of the 1967 Act, and, what is more, the same tendency is discernible in the other fields that I have mentioned. Therefore, I would call upon the Government at the very least, first to do what they can to encourage responsible attitudes to sexual and family matters, and in particular responsibility in sex education; and, secondly, to encourage and enhance the provision of services to support and care for those for whom abortion is not the answer.
Your Lordships have been very patient, and in conclusion I would say this: an eminent teacher of obstetrics has pointed out to me that before the 1967 Act the doctor considering an abortion had to weigh up the life and health of the woman against the life of the unborn baby. Since 1967 it has been a different equation. Because of the framing of the law, he has had to forecast what will happen to the woman if she continues with the pregnancy and what will happen to the woman if she terminates it. Therefore, even with the best will in the world, the fate of the baby is not a question in the forefront of the doctor's mind. The baby has therefore effectively been written out of the law. My Bill is an attempt to write it back in again. If therefore your Lordships agree that the unborn child is a member of the human community worthy of our love, care, and protection, I hope that you will support the Bill, if necessary in the Lobbies. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Robertson of Oakridge.)
6.24 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out ("now") and at the end insert ("this day six months").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am going to submit to your Lordships that this is not a Bill that should be given further and extended consideration in this House at this time. The amendment decides no questions of principle either way. It simply defers further consideration to some future and more appropriate time and, if I may say so, to an occasion more appropriate than this one. The antecedents of the Bill have been referred to by the noble Lord in moving the Second Reading. They comprise seven attempts made in another place to amend the Abortion Act in the same, or a similar, way.
I regret to say that opponents of the 1967 Act have kept up their persistent attacks upon it right from the beginning. Scarcely four years of operation of the 1967 Act had passed before Sir Keith Joseph, then the Minister concerned, appointed a committee of investigation, to which the noble Lord referred, and it made a number of recommendations, in particular recommendations regarding administration and guidance, which were adopted. It also confirmed in some respects the provisions of the 1967 Act and in particular the criteria which were adopted in Section 1.
I am bound to say that I think that opponents of abortion in principle, whether on doctrinal, religious, or any other grounds, want to change the Act for the worse from the point of view of the women of this country, and they wish to do that by restricting the opportunities for getting abortions. When I look at the guerrilla war that has gone on in another place against the Act, I see that the first attempt was made within 18 months of the Act being put into operation. Another attempt was made in 1970, another in 1975, another in 1977, another in 1978, another in 1979, and the most recent one was in 1980.
I think that after the gruelling experiences they went through on all those Bills Members of another place have concluded that no Bill to change the 1967 Act will pass through this Parliament. I believe that in another place a truce has now been declared, since two Members there who are strong opponents of abortion and whose names came out high in the ballot for Private Member's Bills have this time left the subject alone.
I suggest that by putting the Bill at arm's length we can over time to come consider the working of the Act by giving it closer attention. On the face of it, this is a single clause Bill, deceptively short, alluring in its simplicity, proposing only two additional words to be inserted before two existing words. But, apart from what in my opinion are the demerits of the Bill itself, to go on with it would open up a veritable hornets' nest. The noble Lord did not draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that, under the Long Title of his Bill, the whole of Section 1 of the Act is open to amendment. That opens up a prospect of formidable proportions. In connection with one Bill in another place, 80 amendments to Section 1 were proposed.
I think that I ought to mention that the Labour Party has on abortion a policy diametrically opposed to the doctrine of the noble Lord who is proposing the Bill, and if the Bill goes into Committee, one must expect concerted action by my noble friends on this side of the House, as ever, to implement party policy—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I was given to understand that this would be a free vote. This idea of concerted policy is new to me and rather unattractive.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am not in a position to say whether my noble friend can have a free vote, or what he should have. All I am doing is reporting to the House the policy that was adopted by the conference of the Labour Party as recently as last October. Whether that becomes a matter of discipline upon members of the party is another matter. I am merely saying that there will be opportunities to open up the whole of Section 1 if this Bill goes into Committee, and I think that prospect is not one—
Lord Somers: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? I hardly think that such a Bill as this is a party matter, or even that party politics should be referred to.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I will try to get on because I have a few remarks to make.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I must interrupt the noble Lord, if he will allow me to do so. May I say from these Benches that whichever way we vote it will not be on the basis of any matter of party policy. It will be a question of our individual consciences.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am not in a position to confirm or deny that at all. I am merely reporting what is a matter of public knowledge and what is in the hands of all noble Lords on both sides of the House, and that is the declaration of policy made at the Labour Party Conference last October—and there can be no doubt at all that it runs firmly counter to the proposal which has been made by the noble Lord who has moved the Second Reading of this Bill. I will not read it out, but it is there on the record as to what the policy document said and what the Labour Party Conference approved.
I merely submit to your Lordships that there are parliamentary considerations about this Bill which I think cannot be ignored. I know that there is no constitutional question involved, but I think that if we are to go through a gruelling period on this Bill we want to be satisfied that it will do some good. I would submit to your Lordships that although it might be an academic parliamentary exercise, this Bill really has not got the value that it should have from a legislative point of view to justify the work and strain that would be involved.
Now I come to the Bill itself. The noble Lord referred to the British Medical Association, which he consulted, quite rightly—and so did I. But the British Medical Association have drawn my attention, at any rate, to the resolution passed by their representative body in 1978, which said:
"This meeting deplores the persistent attacks on the 1967 Abortion Act and reaffirms its belief that it is a practical and humane piece of legislation".
They also say, in a letter to me dated 1st December:
"If this Bill is passed it will put the clock back and do untold physical and emotional harm to many poor women who will again seek help from back-street abortionists".
That is the opinion of this most responsible and notable representative body of the medical profession,

63
and I think that that prospect must deter us from proceeding along the lines which are proposed.
The noble Lord made some play with the suggestion that abortion is obtainable on demand, and a great deal of loose talk is very often heard about abortion on demand. My Lords, there is no such thing as abortion on demand. Those who have to carry out this unhappy task are not under any command by their patients. They may have a request, but they are not bound to accede to it. The doctors have their own responsibility, and they have to exercise their own judgment. They have to be accountable to themselves, to their profession, to the department and to their patients.
In this connection I would say that very little evidence is available, from investigations that have been made, that abortions are obtainable on demand. Sometimes the variations in the numbers of abortions in particular areas are used as prima facie evidence of variations in standard; and it is sometimes suggested that where abortions appear to be more freely available than in other areas, that is due to the greater liberality of the professional consultants in that particular area. There is, of course, evidence on the other side. There is evidence of great difficulty in obtaining abortions in particular areas due to the outlook and policy of the gynaecologist consultants and other members of the profession who have the responsibility. So before we accept general statements about the availability of abortion on demand we should seek much closer investigation of what actually happens in the field.
There are variations—considerable variations in some areas—but when one looks at what they are, where they are and who is where they are, one sees that there is frequently a pretty good explanation of why some people find it a great deal more difficult to get abortions in some areas than in others; and the number of abortions on the National Health Service varies considerably from area to area. What I am saying is that it would be a mistake to proceed with this Bill and to go through the mill of further stages without the additional evidence which I think should be available before any major review of the 1967 Act is undertaken.
I want to say in conclusion that this is not a purely marginal measure. What the noble Lord is proposing would make a very big difference indeed, or could make a very big difference, to the number of abortions and to the availability of abortion in different areas. The Minister, Dr. Gerard Vaughan, told the Members of another place on 13th July 1979 that about 85 per cent. of all abortions certified for women resident in the United Kingdom were on the basis of the criteria that this Bill proposes to amend. He therefore advised the House that it would affect potentially a large proportion of the women who now obtain abortions; and he warned that we must not delude ourselves in thinking that it would be altering the situation for a small number of women. It could alter the situation for a large number of women; and he warned that we have to go very carefully before we change the criteria. So this is not a small measure, or even a moderate one, and we have to consider what the full impact of it would be.
64
The British Medical Association tell me quite definitely that they believe the underlying motive of this Bill is to frighten the doctors and to make them more reluctant to certify abortion; possibly to remove one doubt and substitute another; and generally to feel less certain of their ground, less certain that they have the legal power to exercise their discretion and their clinical judgment in particular cases. They would have to have at their side definitions of what "greater risk" meant, of what "serious risk" meant or of what "substantially greater" meant.
Incidentally, and in this connection, in the other place the Minister recommended that the word "serious" should not appear in this subsection, although the word "substantially" should. In the end, no compromise was possible and, as the noble Lord has said, the Bill ran out of time. But this Bill proposes to reopen the compromise which was reached in October 1967 in this House. I would say this very seriously: no change in the abortion law in future will be possible without some large measure of compromise. We cannot go on fighting the abortion issue indefinitely; we must get some basis on which there is a consensus and a general acceptance of what should be done. The compromise reached in October 1967 in this Chamber succeeded in enabling that Bill in 1967 to go back to another place for approval—and it did so approve. The compromise passed in this House without a Division and it passed in the other place without a Division. Now the noble Lord is proposing that we should reopen all that and start all over again.
My Lords, we do not proceed in this House by controversy so much as by compromise and there will be no compromise on the Bill that is before the House today. That is a clear statement of my attitude towards it. We should have to work in the further stages of the Bill to change it or to defeat it or to replace it by something else. There was an attempt made in another place on one occasion to redraft the whole of Section 1. That might be the only way, indeed, by which we could reach any accommodation in this House in future. This is hornets' nest. What is a moderate proposal, superficially, goes deep down into the whole issue of abortion with its principles, its doctrines, its convictions and its emotions—all of which are involved; and we have heard a great deal about that already.
What I am submitting to your Lordships is that, without committing ourselves one way or the other on what the noble Lord has said or upon the principles involved in what he has said, we feel that this is not the time to embark upon a major review of the 1967 Act because that is what will confront us if this Bill goes forward. This section, Section 1, which is open to amendment under the Bill, is 90 per cent. of the controversial part of the Act of 1967.I submit to your Lordships with great respect that no good purpose would be served by embarking upon this course and that, moreover, we should be unwise to do so without a great deal more evidence based on more recent investigations, hearing what is actually happening and listening to recommendations as to what should be done in the future. I beg to move the amendment standing in my name.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out ("now")

65
and at the end insert ("this day six months").—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
6.44 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has described the various parliamentary exercises that have been conducted on this matter in recent years. It is, nonetheless, nigh on 15 years since your Lordships yourselves considered this matter in any detail. We should be grateful therefore to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, for bringing forward this Bill today. This subject is one on which widely differing views are profoundly and respectably held. There will, I am certain, be no unanimity among your Lordships tonight. The proposal on which your Lordships have to make up your minds is not the very principle upon which the 1967 Act is founded but, rather, the more limited suggestion that the criteria laid down in the Act be amended by the addition of certain words, thus making it more difficult to obtain an abortion.
Let me say at the outset that the Government have no views as to whether or not this is desirable. Successive Administrations have regarded it as something on which noble Lords and Members of another place must be free to vote according to the dictates of their consciences. There will be no departure from this practice today. What I say is not, therefore, intended to influence the consciences of your Lordships; what I shall try to do is assist your Lordships by drawing attention to salient facts and figures.
In 1969, the first full year in which the Abortion Act was in operation, around 50,000 women resident in England and Wales and nearly 4,000 in Scotland had their pregnancies terminated. After a rapid increase in the early 1970s the number levelled out at around 110,000 per year, plus a further 7,000 a year in Scotland. However, the trend over the past two or three years has again been upwards, with provisional figures for 1981 indicating nearly 139,000 abortions to women resident in England, Wales and Scotland. By contrast, the number of terminations carried out on non-residents—most, no doubt, coming here for the purpose—has declined over the same period and now stands at around 30,000 per annum. The great majority of abortions (about 99 per cent.), are carried out under Section 1(1)(a) of the Act; and it is this provision which the Bill before us today seeks to amend.
The Secretaries of State for Social Services, for Scotland and for Wales all have a responsibility for the operation of the Abortion Act. All terminations carried out under the Act have to be notified to the chief medical officers for England, Scotland and Wales respectively, and these notifications are the basis of the statistics to which I have referred. Through their involvement in the operation of the Act, the health departments take all possible steps to ensure that the law is being upheld. I think it is widely recognised that the actions successive Ministers have taken to regulate the operation of the Act in the private sector have played a major part in controlling the abuses which undoubtedly occurred in the early days of the Act. The operation of the Act continues to be closely
66
monitored, and we have no evidence of a recurrence of these abuses, that women are being exploited or that their health is being put at risk.
The criteria in the Act set out the circumstances in which abortions may be allowed and represent a careful balance arrived at after prolonged and detailed debate during the passage of the legislation.
What then is the case for amendment now? In April 1974, after six years' operation of the Act, the report of the Committee on the Abortion Act under Mrs. Justice Lane recommended that the criteria be left unamended. In the 1974–75 parliamentary Session, the Select Committee on Abortion again made no recommendation for change, although there were those among its witnesses and, no doubt, among its members, too, who pressed the case for some amendment. Several attempts have been made in another place to introduce amendments to the criteria, but none has succeeded. Indeed, I have to tell your Lordships that members of the medical profession most closely involved have set their faces against any amendment of the Act. The British Medical Association have affirmed this and I should like to quote to your Lordships that affirmation—and this is a different observation from the one quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby:
"It is the British Medical Association's view that the 1967 Act is a good and sensible piece of legislation that is capable of being operated satisfactorily. It should not be modified or amended. Termination of pregnancy is always less desirable than effective family planning".
Should your Lordships seek additional assurance from a professional quarter there could perhaps be no more distinguished body of opinion than the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. With your Lordships' permission, I shall again quote direct from the statement of views that today they have made available to me:
"The College considers that the grounds for abortion in the 1967 Act have provided a reasonable working basis allowing doctors and their patients a framework for differing views. We consider that the duty to distinguish degrees of risk more strictly as required by this Bill, would greatly increase the difficulties faced by doctors in recommending and carrying out abortion".
I am, however, aware of the criticisms often made of the Abortion Act from other quarters. For example, it has been claimed that it has resulted in abortion for the flimsiest of reasons unrelated to health and thus, in practice, goes far beyond Parliament's original intentions.
That claim is based on two misunderstandings. The first is that, as Section 1(2) of the Act allows the pregnant woman's actual or foreseeable environment to be taken into account in assessing her need for an abortion, social factors alone can provide the necessary grounds. The second misunderstanding is that, since statistics show that, in this country, there is less risk to the woman's life from an abortion than from childbirth, any pregnant woman may automatically obtain an abortion under the main criteria in the Act. But the fact of the matter is that although the Act does allow for social factors to be taken into account it does not allow for abortion on these grounds alone. So far as the statistics are concerned, the law requires medical practitioners to weigh the risks in respect of each individual woman and not for women generally.

67
As I understand it, Lord Robertson of Oakridge's aims are to reassert what, in his view, were the original intentions of Parliament and to ensure that abortion cannot be obtained for trivial reasons unrelated to the woman's present or future physical or mental health. It is not clear that the Bill, as drafted, will have the effect the noble Lord intends. However, if, after listening to this debate, noble Lords are in favour of the principle on which the Bill is based, close attention can no doubt be given to the precise wording at any later stage.
I hope your Lordships will have found these observations helpful in your consideration of this very important issue. For the reasons I have stated, the Government regard it as a matter on which individual noble Lords must vote in accordance with their personal views. Having said that, I have to tell your Lordships that the Government will not be able to find time for consideration of this Bill in another place. Although my own views can in no sense be held to reflect those of my ministerial colleagues, I can say that, for my part, I shall vote in favour of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and hence against the Bill.
6.53 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I should like to start by saying that of course it is perfectly within the right of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, to bring his anxieties about the abortion legislation before your Lordships. I think we should all accept and welcome the fact that he has found it possible to bring his anxieties before the House tonight.
I welcome this debate and I should like to make it absolutely clear that on this side of the House we have a free vote; but in case there is any difficulty—and this was referred to earlier—I must remind your Lordships, and especially my noble friends, that the Labour Party is on record as seeking to defend the 1967 Abortion Act from restrictive amendment. That was passed by a Labour Conference and I think that must stay with us as Labour Party policy; but in every case we accept the right of our friends to have their own conscientious objections thereto.
Going back to the 1967 Act, which many of us thought was going to be the end of this long road, I must say that when the Act was passed I hoped that was going to be a finality. I am very sorry that we are having to go back again over this Act, which has brought so much relaxation of tension and anxiety to so many women and to so many doctors. It is, in my view, a great pity that we are having to look at the subject again today.
I want to keep myself very narrowly to the Bill before us and I do not think it would be right for us to raise the religious, ethical and philosophical grounds about termination of pregnancy tonight. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, has very rightly put down very narrow amendments. He wants in the first place to insert before the word "risk" in the 1967 Act the word "serious". I think this is too important an issue to be reduced to semantics; but because today's Bill is about words, we must examine the words. The 1967 Act allows termination, and I quote:
"where the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk".
68
I looked up the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, and it defines "risk" as follows:
"Hazard; danger; exposure to mischance or peril."
I suggest to your Lordships that this definition is clear. It does not lend itself to quantifying. If the hazard, danger or exposure to mischance or peril is there, surely that is enough, and the word "serious" does nothing to help the situation. All risks, I submit, are serious to the patient concerned and her family.
I have to ask the noble Lord: is he maintaining that it would be right for doctors to inflict a slight risk on an anxious woman? What is a slight risk? Doctors might decide that the chances of some disaster are a hundred to one. Is that slight or is it serious? If the doctors decide that a risk of one in a hundred is not serious, then I must say to your Lordships that that one woman in a hundred is to herself and to her family one hundred per cent. in trouble. You cannot work this legislation by numbers. I recall a surgeon telling me how he had been trying to persuade a patient to sign a consent form to an operation. He told the patient that of course there was an element of danger in all operations but no more than crossing Tottenham Court Road. The patient said: "But do you mean crossing Tottenham Court Road on a wet, dark, foggy night in the rush hour or on a sunny Sunday morning?" The surgeon never tried that analogy again.
That exchange illustrates the difficulty of quantifying risk. What might be a slight risk for one woman might be a serious risk for another, and who is to say among your Lordships that slight damage does not matter? This is especially so as nobody can look into the future and know what aftermath there might be in the case of a woman whose situation might not seem to be a serious risk but who later might develop consequential problems arising from a wrong decision which had been made earlier.
The problem was very clearly stated in 1967 in your Lordships' House by the then Chief Justice, Lord Justice Parker. He advised the House—and Lord Justice Parker was not parti pris on this issue—that words like "serious" or "substantial" would cause difficulties of definition in the courts. I am sure it was right that on that occasion your Lordships felt that the advice of the Lord Chief Justice should be taken. I refer your Lordships in this connection to the Official Report of 23rd October, 1967.
So far as I can gather, since the 1967 Act there have been no prosecutions under that legislation. There may have been a few prosecutions under the regulations, but I understand that no doctor has been prosecuted under the 1967 Act. That is, indeed, a change from earlier legislation, when I saw doctor after doctor being sent to prison for doing what they thought was in the interests of their patients. Therefore, the fact that there have been no prosecutions under the 1967 Act must indicate to your Lordships that this Act is working well, that doctors are assuming their responsibilities within the restrictions of the Act and that there has been no defiance of the law.
I know that there are noble Lords who would wish to widen the possibilities of legal termination under the 1967 Act. I know that other noble Lords would wish for restriction. Surely, in the traditional

69
understanding of your Lordships' House, the answer must be a temperate consensus which would leave the 1967 Act as it is. I ask your Lordships tonight to let the statutes rest in peace. Meanwhile, through legislation, through the regulations and through the notifications procedure, there is ample scope to deal with difficulties. But the 1967 law should itself remain as it is on the statute book, because it is a law which combines common sense with compassion, and these are qualities which are not always to be found in combination in legislation in your Lordships' House.
I would only remind your Lordships that since 1967 10 attempts to amend the Act have been brought in, though not in your Lordships' House. This is the eleventh attempt and the first time in your Lordships' House since 1967. I would also remind your Lordships that the Lane Committee, under that very distinguished woman lawyer Lord Justice Lane in 1974, wanted the Act to remain as it was; that the Commons Select Committee, which was set up in 1975, urged that the Act of 1967 should be left alone; that the doctors are against any change, and that it is usual, when we are discussing legislation, to look to the people who have to enact it and ask them what they think about it. We now have incontrovertible evidence from the British Medical Association, from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and from countless doctors up and down the country that they want the 1967 Act left alone, and it is incumbent upon your Lordships to pay attention to the views of the people who are having to deal with this Bill.
I will end by saying that we are indebted to the noble Lord for bringing this difficult subject to our attention, but we have to look at the underlying problems. I appreciate that he is concerned about the differences in the regional effects of the law—differences between one area and another. But I would say to him that the biggest difference in this area is not always between one region and another, but between whether a woman is rich or whether she is poor.
In all my years in another place and here, we have never had a debate on the subject of abortion which has questioned the right of rich women to get abortions when and where they want them. It was only under the National Health Service that working-class women, poor women, came to us and said, "We, too, must have our right to decide these things." I submit to your Lordships that if we pass this Bill tonight we shall be putting the clock back as regards the right of poor women to get a termination of pregnancy when two doctors think they should have it, and encouraging rich women with no medical qualifications or needs to go somewhere and give enough money to get what they want. So the Labour Party must oppose any restriction of the 1967 Act, because the Bill will mean a restriction against poorer working class women.
I want to finish by saying to your Lordships that abortion is nothing which anybody wants. I resent being called, as I sometimes am, pro-abortionist, because I am not in favour of abortions. They are something of which no woman can be in favour. What I am in favour of is an extended programme of family planning facilities, and I hope that none of those facilities will be reduced by any Government rearrangement of National Health Service priorities. I
70
want to see more counselling and more child care facilities, so that a young woman faced with having a baby is not forced to have an abortion because there is nobody to look after the baby, which, perhaps, she wants. These are the social factors which are absolutely fundamental.
I also want to see a great deal more sex education. When I say that, I do not mean just the sort of mechanical instruction that can come from biology lessons in schools, but education both at home and at school, which would help young people to understand the richness and, may I say, the sweetness of responsible, loving, human relationships, as distinct from the cruelty and the disasters of casual unloving encounters. These are the thoughts which I must commend to your Lordships and, for all the reasons which I have tried to put before you, I very much hope that your Lordships will support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Houghton and reject the Second Reading of the Bill, because, with all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, I hope that it will be defeated.
7.9 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, for introducing this Bill. I am also particularly grateful to him for setting the context in which this debate is taking place. He did so in simple, clear and direct terms when he reminded us that in this country, by next March, we can anticipate that abortions will take place at the rate of one baby every three minutes. That is the context in which we debate the issue today. Casualties through other reasons attract great attention. People are deeply concerned about them. They protest and ask, can they not be reduced? The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, referred to it as being an academic party exercise to debate this issue in your Lordships' House. I find that very difficult to understand. How can it be an academic party exercise to debate—
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, if the right reverend Prelate will permit me to intervene, I did not use in this connection the word "party". I said "academic exercise" but not "party''.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's explanation. When I made a note at that point, I must have written down a word he did not say. However, I could not regard it even as an academic exercise for this House to debate whether the Bill could reduce that appalling figure. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has called for an end to what he described as "this guerrilla warfare" against the 1967 Act. I could well understand his attitude if the Act had operated as was intended, but if an Act does not operate as intended there is every reason why those who are concerned about the issues with which it deals should seek to produce amendments designed to secure that the original intention of the Act is observed as far as possible. On 22nd July 1967 Mr. David Steel in another place said that it was not the intention of the promoters of the Bill to leave a wide open door to abortion on request. That statement was repeated many times in the debate. At paragraph 603, the Lane Committee admitted that abortion on request has

71
been one of the results of the Act. Other points have already been made this evening. It was stated very confidently at that time that the rate of illegitimacy would decline. That has not happened.
I maintain that sufficient problems have arisen from the implementation of the Act for there to be ample justification for those who have sought to amend it in some way or another and for our debate this evening. A point was made about the variations in the operation of the Act. I am not a lawyer. Therefore I hope that noble and learned Lords will later be able to help us. However, I should have thought that to sharpen the criterion might have the effect of securing a greater uniformity of practice. If one leaves something wide open and largely to the decision of one or two people, I maintain that one is asking for the kind of variation of policy to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, drew attention.
Before I turn to the main points which I wish to make, may I say a word by way of reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger? I agree that it is difficult to quantify risk, but it has to be done in many other aspects of the law. Again, perhaps we may have guidance on that point later in the debate. It is a question of what issues are at stake. We may disagree on this point, but I would suggest to your Lordships (I do not isolate the woman; I wish to emphasise that this issue is of as much concern to men as it is to women and that it is not good enough simply to say that the answer is for the woman to say no; it is equally necessary for the man not to seek to put her in the position where she has to say no) that it may be more serious to give the impression that we take a lighthearted view of procreation by simply allowing it to be thought that the results of sexual intercourse can be pushed to one side easily and without problems.
I have touched upon some of the reasons why I believe there is a case for looking again at the working of the Act. There are one or two other reasons which I should like to suggest to your Lordships. They spring from my own pastoral experience. I believe it is right for those who seek to speak on this issue to ask themselves what counsel they would devise for these kinds of situations. Over the years since the implementation of the Act women have come to me seeking pastoral counsel. Having had an abortion, they can no longer have children. What do I say to them? Women come to me for pastoral counsel who are now suffering mentally and spiritually from the effects of abortion. I have had to counsel a fair number of medical practitioners and nurses who are facing great strains of conscience as a result of being expected to operate the Act as it stands at the moment, and I have also had to counsel those who are under pressure to adopt the minimal view of what justifies abortion. I have had couples come to see me who are under great pressure—social pressure, pressure from social workers, pressure from parents, as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, indicated in the letter which he read—to have their child aborted. Some of these couples are in great agony of mind. That such pressure is exerted I do not believe can be denied. I do not for a moment believe that my experiences have been unique and are not to be found elsewhere throughout the country.
72
I am pleading tonight that we should look at the Bill clearly and directly, as people who are deeply concerned not only with individuals but also with the principles which underlie our society. I believe it is a great mistake to suppose that principle and pastoral care or compassion are contrary to one another and can never be brought together. On the contrary, I believe that it is from our principles that we are enabled most effectively to exercise pastoral care and that only if we have no principles are we in no position to offer pastoral care, since we have no guidelines to direct us.
With regard to the sanctity of life, I believe that we have to deal with an attitude of society. I do not believe that the way to solve social problems is by the extinction of life. I use that phrase deliberately because, whatever else people say about the state of the foetus, they cannot deny that it is alive. Secondly, I believe we have to concern ourselves with human responsibility. Something which worries me deeply about our society today is that it reflects the words of T. S. Eliot in one of the choruses of The Rock when he speaks of how we are seeking to escape from the darkness outside and within by dreaming of a system so perfect that no one will need to be good. If we are dreaming of a system so perfect that no one will need to be good then we are, I believe, gravely undermining human dignity and human freedom.
Society is, of course, illogical about life. On the one hand we abort babies at the rate of which we have heard and, on the other, when a baby is born we do all we can, at great expense, to try to keep it alive. As a Christian, I am committed to the sanctity of human life. By the incarnation and by the fact that God took our human nature upon him, human life was given an eternal blessing. I believe that when a child is conceived—and this is a fact, of course—a new individual with a unique genetical make-up comes into being. It is unable to protect itself, and it is the duty of society to protect it. It must not be regarded as being disposable.
I will not develop the theological points I would like to make, partly because the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, mentioned them and partly because I wish to speak specifically about the purposes of this Bill. I want to make clear that I speak from a deeply-felt Christian conviction, which is not merely concern for an abstract piece of doctrine but because I happen to believe that the Christian truth represents the truth about human beings and society and what they are for and how they should live.
One aspect of human life is that a human being is a responsible person. I would say that the greatest gift which God gives to us is our freedom. That is why I regard it as so inimical to society if we start behaving as if people can be manipulated and be made to do what we think is right for them—as if they were wholly determined by their environment, upbringing or genetic make-up. I believe that every human person, in whatever conditions they find themselves, has that point of freedom and it is for us to foster and develop it.
I believe that this freedom is uniquely reflected in the Christian gospels. It is a fact that God chose to redeem us on the Cross in a way which leaves every

73
one of us still free to choose; the Cross does not compel but only recognises our freedom—but if we respond, it then liberates us even further. I believe that when we come to an issue such as this, we have to consider society as a whole—because society can help or hinder the freedom which individuals possess. We have to think of the responsibility we have for exercising our own judgments; anything which undermines that and which appears to minimise the consequences of our actions, although at one moment it may appear somewhat harsh, is in fact the most compassionate position to adopt.
I would now like to speak particularly about the issue before us. I believe that the foetus has a right to live and to develop as a member of the human family. Therefore I see abortion and the termination of that life by the act of man as a great moral evil. It has sometimes been said that there is a great diversity of opinion within the Church of England; but I would like to say that, in using those words, I was in fact quoting from a Church of England document published in 1980. I do not believe that the right to life, as a right pertaining to persons, admits of no exceptions whatever. I never have been an absolutist in this matter, but I do believe that the right of the innocent to life admits of very few exceptions indeed. I will not seek to elaborate those exceptions, but I will say that in abortion we are faced with a choice between two evils, and we have to decide which is the lesser evil.
The Bill before us helps us to make that responsible but very difficult judgment. In a society such as ours, with advanced facilities for prenatal diagnosis and care, such stituations ought to be much more exceptional than they are. The fact is that people today turn to abortion or are encouraged to seek abortion for quite other reasons. I say "people" again because I believe that we are making a great mistake if we isolate women as if it were simply their problem. I know that they are most immediately concerned, but we men cannot escape our responsibilities for this great problem. People turn to abortion for reasons which frequently point to seriously unsatisfactory personal or family circumstances, but which cannot on that account morally justify the extreme step of abortion.
With regard to the role of the law, I fully accept that before 1967, when the present Abortion Act became law, there was much uncertainty about what the law allowed. There were great inequalities in the opportunities open to women facing a dangerous or unwelcome pregnancy. There was a desire to remedy a situation where the wealthy could purchase a safe abortion. I will endorse all that the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, said just now; but if I may say so with respect, I do not honestly believe that it affects the issue before us today.
Baroness Jeger: Of course it does, my Lords.
The Lord Bishop of London: The criteria we are seeking to adopt are the right criteria for deciding. I agree that the criterion of rich or poor should not be one of those criteria, but it is perfectly possible to have a different criterion from that which is operating now in the National Health Service. I do not believe that we should be led astray in the way that the noble Baroness indicated just now. What we are concerned about is
74
the criterion we can operate within the National Health Service, although I would entirely endorse the words of the noble Baroness about the rich and the poor.
A desire to remedy a situation where the wealthy could purchase a safe abortion while the less well-off endangered their lives seeking back-street abortions was undoubtedly a motive—a very proper and right motive—in the campaign for a statutory basis for abortion. As I have said, matters have turned out rather differently, and I believe that the working of the Act has gone far beyond a clarification of the law. In its wake have come new injustices as well as the widespread belief that in the last resort, if a woman or those around her want an abortion, she will get one. Fifteen years' experience of working the Act have not ended the controversy surrounding it. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has indicated, they have if anything sharpened it; but that is no reason for simply trying to shut our eyes to the situation.
My following remark may surprise your Lordships, but the fact that I regard abortion as an evil—and in my judgment it is an evil—is not in itself a ground for prohibiting it in law. Only if it were to be regarded as invariably wrong to terminate a pregnancy for any reason would prohibition be justifiable, and I do not believe that abortion in all circumstances must be rejected. Because of the evil which abortion entails, however, and because of the serious threat to the high valuation of human life which unrestricted recourse to abortion represents in the long term, it is of great importance that it be made clear that, in law, induced abortion is allowable only when the life or health of the pregnant woman can without disingenuousness be diagnosed as being seriously threatened by the continuation of the pregnancy, and no less drastic remedy than its termination is available. The responsibility for carrying out the intention of the law lies, in the main, with the medical profession. The presumption that clinical judgments are made in good faith and therefore not called in question subsequently is of great value; it is something which is of great value within our society. Nevertheless, I would suggest that the enormous increase in legal abortions as a result of the 1967 Act suggests a certain slackening of the tradition of concern for the life of the unborn child, and a loss of confidence within the profession in its responsibility to distinguish between the client's wishes and her needs.
What I am now going to say may be a little strong but I believe it is justified. If respect for the medical profession in its task of caring for persons is to continue in the community, there must be evidence that the profession will keep in good repair the distinction between an authentic expression of what that task requires and a purely formal and external observance of the law. This means that the terms of the law—the present law or any modified law—must be accompanied by action within the profession to ensure that evasion of its intentions is not enabled to prosper by appeal to the principle of not questioning a practitioner's clinical judgment.
A proper concern for the law should not blind us to the fact that it has at best only a limited and indirect role in protecting the true interests of persons and of the community. The request for abortion is frequently

75
a pointer to underlying personal or social problems, which cannot be dealt with by a law on abortion, however framed. It cannot solve the problems of the girl who needs to prove herself by becoming pregnant, nor those of the tired mother facing an addition to an already over-large family in poor housing. Nor can it help a society which is in turmoil in its attitude to human sexuality, free of earlier fears, but unable or unwilling to accept the commitment and creativity which sexualty essentially points to, enables and requires. We as Christians are well aware that it is quite inadequate to limit ourselves to expressions of moral disapproval, in this case of the individual woman who seeks and obtains abortion on what often we may feel are quite inadequate grounds. Our moral concern must be for the protection of human life, and it will only have and be seen to have integrity if it also finds expression in an equal concern for whatever enhances human life and equally for whatever undermines it. In other words, while we must be deeply concerned for this particular problem, we must see it within a concern for society as a whole, within which the individual must be free to develop as a person. We believe that the Church has a major task in helping our contemporaries to reach a fuller understanding of our nature as sexual beings. The Church must also stand in opposition to the restricted life-chances, poverty, inadequate housing, and so on, which continue to limit and to stunt many people's lives.
Abortion on the scale and in the context we see today calls in question the transcendent value of human life to which the Christian is committed and to which our society still in principle subscribes. We need to be concerned with it, not as an isolated example of individuals' responsibilities deserving of moral censure, but as an encroachment upon the conditions for a proper human life in our society. I believe that the situation over abortion in this country today reflects very ill on its conditions. I believe that this House has a responsibility for considering what can and should be done to remedy it. That is why I ask your Lordships to vote against the amendment, in order that you have the opportunity for considering this issue which is put before us by the Bill which is before this House.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I have been much concerned in abortion from the legal point of view. As a trial judge, I have tried cases of illegal abortion. I have sentenced men to some years, and one woman backstairs abortionist to nine months when the mother concerned had either died or been rendered very ill. I took part in the discussions in 1965, when the late Lord Silkin introduced the first Abortion Bill. I followed the Bill through this House then, and since that Act I have been engaged in, I think, the only case which has come before the courts on the interpretation of the statute.
Before I say more, I should like to say that I will support the Second Reading of the Bill and be against the amendment which seeks to postpone it, for these reasons. Really it is not only the Christian doctrine but
76
it is the doctrine of our law and our common law that the unborn child has a life of its own and a right of its own which is recognised by the law at least from the time of quickening, and the common law has always recognised that. Our great jurist, Sir William Blackstone, put it in this way:
"Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual, and it begins in contemplation at law as soon as the infant is able to stir in its mother's womb."
Such a child was protected by the law almost to the same extent as a new-born baby. If anyone terminated the pregnancy and thus destroyed the life of the child he or she was guilty of a felony punishable by life imprisonment.
In 1939 in Bourne's case that was modified to this extent by the common law. It was a defence if the termination was necessary to save the life of the mother. If the probable consequence of not terminating was to make the mother a physical or mental wreck then it was justifiable, but that was the only circumstance in which in the common law it was justifiable to terminate the pregnancy. So the common law laid great stress on the existence in the unborn child of a life of its own and a right of its own.
Now for the 1967 Act. As I read it, it does not alter that fundamental principle, but what it does do is to define the circumstances in which pregnancy can be terminated. I would like to follow what my noble friend Lord Robertson of Oakridge said. It is not for the doctors alone to consider the balance of danger to the mother's health; it is for the law itself, following the old doctrine, to consider that there is yet another person concerned and that is the unborn child.
In the first four or five years after that Act was passed—and we have had cases about it—there had to be surgery after three months to terminate the pregnancy. Termination by the knife. Naturally, grave consideration was given to the risks involved. Since about 1972 the medical profession has had a new system: the method of induction. As we understood it from a case, what happens is that the doctor inserts a catheter or whatever it may be, and then goes off and leaves the nurse to then insert the new chemical fluid which makes the space so that the mother's muscles act differently—at all events to induce labour prematurely without the knife at all. That was the case which came before the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords in which, in the Court of Appeal, we said that that really was not termination by a registered medical practitioner. He had just given the first word. It was termination by the nurse. Many nurses, including the Royal College of Nursing, objected to it. We took that point of view, but the House of Lords said otherwise. But there it is, I am just telling your Lordships how abortion has become much more facile and easy at the hands of the medical profession.
I am sure that the whole design of the act was to put a great social responsibility on the medical profession in regard to the termination of pregnancy. It is a great social responsibility. I do not believe that it can be effectively enforced by the law. If the doctor gives his opinion honestly and in good faith, no jury will challenge it, no law will challenge it. That is why there have been no prosecutions under the Act. The responsibility is firmly placed by the law on the

77
medical profession. It is the profession's responsibility. But here comes the crux: weighing the balance and telling of the risk. That word "risk" covers a multitude of chances, from the slightest to the greatest. We all know that there is a risk in continuing with pregnancy. There is a risk in terminating it. What is advocated in the Bill is intended to help the doctors, by saying that there must be a "serious" risk when weighing the balance. What is the balance between the health of the mother in terminating the pregnancy on the one hand and letting her continue the pregnancy on the other? Everyone knows that in practice there is a risk to the mental health of the mother when she has the baby. Equally, everyone knows, as the right reverend Prelate said, that an abortion often leads to much mental disturbance. The doctors have to weigh that nice balance. Surely they ought to be given some guidance to show that the "greater" balance has to be to save injury to the mother. In other words, the Act as it stands with just the word "risk" and only the word "greater" does not give enough guidance to the profession. More guidance is necessary. That is why, in practice, abortions have slipped through. I said "judicially" in the one case that we had—the Royal College of Nursing case. This has been interpreted by some medical practitioners so loosely that abortion has become virtually obtainable on demand. Whenever a woman has an unwanted pregnancy there are doctors who will say that a risk is involved to her mental health. That is what I said in my judicial capacity and which I readily reassert now. It is because there is not enough guidance given to the medical profession.
How much more valuable would be the guidance to the poor girl in the greatest decision of her life on whether to have an abortion? Surely it is much better for the doctor to be able to tell her whether there is a "serious risk" or that the balance is the "greater" one way or the other. In other words, it gives an answering argument, or a good argument of reason, for the doctor when he is speaking to the poor bewildered girl who does not know which way to turn in her predicament. She may be influenced if she is told, "If you continue the pregnancy it will involve serious risk to your life". If she is told that, she will go by it. But supposing she is told that it will involve some risk or a slight risk to her life, will that influence her? In other words, for the sake of the girl herself, or the woman, is it not right that doctors should be able to say, "I have to go by the statute. The statute tells me to consider whether it is a serious risk and whether the injury would be substantially greater"? If he can tell that woman that, he would be better guiding himself and he would be better guiding the girl in the most difficult decision that she has to make.
I agree that there have been no prosecutions. There are not likely to be. This is a matter always for the doctors to determine. If the Act is amended as suggested there will be no prosecutions because the jury and the judge will always go by the good faith of the doctor concerned.
The only thing that troubles me is the opinions of the great medical bodies such as the British Medical Association. I confess that I hesitate, but I am not sure that the answer was not given by my noble friend Lord Robertson of Oakridge when he cited the specialist
78
who said, "It looks as if I am just considering the balance as far as the woman is concerned and the unborn child is left out of the equation." Surely the Bill will bring the unborn child into the scales so that its interests are given a proper place in the vital decision that has to be made on its life. Therefore, I support the Second Reading and am against the amendment.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord a question? I have listened to the important speech he has just made but, with all seriousness, how would he make a judgment where a nubile girl of 13 or 14 is concerned who knows nothing about these problems but who is nevertheless pregnant?
Lord Denning: My Lords, I would say on that difficult problem of a child of 13 or 14, that she should go by her father and mother, but if she is old enough to become pregnant she is old enough to have her own views on the matter and they ought to be given the fullest weight. As I say, let her be advised by the medical men in accordance with the proposed amendment to the Act.
7.49 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, abortion touches people's notions about life and its origins, their religious faith, their beliefs about marital and sexual relationships, their emotional experiences and their views on morality and law. In short, few subjects define so sharply the nature of a person's outlook. Accordingly, present attitudes to abortion are passionately held as matters always of conscience and often of faith. As is so often the case in the sexual area, when it comes to deriving rules or guidelines for practical behaviour different consciences reach different and frequently contradictory conclusions.
In the case of views reflecting Christian beliefs, for example, the Church of Rome and the Methodist Church each issue different practical advice to their congregations. This is true of other communions and sometimes even within the same communion. Some denounce abortion and others permit it under certain conditions. The views of each communion may convince those who adhere to that particular set of beliefs, but they are not likely to be compelling for other Christians or to those who are not. It is one thing to respect the sanctity of life, but quite another to tell people how to respect it in daily life.
On what basis, then, can the legislator act? In a plural society which attaches high importance to religious toleration and to the toleration of different social views, he cannot accept on theological or philosophical grounds alone the practical consequences of one set of beliefs. The trouble is that people equally learned, equally pious and equally well-equipped to interpret the will of God, and equally careful of the public weal, reach contradictory conclusions—that abortion on present grounds cannot be permitted, ought not to be permitted and that it can be permitted.
Thus, having weighed the views of the Churches, the legislator must look for criteria in what is most likely to promote the social good. This was examined in the

79
debates surrounding the Act of 1967 and it has been tested by the 15 years' experience of the operation of that Act. The result has been that the major representative and professional medical bodies are strongly opposed to the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. Secondly, the most recent of many public opinion polls has shown that between three-quarters and four-fifths of the population support present arrangements, and that the support is at the same level across members of all political parties. It seems, too, that more than two-thirds of lay Roman Catholics also approve the present arrangements.
I do not suggest for a moment that a majority view is to be respected merely because it is the view of the majority, but it is evidence of the attitude of those whose lives are directly affected by the legislation, of those to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, so movingly referred. But this, taken together with the overwhelming opinion of the doctors who actually care for patients, including two-thirds of the professors of obstetrics and gynaecology in Britain, adds up to an impressive support for the present legislation.
I suggest that it would require much stronger evidence than the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, has produced, to support a change in the criteria. This evidence would have to include an analysis of all the relevant statistical data, which noble Lords have not discussed—for example, the incidence of illegal abortion before 1967, without which what followed cannot be accurately assessed. It would have to include the decline in annual deaths during the last 14 years from criminal abortion. They, in fact, declined from 22 to none, and the deaths from all abortions in the same period declined from 50 to four. We would have to analyse why this experience suggests changing the criteria.
However, my main point is that there is a big majority in Britain in favour of the present consensus; a minority dislikes and wishes to change it. But in a democracy which contains groups of conflicting and conscientiously held views, there is no escape from the practice of tolerating views with which one disagrees and which may even be strongly repugnant.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked for what she called the retention of the temperate compromise. In similar vein I should like the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, to withdraw his attempt to use legislation to compel a majority of his fellow citizens and a majority of the medical profession to accept a practice of abortion which they do not want. The majority do not wish, and will not attempt, to coerce the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and those who share his views, to conform with what the majority approve.
A domocratic society cannot function safely without the exercise of tolerance. It is easy to be tolerant of beliefs and practices of which one is indifferent. The virtue of tolerance arises only when consciences are engaged. The consciences of the majority concerning the settlement of 1967 are as much engaged as are the consciences of the minority. I respect the views of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. I hope that he will respect mine and will not seek to compel me by legislation to accept his. I ask the House to support the amendment.
7.56 p.m.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, I wholeheartedly support the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, whose Bill this is, and I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. This Bill does not seek to alter the existing law; it merely seeks to reword it so that its spirit is obeyed, instead of being disregarded because it is too loosely phrased.
The group of women who have the greatest number of abortions are those who have never been pregnant before and are unmarried, and mostly they have abortions for purely social reasons. Medical evidence shows that abortions, even done under the best conditions, often cause damage which can make the mother sterile or cause her to miscarry or to suffer a variety of complications in future pregnancies. I do not consider that this House is the place to go into the details of what a friend of mine calls "Women's plumbing". But the evidence is available for those who are interested. The medical conclusions are that unless there are serious contra-indications for the mother, it is safer, particularly for healthy, young women, to bear a child than to have an abortion.
There is also the matter of the psychological ill-effects, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London mentioned. A study carried out in 1975–76 of young people who, in a part of London, had attempted suicide by taking an overdose of drugs, showed that 29 per cent. of the attempted suicides had had an abortion, as against 13 per cent. of the control group—over twice as many. The number of attempted suicides among teenage girls who have had abortions is nine times as high as in the population at large.
An article in an American medical journal in 1978 on the psychological consequences of abortion, reports significant psychiatric illness often as a direct result of the emotional effects, and that psychological ill effects on other members of the women's family are not rare. The authors concluded that it was the emotional effects of the abortion which were to blame and not environmental factors. In a paper called Abortion Hazards to Bear in Mind a consultant obstetrician at a large hospital in the London area said in 1979 that risks included:
"emotional trauma, regret and severe remorse, guilt and grief".
That is something which is apt to happen to people who have done something which deep down inside they felt to be wrong.
So what of the children who will be born, should this Bill succeed and the present situation (which was not, I think, the intention of the 1967 Act) be rectified? As things are, many childless couples are unable to find children to adopt and are turning, faute de mieux, to AID, surrogate motherhood, et cetera, with the often distasteful social, legal and other problems as yet unresolved, which these alternatives involve. There are plenty of homes available for unwanted babies, but few babies for the homes.
I would not, myself, be prepared to advise or encourage a girl to have an abortion for social reasons. Rather, I should encourage her to have the baby and have it adopted, both for its sake and for her own. For these reasons alone, I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading tonight.
8.1 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the case for the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, has been put so well by the noble Lord himself, by the right reverend Prelate, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and by the noble Lady that it may be wondered whether it is very necessary for me to add anything. But I am one of the relatively few in the House tonight who played a prominent part in the debates of 1967 which are now spoken of as though they are ancient history; in fact, I was Leader of the House of Lords at that time and I left my seat to speak against that Bill. My dear friend Lady Jeger and my esteemed friend Lord Houghton, were otherwise occupied, so they did not know what was going on here.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, we read about it.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, yes, but they were not here. Therefore, I must be allowed to speak on that one point with a little more authority than they can command. I must just explain that to them. There is no doubt at all in my mind, because everything that was said at that time in various discussions was not necessarily said on the Floor of the House. So, if I may say so respectfully, it is no good my noble friend Lady Jeger saying that she knows everything that was said.
At any event, we have the Bill. There is no doubt whatever that the Bill has been interpreted much more widely and in a sense much more favourably towards abortion than was officially expected at that time. There were some prophets of doom, like myself, who forecast that that would probably happen, but it was said again and again that there would be a much more restrictive interpretation than, in fact, has been the case.
About a year after that Bill was passed, after I had resigned from the Government, I, together with others, started a centre in Soho for young people with problems and at the beginning I ran it day by day with the help of a secretary. Therefore, I know the sort of problems that people were raising at that time. Certainly quite a few asked us how they could obtain an abortion, and we took the line that if they were interested in that, they must go to their doctor. Therefore, we did not give any other advice. However, I am well aware that it was assumed by young women at that time that abortion was there on demand—that was the widespread assumption—and they had a good deal of justification, as the years have proved.
I wonder what some of our pro-abortion friends—I must not call them abortionists' friends—would say about this case. A woman rang me up and said that she wanted an abortion and asked me to help her because I was running this little centre. I asked her why she wanted it and she said that she wanted to go to Austria for winter sports. She was rather desperate about it because there was only about a fortnight before the season got started. We gave her the stock answer that she must talk to her doctor. We know of a famous case outside this country; the great Billie-Jean King had an abortion in order to play at Wimbledon. Those are actual cases. Those who favour a more liberal policy on abortion must ask themselves—and they never answer questions of this sort—whether abortions in cases of this sort are justified.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, if the noble Earl will allow me, he said that we must ask whether, in the cases that he has mentioned, abortion is justified. Because he has asked the question I must be allowed to say "no", and I hope that when he cites cases of this sort he will also bear in mind the situation of desperate, middle-aged, poor women living in slum conditions with five children in one room. Those are the sort of women about whom we care. It is very frivolous of him to put these examples before your Lordships tonight. I am sorry to interrupt in this way, but I feel very strongly that my noble friend, for whom I have great respect, is being very frivolous tonight.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am sorry if my noble friend feels that way. She became very emotional when she was speaking and I realise that her emotions are deeply involved here. But she must allow me to say that I have done as much social work as she has among people as distressed as any she knows about. So, I will not be lectured by her as though she were someone who just knew about sufferers and outcasts and as though I were not aware of cases of that kind. I refuse to be lectured by her or, indeed, by anybody on that particular topic.
To return to the subject in a more harmonious spirit, not long after that, in trying to investigate the working of the Act, I went to a clinic. I asked what sort of criteria were being employed and in what circumstances they allowed abortions in this clinic. The gentleman in charge who happened to be a Persian—I have nothing against Persians; I just mention the fact that he was a Persian—said, "But you do not understand. This is an operating hotel". That is how the abortions were being dished out in the early days. The rules may or may not have been tightened up, but that was the immediate effect of the Act. You could set up a large clinic—one of the best known in London—and women were simply treated in what was an operating hotel.
I am afraid that I must refer noble Lords to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Houghton at the beginning of the debate when he attached a very profound value to that Act of 1967.I am talking now of the 1967 Act and, like the noble Viscount, Lord Barrington, I played a part in those debates and other noble Lords did not play a part because they were not here to play a part. The Act as it has been interpreted is not the Act as it was passed into law. When we ask for something, we are asking for something that in theory, on paper, the noble Lord himself is demanding—the proper administration and interpretation of that Act.
I shall not go on for more than another minute. I should like to reply to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, who is not in his place. He made a powerful speech.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, he does not want to listen to this rubbish.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I wonder whether that will go into Hansard. If so, I can only say that it is not worthy of the Leader of our Party, or even the temporary Leader. At the moment the noble Baroness seems to be in charge of the handling of this debate. At

83
any rate, it is not usual for those on the Front Bench to say:
"I shall not listen to this rubbish".
It is not usual at all. The noble Baroness dishes it out but she must be ready to take a little sauce in return. I am sorry, but she must. She ought to be experienced enough to understand. I return to the point that I was about to make to the noble Lord, Lord McGregor.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, he is the one who is not listening.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Lord made a great point of the fact that there seem to be a majority of people in favour of the Bill as it stands. He made a great point of the fact that only the minority are against it. I pay my tribute to my noble friend Lord Houghton and to those with him who worked for many years to turn a minority into a majority in favour of this Bill. For a long time the Abortion Law Society was a tiny body which worked away and gradually converted opinion. Therefore, it would not come at all well—it was not the argument used by my noble friend Lord Houghton—from anybody who had seen opinion diverted once in favour of abortion to argue that the minority, as they are called at the moment, have no right to try to get it altered.
I am sorry if I said anything at all offensive to the noble Baroness. She cares a great deal, but other people care deeply too. I believe in the sanctity of life, which the noble Baroness did not dwell on. I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London that the unborn child is a person, and that taking the life of the unborn child is killing.
There may, as the right reverend Prelate said, be a few cases—I said it years ago, and I say it again—where it is justified; where, just as in war, I am afraid, killing is justified by probably the majority of people in this country or in this House. But initially there must be a presumption that taking human life, killing the so-called foetus, is a denial of the sanctity of human existence. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, has brought this Bill forward and I shall of course support it.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down I wonder whether he can answer one question? If the unborn child is equal in status to a child who is born, why are miscarriages not followed by funerals?
The Earl of Longford: Is that said seriously?
Lord Monson: Yes.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I will leave it. Well, if the noble Lord is anxious to get an answer, I think it is because it would be too painful altogether. I do not see any reason for not having a funeral, but it would be too painful an affair.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Vernon: My Lords, this is an emotive subject. It always has been and I suppose it always will be. We were subjected particularly to some cases quoted by
84
the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, when he introduced this debate this afternoon of people who had perhaps received abortions in wrong circumstances and in unfortunate circumstances. I would not for a moment dispute this. All I would say to him is that it is possible to quote cases on the other side. It is very possible to quote cases where people have been refused abortions, perhaps on grounds of conscience by a doctor, perhaps on other grounds, where very unfortunate consequences ensued, and perhaps tragic consequences. However, I do not want to pursue that because it is not profitable to go into the emotive side.
The way I look at the problem is that doctors already have a huge and, in my view, unenviable task in deciding when and whether to carry out abortions. It really is ridiculous to talk about abortion on demand when not only a doctor but a consultant also has to agree to it. The objective of this Bill is to restrict the operation of the 1967 Act by introducing an element of increased uncertainty as to whether or not a doctor is justified in carrying out an abortion. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and others how difficult it would be to decide whether there is a "serious" or a "substantial" risk. We have the authority of Lord Parker in 1967 saying that in his view it would be very difficult to decide this, and it was on his advice that the Act was framed in the way that it is now framed.
I appreciate that the view of Lord Parker does not appear to be shared by the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who also suggested to us that he did not think that there would be any increase in the number of prosecutions of doctors or consultants if Lord Robertson's Bill became law. If there are no increased prosecutions then it will only be because the doctors and consultants are too frightened to do what they deem to be their duty. While the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, was speaking I could not help reflecting on the prosecution brought in 1981 against the unfortunate doctor Leonard Arthur for murder. Dr. Arthur was not prosecuted for illegal abortion, he was prosecuted for murder under different circumstances, but all I would say is that the moral considerations in the case of Dr. Arthur were very similar to the moral considerations we are discussing this evening. I am happy to say that in the end Dr. Arthur was properly acquitted of murder, but not before he himself and his family had endured many months of anguish and distress. We do not want to place the medical profession in the position where all the time they are looking over their shoulder to see whether they are going to end up in the criminal dock.
We have heard this evening that distinguished medical authorities, and in particular the British Medical Association, are against any change in the law. It is not only the British Medical Association. Perhaps I may read out some of the other bodies who are also against it: the Royal College of Physicians are against the change; the Royal College of Surgeons are against the change; the Royal College of General Practitioners are against the change; the Royal College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians are against the change; the Joint Consultants Committee are against the change, and the British Paediatric Association. That is a formidable body of medical opinion; and who are we as laymen, who do not have to carry out

85
the effects of such changes in the law, who do not have the practical experience that they do, to say that they are wrong?
I regard this as a retrograde Bill. What it seeks to do flies in the face of the overwhelming majority of medical opinion. From the administration of justice point of view, there is at least a division of opinion as to whether or not the introduction of these words would be practical to interpret in the courts. Judging by the opinion polls quoted by my noble friend Lord McGregor this Bill is unlikely to be supported by the vast majority of public opinion in this country. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, will withdraw his Bill; but if he does not do so then I shall certainly vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether he is aware that Professor Peter Huntingford—who refused to fill in the new notification forms certifying that there were medical grounds, when no action was taken against him by the DPP—stated on mid-morning Radio Medway that he was pleased by the statement of the Attorney General that he was not to be proceeded against because:
"I think that the Attorney General's statement does mean what I have been saying publicly since 1970, that the Abortion Act does allow abortion on demand, on request, up to 14 weeks without any medical indication."
They are his actual words.
Lord Vernon: My Lords, the noble Lord has quoted one individual doctor. I was not quoting one individual doctor; I was quoting the different bodies responsible for medical opinion.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, for introducing this important yet simple Bill. The virtue and importance of the measure seem to lie in the effort it makes to restore Parliament's intention to Section 1(1)(a) of the Abortion Act 1967.The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in introducing his amendment, said we must not re-open the compromise reached on the Floor of this House, without a Division, on 23rd October 1967. He also said that we could not go on fighting the abortion issue indefinitely. I was not there, but I have read Hansard of the debate on the amendments to Section 1(1)(a), and I find it surprising that the Act has survived intact all these years in view of the quality of the debate that seems to have gone on on the Floor of the House, irrespective of what may have gone on elsewhere. As to fighting today, the question is, who is doing the fighting? The fight seems to go on in the mind of the noble Lord with the 80 amendments which he envisages in Committee if the Bill has a Second Reading.
This measure should be viewed not with praise as an exercise to reverse by a few feet the advancing tide—or possibly the high tide—of permissiveness. Nor do I think it right for those who oppose the Bill to take the
86
contrary view. My reason for speaking very briefly this evening is that I should like to explain to the House, and particularly to those speakers who have followed the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in narrow and specific terms why I think his amendment is inappropriate and should not be agreed to.
I think it fair to summarise the intention of Parliament in 1967 as being an intention that the laws, which at that time prohibited unlawful abortion, should be relaxed sufficiently to make lawful the termination of pregnancies in cases where continued pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the mother or injury to the mother or to the other children of her family. That is Section 1(1)(a) of the Act, at least, and I am using the word "risk" in this exposé in the sense of "real risk", which is how I think most Members of the House, and of the other place, would have wished to regard the word "risk" at that time—before the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington, was accepted on Report, in the hope that it would give that desired meaning to the subsection. The amendment, however, in my view, does not seem to have worked.
It has become apparent since the passing of the 1967 Act that abortion on demand has been readily available from the right medical practitioners prepared to form only too easily the opinion referred to in Section 1 of the Act and to go through the notification procedures of Section 2 and the regulations thereunder. What is more—and, really, what is worse—is that there now seems to be widespread acceptance of the view that the 1967 Act permits that.
I understand there are medical practitioners who would see no difficulty over the termination of the first or an early pregnancy of a healthy young woman at her request, however her request was given or procured, under Section 1(1)(a) of the Act. I understand that if those practitioners touch their caps to the rule of law, they do so by the misuse of statistics. I believe that to be wrong on the point of law, and I note that Governments of both complexions have made regulations designed to make life difficult for such doctors, if such doctors there be. Whether those doctors are right or wrong about the meaning of the words of the Act, I understand there has been no challenge to them in the courts. There may be good reason for that, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has referred to one of them; namely, that the courts will always be very reluctant to impugn the good taste of doctors, and that is certainly some answer to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, when he painted a picture of the terrible decisions doctors would have to take whether or not to give their certificates and the fear they would have of going to prison.
I think the time is now ripe for the consideration of fresh legislation in your Lordships' House to restore the law to what it was thought to be after the 1967 Act. It seems to me that the Bill provides the clarification of the law which is now needed, or, if it does not, it certainly merits serious consideration in Committee. I would only say about the amendment, that it unreasonably seeks to end discussion on a matter of genuine concern and importance. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw it and that the Bill will have a safe Second Reading this evening.
8.26 p.m.
Baroness Denington: My Lords, as has been said by more than one speaker, we are discussing a deep moral issue. We are, therefore, as individuals, bound to react to it differently according to our natures, maybe according to our upbringing, our background and experience of life and our religion. My noble friend Lord Robertson wants to narrow the Bill, for the reasons he and others have given. Frankly, I lean in the other direction. There are many reasons for that, but I have no intention of wearying your Lordships by speaking for long. The BMA has pointed out in a letter to my noble friend Lord Houghton, of which a number of us have had copies, the almost inevitable consequences—if we accept the Bill—resulting from backstreet abortions.
Let us pause and think what backstreet abortions really mean; the misery and torment, the physical agony and ill-health, that result almost invariably for the woman, followed often by her early death caused by troubles arising from the nature of the backstreet abortionist. I consider it abominable and intolerable that in a civilised society we should think of going back—because that is what we should be doing—to the bad ways of the old days. It would be regrettable and very sad indeed if we were now to make it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion.
I was a teacher, as your Lordship may know. As a teacher in school, you see some children in class who are miserable, grey, depressed and spiritless. You wonder what on earth is wrong with them; you never see the mother of that kind of child in school. So you make it an occasion to go to the home to see the mother, to make contact, to see if you can find out what is wrong with the child, to see if there is something physically wrong. Almost invariably you find that it was an unwanted child; the mother passionately did not want the child and still does not want it, and the child knows it is not wanted. If the child does not react in that way—if it is not one of those grey, spiritless children—it takes the opposite attitude; and how often one hears the question, "Why do so many people nowadays bash and smash things?" If it is not the depressed type of child, it reacts the other way, against society and everybody, and just wants to smash things to demonstrate its misery. What I am talking about is the misery of children. I am not talking of those cases which hit the headlines, cases of children who are physically abused, injured and who even die.
My philosophy is to see every child born a wanted child, born in love, looked forward to and cherished by its parents. That is what we need; not to have women forced—to their own damage and to the damage of their children—to give birth to children they do not want. Every child should be a wanted child.
One Member of the House is leading us in one direction. I would want to lead your Lordships in another direction. But as somebody has said, it is one of the strengths that we have left in this country that we know how to compromise, we know how to be reasonable, to bend to meet one another; and so I hope that we shall this evening leave things as they are.
8.30 p.m.
Viscount Barrington: My Lords, time is getting on, and I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, whose
88
speech I heard with great interest, that it is a pity to go on on a subject so emotive as this in too emotional a way and at too great length. So I shall try to confine what I say to only three things. One is that, like the noble Earl, I was here at the time that the 1967 Bill was passed. I sympathise with, and admire, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for introducing exactly the same measure as I introduced, but with much less vigour and of course no success, which I had not expected, to have the Bill altered before it came through. That did not happen, but I was familiar with the way in which a great many of the controversial words, such as "substantial" and "serious" were eliminated at the last minute, indeed constitutionally perhaps improperly after we came back. It was a very near thing, and afterwards a great many noble Lords said that had they known that the Bill would go as far as it did go—and I think I can say that it has now gone 20 times farther—in the way of abortion on demand—and I would produce evidence for that for all to hear if the present Bill goes to the Committee stage—many of them would have thought differently.
I want to get back to the principle which has been admirably put at some length by the right reverend Prelate, and absolutely clearly, as one would expect, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, whom I do not think can be described as a man who knows nothing about the legal expressions involved in these matters. Speaking as a layman, I would say that although I could not possibly give a legal definition of "substantial" and "serious", there are occasions when I would know the difference. For instance, I should say that perhaps two years ago there was a risk of one being blown up by an Argentine Exocet while cruising in the Mediterranean, but it would not have been a very serious risk. But I think that the risk of being blown up by an Exocet this summer in the South Atlantic was very serious indeed. If anyone suggests that there is no difference between those two examples, I suggest he should tell that to the Marines—such Marines as survived; or, failing that, tell it to Welsh Guards. Of course where the distinction comes is well worth asking in Committee if, as I very much hope, the Bill gets a chance to go to Committee.
There are only two other points I should like to touch on. We hear a great deal about a woman's right to do what she likes with her own body, and we had a demonstration—quite a nice, pleasant one—when several ladies with their own bodies threw down many pieces of paper. They did not throw down anything more offensive. The only maxim of that kind that is, I think, a more pernicious one would be that a man has a right to do what he likes with his own body. Of course he has not. In my opinion he has not the right to rape a young girl; he has not the right to "mug" an old lady; he has not the right to assault a referee on a football field. Of course people do those things, but they have no right to do them, the reason being that other people's bodies are concerned as well.
Many people believe that in abortion another body is not concerned, and at this stage we cannot go into the question that has been admirably put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, of whether the unborn child is a body, because if it was not a body, it could not be aborted. There is a question of whether it is a living body. If it were not it would not need

89
aborting. It is a living human body, in the sense that it is not the body of an animal; if it were, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, would go to an extreme in its defence, and I would admire him enormously for that, even if he were in a minority of one. He would show the same concern for it as he would show against clubbing seals, or hunting foxes, or other living creatures.
My own view is that, as noble Lords have said, we want a revision of the attitude to the unborn child. Some of your Lordships may remember the late Alan Herbert when he was promoting a divorce Bill. What particularly he was attacking was the idea that a woman was not legally married if she had been married after three o'clock. He produced a song, the only two lines of which I can remember:
"Nor widow, maid, nor wife am I;
Nor ever hope to be;
For I was wed, as the bishop said, considerably after three".
If a foetus could sing—and I have no doubt that it can, because it can kick long before its kicking can be felt—I think that it would adapt that song—on the lines "Am I animal, vegetable, or mineral?"—as follows:
"Nor human, beast nor plant am I.
I have no rights on earth;
For I was dead,
The surgeon said,
Considerably prior to birth".
It is up to the surgeon to say when he kills the thing.
With the greatest respect to the medical profession as a whole, I do not accept all the statistics—which could crop up in Committee—of the apparently universal opinion of the medical profession that unborn children should be killed on demand. All I can say is what the Bill is about, and here I would differ from what the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, said about the Bill forcing anyone to do anything. What the Bill actually says is not that it is wrong in all circumstances to take innocent human life, but that it is wrong to take it indiscriminately—because an abortion must be indiscriminate; one does not know whether it is a male or a female. As I understand the Bill, what is opposed is the idea of "unnecessarily" and indiscriminately taking the life of an innocent human being of either sex. (We must remember that more than half of the children who are aborted are female.)
Then, if we are talking about minorities—and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, defends minorities as much as I do—I would say that this is the only minority which is in fact historically a majority, and not only a majority, but a majority of 100 per cent. I say that because whereas not every foetus will become a Member of your Lordships' House, every Member of your Lordships' House was at one time a foetus. On those grounds, quite apart from religious views, I would strongly defend the noble Lord, Lord Robertson's Bill, and with the greatest respect for the gusto of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, I would ferociously oppose his amendment.
8.39 p.m.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, I would only remind the House, if I may, of the total number of abortions undergone by women residents of the United Kingdom since 1967; it now stands at 1,372,023. That is nearly double the total number of United Kingdom
90
deaths in World War I, and nearly four times the total number of United Kingdom casualties in World War II. I ask myself: Can this be what was intended by Parliament in 1967? Would not this House agree that in many cases adoption is preferable to abortion, and should not the Government be giving some help—I understand that they are not giving any help at the moment—to those societies whose aim is to preserve life, such as Lifeline, and the various other societies mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, in his opening speech? I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, it has not surprised me, at least, that this has been one of the more exciting debates that we have had in this House for some time. I think it must be the first time in living memory that there has been a snow shower inside the Chamber. The amount of emotion, indeed, is not surprising because we are talking about decisions concerning potential human beings. I am not a member of any organised body of opinion about abortion, but I think I can speak rationally from a basis of personal professional experience in which I frequently use the provisions of the Act.
It may seem remarkable that two words have attracted so much attention, yet these two words, if introduced into the Act, will, as I think many speakers have said or implied, make it more difficult for doctors to carry out terminations of pregnancy which both they and their patients feel are necessary. I am very pleased to have the assurance from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that even if this Bill becomes an Act and doctors carry out terminations under it, they will not be prosecuted if they act in good faith.
However, I think it is clear that the aim of the Bill is to restrict the number of abortions, and in my view the Act (as it will be then) will become a less useful piece of legislation and the result will be hardship and danger for many women. When I speak of danger I am not using the word in a merely rhetorical sense. In the three years before the Act came into force—other speakers have given this type of statistic, Lord McGregor particularly—there were 133 maternal deaths due to abortion in England and Wales. From 1966 to 1979, which was a longer period, there were only 17. The rate is even lower now.
I have been a general practitioner in the National Health Service for more than 20 years, so I have experience of the situation both before and after the Act became law. Both before and after the Act I have been approached regularly, on average about twice a month, by women in great distress who, through bad luck, miscalculation or plain ignorance have become pregnant against their better judgment. The bad luck may be a failure of contraception which they have conscientiously practised. We all know that girls get themselves into scrapes, and, as a man, I will admit that in more than half the cases it is in fact the man's fault, but women, literally, bear the consequences.
At this point I think I should like to diverge a little from my own experiences and generalise slightly. It is perhaps hardly necessary for me to point out that the

91
human race is very fertile and very sexually active, the British as much as any nation despite the title of a long-running West End play. This was vitally necessary to ensure our survival in an earlier era of high mortality, and this may be the basis of deeply-held beliefs that termination of pregnancy is wrong. Now, however, the converse is the case. Our survival and future progress and prosperity depend on limiting this reproductive potential. This can be done in three ways: by reducing sexual activity, by better contraception or by termination of pregnancy. I submit that, in this present age, to try to reduce sexual activity is unrealistic, and would be like King Canute trying to turn back the waters. To make contraception more effective and widely understood is the ideal for all of us working in this field, but for many years, and perhaps always since contraception is never perfect, there will be a demand and a need for termination of pregnancy.
Having said that, I should like to return to my original theme, which is based on my own experiences of the working of the Act. First of all, I should like to describe what happened before 1968. Requests for termination were always problematic then to doctors; perhaps not quite so much if the patient or her partner could raise the equivalent of approximately £500 at today's prices. They could then obtain a relatively safe termination by a qualified doctor who was prepared, for this high fee, to risk prosecution. But for those without means—the great majority—the outlook was fairly grim.
It was sometimes possible to obtain a National Health Service termination by getting doctors to state that the patient would become more seriously ill than was really likely; and there were a few gynaecologists of high repute who were prepared to do this. They felt that social and economic grounds were often a very real indication, and were prepared to risk their professional careers for this. The case of Alec Bourne, before the war, has already been cited. They had a disproportionate number of referrals. This was very depressing for them, because most doctors—and this has been said once, but let me stress it again—find it extremely depressing, very unpleasant and even abhorrent to undertake a termination of pregnancy, even when they feel that the grounds for the termination are extremely strong.
Because of the limited facilities before the Act came into force, many women had to have late abortions. They had to scout round all over the country before they could find one, and then have one after 13 weeks, which is when abortions are more risky. It is only after 13 weeks, I might say in answer to some speakers, that future pregnancies are imperilled. Before that, there is no evidence of this at all.
At this point I should like to mention—and I think it is a good argument for putting off the consideration of any changes in the Act at the moment—there is now a very large study being carried out by the Royal College of General Practitioners in which 6,000 women who have had terminations are being compared to 9,000 women who have gone on to have full-term pregnancies. We are looking very carefully at the results from the point of view of the physical and
92
the psychological consequences of both abortions and full-term pregnancies.
Those who, before the Act, could not find a qualified doctor to carry out a termination felt impelled, as many speakers have said, to resort to illegal, so-called backstreet abortionists, who used such methods as the instillation of soapy water into the uterus, and other rather less pleasant procedures. Many women tried to procure their own abortions, using such things as knitting needles or other pointed implements—quill pens or meat skewers. In fact, a very important point which nobody has yet raised fully, I think, is that the total number of abortions before the Act was probably no less than it is today. As there were no figures we cannot be certain about this, but an estimate of the Birkett Committee before the war was that there were 60,000. In 1949 Dr. Eustace Chesters made an estimate of 250,000.
As a result of this, before the Act all general practitioners were faced with frequent cases of very ill women with septic abortions and/or severe uterine haemorrhage. I was one of those doctors. And every gynaecological ward and fever hospital had substantial numbers of beds occupied by these women. But for skilled care the death rate from the complications of abortion would have been very much greater. I think this is perhaps the main reason why all the royal colleges—the colleges of obstetricians and gynaecologists, general practitioners, psychiatrists and midwives—and the British Medical Association, all oppose changes in the Act.
After the 1968 Act came into force everything changed very quickly, though there were some areas where National Health Service terminations of pregnancy were difficult to obtain, and have remained difficult to obtain, owing to the beliefs of the gynaecologists in the area and the consequent lack of facilities. Illegal abortion and attempts at self-induced abortion have very largely disappeared, however, and I very seldom see a case of complicated "miscarriage", which was so often in reality the result of interference. This is reflected in the vastly improved national mortality statistics which have already been given to your Lordships.
I very much fear that to introduce the two words "serious" and "substantial" into Section 1 of the Act will make some doctors unable to recommend termination of pregnancy, even when a woman is determined to have one (and unless you have actually been confronted by a woman who is determined to have a termination, you will not really know what I mean; she will stop at nothing) and there are strong social and psychological grounds present. There will then be a high chance that some of the old evils will return.
Apart from the real danger of increasing deaths and serious illnesses, there are perhaps other, wider reasons for leaving the Act alone. Many women feel that the present Act is too restrictive and does not allow them sufficient freedom of choice in a crucial decision affecting their lives. We had a demonstration of that this evening. A few feel that, when used with sympathy, however, the present Act will allow an opportunity for reflection and counselling so that the pregnant woman and her doctors can make a wise

93
choice together. It so happens that the first patient I saw this morning was a single girl of 23 with an unplanned pregnancy. Her boyfriend was unemployed and he was against her having a baby. She was uncertain what to do. I did not make up her mind for her. I referred her to a National Health Service clinic where she can have termination if the other doctor there agrees, but where she will see a social worker and have full counselling so that her decision will be a wise one.
To end, my Lords, I should like to quote no less an authority than the Prime Minister. Here, admittedly, she was talking about choice in another area; but her words are equally fitting for our subject today:
"Free choice is ultimately what life is about, what ethics are about. The whole of the case for freedom is a moral case because it involves choice. Do away with choice and you do away with human dignity".
8.52 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord who has just finished speaking for that quotation—"Do away with choice and do away with human dignity"—we are dealing with choices which are so complex and which so affect the life of an unborn child and so affect the whole area of the sanctity of human life that we risk endangering human dignity by letting this admittedly desperately difficult social problem go further than it has gone already. Even the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, himself, said in his opening speech for the amendment that had we reached a compromise all those years ago in 1967, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, did say that the Act as it stands does now give enough guidance. It is because of the need to redress the clearly observable facts stemming from the Act that those who have a real social conscience, a real concern for wives, for mothers, for the unborn baby, are not willing to be pilloried as unconcerned about women who are having babies for supporting this particular very modest Bill.
Let me quote. The noble Lord, lord Trefgarne, told us that in 1969, or soon after the Bill came in in 1967, there were only 50,000 terminated pregnancies. Within ten years, he reminded us, the average figure was at 110,000. Use that as you will as argument for or against. But it seems to me that the argument is a strong one for saying that the original purpose, with (to use Lord Houghton's words) "compromise", to provide a careful provision for the termination of pregnancies under very careful safeguards, has moved forward to the phrase which keeps cropping up throughout your Lordships' debate this evening, "abortion on demand". In those early debates, it was constantly and hotly said that this Bill, when it was only a Bill, had nothing to do with abortion on demand. It was a very carefully balanced Bill to provide alleviation under very clearly described circumstances in special cases.
As I see it, all that the present Bill seeks to so by putting in the words "serious" and "substantially"—and these are two words, important words but not enormous; they are certainly nothing like a wrecking amendment to the original Act—is to return to the original purpose of what was a compromise, though a number of us did not like areas of that parti-
94
cular Act. At least it will mean if the noble Lord, Lord Robertson's modest Bill is passed that abortion on demand in its simplicity will be undeniably illegal. I believe that it will be for the strength of our nation and even for the comfort of those in distress to know that this was the main, first purpose of our original Bill.
Secondly, if Lord Robertson's Bill is given a Second Reading tonight (as I hope it will be), it will mean that conscientious doctors—and as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, reminded us, with the new developments concerning abortion in medical practice today, nurses and midwives are brought in now in a way they were not brought in 15 years ago—will at least have their consciences cared for and their hands strengthened when they are in the position of being moved along by what is supposedly public opinion; because I recognise that the statements made by the learned societies and by the professional societies are very strong. If I were a doctor, a nurse or a midwife myself, I think I should feel myself very theratened by the statements made by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, about the learned societies who have spoken in this way. At least, Lord Robertson's Bill will have a modest care for minorities—in this case conscientious doctors, nurses and midwives.
Thirdly, his Bill will give support for pregnant women. We have had stories already tonight about the fact that it is quite difficult. There was the story that Lord Robertson gave of the young girl who was being almost pressurised into having an abortion. That will be taken care of by the firming up of the original Act by this Bill. I noted the phrase of Lord Houghton: a "guerrilla war" against the Act. Well, the emotive words there may be! But he also told us that this was the eleventh time in 15 years that responsible people—admittedly a minority—had shown unhappiness about the way the Act had worked out since it was passed and concern that we should do something. I honour the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, for bringing in this Bill. We know he speaks against those who are opposed in different ways to his Bill.
I finish with only one story, on balance, because I believe we are dealing with a matter of balance by seeking to bring the word "serious" and the word "substantial" into an area of deep human need and problems. Yesterday, I confirmed a little girl who, I discovered afterwards, was 13 years old, in an extreme state of muscular wastage. I thought to myself, coming down today, of the problems for that tiny child when she was first born and of the little girl who is now seriously ill with muscular wastage. I will not harrow the House with the details, yet, as I confirmed her yesterday morning, I felt that here was encapsulated the business of care for human life and respect for God-given life. The family surrounding her with loving care and the photograph of the whole family, all three generations, afterwards made me thank God that there were those who stood against this easy tide of sweeping away unwanted pregnancies into areas of limbo and who stood against the easy way out, which is what I believe this Act is now becoming. I believe, therefore, that, though it calls for a great deal of moral courage, it is right for us to set aside the dilatory amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and strongly support the Second Reading Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson.
9 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I dislike having to disagree with the right reverend Prelate but I should like, if I may, to read from a letter received from Doctors for a Woman's Choice on Abortion. I think it is rather helpful. It says:
"The introduction of such vague terms as 'serious' and 'substantially' will make the interpretation of the law more difficult and will undoubtedly result in doctors being less able to recommend an abortion in many cases. This would be most regrettable and would cause much suffering to women."
I have had a great deal of experience, though not medical experience, in the past of working in the East End of London and of seeing a great number of young women having abortions, many of them self-induced. In the Far East I have seen women also inducing their own abortions. It really is a horrifying sight and therefore I was so pleased to support the 1967 Act; and it has done a tremendous amount of good.
What has not been mentioned so far is the number of unwanted children—there are 35,000 children unwanted. You cannot get them adopted because people want either a white child or a perfect child, and so you have these children who are homeless. They have no parents and no love given to them in the way that normal children have. I think it is most unfortunate that a woman should have a child if she really does not want one or if she perhaps feels that she cannot cope with another child, having already had several. It will be on our consciences, I think, that there are all these children whom nobody wants. I was slightly astonished when the right reverened Prelate the Bishop of London said that women should have freedom. I know that he has left his place but I feel I must draw attention to this point because he was saying that people want freedom, but we are not giving the women freedom. It is their own lives and I think we should remember that.
I worked in the East End of London, in Poplar, Hackney and also in Lambeth, where I was the LCC member for many years, and I did what I could for the women and children. I used to have "surgeries", when women came along to see me and asked for my help. I did not really feel capable of giving them personal help so I always made sure they could be given both sides of the question before making their decision.
It seems to me that if we go along with this tonight we are putting the rights of the foetus above the rights of the mother, and I think we have to consider that very carefully. The mother has her rights and the foetus has its rights. To which should we give preference? There are so many ways in which people can help. I was not going to mention it, but the Bible has been mentioned now twice or three times tonight. There is no immaculate conception in this world, and so it takes two to make a foetus. I feel very strongly that it is up to the male sex, if they or their wives do not wish to have another child, to take action. There is nothing to stop them. Really, we seem to be thinking entirely in terms of the woman. It is the woman who has been mentioned all the time. I want both sexes to be involved in this, and I think there should be far better education in schools and far better special education given to young boys and young women, especially in this day and age when things are rather more promiscuous than they were when I was young.
96
I should like also to say that I do hope we shall not accept this amendment tonight. I have mentioned the unwanted children—but what about the battered babies? Every day they are mentioned in the press. We have to think of these things. If we do keep all these children alive, are there enough social workers, to look after them?—because their parents are not going to do it. The "semi-orphan" child, in other words a child who does not have parents, is a very sad child indeed.
Finally, I should like to say I am grateful indeed to Dame Josephine Barnes, who is one of the most remarkable women of her age, and of course a gynaecologist. She has sent a letter from Doctors in Defence of the 1967 Abortion Act. She says, and I support her in this:
"We are dismayed at the prospect of a change"
That comes from a woman who is now head of her profession and who had been doing work of this kind all her life. I should like to suggest that we should think of her words tonight and think also of the freedom of the woman as well as the freedom of the man.
9.6 p.m.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I very strongly agree with everything that the noble Baroness opposite has just said. At this late stage in the debate there is very little left to add. It seems to me that the debate has developed into an argument between those who are fundamentally opposed to abortion—those who support this Bill—and a rather broader church; indeed, a rather broader church than has been apparent from the Bishops' Bench—those who support the 1967 Act and the way it has been interpreted by the medical profession along with those, among whom I certainly number myself, who would like to go a great deal further than the existing legislation.
It seems to me that those who are in favour of the Bill tonight represent an extremely narrow view, a view which is clearly acknowledged by them, I am glad to say, even at this late stage in the debate, as being a view of a minority which they wish to impose on an overwhelming majority of the population of this country. It is, as has been frequently pointed out during the debate, a view which they want to impose on the overwhelming majority of the medical profession who have to implement the law. No one, it seems to me, who has spoken in favour of the Bill and against the amendment has even attempted to explain why there should be such an extraordinarily overwhelming majority of medical opinion in favour of leaving the legislation as it is. Nobody who has spoken in favour of the Bill has even attempted to explain that fact—or to go beyond that—to explain why we should ignore it.
There is one point that I should like to make about public opinion. I know that it has been referred to earlier, but I do not think that the actual question has been referred to. In fact, the 80 per cent. of people this year who agreed with the question about abortion, agreed with the question that said that the choice as to whether or not to continue a pregnancy should not be left to the woman in consultation with her doctor. As I say, 80 per cent. agreed with that, which was a 4 per cent. increase since 1979. That is a question which

97
goes a great deal further than the existing law and, indeed, would support my view that there would be a considerable majority not in favour of this retrograde step in the Bill before us, but in favour of amending the law in the other direction.
The other point on which I want to comment, so far as the debate itself is concerned, is that there seem to have been a number of quite appalling and insulting remarks made against women who have had abortions, and those who have carried out abortions. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London said that the results of procreation are "pushed aside easily". The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, suggested that abortions had become "facile". That seems to me to be extremely insulting. I regret that neither the right reverend Prelate nor the noble and learned Lord to whom I have referred are actually in the Chamber, but that is not my fault. Those remarks illustrate an extraordinary attitude, both to the women who have had to undergo what all of us agree is an unpleasant and distressing experience, and to those who, in all conscience and with professional integrity, carry out those operations. To suggest that this is facile or easily pushed aside seems to me to be extraordinary.
That had got me annoyed enough, but then the noble Viscount, Lord Barrington, who, I also regret to say, appears not to be in the Chamber at the moment—I am not having very much luck tonight—issued a quite incredible insult against women when he suggested that a woman who decides, in consultation with her medical advisers, to have an abortion is doing exactly the same thing as a man who rapes women. That seems to me to be a quite extraordinary remark to make and I very much regret that those who are supporting this Bill have sunk to such depths, as I see it, of insults against people who have had the unfortunate and distressing experience of an abortion, and those of the medical profession who conscientiously do their jobs.
It seems to me that the real evil in these attempts—and the number of them was referred to by my noble friend Lord Houghton and others—to restrict the availability of abortions, and to go back on the Act that we have, is that they deflect the debates about what happens to women during pregnancy, during childbirth and afterwards from the real evils of poverty, unemployment, bad housing and continual cutbacks in social and health services, which themselves cause a large number of deaths to men, women and children; from the scandalous way in which women are often still treated in hospitals when the go to have their children; and from the scandal, to which a number of noble Lords have referred, of unwanted children and the problems which they face. Those are the issues which your Lordships' House should have been debating tonight, not this mean Bill, which I hope will not get a Second Reading.
9.12 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I think it is common ground that the issues raised in the Bill which we are debating this evening are not new. They lay at the heart of the argument that took place during the passage of the 1967 Abortion Act, and they were subsequently raised in the seven unsuccessful attempts
98
in another place to amend that Act. All these attempts have failed, and I believe that they failed for one obvious reason—because it was on every occasion recognised that the sort of language proposed by those who sponsor these Bills, and today by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, would create a wholly unacceptable degree of uncertainty in the law.
The noble Lord's proposal is that there would have to be serious risk to the life of a pregnant woman, or substantial injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman, before a pregnancy could be terminated. It is, I believe given that type of language, hardly surprising that the noble Lord's proposal has met with such fierce opposition from a very nearly wholly united medical profession. That was, if I may say so, tellingly confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who spoke for the Government, when he referred in detail to the view of the Royal College of Obstetricians.
For what, precisely, is meant by the language used in the noble Lord's Bill? What, in fact, is a serious risk? What is the definition of a substantial injury? I waited for some help from the noble Lord. I am afraid that I did not get it, nor did the House. I do not believe that the noble Lord—and I do not, in any way, doubt his goodwill or his sincerity—has made a serious attempt to meet the the grave anxieties expressed about the Bill by the medical profession. Today he, bluntly, just brushed them aside. He gave us the view of one anonymous doctor. That, with great respect, is no answer to the anxieties which have been expressed by the Royal Colleges.
As I have said, I have no doubt about the noble Lord's sincerity, but I did believe that he was a root and branch opponent of the 1967 Act. Therefore I was, if he will forgive my saying so, mildly surprised to hear that that was not so. There is no doubt about the view of some of his supporters. I have received, as did a number of my noble friends on both sides of the House, a letter from Miss Bradley enclosing a pamphlet. Miss Bradley asked me to vote for this Bill. There is no question, as the noble Lord suggested in his speech, that this amending Bill is a half-way house between the 1967 Act and the law as it existed before 1967. We have had no such suggestion from those who are canvassing support for the Bill. Let me read one sentence, not in any sense taken out of context, from the pamphlet, headed Abortionists' Favourites:
"We oppose abortion because we want every child".
As the House will recall, that is not the view of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. He made no such suggestion. In my view, that is what in reality we are discussing today.
I do not believe that this in any sense is a half-way house Bill. It is basically root and branch opposition to the 1967 Act. That would be its effect. I believe that what the noble Lord is proposing in the Bill is wrong. He is urging the House to pass legislation which suggests that abortion is lawful under certain prescribed conditions, but he then defines those conditions so unsatisfactorily that no doctor would have any clear idea as to whether his judgment would be supported by the criminal courts. And it is the criminal courts which we are talking about.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, reminded us, during the passage of the 1967 Act the then Lord Chief

99
Justice, Lord Parker of Waddington, specifically warned the House of the dangers of using imprecise language, yet today's Bill seems almost consciously designed to create the maximum degree of uncertainty. The House should recognise that what would be involved if this legislation went onto the statute book would be one of two consequences. Either doctors who now authorise abortions would be so concerned at the lack of clarity of the new law that, notwithstanding their clinical judgment that an abortion was urgently necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman, they would decline to perform the operation, or they would take the risk and carry it out, in the knowledge that they might render themselves liable to lengthy police investigation, proceedings in the criminal courts and the possible destruction of their professional career.
I have great admiration for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, but I regret to say that I found his speech, if he will forgive me saying so, not so persuasive as I normally find his speeches to be. He suggested, first, that the Bill is designed to help the medical profession. If that indeed is the object of the operation, I am bound to say that it has been spectacularly unsuccessful. Secondly, the noble and learned Lord said—and of course we listen with the utmost respect to the views of the noble and learned Lord on this question—that he was extremely doubtful whether there would be a successful prosecution, even if the law were amended in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, has suggested.
I repeat that I do not wish to cross swords on this matter. Indeed, I should not have the nerve to do so. However, I would say this to the noble and learned Lord. I am surprised that he has so much certainty about the views of a jury in a case of this kind. As the House will know, the noble and learned Lord and I were involved not so long ago in a debate in which it was said that sometimes it is extremely difficult to understand why a jury has reached a decision in a certain case. There would, I believe, be a perceived risk in the minds of many doctors that they would find themselves in precisely such a situation. Whether or not a prosecution would be successful is a matter of speculation but, as my noble friend Lord Vernon pointed out, the consequences of an unsuccessful prosecution can be devastating to the professional man and to his family who are involved in the circumstances of such a case.
Apart from anything else, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that if the law were amended and a chief constable received a complaint from perhaps a nurse, who might have deep conscientious and honourable objections in principle to abortion, that a specific consultant had performed one, two or even three operations which were outside the terms of the Act, the chief constable concerned would, in my view, be obliged to ask his criminal investigation department to carry out an investigation into whether there had been a breach of the criminal law. Papers might go to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Are we really going to place responsibilities of this kind, after the experience of the past 15 years, on our overstretched and overtaxed police force? I do not
100
know whether the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, has made any attempt to talk to the Home Office—although he may have done so for all I know—or to the Association of Chief Police Officers. I have no doubt that there are many police officers who agree with the general principle of what has been said by the noble Lord, just as there will be many who will oppose it. But I am very doubtful whether, at a time like the present, the police are enthusiastic about getting sucked into issues of this kind where, I believe (and, I think, they themselves believe) they do not have any particular skills or expertise.
As I have already made clear, I find the consequences of the passage of a Bill of this kind unacceptable to the extent that a new Abortion Act deterred doctors from authorising abortions which now take place. If we did this, we would quite consciously and quite deliberately be encouraging the re-emergence of the back street abortionist who did so much damage to the lives and health of so many poor women in this country. We would also be creating a situation—again, quite deliberately—where members of the medical profession, believing that the abortions they were authorising were indeed permitted under the terms of the noble Lord's legislation, could be at constant risk of prosecution in the criminal courts. I do not believe that such a situation would be acceptable and, accordingly, I hope that this Bill will be rejected.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, one question for elucidation? The noble Lord posited the situation of a woman in grave danger of death who was pregnant. If I heard him right, he then posited the fact that the doctor, if this Bill were passed, would feel it was a dangerous matter for him to act. Surely the argument, if taken forward logically by the noble Lord, is that if the words "serious risks" were built into the Bill, the doctor would have no problems about dealing with the woman who, in pregnancy, was in danger of dying.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate, and let me just put the matter to him. With great respect, I wish it were as simple as that; but I believe that the passage of this Bill would give rise to a climate of uncertainty within the medical profession. It is not quite so easy as the right reverend Prelate imagines to give a reassuring answer of the kind for which he obviously hopes.
9.23 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, we are all grateful to those who have opposed this Bill and those who are in favour of it for the moderation of their language. We have had a quiet and, on the whole, inoffensive debate today—although there were one or two little exchanges about which I will not particularise. In the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, we can still hear the authentic voice of the Home Office ringing through his dulcet tones. The most important point he made was that concerning the danger of imprecise language. The two adjectives we are talking about are already in the Bill.
Of all the speeches against the Bill, I have to confess that the one that moved me most was that made by my

101
noble friend Lady Vickers, who spoke of 35,000 unwanted children, the battered babies and, by implication, the need for their proper care. Frankly, I was less moved when the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, with all his debating skill, told us that a minority was trying to impose its will on an overwhelming majority. This matter has not, of course, been put to an electoral test. What did strike me above all—and I think it must have rung in your Lordships' ears—was the simple statistic, which is terrifying, of one baby lost every 40 minutes. Then it was suggested that in spite of that statistic, which so far as I know is unchallenged, it was thought improper for this House to reopen a compromise formula agreed by the collective wisdom of this House 15 years ago.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, if the noble Earl would allow me to intervene briefly, if he wishes to maintain the moderate spirit of the debate which he has so praised, would it not be more moderate to refer to that statistic as being that particular number of foetuses lost, because a number of us do not accept that when an abortion is carried out a baby is aborted. It is the foetus which is aborted.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I entirely agree with that point; there are those in this House who do not consider the living foetus is a living thing whereas others consider it is a personality. This is a chop down the middle of the House; it is not from side to side but it is through the thinking of the House. I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his intervention on that point. But it is suggested that this matter should not be reopened after 15 years, or indeed even nine years after the Lane Committee or even seven years after the Select Committee in another place. If I may say so with respect and moderation—of course, I must say the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, did not consent to this—it was suggested here and there that the matter should not be reopened. Well, this House and the parliamentary system is indeed for reopening the unmentionable and undiscussable, since these matters cannot be discussed outside patiently and quietly.
The first question is surely this. Is there or is there not in effect abortion on demand? Something we are quite certain about is that it was not the intention of the promoters of the 1967 Act that that should be permitted or encouraged. But there is abundant evidence to the contrary. The BMA and the gynaecologists told the Lane Committee that it was so; the Lane Committee themselves said it was so; and, in a very interesting poll in 1978, 73 per cent. of gynaecologists said it was so. Also, we have the word today of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, whose authority carries very great weight indeed.
In the matter of medical opinion, clearly there are varying versions. We have had almost every version of it here tonight. But the fact is that both the BMA and the RCOG did tell the Lane Committee in 1974 that change was desired. Sir John Peel, President of the BMA and the RCOG, and the Queen's gynaecologist, told the Select Committee on Abortion the same thing in 1976. So there is clearly a dichotomy as to what medical opinion will say. There was a very interesting Gallup Poll in 1978 which showed that 81 per cent. of gynaecologists were against abortion on demand and
102
73 per cent. said it took place. It was suggested—and I was interested to hear this from the noble Lord, Lord Vernon—that somehow laymen should not challenge medical opinion. Even assuming medical opinion were unanimous, his suggestion, if I have it right—and I will give way if I have it wrong—is that we should not presume to challenge medical opinion. Well, what is Parliament for?
Lord Vernon: My Lords, if I may intervene, as the noble Earl suggested I might, I never said that medical opinion should not be challenged; all I said was that very great weight should be given to it when they were unanimous on the issue.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I am so glad that we have had a chance of correcting that because I do not want to misrepresent anybody, and being old and gaga I sometimes tend to get the point a little wrong. But what is Parliament for but to challenge technical opinion and bring a broad—what we may call "political"—decision to bear on the matter? At any rate, the Select Committee in another place urged Parliament to discuss and vote on the criteria. I think that we must remember the point made so effectively by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in a powerful speech—so powerful that some people did not agree with it—but something that will be well remembered and framed; that the child is left out of the equation. That was his point. Those of us who are promoting the Bill are speaking for the utterly defenceless, for those who have no voice themselves. We are doing so in a world where compassion is often cited as a kind of slogan.
I believe that the most important points were made, very sympathetically, by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. It is always in season for old men to learn—that is Agamemnon in Aeschylus—and since we are both elderly, it is time for both of us to learn. I was very impressed—and I say this sincerely—when he opened his case by saying that we need more evidence. He said that the whole matter deserves close attention in time to come, and that a basis for consensus is needed. I wonder whether we cannot build on that, in a co-operative, sympathetic and, may I say, friendly sense.
Taking compassion as the theme and, above all, those who are defenceless, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, who is the promoter of the Bill, this. Will he consider, if the Bill gets a Second Reading—and it could not be done without that—discussing through the usual channels a Motion to have this issue referred to a Select Commitee instead of having the nightlong badinage on the Floor of this House about adjectives? That is the alternative that was forecast by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby.
I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, that he should consider whether that would be a useful and worthy way forward for the House. Will he be prepared to discuss and explore through the usual channels the possibility of the Bill going to a Select Committee? Of course, that possibility, which I hope is welcome to everybody, will not arise if there is no Second Reading. Therefore, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, that if he considers that

103
approach worthy of the occasion, worthy of the subject and of this place, then he suggests to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that he should withdraw his amendment and allow the Bill to have its Second Reading, which I support whether or not there is a Division.
9.34 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, I sincerely thank all those of your Lordships who have taken part in this debate for their excellent contributions throughout the evening. I hope that, as the hour is late, your Lordships will not think me discourteous if I do not answer all the points that were made.
First, I take up the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, about a Select Committee. That proposal certainly seems to have some attraction. I am not at all encouraged by the prospect that we were given by the noble Lord, Lord Hougton of Sowerby, of guerrilla warfare if the Bill goes to a Committee of the Whole House. I would be willing to put forward his suggestion through the usual channels if the Bill is given a Second Reading.
Much was made of the weight of representative medical opinion against the Bill. This is clearly a factor that your Lordships will want to take very seriously. I submit that it is not all persuasive. As we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, medical opinion is perhaps not quite so unanimous as might be assumed from its representatives. There is the Gallup Poll that showed that 81 per cent. of gynaecologists in 1978 were against abortion on demand. Indeed, abortion on demand does come into the issue. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, made a valuable contribution to our debate and gave us his experience and the example of a case—not the one he mentioned he had seen today—where he was under very great pressure from a woman for an abortion. That is really abortion on demand.
However, it is not only medical opinion that needs to be listened to. I am sure that the House will be very grateful to the right referend Prelate the Bishop of London, and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for their clear statements on the Christian position and on the legal position.
The noble Baroness, Lady Denington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, mentioned the phrase "unwanted children". The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, gave statistics about children in care. I mention that the Abortion Act 1967 has by no means reduced the number of children in care. The number of children in care is very much greater that it was back in 1967, although obviously the Act is by no means the only factor to be considered. Every child should be a wanted child, and in a way it would be very nice if that were the case. However, if we think about it, what are we saying? We are saying unwanted children should be disposed of. Surely that raises some pretty abhorrent sequels. How are we to treat the chronicaly ill, the handicapped and the aged? Are we to say that unwanted chronically ill persons and unwanted handicapped children are to be disposable also? I do not think so, and I do not think that that is the intention of those who say that every child should be
104
a wanted child. They should reflect on the implications of what they are saying.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, summed the Bill up: it is to write the baby back into the equation; not to give it priority over the mother but to put it back into the balance. If we acknowledge that we have a duty to show love, care and protection in law to the unborn child, I hope that your Lordships will support me in the Lobbies on this Bill.
9.38 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, first let me deal with the Select Committee. I regret that I am not prepared to accept the suggestion that I should withdraw my amendment in return for the noble Lord's indication a moment ago that he would be willing to consider referring the Bill to a Select Committee. I will certainly accept the idea of a Select Committee unprejudiced by this Bill, but not as the basis of considering a Bill which I regard as fundamentally wrong and against which there will be widespread revulsion if it gets a Second Reading in your Lordships' House tonight. The fair offer is an unprejudiced, open Select Committee with suitable terms of reference. That is how to investigate this matter in the way that I think it will have to be done.
Secondly, I point out to the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, that he is in error in saying that the poll of the gynaecologist consultants in 1977 showed that 73 per cent. of them said that abortions on demand were given. They were not asked that question. The Gallup Poll was requisitioned from a firm of public opinion pollsters by the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child. The consultants were asked:
"Do you believe that there is abortion on demand?"
No evidence was asked from them in support of a belief. Moreover, the consultants were asked to judge other people's conduct and not their own. They were asked to express a belief about the conduct of certifying medical officers: they were not asked to say anything about their own behaviour. I think that that particular Gallup Poll cannot be relied upon.
The only other point I wish to make is this. From listening to the whole debate, it seemed that the voice of practical, professional experience is against this Bill. The voice of those who have particular experience among the poor, and the social problems of the poor, were against this Bill. I would hate to say that the difference of opinion in the House is a class division, but it is getting very near to it.
Several noble Lords: No!
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I think we must beware that Members of this House do not forsake entirely some semblance of representative capacity. I should hate to join issue with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, but in my type of layman's way I have held the view that if you use the law to give guidance, you make it the law, and in making it the law, you intend to make it enforceable. If you intend to give guidance, guidelines or a code of conduct, that is a different mechanism for trying to achieve the same purpose. But if you put it in the law

105
and make it the law, and say that the law shall be enforced then, as the noble and learned Lord said, you will not get a successful prosecution against any doctor who says "In good faith I was using my best clinical judgment, and applied that to the guidance in the law". In those circumstances, he is asking us to put, and the Bill is asking us to put, in the 1967 Act words which, if they give guidance, will frighten doctors. If they do not give guidance, they will not be enforceable in the courts.
I think that the situation can be very confusing; but certainly an attempt to extend the definitions in the 1967 Act is, I think, bound to lead to uncertainty and a great deal of difficulty, and it will not do the country or the women of the country any good. To that extent, I am bound to say that one of the outcomes of this debate is that one pedestal—namely, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning—has fallen from grace. I have enjoyed his theme that you put justice before the letter of the law. But with the greatest and profoundest respect, I did expect his legal guidance to the House this evening to be clear and a little more logical than the advice that he gave. I am grateful to him for not joining issue with me and prolonging the proceedings.
I urge noble Lords to support my amendment. This does not ask for any judgment on principles or practice. It says that this is not the moment, that this is not the hour and that this is not the stage in this Parliament to carry this matter to a conclusion. Therefore, let us put it at arm's length until wiser and better informed counsels prevail. Let us then have the Select Committee, but not on this Bill.
9.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not Contents, 42.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Avebury, L.

Listowel, E.

Balogh, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Birk, B.

Lockwood, B.

Boothby, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Melchett, L.—[Teller.]

Brockway, L.

Milford, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Monson, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Northfield, L.

Craigavon, V.

Oram, L.

Darwen, L.

Oxford, Bp.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Denington, B.

Porritt, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rea, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Roberthall, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Seear, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Stedman, B.

Flowers, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Gardiner, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stone, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hooson, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.—[Teller.]

Vaizey, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Vernon, L.

Jeger, B.

Vickers, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Kagan, L.

Young of Darlington, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

106

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Lawrence, L.

Avon, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Barrington, V.

London, Bp.

Beswick, L.

Long, V.

Braye, L.

Longford, E.

Buckmaster, V.

Loudoun, C.

Caldecote, V.

Lyell, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Chichester, Bp.

Mishcon, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Norwich, Bp.

Craigmyle, L.

Oxford and Asquith, E.

Denning, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Gainford, L.

Reading, M.

Grantchester, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.—[Teller.]

Halsbury, E.—[Teller.]

Saltoun, Ly.

Hampton, L.

Sidmouth, V.

Hylton, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Ingleby, V.

Swinton, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wakefield, Bp.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
House adjourned at six minutes before ten o'clock.

  CRUELTY TO ANIMALS: FUTURE LEGISLATION
  CRUELTY TO ANIMALS: FUTURE LEGISLATION
  IMPORT CONTROLS: INDEPENDENT REVIEW BODY
  IMPORT CONTROLS: INDEPENDENT REVIEW BODY
  RAF KEMBLE: FUTURE PLANS
  RAF KEMBLE: FUTURE PLANS
  BRITISH TERRITORIAL WATERS
  BRITISH TERRITORIAL WATERS
  THE ASSISTED PLACES SCHEME AND THE HANDICAPPED
  THE ASSISTED PLACES SCHEME AND THE HANDICAPPED