Sitting of 18 February 1982

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

  HUMBERSIDE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time upon Thursday 25 February.

  LONDON TRANSPORT (LIVERPOOL STREET) BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 4 March.

  CUMBRIA BILE. [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 25 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Elections (Voting Guidance)
    Sir William van Straubenzeeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what languages it is the practice for returning officers to publish notices giving general directions and guidance on how to vote.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): The only language in which election notices must be published is English and, where appropriate, Welsh. We understand that one returning officer has announced his intention of adding notices in Urdu, Bengali, Punjabi and Gujerati.
    Sir William van Straubenzee: In the Bradford case—and I ask this in case the practice is followed elsewhere—is it clear that the notice was instituted by agreement with all the political parties in Bradford? Is it equally clear that the guidance will be strictly limited to technical guidance about voting?
    Mr. Raison: I believe that in the Bradford case the procedure was instituted with the agreement of the political parties. However, the conduct of an election is a matter for the returning officer concerned, who is answerable to the courts, and not to me. I imagine that a returning officer would think very carefully about the wisdom and propriety of any instruction recommending that voters should seek oral advice from presiding officers.
    Mr. Edward Lyons: Where all the parties agree, as they have on the council, that people should be encouraged to exercise their democratic rights, by notices that will help them do that, albeit with impartial guidance, does the Minister agree that that should be done?
    Mr. Raison: I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's comment, or question, but I reiterate that the conduct of an election is a matter not for me but for the returning officer.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: What my right hon. Friend says is interesting, but not sufficient. Is he not aware that in many county areas the returning officer is the lord lieutenant, who doe not answer to anybody but the Crown? The conduct of the election is subcontracted to a deputy returning officer, who in turn subcontracts to a deputy acting returning officer. Therefore, does my right hon. Friend really mean that the matter should be discussed with the returning officer, who is the lord lieutenant, or with the deputy returning officer, who does not do the job, or with the deputy acting returning officer, who actually——
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Raison: The answer to my hon. Friend is that it is the deputy returning officer.

    Criminals (Apprehension)
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to enable the police to catch more criminals.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): The measures already taken by the Government to increase the strength and improve the pay and morale of the police service are vital in the fight against crime. But police effectiveness also depends on the full co-operation and understanding of the community. Our policy is to sustain both these essential aspects.
    Mr. Fraser: Is the Secretary of State aware that over the past decade the clear-up rate of every category of serious crime has deteriorated and that there is a widespread view that in cities burglaries and street robberies can be committed with impunity? Has he any other plans to increase the certainty of detection and conviction?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I accept that the level of crime, particularly burglaries, in many of our cities is extremely serious. The problem has to be tackled by increasing the effectiveness of the police. There are two ways in which to proceed. The first is to increase police numbers, as the Government have done. The second is to ensure that the police have the full support of the whole of the community, who will be prepared to work with them and to encourage them in their tasks. Following Lord Scarman's report, I am determined to seek to achieve these aims. I believe that all hon. Members will wish to support my efforts to increase the effectiveness of the police through the achievement of the full support of the community that they serve.
    Mr. Alton: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. Is he, nevertheless, aware that, in the city of Liverpool, one crime is committed every four minutes and one car stolen every 20 minutes? Is he further aware that only one-third of those crimes are detected? Will he say how the reduction of £500,000 in the police budget will improve the effectiveness of the police?
    Mr. Whitelaw: There is no place where the full support of the community for the police is more needed than in Liverpool. I hope that this support will be provided by all sections of the community. It is an essential factor.
    Overall, I believe that the money provided from the centre for the police is exactly right for the task that they have to perform. It meets the issue of police pay and everything else. It is for local authorities to decide how they will distribute the money. The Government believe that the amount is right for the task. We believe it can be done.
    Mr. Philip Holland: What consideration is my right hon. Friend giving to the possibility of reducing the number of violent criminals by the reintroduction of corporal punishment for those convicted of muggings in the street?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Corporal punishment was abandoned in 1948. An advisory council in 1960 was convinced that its reintroduction would not help. It would also be contrary to our international obligations. We have no plans to reintroduce it.
    Mr. Dubs: What specific steps does the Home Secretary intend to adopt, if he has not already taken them, to ensure, especially in the Metropolitan area, better relationships between the police and local communities and to ensure that local communities have more influence on the policing policies pursued in their areas?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I wish to encourage local liaison committees, involving full consultation between local communities and the police service. As the hon. Members for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) will know, I have had some consultations towards that end in Lambeth. My officials have sent letters on my behalf to police authorities throughout the country and to the London boroughs to urge that these consultations should be developed. The purpose is to enlist the support of all members of the community in making the police more effective in dealing with crime and to enable them to pursue criminals with more vigour.

    Women Police Officers
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will examine, with a view to its amendment, whether the Sex Discrimination Act 1976 is having an inhibiting effect upon the deployment of women police officers and the duties which they perform.
    Mr. Raison: We do not consider that a review is necessary. Chief constables are able to deploy women officers on a wide range of duties.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that before the 1976 Act women police were a specialist department, handling crimes involving women and children? Those crimes included rape. Does he agree also that as a result of the 1976 Act the police have had to become an integrated force and that the specialist department has been broken up? In view of the natural and wide concern about offences against women, is it not preferable that those offences should be investigated by women officers? Will my right hon. Friend consider whether the Act is working against the best interests of women?
    Mr. Raison: The Act does not restrict the availability of officers of either sex for particular classes of police work. It is true that the special units have been terminated. The advisory group on the law of rape, chaired by Mrs. Justice Heilbron, considered that the sympathy and experience of officers conducting interviews with women victims were more important that their sex. We are considering further guidance to the police. I am sure, however, that this principle holds good, although it may be desirable to arrange, wherever practicable, for a woman police officer to be present during such an interview if the complainant so wishes.
    Dr. Summerskill: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the most important qualifications for those interrogating victims of alleged rape are special training, tact and sympathetic understanding? Does he further agree that those qualities are found equally in men and women police officers? Does he agree also that all officers, men and women, must continue to be given equal access to every type of work experience, to training and to promotion prospects, as provided in the Sex Discrimination Act?
    Mr. Raison: The inquiry under Mrs. Justice Heilbron came to the view expressed by the hon. Lady about the qualities required for dealing with these cases. The Government, I think, will agree. Women police officers have been able to operate in a much wider sphere than in the past. It is important to remember that chief constables are able to make their own decisions on the deployment of their officers.

    Police Files
    Mr. Douglas-Mannasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for reports from each chief constable in each police authority to ascertain on how many individuals police forces in England and Wales, including their special branches, hold files; and what proportion of these relate to persons with no criminal record.
    Mr. Whitelaw: No, Sir.
    Mr. Douglas-Mann: Is it not extremely unsatisfactory that files on individuals held by the police are not subject to scrutiny or to questions in the House? Does the right hon. Gentleman know whether it is true that the Special Branch holds files on over 1 million people. Does the right hon. Gentleman know how many files are kept on hon. Members? Is he satisfied about access? Can he explain how The Observer newspaper was able to obtain access to a file on my constituent Mr. Hugh Geach, who has apparently done nothing more "subversive" than having been active as a student in 1969 in the campaign against the South African rugby tour?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I must make it clear that the Special Branch maintains records on individuals where this is necessary to enable it to undertake the tasks laid upon it. That is a perfectly proper position.
    Mr. Hattersley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of his sillier Back Benchers, such as the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) and others, were saying that files of this sort should be held in respect of some of my hon. Friends? Is that the Home Secretary's view, or does he repudiate it?
    Mr. Whitelaw: My Back Benchers are never silly.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a considerable amount of evidence exists to suggest that the police hold large numbers of files on people with no criminal past or criminal propensity? Is this not a serious invasion of their privacy? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the establishment of any future agency for the protection of data should have access to police files?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I must reserve my position until I make a statement on data protection and the House sees the direction that the Government intend to take on that issue.
    Mr. John Wells: Are files retained by the police where a citizen of foreign extraction, for instance, a German citizen—I do not mean a Commonwealth citizen—applies for British nationaltiy and is rejected, but then reapplies? Will the file have been kept by the local police between the first application and the next?
    Mr. Whitelaw: That would be a matter for the individual chief constable. I shall look into the matter.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Following the right hon. Gentleman's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), does he agree in principle that, in respect of data protection legislation, there should be no difference between access to electronic files held in computer form, and manual files?
    Mr. Whitelaw: It would be fairer, I think, for the House to await the statement that I shall make on this important subject.

    Juvenile Crime
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up an inquiry to examine whether there is a significant contribution to juvenile crime made by the effect of intoxicant glues and similar substances on juveniles who inhale them.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): We share my hon. Friend's concern about glue sniffing by young people, but we have no evidence to suggest that it makes a significant contribution to juvenile crime and my right hon. Friend has no plans to set up an inquiry.
    Mr. Greenway: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. May I remind him that I sent more than one petition to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary expressing the strong concern of hundreds of people in my constituency about the brain damage caused to young people who sniff glue and also the social violence and vandalism in which some older children indulge as a result of glue sniffing? Is he aware that I have seen a fence that was kicked in by a 15-year-old youth who sniffed glue? If my hon. and learned Friend is unable to set up an inquiry, will he consider imposing a ban on the sale of intoxicant glue to the under-16s? As an alternative, will he consider emulating United States' makers of glue, who add a property at production stage which makes glue sniffers violently sick?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Answers and questions have been extended this afternoon. Question Time is designed not for either side of the House to argue a case, but for hon. Members to ask a question and receive an answer.
    Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been concerned with the welfare of the young for many
    390
    years. I am told that literature on the subject does not reveal any contribution to juvenile crime, nor, strangely enough, that any lasting damage to health is caused. We are considering what can be done through advice to discourage this unattractive habit.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: The Minister's answer is complacent. Glue sniffing is increasing, especially in areas such as Merseyside. I have presented petitions——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That may be so, but we want a question, not a declaration.
    Mr. Roberts: Will the Minister treat the matter more seriously? Even if he does not introduce legislation, will he support legislation introduced by others to restrict the sale of certain glues and to allow additives to prevent sniffing?
    Mr. Mayhew: We do not treat the matter other than seriously. Substances that can be sniffed for one sort of kick or another are found in a wide variety of common household goods. Even if it were possible to impose special statutory control on the sale of such items, that would cause an unacceptable degree of inconvenience for the majority of those who use such items for their proper purposes.

    Parking Restrictions (Enforcement)
    Mr. GeorgeCunningham asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the degree of enforcement by the traffic wardens service of parking restrictions as between different parts of the Metropolitan Police force district.
    Mr. Raison: The deployment of traffic wardens is an operational matter for the Commissioner of Police, who assures us that every effort is made to deploy the available traffic wardens in accordance with traffic needs.
    Mr. Cunningham: Does the Minister accept that in parts of Knightsbridge one cannot walk down the street without falling over traffic wardens sticking tickets on cars, whereas in the Whitecross Street street market area in my constituency, about which I have had correspondence with the Minister, there is a severe danger of restriction of access for emergency vehicles because of persistent parking on both sides of the road, and even in the middle? Will the Minister, as the police authority for the Metropolis, do something about that?
    Mr. Raison: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern, but the deployment of traffic wardens is a matter for the Commissioner. He considers that enforcement and deployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency are consistent with that achieved elsewhere in central London.

    Satellite Broadcasts
    Mr. Michael Marshallasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Arundel of 21 January, Official Report, column 191, what response he has had to the Home Office study on direct broadcasting by satellite; and if he is now able to make a statement.
    Mr. Whitelaw: Some 70 organisations and a number of individuals submitted comments on the Home Office study. Most were in favour of going ahead with direct broadcasting by satellite. In my foreword to the study I

    391
    made it clear that the Government were prepared to give serious consideration to an early start with satellite broadcasting, and I hope to make a further announcement very shortly.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that since the Home Office report was published in May there has been some slippage? Will he seek to expedite the matter, given the strong competition to which he referred in the foreword to that report? Will he ensure that if cable television becomes relevant in the expansion of satellite broadcasting, he will give every consideration to that matter also?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Certainly. Cable and direct broadcasting by satellite are inextricably linked. I intend to make a statement on cable broadcasting. I do not believe that there has been a slippage. It is important to move ahead with the technological aspect, but we must also accept that such changes have considerable repercussions on our standards of broadcasting. Those standards must be preserved.
    Mr. Whitehead: Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that the same degree of regulation will obtain, in the national interest, in any form of satellite broadcasting linked through ground stations to cable broadcasting as obtains for the existing service?
    Mr. Whitelaw: We must hold a number of discussions, both outside and within the House, before giving a specific undertaking. I wish to record my belief that it is important to preserve our broadcasting standards.

    Lancashire Constabulary
    Mr. Trippierasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current uniformed strength of the Lancashire constabulary; and what it was in May 1979.
    Mr. Mayhew: At the end of 1981 the total strength of the Lancashire constabulary, including both uniformed officers and CID, was 3,153. This is a gain of 60 on the total of 3,093 in May 1979.
    Mr. Trippier: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Will he confirm that the increased numbers of police will mean that more will be seen on the beat than was the case prior to 1979?
    Mr. Mayhew: It is desirable that officers should be returned to the beat from other duties whenever possible. However, it is a matter for the operational discretion of chief constables. I know that my view is widely held by them.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that any suggestion by the county police committee of a cut in the allocation of the budget of the Lancashire police would be unacceptable to the people of Lancashire? If he receives such a suggestion, will he rebut it with all possible force?
    Mr. Mayhew: As my right hon. Friend has said, the allocation of the sums made available to police authorities is a matter for them. I am sure that there is a wide measure of agreement with what my hon. Friend has said. Most people believe that there should be no reduction in the number of police officers on the beat.
    Mr. Alton: How many members of the Lancashire constabulary have been recruited from ethnic minority groups? Is the Minister prepared to remove the height restriction, which prevents Chinese and Asian applicants from joining the police force?
    Mr. Mayhew: I do not carry in my head the figures for which the hon. Gentleman asks. It is no secret that everyone concerned with such matters wishes to see more suitably qualified representatives of the ethnic minorities in the police forces.

    Foreign Visitors
    Mr. Newensasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the procedures under which close relatives of people of foreign extraction now living in the United Kingdom who are domiciled abroad are able to visit them in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Raison: Yes, Sir. The requirements for admission to the United Kingdom as a visitor are laid down in the immigration rules presented to Parliament.
    Mr. Newens: Will the right hon. Gentleman investigate the case of my constituent, Mrs. Chiraghuddin Rehman, who has consistently been refused permission for a visit from her mother and brother, whom she has not seen for more than 10 years, on such grounds as the brother's inability to name the sights that he expects to see on his visit and that her husband's income amounts to only 17 per cent. of the cost of the fares? If such cases are typical, do they not constitute a grossly disgraceful interference with the sanctity of the family? Should not something be done about that?
    Mr. Raison: I shall investigate the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. My experience shows that such cases are often more complicated than is implied in the sort of statement that he has made.
    Mr. Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Iraqi students living in Britain have increasingly come under attack from other Iraqis and face great danger from threats made against them? Has he considered the position of the Iraqi embassy? What action is being taken to deal with those worrying attacks?
    Mr. Raison: That question has nothing to do with the matter under discussion.
    Mr. Hattersley: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the case cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) is only too typical of what happens almost every day of the week? Does he realise that every hon. Member who has ethnic minority groups among his constituents can give examples of genuine visitors who wish to come to Britain for a brief period but are prevented from doing so on very little evidence? As that happens almost invariably when the visitors concerned are black or members of the Indian community, does he not realise that it is a gross form of discrimination that should be brought to an end forthwith?
    Mr. Raison: The overall number of visitors refused entry to Britain last year was only 0.25 per cent. of those who arrived here. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, cases are considered with the greatest care. There is an appeals system, and a great deal of ministerial attention is given to the matter.
    Mr. John Carlisle: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that sufficient attention is being given to so-called genuine visitors from abroad who overstay the permitted time? Is it not true that the amnesties granted by the Labour Administration have encouraged illegal overstaying, in the somewhat foolish belief that one day a Labour Government will be returned, who will grant similar amnesties?
    Mr. Raison: We pay great attention to overstaying. However, the amnesties granted by the previous Administration related to illegal entrants rather than to overstayers.

    Indictable Offences
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many indictable offences were committed during 1981; and how this compares with the position in 1976.
    Mr. Mayhew: The latest figures show that in the first three quarters of 1981 the number of serious offences recorded by the police in England and Wales was 2-2 million. This total is not directly comparable with the figures for 1976 because of the introduction of a new set of counting rules at the beginning of 1980.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister recall that five years ago Conservative Members made a great fuss about the crime rate and law and order? Will not the full figures for 1981 show that the situation last year would have seemed incredible only four or five years earlier? Does he agree that until there is a change in Government economic policy and less retrenchment in public provision there can be no possibility of advance?
    Mr. Mayhew: Of course my right hon. and hon. Friends showed great concern five years ago—as they always have and as they do today—about the increase in crime, because they know how concerned ordinary people are about it. That is why we are doing our very best to deter crime, not least by increasing the police force by more than 8,000 since May 1979. I dare say that unemployment has a bearing on the matter, but nothing can excuse violent crime or indeed any crime.
    Sir William Clark: As the last review of corporal punishment was 22 years ago, in 1960, and the number of crimes and indictable offences has risen at an alarming rate, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the reintroduction of corporal punishment should be considered in view of present experience and the crime figures?
    Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend set out the Government's position in answer to an earlier question. The Criminal Justice Bill will provide an opportunity to consider this, as an amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for the Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley) deals with that very matter. I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Dubs: Will the Minister investigate the relationship between the increase in indictable crime and the growth of the prison population? Can he suggest any reason why the prison population rose by 2,000 in the first five weeks of this year?
    Mr. Mayhew: Anyone can speculate when one is close to the event, but I dare say that in time it will be possible
    394
    to reach an informed opinion. There is always a seasonal decline around Christmas. Nevertheless, there has been a marked drop in the prison population from 45.000 last July. I hope that it will not rise any more, but we shall have to wait and see.
    Mrs. Knight: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that, despite the figures that he was unable to give, the crime rate has soared, particularly for offences such as mugging and the raping of even frail and elderly women and young children? Is he aware that there is grave public concern about this? Will he shortly announce measures to counter and reverse this trend, not least by the reintroduction of discipline in schools, the strengthening of the family unit and a greater deterrent effect? Will he bear in mind that the more lightly we treat criminals, the more criminals there will be?
    Mr. Mayhew: I have no doubt that the matters to which my hon. Friend refers have considerable bearing on the problem of crime and its increase. I also acknowledge—nobody has sought to conceal it—that there has been a grave increase particularly in violent crime. The Criminal Justice Bill provides the courts with a substantially wider range of penalties, custodial arid otherwise. We believe that that will be a valuable measure.

    Violent Criminals
    Mr. Cadburyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied that the punishments currently being imposed by magistrates on violent offenders are proving an effective deterrent.
    Mr. Mayhew: In combating violent crime, sentencing policy has an important part to play. While the deterrent effect of any sentence is not readily measured, my right hon. Friend has no doubt that magistrates are giving full weight to the principle of deterrence.
    Mr. Cadbury: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that in the Midlands there is extreme anxiety about the increasing number of violent attacks, particularly on defenceless old people? Is he further aware that there is great anxiety that the punishments being handed down to the perpetrators are wholly inadequate? Will my hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary urge the courts to hand down punishments more suited to deter crime of this type and to reverse this disturbing trend in our society?
    Mr. Mayhew: I am well aware of the extreme anxiety in many areas at the increase in violent crime. I well know that my hon. Friend, being closely in touch with his constituents, accurately represents their feelings. His question relates to magistrates' courts. Magistrates are drawn from the community and serve the community in which they live, but they are subject to guidance from the Lord Chief Justice and the Court of Appeal, as are all courts. Guidance as to the type of sentence to be imposed should therefore come from those quarters and not from my right hon. Friend.
    Dr. Summerskill: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that as many as 76 per cent. of young offenders sent to detention centres commit another offence when they are released? Does he agree that this type of sentence should be replaced by a more effective custodial sentence, as detention centres have been shown to be utterly ineffective as a deterrent?
    Mr. Mayhew: Although the 1969 Act gave power to abolish detention centres, for five years the Labour Government did nothing about it. That is quite remarkable in the light of the views expressed by the hon. Lady today.

    Police (Complaints)
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he is making with discussions on a system of fully independent investigation of complaints against the police.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I have discussed with the Police Advisory Board reform of the police complaints procedures. As I have informed the House, since the Select Committee on Home Affairs is conducting an inquiry into police complaints and related matters, we shall wish to take its report into account before bringing forward proposals for change.
    Mr. Hooley: Is the Home Secretary aware that any halfway house would be as futile and useless as the present hotch-potch arrangement, which has proved to be of no effect at all, and that the public will be satisfied only with a mechanism wholly independent of the police themselves?
    Mr. Whitelaw: What the hon. Gentleman describes as a hotch-potch is what he voted for when the Police Bill was introduced. As for the changes, I do not accept that a completely independent procedure is the only solution that will satisfy the public. We have to find a reasonable arrangement that meets the requirements both for a sensible independent element in the attitude to complaints and for the right of a chief officer to discipline his force. But if the House and the country are worried about crime, as they rightly are, let us not become so involved in a complaints system that we hold back young police officers who should be pursuing criminals.
    Mr. Hooley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman is utterly incorrect to say that I did not oppose the earlier provision.
    Mr. Whitelaw: That legislation was passed by the Labour Government, which the hon. Gentleman supported. If he did not vote for it, I apologise to him.
    Mr. Pitt: Does the Home Secretary agree that as there is continuing anxiety about complaints against the police, and as investigations are still going on, it would be a good idea to institute some pilot schemes so that we may reach a reasonable decision on this matter?
    Mr. Whitelaw: No, I think that it is right to proceed as we are, through the Select Committee on Home Affairs, to try to devise a sensible system. Nevertheless, I hope that we shall not divert the attention of the police, by an overemphasis on complaints, from the real need to pursue criminals.
    Mr. Jessel: Would it not be better if the Opposition tried to give a little moral support to the police just for once?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I hope that both sides of the House will give the strongest possible support to our police service. If we did not have 8,000 more police than we had two and a half years ago, the complaints about violent crime would be far worse. Indeed, the situation would be overwhelming.

    Women Police Officers
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women police officers there were at the latest available date; and what percentage of the total strength this represents.
    Mr. Raison: At the end of 1981 there were 10,772 women police officers in England and Wales. This represents about 9 per cent. of the total strength of the police service.
    Mrs. Short: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. In response to the earlier question of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), does he not think that there is a clear case for more women police officers to be appointed? Does he appreciate that there is a great deal of evidence from counselling services, for example, of the tough attitude taken by many male police officers towards women and children who complain about sexual offences against them? Does he agree that it is time for more women police officers to be appointed?
    Mr. Raison: The recruitment of women police officers is proceeding at a satisfactory rate. As for the deployment of officers and the type of cases that the hon. Lady has talked about, sympathy and experience can exist in either sex. However, there are occasions when it is desirable to make women police officers available.
    Sir Ronald Bell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in using police dogs for crowd control there is rampant discrimination on genetic grounds against certain breeds, such as poodles?

    Murder (Sentences)
    Mr. Edward Lyonsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to enable judges to use their discretion to impose the sentence which seems appropriate to them on a conviction of murder.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I have no plans to alter the present law.
    Mr. Lyons: Is the Home Secretary aware that many trials in murder cases, especially in relation to domestic killings, take place in such a way as to achieve a manslaughter verdict, to give the judge the opportunity to pass an appropriate sentence instead of the automatic life sentence? Will he institute an inquiry to consider the advantages of giving judges the opportunity to pass an appropriate and often lesser sentence rather than the automatic life sentence?
    Mr. Whitelaw: Given the current feeling about violent crime, any removal of the mandatory sentence for murder would be regarded as a serious matter.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will the right hon. Gentleman remind the House that the Butler Committee, the Advisory Council on the Penal System and half of the Criminal Law Revision Committee recommended that the life sentence should be a maximum rather than a mandatory sentence for murder? Does he recognise that the degree of wickedness and culpability in murders differs quite substantially and that the courts should be able to reflect that by passing an appropriate sentence, which would be determinate rather than a mandatory life sentence?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I do not wish to add to or subtract from anything that I said in my previous answer.

    Corporal Punishment
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will initiate a fresh study of the feasibility of introducing corporal punishment as an alternative to imprisonment for crimes of violence and vandalism.
    Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. Judicial corporal punishment was abolished in 1948 and the advisory council on the treatment of offenders recommended in 1960 that it should not be reintroduced. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the recommendation remains valid, particularly as reintroduction would be a breach of our international obligations.
    Mr. Taylor: As the policy of shorter sentences and the eroding of deterrents has been accompanied by a massive upsurge in crime and appalling congestion in the prisons, may I ask why my hon. and learned Friend is not willing to consider corporal punishment with the same open mind that he directs to other alternatives to imprisonment? Has he noticed that since corporal punishment was abolished on the Isle of Man there has been a 78 per cent. rise in crimes of violence?
    Mr. Mayhew: The advisory council, which reported in 1960, took account of the public's view that corporal punishment should be reintroduced. It examined comprehensive research on the subject. It concluded that the statistics on the deterrent effect of judicial corporal punishment suggested that it was not especially effective. I remind my hon. Friend that the United Kingdom is a member of the European Convention on Human Rights. In many quarters it was thought a good thing that the European Court last year pronounced against the closed shop. We must take care not to seem to be in favour of only those parts of the law that may suit us.
    Mr. Flannery: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman take note that a powerful section of the Tory Party still believes in 1982 that it can flog mankind into submission? Does he realise that only a complete change in the Conservative Party's policies to get working people back into work will lessen the approach to violent crime? Does he accept that we shall have more violent crime if the Government continue with their present policies?
    Mr. Mayhew: I give the hon. Gentleman the credit of supposing that he knows that every word of what he said is rubbish.
    Sir Albert Costain: Has my hon. and learned Friend's attention been drawn to a letter sent to the Home Secretary by one of my constituents stating that rape is such a dreadful crime that castration is the only proper penalty? Does he agree that that would be making the punishment fit the crime?
    Mr. Mayhew: I sympathise with the sense of abhorrence that inspired what lay behind the suggestion of my hon. Friend's constituent. However, certain practical problems might attend that sentence.
    Mr. Hattersley: The Minister has spoken of the importance of our accepting all the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. If Lord Scarman turns out to be correct in the Harriet Harman case, and the Home Office is at fault according to the European Court, will the Home Office withdraw its case and not press for costs?
    Mr. Mayhew: Not even the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman could persuade me that his supplementary question has anything to do with the original question.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Geoffrey Robinsonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with a delegation from the National Pensioners Convention steering committee.
    Mr. Robinson: Is the right hon. Lady aware that there will be widespread agreement throughout the House with her statement, which I think appeared in last Sunday's edition of the Sunday Telegraph, that we all depend on the prosperity of manufacturing industry? Will she tell us plainly how she can square that statement with the figures that were published at 2.30 pm today by the Department of Industry, which show that investment in manufacturing industry is the lowest since the early 1960s and that the probable outcome for 1981, a full year of her Administration, is zero or even negative net investment for manufacturing industry? Will she admit that that must he seen as a disaster for Britain's future prosperity?
    The Prime Minister: The prosperity of manufacturing industry depends first, upon its staying competitive; secondly, on its producing the right designs for people to buy; thirdly, on deliveries; and, fourthly, on all the people working in the industry leaving sufficient in it for sufficient profits with which to make investment.
    Mr. Thornton: Following British Rail's climb-down in its dispute with ASLEF, will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that, unless improvements in productivity and reductions in over-manning are implemented in the near future, there will be no further investment in British Rail? Will she make it clear that the inevitable consequence of that will be further reductions in services and more jobs lost?
    The Prime Minister: I think that it is too early to judge the result of the railways dispute. Both sides have now to go into negotiation. If that is not successful, we shall await the arbitration. I agree with my hon. Friend that for there to be a future for British Rail it has to be modernised in its labour practices and productivity has to be increased. If we get that increased productivity, there is a future for increased investment.
    Mr. Foot: I refer to the meeting that the right hon. Lady is having later in the day with the National Pensioners Convention steering committee. Will she confirm that what her Government did last year was to cut by 3 per cent. the real value of the pension? Will she be giving the assurance to the steering committee that she will be restoring the value of the pension in the forthcoming Budget?
    The Prime Minister: No, I will not confirm what the right hon. Gentleman has said, any more than he would

    399
    necessarily confirm that the last pension increase that was made by the Labour Government of which he was a member left the pension well below what it had been. Following that increase it was 1.9 per cent. below what it had been in real terms. I have given the pledge—the Government stand by it—that the value of the pension will be retained in real terms. We have already announced that in so far as it was less one year it will be increased the following year, and in so far as it was more in one year, it will be smoothed out the following year. On the whole, the value of the pension will be retained in real terms.
    Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady study the figures properly before meeting the pensioners, because they know the figures? Will the right hon. Lady confirm that the cuts made by her Government last year mean that, for the first time since 1970, there had been a cut in the value of the pension?
    Will the right hon. Lady confirm to the pensioners that she will do something about the appalling increases in fuel charges? Since May 1979 the standing charge on electricity has gone up by 80 per cent., and that on gas by 300 per cent. What will she do about that? Does she think that it is a good idea to try to cure inflation by making old-age pensioners freeze?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman raised two points. In answer to the first, in the first year of this Government the increase in pensions was greater than the increase in inflation, and in the second year it was slightly less. Therefore, we have agreed that we shall make up the shortfall in the second year so that the pension will retain its value in real terms. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would accept those facts.
    With regard to the second point, about what we spend on fuel, for those on supplementary benefit and family income supplement the amount is greater in real terms than that under any previous Government, including his own.
    Mr. Foot: The pensioners know the figures even if the right hon. Lady does not. I suggest that she should publish in the Official Report the figures from 1970 of the real value of the pension. She will discover that what I am saying is right, and that the pensioners are right.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman heard my reply. Which of the facts therein does he disagree with?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Alan Clarkasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Clark: Has the Prime Minister seen the report in The Times today stating that the figures for muggings for certain inner cities are up by 50 per cent.? Did she know——
    Mr. Canavan: The Tories are mugging the pensioners.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) must try to control his remarks when hon. Members are addressing the House. These interruptions from a sedentary position are becoming impossible. I have had a flood of correspondence from the
    400
    public about the noise in the House during Prime Minister's Question Time. I hope that they will write to their constituency Member and not to me.
    Mr. Clark:Has my right hon. Friend also read the assertion by the police that these offences are becoming increasingly brazen, with gangs of up to 50 young blacks looting in broad daylight? As it is widely believed that both the deterrence and prosecution of these offences is inhibited by what are loosely termed community relations, would she have a word with the newly promulgated Minister with responsibility for race relations—who has said in the press that his door is always open—and suggest that the makes contact with those who suffer most—the victims?
    The Prime Minister: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern about the increase in mugging and other crimes, particularly in London, revealed this morning. My hon. Friend will know that there has been a considerable increase in the number of police in London, but they are not up to full establishment; they are about 1,500 short. Further recruitment will continue, because it is important to have sufficient police to deal with this problem. That is the first thing. If that is not enough, we shall have to consider increasing the establishment.
    Mr. David Steel: Has the Prime Minister seen today the report allegedly prepared by Treasury and Department of Employment officials, which puts the latest public cost of unemployment at £96 per head per week? Can she confirm that the present public expenditure cost of unemployment is running at £15,000 million a year?
    The Prime Minister: That depends on the assumptions. What I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that in this year the cost of unemployment, judged by the amount paid out in unemployment benefit, social security and rent and rate rebates is about £5 billion.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: What about the tax that is lost?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman speaks of lost tax. What he is assuming is that everyone has a thriving and flourishing job in the private sector. If they had that, we would buy more British goods perhaps, or we might still buy imports, and tax would come in. If it is so easy to produce thriving, flourishing jobs in the private sector, I am amazed that Labour Members do not go out and start up businesses to create employment. Of course, they find it easier to talk.
    To return to the question. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way to an interruption from a sedentary position. The whole matter was dealt with a week last Friday in a detailed speech, going into the figures and the assumptions, by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. I commend that speech to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Stoddart: Has the right hon. Lady seen the announcement by British Gas of the swingeing and cruel increase of 22 per cent. in gas prices during the current year? Is she aware that this will cause a great deal of hardship to pensioners and others, who are already frightened to use domestic appliances in case they will not be able to meet the bill? Will she now, as an act of compassion, withdraw the instruction to the gas board that it must increase prices by 10 per cent. above the rate of inflation?
    The Prime Minister: British Gas has been selling gas to the domestic consumer at or below cost, with profits largely coming from industrial sales. That will not be surprising to the hon. Gentleman, who will know that his Government deliberately tipped costs towards industry and allowed domestic gas to be sold at a lesser price. Even with this year's increase British Gas will break even only on domestic gas. United Kingdom domestic gas prices are now considerably lower than those of France or Germany. The price of industrial gas has been frozen for one year.
    With regard to fuel subsidies, the hon. Gentleman heard what I said previously. The Government, through the taxpayer, are providing a larger amount for fuel subsidy than any previous Government.
    Mr. Mylesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Myles: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many British citizens have substantial assets in Zimbabwe which they cannot now realise and then retire to their homeland? Will she take measures to correct this situation?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct. Zimbabwe has an exchange control system, which it inherited from the previous Administration, and has left in place. From time to time the Government have made representations about its effect on people who wish to return here, but who are unable to get their assets out. This is a matter for Zimbabwe. I note that many Labour Members wish to have an exchange control system here.
    Mr. Ashley: Was the Prime Minister disturbed to learn today of the report by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, which demolished the Conservative myth that people are better off on the dole than in work? Now that it is confirmed that the unemployed are not only very poor but are forced to be unemployed as a direct result of Government policy, will the Prime Minister call off her attack upon the unemployed and the so-called work-shy and be a little more generous than she has been in the past?
    The Prime Minister: Most people would think it right that those who are in work should be better off than those who unfortunately cannot find work. If they cannot find work, they will receive unemployment benefit, social security, rent rebates, rate rebates, free school meals for children and so on. Many people will agree with the report from the Institute of Fiscal Studies.
    Mr. Edward Gardner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the train strike has made it obvious that the time has come when the chairman of British Rail and his board should learn how to express an agreement reached with the unions or anyone else in such clear plain language that no one can later pretend that he does not understand what has been agreed?
    The Prime Minister: I agree fully with my hon. and learned Friend's contention that an agreement is not an agreement unless it is expressed and everyone understands its meaning.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 22 FEBRUARY—Supply (13th Allotted Day): There will be a debate on the arts, when the third report of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts in Session 1980–81 will be relevant.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at Seven o'clock.
TUESDAY 23 FEBRUARY—Committee stage of the Canada Bill.
WEDNESDAY 24 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Travel Concessions (London) Bill.
Motion on the Departments (Northern Ireland) Order.
THURSDAY 25 FEBRUARY—A debate on Welsh affairs.
FRIDAY 26 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY I MARCH—Remaining stages of the Travel Concessions (London) Bill.
Motions on the Northern Ireland orders on Appropriation and Limitation Amendment.
Proceedings on the Agricultural Training Board Bill [Lords] and on the Industrial Training Bill [Lords], which are consolidation measures.
Mr. Foot: May I put four questions to the right hon. Gentleman? Last week I mentioned our desire for debates on two issues of great social importance to Britain. The first was on housing, where the latest figures show that the number of starts is the lowest for 60 years. Secondly, we wish to have a debate on the Government's training proposals, if they may be dignified with that term. Apprenticeships are at their lowest level for many years. Those two subjects should command the attention of the House, and I hope that the Government will consider allowing time for debates on them.
Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made on The Times newspaper? I gather that the proposal for the transfer of titles—which my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) described as "a breathtaking subterfuge" when he first heard about it—will not now take place. I am glad about that. I hope that the Government are turning their mind to considering how The Times can be saved. Does the Leader of the House agree that a statement should be made next week, especially in the light of the developments on the transfer?
Finally, may we have a statement from the Government about their policy on the purchase of ships by British shipping companies? I understand that P and O has ordered an £80 million ship from Finland, which order could have gone to British Shipbuilders. Are the Government content that such a purchase should take place when there are appalling dangers of fresh redundancies in the shipbuilding industry? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that there is an early statement to the House on that subject?
Mr. Pym: I took note of the right hon. Gentleman's representations last week for debates on housing and on the Government's training proposals. I said then that I did not believe I could find Government time in the near future.
404
There were opportunities for hon. Members to raise the training proposals when we discussed the economy and unemployment. However, I cannot find time in the near future for the House to debate those subjects.
As for a statement on The Times, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade is answering several written questions on that subject today. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will wish to study those answers before pursuing the matter. However, I shall convey his representations to my right hon. Friend.
On the right hon. Gentleman' final point, I am not aware of the purchase to which he referred, but again I shall consult my right hon. Friend. If a statement is required I shall arrange for it. I shall go into the matter and consider what might be done.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. There are two statements to follow. I propose to allow 20 minutes for questions on next week's business before we move to the first statement.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: My right hon. Friend said previously that he would arrange a debate on Poland. In view of the continuing terrible repression there, can he tell us how soon a debate will be possible? Will he also make arrangements for a debate in the House on crime?
Mr. Pym: I cannot find time in the immediate future for a debate on Poland, although I accept what my hon. Friend says about its importance. I was glad to be able to arrange a debate immediately before Christmas. I know that events have moved on since then, but my hon. Friend knows the pressures on the timetable.
As for a debate on crime, my hon. Friend must find some other way because there is no opportunity, beyond that provided by the passage of legislation in the House, for further debate on that subject, which I agree is of interest to everyone.
Mr. Joseph Dean: Will the Leader of the House prevail on his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland either to find time for a debate next week or to make a statement on the potentially deteriorating industrial position in Northern Ireland? Will he bear in mind that a broad-based delegation of trade unionists from Northern Ireland met a cross-section of hon. Members last week to tell us about the alarming position that is developing in certain major industries and the appalling social consequences if those industries are allowed to go by the board?
Mr. Pym: On Monday week there will be a debate on the Northern Ireland Appropriation order, which is related to the economy. At least some of the matters that the hon. Gentleman mentioned will be appropriate for discussion on that occasion.
Mr. Stephen Hastings(Mid-Bedfordshire): Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are deeply concerned about the current rate of loss of farmland and countryside to all forms of development? Will he try to arrange a debate on the matter as soon as possible and certainly before any final decision is taken on either Stanstead or the Vale of Belvoir, both of which proposals threaten many thousands of acres?
Mr. Pym: There has been much interested expressed, both inside and outside the House, on both issues. As with

405
the many requests for bypasses around towns and across agricultural land, it is difficult for the Government to find time to debate those topics. This particular subject has been debated before. If my hon. Friend can find some means of raising the matter, I hope that the House will attend to it. I do not believe that a debate about Stanstead would be appropriate while the inquiry is going on, although at its conclusion the House may wish to debate it.
As to the future of the Vale of Belvoir, my right hon. Friend still has that most difficult and critical decision under consideration. He will make an announcement about it to the House in due course.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Can the Leader of the House tell us when we shall have a statement or a debate on the financing of the Health Service? I raised the matter on 21 January, when the right hon. Gentleman said that the Secretary of State was still studying the report of the Royal Commission on the National Health Service. However, that report as been on his desk since December. All that we have had are inspired press leaks. Are the Government determined to deal with the matter through the press rather than on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Pym: No, Sir. The Government will announce their conclusions when they are reached. On a matter of this importance it will obviously take a certain amount of time. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is still considering the issues that lie behind that report and he will make an announcement in due course.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members are concerned at the extravagant proposals for increases in gas and electricity prices? They will only add to inflation, which the Government are trying to keep down and that will make it more difficult to keep salaries and wages in check. Therefore, will he ask the Minister to make a statement or arrange a debate before a decision is given in this matter?
Mr. Pym: I do not have anything to add to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today. Certainly I cannot find time, beyond the legislation that is now before the House, for an extra debate on that specific subject. Perhaps my hon. Friend can find another opportunity of raising it. I agree about the importance of the matter, but he will have heard the Prime Minister say that at present gas is sold at below cost to domestic users.
Mr. William Hamilton: Will the Leader of the House confirm the claim in The Times this morning that the Government are deliberately suppressing a report that the cost of keeping people on the dole is £96 per person per week? That is a 50 per cent. increase on the figure a year ago and it is likely to increase as the year goes on. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is proper for the Government to suppress such a vital report?
Mr. Pym: I am not aware of the Government suppressing anything, but after the hon. Gentleman's question and the question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister I am prepared to look into the matter further.
Mr. Michael Latham: Will my right hon. Friend consider his answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr.
406
Hastings)? If we were to have a debate on housing, for example, the issue of agricultural land must be considered. Will he also confirm that we will have a separate statement on De Lorean and that it will not be wrapped up in the Northern Ireland business on Monday?
Mr. Pym: On the second point, if a statement is appropriate it will be separate. I note what my hon. Friend says. It is fair to say that in all the housing debates that I have read about or heard in the House very little attention has been given to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings). Most of the points tend to be addressed to housing. That is clearly what the Leader of the Opposition would wish if time was found for it. Some other means must be found if a debate is to be mounted in the fairly near future, because there is no Government time available to be put at his disposal, however much I would like to do so.
Mr. David Stoddart: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the reply that he gave to the hon. Member for Rutland (Mr. Lewis)? Has he seen early-day motion 239, concerning gas prices, standing in my name and the names of 156 other hon. Members?
[That this House is appalled at the announcement that gas prices are to increase by 22 per cent. in 1982; and demands that Her Majesty's Government withdraws the instruction to British Gas to increase gas prices by 10 per cent. more than the rate of inflation.]
Since this is an important issue, does he not think that the Prime Minister's reply was callous and uncaring? Given that the Government are holding wages down, does not the right hon. Gentleman realise the importance of this issue? Will he arrange a debate at an early date?
Mr. Pym: I have arranged for debates on energy in the course of the past 18 months, although I admit that they were not directly related to the aspect that the hon. Gentleman has raised. The time that I have at my disposal is limited. I entirely agree about the importance of the subject. If the Opposition so wished, there could be a debate in their time. I have to tell the House the truth, and that is that I do not see an opportunity of finding time for it in the near future. It is right in all frankness to tell the hon. Gentleman that.
Mr. Keith Wickenden: If my right hon. Friend succumbs to the blandishments of the Leader of the Opposition concerning the P and 0 overseas shipbuilding order, will he extend the terms of that debate to enable the House to inquire why British shipyards are unable to deliver as fast as overseas shipyards?
Mr. Pym: I shall certainly take that into account.
Mr. loan Evans: Will there be a statement next week on the latest position regarding Sir Freddie Laker and De Lorean? If so. will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that such statements are made not on Friday but on a day when most hon. Members are present?
Mr. Pym: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is having more than one meeting today with De Lorean. We do not know whether they will necessitate a statement. Should a statement be necessary, it will be made at the earliest appropriate moment.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Has the Leader of the House seen the recent written answer that shows that in the year following the invasion of Afghanistan exports

407
of cheap and subsidised food to Russia broke all records? Does my right hon. Friend agree that Ministers should make a clear statement indicating the amount of cheap coal, steel, food, wine and credit that the EEC and Britain provide to the Soviet Union?
Mr. Pym: Parts of that question are more appropriate for other Ministers. As my hon. Friend knows, there are several opportunities for debating EEC matters in the House, and I should have thought that such important matters could be debated then.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Following the historic meeting of Scottish Members in Edinburgh last Monday—for the first time since 1707—will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the Scottish Grand Committee will next meet in Edinburgh? Will he arrange for longer sittings to be held, because morning sittings are rather unsatisfactory? Will he also consider holding Scottish Office Question Time regularly in Edinburgh?
Mr. Pym: The first part of the experiment that took place on Monday was carried out by arrangement with the Opposition, through the usual channels. Arrangements for subsequent debates during the Session will no doubt be arranged in the same way. That is the right approach. There does not seem to be any general demand to extend the experiment. We should let the experiment take place this Session and then assess it. The hon. Gentleman may be in favour, but different views are held. The House concluded that this type of experiment is appropriate for this Session. We should go through with it and then assess whether it was successful and how we should handle such matters in future.
Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members are quite mystified as to exactly what the clock on the Annunciator says at any given time? Is he further aware that I have yet to meet an hon. Member who understands exactly what the clock is saying? Will he look at the clock closely to see whether he can decipher what it says? If he cannot, will he revert to the previous time-keeping system, which we could all read?
Mr. Pym: I shall have inquiries made.
Serveral Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind hon. Members that whether they will be called depends on how long the questions are?
Mr. Michael Meacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two days ago, at the Lawrence Scott factory in Manchester—which employs many of my constituents—a posse of police drove a picket away from the factory gates to give access to the employer in an industrial dispute? Is that not a gross violation of the principle of police impartiality in industrial disputes? May we have an early statement on the regulation of such collusion in industrial disputes between the police and employers?
Mr. Pym: I am not in a position to comment on any of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. It would be appropriate to raise the matter with the Home Secretary.
Mr. Les Huckfield: Since the settlement of the railway dispute completely vindicates the position that ASLEF has maintained throughout the dispute and, since, as a result of the settlement, the British Railways Board has gained nothing that it could not have had last July, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Secretary of State for Transport to make an early statement to the House on his future policy for the railway industry and particularly for the chairman of the British Railways Board?
Mr. Pym: It is a great mistake to talk about complete vindication or anything of that sort. It is important that we should have a viable railway that serves the nation. Of course, I shall convey the hon. Gentleman's views to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I doubt whether a statement or debate now would be helpful.
Mr. Christopher Price: As the answer given by the Secretary of State for Trade to my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) about Mr. Rupert Murdoch's U-turn over the transfer of the titles from Times Newspapers Limited has only confounded the confusion, will he reconsider his decision about a statement? We need a statement on Monday to make the position clear.
Mr. Pym: I implied that there would be at least one written answer today. When the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have had time to consider them we shall see whether further steps are necessary. However, I shall convey the hon. Gentleman's views to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the right hon. Gentleman cast his mind back to 16 January 1980? The then Secretary of State for Energy made a statement on the Government's pricing policies and imposed swingeing increases on the gas and electricity boards. The most recent of those increases has been the 22 per cent. increases in gas prices. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it behoves the Government to bring the appropriate Secretary of State back to the House so that the consequences of these taxes, which bear most heavily upon the poor, may be discussed in the House? Does he not agree that the pensioners who are here today to protest in outrage against the Government's policies should know that Members of Parliament will have an opportunity to debate the issue?
Mr. Pym: Since the hon. Gentleman puts it like that, I should have thought that that was an appropriate subject for a Supply day debate. I would be prepared to arrange a day to debate the subject if there were time at my disposal to do that, but, as I have already indicated, I do not have that time.
Mr. Bruce George: The Leader of the House turned down the request for a debate on Stansted because an inquiry was taking place. Does that mean that the Committee stage of the Canada Bill will be postponed because of the litigation pending in the House of Lords?
Mr. Pym: No, Sir. The arguments relevant to that were made clear by the Government yesterday. They were taken fully into account. There are a number of factors relevant to the Canada Bill which I have taken into account. Of course I am aware that the hon. Gentleman and others would have liked consideration of the Bill to be postponed.

409
Having taken full account of all the factors, I have come to the conclusion that it is appropriate to proceed with the Committee stage next week.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: In relation to the Bill dealing with concessionary fares for London to be considered next week and the following week has the Leader of the House had any representations from Conservative Members to try to get concessionary fares for people in areas where there is no local authority bus undertaking? If the Bill were widened to include those areas, they could be treated in the same way as many other rural areas that Opposition Members represent. Taking into account that this is one of the declarations of intent of the delegates representing several million pensioners who are discussing the matter in Westminster Hall, now that the Government have decided to handle the money for concessionary fares for pensioners, surely the Bill ought to be extended to cover all pensioners throughout Great Britain.
Mr. Pym: That is a point which the hon. Gentleman can make when we debate the Second Reading of the Bill. Clearly we shall proceed with the Bill in the form in which it is to be published today, I think we must leave the matter there.
Mr. David Ennals: On the Canada Bill, will the Leader of the House recognise that serious concerns were expressed yesterday by many hon. Members, including many who voted for the Second Reading? Does he not feel that there is unseemly and unnecessary haste about taking on Tuesday the Committee stage of a Bill that received a Second Reading only yesterday? Will he think again about the timing of the Committee stage of the Bill?
Mr. Pym: I have thought about it carefully. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is haste, either unseemly or unnecessary. As I indicated just now, I have had to take many factors into account. Before deciding to proceed with the Committee stage next week, I thought not only about those but about the powerful points made by the right hon. Gentleman and others in the course of the debate yesterday. Having taken full account of all the considerations, the Government have decided, and I have announced, that we will proceed with the Committee stage next week. We believe that to be in the general interests of the countries concerned.
Mr. John Silkin: On Monday's business, will the Leader of the House ensure that the debate on opposed private business at 7 o'clock is open-ended so that the House may be able to see the conclusion of the matter?
Mr. Pym: I have received a formal request from the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means to suspend the rule. In accordance with what I understand to be the practice in those circumstances, it is my intention to do so.

Business of the House

  Kincora Children's Home
  3.54 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on Kincora children's home, and related matters.
  As a result of intensive police inquiries five persons in positions of responsibility in homes and hostels for children and young persons in Northern Ireland have been sentenced to imprisonment for sexual offences against those in their care.
  At the conclusion of the trials I set up a committee to investigate past management of the homes and to make recommendations for the future. I also said that there were still some outstanding matters being pursued by the police. Three of the members of the committee have since said that they felt unable to take part until all police inquiries were completed but added that they would be glad to serve on a committee after that.
  The cases have aroused widespread disquiet in Northern Ireland and have been accompanied by allegations or suggestions that there has been a cover-up to protect other guilty people from being prosecuted. Et is being urged that a public judicial inquiry should investigate these and similar rumours. If such an inquiry did disclose new criminal offences it would in the process have made it impossible for any offenders to be prosecuted either because immunities had had to be given or because the publicity which the disclosure would have received when the evidence was given in a public inquiry would make it impossible to find a jury which would not be seen as prejudiced. It is essential to hold to the principle that allegations of criminal activities are investigated by the police and that offenders are dealt with by the courts.
  The Chief Constable has stated that further investigations are being pursued vigorously and that it is the duty of any person who has evidence or information about any relevant matter indicating a crime to come forward immediately and assist the police in the certainty that it will be fully investigated. He has also announced that he has requested Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary to appoint the chief constable of another force to investigate allegations about the way in which the police have conducted their inquiries and in addition to have general oversight of the continuing investigations. In due course he will forward a report to the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and the conclusions will be made public. I am placing a copy of the Chief Constable's statement in the Library.
  I do not propose to reconstitute the existing inquiry into homes and hostels for children and young persons, but the need remains to investigate the failure to identify earlier malpractices in some of them and to examine and assess present policies, procedures and practices for their administration. In the circumstances, after the current police investigations and any consequent criminal proceedings are complete, I intend to appoint a committee, with a High Court judge as chairman, sitting in public. The terms of reference of such an inquiry and the powers it might need cannot be determined until the results of the present investigations are known. But I am anxious that there should be no lasting cause for public disquiet that the truth has not been wholly discovered.

  411
  The powers of the High Court to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents can only be conferred on a tribunal appointed under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. Because of its wide-ranging inquisitorial powers the House has traditionally been wary of approving the appointment of a tribunal under the Act. In considering whether there is need for such a tribunal I will take into account both the widespread concern about this affair and also the views of the House and the recommendations of the Royal Commission on tribunals of inquiry of 1966.
  Meanwhile, as soon as evidence of malpractices came to light in 1980, steps were taken to improve the supervision and management of homes and hostels for children and young persons. This process is continuing vigorously, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is making further expert advice available to me.
  Mr, J. D. Concannon: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The Opposition concur with his view that judicial inquiry should consider this sordid episode following the RUC investigations. Our only reservation is about the protection of the innocent, many of whom now have wives and families of their own. If possible, they should give their evidence without having their names and addresses published. We would be pleased if there were complete anonymity for them.
  Finally, I have the permission of those of my colleagues whom I have been able to contact who served in the last Administration in Northern Ireland to say that at no time during our term of office did anything relating to this case come before us.
  Mr. Prior: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support over what is now an important and difficult matter in Northern Ireland. The answer to the problem about innocent people is that, if they have any allegations to make or information to give at this stage, they should give it to the police. That information could be given in confidence. I hope that that is what they will do. One of the points that has always worried me about judicial inquiries of this nature is that many innocent people can suffer severely as a result. It is only when one reaches as serious a position in Northern Ireland as we are reaching now that we have to consider other methods.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: How did it come about that the right hon. Gentleman was so seriously misled as to the scope and scale of the criminal investigation still in progress at the time when he took his original decision? When he is considering the form of a future inquiry, will he bear in mind, despite the known objections to the 1921-type of tribunal, the undesirability of inventing yet new ad hoc forms of judicial inquiry?
  Mr. Prior: The answer is "Yes" to the right hon. Gentleman's latter point. The House will have to consider seriously when the time comes whether we should have a 1921-type of inquiry.
  With regard to the earlier part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I do not think that I was ever misled. Since the setting up of the departmental inquiry under the former Ombudsman for Northern Ireland certain further evidence has become available. When I say "evidence", I mean that certain allegations have been made including allegations to the police. That has put a
  412
  different complexion on the need for a more extensive inquiry. If I understand the feeling in Northern Ireland, I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that in no way were we concerned with a cover-up, but in every case I was concerned to try to protect innocent people.
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: Do we not all agree that at this stage it is right to pursue the matter rigorously, with further police inquiries, having regard to what my right hon. Friend said about a judicial inquiry being an impediment to further prosecutions?
  Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. That must be right. The sooner the allegations are looked at by the police and decisions reached by the Director of Public Prosecutions, the better.
  Mr. Gerard Fitt: The Secretary of State will be aware that on the Order Paper there is an early-day motion in the name of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), whom we would have expected to be in the House today, calling for a full judicial inquiry. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the need for the police investigations to come to a conclusion as quickly as possible, so that the idea is not implanted in people's minds that time may erase the matter from the memories of those in Northern Ireland?
  It is important that the right hon. Gentleman should tell us whether the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 would empower the inquiry to take out of prison those who have already been convicted because of allegations at Kincora? Would it enable Mr. Colin Wallace, a former British Army security spokesman, who gave an interview to journalists in 1975 and made them aware of all the aspects of Kincora, to be brought before the inquiry or the courts? Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the real feeling in Northern Ireland that since the allegations were made in 1980 the RUC has acted with commendable zeal? However, we really want to know what the RUC was doing between 1961 and 1980.
  Mr. Prior: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is a matter of great urgency. I know that the police regard it as a matter of urgency, too. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's last point, that matter will be relevant to the inquiry to be carried out by the chief constable of another constabulary.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the powers of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act. He asked whether, if we decided on that type of inquiry, the inquiry would have power to call for people who had been imprisoned for one offence or another. Such an inquiry has complete powers to call for evidence from whomsoever it desires. Therefore, the answer to his question is "Yes".
  Mr. Edward Lyons rose——
  Mr. Joseph Dean rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call both Members, and we shall then move on to the second statement.
  Mr. Lyons: In view of the terrible corruption of the young at Kincora over 20 years and the failure to pursue effectively the complaints made throughout most of that time about those events, is the Minister aware that everyone will applaud the setting up of an inquiry? Is he further aware that that inquiry should be armed with considerable powers? The police part of the inquiry should be carried out immediately, but the powers and

  413
  composition of the inquiry into the way in which hostels and homes are run in Northern Ireland should be left until all trials and police investigations are concluded. We could then see the full picture of what has happened and what is required.
  Mr. Prior:What the hon. and learned Gentleman says is correct. In the meanwhile, ever since 1980, when the problems first arose at Kincora and at other homes, the necessary steps have been taken to supervise them much more carefully. That is another reason why the professonal and administrative help that will be made available from the DHSS must be put in train immediately.
  Mr. Dean: Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that if, when the due processes involved in the statement have been completed, it is found that there are publicly elected representatives in the Province who have deliberately withheld information from the appropriate authorities that would have prevented the sordid episode at Kincora from continuing for so long, they will be subject to the due processes of law?
  Mr. Prior: That must always be a matter for the police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the courts. It cannot be a matter for me as a Member of the House or of the Government. However, no doubt when the inquiry is undertaken such points will be raised.

  European Community (Agriculture Ministers' Meeting)
  4.7 pm
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Council of Agriculture Ministers' meeting in Brussels on 15 and 16 February.
  The Council began its consideration of the Commission's price proposals for 1982. Reactions varied widely. The United Kingdom urged the need for prudent price increases on products in surplus, and Germany adopted a similar approach. Other countries called for much higher increases than the Commission's 9 per cent. average.
  I expressed our rejection of the Commission's present proposal for a revaluation of the green pound that would, taken together with its other proposals, result in British farmers obtaining price increases of less than 4 per cent. on average, with severe consequences for their income levels. The United Kingdom made it clear that the price settlement would have to keep the growth of guarantee spending below that of the increase in the income of the Community under present arrangements.
  The Commission recognised the importance of taking early action to deal with the preferential gas tariff available to Dutch glasshouse growers. On United Kingdom insistence, supported by Denmark and Germany, the Commissioner undertook that he would take proposals to the Commission next week. The Dutch Minister implied that, prior to this, he would endeavour to put proposals to the Commission that could result in an agreement without resort to the European Court.
  In accordance with his promise made to the United Kingdom at the last Council meeting, the Commissioner reported on the question of recent French national aids. He stated that France had not supplied the information required and that he would have to take legal action if this was not forthcoming.
  The French Minister promised that the information would be forthcoming and I obtained a declaration from the Commissioner that if any of the cash announced in this aid was paid prior to being cleared by the Commission, such payments would be illegal and the Commissioner stated that he would be recommending to his colleagues next week action under articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty for those elements of aids that were not legal.
  In a discussion on Mediterranean products, we urged the need for effective measures to deal with a surplus of table wine in a way that would not add to the Community budget or harm the existing alcohol producers.
  On olive oil, we, together with Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark, made it clear that we were opposed to any tax on competing oils and fats in order to make the market easier for olive oil.
  The Council will resume its consideration of the price proposals at its meeting in March.
  Mr. Norman BuchanI must say that, considering the problems at present facing British agriculture, with the increase in indebtedness and the high interest rates brought about by this Government and the fall in capital investment of 23 per cent. in plant and

  415
  machinery alone, together with the sound and fury coming out of Brussels, this is a very, very small mouse of a statement.
  There is apparently one significant change from the earlier versions in that there is to be no revaluation of the green pound. This will be unwelcome news for British consumers. How does the 9 per cent. tie up with the Minister's comments in the statement on the need for prudent price increases when he has apparently wiped out the revaluation? What does he mean when he talks of the "present" proposal for a revaluation? What has he in mind for that?
  Those of us who support an expanding home agriculture recognise the dilemma we face on prices but we do not believe that the Government have the answers. Certainly, continually escalating prices have not solved the problem for the farmers, as the borrowing figures have shown, and have positively harmed all other consumers and taxpayers. What were the reasons for the breakdown? Was it because of the French desire for higher prices, along with their own individual actions, or was it because it was tied up with the general budgetary arguments that are taking place? Will the right hon. Gentleman give a commitment that there will be neither a general trade-off in relation to that nor a sell-out on either the agricultural front or the budget argument?
  The right hon. Gentleman will also have seen from the price review this week that, as opposed to the 14 to 15 per cent. increase in farm income, farm workers have obtained an increase in real terms of only 1/2 per cent. It might be useful if he would now tell us what steps he is taking to ensure that that can be rectified in the light of the 9 per cent. increase that he is negotiating.
  Were the variable beef premiums discussed and will the Minister will give us a commitment that they will continue? The same question applies to the butter subsidy.
  The Minister will have noticed that an election took place in Brussels in the last week or two and that Sir Henry Plumb has now been elected leader of the Tory group. Will this help him in his search for prudent price increases? Will it help him in any way in trying to reform the common agricultural policy?
  We believe that this continual reliance on end prices, cash prices, at the necessary expense of the consumer and taxpayer, is no solution to the problems caused by the need to expand British agriculture. As events have shown, it is not, in the long run, beneficial to whole sectors of British agriculture either. We require national aids, if only to restore the balance between different sectors of our agriculture. I hope the Minister agrees with that and also agrees that perhaps the best national aid we could devise, after the events of the last few weeks, is that of coming out of the Market.
  Mr. Walker: As to the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), I find it extraordinary that he in any way should criticise the position of British agriculture and its problems with borrowing and so on, as the only two proposals from the Opposition since the last election have been that we should not go into a positive position on the green pound—which would have been absolutely disastrous for British farming—and that we should rate agricultural land, which would be equally disastrous for British farming.
  416
  As regards the effects on the consumer, in contradiction of the opening remarks of the hon. Gentleman, the 9 per cent. increase without any green pound revaluation—and I am totally against a green pound revaluation that would mean that British farmers would get lower price increases than all the other farmers in Europe—would add 1 per cent. over the course of a year to the food index. Since the Labour Party, during its period of office, increased the food index by 120 per cent.—an average of 2 per cent. a month—I would not have thought they would be particularly concerned about a 1 per cent. increase over a year.
  As to the beef premium scheme, I am glad to say that those proposals are part of the Commission's proposals and, of course, we shall insist that they continue. On the butter subsidy, I made it perfectly clear at the meeting that we could not possibly agree to price fixing without the continuation of the British butter subsidy which, I am glad to say, is twice as high as it was when I took over.
  As to the point about Sir Henry Plumb, I think he will give very good leadership to the Tory group in the European Parliament.
  Mr. Buchan: We seem to have drifted on to a slightly more general view. The Minister referred to the revaluation of the green pound. Does he not agree that this merely emphasises the difficulty, which is that every time he seeks to support British agriculture, it must be at the expense of the consumer and taxpayer? He then referred to a 1 per cent. increase in the food index figure as being minor and unimportant. I suggest that he goes to the Central Lobby and tells that to some of the old age pensioners.
  Mr. Walker: I suggest that the hon. Member should have gone to the Central Lobby every month that the food index went up by 2 per cent. We do not see him doing that very often. As to the green pound, it has been of immense advantage to British agriculture. It has meant that we have saved £1,000 million worth of imports and it has saved jobs. I am sorry that the Labour Party is still so wrong in its thinking as to support the other policy.
  Mr. Peter Mills: Will the Minister bear in mind that British agriculture and the consumer are proud to have a Conservative Minister of Agriculture, both as regards the protection of food prices and the supplying of their needs? Will he bear in mind, too, that the industry is right behind him in his desire not to revalue the green pound and that the scandal of the French national aid must be dealt with? In the interests of the consumer—and most agriculturists accept this—9 per cent. is about right.
  Mr. Walker: On the last point made by my hon. Friend, if one takes an average over all commodities one can give a wrong impression, because there must be a variation in the price increases between those items seriously in surplus and other items the production of which needs to be encouraged.
  I note the views of my hon. Friend on the question of the green pound. On French national aids, I am pleased to say that we forced out of the Commission a firm declaration that any cash paid by the French Government under these aids before obtaining the permission of the Commission will be illegal and, in the event of such aids being paid in such circumstances, the Commissioner will take the French Government to court.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: The Secretary of State is obviously in for a long, hard haul. Can he give us some idea when he thinks he might reach agreement? We support the stand he is taking on Dutch gas prices. We are absolutely sick of being fobbed off. Can he assure us that this time we really will get somewhere?
  Mr. Walker: I can only say that the hon. Gentleman is nowhere near as sick of it as I am. I did recite to the Council of Ministers the 16 occasions on which this has been raised at the Council of Ministers. All I can say is that we now have a firm declaration by the Commissioner that next week he will be going to the Commission with proposals unless the Dutch Government have put to him proposals that he believes are acceptable to all member countries. I therefore hope that within the next week we shall have firm proposals that will at last bring to an end the very unfair disadvantage that British glasshouse growers have suffered.
  Sir Marcus Kimball: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the great confidence, based on his past form in these negotiations, that the whole agricultural industry places in his ability to come to a satisfactory conclusion during the course of the next month? Will he also bear in mind the growing need in the English countryside for the background to the present settlement to be clarified?
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West mentioned farm incomes and the incomes of others, but during the past few years it has been almost impossible to identify any sector that has contributed more to the battle against inflation than farming, with the very low level of farm gate prices during the period. The retail price index has risen by about 45 per cent., the food index has gone up by about 28 per cent., and farm gate prices have increased by only 19 per cent., which illustrates that fact.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising and then to call the Front Bench speakers to conclude.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Is the Minister aware that in real terms the income of Scottish agriculture has been almost halved since the Government came to power? While the industry will no doubt welcome his efforts to ensure that United Kingdom agriculture receives its fair share of any European price rises, is he aware that the Commission's present proposals fall far short of what will be necessary to re-establish confidence and get investment going again in British agriculture? In such circumstances, are there not strong arguments for national aids, particularly in the marginal, upland and highland sectors?
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman might like to compare my record on national aids to Scotland with that of his party when it was in power and measure the percentage increase in hill farm subsidies over the period. If he does, he will realise the present Government's very good record. If the hon. Gentleman feels as he does about the importance of agricultural incomes and the fall in them, he should persuade his party to drop its proposals for rerating agricultural land and doing away with the positive green pound.
  Mr. David Myles: I must declare an interest with regard to my question. The beef cow herd in this
  418
  country has continued to decline—witness my right hon. Friend's White Paper. Will my right hon. Friend resist the Commission's proposal to reduce the suckler cow premium and press for its increase?
  Mr. Walker: We are against the reduction of the suckler cow premium. We favoured the introduction of the premium and have operated it in this country. As my hon. Friend well knows, we have substantially improved the hill farm subsidies for the suckler cow, an improvement which has been of considerable advantage in the constituency that my hon. Friend represents.
  Mr. Stanley Newens: I welcome any progress towards the harmonisation of the energy costs of glasshouse producers, but does the Minister recognise that it will still be a considerable time before the objective is achieved? Has he therefore considered introducing in the interim what the industry requires, which is restrictions on imports or an increase in the subsidy to enable the industry in Britain to survive until it is placed on a fair basis alongside Dutch glasshouse growers?
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman, with his considerable knowledge on the subject, will know that I have announced a subsidy for the present year. If there is any deferment of the bringing of prices into alignment beyond that period I shall consider it necessary that the Commission allows the continuation of national aids for the interim.
  Mr. Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler: In view of the widespread interest of the horticultural industry at home in the outcome of the current dispute with the Dutch over fuel prices, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to report back to the House next week when he knows the contents of the Commissioner's report, to enable us to discuss further the future of horticulturists in this country?
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: The SDP wants time for a ballot.
  Mr. Walker: I do not know in what form the Commission's proposals will eventually see the light of day. The normal procedure is that after a Commission meeting the proposals agreed by it are made by the Commissioner at the next Agriculture Council meeting. If that normal procedure is followed I shall of course make a statement in the normal way.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Has my right hon. Friend seen the interesting article in one of today's newspapers saying that a settlement of the agricultural prices problem, together with our budget problems, will require an increase in the VAT ceiling of 1 per cent.? Will he confirm that the Government will set their face, as flint, against any increase in the ceiling?
  Mr. Skinner: Of course he will not.
  Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir, and I would point out to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who takes a keen interest in European affairs, that since the present Government have been in power the proportion of the European budget devoted to the common agricultural policy has fallen from 80 per cent. when the previous Government were in power to 66 per cent.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: Does not the further deadlock in Brussels on prices prove yet again that no real reform in the common agricultural policy acceptable to this country is remotely possible?
  Mr. Walker: The drop from 80 per cent. to 66 per cent. in three years in the CAP's share of the budget and the fact that the rate of increase in expenditure on the CAP in the last four years of the previous Government was 350 per cent. compared with 35 per cent. in the first three years of the present Government show that considerable reforms have taken place.
  Mr. Speaker: Am I mistaken in thinking that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was trying to catch my eye? I see that I made a mistake.
  Mr. Mark Hughes: It is with great reluctance, Mr. Speaker, that I intervene between you and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
  Will the Minister confirm that he will not allow a tax to be imposed upon rice imports into this country in order to support a minuscule Italian rice industry?
  Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his statement contained areas of mutual incompatibility? One cannot use the price mechanism as one's sole mechanism to control agricultural incomes and simultaneously argue that a price settlement will have to keep the growth of guarantee spending below that of the increase in the Community's income under present arrangements and satisfy the proper requirements of British farming. The right hon. Gentleman is put in an intolerable dilemma. He cannot satisfy simultaneously the British taxpayer as a contributor to the European Community's budget, the British consumer and the British farmer, so long as the price proposals are the only mechanism for controlling agricultural activity.
  Mr. Skinner: Sort that out.
  Mr. Walker: We did not discuss any proposals on rice at the last meeting. If any proposals are made I shall look into them carefully and consider their importance to the exporting countries for which we are a traditional market.
  My answer to the hon. Gentleman's general appraisal of the situation and the difficulties is that in any system of agricultural pricing there are balances and difficulties in reaching the overall balance and assessment. The position of the British taxpayer has been substantially improved in the past few years by the big transformation in budgetary contributions that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister achieved two years ago. The cost to the British taxpayer has been substantially reduced.
  As for the consumer, the rate of increase in food prices is massively below what it was when the previous Government were in power.
  As regards the farmer, I am glad to say that, with all the difficulties of recession, we are now seeing some upturn in farm incomes, which I hope will continue.

Bill Presented
  TRAVEL CONCESSIONS (LONDON)
  Mr. Secretary Howell, supported by Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary Fowler, the Attorney-General, Mr. Leon Brittan and Mr. Kenneth Clarke presented a Bill to confer on the Greater London Council the same powers in respect of travel concessions as those exercisable by the councils of London boroughs and the Common Council of the City of London: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 72.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, if proceedings on the Motions relating to National Health Service have not been disposed of by Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker shall, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 4 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &c. (negative procedure)) put forthwith any Questions necessary to dispose of the said Motions.— [Mr. David Hunt.]

National Health Service
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Determination of Regions) Order 1981 (S.I., 1981, No. 1836), dated 21st December 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th January, be annulled.— [Mrs. Dunwoody.]
Mr. Speaker: With this we are also taking the other two motions on the Order Paper:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Constitution of District Health Authorities) Order 1981 (S.I., 1981, No. 1838), dated 21st December 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th January, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Determination of Districts) Order 1981 (S.I., 1981, No. 1837), dated 21st December 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th January, be annulled.
4.29 pm
The Minister for Health (Dr. Gerard Vaughan): It is with considerable pride that I rise to explain the orders and to invite the House to reject the prayers.
The orders are the legal instruments that fulfil our manifesto commitments to simplify and decentralise the structure of the Health Service, and by so doing to ensure a much better service to patients. That is what the orders are all about. We wish to see a considerable improvement in patient care following the rearrangement of the health authorities.
One of the main architects of the reorganisation was, of course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. When in Opposition, he and I met a great many people in the National Health Service. There were very few areas of the country that we did not visit. Everywhere we heard the same observations—that the authorities were too remote, that there were too many committees, too much paper, that decisions were taking too long and that by the time they were made the circumstances had changed and the money was no longer available to carry a project through. The effect on morale was appalling. It was no longer possible to find anyone in charge in a hospital in a position to say "Yes, we will do it" or "No, we will not."
The Conservative Party took office in May 1979 determined to streamline the structure and reduce the cost of administration. In December 1979, we issued our proposals in "Patients First". We consulted widely and met a large number of bodies. We received no fewer than 3,500 comments from organisations and individuals. We found that there was widespread agreement with our proposals. Therefore, seven months later, on 23 July 1980, my right hon. Friend announced our policy to the House. That policy is now being carried out in these orders.
I ask the House to consider the urgency of the action taken by the Government. I do not believe that such fundamental changes, giving the opportunity for worthwhile improvement in the care of patients, have ever been proceeded with more rapidly and, at the same time, with such careful consultation.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services also played a major part in the transition from ideas and proposals to reality. The orders are his responsibility and are in his name. We are privileged to be presiding over changes which sweep away not one, as is commonly thought, but two tiers of administration—the area and the sector tiers. They will provide a National
422
Health Service which is quicker on its feet and a 10 per cent. saving in expenditure on administration, which can be transferred to the care of patients.
I realise that the reorganisation has caused a great deal of uncertainty for many of the staff, because of the effect on their careers. However, we cannot have it both ways. We cannot have, on the one hand, truly local services able to make their own plans and meet their own needs and, on the other, the Government telling the authorities in advance exactly how they should organise themselves. Therefore, it has been necessary to wait for the boundaries to be settled, through these orders, for the chairmen and members of the new district authorities and the new chief officer teams to be appointed before the districts could decide exactly how they wanted to run the health services in their areas.
We appreciate that the price of local flexibility has been uncertainty for many of the staff. I pay tribute to them for their loyalty and the way in which they have continued the everyday running of the NHS while wondering about future.
The House will be pleased to know that most of the senior appointments have now been made. That means that the new district council authorities can now get on with the task of completing their management structures and filling the posts. Uncertainty is probably now at its peak. In the discussions that I have had with the people who will be running the new authorities I have sensed a desire to get on quickly and grasp the opportunity to improve the care of patients which these changes will bring about.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend realise that, although we are now in the last half of February and the new structure takes effect from 1 April, some of the areas have still not been finalised and that the guidelines given by the Ministry to the district health authorities have been somewhat lacking? Does he accept that that is causing considerable uncertainty, particularly to nursing management and the nursing profession within the hospital service? Will he give more attention to that problem? I have been told by nurses and the nursing management in my constituency that they are deeply concerned about their position, because of the current lack of guidelines regarding the system that is to be introduced in a matter of weeks.
Dr. Vaughan: With respect, my hon. Friend is trying to have it both ways. If we are to have a truly local service, as I believe we should, we should leave it to the new district health authorities to determine how they want to run their show. I shall return to this subject in a moment. I realise that this has caused some anxiety among the staff. I have had two meetings with the new district chairmen, and I know of the anxiety and the tremendous desire to get on with setting up the authorities and getting on with the tasks that lie ahead.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose——
Dr. Vaughan: I shall give way shortly.
There are three orders. We propose to replace the present areas and districts by 192 new district health authorities. If the orders are confirmed, those new authorities will take over on 1 April. They will be much smaller and more local than many of the present area authorities, and we believe that as a result it will be

423
possible for their members to be in proper close contact with the communities that they serve and to know local needs.
I do not criticise the members of the existing area health authorities, but all too often they have been remote, as has been said by many of the staff employed by those authorities. There has been a feeling of frustration that it was not always possible to get to their authority members. Many members of the area health authorities have told us that they, too, had a feeling of frustration and said that there was a lack of contact with the people that they were serving and the professional staff that they were employing. The present system is faulty—not the members, who have been doing their best to make the system work.
Dr. Alan Glyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to confirm these orders as quickly as possible so as to remove any uncertainty? Secondly, does he realise that this has been going on for some time and has worked well, but that in areas such as the Berkshire-Buckinghamshire overlap area there is considerable feeling—particularly in East Berkshire? Is he further aware that that overlap has worked adequately since 1974? Is it really necessary that the area should be coterminous with existing local authorities? Surely the most important consideration is the overall health care in the areas.
Dr. Vaughan: I am glad that my hon. Friend has drawn attention to the urgency to get on with the orders. That is one of the reasons why I have asked the House to reject the prayers. I suspected that my hon. Friend would raise the question of East Berkshire. I assure him that I know something of the circumstances there, and I know the strength of feeling in the area that the existing arrangements should continue. My hon. Friend has advanced a powerful argument in favour of doing that.
I certainly do not wish to see any increased anxiety or insecurity over the future. There are hon. Members—I shall be interested to hear their remarks—who want to put other views about this controversial issue.
Sir Ronald Bell: My hon. Friend referred to the importance of having truly local administrations and the desirability of their not being remote. Is he not indicating that he will accept the prayer which I have tabled?
Dr. Vaughan: I am aware that my hon. Friend has tabled a prayer on this matter and that he feels strongly about it. I prefer to wait to hear his very powerful and reasoned speech later in the debate. However, that demonstrates the amount of local enthusiasm and awareness on the issues at stake and the desire among different parts of the community to start running their own local health services. We very much welcome that aim.
Hon. Members have raised the exceptional situation in Liverpool, which I visited on account of the problem. With that exception, each of the new district health authorities will have just one chief officer team holding a clear responsibility to advise the authority. In that way, we shall do away with the present confusing, inefficient and expensive situation found in many of the multi-district areas where an area team monitors the work of as many
424
as five or six different district teams, all directly accountable to the area health authority. As we discovered, that cannot be a sensible arrangement.
Such arrangements have turned out to be extremely costly and generated a great deal of unnecessary work. There have been too many teams and the cost of their salaries alone is about £100,000 a year. The proposals before us will reduce the number of teams by nearly a quarter—from the present 251 to 193. That is 58 fewer teams, with all the resulting benefits.
When these changes are fully implemented, we shall have not simply the establishment of district health authorities, but a much simpler and more effective management arrangement within each district. We judge that such authorities will be able to reduce the proportion of resources they spend on management by 10 per cent. Authorities presently spend about £320 million a year on management. That represents about 5.14 per cent. of their resources.
If the House agrees and these proposals are passed, we shall require authorities to limit their management costs to no more than 4.62 per cent. by the end of 1984–85. That will be a real saving and will provide resources which can then be transferred to other areas of the NHS.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton rose——
Dr. Vaughan: My hon. Friend is always sceptical about how we organise these matters. I have no doubt that health authorities will achieve this reduction. I know that hon. Members will understand how surprised I was to read Mr. David Townsend's article in The Times Health Supplement last weekend. He said:
"Dr. Vaughan, although still cheerful, has stopped talking about savings. Indeed, it now seems likely that the net extra costs of reorganisation could be £30 million."
That is absolute rubbish.
Mr. Winterton: While I respect my hon. Friend's sincerity in this matter, we were advised by a previous Conservative Government, who reorganised the NHS, that they would make it more efficient so that it would cost less. They said the same about local government. We know that both statements were untrue. Not only has the NHS become more inefficient; it costs a lot more as well. I hope that the Minister appreciates that some Conservatives are a little sceptical about the cost savings he has highlighted.
Dr. Vaughan: My hon. Friend again seems to have missed the point. That is exactly what we are attempting to cure and to put right. I can only say "Oh, man of little faith". He is talking to a Government, Secretary of State and Minister who have carried out more improvements in the National Health Service in the past two and a half years than any preceding Government.
To reinforce that argument, I have only to repeat David Hinkey's remarks in The Guardian when he quoted the facts issued from the Office of Health Economics. He stated:
"More resources have gone into the National Health Service in the past two and a half years under this Government than at any time since 1948 when the National Health Service was set up."
We have reduced waiting lists, increased the amount of money, with a 5 per cent. increase in real resources, and there are now more nurses and doctors. My hon. Friends understand the situation.

425
Of course, I was slightly concerned to read that article in The Times Health Supplement, which I regard as a valuable and important source of information, until remembering that Mr. Townsend was an adviser to the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) when he was the Secretary of State for Social Services. Perhaps it is not surprising that Mr. Townsend should now try to undermine our achievements.
Mr. Frank Haynes: Mr. Townsend talks about an additional £30 million cost. Will the Minister refer to the £30 million reduction and savings that we were to make, as he said, in the National Health Service? I should like to know why he has not mentioned that aspect.
Dr. Vaughan: It is so difficult when people take a fixed view. In reality, we believe that there will be a proper saving of a 10 per cent. proportion in the management costs—about £30 million. We can use that money for the elderly, children and mentally sick—areas where extra resources are desperately needed. I ask the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) to follow our progress on that because it may surprise him. These are the legal instruments necessary to effect changes——
Mr. Roland Moyle: I remind the Minister that the £30 million savings figure was quoted in 1979, when inflation was much lower than it is now. May we take it that, as the figure is still £30 million, there has been a substantial erosion in the amount of money he intends to save?
Mr. Vaughan: I said that we were expecting savings of about a 10 percent. Proportion of the management costs. As the management cost rise, we would expect the proportion to rise as well, to about £30 million. Of course, as management costs rose a little, so did the proportion and that is now about 10 per cent.
These are the legal instruments necessary to change the present structure. They have been the subject of unprecedented public discussion and approval. The new structure really should enable the Health Service to be administered more responsibly, effectively, efficiently and at less cost.
The content of the orders fall into two parts. First, on the determination of districts order, No. 1837, articles 4 to 20 make various transitional and consequential provisions to cover the change from area to district health authorities. Second, the determination order and the constitution of district health authorities order between them set out the boundaries, names and memberships of the new authorities. Lastly, the determination of regions order makes some minor variations to regional boundaries. These are entirely consequential on the pattern of the new district boundaries.
I shall deal briefly with the transitional and consequential provisions because most of them are entirely technical. They ensure, for example, that trust funds will pass from the old authorities to the new and that the affairs of the old authorities will be properly wound up. They will ensure continuity in the exercise of functions. If the House agrees, I do not see the need to detain hon. Members with a more detailed explanation, but I shall be glad to deal with any points that are raised.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the transitional arrangements being made for trust funds which are at present the
426
responsibility of the area health authorities. Will he also deal with the residue of funds that are now totally the responsibility of the teaching hospitals? What will happen under reorganisation to those funds?
Dr. Vaughan: The hon. Gentleman may care to raise that matter in his speech. I shall be glad to deal with it.
I should like to turn to the issue of boundaries and membership which, I am sure, will interest hon. Members. The boundaries have been the subject of extensive discussions. The regions consulted locally. When their proposals were submitted, the Government saw numerous deputations and answered many letters from those who were dissatisfied in one respect or another. Finally, there was consultation on the orders themselves.
We realise in a matter of this kind that it is impossible to please everyone. I am conscious that some hon. Members still have reservations about what is proposed for their constituencies. In each case, where there has been opposition to the new boundaries, my hon. Friends and I have looked into the arguments carefully. It cannot be claimed, I believe, that we have not listened to all sides of each case. The yardstick that we have tried to apply has always been the health care needs of that community.
There have been arguments about coterminosity, local authority situations, and community services as opposed to hospital services. At the end of the day, we have tried to strike a balance between the health care needs and many of the administrative needs of the area. We have tried not to lay down rules from the centre but to adapt to local requirements. The extent of our flexibility is shown, I suggest, by the size of the population of the new authorities.
We set as a guideline a goal population of 300,000 to 500,000. We have ended up with a range of populations varying from Leicester at 836,000 to North-West Durham at 89,000 and Rugby, the smallest of all, at 86,000. If that is not flexibility and an attempt to consider the changes in the light of local feelings and needs, I do not know what is. Special problems arose in Liverpool. I spent three days in Liverpool examining them. We arrived at a solution that is unique—one authority for all Liverpool, which meets the wishes of those in Liverpool to keep a strong Liverpool identity and its community services, but with two chief officer teams, one for the east and one for the west. This solution, we hope, will help to solve the immense administrative and financial difficulties that faced the previous authority.
Many representations have also been received about the names of the new authorities. We are entirely flexible. We have already agreed to one or two changes. If a health authority wants to change its name and if other local interests, including hon. Members and local authorities, agree we shall be glad to allow this to happen. We wish to see the names that local people want, although this will mean laying further orders.
The constitution of district health authorities order contains details of the membership of the new district health authorities. Our proposals have been criticised. In "Patients First" we said that we wanted smaller health authorities consisting, in general, of 16 members. Many of the existing health authorities have proved too large. Many of those serving on the authorities have positively pleaded with us for smaller authorities. Most people have told us that a health authority consisting of 18 members is likely to be the most effective. In response to this, and also

427
because most districts will cover a smaller geograghical area than at present, we decided that 16 was the right number to bring before the House. There are, however, provisions for more members in special circumstances. If hon. Members have any worries, I shall be glad to discuss them.
Another controversial decision is the reduction in the proportion of local authority members on the health authorities. In 1974, area health authorities, in most places, had four local authority members. In 1975, the Labour Administration increased the number to one third of the total. This decision, on the face of it, appeared to be reasonable, but it had a number of undesirable consequences. It increased considerably the overall size of the authorities. There was also a ratchet effect. When it became necessary to add a member for any reason, an additional local authority member had also often to be added.
Nowadays local authority members face an increased load of commitments within their local authority work. They have informed the Government that it would be increasingly difficult for them not only to attend meetings but to serve on the working groups and carry out the visits to hospitals that are desirable. For the reasons I have mentioned, we propose that there should be four local authority members on each district health authority. However, we have not been completely inflexible. We have made arrangements, which I hope will be found satisfactory, for a small number of additional places to cover special needs and for people to be able to attend authority meetings as representatives of the local authority but not able to vote.
I have outlined the main points in the orders. There will be some corrections and amendments, I fear, involving at least one of the orders. One or two printing errors occurred after my right hon. Friend had signed the orders. One of these could have raised entirely false hopes of entitlement to appoint a member to a particular health authority. I refer to the appointment of an Inner London Educaton Authority member for the Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton health authority. Those concerned have already been informed of the error. I can only repeat the apology that I have given to them. I assure hon. Members that procedures are already under review to ensure that similar errors do not arise in the future. Amendment slips have been prepared and are now available.
There are two errors in the orders as signed. Wards in two London boroughs were omitted from the relevant parts of the schedules to the determination of regions order and the determination of districts order. Unfortunately, these textual errors can be corrected only by making amending orders. These will have to be laid before the House in due course. If, however, that is bad news, the good news is that the amending orders will provide the opportunity to change the names of some district authorities following requests to which we have agreed. There is strong local support for the changes. In each case, it is clear that the proposed name is more closely identified with the whole of the district.
The changes of name that we have agreed are Aylesbury Vale instead of Aylesbury, East Yorkshire instead of Beverley and Mid-Downs instead of Cuckfield and Crawley. If hon. Members wish the Government to consider alternative names for other district authorities—I
428
hope not too many—I shall be pleased to hear them. Time is short. If we must make changes, and still have everything ready by 1 April, the new orders will have to be laid early next month.
I have deliberately kept my remarks short because I know that many hon. Members wish to raise questions about the orders and about their constituencies. With the permission of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall seek to catch your eye and answer as many questions as possible at the end of the debate.
5 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The orders relate to a matter of considerable importance. Recently, a national newspaper sought information from members of the public about their attitudes to the National Health Service. More than 80 per cent. expressed satisfaction with the NHS, although they felt that some areas needed improvement. The majority not only approved of the NHS but wanted it to remain an integral part of their lives as a State service to the community. Where there were criticisms, they were largely directed at the provision of specific services or the need for better communications between health professionals and the patient.
The orders, to reorganise the NHS for the second time in its 30 years' existence, provide a remarkable opportunity to redress the mistakes of the past and to lay down clear and attainable objectives for the future. The 1974 reorganisation did not achieve either the flexibility or the responsiveness to patients that should be the hallmark of a caring health service. Conservative Ministers came to office complaining bitterly about the deterioration of the NI-IS, the need to change it and the growth of the administration at the expense of other health personnel. They suggested that the creation of new and smaller district health authorities would provide not only a better but a cheaper service.
The Minister repeated today that £30 million, which was his original estimate, could be saved simply by changing the structure—although he was careful not to detail that supposed saving. He means that he has given instructions to the district health authorities to cut their management services by 10 per cent.—which is not the same thing.
Dr. Vaughan: I said that there would be 58 fewer chief officer teams.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I am grateful to the Minister, but he also said that he would appoint more consultants and that they would not cost additional money. I hope that he will forgive me if I find it difficult to accept his assessment of what "change" actually means. In my experience, there is little probability that the changes will cut the budgets or expenditure. Indeed, I suspect that they will have the opposite effect.
Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: The Select Committee considered the matter in great depth. It reported that the Government and the medical profession wanted more consultants. Obviously that will cost more. However, it means that there will be fewer junior doctor and other posts, which would compensate for that. What we gain on the swings is "merried out" on the roundabouts.
Surely there must be a wide measure of autonomy for district councils to decide which appointments are

429
essential. We can give them only a general directive that they must make cuts of a certain percentage. We must leave them with a great deal of discretion.
Mrs. Dunwoody: As someone who has lived a large part of her life in hospitals, I find it difficult to conceive of a consultant who will not spend money on back-up services, will not require assistance, will not increase the drugs bill and will not increase the general services asked for by his department. I am happy to hear that such people exist, but I do not know where they are. We shall have to wait and see the effects of the changes on overall expenditure. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me if I take up his point about finances later, as I wish to comment on it in some detail.
The public have the right to expect that, having learnt from their mistakes, the Government intend to create a better and more accessible service with greater accountability and with no unnecessary bureaucratic overlay. Indeed, Ministers repeat that constant theme in all their speeches. In fact, the opposite has been true. For two years the NHS has been thrown into complete turmoil, without any attempt to test the efficacy of the proposed schemes, either by setting up pilot management schemes or by any other means. Ministers have set about carving the country into new districts, often with scant regard for their own criteria.
The previous Secretary of State told the House that the Government's plan was to establish district health authorities covering populations of between 150,000 and 250,000. "Patients First" said that most districts would have more than 200,000, although a few might be below 150,000. The Minister today said that he takes pride in the fact that he has been so flexible. He has not stuck to his own criteria. He may call that flexibility, but some would call it indecisiveness.
There are 29 district health authorities with populations below 150,000. It is not clear whether the criteria took account of self-sufficiency in new districts. Some have been created in such a way that they are far larger than the target figure, whereas, at the other extreme, some will have considerable difficulty in providing comprehensive health care. When Ministers talk about the right of the district health authorities to make decisions and establish their priorities, they should make it clear that that requires finance. There is no point in creating a district health authority that is so small that it will find difficulty in providing a comprehensive health care system.
Dr. Vaughan: Which of the smaller districts does the hon. Lady wish to amalgamate with larger districts, and which of the larger districts does she wish to divide?
Mrs. Dunwoody: It is not for me to dictate to the people in the areas. The hon. Gentleman has made great play of his consultations with them. I shall soon refer to what happened in Liverpool when he took soundings and held consultations, and how much effect that had. It will show what actually happened, as opposed to what Ministers are alleging happened.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the hon. Lady believe that authority for the allocation of consultants' and junior doctors' posts should reside at district or regional level? The Select Committee felt that consultants should be appointed by the district authorities. The Government say that it is the responsibility of the regions. Which is right?
430
If the hon. Lady is arguing that districts need authority, which I support, they must have the resources to make the right appointments for the needs of individual areas.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will contain himself with a little patience. He is developing the unlovable habit of intervening and making all the points that I intend to make. In a Health Service pledged to provide services in conjunction with local authorities, both through personal social services and the extension of joint funding, Ministers have wholly failed to face the problem of coterminous boundaries.
Instead of seizing the chance to integrate health districts with their most important partners in local government, Ministers have created yet another set of unrelated boundary lines on a national map already covered with different zones of demarcation. Should that result in greater problems, the same local authority is unlikely to be able to change the situation because it will have still fewer representatives on the district authority than it had under the old system. This will hardly ensure coordination of services at local level or the proper use of scarce local government resources, which are already under determined attack from the Secretary of State for the Environment.
The speedier treatment and discharge of patients from hospital has doubled the pressure on community nursing services, and the rise in the number of elderly and very elderly in the population will continue that trend. Inevitably, local authorities will bear the brunt of such demographic changes. They will have to know what provision they must make to meet these growing demands.
The Secretary of State should have sought to strengthen planning links with local users rather than paying lip-service to the ease with which smaller districts would in the future be able to respond to the needs of the community. Responsiveness to need is best demonstrated by taking the trouble to find out what the public really want, not by imposing yet another unaccountable structure in the name of progress.
Alas, it is not only local authorities that will lose representation on the new DHAs. The previous Secretary of State assured the TUC that although he had widened the definition for representatives of the trade unions to include organisations not affiliated to the TUC, nevertheless, appointments would not be made on a grand scale from non-affiliated bodies. That is important, given that the TUC represents 12 million workers and the non-affiliated bodies that he had in mind at most 150,000.
Nevertheless, the Managerial, Professional and Staff Liaison Group has succeeded in getting nominees appointed in seven different areas. As the BMA and the British Dental Association constitute two of the largest members of that organisation, one might be forgiven for thinking that the new extended representation will not necessarily bring in new revolutionary ideas to solve the problems of the Health Service. Those problems are real.
In some areas the RHAs undertook extensive consultations on the proposed reorganisation. That does not seem to have resulted in any great change in the Government's attitude or final conclusions. In Liverpool, for example, the suggestion that there should be two health districts was rejected by almost every organisation that responded to the consultative document. The city council, the Liverpool area health authority, the family practitioner committee, the Liverpool local medical committee, the

431
Liverpool university authorities, the Liverpool community health councils and the trade unions representing workers in the Health Service were all quite clear that they thought that the city should remain as one administrative unit.
The discussions went on for some months, but the final decision was to create what was called one unit with two sectors. It is still not clear how a city divided into two will operate efficiently. Liverpudlians, who are already among the most deprived and desperately in need of a high level of health care, may be forgiven for thinking that the Ministers who took the decision put the supposed interest of administrative convenience far above the interests of the inner city.
At the other extreme, the problem in the Trent area arises from the fact that the single DHA will be a jumbo organisation serving a population far exceeding the Government's maximum of 500,000. In Gloucestershire the chairman of the local AHA resigned, saying that the decision to split Gloucestershire was an administrative mistake causing unnecessary additional expense, which he calculated at about £500,000 a year. He said that
"the Minister and the Secretary of State made up their minds without the courtesy of coming back to me before deciding".
Yet the Government have just been boasting about the amount of consultation into which they entered before making a decision. So much for consulting the people.
The new organisational arrangements are marked by a degree of muddle which will undoubtedly cause considerable difficulty for the incoming authorities. Why was the Minister not prepared to face the thorny questions? A senior administrator wrote in his professional journal that the Government seemed to have washed their hands of reorganisation and were not prepared to give any indication of the guidelines that the new authorities would be expected to follow.
Why were the Government not prepared to consider the involvement of teaching hospitals in DHAs? There is a real argument on both sides. When a senior teaching hospital is centred on a DHA, almost inevitably it sucks in large amounts of resources, often at the expense of other parts of the DHA. This was a good opportunity to consider the financing of teaching hospitals and how they could be incorporated into the DHAs around them.
This change is so extraordinary that in some London districts the Minister seems even to have applied different criteria to different areas operating side by side and containing similar teaching hospitals. This can only make the DHAs' job doubly difficult and will in no way resolve the age-old battle for resources between services such as those for the mentally handicapped and the more glamorous teaching hospital staff, represented, as always, by a powerful and articulate group of consultants.
The decision to deposit consultants' contracts with regional rather than district authorities shows the Government's real attitude towards devolving power downwards. The contracts should have been deposited with the district authorities, which in large part will be the direct employers. Even when two DHAs share the work of one consultant, it would still be better for the district authorities to hold the contracts. Yet the Government deliberately chose to place the responsibility on the regional authorities.
The Government have also gone ahead with the creation of an entirely separate structure for the family
432
practitioner committees, although it was clear that the new DHAs wanted to take this opportunity to gather the FPCs into their own organisation and provide better coordination for them.
There are already far too many barriers to good communications between one discipline and another, and between one group of workers and another, for decisions of this kind to be allowed to go ahead. Many of us foolishly hoped, and indeed believed, that reorganisation would provide a golden opportunity to improve relationships and consultative procedures within the NHS. It should be possible for health professionals to argue out their priorities in conjunction with their patients, and with one another, without resorting to entrenched enmities and old prejudices. Moreover, there is no sign that the Government have been prepared to give any lead in this matter or to issue any guidelines to assist the new authorities.
One element in better communications is knowledge. The community health councils have made a valiant attempt, with tiny budgets and virtually no staff, to help patients to understand how the Health Service works and, where necessary, to help them to secure redress for their complaints. The Government, however, have now decided that, although they will allow the CHCs to continue, they are not prepared to increase their budgets in line with inflation. What is more, the Government have unloaded the funding of "CHC News"—the councils' only means of passing information from one area to another—on to the DHAs, which are already burdened with very heavy costs. In the final analysis that can only mean that "CHC News" will find it extremely difficult to continue. The only tiny input of consumer attention that the Government have so far allowed will thus find it even more difficult to hand on its information to the general public and to provide a service.
My indictment of the Government's handling of the reorganisation of the Health Service is that they have failed singularly to grasp the challenge. It was a golden opportunity to ask the users of the service, who should most concern us, what they regard as being their first priority in the new district health authorities.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Minister's failure to be firm about the future of community health councils and the question mark that stands over them, apart from "CHC News", has resulted in the complete bafflement of those who find it extremely difficult to obtain information? Whatever the Government's view about health and the Health Service, their attitude to the community health services is not understood.
Mrs. Dunwoody: The Minister has said that the reason behind the reorganisation is to bring the Health Service closer to the people. That being so, I do not understand why he is not prepared to allow the one organisation that helps in that respect to continue to provide assistance where it is most needed.
Mr. Frank Haynes: The Government do not believe in community health councils.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I am sure that the Government do not believe in giving the consumer more advice or help or in improving the Health Service. That has become obvious from the way in which they have handled the reorganisation.

433
The reorganisation provided a marvellous chance to stimulate the partnership between the National Health Service and local government, to improve the services in need of improvement and to respond to the rapid pace of change in the Health Service. It is an organisation that is much in need of a new beginning. It provides a tremendously important service at every level in our lives. It is admired throughout the world, because there is no comparable way of providing adequate health care.
The reorganisation bears all the hallmarks of the Government. In future, there will be far less planning, because the Government have done away with many planning positions. There will be far less co-ordination, because they do not seek to improve their relationship with local authorities. There will be far less exchange of information. Areas that are desperately in need of extra finance—caring for the mentally handicapped, the mentally ill and the chronically sick—will not benefit from the reorganisation. Many of them will find themselves in such small district health authorities that they will find it even harder to obtain a decent share of the resources.
The Government have not sought to improve local democracy or public participation in the NHS. There will be muddle, confrontation and a complete lack of encouragement for the staff. In a Parliament that has not even found time to debate the Black report on the inequalities of health care, we see increasing signs of the results of a negative Conservative health policy. There is no clear evidence of an overall Government strategy to improve and extend the service. Thirty years have passed since its inception and we have not even managed to redress the imbalance in health care between one region and another, one discipline and another and one inner city and another.
With all those major problems to face, the Government have run away from a true reorganisation. They have taken a large step in the dark and they are not even aware of what awaits them. They had to say that the previous NHS reorganisation carried out by Conservative Ministers was at best inadequate and at worst damaging, and I believe that they will have to return before the end of this Parliament to say that they made yet another mistake.
5.25 pm
Sir Ronald Bell: The motion in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) relates to the determination of districts order. It does not envisage a wide-ranging attack on the concept underlying the order of the type delivered by the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody). We are concerned particularly with the so-called overlap area in the southern part of Buckinghamshire because the order proposes that the parishes of Burnham, Dorney, Farnham Royal, Fulmer, Hedgerley, Iver, Stoke Poges, Taplow and Wexham should all be incorporated with the East Berkshire health district.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is familiar with Berkshire, but I know also that he will not have allowed that to influence his judgment. My right hon. and hon. Friends are concerned that the wide process of consultation in which the Department indulged—I do not dispute that there was wide consultation—has produced such a result.
434
Everyone in Buckinghamshire who was consulted said that the southern part of Buckinghamshire did not want to be incorporated with the eastern end of Berkshire.
It is true that since 1974 the southern part of Buckinghamshire has been administered on an "agency" basis by East Berkshire. This is a good example of how one folly follows from another. My right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, had a brainstorm in about 1974 and introduced changes in local government boundaries of an extraordinarily infelicitous sort.
Mr. Pavitt: Masterly understatement.
Sir Ronald Bell: I am always guilty of understatement, as the hon. Gentleman knows, except on one or two particular topics, which, again, he will know about.
The result of my right hon. Friend's decision affected certain southern parishes in Buckinghamshire, which had been in the county for just short of 1,100 years, which is quite a respectable time—indeed, ever since the break-up of the kingdom of Mercia into the counties as we know them—but it was not a long enough pedigree for my right hon. Friend. We had a great deal of idle and pretentious cluck about social patterns and travel-to-work areas and all that sort of business, as a result of which the southern area was transferred to Berkshire. Instead of having a clear boundary at the River Thames, which for more than 1,000 years had been the southern boundary of Buckinghamshire, a part of the county was removed and became a part of Berkshire. That naturally led to the mix-up that we have now whereby the parishes south of the M40 in Buckinghamshire are administered for health purposes as part of East Berkshire although they are in the South Buckinghamshire district.
When it was proposed as part of the new determination of districts that the change of boundaries should be made permanent and that the southern parishes should be incorporated in the East Berkshire district, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister for Health consulted everyone in Buckinghamshire. They were told by the regional health authority that the area should be administered as part of Buckinghamshire as part of the Wycombe district health authority. They were told by the South Bucks district council that it should be administered as a part of the Wycombe district. They were told the same by the community health council and the family practitioners committee—I could go through the list that the hon. Lady mentioned in relation to Liverpool—and by many others. Everybody gave that answer.
Incidentally my right hon and hon. Friends asked the Member of Parliament, myself, and I said that the area should be administered as part of the Wycombe district and not as part of East Berkshire. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham, who is indirectly affected, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe, expressed the same opinion. No representative body, medical or administrative, expressed any other opinion. No representative body, medical or adminstrative, expressed any other opinion.
I have a letter from the family practitioner committee which states:
"The Committee like the Buckinghamshire Area Health Authority and the Buckinghamshire County Council,"—
and it could have added all the other bodies that I have mentioned—

435
"are totally opposed to the transfer, and would be grateful if you would consider praying against the Order when it is laid before the House."
The medical opinion, the local government administrative opinion, and the political opinion—I do not just mean my own; I do not know of any representative political body that favours it—are against the order. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the wide consultation, but is there much point in that wide consultation if it is then brushed aside and the opposite is done?
My hon. Friend could say that the East Berkshire area health authority, the existing one, advised him that it should continue to administer the area. It would have been surprising if it had not. People do not like parting with functions. It often results in a reduction of staff and importance. I am sure that it did say that I am sure that the officials, acting with the best will in the world, so advised him. But the East Berkshire health authority does not represent any of my constituents in the overlap area—they are in Buckinghamshire.
I realise that both my hon. Friend and his officials have looked at this from the point of view of health administration with the utmost sincerity. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did the same thing. However, this is not just a matter of somewhat detached deliberations over an administrative network. One is dealing with actual people and what they want is very important. The Minister spoke of "truly local services" and emphasised the importance of "consultation with people in the area". That should be the criterion. What people want is not necessarily unrelated to administrative efficiency. People are not morons. Some of them are the medical people who operate the service and feel strongly about this. That is not just predilection; it has to do with efficiency. The people of the area are not incapable of knowing what is best for themselves so that they must be overridden by superior wisdom from somewhere else. Their wishes should weigh heavily in the balance.
It is not for me to discuss the importance of my view of the matter. I have no technical or medical knowledge. On the other hand, when one has represented an area for over 30 years one has at least begun to get the feel of it. One of the documents claims as justification that the shopping and social patterns or interests of the overlap area are centred on Slough. I hope that my hon. Friend will not think that Slough is regarded as a social centre by the people of the parishes that I have read out. I do not want to express a positive opinion on the subject but I shall confine myself to a negative one—they do not. Nor is Slough a shopping mecca for South Bucks. There is a certain difference between Slough and the somewhat conservative countryside of South Bucks. Its people do not have their social life centred upon Slough. If my hon. Friend has been told that by anybody, then he has been led into cloud-cuckoo-land. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The order creates another set of unrelated lines, as the hon. Member for Crewe pointed out. Councillors have said to me that the proposal is not only disagreeable but wasteful. Every time that they discuss health matters they have to have two community physicians present. Their officials have to attend two meetings with community health councils, area health authorities and so on.
436
There is merit in having medical and administrative boundaries coterminous. The primary medical welfare is done by local authorities and it is more convenient to have them coterminous with that part of the health services controlled by the area health authority, such as hospitals. My hon. Friend will tell me that my constituents in the overlap area are particularly concerned with the Wexham Court hospital which is in Berkshire by about 50 yards, and the Cliveden hospital which is in the overlap area. That cannot be accounted for by saying that it is in the overlap area and therefore should stay in it. If the overlap area stays in Buckinghamshire, so does the Canadian Red Cross Memorial hospital and the Wexham Court hospital.
As for the Wexham Court hospital, when Wexham was retained, at my insistence, in Buckinghamshire because that was part of the Minister of Agriculture's predatory intentions at the time, it was lassooed and held for Slough. The boundary looks like a lassoo. The hospital was specially put into an enclave and the boundary goes up and round it and back again because it was thought that it was important that the hospital, which took a lot of patients from Slough, should be in that area.
If that was so important as to produce that extraordinary contortion of the boundary, is it not important that the general body of the overlap area should be in the South Bucks district which is the administrative authority for it? Is it not the fact that, in any case, the patient is supposed to have a choice of hospital in the area? It is an important principle that consultants and medical advisers generally should have a choice, in so far as the facilities permit, among the range of hospitals in the area.
We are dissatisfied with what has been done. I accept a small share of responsibility in that when my hon. Friend had his final consultations at the end of last May I was hors de combat and in hospital. I was thus not able to consult widely and did not send him a rejection as emphatic as this rejection is today. Had I been in more robust health, I would have done so, I can assure him. He may thus have been slightly misled as to the degree of opposition that he would meet later.
Everybody is against this proposal. I do not think that it is too late for my hon. Friend to have second thoughts about it. It may be a bit much to ask him to withdraw the order when it has gone into print. There is probably a strike in the Stationery Office and he could not get it reprinted. In any case, reputations and prestige become engaged once a document is published. However, he must take into account not just my words but the fact that I am speaking on behalf of almost everybody who is articulate on this subject in my constituency.
I ask my hon. Friend to give this matter reconsideration which is not only early but significant and, if I may use a dreadful word, meaningful. He should consent to be persuaded, after a very short time, that this has been a mistake which ought to be rectified at the earliest opportunity.
5.39 pm
Mr. Jack Dormand: I shall be brief in raising a constituency matter arising from the orders. I hope that the Minister will not misinterpret my brevity as meaning that the problem is not of great importance either to myself or to thousands of my constituents. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it concerns the representation of Easington district council on the proposed Sunderland and Hartlepool district health

437
authorities. I have been corresponding with the hon. Gentleman on the subject for some months, and he has also received strong representations from Easington district council.
I assume that the Minister has looked at the map. I do not believe that we have had the pleasure of seeing him in that delightful part of the world. From the map he will see that Easington is between Sunderland and Hartlepool. The main point is that thousands of my constituents must travel to those two adjoining areas for health services. The Government need not accept my word for that.
The Government, and certainly the Ministers this afternoon, have been at pains to point out how much consultation they have carried out in arriving at their decisions. That has included talks with regional health authorities. The northern regional health authority, in a document relating to representation on the two new health authorities, stated:
"Some two-thirds of the population of neighbouring Easington district will on present plans continue to look to Hartlepool for their District General Hospital services and future local hospital services within Easington will be linked with those in Hartlepool."
As a result of that, the regional health authority suggested to the Government that an exception be made for Easington in the case of appointments. The proposal, as the Minister will know, is in accordance with the regional plan. In addition, that view is supported by Hartlepool community health council. Although I am laying stress on Hartlepool—the number will be less for Sunderland—the principle remains the same for both Sunderland and Hartlepool.
When I first wrote to the Minister about the matter, he said that he had not overlooked it but that, as a general principle, the Government wished to keep the membership of the new district health authorities to a manageable size. That is a laudable aim, but I interpret his words "as a general principle" as meaning that there must be circumstances that call for special consideration, and that there should be flexibility, not a rigid application of the letter of the law. There can be no other interpretation of those words.
There was a revealing error in the Minister's letter. He said that the Northern regional health authority had in any case appointed to the Sunderland district authority a member who lives in Seaham. I should explain to the House that Seaham is in Easington district. However, that person lives in Houghton-le-Spring, which is not in Easington district. We all make mistakes at times, but I mention this mistake to demonstrate how remote central Government can be in such matters. The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R Bell) also made that point. It emphasises how important it is in making such appointments to listen to local views.
Is the Minister suggesting that one additional member, in the special circumstances that I have outlined, would cause the district health authority to be unmanageable? Such a suggestion is bureaucratic nonsense, and I ask him to reconsider the matter.
I remind the Minister of the declared aim of the Government to make the National Health Service more responsive and accountable to the people it serves. The best way to do that is through elected local authority members and by considering the special needs of each area. If a second examination of the needs of my area is
438
not undertaken, thousands of my constituents will be unable to have their voices heard, and for them accountability will be a mockery.
I said that I wished to raise a constituency matter and the House will now realise that it is a narrow one. However, I suspect that the rigidity being shown to my area by the Government is being repeated elsewhere. If nothing is done to correct it, it will be bad for the. Health Service and for the millions of old people who are so dependent upon it.
Dr. Vaughan: There are several different ways of achieving representation of a community. One way is to have a local authority representative and another way is to have a representative appointed by the region. I understand—I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will confirm it—that the Northern regional health authority has appointed to Hartlepool health authority a member who lives in Easington. That means that there is representation of Easington's interests.
Mr. Dormand: What the Minister says is news to me, but I hope it is correct. The hon. Gentleman made the same point about someone who was appointed by the regional health authority to the Sunderland health authority. He made that point in correspondence. However, that person does not live in the area. I shall be happy to check whether what he now tells me is true. If it is, that will take care of the matter. But the Minister is missing my point. The Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) and I have said that the best representation comes from elected members. I presume that the Minister is now talking about an unelected member. I hope that the matter will be re-examined.
5.47 pm
Sir Ian Gilmour: My hon. Friend the Minister for Health introduced the orders in a spirit of genial self-congratulation. In general, he made a very good case and deserves his own congratulations, but I take strong issue with him on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell) and the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) about creating some new and unnecessary boundaries. That point is important generally, but I am concerned, as was my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, with Berkshire and Buckinghamshire.
I appreciate what my hon. Friend said about it being impossible to please everyone. Equally, in present circumstances, he was wrong to take the credit for what he called "extensive discussions and deputations'', because, as has been pointed out, the extensive discussions must have shown a clear case for doing the opposite of what he decided to do. When we took a deputation to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services the arguments were all one way. No argument was put against our case which, both now and then, seems overwhelming. I regret that my hon. Friend did not put forward a strong argument in his opening speech. No doubt he will do so later. Perhaps I may set out the case yet again?
Mr. Pavitt: What happened as a result of the representations that the right hon. Gentleman made to the Secretary of State? Did the Secretary of State accept or reject the case that was put to him so forcefully?
Sir Ian Gilmour: My right hon. Friend, who has only recently taken over the Department, very reasonably said that he wished to consider the matter. I have no complaint about that. His behaviour on that occasion was, as always, impeccable. My only complaint is about the final decision, which was entirely wrong.
First, it is generally agreed that the arrangement of the overlap area has not proved satisfactory. It has not served the people concerned. There was, therefore, prima facie, a strong case for change.
Secondly, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield pointed out, all those involved were against being allocated to East Berkshire. If we pride ourselves on paying attention to what people want from reorganisation, we should not ignore or flout the wishes of all concerned.
Thirdly, I understand that the cost of transferring contracts and patients' records will be high—about £80,000 to £100,000. That seems a considerable waste of money.
Fourthly, school health and social services will continue to be under the jurisdiction of Buckinghamshire, which will make liaison difficult, as it has in the past.
Fifthly, as has been said, the primary health care and other services provided by Buckinghamshire are the concern of patients.
Sixthly, not only all the organisations involved, but general practitioners—almost to a man and a woman—and the public, would undoubtedly prefer to be in a Buckinghamshire authority.
Seventhly, it is absurd to perpetuate such an anomaly when the county councils of Buckinghamshire and Berkshire, as well as the three new district health authorities in Buckinghamshire and those in Berkshire, are grappling with the problem of how to constitute the new district health authority and county-based joint consultation committees. Joint finance will be extremely difficult.
Finally, there is the difficulty of occupational therapy facilities. The Buckinghamshire social services committee has no occupational therapy workers, but it employs the Buckinghamshire area health authority as agent for occupational therapy work throughout Buckinghamshire, except for the overlap area. The Berkshire social services committee employs its own occupational therapy workers, but they operate only in Berkshire. Therefore, the 25,000 inhabitants of the overlap area are left high and dry.
The decision is unfathomable. It is inexplicable. Unless my hon. Friend can produce a serious argument to convince me—which is unlikely—or unless, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield said, he undertakes to see that this bad decision is genuinely reconsidered quickly, I shall have to oppose the orders.
5.54 pm
Mr. Roland Moyle: It is about 16 months since I took part in a Health Service debate. When I was transferred to foreign affairs, I had every confidence in the ability of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) to speak for the Labour Party on the Health Service. I have been subjecting myself to waves of nostalgia ever since the debate began about an hour and a half ago. A few moments ago I broke my resolution not to make comments on the general aspects of reorganisation because a wave of nostalgia overwhelmed me when I found our old friend the figure of £30 million being bandied backwards and forwards across the Chamber.
Mr. Pavitt: We have seen it before.
Mr. Moyle: As my hon. Friend says, I have seen it before. I think that I first heard it introduced in a speech by the Minister to the Conservative Party conference in 1979, and it has been with me ever since.
I promise that it is only the most powerful constituency interest that compels me to intervene this afternoon. I shall not talk about the general issues involved in the reorganisation of the Health Services. My views are on record of considerable length and I shall not elaborate my arguments. However, I reaffirm that, in general, the reorganisation of the Health Service is a good thing. Indeed, most of my constituents believe that that is so and will be only too happy to see the damage done by the Conservative Government between 1970 and 1974 cleared up. In addition, they are happy to feel that the Royal Commission set up by the Labour Party forms the basis of the reorganisation that is being introduced this year.
Although I am not against the reorganisation of the National Health Service, Lewisham opposes the reorganisation proposed for its health services. Therefore, I shall support my hon. Friends in the Lobby tonight. Lewisham wants a district health authority that is based on the boundries of the London borough of Lewisham. In that way the people of Lewisham can run their own health affairs without any more than minimal interference from outside bodies.
We want conterminous organisations for Lewisham's health services and for the London borough of Lewisham's social services department. We have been offered something entirely different. The order proposes that Guy's health district should be amalgamated with Lewisham health district to form a Lewisham and North Southwark district health authority. We do not like that. Almost all interested parties in Lewisham, with the exception of the consultants at the Lewisham district general hospital, are against the proposal.
Members of Parliament, the borough council, the voluntary organisations, and all sections of the Health Service are against the idea and have frequently said so. Even the consultants who supported the idea were unsure about their decision. At first they could not make up their minds. They then decided against the proposed merger. Finally, the regional medical officer came down to Lewisham and read them the riot act. As a result, they fell into line with the proposal.
We have not been given an exceptionally good hearing in the consultation process. The area health authority decided to support the proposed merger without having heard representations from anyone in Lewisham. To do the regional health authority credit, it listened to us. I echo the remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell), because I am sure that the fact that the deputy chairman of the regional health authority, who listened to our representations, is a Guy's consultant did not affect the outcome of the discussions. Similarly, the hon. and learned Gentleman's connection with Guy's did not affect the outcome.
The former Secretary of State for Social Services, the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) was kind enough to receive us. However, by the time we got to the right hon. Gentleman he had been advised by the London Advisory Group. That group had been given the task of making suggestions to the right hon. Gentleman about how the Health Service in London

441
should be reorganised. It was sufficiently arrogant to make up its mind without having heard any evidence from the people of Lewisham about the form that the health services should take.
We can now have our say in the House, but I am afraid that the clock stands at five minutes to midnight. The situation is serious. The London Advisory Group commented on the organisation of the health services for Lewisham and related parts of South-East London. It put on record some grossly ignorant and incompetent advice, and that was only natural, since it took no evidence from the local people. On page 6 of its advice to the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford it said:
"Left on their own both halves of the proposed district health authority would be of doubtful viability."
That takes the biscuit.
Lewisham has an adequately equipped district general hospital. It may not be perfectly equipped, but it has a reasonable range of medical equipment. The hospital is adequately staffed. It may not be 100 per cent. up to establishment, but it is probably as near that as are most district general hospitals. It has one of the best nursing schools run by a non-teaching hospital. It has a manageable budget of about £35 million. It has an appropriate population of 230,000. When I hear that there are district health authorities with 86,000 people in other parts of the country, I wonder how the London Advisory Group can ever say that an area with a population of 230,000 is non-viable.
Lewisham has good district services which take up 15 per cent. of the health district's budget as opposed to 71/2 per cent. of the Guy's district budget for its services. It has a social services department which, in my view, is second to none, and I have seen a number up and down the country. Lewisham district general hospital is sufficiently good for Guy's hospital to send students there for training in medicine as it is practised as opposed to as it is taught in the ivory tower of Guy's hospital.
If Lewisham borough is not viable as a district health authority, there is no such thing as a viable district health authority in the entire country of England, from Land's End to Berwick-upon-Tweed. There is no possibility of my retracting that statement.
The proposed reorganisation, if it takes place, will be a marriage of incompatibles. Guy's is a capital ship of the National Health Service. It is not only a capital ship, but a flag ship, with not just one admiral, but dozens of admirals. It is packed with powerful medical politicians. If there is a battle within the new district health authority for funds, there is little doubt that unless exceptional steps are taken—I shall come to some of them in a minute—Guy's will win every time.
This is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe made when talking about the role of teaching hospitals in a reorganised National Health Service. Guy's consultants will always want more money, so there will always be a battle for funds within the new district health authority on that basis alone.
Governments of all parties always want to make sure that the funds available to the National Health Service are more equitably spread among the various health authorities. If Guy's is included in the new district health authority, the North Southwark and Lewisham health authority will be considered to be a rich health authority and therefore will be under continual pressure from the county of Kent to give up funds to hospitals and health
442
services in Kent. From that point of view also there will be a considerable battle within the district health authority for funds between Guy's and Lewisham. Here again Lewisham, and not Guy's, will be the loser.
In the early years, if Lewisham hospital is subjected to these pressures, it will take money away from Lewisham district services of which we are proud. Eventually. money will go away from the Lewisham district general hospital. It will go to Guy's and there will be a general crumbling of the hospital and the district health services in Lewisham. I am not impressed with the constitutional arrangements which, by the allocation of places on the district health authority, are designed to counteract that. They do not take care of the well-enshrined principle of medical tactics known as shroud waving.
Guy's is some hundreds of yards from Fleet Street. As I said, it is packed with medical politicians, consultants dealing in the acute specialties. We all know that a prominent consultant can go to the press and say that unless he has money for this or that facility or machine, Mr. So-and-So, the next man on the waiting list, will die. He will get tremendous press coverage. No matter what the people on the district health authority try to do they will come under such severe publicity pressure that they will in the end give in to the consultant.
The experience is that where there is a large teaching hospital the smaller hospitals go. We already have the example of St. Olave's in Guy's health district, which has been temporarily closed for about two years. Then the district services go and finally the family practitioner services begin to wither.
The only criterion upon which the merger of Guy's health district and Lewisham health district has been pushed is a determination to ensure that the interests of Guy's hospital are looked after and that it is provided with an appropriate catchment area. Not the slightest concern has been expressed by the Minister for the viability of health services in Lewisham.
When the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford took the decision that the merger should go ahead, he suffered pangs of guilt. He wrote me a letter in which as a sop for the unfortunate decision he offered two safeguards. First, he said:
"I certainly recognise that Lewisham representatives will feel the need for safeguards. I will bear this in mind when I appoint the chairman."
That safeguard was not worth the paper on which it IA as written.
I have met Mr.Berriman, the new chairman. He strikes me as an admirable man personally and as an intelligent man. No doubt in a relatively short time he will learn a lot about the health service in Lewisham, but he will not understand Lewisham, because he is not part of it. He is a denizen of the City, which is a minority interest in Lewisham. Secondly, he lives in Sevenoaks and, as far as I know, he has always lived there, or has certainly lived there for a long time. In no way can he be regarded as a safeguard for the people of Lewisham in the unfortunate and unequal marriage which is being forced upon the Health Service there.
If the word of a Cabinet Minister can be circumvented as easily as that in seven months, it is clear that the Government cannot be relied upon. I make no criticism of the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford. He was the man who gave the assurance, but by the time the organisation began to be implemented others were in

443
charge. If the Ministers who took over and the Minister who has been there all the time have any consciences left to twitch, they should feel that they have much explaining to do about the way in which the assurance was casually torn up.
Mr. David Crouch: As a former Minister of Health, the right hon. Gentleman knows that it is not in the Minister's hands entirely what happens to the new districts. In between the Minister and the districts there are still the regions, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. I am a member of the region that advised the Minister. I was greatly involved in the decision about Guy's and Lewisham. The right hon. Gentleman says that Guy's will always overpower Lewisham and Lewisham will come off worst, but it will not be the Minister alone who will be concerned to see that that does not happen, or Mr. Berryman alone, because the region, representatives of the region and representatives from Lewisham will be there to ensure that Lewisham does not get an inadequate share of resources. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be more fair about it.
Mr. Moyle: The hon. Gentleman's touching courage in trying to throw himself beneath the wheels of the juggernaut as it rolls forward appeals to my heart, but Ministers have come to the House this afternoon with an order that applies the reorganisation about which I have been talking. They have advocated it to the House, they have taken responsibility for it and they must take responsibility for the consequences.
A second safeguard was given by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford in the letter of 22 July 1981. He said:
"The major safeguard, of course, is that any substantial changes in services which are opposed by the community health council would have to be referred to Ministers under the usual procedure."
That solemn assurance has fared no better than the first. Our watchdog is to be decimated and amalgamated with a community health council that includes people from Southwark and Guy's district. Therefore, it will cease to be an effective watchdog from the point of view of the people of Lewisham. It will become a toothless watchdog.
In Lewisham we have a high regard for our community health council. In the quiet times that we have had from time to time in our health services in Lewisham, our community health council did a competent job in keeping in touch with people, representing their health interests on various bodies and putting forward a good case. In times of crisis it was outstanding. When the Minister was engaged in incompetently sacking the area health authority of Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham, and when he was appointing health commissioners when he had no power to do so, the community health council was a great rallying point around which we could gather and fight our case. It was an excellent channel of communication and organisation. We won that case.
When the boundaries battle and reorganisation started, again we were able to use the community health council as a rallying point. Its dissolution is probably an act of petty vengeance wreaked upon it by the Department as a result of the trouble that it has caused.
We want two community health councils for North Southwark and Lewisham. We have the population to
444
justify that—326,000 in total. If we do not have them, where will the headquarters of the community health council go? If it is in Southwark, no one in Lewisham will use it. If it is in Catford, where the present Lewisham community health council offices are, no one in Southwark will use it. If it is Deptford, with all due respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), no one will use it, because no one from Southwark or Lewisham ever goes shopping in Deptford. The whole range of that large district health authority, which is 12 miles from end to end, will have no focal point.
At present we have 60 community health council members in North Southwark and Lewisham. That is a large group of people, who can keep in touch with the population, make representations and act as public relations officers, often for the National Health Service. After the reorganisation we are threatened with only 24 members, only eight of whom will have to represent the voluntary organisations of one and a half London boroughs. That is most inappropriate.
The whole object of "Patients First", which I supported and which the Minister spoke passionately in favour of, was that the National Health Service should be taken nearer to the people. That has been thrown overboard.
The South-East Thames regional health authority's consultative document on the reorganisation of the Health Service was called "A More Responsive Service". However, the National Health Service will become less responsive in Lewisham under every heading. The district management team that was situated in Lewisham hospital will go and perhaps disappear to Guy's hospital. The headquarters will be moved to the eye hospital at St. George's Circus. The community health council will cease to exist. From every point of view the National Health Service in Lewisham will be less responsive and further from the people than the unfortunate organisation that we inherited from the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph).
Whatever the merits of the reorganisation nationally, locally it has failed on every count. There is also a shoddy tale of deliberately broken ministerial assurances to tell the people of Lewisham. We shall have to monitor what happens under the reorganisation. We shall have to keep an eye on things in Lewisham to make sure that a disproportionate flow of funds does not go to Guys teaching hospital. We may have to set up our own unofficial organisation to do so. We may have to set up our own mini community health council to keep an eye on that. We may have to service those organisations, in which case we could ask the London borough of Lewisham, strapped though it is for resources, to provide us with the odd office and secretary to do so.
We may have to raise on the Floor of the House, on a regular basis, matters relating to the Health Service in Lewisham. I assure the Minister that with two Privy Councillors and the well-known Back-Bench campaigning proclivities of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), there will be no difficulty in doing that on a regular basis.
Where we tread, many others may wish to follow. They may wish to follow our footsteps in respect of their health organisations. I rest my case there. If the Minister proceeds with the reorganisation planned for Lewisham or North Southwark, he has been warned.
6.16 pm
Mr. Raymond Whitney: In his opening remarks my hon. Friend the Minister enumerated some of the achievements that he and our right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State had contributed to the National Health Service over the past two and a half years. I congratulate them on those achievements and urge them to take every opportunity to make sure that the people understand much more clearly than they do now the progress that has been made in the improvement of the National Health Service over the past two and a half—now nearly three—years. However, I sadly remain profoundly sceptical about the structure of the National Health Service. I am by no means convinced that it is the best method of using our national resources to give the maximum health coverage and prevention care to our people.
We must proceed with the improvements that we are debating tonight, but I hope that a more imaginative and far-reaching approach to the problems of health care will always be in the minds of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I hope that the search for examples overseas will go on and that we shall not be put off by the superficial impressions of what is achieved overseas. I do not claim anything like the experience of my hon. Friend, but my impression is that we have a lot to learn.
Tonight we are considering the reorganisation of district health authorities. I join my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) in supporting the argument put forward by most of my hon. Friends with such power and eloquence about the drawing of the boundaries, especially in what is known as the overlap area in South Buckinghamshire, south of the M40.
Some of the admirable principles in the drawing of the district health authority boundaries mentioned by my hon. Friend the Minister have been breached. My hon. Friend suggested that he had found widespread agreement and that he and his colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Security had worked on the principle that they would adapt to local requirements.
I reinforce the message of my hon. Friends from Buckinghamshire. In Wycombe there has been no manifest adaptation to local requirements or to local opinions. In Wycombe the view was not as clear-cut as in other constituencies, for which I cannot speak. One view was that the proposals in the new order were adequate. However, the majority view has always been in the other direction. That view is now even stronger.
It is difficult to find any informed opinion locally in medical or administrative areas of our National Health Service that is content with the proposed arrangements. Therefore, I greatly welcome the undertaking given by my hon. Friend to approach the problem in a spirit of flexibility. I urge him most strongly to adhere to that spirit. I look to him to follow up what I took to be his undertaking to have an early review. That is the gist of the message of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will recognise that the operation has not been satisfactory. It is unrealistic to expect a change at this late hour, but I beseech him to give an undertaking to have an early and sincere review, so that he can respond to local requirements and informed
446
local opinion, and enable us to change the boundaries in a more effective way to meet the health coverage needs of the people of South Buckinghamshire.
6.20 pm
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) will not wish me to follow him and the other two members of the gang of three into the leafy areas of Stoke Poges to hear the curfew tolling and the bell ringing loudly on behalf of his constituents. However, I applaud them for what they are doing. It has, to some extent, been a measure of the debate so far. Although we are trying to look at the overall picture as a result of these three orders, it is inevitable that the starting point for most of our contributions must be the way in which they affect that area of the National Health Service of which we have most knowledge—our constituencies.
I should like to begin, therefore, by mentioning one or two of the problems which affect the Brent district health authority. First, I acquit the Minister of the charges of failing with his general idea of coterminosity in my area because my district health authority is coterminous with the social services department of the borough council. This is essential in view of the increasing numbers of senior citizens. Joint funding and liaison arrangements are totally inadequate when it comes to the way in which our constituents move from one department—social services—into hospital and then out of geriatric wards and back home with home helps. The opportunity has, therefore, been missed in many cases, but, fortunately for Brent, not in mine.
I wonder whether the Minister had in mind, as one of the priorities, that at least in inner cities, where liaison is so important, is was important to try to find a coterminous boundary between the health authority and the local authority. I did put a proposition to him as far as my area was concerned. It might have been a useful experiment if one of the persons appointed by the regional health authority had been not just a member of the local authority, but the director of social services of that authority. That person is dealing, day in, clay out, with the necessary liaison arrangements, whereas the councillor will be serving on a number of different committees, including social services. During the discussions on the appointments of chairmen and members of regional health authorities to district health authorities, it would hake been a useful experiment in one or two instances—perhaps for the next three years—to appoint the director of social services to ensure direct and purposeful liaison.
Dr. Vaughan: We have, in fact, recommended that one of the members of the district health authority, where possible, should be the chairman of the social services committee.
Mr. Pavitt: I am afraid that the Minister is missing my point. I am asking not for an elected representative—the chairman of the social services committee—but for the local government officer who is in charge, is doing the work and is the servant of the local authority, to be chosen. Such a person could make the liaison between the two bodies more effective, especially when we know that the most important problem is encountered in the estimates for the coming year when expenditure priorities have to be decided. If at that stage of economic and financial planning there could be co-ordination, it would be a great advantage.

447
Still on local problems, I find it difficult to know why a person whose only qualification was that she had previously been a Conservative mayoress should be appointed chairman of the Brent health authority. Many names were put forward—people with knowledge and practical experience of the Health Service from either the medical profession or the social services. I feel that they ought to have been considered. Instead of having to start from scratch, they could have brought to the post a certain amount of knowledge and experience. I have no criticism of the lady herself. I think that she will probably learn very quickly and may make a very good chairman. However, I cannot understand why, when there is a possibility of appointing someone with experience and a number of names are being considered, the Minister should decide to appoint someone without experience.
Turning to a number of general questions arising from the three orders, I should like to pick up immediately the comment made by the Minister about the famous £30 million being saved and his challenge to Professor Townsend. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle), I feel that I have been through this one before. The Minister made some stringent remarks about Professor Townsend's article. If he had consulted his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), he would have been told that in 1973 Professor Townsend made a similar analysis and critique of what was going on at that time, and that was totally rejected by the Conservative Party. It seems a little odd, therefore, when the same knowledgeable source makes a knowledgeable criticism, which has been seen to come out right once, that he is now quite certain that it will come out wrong.
I am a little concerned about overlapping on regions. I feel, like a number of my hon. Friends, that the decision that consultants be appointed by regions and not by districts is wrong. What will happen in some of these overlapping areas where a consultant has sessions in hospitals on both sides of the border? Will there be some arrangement whereby one region reimburses the other? How are the estimates worked out in that respect?
I am also concerned about the way in which the attempt to keep full-time consultants in the hospital service has been eroded. I do not know how this fresh arrangement for boundaries will affect this matter. As the Minister knows, at present a consultant may spend only 10 per cent. of his working time outside the National Health Service while still retaining his appointment. There has been a rumour that the Government are about to change that percentage as a kind of sop to the consultants in place perhaps of a rise in salary. I hope that the Minister will put my mind at rest on that.
I am also concerned about the monitoring of the amount of private work done by a consultant under this new arrangement. How does the regional health authority know that the consultant is within bounds? In view of the present dogmatic attempt by the Government to extend private practice—a move which can only erode, especially in acute hospital services, the National Health Service—how is monitoring to be carried out to ensure that consultants are not going over the limit of 10 per cent.?
Publicity for private practice has been accelerated recently. The Minister gave a figure for the administrative costs of the NHS that I found most interesting. I had the
448
figure as 6 per cent., but his figure is even better at 5.14 per cent. In trying to have a comprehensive consultancy service and a comprehensive general practitioner service, why does not the Department give more publicity to the success of the NHS in this regard? The average administrative expense of health services in the other countries of the European Community is 16 per cent.—more than 10 per cent. higher than here. In the Unted States it is 21 per cent.—four times as high. Are we blowing our trumpet, saying what a marvellous organisation we have with the lowest administrative costs in the world for a comprehensive health service? No, we are pretending that it is much better to build a sector of private medicine.
In private medicine in the United States, under Blue Shield and Blue Cross, the poor doctor has to fill up so many bureaucratic forms that our Health Service arrangements for the family practitioner look like heaven. I hope that the Minister will not allows the continual denigration of the NHS to continue. The reorganised pattern gives him the opportunity at all levels to praise what we do instead of constantly putting ourselves down.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) in very much regretting the failure to do something about the family practitioner committee. It is nonsense in a comprehensive medical service to divide doctors into different classes—first-class, second-class, third-class, white jackets, no jackets and so on. Therefore, the Government's decision is entirely wrong.
Will the new system affect the present anomaly between those doctors paid by the family practitioner committee as practitioners and the consultants coming under the regional health authority? The anomaly is that one set of doctors have their trade union dues paid for them. The only trade union in the country for whose members the taxpayer pays the annual subscription is the trade union of the general practitioners, whose remuneration is fixed by the review body. The nurses and all other servants of the NHS have to pay their own trade union fees.
What is more, it does not matter whether the GP actually pays the fee to the British Medical Association, because that amount is still included in his remuneration whether he is a member of this trade union or not. I hope that the reorganisation will clear up that anomaly. The Under-Secretary told me this week in answer to a question:
"We do not reimburse subscriptions for professional and trade union bodies made by salaried National Health Service employees, nor do we think it appropriate to do so."—[Official Report, 16 February 1982; Vol. 18, c. 89.]
But the Government do pay the trade union fees of general practitioners. Why is it appropriate to pay the general practitioners' trade union dues and not those of the nurses and other workers in the NHS?
The anomaly is comparatively recent, because it was only in recent years that the BMA became a trade union. It is now a responsible body and follows all trade union practices. It used to have a second body called the British Medical Guild which it pretended was its doppelganger. However, now the BMA itself is a fully recognised negotiating body.
I should like to ask something about the boundaries in the orders. What happens where there are a number of family practitioner committees which do not coincide with the DHA's and where there are joint arrangements? For example, in my area the family practitioner committees

449
combine in a number of different health authorities to have one headquarters in Wembley. Will that arrangement be affected by the orders? Will there be any change as a result of them?
Some changes in the NHS are made by stealth. Recently the forms for consultant obstetricians and gynaecologists were changed, but nothing was done at the same time about the two general practitioners who had to sign abortion forms. It was not until that was revealed that the House knew anything about it.
I am very concerned that since 1969 under my district health authority, previously the district management team, Willesden general hospital has been under threat of closure. I have been fighting that case on the Floor of the House with questions and Adjournment debates since 1969. The whole of the thick pile of correspondence that I have received from the regional health authority and the Department states that everything is temporary. "Temporary" in this case is like the Nissen huts which were put up in the First World War and still exist in my constituency.
Changes go on, and although no decision has officially been made, I see that the Willesden general hospital is now listed as a geriatric hospital. What was a general hospital has been changed by stealth. I am concerned about the way in which that happens. I hope that in the new organisation there will be more accountability, especially when Members of Parliament raise these matters and then find that they have been circumvented, not by any decision by anybody, but because the administrators have carried on as though a decision has been made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe spoke of the niggardly and mean approach to "CHC News", production of which costs £74,000 a year. The NHS budget is now £11,000 million. The Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East will recall that when we fought the terrible scheme of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East for the previous reorganisation, we feared that the community health councils would be window dressing. To quote my right hon. Friend again, we believed that they might well be watchdogs without teeth. They were, but they acquired dentures and became very powerful. I am very pleased with the work of my local community health council. But the community health councils are under threat, and have been since the present Government came to power. They will suffer if their means of communication with one another is taken away, and it will not be practical under the new district health authorities for them to maintain that organ of communication. This is an attempt by stealth to erode their power. I hope that the Government will change their mind about "CHC News".
I should like a categorical statement from the Minister contradicting the advice recently given to my community health council by the regional health authority that whatever it does it must not talk about, or refer to, matters which are political. I cannot see how any community health council faced with an increase in the cost of prescriptions for the patients it seeks to serve from 20p in 1979 to £1.35 on 1 April 1982 cannot be concerned if it is supposed to be a watchdog for its people. But that issue is political. Is this another example of the authorities seeking by stealth to take away our watchdogs' power of criticism?
Other hon. Members have mentioned the relationship of the community health councils with the new boundaries
450
that have been drawn. I hope that the Government will set at rest the minds of those who give so much devoted service voluntarily in their own time to try to help in their localities.
I am worried about the Secretary of State's announcement this morning that he will now take greater control of health authorities' expenditure. According to a newspaper report this morning, under these orders the Secretary of State for Social Services is following the example of the Secretary of State for the Environment. The headline reads:
"New powers allow Ministers to intervene".
What are these new powers? Can the Minister tell me what orders Parliament has made to give him the power to intervene? Does the responsibility for running the National Health Service that still rests with the Secretary of State under the original Act give him the power to intervene? Are we to have the same position with these new district health authorities and the redesignated regions as we had with local authorities and the rate support grant? If so, that will make nonsense of the Minister's claim that the whole purpose of reorganisation is to give local districts more power to do what they wish to meet the needs of their residents. I should welcome some information on that matter.
The cut in rate support grant is affecting elderly people living alone in my local authority. We do as much as possible to provide free telephones and so on, and in the International Year of Disabled People we spent a fantastic amount of money, despite the cuts. However, because of the public expenditure cuts, money has had to be shaved off projects such as holidays for senior citizens and relief for families by giving grandparents a holiday.
If the same arbitrary limits to expenditure are to be applied to the National Health Service as the Secretary of State for the Environment has applied to local rates it will be a disaster—a calamity. This is yet another reason why the community health councils should be given more, not fewer, teeth.
The debate has raised issues that we have debated many times. For example, I should like to see far more accountability. We occasionally have debates of this nature which enable us to air local problems, and the Select Committee can look at the wider sphere.
It is about time that forward planning and expenditure—the keynote of the proposals—were subject to parliamentary surveillance. However, consideration should be given to the priorities before and not after the expenditure has been made. In that way the House of Commons can give its advice through a Select Committee., or by other means. Only by having an effective distribution of resources, with the right priorities, will these orders be relevant to the people we try to serve.
6.44 pm
Mr. Charles Irving:During my eight years' service in the House I have tried to be courteous and make friends on both sides. I do not think anyone could label me as a troublemaker, a nuisance, a ranter or raver. I have never sought to take on the mantle of "the beast of Cheltenham". That would not suit Cheltenham.
However, for the first time in eight years I am hopping mad. The saga that I am about to unfold—I do so in the area that I know best—illustrates the absolutely shameful way in which Gloucestershire has been treated under

451
reorganisation. I have sat through the whole debate, and, apparently, no hon. Member is satisfied with the proposals.
I am sorry to launch into an attack on the Minister, who is courteous, friendly and polite, although he may not feel that way after hearing what I have to say. Frankly, I am ashamed of the reorganisation of the Gloucestershire Health Service which yet again, for the third time in eight years, is to be reorganised and returned to two districts. The saga is not unlike that of the Mafioso that we see in films. I am disappointed that no pressure or persuasion can extract from the Minister the facts of the situation. Only time and shame will heal the breach. I speak as a former member of both the regional health authority and the area health authority. I value both those bodies greatly. Apparently, however, their service is not appreciated as much as it should be.
Let me give so me of the details. I am not in the habit of taking up much of the House's time, but I want to recount some of the sordid, miserable facts. Following the reorganisation of Gloucestershire into two district health authorities in 1974, it was decided, after full and frank discussions with more than 30 organisations in about 1977, to form Gloucestershire, a small county, into one area health authority. I had discussions at the time with the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), and also with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin). After all the consultations, it was decided at that time that that was the best thing for Gloucestershire. A substantial majority of the bodies that had been consulted was in favour of Gloucestershire becoming a one-district authority. It would save money, it recognised "Patients First", and it was right for the county.
Now, suddenly in 1982, at a time of great economic restraint, my hon. Friend the Minister for Health, aided by the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford, has decided otherwise. They were good enough to have brief discussions. They had discussions lasting 45 minutes on 15 June with the South Western regional chairman, Mr. Bailey, and the Gloucestershire area chairman, Sir Robert Hunt, to whom the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred a few minutes ago, and who has resigned. The Minister for Health joined in the charade, and had 10 minutes with Sir Robert at a social event. It was good of him. He spent only three or four minutes with me outside the Members' "loo".
I was alarmed by the situation, and wrote immediately to the Secretary of State on 17 June. He did a little better than the Minister. He gave me 20 minutes, for which I was most grateful. Then he presented me with a complicated departmental brief that had taken the Civil Service six months to prepare, and asked me to give him my answer the following day, which of course I refused to do. It was really a lot of hocus-pocus. In the pursuit of fairness and justice for my constituents, I spent the weekend preparing a considered reply. I consulted professionals in the Health Service; I wanted to be positive about my facts.
I was told that the splitting of my authority would be bound to cost at least £300,000 and, with inflation, might reach £500,000. It seemed to me that the Ministers' minds
452
were made up. The bubble burst following correspondence, with the resignation by the chairman of the area health authority, following 24 years of dedicated work with the Health Service.
Then came the resignation of Mr. Douglas Grazier, former Labour councillor of distinction. Like Sir Robert, he had given a lifetime of service to the area health authority. These are not men of straw but men of stature and distinction in their careers. However, even worse facts came to light. When I addressed the joint staff consultative committee, which represents 32 different organisations, none had been consulted by the area health authority—which was taken into the confidence of Ministers only at the last moment—or by the regional health authority, or anybody else. The committee was as astonished as I was. It seemed a total negation of democracy, and I felt ashamed about it.
Not only had the area health authority received this scant and shabby treatment, but complaints were received from district and county councils. It was a programme of cavalier treatment unequalled in my 35 years of public service.
Sir Robert Hunt was assured, only in 1979, by my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State that Gloucestershire would be left in peace at last to settle as a single district authority. So much for ministerial assurances. Not a bit of that happened; the squalid saga continued. Letters from staff unions tried to tempt the Minister to disclose his secret consultations. Letters were exchanged, but not one detail about anyone who had been consulted was revealed; not a word would the Minister utter, not even to me, his old pal.
Gloucestershire, one of the lowest cost value-formoney counties, will receive no extra money from central resources unless the Minister decides to diminish some of his so-called "savings" elsewhere.
The former area chairman—a great leader in industry—sees no economic sense in the decision. The evidence of secrecy is undeniable and, with sorrow, I rebuke the Minister for his action. I praise the Gloucestershire Echo? for its superb leading article clearly spelling out:
"This reorganisation lacks merit in every sense of the word".
I feel distressed that my friends in the unions, hospital organisations and the 32 authorities should, sadly, be subjected to such treatment. I cannot find any words strong enough in the parliamentary vocabulary to portray my anger and disgust. I can only show that by leaving the Chamber, as I feel that that must be seen as the strongest protest I can make.
6.55 pm
Mr. Frank Haynes: Bearing in mind what has happened in Gloucestershire, it seems difficult to follow the speech made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham, (Mr. Irving). The Minister seems unable to give us the facts. The hon. Member for Cheltenham mentioned some things about Nottingham, and I shall add to those.
I, and I know many other hon. Members, believe that the Minister for Health is a smooth operator. There is no doubt about that. He could talk and laugh himself out of anything. It is easy to sit on the Government Front Bench and grin at some of the comments made. However, we are debating the serious issue of the health service provided to our constituents.

453
When Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box and have a real go at the trade unions, they frequently talk about "consultation". They constantly say that it is the trade union leaders who make the decisions and not the unions' membership. The Government cannot have it both ways. People holding high places in the medical world, such as administrators, doctors, and consultants have been consulted.
The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) was in the Chamber not long ago, but has now left. Not very many Sundays ago he stood in Trafalgar Square when it was full of nurses and talked to them. I bet that 90 per cent. of those nurses, perhaps more, were not consulted by the Government or the Minister on what might happen on the reorganisation of the NHS. The biggest mistake of all is for a professional man—a doctor—to be the Minister for Health. The Minister well remembers the question I put to the Prime Minister some while ago on his appointment to that post.
The Minister and people who are supposed to be administering the NHS are wearing blinkers and have one-track minds. I remember attending an area health authority meeting in Nottinghamshire some time ago. I was told by a professor of pathology:
"We professionals know what should happen and that lay people do not know what is going on."
That is what the problem is all about. The Minister wears blinkers and has a one-track mind. I had the same experience in Committee on what became the Health Services Act 1980. It seems to me that some of the promises made by the Government at that time are not being carried out.
More worrying than anything is the fact that representation on these bodies seems to be a case of jobs for the Conservative troops. If I were to attend the next district health authority meeting in central Nottinghamshire, I could be forgiven for thinking that I had arrived at a meeting of freemasons. They are all over the blinking place as members of the district health authority. I often wonder what is going on. Some of them have not a clue about what happens within the National Health Service. Something is happening in the background to ensure that such people serve on these bodies. One of them got the message and resigned. At least that is a start. People are required on these bodies who know what the job involves and who can perform the job correctly. We do not need people who have to be told what to do. They should be capable of getting on with the job in the interests of those whom they serve.
It is easy for the Minister to say that councillors cannot get to district health authority meetings because of their duties as local authority members. I accept some of that argument. If, however, the number of local authority representatives is reduced to four, this means that there will be no representation at all should those four be absent. Under the present arrangement, even if some local authority representatives are not present, there will be others who can attend. I cannot agree with the Minister's argument.
Mr. J. D. Concannon: I agree with my hon. Friend, who has referred to Central Nottinghamshire, that a number of well-known and dedicated people will not in future be able to sit on these bodies. The constituents of my hon. Friend and myself will regard their omission as strange.
Mr. Haynes: My right hon. friend is correct. This shows the political flavour that enters into the issue. We should be looking for people who know what the job involves. There are those who have given years of first-class service and who have made first-class decisions in the interests of the people. Now we have another reorganisation. The last reorganisation was a disaster. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) who was responsible for that reorganisation, has more recently reorganised industry. One need only consider what has happened in that sphere. The nation will be ruined if decisions of this sort are implemented. We are well on the way to ruination.
The decision on boundaries in Nottinghamshire is shocking. It is all very well for the Minister to say that consultation took place. That is rubbish. There are people in Nottinghamshire who were not consulted. The Minister looks surprised. The hon. Gentleman has that little smile on his face again. The consultation took place with professional people, such as the professor who remarked that lay people did not know what the issue was all about. His attitude was "We are the boys who know." The Minister shakes his head. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to accompany me back to Nottinghamshire, I shall prove that people who are interested in the National Health Service and who wish to know the Government's intentions over reorganisation would have expressed an opinion if they had been consulted.
Many people in Nottinghamshire, which has a population of 1 million, have not been consulted. The Minister preached to me during the progress on the Health Services Bill in 1980 that he wanted smaller units so that issues could be handled closer to people in the locality. Yet two district authorities in Nottinghamshire are to be converted into one. The new authority, with responsibilities towards 600,000 people, will be massive and a mile removed from those people. This change cannot be described as a move to give people their services locally. Elderly people especially will experience great difficulty. Some elderly people have been present at the House of Commons today. They have mentioned the travelling that will be involved under these National Health Service proposals. The Minister should heed the cry that comes from Nottinghamshire. Hon. Members representing Nottinghamshire constituencies, who agree with what I say, are present for this debate. If it is not too late, I hope that the Minister will take on board the views that I have expressed.
I am convinced that the previous Secretary of State for Social Services was dedicated to getting rid of community health councils. However, following pressure from outside, he changed his mind. The Minister for Health agreed with the previous Secretary of State, but people outside beat them. The community health councils are performing a first-class job. I spent a number of years as chairman of a community health council.
Mr. Concannon: A very good one.
Mr. Haynes: I thank my right hon. Friend. Community health councils do a first-class job. It was a mean decision to take away their £74,000. With that amount removed from their budgets, the community health councils will go short of something. This may affect the necessary consultation that takes place with the people whom they represent.

455
I have been encouraged by hearing criticism from the Government Benches of the reorganisation of the Health Service. I hope that the Government will heed some of the ideas that have been proposed, with a view to implementing them. Hon. Members do not represent themselves here. We represent the people outside. It is the people outside who pay taxes and national insurance contributions. Their voice should be heeded to a greater extent than it has been over the last three years. If hon. Members listen to them and implement what they want, we cannot go far wrong.
7.8 pm
Mrs. Jill Knight: No one can say that this is a dull debate. There was, however, a period when our wide, soaring discussion became bogged down in a Lewisham lay-by. Hon. Members were also conducted along a Buckingham byway and taken on a visit to Brent. It was the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavia) who made the statutory attack on private health care. I would not wish to be drawn down that lane. My own feeling is that everyone should be thankful for the number of people prepared to pay for their own health care, despite the fact that they have already paid fully in taxes towards the National Health Service. I fear that the NHS would be in a difficult position if it had to cope with the patients who are presently in private health care.
I put it to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) that it is an unfortunate fact of life that when one political party takes one course, which it follows fervently, there is a reversal of policy when another party takes power. It was the Labour Party which made a clean sweep of all the representative appointees in the Health Service and the volunteers who worked for different parts of the NHS. It is a regrettable fact that one party takes one course and the party which follows it takes another. Nobody should be surprised about that.
Mr. Leslie Spriggs: The hon. Lady appears to be saying that when a different party takes power it reverses the legislation of the party formerly in power. The Minister issued a leaflet to area health authorities drawing their attention to the need for care for patients first. No hon. Member should want anything other than the best possible care for patients in the NHS.
Mrs. Knight: I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman that that was not the line that his party took. Obviously I did not make my point clear. When in office the Labour Party made a clean sweep of people who had worked for many years in area health authorities. This Government have not made a clean sweep. However, there is an inevitable reaction when one knows that certain political appointees have been placed in certain positions. It has nothing to do with health care. I am sure that there is no difference between the Opposition and the Government in their genuine desire for good health care.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Lady saying that Ministers have changed appointments to district health authorities on a political basis?
Mrs. Knight: I am not saying that. What I am saying is that it is inevitable that there should be some reaction when appointments are made on a political basis. There are many examples of that. When Labour Party candidates
456
first appeared in local government which had hitherto not been conducted politically it brought politics into local government. It is a fact of life.
I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister about various costs in the NHS. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that every pound spent unwisely and wastefully on the NHS denies a pound for good service and good patient care. I was amazed to notice a certain amount of hilarity and mirth among Opposition Members when my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned saving £30 million. They rolled about on their Benches. Is £30 million a humorous figure? Do they think that it is not possible to make that saving? Is it too much or not enough? The reason for their humour escapes me.
Does not my hon. Friend think that £30 million is a rather small proportion of the overall costs of the NHS? I had some difficulty discovering the exact overall sum spent annually. The 1981 public expenditure White Paper states that
"the resources available to the National Health Service have risen in real terms from £8,850 million in 1978-79 to £9,156 million in 1981–82."
Only yesterday someone made some terse remarks about the way in which the House expresses itself in various papers. No wonder! I do not understand the meaning of
"the resources available to the National Health Service."
Have we spent the resources available? Some estimates show that spending on the NHS is higher than that. I was given a figure of £13,000 million a year. Perhaps my hon. Friend could clarify that figure. If it is correct, £30 million is a rather small amount to save from such a gigantic total.
A great deal is said about our free NHS. Another set of figures reveal some astonishing facts. For the so-called free service a married man with two children and on the average wage contributes through direct and indirect taxation no less than £1,000 per year for his "free" service. Therefore, we are discussing everybody's money. It is important that it should be used with the utmost care. The official mind should remember that patients and improving patient care matter more than anything else in the NHS.
My hon. Friend said that we should save on management costs and that there would be a search for maximum efficiency. Do those management costs include the tremendous burden of drugs? My research has led me to become more and more convinced that we spend far more on drugs than is sound or wise. Not too many weeks ago a woman walked into a chemist's shop with a large bag and a determined expression. She emptied bottle after bottle of pills and potions on to the counter. She was being public spirited. She said that they had been prescribed by her doctor but that she did not take them. The pharmacist worked out that the cost of the drugs was more than £1,200. Why was the woman prescribed those drugs?
I am not suggesting that most general practitioners are not excellent men. However, I am becoming convinced that many doctors get rid of patients who are a nuisance by prescribing drugs. That is not good patient care, and it is extremely expensive for the NHS.
I was told by a senior doctor who worked in health care prior to the NHS, throughout its existence and still works in it that the way in which medical care is structured and financed encourages bad doctors. I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of doctors are excellent, but I am most anxious about that statement and all that he said to back it up. Perhaps I can disuss the matter with my hon. Friend the Minister later to avoid delaying the House.

457
There is little effective control of spending in the NHS. I am convinced that there is still great waste in hospitals on the drugs bill. Can the Minister assure me that no further economies can be made in this respect or that the scope for them has been exhausted? I am aware of the importance that the medical profession attaches to the freedom to prescribe, but I cannot help thinking that we have sometimes allowed that freedom to become a sacred cow. It is a highly expensive animal, and I am by no means certain that hospitals are not the greatest abusers of the money available to be spent on drugs.
Not long ago there was a scandal about the amount of stealing from hospitals. It is strange and sad that people who would never dream of stealing from ordinary citizens see nothing wrong in stealing from the State or from a nationalised industry. It has been said many times that an immense quantity of articles, such as sheets, disappear because people feel that they do not belong to anyone, and I fear that the cost of such losses may be substantial.
There is also the question whether we are spending money wisely in, for example, keeping elderly people in hospital beds. I have always felt that it is wrong to force elderly people who wish to remain in their own homes to leave them and go either into care in an old persons' home or to a geriatric hospital. We are sometimes arrogant in the way in which we impose our own standards of how we think that they should live. All that really matters is that elderly people should be happy, able to stay in their own homes for as long as possible and given every assistance to do so. That again is a matter of cost within the NHS, but if it could be achieved the rather unkindly termed "elderly bed-blocker syndrome" might be solved.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. These are important matters, but perhaps the hon. Lady will confine her remarks to the reorganisation of the health authorities.
Mrs. Knight: I ask for your forgiveness, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I have strayed. I understood that one of the subjects under debate was costs. I was referring to management costs within the NHS and how matters could be improved.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister examine the possibility of departmental budgets in hospitals? I understand that University College hospital has adopted this system with remarkable savings and gains in efficiency. I realise that it is extremely difficult to apply that process everwhere, as some departmental heads are bound to disagree. Nevertheless, perhaps the Minister will examine the benefits accruing to costing in the NHS through departmental budgeting systems which have already been adopted.
Spending wisely in managerial and all other aspects of the NHS is vital to the interests of patients and to the care that they receive.
7.25 pm
Mr. James Lamond: The Minister must be feeling a little bruised, having been subjected to some fairly severe mauling not only by the Opposition but by Conservative Members. I do not aspire to match the attack made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving), who showed his anger by leaving the Chamber as soon as he had finished speaking. Indeed, I do not wish to attack the Minister at all, but to be as constructive as I can.
458
The right hon. Member for Chesham and Arnersham (Sir I. Gilmour) said that the Minister had presented his arguments with an air of genial self-congratulation. That is not a bad phrase, and I do not entirely disagree. I would certainly say that he presented his arguments with unwarranted self-confidence. Indeed, some of us recall earlier Parliaments when other Ministers appeared at the Dispatch Box with every confidence in their proposals for the Health Service.
When we discussed the matter in 1973, I felt that I knew something about it as I had worked in the Health Service for 16 years. I was well aware of its shortcomings, because nothing is perfect, but I realised that there were many dangers inherent in the proposals put forward by the Conservative Government at that time. As we now see, after a comparatively short time, they have come to realise that a fairly fundamental reorganisation of the structure is necessary.
I shall not make constituency points about the changes in membership of the area authority that will result from the proposal for a district health authority in Oldham or about the district that it covers. Following the comments of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) about the increased efficiency that the Minister expects to flow from the reorganisation, I trust that that must mean better value for money and an assurance that money will not be wasted or lost to the Health Service..
Will the Minister consider the following case and perhaps tell me later in a letter whether he believes that the proposed changes will lead to such increased efficiency that such cases will not occur in the future? About two years ago rumours began to circulate throughout Oldham that the 200-bed Strinesdale hospital was to be closed and that the area health authority was seeking the views of doctors and consultants in the area on whether they saw any future use for it or whether it should be closed.
There was, of course, considerable local resistance to the proposed closure, headed by the trade unions organising all levels of staff at the hospital. They saw myself and other Members for the area and asked us to carry out investigations. We did so. We asked the area health authority for explanations and it assured us that, after fully considering the matter, its view was that there was no further medical use for a hospital in the area and that it would be closed. That was despite having spent £31,000 on the hospital two years earlier to upgrade it.
The hospital was closed in October 1981 and the regional health authority began to look around to see whether anybody would like to buy it. The people of Oldham are considerably concerned, because it appears that a consortium of local doctors are interested in buying the hospital to provide a private service. Are they the doctors and consultants who were asked whether they could envisage any future medical use for the building? I am not saying that they are, because I do not know, but that is the question that is being asked in Oldham. If they were asked about it, why did they say that they could see no further use for it, when they seemed to take art interest in it as soon as it came on the market?
The Minister may think that this is all gossip, but an editorial in the Oldham Chronicle, which is a pretty responsible daily newspaper, stated:
"Finally, there is good reason to believe—indeed we could name names—that a consortium of local doctors are somewhere in the background, especially when the development company talks of turning Strinesdale into a private hospital."

459
Is the building to become a private hospital? If so, and if it is used by consultants to treat patients and the patients at some stage require more sophisticated medical attention, can my constituents be assured that the consultants' patients will not be taken into National Health Service hospitals to receive that more sophisticated treatment and be placed at the head of the queue for treatment before many of those in Oldham who have been waiting for many years?
The Minister may ask "What has this to do with saving money in the Health Service?" A second and equally important matter is that it was decided to put the hospital on the market. As I have said, it is quite a large hospital with 200 beds. The building is not in first-class condition, but £31,000 was spent on it to try to bring it to a reasonable condition only two to three years ago. It stands in fairly extensive grounds. I understand that they amount to 28 acres.
Large headlines appeared on the front page of the Oldham Chronicle. One read:
"Strinesdale Hospital sale: calls for an inquiry. Oldham councillors have demanded an inquiry into the procedures surrounding the sale of Strinesdale hospital. Health union NUPE also made a similar call because they believe that a six-strong consortium of local doctors may eventually be involved if the building is used for private medicine."
The article continues:
"The hospital buildings and grounds were sold privately for £17,500."
That was the price for a 200-bed hospital standing in 28 acres. It was sold for that price
"after an auction in Manchester failed to attract any bids. And it was recently revealed that the North-Western Regional Health Authority turned down a better offer than the sale price in the hope that the property would fetch more at the auction."
Councillor Jowett revealed at a meeting of the Oldham area health authority that the better offer was £25,000. It is believed that the better offer of £25,000 which was turned down, was made by the same consortium, which was able later privately to buy the hospital for £17,500.
The Minister has said that one of the reasons for reducing the number of local authority representatives on the new district health authorities was that elected members of local authorities had little time to devote to that extra task. I suppose that there is something in that, because I know how busy they are already. However, that did not seem to be the case on the evening of 2 February 1982. A number of councillors were present at a meeting of the area health authority and they seemed to be those who were most critical of the decision. It must have cost the NHS hundreds of thousands of pounds when the buildings and the grounds were disposed of for such a small sum.
Among those who were critical was Councillor Brierley, Labour, who said that
"the committee was also anxious to know who the buyer was."
Councillor Charles Tucker commented:
"There is a considerable amount of local disquiet about the Strinesdale affair, and there are a number of questions which need to be answered. Who is the new owner? Was a better offer than the sale price received? Was there or was there not a reserve price?"
One of the most critical of the councillors, if the House should think that I am quoting only Labour councillors who were present in some number, and one of the most
460
vociferous critics was Councillor Albert Jowett, a prominent Conservative member of Oldham metropolitan council, who said:
"I watched 'Sale of the Century' on television—but this was the give away of the century."
He was referring to all the property and land being sold for £17,500. What would one get for that on the property market today? In London it would not be possible to buy a one-bedroom flat, or anything like it, for that sum. However, National Health Service property was disposed of for that amount, and disposed of in a way which, at the end of the day, will be detrimental to the health provision for my constituents.
I wonder whether the Minister is confident that the new authorities that he is setting up under the orders will be sufficiently strong, efficient, knowledgeable and determined to ensure that that sort of thing does not happen again. Will the Minister set up an inquiry into this issue?
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): First, the hon. Gentleman asked about ownership. It was a sale to a company and, therefore, one would not know who the individuals were. Secondly—this is much more important, because councillors should know better than to make allegations without foundation—the sale price was arrived at by the district valuer. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Government Departments, nationalised industries and local government obtain a valuation from the district valuer when they are disposing of assets or purchasing. The district valuer's figure was nowhere near the hundreds of thousands of pounds that have been talked about. Those comments are rubbish, because much depends upon planning. The hon. Gentleman will know from a press release that was issued either yesterday or today by Mr. Sidney Hamburger, the chairman of the North-West regional hospital authority, that the reserve price put on by the district valuer of £25,000 was not reached at the auction. It was decided to take the best available offer after that.
Mr. Lamond: It is obvious that the Minister has knowledge of this, and I am not surprised, because it has aroused considerable interest beyond Oldham. For example, The Guardian carried some articles about it. I accept what the Minister says, and I have read Sir Sidney Hamburger's press release, but it is worth looking at how it came about that after not reaching the reserve price of £25,000—I am not sure what the reserve price was; some questions were asked about that—the building was sold for less. There was planning permission with the sale, although no planning permission is necessary if the building is still to be used as a hospital.
The Minister must surely concede that it is worth looking at the matter to see whether there were any shady practices, because, in any event, there are strong rumours in Oldham about what has happened. In the long run it can only be detrimental to the Health Service, to the consultants involved, to the doctors engaged in it, and to the Health Service staff, both at regional and area board level, if matters are not cleared up to the satisfaction of the people at Oldham. We want to strengthen and improve health services. That is what the debate is about. The Minister owes it to the Health Service to look into the matter and have an inquiry.
7.42 pm
Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: It is natural in this type of debate to have a number of constituency speeches about the orders as they affect certain parts of the country. We have certainly had one from the "Cheltenham Flier" on the Conservative Benches, although my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) does not usually fly that way. We have also heard from the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) about parochial matters, and from a few others.
I shall be brief. First, shortly after I had broken my leg and managed to get back to the House, the Speaker at the time was good enough to call me immediately to speak. I advocated extremely strongly the abolition of the area health authorities, and I am delighted that that has, at long last, been achieved. That was three years ago and the following year it was adopted as Government policy to carry it into effect, which shows how long the consultations have been going on and the efforts that have been made to try to achieve agreement throughout the country.
Speaking for Kent, and for my own part of the world, I think that the Government have done extremely well. They have done so because we now have truly district health authorities which are infinitely more local. So local will they be that the 16 representatives, plus the chairman that we shall have, will represent a great many local interests.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) is no longer here, but he was until a moment ago, and he is a member of a regional health authority. We recognise that there is complete agreement with all the district health authorities throughout Kent, which is a big county. They are the right size to maintain local autonomy, and at the same time they are large enough to be an effective area of the community from the point of view of hospital needs, which must come first. The medical question must be top priority.
By setting up these district health authorities we shall have a much greater opportunity to tackle the real problem in many parts of the country, and particularly in Canterbury, and Thanet district, that of hospital waiting lists. I know that the Secretary of State wants to tackle this problem. My case is that he cannot tackle them all at one and the same time. There are bound to be some areas that will progress more rapidly than others, but it is a priority for the Government.
There are large numbers of retired people in my area and we have long waiting lists, particularly because of the large amount of surgery that has to be done. There are many new types of surgery, such as hip replacement. In Canterbury, Thanet and East Kent a disproportionately large number of people are waiting for surgery, and have been waiting for between two and four years. We have a local problem, in that we want to ensure that we have immediate additional surgical opportunities by having additional surgeries in Thanet. Nowadays, that can be done by putting in one of these units, which can be done relatively cheaply. This is particularly important when there are elderly people who have been waiting a long time. It is essential for them.
By splitting what is proposed down to district health authorities, the Government are well within their objective of at least a 10 per cent. cut in administrative costs. When the area health authorities are abolished, we have to make
462
sure that we do not make the mistake that we made with the reorganisation of local government. Unfortunately, in most cases there were not the staffing and administrative savings that there should have been. I remember the leaders of the Thanet district council telling me that they had to make sure that they made the cuts early, otherwise other appointments would be made and nothing would be saved. In the end, little was saved.
The Government must monitor this change very carefully. If need be, they can call on the Select Committee on Social Services, which is ready at any time to consider the matter. I say that as the Conservative leader of that Committee. We have to see that we obtain the cuts that we expect from the abolition of the area health authorities so that money remains to benefit other aspects of the services, and in particular aspects that will ensure that the cuts are made.
We in the Select Committee went the whole hog and recommended that virtually all appointments should be by the district health authority. The Government carefully considered that and came to the conclusion that the consultants should be appointed at regional level. It is a finely balanced argument. I do not say that the Government are wrong. My view was to the contrary, but it is a finely cut argument. What is essential is that the regional health authorities have sufficient consultants and that the specialist consultants, such as neurologists, dermatologists and so on, can cross the boundaries of the district. That is probably why they will be proved right, because if the region looks at the consultant picture clearly it will be able to see whether there can be shared consultants across the board.
At the same time, it is essential that these new designate chairmen should take on their duties and make sure that no unnecessary appointments are made to their staff. At the moment such appointments are made in many instances and this is the last opportunity to make sure that they do not over-appoint. It would be better to under-appoint now and keep some reserve appointments, so that in a year or six months they can consider whether to make other appointments.
Mr. Pavitt: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that because of the 1 April deadline a large number of consultant posts are being held vacant, especially for professors at the teaching hospitals? As a consequence there are growing waiting lists because of the lack of consultants, who have to wait for the 1 April deadline.
Mr. Rees-Davies: That is right. There are twin aspects of this. The appointments should be reserved so that the new powers will make them. They will make them quickly enough to cover what they see as the necessities. That will come about with the complete understanding of Local needs, which we shall have in each of the orders.
The other point to which the hon. Gentleman referred arises because all the hospitals, especially the universities, must consider the medical cuts. As a result of my interrogation of the chairman of the University Grants Committee this week and the chairman of the Hospital Doctors Association, I recognised that the medical cuts arise almost entirely from the delay in permitting any increase in the number of medical students. The intake has been frozen at the 1980 level, which will enable us to carry some of the cuts. We must he careful to ensure that those

463
cuts do not fall in the wrong spheres and, more especially, on the specialist departments, which would then be in difficulty.
The UGC, the Hospital Doctors Association and the Department, together with the regional and district health authorities, can ensure that we do not have cuts in the areas where services are needed and that we can maintain a service that has increased immeasurably, not only in the amount of money spent in the National Health Service, but in the numbers of doctors and nurses. With the recommendations that we hope will be accepted by the Government, we shall have more consultants and a better balance in the years ahead.
7.51 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) seemed to be complacent about the damage being done by the cuts in medical education. The message that came out of the Select Committee's inquiry this week was the lack of liaison between the Department of Education and Science, in imposing cuts on the universities, and the Department of Health and Social Security in the way in which those cuts are fed through to the service.
However, I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on being the first—other than the Minister—to give wholehearted support to the measures. Almost everyone who has spoken tonight has been critical of the orders. The orders demonstrate the Minister's motto—that one should fit people to the bureaucracy rather than make the administration serve the people. The orders are irrelevant to the needs of the hospital service. When the Minister introduced them, he said that during his period in Opposition he had gone round Britain and that everywhere people had complained about the system. In the Labour Party in 1973, people were predicting that and telling the Government that the reorganisation of the Health Service would produce problems. The Minister should not have been surprised when he found those problems. The problems were found in those places that had a district, an area and a regional authority. However, there were also problems in those places where there was only an area and a regional authority. Nothing in the order helps the two-tier areas as opposed to the three-tier areas.
It is important that we consider the areas in which people resent the bureaucracy in the Health Service. The vast majority of nurses and ancillary workers feel that they are undervalued and underpaid compared with others in the community and some administrators and consultants in hospitals. They feel that they should have more recognition for their essential role. Nurses are very bitter that they cannot earn a decent wage unless they stop nursing and go into administration. The rates of pay for people who are qualified but who are not in charge of a ward are very poor. Even a ward sister is not paid well, but, if she moves away from nursing towards administration and becomes a nursing officer or a senior nursing officer, the salary scale is much more attractive. If the Government are talking about reorganising the Health Service, the first thing that they must do is to ensure that the people on whom the service depends—the nurses and ancillary staff—are paid a decent wage.
When I talk to patients about bureaucracy in the Health Service, the one matter about which they are all upset is
464
the time at which they are woken up in the morning. They find it amazingly bureaucratic that they must be woken up in the last hour of the night shift. The nurses have been there all night, but they are expected to work hardest in the last hour of the shift getting patients up at a time when most people wish to have another hour's sleep. The patients are awakened much too early because of the bureaucracy that has developed and the way in which hospitals seem to be run for the benefit of the consultants, not for anyone else who works there or for the patients. It is sad that nothing in the order suggests that the new authorities will do anything to ensure that patients are given some consideration.
I bitterly regret the fact that the orders have not increased the number of local council representatives. Unfortunately, nothing has been done to ensure that those who serve on a district health authority live in that district and experience the services that are provided. There has been mention of persons who live outside or who have never lived in areas being appointed as chairmen of those areas. For example, Stockport had an excellent chairman of the area health authority. Instead of appointing him to the new district health authority, the Minister—perhaps for political reasonsdecided to bring in a new man. I have no doubt that the new chairman will do a good job, but it is a sad fact that he lives in Salford rather than Stockport. I am sure that he would have been pleased if he had been appointed in Salford, although he is probably not complaining too much about being appointed to Stockport. However, it is crazy to bring a person from one area to become the chairman of another.
We must all be concerned about the participation in the democratic process of those who work in the Health Service. At every level, consultants play the key roles. Those who work in the Health Service are kept out and are given no opportunity to participate in the way in which matters are run. A nurse or an ancillary worker has as much knowledge of and as much to offer in the running of a hospital as a consultant. However, in far too many hospitals the consultant is still given preferential treatment, and often he does not really see the problems.
Unfortunately, the Health Service is not delivering the goods. It is simply patching up when things have gone wrong. The vast amount of money that is spent on the hospital service is an admission that we have failed. We are not keeping people in good health. We should give resources to the prevention services to try to stop people becoming ill, and to the primary care services of family practitioners and community health services. Yet we are not integrating those services. In the order we are still saying that the family practitioners' committee shall be autonomous. Yet many hospital doctors say that they must admit too many patients to hospitals because of bad treatment or lack of treatment from family practitioners.
I have talked to three constituents recently, all of whom told me that they have been prescribing drugs for themselves. They go to the surgery and say to the doctor's receptionist "Those are the drugs that I have been on. Please can I have the same again?" So they get the same drugs again. It may be that some of those people are observant and know what is happening to them because of the drugs that they are being given. In that case, if they saw the doctor themselves, they would simply assure him that they were receiving the right treatment. But, increasingly, the people I have come across are elderly and are a little reluctant to admit that their grip is not as firm

465
as before or that they cannot get about so well. Those people are also diagnosing themselves. Some of them end up in hospital because the doctors have got the drug dosages wrong. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) said that some doctors give out too many drugs.
To improve the liaison between the family practitioner and the hospital, one authority should bring the two groups together to identify and iron out the problems. The independent family practitioner committee is not in the best interests of the service. I stress that in my constituency some family practitioners provide excellent services for the elderly. However, some of them do not.
There are problems up and down the country. I went to a Campaign for the Homeless and Rootless conference in Leeds on Saturday. It was clear that those who run hostels for the homeless and rootless often find it difficult to get a doctor to give regular medical treatment to many of the elderly who use them.
It is also sad that in all the talk about reorganisation the Government will not debate the recommendations in the Black report, which stresses the inequalities in health care throughout the country. Whenever the Government are asked for a debate on the Black report, they say that they are not interested. It would have done much more for the reorganisaton of the Health Service if the Minister had said that he would take notice of the Black report and do something positive to remove the inequalities in health care in Britain.
I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) who pressed the Minister to tell the House what was in the statement that was reported in The Guardian and was given to the House about a fortnight ago about the Secretary of State having a greater role in imposing his policy on the regions. Will he announce the abolition of the regional health authority? Will the Secretary of State take over? I hope that the Minister will tell us a little more about that later.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) developed the argument about the Strinesdale hospital, which is causing a great deal of concern in the Greater Manchester area. A similar situation could develop in Stockport. It illustrates the problem that exists in the present organisaton of the Health Service, and we fear that it will not be remedied by the orders. In a brief intervention, the Minister seemed to suggest that everything was peffectly all right because there had been a press release by Sir Sidney Hamburger on behalf of the regional health authority and that had solved the problem.
I assure the Minister that the problem will not go away. Sooner or later we must have a statement in the House about the principles involved. Let us consider the Strinesdale hospital. The area health authority had discussions about the cost of running the hospital. That is odd, as £31,000 had just been spent on it. In addition, not all the beds were being filled. Discussions were then held with the doctors and consultants as to why—when there were long waiting lists in the Oldham area for the treatment of patients—they were not prepared to have their patients in beds at Strinesdale. Apparently, the consultants said that the hospital was inconvenient, that it was a long way from other hospitals and that they did not like travelling backwards and forwards. They said that there were beds, but few other facilities, and that the chronically sick could not be treated there because they may need the sophisticated support services in the main hospital. We
466
understand that that is what the consultants said. We should like to know those consultants who told the area health authority that the hospital was unsuitable.
What was the area health authority told about the amount of money that would be saved? The day-to-day running costs would obviously be saved. I believe that one of the arguments was that there would be nurses available for other wards. I understand that the area health authority was also told that the closure of the hospital would release a valuable asset which could be sold, and that the money could be used to improve the Health Service facilities in the Oldham area.
All those points were put to the area health authority. Despite trade union opposition, particularly from some of the groups representing the nurses and ancillaries in the hospital, the closure was agreed. The amazing thing is that, although the area health authority took the decision, the disposal of the land is not its responsibility. It cannot try to realise as much as it can or decide, if sufficient money cannot be realised, to continue hospital services. It must hand the asset over to the region, which will then dispose of it.
When the hospital was put up for sale, a reserve was put on it. Presumably the reserve was the district valuer's price. However, it was then sold for £7,500 less than that. Given that £31,000 was spent only a year before, it is odd that it should be sold for only £17,500. When people asked who had bought it, they discovered that a consortium of consultants had done so. The Minister should tell us whether that consortium consists of the same consultants who were asked by the area authority during the previous two years whether they could use it for their National Health Service patients. The consultants refused because the hospital was too distant and had insufficient facilities. If they are to start using it for private patients, we must ask whether they will put in the sophisticated facilities that they claimed the NHS could not afford. If not, what provision has been made for the safety of patients? If A is practical to transport private patients from the hospital to the area health authority's establishment in the centre of Oldham, why was it impossible to do that for NHS patients? The Minister should consider those serious and disturbing points.
I understand that the area health authority was told that the matter was no concern of the consultants and that they know nothing about it. However, I am told that letters from some of the consultants to the area health authority asked about the arrangements that could be made for transporting emergency patients if a private hospital could be set up. Therefore, the matter is serious and rightly causes us considerable concern.
The problem affects others in the Greater Manchester area. Stockport has a similar hospital at Marple Dale. It is an old tuberculosis sanatorium, just like Strinesdale, and it is not convenient for or close to the main hospitals. As a result of the reduction in the number of patients in hospital for tuberculosis, the number of beds occupied has fallen. Stockport area health authority has asked local consultants why they cannot use the beds at the Marple Dale hospital. They have replied that it is inconvenient and has not got the facilities necessary for the sophisticated treatment of patients. They have said that it would be better to close the hospital.
Stockport area health authority has brought forward proposals for closing the hospital. My constituents point out that the consultants had the biggest say and claim that

467
they cannot use it. They want to know whether the region will put the hospital up for sale within the next few months and whether a local group of consultants will wish to buy it and to open it as a private hospital. If that happens, the Minister will have a major scandal on his hands. It is ridiculous to ask consultants, in their capacity as employees of the National Health Service, whether they can use the facilities. The consultants can say "No", but at the back of their minds they may be thinking that they will be able to buy the hospital in a few months—perhaps cheaply—and use it for private medicine. That causes great concern.
There is great concern in Stockport because another private hospital, the Alexandra, has just opened in another part of the town. The nurses tell me that some patients are being transferred from the private hospital to the Health Service hospital when the Alexandra has not the facilities for the full treatment of the patients. This happens when the complaint that the person is being treated for is more serious than was expected or when the doctor who did the operation made a mistake and the patient's condition has deteriorated.
A further disturbing point is that when I have put down questions about the Alexandra, the Minister has refused to answer the allegations that are being made. Also, he will not give clear guidelines as to whether it is ethical for a consultant who is treating a patient in a private hospital to transfer that patient into an NHS hospital and to go on treating him not as a private patient but as an NHS patient. Such a consultant is working in a dual capacity, most of the time in the Health Service and part-time as a private consultant.
If a patient has to be transferred because of neglect or lack of facilities in a private hospital, it is essential that that patient should be treated by a different consultant. The Minister must answer to the House how far private medicine is being allowed to feed off the back of the National Health Service. A few individuals who can pay for operations in private hospitals are in a privileged position because they know that if anything goes wrong they can use the back-up of the NHS hospital.
I do not believe in private medicine, but, if we are to have it, it must stand on its own feet and not feed off the back of the National Health Service. I hope that the Minister will tell us what he proposes to do about the scandal in Oldham, where private consultants have been allowed to rip off the Health Service by buying a valuable asset at a giveaway price, and how he will ensure that the same thing does not happen in regard to Marple Dale in Stockport. Most important, I hope that he will tell us how the orders will improve services for the patient, improve the health of people so that they do not need hospital services, and eliminate the grave discrepancies in standards of health and life expectancy up and down the country which were highlighted in the Black report.
8.12 pm
Mrs. Sheila Faith: I am pleased to speak after the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), a colleague on the Select Committee on Social Services, and to have the opportunity of speaking in the debate. As has been said in the debate, resources have risen in real terms in the National Health Service. More has been spent on capital building projects and on the National Health
468
Service generally. Also, waiting lists have been reduced and there are many more doctors, dentists and nurses operating in the service. Nevertheless resources are becoming more and more strained because during the last decade there has been increased technical innovation in medicine. Surgical treatment is possible for heart diseases, arthritis and many other common disorders which were formerly treated by rest and medication.
The 1970s also saw the growth of organ transplants which are now routine treatment. New ways have been found of saving the lives of new-born babies. On the other hand, people are living longer. All this has put extra strains on the National Health Service budget. Therefore, it is important that the finance available should be spent on patient care and as little as possible on administration.
After reorganisation in 1974 many complaints were made both by the medical profession and by the public about red tape and cumbersome administration. Every new action required extensive form filling and numerous meetings. The Royal Commission in 1980 found that there had been a decline in the quality of hospital administration and thought that the process of consultation had proliferated unduly, particularly in the medical profession.
The Royal Commission concluded that there were too many tiers of administration in most places. Acting on that the Government produced a document on administrative reform called "Patients First" which said that area health authorities would be removed and new district authorities have the functions of both previous area and district authorities. Once this is enforced not only will it mean the removal of duplication and a reduction in the number of bureaucrats but decisions will be brought closer to the community and should be more responsive to local feelings and needs.
I was delighted to be a member of the Standing Committee which looked at the enabling Bill and I welcome the provisions. After provision has been made for redundancy payments and early retirements there should be substantial savings of about £30 million or 10 per cent. of administration costs. When a highly esteemed hospital in my constituency was threatened with closure—a threat now removed, the hospital having reopened—it was felt that the cost of administration in Derbyshire was excessive at the time the hospital was being closed, yet it was not easy to extricate administrative costs from other costs nor to compare the costs of one authority with another.
I welcome particularly the fact that each authority will have completely separate budgets for management and for patient service. I am delighted that for the first time we shall know locally how much is being spent on administration. In future costs should be easier to control and reduce. For the most part, therefore, the new organisation will be a great improvement, although we can understand that in an organisation of this dimension there must be difficulties in some localities.
Concern is being felt in the dental profession about the effects the changes will have on the organisation of community medicine. At a time when the profession is worried about increased charges and also that possibly a smaller proportion of the National Health Service budget may be being spent on dentistry, this is an extra matter of concern.
Community dentistry still has an important part to play, particularly in working with the handicapped and long-stay hospital patients. In certain deprived regions, such as

469
Trent, there is a shortage of dentists and some parents still do not understand the need for regular examinations. Therefore, there is still a need for a high proportion of children to receive examination at school. Many children do not receive regular dental care. Therefore, in areas such as these the school dentist is still important. A community dentist can see where this provision is most required.
It is worrying that in many regions under the new arrangements district dental administrators may have to go cap in hand to district community medical officers for funds before making decisions about services. This is seen by the whole profession as removal of the opportunity being given to it to organise its own services, particularly the services to the handicapped and the socially disadvantaged. Some of these services may be lost for ever.
The position in Wales is set out clearly in annex B of circular WHC(82)1:
"Whatever decisions are reached by authorities in relation to the management of these professional services the senior members of the dental, pharmaceutical and works professions employed by the authority will have the right of access to the authority and will receive the agenda and minutes of the district team and have the right to attend these meetings when matters affecting their particular services are considered in order that the health authority and the district team may have the benefit of their professional expertise."
No such guidelines have been made for England.
It should be obvious that the dental officer should be called on to advise the district health authority on subjects relating to dentistry. We should bear in mind that doctors are not always well briefed on dental matters. For example, only a dentist sees and is aware of suffering caused to children by toothache and will understand the need for fluoridation of water supplies. The dental profession is asking that the district dental officer should have as of right the opportunity to put his case personally to the chairman and to the authority.
I know that the Under-Secretary has met representatives of the dental profession and that he has shown sympathy and understanding of the problem. However, I hope that he will publicly give an assurance that clear guidance will be given to the new authorities on the matter.
8.20 pm
Mr. David Crouch: I am glad to have the opportunity of making a speech. I have been discussing health almost all day because, as the House knows, I am a member of a regional health authority, and I attended one of its monthly meetings this morning. We were concerned about the problem of the new district health authorities which we are discussing today.
I listened with great interest to the argument put forward with skill, clarity and force, as always, by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle), a former Minister for Health. He was speaking responsibly not as a former Minister for Health but as the right hon. Member for Lewisham, East. I would not deny him the force of his argument in speaking up for what he believes to be a disadvantage to his constituents brought about by the amalgamation of Lewisham with North Southwark, the Guy's district, to form a new district health authority.
The right hon. Gentleman has made representations to me. He was honest and fair enough to say that in the South-East Thames regional health authority there had been consultations and that members of the authority and
470
officials had listened to the views of those in Lewisham. We took on board the fact that Lewisham was worried about being bracketed with Guy's hospital.
So much for the argument of a Member speaking for his constituency interests. However, I think that the right hon. Gentleman should have reflected on his total knowledge of the health problem in Great Britain, for which he had responsibility as a Minister. I would be the first to say that he was a good Minister. However, he should have been more responsible and should not have exaggerated the danger to Lewisham of being swamped by the great Guy's hospital. What did he mean by that? will tell the House what I understand by it. No district hospital likes being too close to a great teaching hospital because it fears the power, contacts, skill and weight that the consultants serving that teaching hospital will have in various corridors of power. Those corridors of power are in the Royal colleges, and the British Medical Association, and they lead to Alexander Fleming House.
The right hon. Gentleman is perhaps right to say that any district is worried when it is bracketed with a great teaching hospital such as Guy's. There is something in that argument because Guy's as a teaching hospital is one of the great centres of excellence in our country. It is a centre of research and of great tradition; it has a great history of success in medicine and in the care of patients. Why should anyone be afraid of being bracketed with such a great centre of excellence as Guy's hospital? The reason is the one that I have given. [t is feared that that centre will grab the greatest amount of resources to be allocated to the district and will dominate and tower above arty other hospital or section of health provision in the new district. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is right to say "I am afraid of it." However, he is not right to say "I shall not have anything to do with it "
The Minister, the Government, the Department and the regions will always put patients first. So will the members of the new district health authorities. It is not for them to put consultants, nurses or ancillary workers first. They must always consider whether the decisions that they make about the allocation of money, resources, nurses, ambulance services and blood transfusion services are right for the patients in the district.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is still concerned that too much money would go to the big hospital—Guy's. I do not think that that is a fair assumption. Too many people would stand in the way of that. I know because I have had to fight the case for Guy's in the region for 12 years. You would be surprised, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you knew how many people say that we must do nothing for that great hospital because it can do it for itself. One has to cut across that view sometimes to ensure that even a great hospital gets its fair share.
Another question raised by the right hon. Gentleman—he did not dare to sketch it out exactly—concerned the remoteness of Southwark from Lewisham. He said that Guy's was so far from Lewisham that it was impossible for it to be bracketed with Lewisham in one district. Anyone would think that Guy's was on the other side of the Thames, in the north of London. It is only four miles from Lewisham station. I would be willing to walk there. It is quite a good walk. I know London backwards. It is connected by bus and tube. If one goes to districts in remote areas in other parts of the country, one is separated by a distance involving 45 minutes travel from the hospital, even under the new set-ups. People

471
accept that. If one wishes to use a regional specialty such as cardiac or thoracic surgery, one has an hour's journey to reach a centre of excellence that specialises in that discipline.
To say that it is wrong for the region that I work in to have recommended to the Minister that Guy's should be put together in a district with Lewisham is not a responsible comment. The recommendation was not influenced in any way by my hon. Friend the Minister, who was at one time a consultant at Guy's. I cannot believe that it would have anything to do with him. The recommendation went from the region to him.
I remember the discussions that we had in the high street complex in Lewisham. I shall not call it the town hall because it is nicer. I have forgotten its name, but the right hon. Gentleman will remember it. He was there with other Members of Parliament and we received them. We received also the chairman and secretary of the CHC and they made a very good case. Nor were they all members of the party in opposition. They were a good mixture. People in health are not always of one party. It does not matter what party we belong to because we are concerned about health, patients and the right decisions.
Of course, this might have been a wrong decision, but I believe that, on balance, it was the correct one. The right hon. Gentleman may have made a mountain out of it. It is not a molehill, but he made a big constituency point when I maintain that it is more than a constituency point; it is a question of making the right decision for this area of London.
This debate is not about an individual district; it is about all the districts which have been decided upon and recommended to the House. Had it not been for the prayers put down by the Leader of the Opposition and his supporters, the order would have gone through. I must confess that I nearly put down a prayer myself. Of course, this would have stopped the proposal dead and we should have had a debate. However, I was prevented in the nick of time, having written it and sent it up to the Journal Office. When I saw the company I might be keeping, I thought my intention might be misunderstood if my name were bracketed with those of the Leader of the Opposition and the distinguished hon. Lady the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody).
Nevertheless, I am very happy to take part in the debate for I think it is very important that we should debate the decision to reorganise the Health Service and to determine the boundaries of the districts and the membership of the district authorities. I have listened to almost every speech in this debate and have heard the concern which Members have expressed about how those decisions were made.
The principle of bringing health care closer to the people and closer to the patient is absolutely correct. We must not forget that because, whatever we decide to endorse tonight in the Government's determination to carry this through, we must ensure that we not only bring the districts and appointments into being but that in doing so and in gaining the blessing of Parliament we bring the administration of health care closer to the patient. We must never allow ourselves to forget the importance of this.
Before coming to a decision on district boundaries, in my own region—South-East Thames, which covers South-East London, East Sussex and Kent—we went in for a great deal of consultation. Not only did we send a great
472
many letters to everyone we thought might wish to put forward a view; we held, at my suggestion, a series of public meetings. At first, the idea of holding public meetings was not received enthusiastically. A regional health authority or an area health authority—perhaps in the future a district health authority—is not as accustomed to the idea of public meetings as are Members of Parliament. We are in the front line of democracy. We know that we must meet our constituents and face their criticism; we have to keep a brave face and produce answers. Other people in public service sometimes view this with misgiving.
The public meetings were a great success. They were attended by hundreds of people. Many Members of Parliament turned up in both the rural areas and London. I learnt a great deal from the kind of people who came, not only chairmen, secretaries and members of CHCs but individual members of the public, hospital consultants, GPs, nurses, ancillary workers, trade unionists and ordinary people. Everyone at some time will be a patient of the Health Service and everyone feels concern when decisions are to be made. This was their opportunity to criticise or ask for changes, and we felt that the consultation was a worthwhile exercise.
As regards the members appointed to the DHAs, I have some reservations about what we do. They are not elected; they are nominated by various persons, although all have to be approved by the Secretary of State. Four or five local authority members are required in each district authority. This is what nearly caused me to pray against one of the orders tonight, because I saw the force of the argument put forward by the county councils for equal numbers in representation with the district councils. They argued that, although this was to be a district health authority, it was at county level in local government that education and social services are handled, and therefore they should have a strong membership of the district health authorities.
But, as it is, there will be only two representatives from the county council on each district health authority, and I think that on balance that is about right. If we are to return to my original premise of producing a Health Service closer to the people, we must make it closer to the district council. That is why it is important to have two or three—often it is more—district council members on the authority.
In addition, there are about five general members recommended to the Minister by the regional health authority for consideration. They are carefully screened. We did not have to scrape the barrel. Many people from all walks of life were put in for the appointments. I have been very impressed by the high calibre of people who have come forward to work in the public service in the district health authorities. There is no lack of will to make the Health Service better than it is.
People are coming forward for no payment. When a district councillor or county councillor comes to work for a day or for half a day in a district health authority he will not be able to claim any attendance allowance. He can claim his travel expenses, but that is all. That might be a deterrent to the busy county councillor or district councillor who can claim for attendance when he is working on local government business. Therefore, it is impressive that so many are willing to come forward.
The 11 general members must include a consultant, a general practitioner, a nurse or midwife, a nominee from one of the universities, where there is a medical school in

473
the area, and a trade unionist. The rules clearly lay down what sort of trade unionist he must be. We have been looking for a trade unionist of wide trade union experience, not limited to the Health Service, a man who can bring experience of negotiations, of trade union problems, of dealing with trade unionists and representing them. In our region I have known for many years the great value of such a voice. I am the first to admit that one often obtains a great deal of sound sense and experience from such members.
The members will have a busy time. The job is no sinecure. We, my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government are wasting our time if we appoint people and they do not turn up. They have the responsibility for doing the job. They will have officers to work for them, but they must be there to direct the officers, to bless the officers' plans if they agree with them, and to chase the officers and get things done at the point of sale, where the consumer is. The members are the people who will meet the consumer, the customer, the patient. They will have to say "I shall try to get something done for you. I realise that you cannot get orthopaedics done quickly in our district and that there is a long waiting list for hip operations."
It is not the officer but the district health authority member whom we appoint today who will have to take that matter on board, just like a Member of Parliament or a councillor. He or she will be completely involved with delivering a service. We must make the members close to people so that people can get at them, talk to them, chivvy them, chase them, ask "Why isn't this hospital built? Why isn't the hospital redecorated? Why isn't it extended?" and so on.
According to the paper issued by the Department, the members will have to put in two to four days a month, which is a lot of time. They will have to attend a monthly meeting, as I have done today, and read papers. They will receive a wad of papers and they will not want to go into meetings ill informed, because the officers will be well informed and they will find that their colleagues have read the papers. They will have to visit hospitals and health centres, hospital laundries and ambulance men. They will be involved in many problems and will listen to many industrial dispute questions. They will have to meet and listen to patients, their consumers.
Only today I again found in the region—and it will be no different in a district health authority—a hestitation over listening to complaints. I am the only Member of Parliament on the authority. I am not afraid of listening to complaints. People complain about the NHS, and it is not enough to reply "Write to us. Submit a paper, and we shall study it and take it into account." We cannot deal with people in that way. I said today that we must make ourselves ready to listen. We may be busy and it may be difficult.
When we speak in this Chamber the public can listen. They can read reports of our proceedings in the paper. They can hear them on the radio. Standing Committee proceedings are open to the public and to the press. Meetings of the district health authorities will be open to the public, and to the press, apart from the occasions when they have confidential discussions about medical matters or complaints against consultants, and so on. But that will be the only time. When a community health council wants to put forward a point of view about a hospital closure it is entitled to go right to the Minister, but on the way it may
474
want to see the DHA and the RHA. Those of us who serve on authorities must not be like shrinking violets. We must be prepared to stand up and take it, even if that takes time.
The Government have moved in the right direction by producing a new shape for the National Health Service. Let us pray that the shape is right, because we must not get it wrong again. We must hope that the new arrangements have a good run, and a good spirit. Politics will always be involved in the NHS, but we must keep that involvement to a minimum, and to this Chamber. Outside the House we must do the best we can.
My wife has recently been a patient with the NHS. I have learnt more about the NHS by accompanying my wife than by sitting in a regional headquarters considering budgets involving hundreds of millions of pounds for nearly 200 hospitals. To go into a hospital with a patient and queue up for two hours is to learn about health and health care. It is worth waiting two hours to see a good consultant, a friendly nurse, a friendly chap who puts on the plaster, and a friendly friend of the hospital who produces a cup of coffee at half the price we pay in the House. The hospital league of friends provides that service at no profit to itself. Much is needed to make the NHS tick. It helps to see for oneself as a patient, and I pray that I do not often have to do that.
I conclude by referring to a point which has not yet been mentioned. Health authorities at all levels administer the Health Service. A vast amount of money is involved—£12,000 million a year. The authorities are the biggest employer in Britain, employing over 1 million people. A whole range of services are provided for the public, the principal service being the hospital service. But we must not forget that before a patient goes to hospital he must see his general practitioner. That is what is known as primary health care. That first contact may be through a health visitor or a district nurse. It is important to remember that, because we do little about primary health administration.
When the NHS was established, the GPs separated themselves from the administration of hospitals. This area of primary health care is the work of the GPs. It is the one remaining gap where reform is required, although the DHAs will not have much power to effect such reforms or even to have their offers of help considered. The GPs have managed to keep themselves apart, at arm's length, dealing through the family practitioner committees.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to allow us to have a debate soon on a matter that is even more important than district health authorities. Let us have a debate on the Acheson report and the Harding report, both of which relate to primary health care, and one of them concerns London. Today in London 50 per cent. of general practitioners work single-handed. Thirty per cent. of the telephone calls to GPs in inner London are answered by telephone answering machines. That is the problem in primary health care that we must consider next.
8.45 pm
Mr. Leslie Spriggs: I shall follow the example of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who described his experience as a member of ore of the regional health authorities. All right hon. and hon. Members are obliged to him for what he has said ltus evening. Some of us speak, not as members of regional or area authorities, but as people who have been in-patients in National Health Service hospitals.

475
I was invited to sit in at one of our area health committee meetings, and it was interesting to note that many of its members were non-medical people. They have no real understanding of the health care that is required by the many thousands of patients who attend our hospitals for treatment each year. Instead of putting people on committees because of their political persuasions, it would be better for political parties of all persuasions to make sure that members of area or regional health authorities have a real interest in health care.
Our thanks are due to the Minister for the circular that he sent to health authorities some months ago about patient care. I heard that circular read out to members of the committee that I attended, and that is why I raise the matter this evening.
Members of Parliament who have been unlucky enough to be struck down and have to stay in hospital, sometimes for many months, gain first-hand experience of nursing and medical staff. My doctor sent me to see a consultant in a London hospital. When I saw the consultant, I regret to say that within a few minutes he asked me whether he could treat me privately. He was employed on a salary as a consultant in the National Health Service, yet he used his position to help himself and his bank balance.
I wish that members of area health authorities would take a closer interest in the many people—men, women and children—who have to spend time in hospital waiting rooms, waiting for appointments. I was given an appointment at the Westminster hospital for 2 o'clock on a Friday. My train home left Euston station at five minutes past five that evening. I had to leave the hospital at half past four without being dealt with. I had to go to the desk and say "I am sorry, I can no longer wait". In the meantime, I discovered that about 30 to 40 patients had all been given the 2 o'clock appointment that day. That is not good enough, and I should like the people appointed to serve on committees to take an interest in that aspect of the matter.
I assure hon. Members that I do not go to hospital to waste my own, a medical officer's or a nurse's time. There is nothing nice about hospitals. I have learnt to appreciate good nursing, medical treatment and the generally good medical care given in our hospitals.
The Minister has been badly advised about the community health councils. The chairman of my CHC in St. Helens sends me its newsletter regularly. It is a means of communication between my constituents who serve on the council and their members of Parliament. If that letter is reduced in size or content or even ended, it will be a disservice to the public. Community health councils serve the public and patients' interests. Those who advised the Minister to withdraw financial support from the community health councils did a great disservice not only to those councils but to Members of Parliament and many members of the public, who were kept informed of what the NHS had to offer those requiring treatment.
The chairman of my community health council in St. Helens is particularly interested in health care and public relations. We should call on the Minister to reconsider the withdrawal of financial support from the CHCs. He should think about it very carefully. I strongly advise him not to make the cuts that he has in mind.
8.53 pm
Mr. Den Dover: It is a pleasure to welcome these orders and to thank my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State, his predecessor and the Minister of Health for taking action and making health control and management more local. We said that in Opposition, and the crying need has existed for several years.
That need is well instanced in the Chorley and South Ribble health authority, which is to be splintered off—the only area in such a position—from the existing district and become a district on its own. Therefore, nearly 200,000 out of 330,000 people will get their own local control.
It is only by having local control that local people can exercise management efficiency and make savings. I am confident that the target of a 10 per cent. management saving can be achieved. The new chairman of the Chorley and South Ribble health authority, Mr. Sellers, said that we would have no problems. He added that we would have to manage it carefully and control our costs, and that we might, thereby, make a saving and put that money into patient care and services.
Local district health authorities are vital. Their members know what people want. They know the shortcomings of the present service. Chorley lacks a full casualty service. A new district hospital is to be built in the next few years. Under the previous organisation, the casualty service, our main need, was placed at the end of the last phase. Under the new district health body, the casualty service, all being well, will feature at the start of the first phase. This will make a major difference.
Today is a famous day in the history of Chorley and South Ribble. Ten thousand workers at British Leyland have voted to go back to work. This shows a local community spirit, and it will be helped enormously by the introduction of our own district health authority. There is a feeling that the Government want to see investment in the area and jobs for the local work force. I am glad to have this chance to welcome the orders. I look forward to 1 April and the setting up of our new health authority.
8.56 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I shall endeavour to be brief. I recognise that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health wishes to have his full allocation of time to deal with the many points that have been raised.
This debate has been interesting. I found especially interesting the opening speech of my hon. Friend the Minister for Health and that of the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) who represents a constituency close to mine. In some respects, the hon. Lady and I have shared common problems over the reorganisation as it relates to the Cranage and Mary Dendy hospitals.
I am always delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) who shows a deep concern for patient care in his area. My hon. Friend has clearly taken the trouble to visit the hospitals in his constituency to see the problems at first hand and to talk with those in the Health Service who are providing the patient care with which Government policy is concerned.
In recent weeks I have also taken a great interest in the hospitals in my constituency. I met representatives of the Royal College of Nursing in my constituency at the request of Miss Ann Woodbine, their senior representative. The nursing officer at the Macclesfield infirmary, Miss Elliott, informed me that I had not visited the infirmary formally

477
for 18 months. I asked when she would like me to visit. She asked me to choose a time and I replied that I was prepared to go immediately. I saw at first hand what is happening in that hospital. As my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), a member of a regional health authority, has indicated, this will be one of the duties of the members of district health authorities. They—like hon. Members—will be at the sharp end in dealing with matters related to patient care.
I hope that those appointed politically, those appointed by the Minister and those nominated by local authorities—in my area, the Macclesfield borough council, the Congleton borough council and the Cheshire county council—and even the consultants, together with others possessing special qualifications, will visit every hospital and clinic within the district health authority. They should see for themselves the service that the patients receive to assess the quality of the service, to decide whether it needs to be improved and to ensure that when the meetings to which my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury referred are held, they are as well briefed as the officers. I am sure that the hon. Member for Crewe will agree with that. Often in the past both regional and area health authorities have been run by the officers rather than the appointed members.
I hope that the Minister will respond to the deep concern felt by the members of the Select Committee on Social Services about the Government's decision to place consultants' contracts at regional rather than district level. The districts know what consultants they require. Junior doctors will continue to he abused and the public will not obtain the quality of service that they require if the Government insist on placing consultant contract decisions at regional rather than district level.
The Select Committee on Social Services, of which I am pleased to be a member, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short), having received a great deal of evidence on this, decided, after much consideration, that consultants' contracts should be placed at district level. We felt that junior doctors were being abused and, in many instances, forced to do work, for which they were neither experienced nor qualified, which should be done by consultants.
I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) nodding assent. We believe that in the long term the hospital service will save money if all patients receive the qualified service and treatment which every NHS patient deserves. I hope that the Government will deal with that aspect.
I know that there has been controversy in some areas, but that has not occurred in Cheshire. I am delighted with the Macclesfield district health authority and with the appointment of its officers and members. The balance of membership is absolutely right. We do not want too many members—too many cooks spoil the broth—but we want the professional input and the commitment of those who are appointed for their particular skills and qualifications and of those who are appointed by the local authority.
I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind the points that have been made. I pay tribute to the chairman of the Cheshire area health authority, Mr. Charles Stevens, who is not seeking reappointment as chairman of the district authority. He has made a magnificent contribution to the Health Service over many decades. He was well known in the pharmaceutical industry and the hospital service before
478
reorganisation in 1973–74. He has done a brilliant job as chairman of the Cheshire area health authority, and my constituents have benefited immensely from his efforts. It is fortunate that his vice-chairman, Councillor Joe Millett, has been appointed as the new chairman of the Macclesfield district health authority. I am sure that, with his knowledge of the area, he will give the same encouragement and attention to the needs of the Macclesfield area as Mr. Charles Stevens did for the whole of Cheshire.
I hope that my hon. Friend appreciates that these are important orders. I think that he might ignore some of the political rhetoric. Indeed, he might be wise to ignore some of the rhetoric of the hon. Member for Crew and other Opposition Members who criticised the orders because: of what might result from them. Nevertheless, I hope that he will take the valid criticisms to heart and give them serious consideration.
9.4 pm
Mr. Terry Davis: We have had a wide-ranging debate about these three orders.
It is natural that hon. Members on both sides have tended to concentrate on the proposals for determination of districts, for several reasons. First, there is bound to be great local interest in the boundaries of the new districts. Secondly, we all recognise the importance of getting the boundaries right because nobody wants to go through another massive reorganisation in the near future. Certainly no incoming Labour Government will wish to spend time considering the boundaries of every health district authority in the country.
Nevertheless, several other issues have been covered. I shall not comment on many of them, but I urge the Minister to reply to the questions put to him by both sides and especially by my hon. Friend the Member For Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) about hospitals in Oldham and Stockport.
Also I myself wish to put one important question to the Minister of State about the constitution of the district health authorities and the appointments already made. E am especially interested in the chairmen. The chairmen are appointed by the Secretary of State, but press releases from the Department have been issued in the name of the Minister of State. It appears that the task of choosing the chairmen has been delegated to him, so it is fair to ask him the question. I shall not comment on the individuals appointed or on their qualifications or lack of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) referred to the lack of experience of the chairman of the new Brent district health authority. I have read in the press of another chairman who said that he only got the job through a friend—he has a friend who is a Conservative Member of Parliament, so he obviously chooses his friends wisely—and that he was surprised to be appointed. I say no more, as I find it distasteful to comment on individuals in the House. Indeed I found the Minister's comments on Mr. David Townsend to be cheap and unworthy of a Minister of the Crown.
A different aspect of the matter interests me. Looking at the list of chairmen of district health authorities, it is clear that one common factor applies to more than 80 per cent. of the appointments. It is not their politics or their occupations; it is the fact that they are men. This is especially interesting because women account for a large proportion of those employed in the Health Servce, but

479
apart from nursing officers there are very few women in senior posts—in my view, too few. I do not hold the Minister of State responsible for that, but he can be held responsible for his failure to appoint more women to chair the new district health authorities. This reorganisation gave the Government a rare, perhaps unique, opportunity to ensure a better balance between men and women in these appointments. Instead, fewer than one in five is a woman. Why? Was it deliberate? Or was it an oversight—just something that never even crossed his mind? I await the Minister's answer with interest.
If the Minister has had little to say about appointments, he had a great deal to say about the savings which he expects to flow from reorganisation. He still insists that the changes will save 10 per cent. of management costs. As he introduced the point, I shall ask some questions about it. How did the Government calculate that the saving would be 10 per cent.? The Minister said that there would be 58 fewer chief officer teams, but how does that equate with a saving of 10 per cent. rather than 15 per cent., 20 per cent. or 5 per cent.? I am always suspicious of round figures. Why should management costs be reduced from 5.1 per cent. of turnover to 4.6 per cent.?
I make it quite clear that the Opposition favour smaller authorities to run the Health Service, and we are in favour of district health authorities. Smaller authorities may be better for the Health Service, but they are not necessarily cheaper.
One of the smallest authorities in the West Midlands is the Solihull area health authority, which is to become a new district health authority. In terms of management costs, it is one of the most expensive area health authorities. It will be a single district health authority and there will be no change in its organisation or structure as a result, of the orders, so why should that very expensive authority's management costs be reduced? I understand that at present its management costs exceed 6 per cent. of turnover.
On the other hand, the Birmingham area health authority is a much bigger authority and is one of the authorities in the West Midlands region with the lowest management costs. I understand that they are slightly over half those of Solihull. Why should a change from one area health authority to five district health authorities reduce the management costs of Birmingham, which are already very low?
I am not surprised that Solihull's management costs are high because the overheads of smaller organisations are often greater than those of larger organisations as a percentage of turnover. I am not criticising the Solihull AHA. It may be that its management costs are tightly controlled. However, the fact is that they are higher than those of other authorities.
As I have already said, smaller organisations may do it better, but they do not necessarily do it cheaper. In the Health Service fewer teams of chief officers do not necessarily mean fewer officers. We may have fewer teams but more officers.
District health authorities will have more responsibilities than the district management teams have had in the past. We may see more duplication of functions. There may have been duplication in the past between the chief officer teams and district management teams of area health
480
authorities. However, we shall now get duplication of functions between district health authorities, the functions that previously were performed by area health authorities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred to the chairman of the Gloucester area health authority who resigned as a result of the Government's proposals for that area. He estimated that the decision to have two district health authorities instead of one district health authority in Gloucestershire would increase management costs by £500,000. I understand that the vice-chairman, who obviously has the confidence of the Minister because he was appointed the new chairman of the authority, confirmed his predecessor's estimate that the new organisation would increase costs by £500,000.
If the Minister's aim is to reduce management costs and if he really believes that costs are a function of the number of chief officer teams—the only explanation he has advanced today for saying that costs will be reduced is that there will be 58 fewer teams of chief officers—why not abolish the district management teams? If that were done, we would have far fewer teams as there would be only area health authorities and their teams.
In short, the Minister has no ground for saying that there will be savings of 10 per cent. He plucked that figure out of the air. It is a management task that has been arbitrarily imposed and he has blind faith that it will be achieved.
In dealing with the boundaries of district health authorities, it is necessary to begin by referring to the circular that was issued by the Department 18 months ago. It was stated in the circular that the new authorities
"should as far as possible comprise natural communities, and the boundaries of one or more DHAs should normally be coterminous with the boundary of a social services or education authority."
Coterminosity is an ugly word, but it is important. It means that the Health Service should be organised on a basis that is similar to the organisation of a local authority's services.
In opening the debate the Minister said that the purpose of the reorganisation was to have a balance between health care needs and administrative needs; but that is not a reason for coterminosity. The reason for having similar boundaries is to improve patient care, which the Minister also said is important. That was explained clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South. The issue was also explained vividly by the illustration that has been given by Conservative Members who represent Buckinghamshire, who are complaining about the removal of part of that county in order to be joined with Berkshire in the new organisation. It applies also to Lewisham and North Southwark, on the one hand, and to the West Lambeth district health authority, on the other.
I thought that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) was rather unfair to my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle). The hon. Gentleman referred to the recommendation from the regional health authority. When the Minister replies I suspect that he will shelter behind that authority's recommendation.
The recommendations of the regional health authorities are extremely important and are to be taken into account by the Minister when deciding what boundaries to put before the House tonight. However, the Minister was not so ready to accept the recommendation of the regional health authority on the boundaries of Gloucestershire

481
district health authority. We heard about that in great detail from the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving). The Minister is willing to over-rule a regional health authority in one area but not, apparently, in South-East Thames.
The point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle) made about the distortion of the budget is valid. It is not just a question of competition between Guy's hospital and Lewisham hospital; it is also a question of balance between the proportion of the health budget to be spent on hospitals and the proportion that is spent on community care. I refer to the Minister's written answer on 23 July 1981 on the arrangements for London, when he said that these arrangements would reflect the need to give higher priority to community care. I do not see how the boundaries for the Lewisham and North Southwark district health authority reflect that priority. There is an effect from these boundaries on the liaison with local authorities. The case is just as strong for Lambeth as it is for Buckinghamshire. Hospitals are not the Health Service and what the Minister has done in South-East London is to set up not district health authorities but district hospital authorities.
The problem in Liverpool is different. I am sorry that my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) and Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) could not be here. My hon. Friend the Member for Scotland Exchange particularly asked me to speak on his behalf about Liverpool.
Liverpool is the special creation of the Minister of State. It is necessary to go into the history of the Liverpool problem, which is somewhat similar to that of Gloucestershire. It was originally set up as two districts under an area health authority. Then it merged into one single district health authority four years ago. When the regional health authority came to consider the boundaries for the new district health authorities and how many should be created, the regional authority was split evenly. There was a tied vote on whether there should be one or two district health authorities, and this was resolved by the casting vote of the chairman, who had already voted once. I make no complaint about that, but the truth is that members of RHA were equally divided.
The proposal to have two district health authorities was opposed by everybody in Liverpool—and I mean everybody in Liverpool. All the political parties and the city council as a whole were opposed to the scheme. The Minister's answer was a typically silly compromise. He suggested, and has now put through in the order, something which is neither one thing nor the other. There is not one district health authority, nor are there two district health authorities; there is a single district with two sectors—one district health authority with two teams of chief officers.
This is similar to what used to appertain in area health authorities. During the Committee proceedings on the Bill which became the Health Services Act which led to these orders, the Under-Secretary of State gave frequent assurances that it was the Government's intention not to keep an area health authority anywhere. But that is what has happened in Liverpool. It has been opposed by everybody in Liverpool—the existing Liverpool area health authority, Liverpool city council, Liverpool university, the family practitioner committee, the local medical committee, the area medical committee, both the community health councils as well as trade unions.
482
When the Minister went to Liverpool he asked whether there was anybody who was in favour of the proposal
Mr. Moyle: So much for consultation.
Mr. Davis: As my right hon. Friend says, so much for consultation. The answer was that there was little evidence of significant opinion in favour of the proposal. In this case not even the consultants wanted this arrangement in Liverpool. Everybody agrees that it is unworkable. The decision has been taken personally by the Minister, who told us today that his aim is to simplify organisation. The Minister went on to tell us that he believes that two chief officer teams are necessary to solve the tremendous administrative and financial difficulties of Liverpool. Why, and how? Is it a matter of size? Is Liverpool too big to be managed by one team of chief officers? I see that the Minister is nodding, so we shall put that into the record. If Liverpool is too big with a population of 537,000., perhaps the Minister will tell us why Sheffield is not too big with a population of 544,000, Nottingham is not too big with a population of 600.000 and Leicestershire is not too big with a population of 836,000. Will the Minister explain why Liverpool is too big when it is only two-thirds of the size of Leicestershire?
The Minister must also explain why he flouts local opinion in such a way. In his opening speech he referred to local responsibilities. He said that the Government will not tell district health authorities how to run their own shows—his words, not mine. He decided the structure of the Health Service in Liverpool, before the district health authority was appointed. He did not leave it to the district authority to run its own show. He did not even consult it about the structure. He decided it, announced it and then appointed people to tackle the problem. When discussing the names of district health authorities, the Minister says that the Government want district health authorities to have what they wish. However, he does not want the people of Liverpool to have 'what they wish.
If he is so concerned about savings in management costs, how can he justify two chief officer teams in Liverpool instead of one? The Minister has told us that there will be a saving of 10 per cent. in management costs as a result of a reduction of 58 in the number of chief officer teams. Many of us are very sceptical of both the scale and the rationale of those savings. However, let us take the Minister's figures. If we have one district health authority for Liverpool, with one instead of two teams of officers, and one district health authority for Gloucestershire, also with one instead of two teams of officers, there would be another reduction of two teams of officers in the Health Service. There would be 60 instead of 58 fewer teams of chief officers. That means that we could save, according to the Minister's figures, £1 million for the Health Service. Therefore, I ask Conservative Members to vote with myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends against the orders tonight.
9.22 pm
Dr. Vaughan: We have had a very useful debate. It ranged over many subjects, and some parts of it were quite heated. At least one speech was somewhat overheated, but hon. Members have strong feelings about these matters. I shall try to answer all the points raised by hon. Members, but if I do not succeed entirely I shall gladly answer Fetters from them.

483
There have been some comments about one or two of the chairmen who have been appointed. The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt), the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) and the right hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle) all referred to that. It is unfortunate that a few chairmen have been picked out because individual appointments have not pleased some hon. Members on both sides of the House. We tried to appoint people who would do their job on a non-party political basis—there is no question of party politics in the matter—people who would use as their yardstick a genuine concern for the health services in their districts.
From the meetings that we have had with the new district chairmen, I believe that we have been fortunate. Many people who do not support my party or my philosophy have told me that they are surprised by and interested in how fortunate we have been in many of the people who are willing to take on such a task.
For example, we have just been hearing about Liverpool. I hear nothing but praise for the quiet skilful way in which the shadow chairman of the new authority has set about his task. Praise has come from people who did not agree with the appointment, but who are now having second thoughts on their original opinion. They now think that he will make a very good chairman indeed.
Mr. Moyle: The hon. Gentleman outlined a series of propositions on the basis of which he appointed chairmen of district health authorities. However, I have a statement from the present Secretary of State for Industry, the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin)—in a letter dated 22 July 1981—saying that the chairman of the north Southwark and Lewisham district health authority was to be appointed to safeguard the interests of the people of Lewisham. Why has that criterion not been adopted?
Dr. Vaughan: The right hon. Gentleman knows that extensive discussions took place and great efforts were made to find a chairman who would be acceptable to all parts of the health authority and who would safeguard the interests of Lewisham. I believe that we have found such a chairman. From the conversations that we had, I believed that the right hon. Gentleman felt that the chairman would be a good appointment. I should, however, be very glad to discuss that appointment with him.
The hon. Member for Stechford raised the question of female chairmen. We have appointed 32 female chairmen out of a total of 192. That is slightly more than were appointed by the Labour Government. We have gone further in appointing women than our predecessors did. We have chosen chairmen on the basis of merit and the experience and enthusiasm that they will bring to looking after the health services. The hon. Member for Brent, South mentioned the chairman of Brent. He was criticising a woman.
Mr. Pavitt: Will the Minister accept that I do not have a chauvinist male pig attitude to the good lady? I paid tribute to her, but why appoint someone without experience when there are plenty of nominees with experience?
Dr. Vaughan: I shall leave the hon. Gentleman to sort out his attitudes to and relationships with women.
484
I spent this morning visiting Chailey Heritage with the shadow chairman for the Brighton district. She is a highly intelligent, capable woman. I have no doubt that we have chosen an extremely efficient and able woman to chair that new district health authority. I resent the suggestion that we have not given women a full share of the appointments.
A number of hon. Members—including the hon. Member for Stechford—have questioned the 10 per cent. saving of management costs. If management costs increase—I gave a figure of about £300 million—the savings in costs will increase proportionately. Our target of a 10 per cent. proportion of management costs will remain constant. We have every expectation of achieving that. It was suggested that we plucked that figure out of the sky. Not at all. We think that it is a reasonable figure. I have had discussions with many regional treasurers. When I inquired whether they had any doubts that we would achieve that figure, they told me that they did not. The message from the health authorities is that the figure will undoubtedly be achieved. In some districts the cost may increase a little, but in others within the region the cost will fall. We have a clear expectation for each region and are confident that we shall achieve the 10 per cent. proportion.
Mr. Terry Davis: The Minister has missed the most important point, which is not whether he had discussions with the treasurers of regional health authorities after establishing the figure of 10 per cent., but how he established it in the first place.
Mr. James Lamond: At the Tory Party conference.
Dr. Vaughan: I suggest that the hon. Member for Stechford should wait. Time will show whether Opposition Members are right or whether we are right. I think that Opposition Members will find that we are right.
Mr. Pavitt: Does the Minister recall that in an earlier reorganisation the present Secretary of State for Education and Science thought that by taking away 9,000 members of hospital management committees we could save some money, but that that did not happen after the 1973 Act?
Dr. Vaughan: I, too, have a good memory. If I had any doubts I should not be prepared to rise to my feet and say with the confidence that I have that we should achieve such savings. Opposition Members are troubled because they tried, but failed, to achieve such savings. They cannot believe that we can not only say that we shall do so, but will achieve them.
Mr. Terry Davis: This year, or next year?
Dr. Vaughan: If I may move on——
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Perhaps I can get my hon. Friend off the hook. As I believe in my hon. Friend's sincerity, will he give an assurance that if savings are achieved a contribution will be made to nurses in the wards in the form of a wage increase, and that a contribution will be made towards the necessary improvement of the Health Service to reduce perinatal and neonatal mortality?
Dr. Vaughan: My hon. Friend is very ingenious. Although he has rescued me from one hook, he has sought to impale me on two others. He knows perfectly well that such discussion would be out of order.
The hon. Member for Brent, South referred to a press report about regional reviews and accountability. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs.

485
Knight) also raised that issue, which is very important. The press report is not entirely accurate. The day-to-day running of the Health Service is, of course, a job for the health authorities. The orders before us aim to continue that. However, as hon. Members know, Ministers are responsible to Parliament. The system of annual reviews that was recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is designed to consider the outcome of the planning system and to ensure that the health authorities deal with national and local priorities efficiently and effectively. That is all.
My right hon. Friend is not about to try to run the National Health Service from the Elephant and Castle. That would be absurd. He recognises that we owe it to the House and to the taxpayer to ensure that local health authorities are accountable for their actions. I should have thought that that would please, not concern, the hon. Member for Brent, South. After all, he asked that the House and the Select Committees should be given more satisfactory and relevant information about how money is spent. That is exactly what we are doing.
Mr. Pavitt: The heading to the report states that the Secretary of State is to take control. It then states that the right hon. Gentleman is to take powers to intervene. That implies that he is taking new powers. If that is true, what are they? Is the Minister saying that there are no new powers and that nothing is different?
Dr. Vaughan: The hon. Gentleman should not get carried away by everything that he reads in the press. We have the powers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is instituting a series of discussions with the regions, looking ahead at how they and their districts are planning to spend their resources in the coming months. We can discuss it with them again later to see how they actually spent the resources. In that way we shall introduce an important and fundamental aspect of accountability into the system. This will be of benefit to the Health Service.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister confirm that up to now he has been leaving it to the officials in the Department of Health and Social Security? What is the Minister adding by going along with the discussions that officials have in the past had with the regions?
Dr. Vaughan: We are having discussions of a kind that have not taken place before. We are getting the health authorities to commit themselves on how they will spend their resources. As I say, we can discuss with them where changes have been made. We are introducing a level of accountability that we did not have under the previous Administration.
The hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) was remarkably restrained in her speech. That seemed to me to suggest substantial agreement with what we are doing. The hon. Lady accused me of indecision. She seemed to be advocating greater rigidity. She seemed upset that we were prepared to have health authorities which are largish, if that is appropriate to the part of the country they are serving, or small. In my opening remarks I gave examples of the difference between Rugby and Leicestershire.
Mr. Michael English: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman in two respects. He has been very helpful to all the people of Nottingham. He knows that the guidelines originally had a certain limitation. He knows equally that he went beyond those,
486
as a sensible Minister should. In that area and in a few other areas he acceptd the fact that not every immediate limitation should be obeyed. Would he do one simple extra thing? Now that he has granted that the order should include something slightly more than for the rest of the United Kingdom, will he say also that if four district councils are included, they should have more than three places on the local district health authority?
Dr. Vaughan: I was about to refer to the excellent virtues of Nottingham and the problems that it has over representation by authorities. I have discussed this with the hon. Gentleman. We would be pleased to have a further look to see whether a slightly different representation would be of benefit to Nottingham.
In regard to the variation in sizes of population, it surprised me that the hon. Member for Crewe should have brought this up in the way that she did. I should have thought that it was of benefit to the various parts of the country to have small or large district health authorities. If the hon. Lady looks at "Patients First" she will see that the criterion we set out on population was not rigid, although we made some suggestions on population size.
We suggested as the main criterion that the boundaries of the district health authority should include the majority of the patients being served by the main hospital in the district. That is what we have tried to do. On every side we have been looking at the Health Service's needs rather than rigid boundaries.
Mr. John Major: Is my hon. Friend aware that the variation in size is welcomed by those of us who are now in the midst of small and new district health authorities? Will he bear in mind that new district health authorities, such as Huntingdon, which are among the smallest in the country, are establishing an homogeneous unit that was in danger of disappearing when the old county of Huntingdon departed to Cambridgeshire? Will he bear in mind that that has caused great pleasure locally and that we are extremely grateful to him for his decisions?
Dr. Vaughan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks.
Mrs. Dunwoody: So the Minister should be.
Dr. Vaughan: I shall give way to any other hon. Member if he or she will also make such points.
The hon. Members for Crewe and for Brent, South referred to teaching hospitals.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. We all seem to he playing this Box and Cox game. What is the Minister's attitude towards the generation of resources by small units? If a unit is too small, how is it expected to generate resources? It suited the Minister not to stick to his own criteria.
Dr. Vaughan: The hon. Lady has taken a gloomy view about some of the smaller authorities. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford gave us one example. I could give other examples where we believe that smaller authorities will lead to quicker and better decisions, less waste of money and less faulty planning. We believe that more direct and locally orientated authorities will make considerable savings, which I hope will be greater than we forecast.
The hon. Lady referred to teaching hospitals. She must know that there is an allocation of extra funds to health

487
authorities which have a teaching hospital in their area. Of course there is an extra allocation. She must also know that we arranged extra university membership in places where there are teaching commitments. We have also recommended one university liaison committee for a medical school. We have recommended that the dean should be able to attend meetings of a district health authority when necessary.
It will be sweet to the hon. Lady's ears to hear that the salaries of chief officers will be enhanced in the teaching areas. Therefore, I should have thought that we have given ample attention to the problems of the teaching hospital areas.
The hon. Lady referred to "CHC News". The estimated cost of central funding for "CHC News" and the associated information service this year is £74,000. In our view, such a service and expense is more properly paid for by the community health councils.
I understand that there is considerable support for "CHC News" among many community health councils. There is no reason why they should not be prepared to pay for it themselves. If the hon. Lady believes, as we do, that the community health council is a local body, local action is required. If community health councils want to have a national paper, we feel that they should fund it from their own resources.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the family practitioner committees. Free-standing family practitioner committees will be better able to promote community health care. We believe that it will give them a more powerful new voice in community health developments, but we cannot achieve this until we have legislation before the House.
Mr. Spriggs: It seems to me and to the chairman of my community health council that there is something of which to be afraid. The £74,000 is being withdrawn from the community health councils because it has been a means of communicating with Members of Parliament and the public. Will the Minister tell us what he is afraid of?
Dr. Vaughan: I listened with sympathy to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I really think he is talking absolute nonsense. To suggest some sort of fear as a motivation for this is rubbish. We believe that if it is so valuable to the community health councils they should be able to pay for it themselves.
The hon. Member for Crewe and other hon. Members talked about the value of coterminosity. We made it clear during all the discussions that, where possible, we would like to see a coterminosity between the Health Service and local authority boundaries. This makes great sense when it comes to co-ordination with, for example, the social services. However, we do not believe that that should be the overriding consideration. Where the Health Service needs demand a different boundary, we said, as the hon. Lady knows, that we would expect the Health Service needs to be the yardstick in determining the new boundaries.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) questioned the Berkshire-Buckinghamshire overlap. They put forward a very strong case from the Buckinghamshire point of view. Indeed, it was all one way. They made no
488
reference to the people who have expressed opposing views, although my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe admitted that the view in his constituency was not wholly in favour of the Buckinghamshire side.
Sir Ronald Bell: My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe said that in his constituency there was a minority view to the opposite effect. I said that in Berkshire there are no doubt opposing views, but that in my constituency—and the whole of the area concerned is in my constituency—there is virtual unanimity.
Dr. Vaughan: I have a list here of those in favour of the transfer of the overlap to the Wycombe district health authority. There are actually 11 bodies, but I am not playing the numbers game. I also have a list of 22 bodies whose views are very strongly in the opposite direction. While the hon. Members to whom I have referred feel strongly one way, my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) feels differently. So does my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee). When I look at the people who are in favour of the status quo, what do I find? The answer is the Berkshire FPC and also the area dental advisory committee—it should know a little—and the Thames Valley branch of the Health Visitors Association.
Mr. English: It is not like Nottinghamshire, is it?
Dr. Vaughan: Not quite as easy. I also find the chairman of the hospital medical committee of the High Wycombe district.
Sir Ronald Bell: That is not my problem.
Dr. Vaughan: Therefore, I suggest that things are not quite as solidly in one direction as was suggested. However, I understand the strength of feeling and the anxieties of my right hon. and hon. Friends on this matter and I suggest that I call the new East Berkshire chairman to see me and discuss with him procedures to ensure a proper cover for health services in the overlap. Then, if my right hon. and hon. Friends are still unhappy and can show that, as it turns out, we are wrong, we shall of course reexamine the situation in about 12 months' time and take steps to put matters right.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister prepared to give that kind of undertaking for other areas where people are desperately concerned about the changes?
Dr. Vaughan: The hon. Lady has misunderstood the degree of support in other parts of the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham made one incorrect statement. Under the agency temporary arrangements with the family practitioner committees, there will not be an expense of £80,000 to transfer records as he suggested.
I understand how my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) feels, but he used some powerful words, some of which I much regret. I cannot accept the way in which he expressed his feelings and I hope that he, too, will regret the way in which he spoke tonight.
I understand how my hon. Friend feels and I understand also how his good friend Sir Robert Hunt feels. My hon. Friend knows that not only did I examine the matter, but that it was exhaustively examined personally by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin).
My hon. Friend was correct in telling us that it had been thought that a single authority for Gloucester and

489
Cheltenham would be best, and it was tried for three years. But that is as far as my hon. Friend was correct, because in the view of many people it did not work. Cheltenham and Gloucester did not work together. They were described to me as merely working back to back, facing in different directions.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Like the Liberals and the Social Democrats.
Dr. Vaughan: My hon. Friend did not refer to the strongly held views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim), which are contrary to those that he put to us tonight.
I know that the right hon. Member for Lewisham, East feels very strongly about the Lewisham-Guy's connection. I shall not disappoint the hon. Member for Stechford when I say that what was done was recommended by the region. In this matter we must look at the whole Health Service. We cannot look at one part of a district and leave another out of consideration. We must look at the problems of Lewisham and at the problems of the Guy's district to the north of Lewisham.
I believe that what has been proposed in the amalgamated district will, over a period of time, be to the satisfaction of the residents of those areas. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at Guy's not as an intruder but as an additional jewel in the Lewisham district crown.
The hon. Member for Brent, South made the valuable suggestion that a director of social services might be a member of the matching health authority. Why not? There is no reason, so far as I know, to stop a local authority appointing a director of social services as a member if it wishes. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should take the matter up with his local authority.
Mr. Pavitt: What the Minister has said means that the four representatives do not necessarily have to be elected representatives, and that the council can appoint anyone it likes to take its four places on a district health authority—council officers or even members of the general public.
Dr. Vaughan: I shall be pleased to discuss this matter further with the hon. Gentleman later.
The hon. Member for Brent, South asked about teaching hospital trust funds because of the commitment to teaching hospitals in regard to medical education and NHS patients. Since 1974 those trust funds have been kept separate from the rest of the NHS trust funds. These arrangements will continue and special trustees will still be appointed.
The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) is always lively and original in his remarks. I was pleased to hear him say that he wanted on these authorities people who know what they are doing and who will look to the health care needs of the future.
The hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) said that I was wrong in pointing out that there was an Easington member on the Sunderland health authority. I hope that I am not wrong. I am assured by the Northern regional health authority that a member from Easington was nominated by the Easington council voluntary services. That gentleman lives in Seaham, as far as the regional health authority knows. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that Easington is properly represented.
Mr. Dormand: The Minister wrote to me to say that someone who lived in Seaham was on the new authority and that therefore that met the point. I told him that that was incorrect. The person to whom he referred does not live in Seaham. He lives in Houghton-le-Spring, which is an entirely different area. I can give the Minister his address. I was making the point that with a remote body such as the Government, or the Minister, such mistakes can be made. Therefore, he should put it right.
Dr. Vaughan: I shall be glad to look into that matter again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston made a number of telling points. She asked about the money going to the NHS. We are proud of the resources that we have channelled into the NHS. In my opening speech I referred to some of the press comments, which have pointed out that more resources have gone into the NHS under this Government in the past two and a half years than at any time since 1948. In 1978–79 the gross outturn of capital and revenue costs in England only were £6,500 million. Those are cash prices. In 1982–83 the figure will be £12,100 million. That is an increase of £5,600 million—87 per cent. That is a 5 per cent. increase in real ten-ns, and a further 1.7 per cent. increase this year in real terms. Channelling resources into a needy part of our services is something of which we should be proud.
I was particularly interested in the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). I agree with him about the value of having as a Member of this House someone who has experience on a regional health authority.
I ask the House to contrast what we have done, for patient care, the urgency with which we have taken action, our decision to respond to the almost universal wish that changes should be made because the service was too remote and bureaucratic, with the lethargy and fog of the Labour Administration. When I took up my present appointment I was appalled by the drift and indecision that we found in the National Health Service, the lengthening waiting lists, which we have had to bring down, and the decaying buildings. The House should contrast that with the £1,000 million of building development that is now under way.
These orders will profoundly change the way in which the National Health Service will operate, but more important than any of the technicalities of these orders is the change in the style of national health care management that we hope for. These orders will provide a truly local framework in which the district health authorities can exercise their functions for health care in the way that local communities need them.
I therefore ask the House to accept these orders arid to reject the prayers which have been moved against them by the Opposition.
Question put and negatived.
It being after Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order this day, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the remaining motion.
Motion made, and Question put,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the National Health Service (Determination of Districts) Order 1981 (S.I., 1981, No. 1837), dated 21st December 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th January, be annulled.—[Mr. Terry Davis.]
The House divided: Ayes 54, Noes 125.

AYES

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Home Robertson, John

Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

Homewood, William

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Hooley, Frank

Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

Kerr, Russell

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Lamborn, Harry

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

Lamond, James

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

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Carter-Jones, Lewis

McWilliam, John

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

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

Newens, Stanley

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Palmer, Arthur

Cryer, Bob

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

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

Prescott, John

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Skinner, Dennis

Dormand, Jack

Snape, Peter

Dubs, Alfred

Soley, Clive

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Spearing, Nigel

Eastham, Ken

Spriggs, Leslie

English, Michael

Stoddart, David

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

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

Welsh, Michael

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Whitehead, Phillip

George, Bruce

Whitlock, William

Graham, Ted

Winnick, David

G rant, George (Morpeth)

Woolmer, Kenneth

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

Hardy, Peter

Tellers for the Ayes

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Mr. James Tinn and

Haynes, Frank

Mr. George Morton.

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Glyn, Dr Alan

Alton, David

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Aspinwall, Jack

Goodlad, Alastair

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Gow, Ian

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Greenway, Harry

Berry, Hon Anthony

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Haselhurst, Alan

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Hawksley, Warren

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Blackburn, John

Heddle, John

Braine Sir Bernard

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Bright, Graham

Holland, Philip (Carlton)

Brinton, Tim

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Brooke, Hon Peter

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Brown, Michael (Brigg&Sc'n)

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)

Jopling,Rt Hon Michael

Budgen, Nick

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Cadbury, Jocelyn

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

Knight, Mrs Jill

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Knox, David

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Lamont, Norman

Cope, John

Lang, Ian

Costain, Sir Albert

Lawrence, Ivan

Cranborne, Viscount

Le Marchant, Spencer

Crouch, David

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Dorrell, Stephen

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Dover, Denshore

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Loveridge, John

Dykes, Hugh

Macfarlane, Neil

Eggar, Tim

MacGregor, John

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Major, John

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Marland, Paul

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Marlow, Antony

Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

Marshall, Michael (Arunde)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Mates, Michael

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

492

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Speller, Tony

Mayhew, Patrick

Spicer, Michael (SWorcs)

Mellor, David

Stanbrook, lvor

Mills, Peter (West Devon)

Stanley, John

Moate, Roger

Stevens, Martin

Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Murphy, Christopher

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Needham, Richard

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Nelson, Anthony

Temple-Morris, Peter

Neubert, Michael

Thompson, Donald

Newton, Tony

Thorne, Neil (Ilfordsouth)

Osborn, John

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Page, Richard (SW Herts)

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Penhaligon, David

Waddington, David

Percival, Sir Ian

Wainwright, R. (Colnev)

Pink, R. Bonner

Waller, Gary

Proctor, K. Harvey

Watson, John

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Wells, Bowen

Rathbone, Tim

Wheeler, John

Rhodes James, Robert

Wickenden, Keith

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Wilkinson, John

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Williams, D. (Montgomery)

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Winterton, Nicholas

Rossi, Hugh

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Tellers for the Noes:

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Mr. Robert Boscawen and

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Mr. Selwyn Gummer.

Speed, Keith

Question accordingly negatived.

National Health Service
  Petition

    Mr. James Sillars
    10.14 pm
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to ask leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to present a petition from Mr.James Sillars of 21 Balcarres Court, Edinburgh, Scotland.
    The Clerk read the petition, which was as follows:
    To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
    The humble petition of James Sillars, a defender in an adjourned trial at Edinburgh Sheriff Court, to be resumed on 19th February 1982.
    Sheweth that correspondence from the Scottish Office, and Government policy towards the Scottish Assembly building are of direct relevance to the main issues in the trial at the Sheriff Court.
    Wherefore your petitioner prays that leave be given to call as witness the Right Hon. George Younger, M.P., and Malcolm Rifkind, Esquire, M.P., to attend and give evidence, as Ministers, when the trial resumes at 10.30 a.m. on Friday 19th February 1982.
    And your petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pary, &c.
    Mr. Wilson:I beg to move,
    That leave be given to——
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Objection taken. The hon. Gentleman cannot proceed with his motion.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Removal Expenses
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Hunt.]
    10.14 pm
    Mr. David Stoddart: I am pleased to be able to draw to the attention of the House a serious problem that has been brought to my notice of late. It concerns single people and childless married couples offered permanent accommodation in unfurnished units. Such people are finding it increasingly difficult to obtain single payments from the DHSS to enable them to move into such accommodation. Many are refused payment altogether because DHSS local offices claim that suitable alternative furnished accommodation is available in the area.
    The DHSS is able to make that claim because of the rider to regulation 10(I)(a)(iii) and (iv) which states that, in addition to other requirements, people will be eligible for a payment for furniture only if there is
    "no suitable alternative furnished accommodation available in the area".
    I seek to have that rider deleted. No other course will satisfactorily meet the problem. No minor amendment, such as a provision that payments should be available for those moving from a voluntary organisation running a resettlement programme, will suffice as this would exclude the vast majority who are not supported in that way.
    The problem came to my notice when I received a letter in December 1981 about a single man who had been allocated a council flat on medical grounds because of the condition of the private furnished accommodation in which he was living. He was in receipt of sickness benefit and supplementary allowance but needed assistance with basic household items by way of a single payment. He applied to the DHSS for such a payment but was refused on the grounds that there was suitable furnished accommodation available in the area.
    In this case, a satisfactory result eventually ensued, but it alerted me to the fact that the regulations were operating in a restrictive, unfair and highly discriminatory manner, causing hardship and possible loss of permanent accommodation to single people and childless couples. Furthermore, it was undermining good housing practice by local authorities wishing to help to re-house all people, irrespective of marital status or size of family. Indeed, it was working against Department of the Environment policy.
    Coincidentally with that case, I received an indication from the Thamesdown law centre to the effect that similar problems were being brought to its notice. It outlined its concern at a meeting that I had with it and the Salvation Army resettlement officer who was concerned not only that his work in resettling people in permanent accommodation was being hampered by the offending regulations but that the Salvation Army hostel at Davis House, Swindon, was apparently being used as evidence of suitable alternative furnished accommodation available in the area.
    After that meeting, I wrote to the Secretary of State expressing my concern about the matter and urging him to bring forward an appropriate amendment to the
    494
    regulations. I have not yet had a reply. That is not intended as a criticism. I take the delay as an indication that he is treating the matter seriously and sympathetically.
    However, since writing to the Secretary of State it has become obvious that a solution to the problem is urgently needed and that action in the House is called for—hence the debate tonight. If there was any doubt before this debate that there was a nationwide problem, it has certainly been dispelled. Immediately it became known that there was to be a debate, I received correspondence from various parts of the country citing examples of refusals to single people and drawing attention to delays by DHSS offices in making; visits and deciding claims. Officers of the campaign for single homeless people—CHAR—nationally and locally have been in touch with me, and letters from them and other organisations have come in over the past few days. There have been examples from Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, London, Nottinghamshire and Wales—indeed, from throughout the country. They all related the same experience of refusal, hardship and delay. The law centre in Swindon carried out a survey and the replies confirmed that the problem is widespread, although there are often different nuances in approach between one DHSS office and another.
    There are far too many cases to quote, but I must quote one or two to ensure that they are on the record. The first two come from the Toynbee Hall citizens' advice bureau. The first concerns a telephone call which the advice bureau received on behalf of a man who had been refused a single payment for furniture because he already had adequate accommodation. He had been living in a hostel for the past two or three years and had at last received an offer of unfurnished accommodation from his local authority. He was advised to appeal and I hope sincerely that he did.
    The other case that was reported by the Toynbee Hall citizens' advice bureau concerned a woman who w, as refused a single payment for furniture. She had been staying with friends since her marriage had broken up but had been offered unfurnished accommodation by the local authority. Her local DHSS office had told her that she could claim rent for her new accommodation. The bureau was told on the telephone by the legal department of the health and social security office that she did not qualify for a single payment because she had not been in receipt of supplementary benefit for six months and because she had no need to move as she was currently adequately housed. I do not know what sort of office that is, but it seemed to be a cruel and wrong decision.
    I received some case studies from the Leicester CHAR. The first case concerned a man who was rehoused from the waiting list after having lived in bed and breakfast accommodation for a long time. He applied in writing for a furniture grant and received a reply from the DHSS to the effect that it would not give a furniture grant because he could have moved into other bed and breakfast accommodation. He was not even visited.
    The second case from the Leciester CHAR concerned a couple who were childless and who had been on the waiting list for three years. When they were rehoused the woman was three months pregnant. They applied for a furniture grant. A DHSS representative visited them shortly after the women had miscarried. The Department would not make a decision locally and referred the case

    495
    to the regional office for a legalistic appraisal based on the fact that the women had had a miscarriage and that the couple were now childless.
    The last case that I wish to cite comes from the Rochdale Petrus Community, the Cyrenians. It states:
    "many claimants cannot get furniture for new tenancies because of the regulations and have to sleep on the floor and eat out for many weeks until they can beg or borrow furniture from somewhere. The local DHSS office seem to think a person should even move out of the town, since reference is sometimes made to the availability of furnished accommodation some distance away."
    It is clear that the phrase relating to the availability of suitable alternative accommodation is causing injustice and is discriminatory between one citizen and another. When I was a local councillor concerned with housing, I considered it a duty to provide decent unfurnished accommodation for all, and that is the view of most if not all local authorities throughout the country. However, their good housing practices are being frustrated most arbitrarily by the DHSS acting on the regulations. The benefits officer at the DHSS takes the decision as to whether there is suitable alternative accommodation available in the area but on what criteria are these decisions taken? Benefit officers have no special qualifications for taking the decision and it seems to rest on a matter of opinion rather than on a matter of fact.
    As far as I know, housing departments are not consulted, yet they are the best people to know the housing situation in that area. Furthermore, because decisions are based on opinion they are bound to differ widely between one area and another. In theory at least they can differ in a single office between one benefit officer and another.
    The regulations do not only frustrate the housing efforts of local authorities; they also make difficulties for the voluntary organisations, which have encouraged single people to seek permanent unfurnished accommodation from the local authority. Having achieved some success in this policy, they now find that their efforts are being undermined by the DHSS and they have to spend time and money on endless telephone calls, interviews and appeals.
    There is another serious and quaint aspect of the situation, in that one Government Department, the DHSS, is, by its policies, contradicting the policies of another. I refer to the Department of the Environment and the statement made by the Housing Minister in 1980 following his visits to some of the worst hostels in the country. In announcing his hostels initiative, he said:
    "There is significantly greater scope for helping some of those now living in impersonal, over-large and unsatisfactory hostel accommodation to establish themselves in self-contained accommodation."
    This initiative is entirely welcome but is completely undermined if people are unable to move from such institutions because the DHSS refuses assistance to buy furniture and other essential items. Perhaps the Minister should get together with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and synchronise Government policy on the matter.
    Perhaps even more farcical is the policy within the DHSS itself. As the Minister well knows, the infamous Camberwell resettlement unit is to close in 1985. At the end of last year it was announced that no new resettlement units would be built. Instead, housing associations would be allocated funds to provide a variety of non-institutional accommodation. However, if the policy is to succeed, men
    496
    moving from the resettlement unit will need help to buy furniture. Because the regulations were seen as a bar to that policy, they were changed and made more generous for people moving from resettlement units. It is unacceptable that the DHSS should treat people moving from their own institution more favourably than others in the community.
    I come back to the question of discrimination between one citizen and another. Is the DHSS of the opinion that single people or married couples should not, if unemployed and on supplementary benefit, be entitled to some help for moving into permanent homes or accommodation? Can it be the policy of the Government that these citizens must be condemned to live in unsatisfactory, often deplorable accommodation simply because they are poor and unemployed at a time when there are 3 million other people unemployed? I do not believe that any Government could hold that view. Yet that is what the regulations mean, that is what they say and that is what the debate is all about.
    If a person has been on supplementary benefit for six months, he has no capital resources to draw upon to provide even the merest household effects. In equity and decency, we should give help to those people to establish themselves when the opportunity arises in good surroundings with their own front door, their own pieces of furniture, free from the fear of eviction and even persecution.
    I believed that it was the Government's policy to help people on to their own feet and then to enable them to stand on their own feet. Far from helping them on to their feet, the regulations restrain people from getting to their feet at all and keep them in permanent housing poverty.
    The Minister might argue that the single payments are too expensive, but that cannot be so. The lump sum payments are not substantial, anyway. As unfurnished accommodation is cheaper than furnished accommodation, the initial outlay on a single payment will be recouped over some time. Due to inadequate payments, an internal DHSS memorandum, which no doubt the Minister has seen, recently drew attention to the fact that many cookers bought by claimants were in a dangerous condition and presented a real danger to the household. I seek an assurance from the Minister tonight that that deficiency has been rectified in all areas.
    The Minister might also argue that single people are often itinerant and that single payments would be wasteful. I sincerely hope that he will not use such an argument, because it is specious and unworthy of him. All too often, the only reason why single people move more often than others is that they are hounded from one unsatisfactory furnished place to another. Given the chance to settle down in permanent accommodation, they would be no more itinerant than anyone else. I have also heard it said that supplementary benefits cannot be seen to be unreasonably generous to people who are unemployed as opposed to those who have low-paid jobs. I reject that argument out of hand, because the supplementary benefits scheme is not generous and the real solution to that problem would be to give assistance, if needed, to those on low incomes to buy furniture rather than to leave those on supplementary benefits in empty flats or force them into a refusal of permanent accommodation.
    There is much more to be said on the issue, but because of the shortage of time I must bring my remarks to a close. However, there is one further serious and valid point

    497
    against the regulations—the person who is represented fares rather better than the person who is not. Thus the person who does not know where to go for help or who prefers to stand on his own two feet comes off much worse. That should not be so. It introduces a further discriminatory element into the whole sorry business.
    I am sure that the Minister cares about the issue and I am confident that he will wish to do something radical about it. I do not know what is in his brief, but if it does not contain a commitment to remove forthwith from the regulations the phrase relating to suitable alternative furnished accommodation being available in the area, I advise him to cast the brief aside and say that he is convinced of the justice of the case and will personally see that the matter is rectified. Nothing less than the removal of the offending phrase will do.
    10.33 pm
    The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Rossi): The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) has raised an issue that has attracted some attention in the current scheme of payments for furniture. There are two main issues—who should be helped by special grants for furniture, and how should the policy operate?
    The current scheme, which is enshrined in the regulations brought into effect in November 1980, simply carries forward what had been the long-standing practice of the former Supplementary Benefits Commission. The commission accepted that the scale rates of supplementary benefit could not cover furniture and larger items of household equipment. Therefore, an exceptional needs payment would have to be made to help impoverished people in certain circumstances. However, those payments were in the main restricted to replacing one or two worn-out articles or for providing for a growing family. That was regarded as something quite different from kitting out accommodation—for example, where a claimant moved into unfurnished accommodation for the first time. Such a circumstance was seen by the Supplementary Benefits Commission as an extreme case. In my view, the commission was rightly concerned about the equity, indeed, the propriety, of providing large-scale assistance, particularly for single or childless couples who were more likely to be on benefit for short periods, when others on comparable incomes from employment could receive no help at all.
    Moreover, those considerations existed against the background of the powers of local authorities to assist under section 94 of the Housing Act 1957. That Act gives powers to provide furniture, or loans for the purchase of furniture. Those powers are not confined in the same way as supplementary benefit to those in receipt of benefit. Furthermore, the provision of furniture or loans to purchase furniture would not arouse the same resentment as a scheme by the State to provide household furniture to furnish unfurnished accommodation for a selected few, whilst others would have to struggle on low incomes.
    The Supplementary Benefits Commission set out its policy clearly as recently as 14 April 1979 in "SBC Notes and News". It still represents the policy in this matter today. After describing the problems of the kind the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the article states:
    "The Commission accept that the scale rates of benefit cannot be expected to cover the cost of furniture and larger items of household equipment. Where claimants need these things an ENP should normally be given. In extreme cases it may be
    498
    necessary to provide all or most of the essential furnishings when a claimant moves into unfurnished accommodation for the first time. More commonly the need is for one or more pieces of furniture or equipment to replace ones which have worn out, or to meet the needs of a growing family.
    But the Commission cannot accept that every claimant who wishes to furnish and equip his home should automatically receive an ENP—that is, an exceptional needs payment—for that purpose. They put forward their view, in discussion with some local authority representatives, that Councils should be prepared to use their powers under the Housing Act 1957 (or the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966) to provide essential furniture and equipment, or the finance to purchase it, if necessary as a loan to be repaid. The case for doing this is particularly strong where the needs arise from slum clearance or other action taken by the Councils themselves.
    Even if the Commission stepped in and offered ENPs freely to every claimant needing furniture, that would not help the tat ge number of people with similar needs who are not living on supplementary benefit—some of them -with incomes only slightly above supplementary benefit levels, and some entitled to claim benefit but failing for various reasons to do so. Many of these needs can be effectively met only by the housing authorities. T he local authority representatives however saw little prospect of Councils extending their present practice in the direction suggested by the Commission. Nonetheless, the Commission hope that, by seting out their policies, they may pesuade these authorities to re-examine their position.
    The Commision are prepared to make ENPs or essential furniture and household equipment to a claimant taking up the tenancy or ownership of unfurnished accommodation if the claimant or one of his or her dependants is"
    There follows a list of people to whom help will be given, including a pensioner, a child under 16, a pregnant woman, someone moving house because of marital breakdown, a chronically sick or disabled person, someone moving out of prison. There are specific categories of people who, by their nature, need special help. The Supplementary Benefits Commission's policy has been extant for some time and has been largely reproduced in the regulations to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    The regulations—principally regulations 9 and 10—provide for those moving into unfurnished property and mention certain overriding categories, where the need for furniture and household equipment is met without further conditions. I refer, for example, to the elderly, to families with young children and to the sick and disabled. There are other categories where an extra condition is applied. That condition is that there should be no suitable alternative accommodation in the area for those who are unemployed or who are on supplementary benefit for more than six months and those coming out of prison or out of homes and centres where they have received special care.
    One of the principles behind setting out those two categories was expense. Of course the Government cannot afford to kit out everybody with furniture at taxpayers' expense. The other principle is that those on low incomes must be considered. It would be unfair to those who are struggling to put a home together and who may be borrowing from families and relatives and buying second hand furniture if others were to be kitted out by the State at the taxpayers' expense.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned cookers. The instructions to staff say that second hand cookers bought for claimants should be reconditioned to acceptable fuel board standards. Single payments are, available to repair deficient or unsafe cookers. That policy is based on what the Supplementary Benefits Commission has done for years and is enshrined—with a few minor changes—in regulations. How are the regulations operated? The hon.

    499
    Gentleman made several references to DHSS officials. I should make it clear that the interpretation of all regulations, includng the application of conditions to individual cases, is a matter for independent adjudicating authorities and not for officials directly responsible to me. The independent adjudicating authorities are in the first instance, supplementary benefit officers. There are certain rights of appeal from their decisions on the interpretation of the regulations.
    For example, the furniture grant qualification for some claimants—there being no suitable alternative furnished accommodation in the area—may be interpreted differently in different cases, depending on the individual circumstances of the case. The advice given from the office of the chief supplementary benefit officer—over whom I have no control—is that the supplementary benefit officer must be satisfied that alternative accommodation is both available to, and suitable for the claimant with whom he is dealing.
    500
    The supplementary benefit officer must use his personal knowledge of the local area involved and information from advertisements in the local press. He will know from his local knowledge the type of accommodation available and the claimant and, therefore, whether one is suited to the other. That is why there will be different decisions in different circumstances in different areas. Decisions are based on personal knowledge of an area and of the claimant. Obviously, supplementary benefit officers do not go round knocking on doors to check that specific accommodation is available. That would be impractical. Their refusal to make a single payment for furniture is based on the evidence provided by newspapers about the general availability of suitable furnished accommodation——
    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 as sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TRADE
  Times Newspapers
  Times Newspapers
  Japan
  Japan
  European Community (Trade Disputes)
  European Community (Trade Disputes)
  Bankruptcies (Greater London)
  Bankruptcies (Greater London)
  Civil Aviation Authority (Chairman)
  Civil Aviation Authority (Chairman)
  Dumped Goods
  Dumped Goods
  Trading Standards Departments
  Trading Standards Departments
  United States (Steel Imports)
  United States (Steel Imports)
  Manufactured Goods (Exports)
  Manufactured Goods (Exports)
  Trading Deficits and Surpluses
  Trading Deficits and Surpluses
  Textile Imports
  Textile Imports
  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Anglo-Polish Air Services
  Anglo-Polish Air Services
PRIME MINISTER
  West Yorkshire
  West Yorkshire
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Scotland
  Scotland
  Mentally Disordered Prisoners
  Mentally Disordered Prisoners
  Factory Closures
  Factory Closures
  Scottish Textile Industry
  Scottish Textile Industry
  Wilmington
  Wilmington
  Southend-on-Sea
  Southend-on-Sea
  Public Sector Pay
  Public Sector Pay
  National Health Service (Funding)
  National Health Service (Funding)
  Lincolnshire Visit
  Lincolnshire Visit
  Labour Market (Investigation)
  Labour Market (Investigation)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Historic Buildings
  Historic Buildings
  Dog Licence
  Dog Licence
  Non-vocational Adult Education Fees
  Non-vocational Adult Education Fees
  Gaming Machines
  Gaming Machines
  Defence Expenditure
  Defence Expenditure
  Charities
  Charities
  European Community Finance Council
  European Community Finance Council
  Deposit Protection Scheme
  Deposit Protection Scheme
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Duties (Inflation)
  Duties (Inflation)
  Hotels and Guest Houses (Resident Proprietors)
  Hotels and Guest Houses (Resident Proprietors)
  Civil Servants (Northern Region)
  Civil Servants (Northern Region)
  Child Care Costs (Taxation Relief)
  Child Care Costs (Taxation Relief)
PAYMASTER GENERAL
  Pensions (Repayment)
  Pensions (Repayment)
WALES
  Health Care Standards
  Health Care Standards
  Agriculture
  Agriculture
  Industrial Growth Prospects
  Industrial Growth Prospects
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Graduates (Unemployment)
  Graduates (Unemployment)
  Training Boards
  Training Boards
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Scarman Report
  Scarman Report
  Sex Shops
  Sex Shops
  Police Authorities (Finance)
  Police Authorities (Finance)
  Telephone Tapping
  Telephone Tapping
  Street Crimes
  Street Crimes
  Mentally Disordered Prisoners
  Mentally Disordered Prisoners
  Police Forces (Establishments)
  Police Forces (Establishments)
  Juvenile Crime
  Juvenile Crime
  Police (Complaints)
  Police (Complaints)
  Data Processiing Protection
  Data Processiing Protection
  Community Service
  Community Service
  Gaming Machines
  Gaming Machines
  Immigration (Illegal Overstaying)
  Immigration (Illegal Overstaying)
  Illegal Entrant (Definition)
  Illegal Entrant (Definition)
  Inquests
  Inquests
  Satellite Broadcasts
  Satellite Broadcasts
  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act
  Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act
  Prison Accommodation
  Prison Accommodation
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Burglaries
  Burglaries
  Citizens Band Radio
  Citizens Band Radio
  Television Licence Fee
  Television Licence Fee
  Crime (Liverpool)
  Crime (Liverpool)
  King Edward the Martyr
  King Edward the Martyr
  National Assistance Act 1948
  National Assistance Act 1948
  Prison Sentences (Remission)
  Prison Sentences (Remission)
  Bedfordshire Police Force
  Bedfordshire Police Force
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Queen Elizabeth II and Sheerwater Schools
  Queen Elizabeth II and Sheerwater Schools
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Police (Complaints)
  Police (Complaints)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  El Salvador
  El Salvador
  Sphinx (Restoration)
  Sphinx (Restoration)
  United States of America (Visas)
  United States of America (Visas)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Immigrant Population
  Immigrant Population
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Clinical Trial Certificates
  Clinical Trial Certificates
  Maternity Benefit
  Maternity Benefit
  "Wandsworth Women's Health Book"
  "Wandsworth Women's Health Book"
  Hepatitis
  Hepatitis
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
  Antenatal Care
  Antenatal Care
  Hospital Pharmacists
  Hospital Pharmacists
  Poliomyelitis
  Poliomyelitis
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Foreign Doctors
  Foreign Doctors
  Contraceptive Advice
  Contraceptive Advice
  Disabled Persons Act 1981
  Disabled Persons Act 1981
  Hospital Staff
  Hospital Staff
  Benefits
  Benefits
  General Practitioners (Patient Numbers)
  General Practitioners (Patient Numbers)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Therapeutic Earnings Limit
  Therapeutic Earnings Limit
  National Health Service (Land Sales)
  National Health Service (Land Sales)
  Drugs (Effects)
  Drugs (Effects)
  Community and Personal Social Services
  Community and Personal Social Services
  National Health Service (Administrators)
  National Health Service (Administrators)
  Nursing Research (Fellowships)
  Nursing Research (Fellowships)
  Blood Donations
  Blood Donations
DEFENCE
  Royal Naval College, Greenwich
  Royal Naval College, Greenwich
  Woolwich Arsenal
  Woolwich Arsenal
  Tornado Tactical Force
  Tornado Tactical Force
  Homosexuality
  Homosexuality
  Chemical Weapons
  Chemical Weapons
TRANSPORT
  Disabled Persons (Orange Badge Scheme)
  Disabled Persons (Orange Badge Scheme)
  Cycling
  Cycling
  Barham Crossroads
  Barham Crossroads
  M42 (Tamworth)
  M42 (Tamworth)
  British Rail
  British Rail
SCOTLAND
  Croft House Building
  Croft House Building
  Carlops (A702)
  Carlops (A702)
  Cycling
  Cycling
  Cycleways and Walkways
  Cycleways and Walkways
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Illegal Organisations
  Illegal Organisations
  Japanese Lathes (Purchase)
  Japanese Lathes (Purchase)
  Redundant Teachers
  Redundant Teachers
  Teaching Posts
  Teaching Posts
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Teachers (Retirement)
  Teachers (Retirement)
  Teacher Unemployment Monitoring Group
  Teacher Unemployment Monitoring Group
  Teaching Vacancies
  Teaching Vacancies
  Unemployed Teachers
  Unemployed Teachers
  Imprisonment Statistics
  Imprisonment Statistics
  Scheduled Offences
  Scheduled Offences
  Young Persons (Detention)
  Young Persons (Detention)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Horses (Classification)
  Horses (Classification)
  Suckler Cow Premium
  Suckler Cow Premium
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Council of Agriculture Ministers
  Council of Agriculture Ministers
ENVIRONMENT
  Right to Buy (Waltham Forest)
  Right to Buy (Waltham Forest)
  Grant-related Expenditure
  Grant-related Expenditure
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Ancient Monuments
  Ancient Monuments
  Anglian Water Authority
  Anglian Water Authority
  Sports Clubs
  Sports Clubs
  Direct Labour Building Departments
  Direct Labour Building Departments
  House Building (Direct Labour)
  House Building (Direct Labour)
  Hazardous Waste
  Hazardous Waste
  Local Authorities (Employment Assistance)
  Local Authorities (Employment Assistance)
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Rents
  Rents
  West Midlands Metropolitan County Council
  West Midlands Metropolitan County Council
  Countryside Commission
  Countryside Commission
  Zoological Society of London
  Zoological Society of London
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester): The LORD CHANCELLOR Oil the Woolsack.

Prisoners: Mental Treatment
Baroness Faithfull: 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 mental hospitals with empty wards cannot be used for some of those in prison in need of mental treatment, as recommended by the Butler Committee (Cmnd. 6244).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Elton): My Lords, we do already have over 2,000 mentally disordered people in our hospitals who have come there either from prison or direct from the courts. It may be that the empty wards into which my noble friend wants us to put other prisoners are in large mental hospitals which are being replaced by smaller units. These closures are in line with the agreed policy of humanising the scale of institutions for long-term residential care. If so, the wards are empty by design and the resources needed to staff and service them have been moved elsewhere. The empty accommodation on its own will not be of any use.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. I appreciate that there are questions of staffing, but may I ask him whether it might be wise for a survey to be carried out, bearing in mind that in 1971 there were 132,000 patients in hospitals for the mentally ill and that there was a drop to 103,000 leaving 29,000 vacancies. Would it not be possible, despite the probelms of staffing, to place the 229 mentally ill patients at present in prisons in these hospitals? Secondly, may I ask my noble friend what is happening about the mental hospitals that are closed and standing empty? Could they not be used for relieving the pressure in the prisons both for the mentally ill and for others?
Lord Elton: My Lords, on the question of the numbers of prisoners in the category to which my noble friend refers, at 30th September last there were 170 convicted inmates considered to be suffering from a mental disorder who could be detained under the 1959 Act. Mentally disordered offenders are just like other people with mental disorders; some of them need to go to hospital for treatment and others do not. The Act distinguishes between the two categories.
What we cannot undertake to do is to send a mentally disordered person to hospital simply because he has committed an offence when he would not have gone
644
to hospital if he had not committed an offence. As to the empty hospitals to which my noble friend refers, we are aware that it is proper to consider the use of such accommodation and we do so in consultation, among others, with the Home Office, but the difficulties of bringing them into different use are often more considerable then perhaps might be expected.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, while fully accepting some of the points made by the Minister in his earlier replies, may I ask him whether he agrees that it would be extremely unwise to start reducing the capacity of our mental hospitals, or to start disposing of allegedly superfluous accommodation, until we have accurately quantified the real need, which must include the numbers of people referred to by the noble Baroness who are perhaps in prison who ought really to be in mental hospitals?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point absolutely. I have tried to show that the number of people we can address ourselves to in this context is only 170, because unless people qualify under the 1959 Act it is not in the power of either the Department of Health and Social Security or the National Health Service to detain them anywhere. As regards the empty accommodation, of course we always do consider very carefully what should he done with it. It is the product of a policy which is generally welcomed of establishing smaller units in place of larger ones.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether there are many prison hospitals in this country which have the facilities to give worthwhile treatment to mentally disordered offenders?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the prison service has health provision within it. I cannot answer as to specific and individual institutions, but I am not aware that patients are denied treatment when they need it simply because they arc in prison. Indeed, I have tried to point out that, just like people outside prison, if they do not need to go to a hospital they receive treatment in the normal way.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, would the noble Lord consider the difficulties that sometimes arise on the boundary where the prison psychiatric service considers that a person needs to be treated in a hospital but the hospital, when they examine him, believe that he is perfectly all right? This happened in the case of Richard Campbell who, the noble Lord may remember, was thought to be suffering from schizophrenia when he was in prison, but when he was sent to St. Bernard's, Southall, they found that he was perfectly normal and he was sent back to prison where he subsequently died of dehydration. Does not the noble Lord think that this tragic and unnecessary death indicates a failure of communication between the prison medical service and the psychiatric hospitals which needs to be examined, perhaps in the case of patients such as Richard Campbell, who was a Rastafarian, by Sir George Young who has just been appointed particularly to look into questions of race?

645
I know that that is in the Department of the Environment, but perhaps he could look into these as well.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I do not want to pick up a particular case, but the generality of the noble Lord's references are to occasions when there is a difference of professional medical opinion between people in two different establishments. When that happens it is necessary to consider carefully the individual case under consideration. I do not think I can go further than to say that these cases always are difficult, and that I do myself pay close attention to them when they are brought to my notice, but one can never ensure that medical opinions will coincide. It is not the case—as might be inferred from the noble Lord's question— that the difference of opinion always lies between medical practitioners who operate in different institutions.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that the rather general nature of his original reply does surely argue for his being somewhat forthcoming to the noble Baroness's request in her supplementary for a survey? Does not that point still arise?
Lord Elton: My Lords, as I understand it, the noble Baroness wishes us to be certain that the extent of accommodation is at least equal to the extent of need. That is a principal object of the department's policy throughout and does not call for a specific survey.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, while broadly in agreement with what the noble Lord has said, may I ask whether the noble Lord would agree that, should changes of this kind be contemplated, the legal status of the staff involved would also have to be considered?
Lord Elton: My Lords, while I am not absolutely clear on what the noble Lord is aiming at, he will be aware that the legal status of staff in mental institutions is one of the matters to which we have directed the effects of the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill at present before your Lordships' House.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the hospitals which are mainly the subject of closure are in fact, and no doubt he will agree with me, ancient monuments that only need to be demolished?
Lord Elton: My Lords, that is very often the case.

Defence Contracts: Profit Target
3.9 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the target profit rate on non-competitive defence contracts in 1980 and what rate is proposed for 1982 and subsequent years.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, the target profit rate for non-competitive defence contracts in 1980 was 20 per cent. on capital employed. The same rate currently remains in force, in line with the recommendation contained in the last report (in 1980) from the independent Review Board for Government Contracts.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, has the noble Viscount seen the evidence of the Comptroller and Auditor General to the Public Accounts Committee which suggests that 20 per cent. is too high, and is often being exceeded? The Government have committed them-selves to the principle of comparability with the rest of British industry. Why do they not stick to that principle?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I have seen the report to which the noble Lord refers and the fact that the results of the average of post-costed contracts during the period under review were 2 per cent. above the target, on average, and that that produces a result of 5 to 6 per cent. return on capital in inflation-proof terms, in real terms. The system is designed to encourage firms which are efficient to exceed the target. The firms which are post-costed are those where we believe there is a purpose in post-costing. Thus the Government on the whole are content that this last report shows an average which is healthy and which is required certainly if industry is to take over a greater degree of its own development currently performed for it.
Lord Roberthall: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the present rate of defence capacity will remain at full efficiency, which certainly was not the case for some years under the old arrangement?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, in relation to British manufacturing industries' profit levels, the defence industry is, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. implied, slightly better off, but the return on capital is not commensurate with that being earned by industry in competitor countries. The Government would like to see it rise through efficiency so that more competitive levels of research and development can be commercially funded.

Chemical Weapons Capability
3.12 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to what extent the armed forces of NATO and the Warsaw Pact are equipped to use chemical weapons.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, the only country which is a member of NATO and whose armed forces are equipped with such weapons is the United States, which has a limited and aging national capability.

647
NATO's efforts in this field have concentrated on the development of defensive measures to counter the Warsaw Pact's massive offensive chemical weapon capability.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, has the Minister noted the recent statement on chemical warfare of President Reagan, and would he not agree that we are now faced not only with a nuclear arms race and a conventional arms race but a race in producing and stockpiling new chemical weapons? Is it quite impossible to persuade the Russians and Americans to try to deal with this particular problem separately from their other disputes, and discuss it together?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I have of course seen President Reagan's statements on this matter and I can confirm that our belief is that the USSR has a stock of these weapons, much of it deployed in forward stores, of over 300,000 tonnes, and that by any estimation it has well over 10 times the amount of the USA. President Reagan has taken the decision that under those circumstances he has to restart developments in certain areas, and possibly production, but no decisions about deployment have been taken, and if they were to be taken the allies would be consulted. So far as arms control is concerned, I share the noble Lord's hope, and I do not believe it will be for want of trying by NATO and the United States if no agreements in this area, as well as other vitally important areas, are reached.
Lord Wynne-Jones: My Lords, is the Minister able to give the House some indication of the evidence on which the statement is made that the Warsaw Pact—by which I take it he means very largely the Russian forces—are equipped with 300,000 tonnes of chemical warfare equipment in forward areas? That statement has been made on several occasions but so far no evidence for it has been produced.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I did not say the whole 300,000 tonnes—and we believe the stocks to exceed that—was in forward areas, but a good part of it is deployed forward. As to answering the noble Lord's question about how information of that kind is derived, I do not think it would be in the national interest to do so, but we are entirely clear that the statement I made is not an over-statement.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the noble Viscount seen the evidence in the newspapers relating to the use of chemical weapons by Soviet backed Ethiopian forces in Eritria only this week? Will he make urgent inquiries of our ambassador in Addis Ababa to find out whether these horrifying weapons have in fact been used against civilians, and publish the evidence so that noble Lords may have access to it?
Viscount Trenchard: I am not briefed on that particular topic, my Lords, and I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether there is any evidence of biological weapons being in the possession of the Warsaw Pact? Does
648
he agree that the arguments for having offensive nuclear power to deter a nuclear strike by the enemy is exactly parallel with the necessity to have offensive chemical weapons by NATO to deter the use by the Warsaw Pact of their weapons?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, we have no evidence of the possession of biological weapons by the Soviet Union, the production of which was banned under the 1972 treaty. There are worrying reports in relation to the possible use of micro-toxins in South-East Asia, which are being investigated, and we are helping at Porton Down in the analysis of certain substances. So far as deterrents are concerned, I do not think I would fully agree with my noble friend, and I never have, that we must have an exact balance of everything; we must have an adequate degree of deterrence so that any aggressor will face an unacceptable cost if he were to start an aggression.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the whole House will be relieved to know that he does not go along entirely with the policy of mutual suicide advocated by his noble friend? Would he undertake that under no circumstances will the Government agree to store American chemical weapons in this country?
Viscount Trenchard: I must totally contradict the implication of the first part of that supplementary, my Lords; I am entirely in line with Government policy in this area, which has been stated time and again, and I certainly will not give the noble Lord any assurance, in an uncertain future, on exactly what we should do in any particular arm.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, has my noble friend read, and if so would he commend to the attention of the House, an article on chemical warfare in the current issue of NATO's 15 Nations, which explains in a most disquieting but authoritative manner the present situation regarding chemical weapons on both sides of the Iron Curtain?
Viscount Trenchard: I thank my noble friend for drawing my attention to that article, my Lords.
Earl Cathcart: My Lords, would the Minister agree that there is considerable evidence, as indicated by their deployment in tactical exercises, that the Warsaw Pact regard the use of chemical weapons as part of conventional warfare?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I would rather not go further than I already have. The size and deployment of the stocks I think tell their own story. Whether one calls chemical warfare conventional or not I find hard to say, and in many respects I find it as unpleasant as any nuclear weapon.

Train Drivers: Productivity
3.19 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: 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 are the comparative figures for the productivity of train drivers employed by British Rail and those in other western industrialised countries.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the comparative figures range from plus 12 per cent. in West Germany to 50 per cent. in the Netherlands. I can say, however, that the productivity, based on train miles per annum of train drivers and drivers' assistants in nine European countries for which comparisons have been made, is, with the exception of Italy, lowest in Britain. Statistics are not available for other western countries; different operating conditions would make comparisons of doubtful value.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that information. But is it not true, as shown in The Times survey on 5th February, that, with the possible exception of Italy, all European countries have a much more flexible rostering system and single-man operation, and that this results in the much higher productivity that they all enjoy? Do not recent events underline the need now to restructure the basic working arrangements, which were drawn up 63 years ago, and which are really totally out of date with the present need to make our railways as efficient as those of our competitors in Western Europe and elsewhere?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as a result of the negotiations which terminated this morning, the focus is now on achieving higher productivity, and I am sure that the negotiations will produce that objective speedily. Single manning would of course make percentages much more comparable with those of Europe. The Government are very glad, as I am sure is the whole House, that ASLEF's strike action has today been called off.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is it not a fact that the corporate plan submitted by British Rail, with I think the approval of the unions, proposes substantial reductions of manpower in the next five years? Have there not been reductions of 6,000 jobs during 1980 and another 6,000 in 1981, and have not the Transport Ministers in thois Huse and in the other place complimented British Rail on the way that it is tackling the problem? In view of the fact that this matter is now the subject of very important negotiations, as the noble Earl has said, would it not be best to leave it there?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I find myself in a large measure of agreement with the noble Lord.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend give an assurance, and indicate to both sides of the railway industry, that there can be no question of further substantial Government investment in the railway industry until some progress has been achieved in improving productivity?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, only a limited amount of the potential for productivity gains is dependent
650
on investment. The Government have maintained the Railway Board's investment at exactly the same level in real terms. We do not believe that investment should proceed at a pace beyond that which the railways can afford. Improved efficiency and cost containment offer the best prospect.
Lord Bruce of Donington: But, my Lords, if we are talking about productivity, is it not also a fact that subsidisation of the railways in the United Kingdom is at a much lower level than it is in any other European country?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as I said in response to my noble friend, only a limited amount of the potential for productivity gains is dependent on investment, and the statistics that I have just given remain my case.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it not very depressing—and is the noble Earl not aware—that on the wireless at one o'clock today Mr. Buckton said that the 8-hour fixed day was sacrosanct and was not negotiable? Is that not what the strike has been all about? If that was going to be accepted by the British Railways Board, what on earth was the point of having a strike to make sure that no one would agree to a change in the fixed rostering day on the railways?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I do not think that it would profit anyone to go into the points that my noble friend has mentioned. I have just finished reading the report of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and I certainly have not digested it.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after four o'clock this afternoon, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Ferrers will repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Agricultural Council meeting of the 15th and 16th February 1982.
I should also like to inform your Lordships that, in view of the list of speakers this afternoon, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will not now ask his Unstarred Question today. He will ask it instead on Monday, 22nd February next.

Western Isles Islands Council (Loch Roag) Order Confirmation Bill
3.25 p.m.
Considered on Report.

Transport (Finance) Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin:)My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in

651
Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Bellwin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pet Animals Act 1951 (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Leasehold Reform Bill [H.L.]
3.26 p.m.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The reform of leasehold tenure has been a leading political issue in this country since 1889, I believe. It was high on the list of reforms that the Liberal Government wished to
introduce before the First World War, and it is ironic that many of that Government's most controversial reforms—such as those dealing with national insurance and old age pensioners—are now accepted as a base of our welfare state, while taxation of land values and leasehold reform are still highly controversial issues.
Let me make clear to your Lordships that leases of business premises are not under attack in the Bill—the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 has resolved that problem to the satisfaction, I believe, of practically all parties; nor is the retention of leasehold tenure for flats included because the complexity of English land tenure law makes it virtually impossible to create freehold flats, though again it might be of interest to your Lordships that I understand that the Law Commission is about to produce a report on positive covenants which might help to overcome the obstacles to freehold tenure of flats. I feel that that is a matter which many of your Lordships will be looking forward to with great interest and optimism.
The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 was a serious attempt to solve the problems of leasehold tenure, but it left two massive areas of difficulty and a number of lesser problems, which this Bill now seeks to remedy in some ways. Though the 1967 legislation received a rough handling in your Lordships' House, I take leave to suggest that today most of those views have changed and I hope that I shall be proved right not only now but again at the end of the debate. When some minor extensions of the Act were included in the Housing Bill 1980 the three hours spent on the clauses produced very little serious objection to the liberalisation of the legislation. That was hardly surprising since the whole thrust of modern Conservative philosophy in the
652
housing field, as I understand it, is towards a property-owning democracy. Therefore it would seem consistent to give leaseholders at least some of the benefits and rights of purchase or enfranchisement that council house tenants have been granted under the Housing Act 1980.
I note that the "right to buy" legislation has been partially thwarted in that tenants of council properties held on leases are found to be excluded from the provisions of the Act, and I gather that this applies to 51,000 houses. I hope—I think this is politically non-controversial—that the Government will find a way to remedy this iniquity to leaseholders.
My interest in this problem was excited not primarily because of the Liberal Party's historic commitment to leasehold reform but for the much more practical purpose of trying to alleviate the plight of leaseholders particularly, but not exclusively, in South Wales, where many thousands of families live in small terraced houses lacking basic amenities, built on 99-year leases towards the end of the last century in areas now near the centre of industrial towns, where property values are now very high.
This combination of circumstances now means that the leases are coming to an end, and the present occupants are being dunned for large sums of money, by their standards, to buy the freehold, which often they cannot afford. I have very many examples of primarily, but not entirely, elderly families who have lived in their leasehold houses for many years, now being called on to pay sums in the region of £2,000 to £5,000, and more, for the freehold of the property in which they have lived for those many years—a price which they cannot afford because of their circumstances. The 1967 Act attempted to solve these problems but failed, first, on the central issue of establishing a valuation formula for the purchase of the freehold; and I recognise that this is a particularly difficult subject, both for surveyors and for lawyers. Secondly, it left many loopholes which prevent some leaseholders from acquiring the freehold of their properties.
Your Lordships may be aware that the Bill has the broad support of the Welsh Leasehold Reform Campaign, although they suggest in some ways that I am perhaps not radical enough; and I find that the Welsh Nationalist Party, Plaid Cymru, think that I am not radical enough, so please do not a categorise me as a wild radical. This Bill also has the support of the Welsh Consumer Council and many individuals, and a broad basis of support, as I understand it, from the housing association movement.
Your Lordships may be aware, too, of the strong support for the campaign from the Western Mail newspaper—not famous for its Left-Wing views, and not normally regarded as an organ of the Liberal or, indeed, any other party than the Conservative Party. Their leading article on 17th February said:
"Wales's 400,000 leaseholders have good reason to wish success to the Leasehold Reform Bill ".
It then goes on to point out that Conservatives are now being converted to the concept. It mentions a particular Conservative Member of Parliament, and points out that radical reforms are needed, as anyone who has experienced the workings of the system will know. I think that is an important point.

653
The Conservative Member concerned is the Member for a London division, and he has seen some of the iniquities of the leasehold system as at present working and has become a convert to the concept of radical reform. The Western Mail goes on to say:
"Resistance to the reforms then is surely a rearguard action which must eventually fail ".
My Lords, may I now deal briefly with the clauses in the Bill, starting with Clause 1. This seeks to reduce the residential qualification from the three years required by the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, as amended by the Housing Act 1980, to one year. It is very similar to an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, to the Housing Bill, and is reported in Volume 411 of Hansard at columns 768 to 772. In my view a resident lessee has clearly established himself as an owner-occupier in one year, which is the kind of period acceptable in other legislation —for instance, taxation legislation—to establish a principal residence.
The claim will be made by those opposing the Bill, I suppose, that this move will benefit speculators. This claim has been made in other cases and on previous occasions when the time period has been reduced. No evidence has yet been produced, then or now, to substantiate this view. It is nonsense to say that it is hard to prove when someone is living in premises. Since 1920, under the Rent Acts, it is done every working day; and also it is done in connection with beneficial occupation, for the settling of the question whether property has been beneficially occupied.
Clause 2 is an attempt to simplify the basis of valuation, which, as I have said, has caused endless problems for all sides in the consideration of leaseholds. In my submission, the basis of a vacant site with planning consent is a much simpler and fairer base, presenting as it will many recent examples of similar sales in similar areas. Indeed, the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, in its judgment on a property in Mackintosh Street, Cardiff, where their valuation was £885, by the way, and not the landlord's figure of £1,344, stated:
"We feel that the evidence of sale of cleared sites in fair proximity to the subject property and particularly the evidence of a sale by public auction cannot be disregarded. Indeed, we feel it should form the starting point from which we should proceed to our own valuation of the site value".
The basic point here is that when the lease was originally granted, as I understand it, either as a building or premium lease, the first lessee paid for the house and agreed to pay a rent for the ground on which it stood. As the present lessee or his ancestors have already paid for the house, then it seems to me to follow logically that all he should now be asked to pay for is the value of the site itself, based on having planning permission for a dwelling-house of a similar size and kind.
Clause 3 is similar to an amendment I moved to the Housing Bill 1980, and is set out in Hansard Volume 411, at columns 780 to 788. Under the 1967 Act lessees who have extended their leases by 50 years are denied the right to purchase the freehold of their property at the expiry of the extended term. This is inconsistent, in my view, with the avowed policy of the present Government of establishing a property-owning democracy.
654
If a family which may for three generations have lived in the same house—and the 99-year lease is based on the concept of three generations—and do not at the time have the resources to enfranchise the lease, but are compelled to choose a 50-year renewal of the lease, it seems to me inequitable that their successors, perhaps grandchildren, do not have the right to buy the freehold, and that the lessee himself does not have the right to change his mind when his circumstances may have improved. He may have been left a legacy, he may have won the football pools or whatever. They are denied a right given to council tenants, and I would have thought that your Lordships would welcome this reform. It also removes the anomaly of the landlord's right at present, set out in Sections 17 and 18 of the 1967 Act, to oppose an application for enfranchisement because he wishes to demolish or reconstruct or live there himself.
Clause 4 is, I think, a crucial clause. It ensures that all future grants of new leases shall take effect as freeholds. This is where those of us who believe that leases of domestic property are wrong in principle must make our stand. It may be of interest to note that the Land Tenure (Scotland) Act 1974 virtually prohibited the creation of new leases in Scotland in a way that made sense in conveyancing terms and was acceptable at that time to Parliament, but apparently only for Scotland. Why cannot we in England and Wales have the same benefits as the Scots enjoy? This clause provides that a long lease within the meaning of the 1967 Act will take effect as a conveyance of a freehold. Leases of under 21 years and over 999 years would still remain exempt. Your Lordships may be aware that such a clear switch from one tenure to another was made as long ago as 1925, with the abolition of copyhold tenure.
Clauses 5, 6 and 7—and your Lordships will be pleased to know that this brings me to the end of my introduction—contain points which, again, have been advanced before. Clause 5 was contained in the Rights of Private Tenants Bill, which was a Private Member's Bill in another place, and is designed to ensure that no lessee can fail to be aware of his right to enfranchise. As every landlord will send either a demand for rent or a receipt for rent at least once a year, its provisions can hardly be said to be difficult to comply with. Subsection (2) provides a simple and effective sanction for non-compliance and is analogous to the machinery of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 which, I think it will be accepted, works very well. Clause 6 simply empowers local authorities to provide assistance with the costs of enfranchisement and they can choose to use its provisions if it is desirable to do so in view of local needs or the circumstances of families who are in some way deprived because of age or unemployment or whatever cause.
Finally, Clause 7 allows housing associations and local authorities to use the machinery of the Bill to enfranchise leases of houses which have been acquired and are being used for housing purposes. I have received much evidence from housing associations in support of this. One solicitor wrote to me saying:
"I must confirm that from my experience the Bill when passed"—
and in this he shows more optimism, perhaps, than I—

655
"will improve the law in many important aspects. Clause 7 is particularly welcome".
This is a solicitor practising almost entirely in the field of housing associations. He goes on:
"Experience shows that it is a major advantage to have free-hold reversions in responsible hands and, if it were possible for the powers of the housing associations or the local authorities to be extended to carry out this sort of transfer, it would be of benefit".
In Liverpool, the Royal Liver Friendly Society has disposed of its freeholds to a property company and the experience of people who are working in citizens' advice bureaux in that city is that the kind of communications that lessees have been receiving from the property company has had a worrying effect, particularly on people of limited means. Experience in Liverpool over the past 10 years—and I am sure that this is similar to that in the West Midlands and South Wales areas—is that covenants as to insurance and consent for alterations and additions are being used merely as a lever by the companies who now own the freeholds as means to exploit their position. In April 1981, the BP Pensions Fund sold the freeholds of 4,600 houses in Cardiff to Cefn Estates for £1,343,669. This is just under £300 per dwelling. Cefn Estates are now offering the freeholds to lessees for between £2,000 and £10,000—a fairly favourable rate of interest, I would suggest, even in these days of high interest rates.
It is for these reasons and the very considerable body of all-party support there is for reform in this area of a system which, in my opinion in this day and age, is outdated and should not operate in the 20th century that I have put down this Bill for a Second Reading. I do so in the hope that your Lordships, who may or may not agree with all the provisions—and some may say that the Bill is not radical enough and perhaps others, perhaps some noble Lords, may say that it is too radical—will think that the basis of the Bill should receive broad acceptance in 1982. I would suggest that some of the reservations that several noble Lords have expressed, as correspondence I have received indicates, could be resolved by amendments during the Committee stage.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time —(Lord Evans of Claughton.)
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I beg to move as an amendment to the Motion that this Bill be now read a second time, to leave out the word "now" and at the end to insert the words "this day six months".
I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, for explaining in his usual lucid and moderate way his Leasehold Reform Bill. Those who have followed the noble Lord's interventions on this subject on the Housing Bill 1980 and in his debate in 1981 will know of his deep sincerity and consistency to his cause. Leasehold enfranchisement is not only a highly complex piece of legislation but it also stirs up deep emotions, particularly from the Principality of Wales from whence, indeed, it has sprung. The Principality should be proud of its sons and daughters who are Members of this House; they do not lose much opportunity to put forward this case—luckily,
656
I would add, in more moderate tones than the late David Lloyd-George.
If one separates the deep emotional feelings over this issue and views leasehold enfranchisement simply as a matter of law, it is quite unique. It is not often that Parliament approves the compulsory rights of transfer of assets from one private citizen to another. For that reason, any amendment should be justified by very good and compelling reasons and one should examine what gaps have appeared which are apparently frustrating the leaseholders in franchising their homes. I put down this amendment to the Bill in the knowledge that it is rare for this House not to grant a Second Reading to a Private Bill. I did so because I feel as deeply about this Bill as does the noble Lord, but from a different standpoint.
I believe that this Bill is a bad Bill and could lead to gross unfairness and misuse and that, fundamentally, it could not be usefully amended. It also has a handicap which the noble Lord did not mention because it deals with one section only of the leaseholders. It dealt with those leaseholders after the 1967 Act and not with those leaseholders under the 1974 Act. I think that that is a fundamental wrong of the Bill. The Bill has in my opinion—and the noble Lord, I think, has confirmed this—one undisguised purpose. It is to terminate the leasehold system as soon as possible. We hear often what is apparently wrong with the system; it is not often that we hear what is right.
I should like to remind the House that there are many good points for the leasehold system. Charities, for one, who own 30 per cent. of the leaseholds in this country, have had over the years a number of schemes of enhancement in city areas which came about entirely through the system of leaseholds. The noble Lord who is experienced as a solicitor would know of such systems as communal gardens and private roads, which have no charge on the local authorities. The work of charities and the benefit of the leasehold system was recognised by the Labour Government in 1967 by Section 19 of the principal Act—the provisions dealing with the retention of the management powers which basically excluded the right to enfranchise where the scheme had been approved for an enhancement. I think that that was a very notable and good thing. The leasehold system has good points and therefore I find Clause 4 (as the noble Lord has described it) to be fundamentally wrong. It seeks to abolish the creation of any new leaseholds. The noble Lord referred to the Scottish system which is the feu system, which is not a leasehold at all. The second point is the description in the Bill under the Explanatory Memorandum where the Bill says:
"… in order to eliminate as far as possible the problem of families losing their homes as leases granted in the last century expire".
I found that a somewhat confusing way to describe this Bill.
What does this Bill provide that leaseholders' rights do not already have? Leaseholders really have three options when it comes to what they should do about the end of their leasehold. They can buy the freehold. They can elect to go for a 50-year lease with a modern ground rent for the first 25 years and then a modern ground rent up-dated, or they can become simply a tenant under the Rent Acts and have

657
full security of their tenure. There is no question of their actually losing their home. When the noble Lord replies perhaps he could explain why he uses that phrase in the Explanatory Memorandum.
Clause 1 reduces the qualification period to one year from three. This was pressed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, in 1980 under the then Housing Bill which is now an Act. My noble friend then said he really rejected it because there were no grounds for justification. That was right. If we accept it there are nevertheless serious grounds to resist it. It is, in my view, a fabulous charter for land speculators. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, mentioned his reserve on this point last year when he said that it would open the door to land speculation. That would defeat the objects of this Bill. We do not want to find a misuse by those whom we do not wish to protect getting the benefits of this legislation.
The third aspect of the Bill which I believe is sound in theory but unsound in practice deals with the noble Lord's suggestion of a new valuation formula. The noble Lord would know that the Government, when they introduced this legislation in 1967, thought very hard about how to have a simple system of valuation. They failed, and now we have this system which has been with us for 15 years and which, although highly technical and seeming to be gobbledegook to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, and myself, nevertheless works. It is a system which has had 15 years of experience through the Lands Tribunal. It is a system under which the valuers now know case law. I would be very much against trying to change the system, and indeed I believe if the system was changed one would find unexpected harsh values falling on the leaseholders.
I do not find any support from the professional bodies for the noble Lord's suggested change. I would have more sympathy for the noble Lord if he had included the leaseholders under the 1974 Act because the system of valuation under that Act, as the noble Lord knows, is different from that under the 1967 Act. It is even more gobbledegook, and in fact has less case law to go by. There is a case, which my noble friend might comment on, to consider some amendment to that valuation basis.
This brings me to my final point. The Bill covers only 1967 legislation. I am sure that it is wrong that we should have two-tier leaseholders under the leaseholders enfranchisement Act. The rights of leaseholders should be dealt with in the same way. I know that my noble friend Lord Dilhorne will be bringing in his full weight of legal knowledge when he examines the clauses and how they will work. I hope that he will argue—as I would wish to argue—on the oddness, in a way, of local authorities being granted powers of leasehold enfranchisement. I say "odd" because they do not occupy the houses and the whole purpose of enfranchisement is to give the occupiers the right to buy their houses.
Over the past 15 years since Parliament took this decision to allow enfranchisement, we have I believe good experience on the enfranchisement that operates. The major concern of this House and of elsewhere is that this power that is granted to one private citizen over another, giving him compulsory purchase powers, should never be misused or abused. That was the
658
reason for the qualification in the 1967 Act, the five-year qualification, being brought down to three years. I believe that to bring it down to one year and to allow the speculator to say, "Yes, of course they are occupying the house", when in practice they are decorating it and then selling it, is wholly wrong.
I have found outside this debate that the professional bodies are very uneasy with this Bill. The charities are naturally wholly against it and I have not found —and I am sure my noble friend will comment on this—a number of genuine hardship cases that should make us address our minds to a change. The key question is: what is the justification for this Bill? I am not convinced that the noble Lord has proved his case. I know he holds sincere convictions on this issue. I equally feel strongly that the Bill is misconceived and its fundamental aim cannot be amended. So for those reasons I wish to move my amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that this Bill be now read a second time, to leave out (" now ") and at end to insert ("this day six months").—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
3.55 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, upon his Bill and upon the speech with which he opened this debate. Since he entered this House the noble Lord has shown an active interest in leasehold reform and this is as it should be. It is a subject in the best traditions of the Liberal Party and indeed of the noble Lord's background in Wales. I had the pleasure of knowing the noble Lord's grandfather who came from Anglesey. He would have been proud to listen to the noble Lord and especially to hear the contents of his speech today.
The argument about the land, the attitude of landlords, especially to the political affiliations of their tenants, the problems of the tithe and leaseholds were the very stuff of politics in Wales 100 and more years ago. For example, in 1884, the Royal Commission on Housing of the Working Classes, although they did not recommend universal leasehold enfranchisement, admitted that:
"the evidence laid before us shows that there is a widely spread sense of injustice among lessees. This feeling is particularly strong in cases where working men and others build their own houses and where, being unable to obtain land, they are practically compelled to build on leases for short terms".
As the mining and quarrying communities of south and north Wales developed and houses were urgently needed, these independent men wished to build their own homes. They believed in a property owning democracy. But when they tried to buy the necessary plots they found they could not do so.
In Blaenau Ffestiniog quarrymen and shopkeepers were obliged to build on leasehold land, and out of 2,500 houses in the parish of Ffestiniog the local quarrymen built 1,500 on leasehold plots. I know the House will be interested to hear these figures. The total ground rent for all the houses in the village during the 60 years of the average leases amounted to more than £175,000, which arose from about 77 acres of land which before building took place was worth less than 7s. 6d. (in old currency) an acre.

659
In South Wales the story was the same because the cottages of the miners were genreally built on 99-year leases. Of course, we have lived during the period when the leases have run out. This is why I have given this background because the problems with which we are dealing today derive from that history. I could give many examples to the House of the inequitable way in which the system has operated but I have said enough to show that this Bill has a long history behind it and that it deserves our support.
I was somewhat disappointed in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, whom I greatly respect. I thought he would have supported this Bill because he is associated with a most respected building society, and this Bill would extend home ownership. It is precisely the kind of thing which would have helped the case he was making here in the House on Monday night. Before the end of the debate, I hope that we shall have converted the noble Earl to our view.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I would say that of course one can borrow from a building society on a mortgage on a long lease, anyway, to buy a home, so I am not quite sure what point the noble Lord is making.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the point I am making of course is that an individual who, say, lives in a house which was bought by his grandfather and has five years of the term of the lease left is not going to get a loan from the noble Lord's building society. That is
really the core of the problem, to which I hope he will apply his sympathetic mind.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I must apologise for interrupting again: he would get a loan if he enfranchised. He would then get a mortgage.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are dealing of course with the exceptional cases which the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, has raised. It is those cases to which, with respect, I would ask the noble Earl to apply his attention. The merits of the leasehold system which have been lauded by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I am afraid are massively outweighed by the inequities of the system.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans, referred to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. That was an historic landmark, and I was privileged to play a small part in its preparation and passage. At that time we did as much as we could, but we were opposed, I think mistakenly, by the party opposite, who took an ambivalent line. Perhaps that was understandable—they were strung up between their 1966 election declaration on the one hand and cries of "Confiscation!" on the other hand. So it was really difficult for them to know precisely what attitude to take towards the Bill. But the Bill became law, and successive Governments, including Conservative Governments, have operated it, I am glad to say. As a result of that legislation, thousands of people, including the descendants of those who built their own houses, have been able to buy their freeholds. I hope that nobody in the House will deny that that was just, fair and reasonable. That really is the basic principle before us now. Nor should we forget that when figures of increased owner-occupation are paraded, these people are among them. I believe strongly in
660
home ownership. Nothing gives a greater sense of dignity and sense of responsibility in the community than that a man and his family should live in a home which they have bought for themselves or indeed have inherited.
I must give credit to the Government for the effort they made to deal with some of the problems which still exist in the 1980 Housing Act, for there are problems which were not clearly predictable at the time of the 1967 Act, but they should now be dealt with. The noble Lord has listed the anomalies that still remain; the many leaseholders who are still legally disenfran-chised, and the totally unsatisfactory position with regard to the valuation of freehold. I know that the 1980 Act set up local tribunals, but without some clear guidance on the method of valuation I do not think they are able to perform their task adequately. Furthermore, the system itself, which has given rise to all the grievances which have been mentioned, is still in being. While it remains legal to create new long-term leases, the possibility of future injustice and grievance remains. The noble Lord's Bill seeks to deal with these and other matters. There are questions of detail which will need to be looked at carefully in Committee, but I hope that the general principles of the Bill will be supported this sfternoon.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, quite fairly asked whether there were any cases of hardship. I assume that, if it were shown beyond doubt that there are, he might be prepared to modify his view. I will quote three cases to him because I believe that the speculation, which I personally hoped would be brought to an end by the 1967 Act, still exists. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, quoted the case of the Cefn Estates in South Wales. Perhaps I could give one example: Mr. and Mrs. Butcher, who are both in their seventies, and Mr. Butcher himself is in poor health. They live in Durham Street, Grangetown, Cardiff, in a small terraced house fronting directly on to the footpath. They have a lease of which nine years remain. The approximate value of the house on the market, if sold freehold, is £11,000, but they are being asked £2,600 for the freehold for those few remaining years. That, in my view, is a case of hardship.
Then we come to the "leasehold trap". As the law stands, people have to live in and own their house for three years in order to have the right to buy their freehold, and therefore can be asked any price without leave of appeal. I should like to draw to your Lordships' attention the case of Mr. "S" who lives in Craddock Street, Riverside, Cardiff. He bought the house in November 1981 and the lease expires in March 1983. He is in his late forties, unemployed and on supplementary benefit. He has spent £2,500 on home improvements while he was working and is being asked to pay £6,500 for the freehold reversion. There is no way he can raise this money and he has no right to buy: therefore in March 1983 he will lose all ownership rights to his house. I submit that is a case of hardship.
Another case concerns Mr. and Mrs. Holland, who have lived for 40 years in their terraced house in Riverside, Cardiff. Now in their late seventies, on supplementary pension and with no savings, they know that there is no way they will be able to afford

661
their freehold, and they have asked to go on an extended lease. As the law now stands, once that happens they will lose their right to buy and in March 1983 they lose all their ownership rights. The house is then effectively locked into the leasehold system. That is also a case of hardship.
I will not weary the House by going further into this, but it is clear that the law as it stands creates hardships, notwithstanding the Acts of 1967 and 1980. That is what we are here to discuss today. This Bill proposes to modify the residential qualification, and I believe that experience since 1967 shows this to be justified. The question of valuation and how best to devise a fair method of calculation is obviously a Committee subject, but I am in broad agreement with the noble Lord on that. The rateable value, the number of years remaining, the state of the property and other matters must all be taken into account in arriving at a fair valuation. At the moment there is no proper guideline and the lessee has no idea what might be involved. Furthermore, you can have tribunals in London, Birmingham and South Wales operating somewhat different standards; the first three hearings of the Cardiff tribunal bear that out. It is not satisfactory, and there is a clear case for uniformity of treatment. Elderly people who have the right to purchase will get confused and nervous if they think that prices may be high. If there were firm guidelines they could receive specific advice from local authority offices or citizens' advice bureaux. All experience shows that the right of information is absolutely crucial.
I think that the remaining clauses, Nos. 4 to 7, are desirable but I also think there is a need to look at the implications of Clause 6 on the question of costs. That can be done in Committee. The noble Lord is himself a solicitor of long experience and I am sure he will have given a great deal of thought to this aspect of his Bill. Clause 7, giving rights to housing associations, is especially valuable. I hope, therefore, that the Government will respond constructively to this effort to reform leasehold law. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, is not without sympathy for it. I believe that his attitudes tend towards a reasonable solution to these problems. I read the report of the speech which he made here on 3rd June last year, when he recognised that the problem is acute in some parts of the country, such as South Wales. If there is any doubt about the feeling there, noble Lords should read the leading article, to which the noble Lord, Lord Evans, referred, in the Western Mail—a paper which normally supports the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, undertook in his speech to look closely at these problems and to consider with care the case that was made by the noble Lord in that debate. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, has now enshrined his views in this Bill and for that we should all be grateful to him. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has done what he said he would do and considered all these matters with sympathy; that he is now persuaded that improvements must be made, and that he will give positive aid to the passage of this very necessary legislation.
4.11 p.m.
The Marquess of Salisbury: My Lords, before I say anything more, I must declare an interest in a matter connected with this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, has suggested that this is a fairly modest Bill regularising some of the anomalies of the 1967 Act, and that it really does not go very far beyond that. The question is whether one agrees with the 1967 Act, and whether one agrees with his proposals. With some of the proposals, I have a great deal of sympathy. The noble Lord mentioned that people want to own their own houses. That is something which I entirely go along with, as a general principle, although a little later I should like to draw attention to some problems connected with it. The noble Lord also said that he thought that people needed this protection. I am sure they did, but I was under the impression, as I think was the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that the protection is now already there.
Such experience as I have had with this problem indicates that there has been considerable hardship in the past. Some of it may indeed be the same as the noble Lord mentioned in connection with the Royal Liver Friendly Society ground rents. Before they rose, some of them belonged to my grandfather, and I know the problems that he experienced in trying to bring those houses up to a reasonable living standard. Of course, in those days the law did not provide the protection or the proper standards that exist today, and at the end of the period the occupants were not very willing to spend money on them. So I have a certain sympathy with the views which the noble Lord expressed about this problem.
But I question whether he has not gone a little far in some of his proposals. He thought that some went too far and some did not go far enough. I place myself in the former category. It seems to me that the present proposals—and many of my objections come under the category of compensation after compulsory purchase—are not equitable, and if the Bill is to proceed in its present form I shall certainly resist them at the Committee stage. For one thing—and this is a matter which was touched on by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull— it is quite possible for an occupant to obtain a house very cheaply and sell it quite soon afterwards at a largely enhanced value. There are cases where some people make a regular business out of this operation and, of course, the proposal in Clause 1 to reduce the period from three years to one would accentuate this process. I suggest that this is an area which needs looking at.
It is also bound to create the fragmentation of some of the large estates that were developed years ago, and the result will be that the management control that has been exercised in the past will no longer be available. No doubt noble Lords can think of cases where that control has not been well exercised, but I suspect that in the majority of cases it has had a beneficial effect. Looking ahead, it seems probable that if planned redevelopment is required for these estates, a lot of which are reaching the end of their lives, it will be very much more difficult to achieve. I am not suggesting that one side or the other of this argument is correct, but some kind of balance is desirable in considering it and I do not think that this is allowed for in the Bill.
I do not want to cover points made by the noble

663
Earl, Lord Kinnoull, in detail, because on the whole I am in broad agreement with them. But as regards enfranchisement at site value, which he mentioned, I should like to give your Lordships one example—and I do not suppose that it is, by any means, the only one—where, at least on the face of it, it seems to work in a very curious way. I know of a pair of semidetached houses which were let on a building lease a number of years ago, and recently that lease came to an end. One of them was occupied by the descendants of the original leaseholder and they were, of course, under the existing legislation, in a position to acquire their house on what I should have thought were exceptionally reasonable terms. This did not apply to the other one, and it so happened that the occupants left and there was vacant possession. So there were two identical houses, one of which was acquired for a very small sum, and the other was probably worth about three times as much. This is a loophole in the present proposals which needs dealing with.
So far as the valuation itself is concerned, as I understand it we now appear to have three different sets of values for leaseholds. The lowest priced ones are heavily weighted against the freeholder, because of the proposal to allow only site value. I should like to say something more in a moment about site value, which the noble Lord mentioned. Leaseholds in the medium band—these are, of course, all based on rateable values—are slightly less weighted against the freeholder, but nevertheless, under the 1974 Housing Act, they are still weighted. In the case of the most valuable properties and leaseholds there are no regulations at all and the freeholder comes out extremely well. This seems to be an odd arrangement and it is an anomaly which requires adjusting, whether this Bill is made law or not.
There is the question of whether, as proposed in Clauses 3 and 4, the leasehold system should be brought to an end. The noble Lords, Lord Evans and Lord Cledwyn, made impassioned pleas for its abolition, though I find it a little difficult to understand the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that there should be enfranchisement of leaseholds, when his party is not in favour of publicly owned houses also being enfranchised. It seems to me that there ought to be an equitable rule for both sectors. As regards Clause 6, it seems to me that there is no need for assistance in purchase, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said, because those concerned are going to do very well out of the deal and I do not see why, in those circumstances, they should be assisted—on the present system of valuation, at least—in the purchase of their houses. So far as Clause 7 is concerned, I may have misread it but after reading the Bill my understanding of it is that the local authorities and the housing associations are empowered to purchase the leaseholds, full stop. I understood the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, to suggest that this was with a view to passing them on, but I can see nothing to compel them to do so in the Bill, as at present drafted. I wonder whether the noble Lord could deal with this point when he replies.
So far as the rights of the freeholder and the leaseholder are concerned, it seems to me to be important that a balance between their interests should be firmly
664
established. I very much question—this is one of my main objections to the Bill as it now stands—whether a balance has been achieved under the noble Lord's proposals. I have given one example and I should like to give another. ft is one in which I have a personal interest. I had vacant possession of a rather tumbledown building which clearly needed considerable renovation. I found a man who was prepared to take the lease and we came to a perfectly amicable arrangement, that I would take a fairly modest lump sum and that he would spend money on improvements and maintenance, according to an agreed schedule. We agreed that the period needed to make it worth while for him to undertake these repairs was some 40 years. We were both happy about it and the agreement was freely entered into. However, under the 1967 Act he is empowered to purchase his lease without any regard to the agreement which had been entered into. I suspect that there are a number of other cases which fall under that heading.
I have already said that I disagree with the principle of the Bill. Before I sit down, I should like to quote what the late right honourable Richard Crossman had to say in his diaries about the 1967 Act. At page 420 of Volume 1 he described the Act as a virtual confiscation of all long leases and electoral bribery. On page 452 he said that in his opinion the legislation was immoral but politically expedient. I never thought I would agree very much with his views, but on this occasion I do so emphatically. I feel that there is a basic weakness in the original Act which has been projected into the present proposals. Therefore, I am very much inclined to support the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.

EEC: Agriculture Council Meeting
4.13 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to repeat a Statement which has been made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Council of Agriculture Ministers' meeting in Brussels on 15th and 16th February.
"The Council began its consideration of the Commission's price proposals for 1982. Reactions varied widely. The United Kingdom urged the need for prudent price increases on products in surplus, and Germany adopted a similar approach. Other countries called for much higher increases than the Commission's 9 per cent. average.
"I expressed our rejection of the Commission's present proposal for a revaluation of the green pound that would, taken together with their other proposals, result in British farmers obtaining price increases of less than 4 per cent. on average, with severe consequences for their income levels.
"The United Kingdom made it clear that the price settlement would have to keep the growth of guarantee spending below that of the increase in the income of the Community under present arrangements.

665
"The Commission recognised the importance of taking early action to deal with the preferential gas tariff available to Dutch glasshouse growers. On United Kingdom insistence, supported by Denmark and Germany, the Commissioner undertook that he would take proposals to the Commission next week.
"The Dutch Minister implied that prior to this he would endeavour to put proposals to the Commission which could result in an agreement without resort to the European court.
"In accordance with his promise made to the United Kingdom at the last Council meeting, the Commissioner reported on the question of recent French national aids. He stated that France had not supplied the information required and that he would have to take legal action if this was not forthcoming.
"The French Minister promised that the information would be forthcoming and I obtained a declaration from the Commissioner that if any of the cash announced in this aid was paid prior to being cleared by the Commission, such payments would be illegal and the Commissioner stated that he would be recommending to his colleagues next week action under Articles 92 and 93 of the treaty for those elements of aids that were not legal.
"In a discussion on Mediterranean products, we urged the need for effective measures to deal with a surplus of table wine in a way which would not add to the Community budget or harm the existing alcohol producers.
"On olive oil, we, together with Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark, made it clear that we were opposed to any tax on competing oils and fats in order to make the market easier for olive oil.
"The Council will resume its consideration of the price proposals at its meeting in March".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Peart: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for informing the House of this latest farm price review. As one who over a long period of time studied many of these price review proposals from different angles, I congratulate the noble Earl. He made a clear statement. His Minister had no alternative but to press for refusal to have further price increases. In the circumstances, this would have been bad, so I think that the British policy is right and proper.
I should like to ask the noble Earl how the farmer has been affected by the price review—and how he will be affected. For example, farmers have had a very difficult period over the last month. All of us could say that we have had a difficult period, but the farmers in particular have suffered. May I ask whether there will be any special help for the farmers from Brussels? Will they be able to borrow at cheaper rates? Is it possible for there to be a system which will help them to survive? I do not want to make too much of this point, but farming is important to us. Our farm Minister in Europe must protect the interests of our farmers, both small and large. Therefore, I should like to know what is being done to help the farmers.
Lord Banks: My Lords, may I join in thanking the noble Earl for repeating the Statement which has been made in another place. We on these Benches agree with the Government on the need for prudent increases in prices where agriculture products are in surplus. We think that the Government were right to resist the higher demands. First may I ask the Government whether they accept the Commission's 9 per cent. proposal. Secondly, may I ask the Government whether we are likely to get an agreement on farm prices without agreement on the British share of the budget and on the wider question of reform of the common agricultural policy. Arising out of that, may I further ask whether or not such a comprehensive settlement will require some increase in the total resources available to the Community.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am very grateful to both noble Lords for what they have said and for the support which they both generously gave to my right honourable friend in the stance which he took over what is the preliminary start of the price fixing arrangements.
The noble Lord, Lord Peart, referred, quite understandably, to the increased borrowings by farmers and asked whether there would be anything in the price fixing to alleviate that problem. I know that the noble Lord will not imagine that I am skirting around the answer when I say that this is only the beginning of the price proposals and that I cannot tell him what will have been decided at the end. One must wait until the arrangements have been made before seeing whether they meet with the noble Lord's approval in this regard. On the generality of the matter, whether one has subsidised interest rates or capital grants is a matter for each individual country. We have looked into this and have found that the circumstances in our country require capital grants rather than subsidised interest rates. That is why, traditionally and historically, we have gone for capital grants, and that has remained our position.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked whether we accept the Commission's 9 per cent. proposals. The original reaction to this was on the total package of the proposals. We do not approve where there are increases in relation to some products which have a structural surplus, and in some of these cases we consider that the Commission may have been too generous. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked me also whether the budget arrangements and CAP price fixing were aligned together. I will just tell him that at the beginning of the mandate exercise all 10 member states agreed that the three chapters of the Commission's mandate report dealing respectively with regional and other policies, agricultural policy and the budget were linked, and that all three should proceed in parallel. As my noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said on 27th January, we do not believe that the agricultural chapter on which the price fixing depends can proceed independently.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for the Statement, and as one who has been dragged, kicking and screaming into the Market (and I am quite sure that the noble Earl the Minister

667
and his colleagues have been trying their best to get what would he considered in the EEC a fair deal for British farming) may I ask how far the terrific winter that we have had to suffer, particularly in the constituency that I had the privilege to represent, which has some 3,000 farms in it, has been considered? In that North Eastern part of Staffordshire, around the Peak district and Leek, there are some 1,400 farms of 30 acres or less, and I know how a man and a woman have to work for a living on those little farms, together with those in my homeland of Wales. They had a terrific winter in Wales. It was fortunate that television showed the people of Britain what these people who earn a living from their farms, had to do during the winter period. Was there not some exceptional approach this year, for those farmers in particular? The noble Earl used an expression about some form of capital grant. What did he mean by that? Will the people of whom I am speaking receive some benefit thereby?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, referred to the winter which has recently hit farmers very hard, and he was quite right to do so. Many farmers suffered very considerably. Clearly, where this happens it is a matter of great concern. One is always in the position of trying to see whether it is possible to help them or not, and it is possible that there may be some help. This will be pursued from the European point of view, because it is not something that Governments help out with always. We have taken the view that a Government can help out where there is a national disaster, but this was not a national disaster. It certainly hurt some farmers more than others. But that is the nature of farming, where one is involved in the weather, and if Governments were to take on the responsibility of helping farmers when they met a patch of bad weather, ipso facto they might require some form of redress when the farmers hit a spell of good weather and got extra beneficial results. But I take the noble Lord's point.

Leasehold Reform Bill [H.L.]
Second Reading debate resumed.
4.36 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, after that agricultural interlude, I am very glad to follow the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and to take my stand with him. I must also take my stand with Richard Crossman, at any rate as revealed in his diaries. A recurring theme in our debate over recent months has been how far Government should go in intervening to suppress or redirect market forces. There is plainly room for wide differences of opinion and these came out well recently in a debate on the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. But as the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, and I urged from the Cross-Benches on that occasion, even the strongest advocate of the market acknowledges that Government have a number of positive functions to discharge.
Perhaps Government's first duty is to shape and enforce the legal framework which is essential to the
668
operation of any economy resting on dispersed initiative. The foundation of such a legal system for a free society amounts to little more than the definition of property rights and the sanctity of contracts. It is not only the fabled capitalist of fevered imagination who requires some assurance of what the European convention calls" the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions ".It is well known that more than half the population own or are buying their own homes and that the other half are busy building up personal capital in all forms, worth thousands of millions of pounds, including savings and not least in contractual rights for pensions.
It seems to me that a free society depends utterly on people putting forth their effort and entering into all kinds of contracts in the confident expectation that the rule of law will prevent their various forms of property from being arbitrarily confiscated. Thus, an indispensible feature of a free society is the most scrupulous enforcement of legal titles and contracts, perhaps even where inconvenient or emotionally disturbing, which have been freely agreed by consenting adults.
We do not need expensive legal advice; even a layman can identify some obvious exceptions. For example, a contract might not be enforceable if it was signed on a false prospectus. But there were no indications of deception in the cases brought before us by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos. Likewise, a contract might be set aside for reasons of public policy, as in the compulsory acquisition of land for building a road or railway—although even then compensation is generally thought to be properly based on market valuations.
The objection in principle to this Bill is that it would extend the intervention of the state, not for any general public purpose, but to enable one party to breach a lawful agreement so as to enrich himself at the expense of others. We have been told, not by the proposer but by those who are opposing this Bill, that under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 the tenant cannot be evicted on the expiry of his lease. The leaseholder is not in all cases the most deserving or even the poorer of the parties. As I understand it, every lease confers certain advantages on the tenant in return for specified limitations which, rightly or wrongly, he judged at the time worth accepting.
We turn more generally to the matter raised in a letter circulated to some noble Lords by Mr. Kidd of St. John's College, Oxford, who pointed out that much leasehold property is held by charities as investments for the benefit of education, religion and the care of the sick. He asked, quite rightly, are these charitable purposes to be pillaged and plundered to satisfy Lord Evans of Claughton's doctrinaire obsession with anti-landlordism? I must say it seems to me particularly shocking that such a Bill should emanate from the Liberal Benches. It is plain that the noble Lord is a leaseholder rather than a freeholder in the great Liberal estate, where many of us would once have been proud to dwell. But he is also a trained lawyer. He has a colleague in the noble Lord, Lord Wade, who has proposed a Bill of Rights that would incorporate the European Convention into our domestic legislation. Is the noble Lord unaware that at this moment a case is pending before the European Commission against the United Kingdom on the claim

669
that the 1967 Leasehold Reform Act violates that convention? Is the noble Lord further unaware that the standard work, The Law of Real Property, by Megarry and Wade, has a footnote reference on the 1967 Act as follows:
"Since it was for the benefit of the tenant rather than for any public purpose it may have been in breach of Article 1 of the First Protocol providing that no one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest".
My Lords, I oppose this Bill. It would license further breaches of contract, it would retrospectively tamper with the terms on which business has been conducted between willing buyers and willing sellers, it would strike a further blow against the rule of law. In this House above all others I believe it should not be given a Second Reading, either now or six months hence.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, the effect of this Bill is to widen and make even more confiscatory the provisions of the 1967 Act. It provides for the compulsory acquisition from one private individual by another at a special low price, thereby breaking the freely entered into contract from one person to another in the past. As Lord Brooke of Cumnor said in the Second Reading debate on the 1967 Act, it is an unjust and an immoral Bill. It was also criticised by many others, including even, as Lord Salisbury said, Mr. Richard Crossman who said it was an electoral bribery, immoral and electorally expedient, and you cannot get much further than that.
The arguments related mainly to building leases, and the application to property held on premium leases was flagrantly unjust. In the past landlords and tenants agreed and signed contracts on mutually agreeable terms which they freely entered into, by which the builder, the leaseholder, paid a very small rent in return for the benefit in 99 years' time of the house reverting to the landlord. Why then should this entitle the lessee to expropriate from the landlord his property when the other side of the contract came up, at any price, least of all at a totally low and unrepresentative value.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the contracts to which the noble Lord has referred were, as he knows, made about 100 years or more ago. He said they were entered into by mutual agreement. Would he deal with this point; namely, that the lessee at that time had no alternative. Could the noble Lord tell the House what alternative the lessee had if he wanted a roof above his head for himself and his family?
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I do not know Wales, and it may be that Wales is a special case. Certainly to pretend that no land was available would then have meant that no freehold houses were built. Of course many freehold houses were built, and some leasehold houses were built. For one reason or another the leaseholder decided, perhaps because he did not want to buy the land, that he wanted to build leasehold. Wales appears to be a terrible situation; I do not know about it. But I do not think that applies to the rest of the country.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Lord including some of the big cities; for example, particularly London, where very few freehold houses exist? They are practically all leasehold because they are the possession of the old ducal estates.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, whether that is true or not I will not argue. But I must say that whenever those houses have changed hands in the period since they were built up to now the values at which they changed hands have reflected the fact that those leases will fall in at a certain date; therefore they have changed hands at an appropriate value and obviously very much less than a freehold value.
My Lords, 30 per cent. of the houses affected under the 1967 Act were within the estates of charities and the charities have suffered very substantially by that Act. The idea that all the benefit of the Leasehold Reform Act went to poor people is a misleading one, because a large number of the leasehold houses did not affect poor people but people who were quite substantial people. The Leasehold Reform Act, therefore, pillaged the endowments of many charities which were set up to care for the sick, or maintenance of churches, or whatever other charitable purpose. The charities are very anxious lest this new Bill will further pillage their funds and their investments in leasehold properties. The Act enables people, very often of adequate means, to renege on their agreements entered freely into for the purchase of leasehold houses bought at appropriate prices and bought in the full knowledge that the houses would revert. It allows them to buy cheaply and to enrich themselves quite unjustly.
Furthermore, the Leasehold Reform Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, is very likely to be in breach of Article 1 of the First Protocol, which says in effect that there shall be no expropriation of property other than in the public interest. I think this is a further confiscatory measure. I do not know what the situation is in Wales; it sounds very drastic. But I do not think that the fact that there is this terrible Welsh problem should be allowed to interfere with freely entered into contracts over the rest of the country. If contracts are entered into with the knowledge that the Government is very likely to come along when one side has been dealt with and cancel the other side, it is going to invalidate all contracts, rather like what happens when communism takes over. I shall oppose the Bill.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, it has been a pleasure listening to the debate. I have heard a lot of casuistry and I have heard a lot about law, as though law could never make an ass of itself, but law often does make an ass of itself. I have heard today some arguments which I cannot understand being put in the 20th century. This is important to our people. "Members of the House of Lords ", said the Western Mail yesterday, "are being lobbied by Welsh leasehold campaigners who want them to back a Bill "which is to help people to buy the land beneath their homes. But some campaigners are critical of the Bill's sponsors. It was put calmly and without any party spirit. Plaid Cymru wants it to go further still; they want confiscation. We are not asking for that; we are asking

671
for a just approach to the little bit of land under the cottages, which Churchill spoke so poetically about when men were dying in their thousands for their cottage homes. Do your Lordships remember that ringing phrase? Now they cannot buy the area of a cricket pitch which is underneath their house. That is the point. If the law cannot see that, then the law is an ass. The Bill aims to end some of the legal barriers which stop people living in houses on 99-year leases from buying the freehold of their homes. That is all that we are trying to do in this splendid little Bill. We do not want to go into the economics of feudalism over the centuries.
The system, under which Wales was especially afflicted by the investment practices of the land-owning industrialists of the 19th century—I am not attacking noble Lords or the great landed aristocracy; it was the great new economists who rolled into South Wales as much as anything—allowed the present landowners three separate titles: first, they can have an annual ground rent; secondly, a reversion of the lease on its expiry, thirdly, where there is no agreement on either an extension of the lease or sale of the freehold, possession of the house itself. The Church can do that as well. I have a friend living in Belsize Park. She and her husband have to keep a property, which they bought many years ago, in absolute repair and there is no possibility of them, while they are living in London, ever getting true possession of a piece of the land for which her husband fought a bitter battle in the tank corps.
Of those three titles, one main source of conflict now is that many 99 year leases are coming to the end of their term and several thousand people are suffering. We are asking that for once we get the Lords in the Lobby and then all the niggardly criticisms could be corrected after that elementary bit of justice, by amendments.
Under Clauses 1 and 3, many of the leaseholders, at present legally disenfranchised, will have the right to buy their freehold. Clause 2 goes some way to ensuring that there is a fair and realistic method of valuation of freeholds. We have not found this to be so and perhaps noble Lords on the other side and the legal boffins can help us. I should point out that the Housing Act 1980 which set up local valuation courts, has failed so far to ensure this because no method of valuation was specified. I hope that, if I am wrong as regards the legalities, my noble friend below the gangway will smite me down. Let me give an example. Let us consider a little Welsh cottage with a back garden half the size of a cricket pitch or perhaps a quarter of the size of a rugby ground would be a better figure of speech—
Lord Stone: For Wales.
Lord Davies of Leek: Correct, my Lords. I understand that when there is a valuation of that property as regards taking over the freehold, a little bit of land of about a tenth of a cricket pitch would value one-third of the whole property. That is roughly the formula at the moment. Therefore, you throw in the house and you throw in the land. That is what I am given to understand is taken into account. I shall give way to
672
the noble Earl in a moment. It is not big enough for a chicken run, never mind anything else. Why should that be thrown in? The noble Earl wants to interrupt and I am always fair. Certainly I shall listen and maybe he will correct me if I am wrong.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, is always fair. I want to draw his attention to the fact that the present valuation is not based on one third of the house and the garden. It is a site-basis valuation only, as clearly set out in the 1967 Act.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, the noble Lord does agree that there are differences about the formula. That is all I wanted to know.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I should like to clarify that point.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, just a second, I am not being dogmatic about this and saying that I know for certain. I am saying that a formula needs to be found and we have not yet found one that is satisfactory. That is all that I am trying to say and I think that it is correct. I do not want to delay the House for too long, but perhaps noble Lords will bear with me for a few more minutes.
The problem has been wearisome for us and it has been a heavy burden on rural and industrial areas in Wales and Britain for too long. We have been harrassed by this gross piece of long distance robbery by the continuation of this unjust system which, even after generations, means that a householder can be deprived of his home, its extentions and its improvements right up to the curtilage, right up to the boundaries. Nobody would disagree with that.
Welsh rural housing has been fettered by the dead and scarious hand of leasehold tenure. In other words, the property of the tomb over the living still exists and it has done it for hundreds of years. Ultimately justice and common sense should prevail. Even the peasants of medieval England under the old feudal system had a better deal than some of the mining villages of South Wales. I am not joking. There is Senghenydd, where the terrible explosion took place in 1913. I was in the village when 419 colliers and miners lost their lives. They had to stop them volunteering to go into World War I. They put up a memorial a month or two ago in the village for the fellows who died in the pit—they had to stop them volunteering to fight for their country. They fought for their country for freedom, but how many people realise that they had not the right, when they made a bit of money, to buy one of these cottages which, in
those days, I could have bought for £50 to £100? It is wrong. It is wrong of the great British people and it is wrong of noble Lords opposite tonight to try and treat this Bill in an England which they are proud of to say is a free England. I mean what I say.
Help us to abolish this feudal concept which stops people living in houses on a 99-year lease from buying them. We must cheapen the cost to the freeholder and we can, in Committee, find a formula. Even if noble Lords on both sides think that there is something wrong with the Bill, I hope that they will go into

673
the Lobby with us. There are 400,000 leaseholders in Wales and the Conservatives should be wary how they handle this Bill. The trouble is that too few in the party of power know how leasehold systems work. The Benches behind me are empty—they should have a tub of claret there. I do not know where the SDP are and they talk about reforming! These are simple matters. Never mind the oratorical arpeggios about what we shall do with mispronouced letter 'r's when we get in power. Never mind about that. These are simple matters that deal with the day to day work of the people who earn the bread and butter for the British people, either in the mines, in the factories, in the steelworks or with a plough or a modern tractor in the fields. Rural farms have the same problem. I sincerely hope that your Lordships will forget your casuistry, forget your heritage, because there is not much that we are taking away. We are not confiscating. We will pay those of you who have it. Give us the chance to be free people on a bit of land like many of the people of Europe.
4.59 p.m.
Viscount Dilhorne: My Lords, I have not had the advantage of being lobbied by the Western Mail. Indeed, I think I had better moderate my voice because I heard the echo and it rather confused me. I am very concerned to see that the system works properly and I get the feeling that that is the desire of noble Lords on the other side. I realise some of the problems of the 1970 Act which have been addressed in this House; in particular, the problems relating to valuation, to which my noble friend has referred as being clearly set down. I agree with him so far as that statement goes, but I should like to add that they are exceedingly tortuous to apply. I also appreciate the very great hardship that can be caused and the problems that can be caused by the 1967 Act. It is for those and other reasons that I shall restrict my speech to some of the legal consequences that, in my view, will flow from this Bill. I hope that my contribution will be of assistance to your Lordships' House.
I propose to go through the Bill in the order in which the clauses are set down, for the Bill does not achieve what I believe the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, hopes it will achieve. Clause 1 of the Bill introduces a 12-month period, whereas under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 there was a three-year requirement which, as noble Lords are aware, was introduced by the Housing Act 1980, in order to correspond with the period under which the tenants of council houses can acquire their freehold. This Bill—as I am sure we are all aware—seeks to amend the Leasehold Reform Act, but does not alter or seek to amend the provisions relating to the right of council house tenants to buy their freehold. I find it somewhat surprising that the noble Lord has not sought to amend that provision in the Housing Act in the way in which he seeks to amend the provision in the Leasehold Reform Act. I understand that it would have been possible to do that. Perhaps it was an oversight that he might desire to consider again.
On Clause 2, I also find it odd that the Bill introduces a new basis of valuation when Section 9 of the principal Act has two bases of valuation—three that are applied probably in practice. The effect of this is to select
674
one of those bases of valuation and to say goodbye to the other two. Both of these bases of valuation were, of course, introduced in 1967 and in 1974 by a Labour Government of that time. They afford—this is the point I wish to make—a measure of choice. The result of applying the new proposed basis of valuation could result in some tenants quite arbitrarily having to pay considerably more to enfranchise than they would under the existing Act. Let me give an example of how this could happen.
Let us suppose that a tenant of a house in the suburbs of London has a 99-year lease at a rent of £10 per annum, with five years of that lease having run. Under the existing formula, that tenant will have to pay not more than £200 to £300 to acquire the freehold; whereas if a "cleared site" approach was adopted in, say, a place like Dulwich—a site that was ready for a house to be built on it—it would sell for at least £10,000. I find it somewhat surprising that this is the consequence of what Clause 2 of the Bill could effect. It seems to me to conflict somewhat with the spirit and the intention in which the Bill is drafted.
Clause 3 dealing with the removal of Section 17 of the principal Act, means that a landlord will no longer be able to prevent enfranchisement by carrying out a complete redevelopment of the property. That is surely inimical to the provision of modern up-to-date housing. Noble Lords will no doubt recall that Section 17 provides certain overriding redevelopment rights that will allow the landlord to resume possession of his property. Section 16 is related to it, as is Section 18. In particular, Section 18 excludes enfranchisement of residential rights if the landlord reasonably requires the residence for occupation by him or an adult member of his family as his only or main residence. That seems to me to be a provision that ought to be looked at before your Lordships' House consider abolishing it, which is what is proposed in Clause 3 of the Bill.
In relation to Clause 4, in which it is intended that long leases will take effect as conveying the fee simple to the tenant, the effect could be the following, and I have here a number of points which I shall try to make as short as possible; they vary in importance and they are not in any particular order of merit. First, the effect would be to prevent the granting of leases for houses of between 21 and 999 years. There are a great many advantages in these forms of long leases. I would agree that there are also abuses. But, because there are abuses, that is no reason to say, "Let us do away with such leases". Under leases of that length of time—whatever the term, but in excess of 21 years and up to 999 years—we have already heard that there can be schemes of common covenants controlling an area of housing, which is, of course, to everyone's advantage. If there was a short tenure of less than 21 years, it is doubtful whether it would remain attractive to accept onerous undertakings of this sort in order to benefit people who, perhaps, in five years' time were not there.
The second point under Clause 4 is that a provision for common service—for example, the maintenance of private roads and gardens (which has been referred to already) used by residents—would, in my view, be difficult to recover in a particularly short lease. The third point—and this is rather a stronger one—is that one effect of this clause would be to deprive a

675
freeholder of property in the following way. I wonder whether it is the intention of your Lordships' House that this should happen. Let us suppose that a freeholder has granted an existing 99—year lease to a tenant who, after this Bill has become an Act, sublets it for 22 years. Immediately the freeholder is bound to convey the freehold to the sub-tenant, although he has absolutely no control over any of those events whatever. That does not seem to me to be entirely fair and, in my opinion, I suspect that such an act would be contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, which has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross. Even if I am wrong about that, I feel sure that a majority of your Lordships' House would not disagree that that application to the freeholder's interest is patently unjust to him.
The fourth point arises under Clause 4. A further certain consequence of this clause, as enacted, would be to render ineffective in the future paragraph 13 of Part II of Schedule 1 to the Trustee Investment Act 1961. I do not expect noble Lords to have it immediately in their minds, but it is the part of the Act which deals with the need for trustees to consult before they make investments in the narrower range. I do not know very much about Wales—
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, I was just saying to my noble friend that we talk of nothing else but that part in South Wales.
Viscount Dilhorne: My Lords, I am delighted to hear it. In particular, the trustees may only advance mortgages on leasehold investments if the unexpired term at the time of the investment is not less than 60 years. This provision in this Bill would make for a great deal of difficulty—and I think that is stating it modestly—for those trustees.
There is an additional point I should like to make on that particular aspect. It is my understanding that leasehold property held on long leases is a material part of many pension fund investments. If I am right about that, and the proposed cleared site valuation operates as is proposed, the consequence will be that many of those pension funds will be severely deprived of substantial gains that they would otherwise have, and which would enrich in many cases the many people who are seeking to enfranchise.
Clause 5, in my view, violates a fundamental principle of justice, and it is this, that someone should not be penalised for failing to do that which he cannot know he ought to do. That is what Clause 5 does. A landlord is required to notify a tenant of his right under the principal Act, but a tenant's right depends on whether he has occupied the residence for the last 12 months. How is the landlord to know that, when it depends inter alia upon, first, how much of the year the tenant has spent in the house; secondly, whether the tenant owns other residential property; and thirdly, whether the tenant owning other residential property has made an election for capital gains tax purposes as to which is his principal and main residence? Surely none of these matters can a landlord be expected to know.
I am also sure that if any Member of your Lordships' House was asked the question whether he had made an election for capital gains tax and whether a residence
676
was the one that was, or was not, elected, he would give the fairly shirty answer that it was nothing to do with the questioner's business how he had organised his financial affairs. I find some difficulty in the practical application of Clause 5.
Clause 6 is intended, as I understand it, to enable any local authority to assist a tenant with the cost of enfranchisement or extending his lease. The Leasehold Reform Act gives to tenants a substantial financial windfall which can be worth, in respect of some properties, £200,000. That is not an exaggerated figure. The words "just and expedient" are the only qualifying words in Clause 6, and they seem to have, when applied practically, a most flexible character. But this provision vests in a local authority powers to spend the ratepayers' money in discharge of the legal and surveyor's fees incurred by a tenant in obtaining this windfall. Meanwhile, slum houses remain unrepaired, the highways require repairing, and there are many other burdens which I am sure all of us here would agree need attention.
In my view, this provision is just about as socially unjust as it is possible to be. No guidance is contained in the Bill and there is none in the principal Act as to how and when it is to be applied, except as to the words "just and expedient". The effect in many cases, if the clause is enacted in the manner in which it is drafted, will be to pay ratepayers' money to rich tenants in order to make them richer.
Clause 7—and your Lordships will be glad to hear that this is the last clause, of which I know you are already aware, but it will also indicate the end of my speech—contravenes another fundamental principle that justified the legislation in the first place; namely, that individuals should be able to acquire the freehold of the property they had come to regard as their home. I would remind you that by the principal Act it was only possible to acquire the freehold if the tenant held on a long lease at a low rent. The proposal in Clause 7 allows the local authority to exercise the right to acquire the freehold, yet it must be obvious to the whole of your Lordships' House that the local authority cannot have a home.
I am aware of the plight of Mrs. David Bury, which was referred to in The Times of 16th February, and that it may be thought by some in your Lordships' House that Clause 7 perhaps provides or goes towards providing a remedy to that problem. In my opinion, it does not do so and I would disagree with it, for the right remedy in my opinion would be to amend the Housing Act to extending the right to buy provisions, where the council owns only the leasehold, to the individual. My Lords, I thank you for listening to what I quietly myself referred to as my second major speech, without interrupting me.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, I did not want to interrupt that splendid dissertation on law. I was not trained in law. I did a little in semantics and logic. I have now decided if my people can get £200,000 worth of profit out of this Bill, that I shall go round the valleys of Wales ringing the bell to give up the football pools. It is absolute nonsense to talk about property of that price.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Evans, for the reasoned and, as others have said, moderate manner in which, as always, he has moved the Second Reading of his Bill. I know how strongly he believes in the cause of wider leasehold reform, and I have debated the issue with him in this House both during the passage of what is now the Housing Act 1980 and again, if I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in the debate on the Question which he put down on the subject last June. Once again, it is my task to explain why the Government cannot accept the arguments that he has so clearly and courteously put forward.
I do not think it is profitable to delve back into history, to analyse the rights and wrongs of the leasehold system. Our position quite simply is that there is nothing wrong in principle with leasehold as a legitimate form of freedom of contract, provided that an appropriate balance is maintained between the interests of freeholders and leaseholders. There are of course good landlords and there are landlords who are less responsive than they might be to the legitimate needs and aspirations of their tenants. Equally there are leaseholders who would like to acquire the freehold of the place where they live, and others who fully understand and are content with their status as leaseholders.
At a time when owner-occupation has become the single commonest form of tenure in England and Wales, it is sometimes implied that the leaseholder is a second-class citizen. I would not accept this. Lease-hold is a legitimate form of tenure, and in some cases—for example, as in flats—it actually has certain advantages over freehold. The evolution of leasehold reform legislation is a fascinating story, but many noble Lords are, I am sure, more knowledgeable about it than I and I do not propose to go over it in detail on this occasion. Nevertheless, I think it is worth recalling how leasehold reform has developed since the Jenkins Committee on Leasehold reported in 1950. Your Lordships may recall that the majority of the Committee did not favour enfranchisement, but instead recommended that on the expiry of a long lease residential occupiers should be entitled to a statutory tenancy under the Rent Acts, thus ensuring their security of tenure. This was enacted as Part I of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
There followed the 1962 White Paper on residential leasehold property and the 1966 White Paper on Leasehold Reform. By this time the principle of leasehold reform and the need to provide a fairer balance between the interests of freeholders and leaseholders commanded a wide measure of support, although there were differences about precisely where this balance should be struck. As a result, we saw the enactment of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, the first general measure permitting leasehold enfranchisement. This is still the basic legislation although there have been subsequent amendments, the most recent in the Housing Act 1980. This is therefore not a new area; it is one that we have looked at frequently, and I have to tell your Lordships that the Government see no need for further amendment to the 1967 Act at the present time.
Against the background, I come to the detailed provision of the noble Lord's Bill. Much of it closely resembles amendments which were put forward unsuccessfully during the passage of the Housing
678
Act 1980 and which, as I said, we debated again last June. Clause 1, for example—as the noble Lord, Lord Evens, pointed out—seeks to reduce the qualifying residential period, before a leaseholder is entitled to enfranchise, from three years to one. The period was reduced from five years to three in the Housing Act 1980 and in the Government's view it is inappropriate to reduce it further.
The purpose of the Leasehold Reform Act is to help genuine owner-occupiers of leasehold houses to acquire the freehold of their home at reasonable cost. A one-year "residence qualification" is, I submit, hardly sufficient to provide the necessary safeguard against speculation. More than one noble Lord has referred to the subject of speculation and I would only say that it is of course a matter of judgment as to where it starts. If a leaseholder is a genuine home-owner and not a speculator, we doubt whether he has much to lose by waiting three years. The period has already been reduced in the 1980 Act. As my noble friend Lord Salisbury rightly said, we are seeking here fairness and a balance between two private individuals, not between a person and the state.
Clause 2 deals with the basis on which the price of the freehold is to be valued. My noble friend Lord Kinnoull intimated that the clause as drafted could actually lead to the tenant paying a higher price—because of the absence of any reference to the need to take account of the value of the residue of the contractual term—and I am sure that is not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Evans. More fundamentally, the clause would not do away with the need to provide some evidence about site value. In the absence of direct evidence of comparable site values, we believe that the valuers would have to fall back on a "standing house" or "new for old" approach, and in that event little, if anything, would have been achieved.
As the noble Lord, Lord Evans, fairly reminded us, Clause 3 would repeal Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the 1976 Act. Your Lordships may recall that the noble Lord sought to repeal two subsections of Section 16 when leasehold reform was being discussed during the passage of the Housing Act 1980. The main effect would be to enable leaseholders who had ob-tained a 50-year extension to their existing lease under the 1967 Act to enfranchise after the 50-year extension period had begun. Then noble Lord also wishes to enable them to claim a further 50-year extension lease after the end of the first one.
The right to an extension lease was provided in the 1967 Act as an alternative to enfranchisement. A leaseholder who has chosen to extend his lease may still exercise the right to enfranchise, provided the terms of the original lease has not expired. Where a leaseholder has obtained an extension of his lease for 50 years, he has both security to tenure and, I submit, a valuable asset. A reasonable balance has to be struck, as I said, between the leaseholder and the landlord, and both should know where they stand. It seems perfectly fair that once the term of the original lease has expired and the leaseholder has made his choice, the landlord should know that the position is no longer subject to change.
The repeal of Sections 17 and 18 of the Act would undo some rather complicated but very legitimate rights

679
of the landlord. Briefly, Section 17 gives him the right to repossess the property for redevelopment at the beginning of, or during, the extension lease, subject to compensating the leaseholder appropriately. Under Section 18, the landlord may resist enfranchisement or extension on the grounds that on expiry of the original lease, he requires the property for occupation by himself or his family. However, before the landlord can obtain possession, he must satisfy the court that his need is greater than the tenant's, and also pay compensation. We consider that those provisions already strike a fair balance between the two parties.
Clause 4 brings us to the first of two clauses on which I have to differ fundamentally with the noble Lord, Lord Evans. It is a clause which departs from the realm of what may be regarded as technicalities and goes much wider than mere leasehold reform. The noble Lord explained that the intention of the clause is to eliminate the problem of leasehold for the future. I doubt whether the clause would achieve that and, as drafted, I think it would be fairly easy to get round. But my objection is more fundamental. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, eloquently asked, supported by my noble friend Lord Gisborough, and I equally firmly endorse the question: is there sufficient reason to prevent parties from freely entering into a form of contract which they consider suits their particular circumstances?
It may be argued that prospective leaseholders can still be badly informed about the nature of the leasehold. I find that an increasingly implausible argument, after the efforts of campaigners against leasehold, not least such as the noble Lord, Lord Evans, himself. Moreover, the 1954 and 1967 Acts provide basic rights to protect the leaseholder, while leases drawn to fall outside the scope of the 1967 Act often benefit from security of tenure under the Rent Act. In short, I can see no justification for preventing two parties from entering into a leasehold arrangement if they wish to do so.
Clause 5 is in very similar terms to an amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, in the Housing Act proceedings. As Hansard records, the Government's response was that a provision to inform the tenant of any rights he might have under the Leasehold Reform Act already exists under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. That Act contains provisions to ensure that the leaseholder will not lose any rights he might have merely through being unaware of them.
Clause 6 would enable any local authority with powers to provide housing to assist an enfranchising leaseholder with any legal, surveyor's or other costs which he may incur in respect of his claim. Although the powers are discretionary, rather than statutory duties, they would have resource implications for local authority manpower and finance. I can see no reason why those costs should be met out of the public purse. Leasehold enfranchisement is a private transaction, and there are many other cases in which parties to private transactions would doubtless like their local authority to pay for their professional advice.
Clause 7, as has been said, would permit a local authority, housing authority or housing association to benefit in all respects from the 1967 Act as if it were an occupying leaseholder who wished to enfranchise the lease. The clause represents an extension of statu-
680
ory leasehold enfranchisement to an additional and quite different category of leaseholder who is not a householder living in his own house. The 1967 Act and the approach to valuation that it contains are designed to meet the situation of an individual, resident, long leaseholder; as my noble friend Lord Dilhorne said, giving a right of enfranchisement to an artificial person is something that is surely quite outside the scheme of that Act. Local authorities have compulsory purchase powers which they can use when and if it is necessary for them to acquire the freehold of property which is already leased to them. In those circumstances, the provisions for objection to any confirmation of such orders, and the valuation provisions concerned, are more appropriate to compulsory purchase by publicly-funded bodies than the provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act.
To comment on some other observations that were made, the noble Lord, Lord Evans, drew attention to the fact that tenants of council houses in which the council has only a leasehold interest do not enjoy a right to buy under the Housing Act 1980. He is right, and our original intention when framing the right to buy legislation was to include dwellings where the council's interest is a leasehold one. In the event, we were unable to do so because of the technical difficulties in the time available. But I am sure the noble Lord will be pleased to know that we do not intend to let the matter rest there, and we shall be looking for an opportunity to introduce the necessary measure as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits. In the meantime, there is nothing to prevent the local authorities concerned from selling on a voluntary basis.
As the noble Lord, Lord Evans, acknowledged during the proceedings on the Housing Act, there are differences of principle between us on this matter. I do not believe that leasehold is an inherently bad form of land ownership. On the other hand, I believe that Parliament has been right to provide some statutory balance between the rights of freeholders and leaseholders. There are some champions of the leaseholders' cause—not, I hasten to add the noble Lord, Lord Evans—who appear to believe that the rights of freeholders are unimportant, and who would like to do away with these rights on terms that come close to confiscation. The Government totally reject that approach.
I believe that the present law strikes a reasonable balance between the different interests, and that campaigners for leasehold reform would do well to devote at least some of their efforts to ensuring that leaseholders understand the rights that they already have. The terms available for enfranchisement under the 1967 Act are reasonable, and there are independent bodies to settle the price in case of dispute—
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way for a moment?
Lord Bellwin: Yes, certainly.
Lord Davies of Leek: I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I apologise for interrupting. The noble Lord has made a good suggestion. Could not the Government help by issuing a little pamphlet to let us know what are the rights of leaseholders? It seems to be a lovely little idea that has emanated from that box.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says, intriguing as it always is, but I should like to continue with what I was saying. A number of your Lordships referred to the matter of valuations. We heard from the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, Lord Davies of Leek, and my noble friend Lord Dilhorne. Freeholders would also be fighting in the battle—I was not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Davies, referred to a "tank" battle in Belsize Park, or a "tax" battle in Belsize Park. I find both very intriguing. Belsize Park must be a place that one should go to see. But freeholders, too, have rights.
Our information is that parties before leasehold valuation tribunals quite often are reaching agreement before the hearings. That would not suggest that the valuation basis is all that uncertain; nor, frankly, do we believe that the Bill provides any simplification on this point. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked for some guidance as to valuations. On the basis of the 1967 Act, there is a sufficiency of guidance by way of the land tribunal case histories that now exist. The trouble is that when it comes to changing the basis of valuation, some people wish to rationalise upwards and others wish to rationalise downwards.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, "If I am wrong, smite me down". Well, my Lords, heaven forbid! If only the contents of his speeches would match his fervour and articulation. He referred to oratorical arpeggios. He is surely a master of the oratorical arpeggio, and I would say—I mean this sincerely—that his impassioned pleas are always a delight to listen to. But on this occasion—I say this in no way disrespectfully—his case does not really stand up to close examination.
I was intrigued by the case referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, concerning Mr. S, who, he said, bought a house the lease of which had only two years to run. Well, first of all, I should have thought that Mr. S knew the position when he took on the lease. Secondly, presumably the price of the lease would have reflected the situation as it then was. But, perhaps most importantly, the man should be relaxed in the knowledge that he will not be turned out because of the security that he has under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
This whole position was, I believe, thoroughly reviewed only two years ago during the proceedings on the Housing Bill. I consider that the arguments expressed today against the Bill are very compelling. I have yet to make any observations on what my noble friend Lord Dilhorne said, and I look forward with fascination to hearing how the noble Lord, Lord Evans, will deal with those points.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, referred to an application to the European Commission. The application is for a ruling that the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 is in conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights. Your Lordships will understand that as the Commission has yet to rule on the admissibility or the merits of the case, I cannot today say much about the matter. The most I can say is that the Government do not accept that the 1967 Act is in breach of the convention and they are resisting the application. Before I conclude, I should like to refer the noble Lord, Lord Davies, to the little booklet entitled, Leasehold Reform, which I am sure he will read with much interest.
682
I have to say again that I do not believe that the changes proposed in the Bill are justified or, frankly, even desirable. I say that not without some regret, because I have the greatest respect for the sincerity and assiduity of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, regarding this matter. But I fear that I cannot advise your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, I feel that have spent the best years of my life in promoting the concept of leasehold reform and, speaking on the amendment of the noble Earl, I should like to thank with varying degrees of warmth the noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. When some months ago I put down an Unstarred Question to try to rekindle interest in leasehold reform, I hoped that the Government might bring forward legislation of their own to modify the present leasehold position, which I still believe is not satisfactory. Your Lordships might not think that my scheme is the best, but I still believe that in particular parts of the country—not in the country as a whole, which is largely held in freehold tenure—there is wide acceptance that the system is unsatisfactory. I hoped that the Government might have thought of legislating, but since they have not, I have been greatly assisted by most gallant and hard-working people from within the leasehold campaigns and from outside them in putting this Bill together. However much various Members of your Lordships' House might have disagreed with me, I believe that, without the assistance of Government draftsmen, those people have not done a bad job.
I turn to what the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull said. Broadly speaking, my main concern is not with in-dividual freeholders. I must say—and this is not in a wild, last moment hope of gaining the support of the noble Marquess in the Lobbies—that the Gascoyne Cecil estates in Liverpool were widely regarded as being very fair and reasonable to leaseholders. What worries me, and I suspect many other noble Lords, is the fact that a very large number of freeholds have now got into the hands of companies who regard them as speculations in order to make some fast money as quickly as they can. That is my main concern.
I take the point made by the noble Earl about 30 per cent. of the properties being in the hands of charities. I recognise that some of the charities, in particular the colleges of the University of Oxford, have had a rather rough time in dealing with fairly well-heeled academics living in North Oxford buying out their leases. As one of my more excited correspondents has suggested, possibly some of the fat cat tenants in Mayfair have done reasonably well out of the situation. But my concern is not with that tiny minority, but with the very large number of low-income lessees, in small, 19th-century, terraced houses, who, in my opinion, have done, and are doing, very badly out of the present legislation.
I mentioned the Scottish system, and the noble Earl said that it was a change from the feu duty system. I am not going to pursue that too far because solicitors practising in England and Wales are hardly allowed even to mention Scottish law. But it was analogous —that is the only point I would make—and it has been accepted.
The noble Earl and other noble Lords mentioned

683
the question of valuation. I accept that the local tribunals are on the whole doing a good job, though they themselves have said that they seek mainly to base their valuation on the scheme that I have suggested in my Bill. What I think concerns leasehold reformers is that an appeal lies from the local valuation tribunal to the Lands Tribunal, and it is an appeal not just on points of law but on points of valuation. Even if this Government will not do it, I think it is very important that at some time the right of appeal from the local tribunal should be limited to points of law—and I take the point very strongly that various leasehold reform organisations have made about this.
The noble Earl said that professional organisations had not come out in support of me. I would say that it is like the curate's egg. I tended to look for those paragraphs where they supported me and he no doubt looked to those paragraphs of the letters where they condemned me. I received some support from the building societies; some fairly half-hearted support from the surveyors; and a fairly opaque, even gnomic letter from the Law Society which celebrated the proposal to introduce the concept of positive covenants for freehold flats. It struck me that if in fact the Law Commission is doing this then this might resolve many of the problems about which noble Lords on the other side of the House are concerned in relation to the proposal to abolish leasehold.
I very much take the point that the creation of leasehold estates in the past has, in the absence of planning laws, produced some very fine residential areas in Liverpool, in Birmingham, in Birkenhead and in many other areas, which would not have been possible on a purely freehold basis. But I think that now, with the combination of the planning laws and, if the Law Commission comes forward with the proposal, the enforcement of positive covenants, that argument for the retention of leasehold tenure for domestic properties has gone.
I make no apology for making an exception of local authorities and housing associations; and I have had quite a lot of correspondence from citizens' advice bureaux—people who act for housing associations. I quote from a letter:
"Experience shows that it is a major advantage to have freehold reversions in responsible hands, and if it were possible for the powers of the housing associations or the local authorities to be extended to carry out this sort of transfer, it would be of benefit".
That is the point. The comparison I wish to make to your Lordships is the comparison between the responsible freeholder and, shall we say, the less responsible freeholder who is seeking to make a fast profit out of the property—and housing associations and local authorities, of course, do not do that.
I should like warmly to thank the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for their support. Lord Cledwyn was kind enough to mention our families' long friendship on the basis of Welsh non-conformity, but I should like to mention it on another basis. In South Wales the Welsh came to London to sell milk, in North Wales they came to Merseyside to build houses; and my grandfather and father built many hundreds of houses which they were quite willing to sell freehold. They sold them freehold for very much the same kind of
684
prices—£200 or £300 for a house now fetching £20,000—when at the same time exactly similar houses in similar parts of the country were being sold on 99-year leases for virtually no difference in price; and that is really one of the fundamental points on which I differ from many noble Lords who, equally sincerely, hold that we are out for expropriation, which is not the case.
My Lords, I realise that time is going on. I should have liked to dwell at some length on some of the remarks that noble Lords have made. The basis of my concern is the one I mentioned and the clarification of the anomalies in valuation. I concede that in certain cases the valuation I suggest will be less beneficial for the lessee than the present system. That is fair enough; that is capitalism; that is the way it works out. I would have thought that that might have attracted the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross. But the problem in dealing with the remarks made by many noble Lords, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is that we must not interfere, it is said, with what was a free bargain, freely entered into. But, of course, it was not a bargain entered into between equals. It was a bargain entered into between a very large property owner and possibly a small individual who was looking for a roof over his head—the point that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, made.
To me, this is not a question of confiscation. I see the point: if I directly enter into a bargain with somebody to do something and then try to get the law to help me out of that bargain, then I concede that that is possibly an unfair activity. But if my great grandson seeks to benefit from expropriating or getting further money out of someone else's great grandson three or four generations further on, then that is not a question of breach of contract at all; it is an entirely different and totally exceptional matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that I had a doctrinaire obsession, and painted a picture of me being an extreme Left-Wing agitator. My Lords, I am regarded in the Liberal Party, I am afraid, as being fairly to the Right. I should like to point out (my noble friends are telling me that if I do not stop soon they will have gone home; well, I might win then!) that many people on the Conservative side (John Wheeler, the Member of Parliament for Paddington, and many others) are taking the view, with the extension of home ownership—and I accept the point made by Lord Dilhorne about extending the right to council tenants—that there must be a basic change in the nature of land tenure, the conversion from leasehold to freehold.
My Lords, I have very much enjoyed the contributions made. I should like to point out that many of the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and others are points for Committee stage. What I am asking is that this Bill be given a Second Reading today so that the many inadequacies—and I concede that there are inadequacies in it—can be ironed out and put right at Committee stage, and so that we can have a Bill which will be widely accepted, not just in South Wales but all over the country, as a benefit to a property-owning democracy.
5.48 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I am sure the House is grateful for the moving summary by the noble Lord,

685
Lord Evans, and indeed for his initiating a debate which has been enriched by eloquence and emotion from the Welsh Members opposite. I also think it has been a valuable debate, because of the guidance and helpful reply that my noble friend Lord Bellwin has given to the House.
If I were to pick on one speaker it would be the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. The noble Lord gave us three examples of hardship—and, if I may say so to the noble Lord, he has an uncanny habit of making one feel guilty if one does not agree with him. He gave three examples, and I looked at each of those cases. In my humble judgment the Bill before us would really make no difference. It makes no difference to hardship. If one looks at the various tests, it would make no difference to those cases unless one got a valuation formula which was way below the present market value.
I believe the truth with this Bill, both for those of us who live in Wales and for those who live in England, is that the same opportunity to buy the leasehold exists. The same opportunity to protect the security of your home exists. This Bill is a major change designed to abolish leaseholds. That is the issue. On it, I am convinced that no case has been made out, and I invite your Lordships to decide that issue in the Division Lobbies.
5.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 59.

DIVISION NO.1

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Halsbury, E.

Auckland, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Avon, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Bellwin, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kemsley, V.

Carrington, L.

Kinnoull, E. [Teller]

Cathcart, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Clitheroe, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Colwyn, L.

Lawrence, L.

Cross, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Daventry, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Davidson, V.

Lyell, L.

De La Warr, E.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Macleod of Brove, B.

Denham, L.

Marley, L.

Dilhorne, V. [Teller]

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Mersey, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Elton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Ferrier, L.

Moyne, L.

Fortescue, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Gainford, L.

Northchurch, B.

Gisborough, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Glanusk, L.

Orkney, E.

Glasgow, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Oxford and Asquith, E.

Greenway, L.

Radnor, E.

Grey of Naunton, L.

Ridley, V.

Hacking, L.

Robbins, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sackville, L.

St. Davids, V.

686

Salisbury, M.

Strathspey, L.

Sandford, L.

Swinfen, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Terrington, L.

Stamp, L.

Thurlow, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Vivian, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Listowel, E.

Amherst, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Amulree, L.

Aylestone, L.

Mayhew, L.

Banks, L. [Teller]

Melchett, L.

Barrington, V.

Mountevans, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ogmore, L.

Beswick, L.

Oram, L

Bishopston, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Blyton, L.

Peart, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Phillips, B.

Bowden, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Rochester, L.

Byers, L.

Seear, B.

Caradon, L.

Seebohm, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Shinwell, L.

Collison, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

David, B.

Stone, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Underhill, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hayter, L.

Wigoder, L. [Teller]

Hooson, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Jeger, B.

Winstanley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Kennet, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Leatherland, L.

Resolved in the affirmative and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Opticians Act 1958 (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
6 p.m.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, I beg leave to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In rising to my feet to introduce this Bill, it is difficult to know where to start. There has been so much water under this bridge since I introduced an Unstarred Question about two years ago in your Lordships' House and it seemed that from that moment the subject was anything but dormant.
I can start with the Bill itself, and Section 21 of the Opticians Act 1958 in particular, which claims absolute rights over the sale of optical appliances, without defining an optical appliance, when optical appliances have been used by mankind for centuries. The beginning is literally enshrined in the Book of Genesis when water and light combined and light was split up into the colours of the rainbow and it could be refracted so that all creatures should have that miraculous optical appliance, the eye itself, with all the visual images needed to survive and sustain life.
To enact a law which would seek to put an attachment order on these properties of light and its manifold uses—because that is the nature of this monopoly—I would submit is of such legal complexity as to be

687
impossible to draft. It would be like King Canute making an attachment order on sea-water.
Moving quickly therefore from Genesis to the 12th century, when the Bible was being laboriously copied in longhand by monks who had reached middle age or (in optical terms) what is known as presbyopic age, and this being done with the aid of an optical appliance (a magnifying lens, no less), an enterprising Italian inventor suspended two such similar lenses from the ears, and thereby speeded the process up by releasing both hands to turn the page, to read and to write and to do other work. The beauty of it all was that the wearer needed only to turn the head to accommodate the visual images required. This man, had he but known it, could have said with complete justification, one small step for man, one gigantic leap forward for literature and for the whole civilisation.
So, my Lords, since those days 800 years ago when man came to harness these properties of light by means of calibrated and polished glass lenses, he has immeasurably advanced his fulfilment of life and the boundaries of his knowledge, and the great part of this has been accomplished by convex reading lenses. Such lenses are invaluable to the middle aged or presbyopes, who today seeking the same visual accommodation and freedom of choice enjoyed by their forefathers are officiously prevented from so doing under Section 21 of the Act.
The choice of reading spectacles is 100 per cent. safe and there are absolutely no risks whatsoever. Those are the words of a leading professor of optometry to his students in a third world country.
Perhaps it is of interest that one of our greatest export markets is supplying these very reading glasses to the third world. Why should we not give a lead in this country and give the same freedom to our own citizens?
In this connection, may I remind your Lordships of that great optical revolution which took place between the two great wars. It was when a multiple store by the name of Woolworth's recognised the needs of the presbyope—that of simple spectacle magnifiers which are geared to the printed word—and, with the technology of mass production, set about providing it. And, not only that, a whole variety of literature as part of the package. The effect upon the working classes was dramatic.
As a boy I was spellbound at the simplicity of the transaction. One merely had to place oneself at a convenient distance from the test card and if one did not already know from a previous purchase the precise glasses needed, then one placed a pair of glasses on the bridge of the nose and then, using those as a bench mark, by selection increased or decreased the strength according to comfort, selecting from a tray the glasses on display. That assessment of comfort could not be better decided than by the customer—no need for a third party. The transaction was quick, always available—6d for the glasses; 6d for the book—and from then onwards replacements could be put on the shopping list.
Here we had the artisan class—and, indeed, classes right across the board—providing for this functional optical requirement in the most elegant way ever devised. Quick, cheap, plentiful—for work or for
688
leisure. That, my Lords, was Socialism, in my humble opinion, at its best and I salute those two great contributors to the welfare of all mankind, the inventor of magnifying reading spectacles eight centuries ago and Woolworth's, which put them into mass production.
I come now to the period immediately after the war. That painful transition from a wartime economy to peacetime. That hard world of commercial reality in tandem with the ideals of welfare for all. It seemed to those like myself, endeavouring to struggle back to a new start in life, that much of the legislation of that time was based on dreams and aspirations. If it looked good, seemed good, then by golly it had to be good! The groundnut scheme—who could forget that?—was so full of hope but so hopeless in reality. In a flash that decade, the hungry 'forties, had made way for the profligate 'fifties, and pre-war memories of freedom from regimentation were buried in the rubble of war. This period was indeed the cradle of the Opticians Act.
It is with singular clarity I recall the passing of the Act. It came over as an announcement on the BBC radio news:
"Woolworth's are no longer to be allowed to sell reading glasses".
Many people I believe registered a sense of outrage and horror at this freedom so easily removed—now so hard to regain. A freedom of centuries had gone by the board and that moment is frozen in time in my mind as a barbaric act.
There is no gainsaying that this was just part of an attachment order on all the historical inventions which harnessed the properties of light for the benefit of mankind and all their retail outlets. It was an attachment order which would rig the prices for all new inventions such as contact lenses—£170 in this country; £15 in America. Witness the appalling recent case of Mr. Le Scrooge convicted by his fellows for undercutting them. What chances are there for new inventions while this cartel is in operation?
A commercial franchise of this totality indentures the eyesight of the entire populace to this exclusive province of opticians. It excludes all competition. It claims exclusive promotional rights on all optical inventions, within their definition, but without legal definition in common law, for the past, the present and the future and at no time offering so much as a brass farthing for this commercial acquisition worth £700 to £1 billion a year. That is Section 21 in a nutshell. These glasses—our ancient lights—these windows by which we have obtained our enlightenment and our knowledge over the centuries, come to us now by courtesy of another god: a general optical dictatorship. It is all spelled out in these 30-odd words of Section 21 of the Opticians Act.
The interpretation of Section 21 does not, of course, reside within the common law of this land as we know it. It resides outside in the hands of a Quango which is sub-contracted by the Department of Health and Social Security to administer the Act and perhaps might therefore be called Quangeroo law. Demonstration of their powers have already been amply used to quell any threat to their inflexible control over the optical market; and where definitions are called for, their word is accepted as infallible. How are we, the ordinary people, to know the parameters, the definition of an optical appliance? Surely in a free society

689
we have a right to know these legal definitions. It is possible that without defining the areas of optical appliances, the commercial possibilities likewise have no restraints within this Act. If there is any possibility that these considerable powers are being commercially exploited by the use of subtle suggestion, by calculated deprivation, by tactics of delay or price cartels, then the public, who because of their National Health contributions, are paid up owners of this branch of the Health Service, are entitled to overriding safeguards against abuse and exploitation. Under the aegis of the General Optical Council. I regret to say that this has not been seen to be done.
The most common argument put forward by opticians to justify their control of the spectacle market is based on their ability to detect the onset of glaucoma, which affects rather less than one in a thousand. Their claims are not supported by medical opinion. The British Medical Journal in its leader of 13th December 1980 states:
"screening for glaucoma should be done in its own right by those who are qualified and not tied vicariously to the selling of spectacles".
And the regional eye centre at Oldchurch Hospital, Romford, makes the following declaration as a result of a recent survey. I would like to read from their letter—and I quote:
"An eye-test leading to the supply of glasses may fail to detect disease and yet the person have the impression that his eyes have been passed. Now although opticians have some training in spotting disease, and many troubles are indeed spotted by them, this is not their primary role, whereas it is the primary role of ophthalmic medical practitioners"—
in other words, those who have done a complete medical training. It continues:
"What is just as bad as missing some possibly treatable condition is the worry caused by falsely diagnosing trouble. There is so much widespread testing for glaucoma being carried out at present that I decided to count those referred to my hospital clinics from results of one particular test. Out of 27 in three months from this test, there were 5 who actually had glaucoma, 20 who had no disease and 2 who need further observation. Besides this there were 5 cases of glaucoma missed by opticians who had referred them because of some other trouble. The test not uncommonly upsets the patient—no wonder that the pressure may shoot up. Also, the patient is subjected to fear and worry over the false positive results. There are other more reliable tests but no test is without some risk and any test with such poor results isn't worth doing. An ophthalmologist can recognise glaucoma without these tests, but of course fancy apparatus keeps up the cost of spectacles and impresses some people. These pressure tests are not required as part of an N.H.S. sight-test and should really be done only with good reason or preferably left to the clinic where they would, in any case, be referred".
My Lords, in the face of such evidence, can these restrictive practices on our rights be continued in perpetuity and when a full medical training involving so much other overall knowledge of the body is needed to make up a case history of glaucoma? Great concern is expressed in a letter, passed on to me, by the Socialist Health Association that if this Bill goes through, total eye care would be neglected. An ophthalmologist, asked to explain what that may mean, states that it is as meaningless as "total toe care".
Speaking as I do from the Cross Benches, it is without any particular bias. Like most people, I have paid my National Health Service subscription and therefore
690
ask: Are we getting what we have paid for My correspondence comes from every kind of background, including consumer groups, community centres, associations of the visually handicapped and a large number of doctors, all of whom are greatly dissatisfied. The answer is clearly, No.
The General Optical Council, by allowing such entrepreneurs as Slater Walker to get a hold on the market, and then for the tobacco multinationals to be involved with mergers and takeovers worth millions of pounds in a series of business deals to bring the high street opticians under their control, is really only the logical outcome of absolute marketing protection in absolutely the wrong hands. The business world of optical dispensers has been laughing all the way to the bank for too long and it does not give a tinker's cuss, except of course for the cash flow.
Many of your Lordships will have been lobbied by opticians asking that Section 21 should be retained by them. Who can blame them? But no other country in the world has seen fit to emulate this restriction on our own collective decision over our own eyesight and indeed over our health service. More and more people find they are better off abroad while on holiday or on business. In other countries there is no "sus" law which empowers opticians to brand people as patients simply because they require some simple reading glasses of their own choosing or to have a tailor-made, on-the-spot prescription for short sight or astigmatism. They are treated as customers and, in turn, customers can shop around for the best bargains. Advertising is permitted and fully qualified eye doctors are available for such things as contact lenses which as I said, are priced as low as £15 in America at the lower end of the market. These reading glasses are about £4.50 on the old Woolworth's principle of "choose your own because you know best but go and have your eyes tested if you can't get suited". Any eye test becomes an ignominious proceeding when thrust upon an unwilling client who has to ensure the twilight of semi-literacy before so-called prescriptions wait upon the pleasure of the dispensing optician.
I believe Section 21 has run its course and has been invalidated on a number of abuses. At the outset Parliament was given guarantees that there would be a progressive separation between the two functions of eye-testing and dispensing. Not only has it not happened but the reverse is now the universal practice. When these functions are combined under one roof, enjoying a seal of approval under the National Health Service and receiving our tax deductions in the form of subsidies, then indeed we all are gravely disadvantaged.
If those who test eyesight do not have the medical training so necessary to interpret symptoms which are interrelated with other deeper causes, then should they not just stick within the confines of eyesight testing for prescription lenses, within their own training and without the medical overtones which they do not possess? We demand that the NHS subsidy for which we have paid should not be seen to be going to companies acting within a cartel, index-linking their prices of spectacles and using the safety clause of Section 21 of the Optician's Act to protect that cartel. If, as I believe, this section should be removed from its present

691
context of the Opticians Act, then the way is open to a re-examination and a new deal so badly needed after nearly a quarter of a century. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Rugby.)
6.17 p.m.
Lord Oram: My Lords, although I do not agree with the purposes of the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, I think we can all agree that he has given us a lively and imaginative speech in introducing it. I must say, however, that I felt he let his imagination run a little wild when he suggested that Messrs. Woolworth were one of the harbingers of the socialist cause. I think that was a little exaggerated. Nevertheless, I am sure the noble Lord has done a service to the House in giving us this Second Reading opportunity to discuss many of the questions he has raised, and which I am sure others will raise, concerning the supply of spectacles. The subject has been several times raised in your Lordships' House at Question-time, but I think we all felt that those occasions were inadequate for dealing with the subject, and it is for that reason that this much fuller opportunity is to be welcomed by all of us.
I am bound to say to the noble Lord, however, that if he expects to amend the present law in just the way that his Bill proposes, in my view he is both optimistic and ill-advised. First, in a spirit of friendliness, may I explain why I very much welcome the debate, because it is clear both from the noble Lord's speech and from other exchanges that have taken place in this House, that there are many questions that can appropriately be asked about eyesight testing and the sale of spectacles.
Your Lordships will recall that several of the important questions were raised three years ago in the report by the Price Commission in 1979 which looked at the affairs of Messrs. Dollond and Aitchison and their group. I should like to mention just two or three of the issues which were raised in that report.
First, there was the whole question of prices and profitability; and that question will, I am sure, be raised again this evening as it is still a very live issue. For my part, I have little doubt that many customers in opticians' shops pay unnecessarily high prices when they are faced with expert salesmanship and—and this is most important—when they are not fully appraised of what alternatives are available, compared with what is being offered to them. I am sure that that is one important question that we need to consider.
Secondly, there is the question whether the rules of the General Optical Council are too restrictive, particularly their prohibition of advertising, and whether their rules work out in such a way that competition is unnecessarily and undesirably restricted. That, too, was a question raised in the Price Commission's report.
Thirdly—and this point was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rugby—is there sufficient distinction between, on the one hand, eye-testing and prescription, for which it seems to me, at any rate, as a layman, professional expertise is very necessary, and, on the other hand, the retailing of frames and lenses for which
692
less professional knowledge is needed, and for which, as I have suggested, in the interests of consumers more competition is desirable?
Then there is a fourth question, which was not, I think, raised in the report to which I have referred, but which is raised by the opticians; that is, whether the fees paid by the National Health Service to opticians are adequate. If they are not adequate, does this not tempt opticians to charge higher prices for frames and lenses, in order to get some compensation for their overheads in relation to the work which they do for the Health Service? I am not knowledgeable enough to know the justice one way or the other, but I believe it is an important question and, if there is something wrong in that respect, then it should be put right. All these questions are highly important and, as I said at the outset, although I oppose the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, I can sincerely say that he has given us a very good opportunity, by bringing in his Bill, to air these various questions and others.
Why do I say that the noble Lord, if he thinks that he is going to alter the statute book in this way, is optimistic? I have been in your Lordships' House for a brief period and I was in the other House for a long period. I have witnessed many attempts by private Members in both Houses to alter the statute book and there are many hazards, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, is well aware. But there is one thing of which I am quite sure; that is, that any private Member, seeking to see his Private Member's Bill right through to the very end, needs to have, at least, that benevolent neutrality of the Government in office. It may be that he will get that this evening and we shall listen with considerable interest to the Minister who is to speak.
But I noticed in December last that Mrs. Sally Oppenheim, who has recently resigned but was then Minister for Consumer Affairs, announced that she was asking the Director General of the Office of Fair Trading to examine the Opticians Act 1958, particularly Section 21, to which the noble Lord's Bill refers, and Section 25, and to examine those two sections with particular reference to the question of competitiveness within the service. And, of course, many of the issues to which I have referred directly impinge on this question of competition. The Minister has not yet spoken, but it seems to me that he cannot very well have an attitude of even benevolent neutrality to a Bill of this kind when the Government have asked an organisation to inquire into the very issues raised by this Bill. That is why I think that the noble Lord is optimistic.
Why do I say that he is ill-advised? This is because I do not take so lightheartedly as he does the operation of going into a shop, taking spectacles off the peg, putting them on your eyes and walking out happily. I accept the statement that has been made in this House and elsewhere, that wearing the wrong lenses does not do harm to the eyes. That I am perfectly prepared to accept from those who are expert enough to know one way or the other.
But surely what is needed is not that negative approach of saying that no harm will arise. Surely, the objective should be to ensure that people get the spectacles that they need and that are most appropriate,

693
and I suggest that that can be done only if there has been a proper sight testing. Moreover, it is not just necessary that the customer should get the right lenses. It is necessary that he or she should get the right lens for each of two eyes. In my case, one eye is distinctly weaker than the other, so it is necessary to have two different lenses, and I am not at all confident that the simple process of taking spectacles off the peg can take care of that situation.
Then there is the point, so strongly made by the professional associations, that the qualified optician when conducting sight-testing can, and does, in the process spot incipient disease in the eye. It is claimed by the Worshipful Company of Spectacle Makers that since the passing of the 1958 Act, including this questioned Section 21, many thousands of people who consulted their opticians have been referred for early medical attention following routine eye examinations. That is a statement from a highly respected institution and I suggest that it is a statement which we cannot lightly pass over. That is why I say that it is ill-advised, as the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, would do, to enable people to by-pass qualified opticians when seeking to purchase spectacles.
The question of the retail sale of spectacle frames and lenses is a different matter, and I accept—I am not in a position this evening to suggest the method—that there may be much that is open to question in the present method of retail operations. It may be that there is a lot to be done in relation to the present situation, in order that consumers can have much more information about how they may get value for money in these matters and to ensure that there is not a cartel operating against the consumers' interest. That I fully accept. I hope that by one means or another we shall reach a more satisfactory situation. However, I believe that the proposal contained in the noble Lord's Bill is not the path that we should follow in seeking that objective.
The whole question of competition in the retail trade for spectacles is the very subject of the review to which I have referred, which the Minister asked the Director General of Fair Trading to undertake. Surely we must await the results of that review before we take the step of giving a Second Reading to the Bill. If your Lordships will allow me, perhaps I may read out the terms of reference which Mrs. Oppenheim gave in asking for the review to take place:
"To assess the effects upon competition of the statutory monopoly to sell optical appliances conferred by Section 21 of the Opticians Act 1958 on registered medical practitioners and registered opticians and, secondly, the rules of the General Optical Council made under Section 25 thereof in so far as they relate to or affect the sale of such appliances".
Surely the sensible way to proceed is to ask the appropriate people to make the appropriate inquiry. What is wrong, before that report has been received, before the examination has been made public, is to initiate legislation in this Chamber on the very subject which is to be under inquiry. For this reason alone, I think your Lordships would be well advised not to give a Second Reading to the Bill.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Off-Ewing: My Lords, we all owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, for starting a debate and introducing an amendment to the 1958
694
Act which I, among many others, think has been on the statute book for too long and has resulted in a total distortion of the spectacle trade in this country—and in this country only, because no other country has followed our example in this field. I apologise to the House for the fact that at about 8 o'clock I have a commitment and must slip away. If, however, the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, does not get the assurances from the Government Front Bench for which he is pressing and he decides to divide the House I shall come chasing back here to support him in the Lobbies. May I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Oram, upon his carefully thought out speech which contained a lot of very good sense. It is very worth while having speeches like that on the record so that people in other places realise that this House draws attention to matters which ought to be put right and that it is fair and balanced in its comments.
I started to take an interest in this subject in the 1970s, although Donald Chapman, as he then was (now Lord Northfield) who sadly cannot be with us today and who has sent his apologies, was active in this field before I took it up. The more I looked at it the more disturbed I became at what the Daily Mail today calls "The Great Glasses Rip-off". For 7 million pairs of spectacles are sold to the public in this country every year. The average price now—I will support this assertion later—is between £40 and £50. You can go and buy bifocal spectacles in the private sector for well over £100. At the other end of the scale you can buy them for as cheaply as just under £10. However, the average must be of the order of £40 and £50. So 7 million times £50—to help those who are not numerate—comes to £350 million which is spent in one year by the public on spectacles. Admittedly, that is not 7 million people because most people have to have a spare pair, but 4 million to 5 million people certainly are customers each year.
Since this campaign started in both Houses and in all parties—because everybody believes that someting has to be done, even the noble Lord, Lord Oram, who has just sat down—one has had to look at the tremendous volume of representations received from the trade and from other interested parties. The noble Lord, Lord Oram, quoted a spectacle-makers' organisation; one must point out that they have a very considerable vested interest in retaining the present regime and the present way of marketing as it is, and untouched. It is my reckoning that £250 million of unnecessary profit is now going into various people's pockets—I hope taxed—as a result of the present set-up. When people say that everybody is very expert and that they are not very well paid, I should like to say that in the Ophthalmic Optician I came across some advertisements for sight testing. They are interesting. One of them says:
"Merseyside. Locum wanted. Sight testing only. Easy hours—£60 per day, cash".
It cannot be an organisation which is very stretched for cash which can advertise in that way. Another advertisement says:
"Merseyside locum. Sight testing only; £70 per day".
That advertisement does not mention cash. So a lot of people are making a lot of money and we ought to do better for the sake of the public who have to buy spectacles.

695
We had a debate in this House on 30th January 1980 which the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, initiated and in which I joined. At the end of the debate the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, said, at col. 975, that the Government:
"are fully aware that the level of prices for private spectacles and the lack of competition in the optical market give cause for concern. They are satisfied that the current examination of competition in the optical field by the Director General of Fair Trading is the appropriate means of dealing with the matter".
That was two years ago. I was under the impression—and I think every Peer in this House was under the impression—that this matter was being properly investigated, but later it turned out that that investigation, by Mr. Gordon Borrie, was confined to the display of prices in the windows. Since then he has carried out an examination and found that roughly 50 per cent. of the people display prices. I did a little operational survey this morning. I went into Dollond and Aitchison, opticians who have something like 25 per cent. of the market—they themselves are very close to a monopoly—took off these spectacles which I am wearing and said that I was going away (which indeed I am) and wanted to take a spare pair with me. These spectacles cost me £5 in Hong Kong—to my prescription, which is a simple, balanced one. Both eyes need +2·75. My previous pair, which I had sat on while ski-ing, cost me, in dollars, £4 in the United States.
So I do find other ways of getting the spectacles which I need. I went into this small shop near Victoria to discover how much an equivalent pair would cost. I was shown in very small print on the frame a price of £34. I asked about the lenses and I was told that they would cost me £13·25, making a total of £47·25 against the £04 or £5 which I had paid abroad. I said, "Perhaps I could have National Health spectacles instead". They said, "Yes, you can, but you must undergo a sight test". I said, "I don't want to undergo a sight test; I know what my eyes are". "No", they said, "We cannot give you National Health Service spectacles unless you undergo a sight test". So I said, "Why should I saddle the poor taxpayers of this country with the cost of testing my eyes, which they will be paying for, when I do not need it?" They answered, "Sorry, those are the rules". We have a madhouse in this country if you have to undergo a sight test before you can get National Health Service spectacles, even though you are carrying a prescription with you, know what you want and can help to spread the costs and perhaps have less of a subsidy towards the National Health Service. We have not got things right.
Since the passing of the 1958 Bill, the General Optical Council has been helping—I cannot say that they have done it by mistake—a racket, and a very considerably lucrative one. In introducing this debate the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, mentioned glaucoma. This comes up every time. I could quote very similar figures to the ones which the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, quoted but I do not want to bore the House, as there are many speakers in the debate. The fact is that people like Professor Trevor Roper, senior consultant at Moor-fields, a Hospital of outstanding ability and prestige, reckons that about one person in 1,000 of the population
696
may have glaucoma. Other expert articles I have read say that in the 55–70 age group, the number of people who have glaucoma was two or three in a thousand. But many of these are not diagnosed and sometimes there are bad diagnoses. Sometimes, glaucoma is missed by ordinary sight testing. What makes us believe that it is essential to have an arrangement whereby the testing of sight is wrapped up in the selling of the spectacles? This is what leads to the high prices and the up-market selling, so that modest people who are a little frightened of losing their eyesight are persuaded to purchase more and more expensive frames; they are told that they look so much better and all their friends will be pleased to see them beautifully turned out in a pair of spectacles that cost £50 or £60, when they could buy something exactly the same for the wellbeing of their eyes for much less than that.
The noble Lord who is to wind up may tell us that an investigation is under way; I hope that he will not use exactly the same words which he used on 30th January 1980. Two Royal Commissions have already looked into this matter and both of them found that prices were unnecessarily high We have had one report from the Office of Fair Trading, which, for some reason which I do not quite understand, specialised in just the display of prices which had been previously banned by the General Optical Council. Now we have had it resubmitted by Sally Oppenheim, and this must have been one of the last tasks she undertook before sadly resigning for private reasons; in mid-December, we were told that it was resubmitted to Mr. Gordon Borrie of the Office of Fair Trading.
I hope that we can get one message across to the Government. It may be unnecessary to go ahead with this Bill, but I will leave it to my noble friend Lord Rugby to judge that. But we should certainly give the Bill a Second Reading unless the Government come forward and say we are going to tackle this matter with some enthusiasm and zest. People are being ripped off, prices are unnecessarily high, and the Office of Fair Trading—although I know that it has a lot on its plate—should within six months come up with a report and a recommendation. If that happens, I hope that the Government will enact their own legislation in the form they think best and make clear that we wish to preserve the rights of people to buy National Health Service spectacles. That is one quite separate issue and I hope to goodness we can have a better choice of frames and spectacles in that area as well. Also, we believe that, in other areas, there is a part to be played by the private system. When improved competition is restored to this country, as it has to every other civilised country, we shall get very much better value for money, and the 5 million people who buy spectacles every year will owe a debt of gratitude not only to my noble friend Lord Rugby but also to this Government as well.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I always choose my words with care when I speak to your Lordships' House. But on a matter in which I must inevitably speak in part as a doctor with nearly 40 years of active medical practice behind me (and, I venture to hope, a few more years of active medical practice before me) perhaps I ought to choose my words with even greater

697
care. As the noble Lord, Lord Oram, has already suggested, we are here discussing two separate but related issues. First, we are discussing the very important issue of the need for regular and proper ophthalmic examinations for all people in general, and for those people and age groups who are known to be at special risk in particular. That is one matter we are talking about and it is a need which I would at the outset underline. Secondly, we are discussing the very important matter of the operation of undesirable restrictive practices by a professional group holding a monopoly—practices which are being operated to the detriment and cost of the consumer. Those matters are to an extent separate, but to an extent they are also related.
On previous occasions when this matter has been discussed, it may have been noticed by noble Lords that I have ventured, even as a doctor, to give some kind of qualified support to the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, in the efforts which he has been making. I will acknowledge at the outset that as a doctor I thought very carefully afterwards and wondered whether I was entirely right to take that stand. I am bound to say that since those times the hysterical nature of the screams of anguish and rage I have been receiving in every post from opticians have swept away any doubts I may have had. They were equalled only by the similar screams of anguish and rage I received when, in another place some years ago, I endeavoured to do something about the restrictive practices operated by solicitors in relation to conveyancing. Those reactions convinced me that I was right then as well. I am bound to say that any doubts I had have been swept away, and I believe that this matter is one which has to be looked at with very great care.
Let me make utterly clear that I acknowledge at the outset that many opticians perform a most excellent service in the screening process whereby, when they are carrying out optical tests, refraction and optometry, they discover various other matters which need further attention. I have no doubt about that service; there are opticians with whom I have maintained a very close personal and professional relationship over many years, and I have had cause to value their professional relationship over many years, and I have had cause to value their professional advice on many matters and to heed that advice. But it is a fact that this alleged safety net of screening by opticians is not necessarily as sound as it is sometimes alleged to be.
Since this matter was first raised I have sought the advice of many senior consultants in ophthalmology. I have even received some advice which I have not actually sought, but I have received only one approach from a senior consultant suggesting that the situation as it now is should remain; that was from a consultant up in the North-East, in Newcastle. Otherwise, without exception, each and every one to whom I have spoken said that they believe there is room for change. One professor of ophthalmology told me his opinion is that in the case of some opticians—I say "some" advisedly—they miss more cases of glaucoma than they actually discover. It is also his considered opinion that they find cases of glaucoma which do not actually exist and they therefore create a certain amount of panic, apprehension and anxiety as a result of that. That should not take away from the effective screening undertaken
698
by certain others, but the fact remains that if we believe that the very act of an eye examination by an optician is necessarily a foolproof method of screening for glaucoma and certain other matters, we are making a mistake.
Still wearing my medical hat, I come to the question of people wearing the wrong glasses. I have said over and over again, and say again now (even though I know that other doctors who may be speaking in this debate take a different view, I have never had my view contradicted): that it does nobody any harm to be wearing the wrong glasses. It is perfectly possible that they may not be able to see and may get run over and suffer all kinds of secondary and consequential harm, but I am bound to say professionally, as a doctor, that the popularly alleged condition of eye strain is a delusion. There is no such thing as eye strain. I do not believe that it does anyone any harm to wear the wrong glasses. I do not think it is a very useful thing to do, nor is it to be widely encouraged; but we must recognise and take note of the fact that many people do wear the wrong glasses—not because they go and rumage about in the old bin at Woolworths and choose a pair, but because glasses are handed around the family with extraordinary freedom.
As a general practitioner, I have been into home after home in which the glasses are handed down from the grandpa to the father, to the mother and so on. So in the end there is an assortment of glasses from which various members of the family make a choice. I am not suggesting it is a desirable practice, but I am saying it does not do any very great harm. I think it is important that people should have the right glasses; I think it is important that people should have the proper regular ophthalmic examinations which are necessary to detect certain forms of ophthalmic disease, and occasionally certain other kinds of disease, high blood pressure and other matters which can reveal themselves in an examination of the retina and so on. So I think that is important.
But with regard to these other matters, I do not need to go over the operation of restrictive practices which have been so well illustrated by other noble Lords. But I do say that I think it would be helpful if we could perhaps return to the old days, when one could go and have one's eyes properly tested and get a prescription, and then go away with the prescription and shop around and find from which optician or which practitioner we get the best deal in terms of price and everything else, and get our own spectacles that way.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, is he not aware that one can do exactly that now?
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I am aware that one cannot do exactly that. The noble Baroness can go over and over again to opticians who will not issue a prescription for her to take to others.
Baroness Jeger: I have done it.
Lord Winstanley: The noble Baroness may have done it; I have done it. The noble Baroness has been around for a fairly long time, and it was easy to do it at one time, but it is not so easy to do it now. I wish,

699
too, perhaps that we could move to a situation in which more of those people and those special groups who are at special risk were referred not just to the optician—though there are opticians whose work is of a very high standard—but to ophthalmic medical practitioners, of whom we now have rather fewer than we did working under contracts with the family practitioner committees; that more and more of those people at special risk could be referred direct to the ophthalmic departments in hospitals in which they are examined for refraction, not necessarily by the consultant hut by a registrar or by somebody trained, and then I think we would sometimes find that the actual screening process about which noble Lords are rightly concerned is carried out a little better.
I merely say this. I do not know what Lord Rugby's intention is at the end of the day, but I do hope that before the end of the day, whenever that will be, we will hear something from the Government to make it clear that some steps are being taken. I am bound to say that I would not regard it as wholly satisfactory if Section 21 was just swept away and a total vacuum left and nothing else at all done. But unless the Government can give a clear indication of the fact that they intend to take certain steps to deal with the matters about which noble Lords are so concerned, I think it might be wise for noble Lords to express their views, perhaps by supporting the noble Lord, Lord Rugby. But it would not be necessary for us to do that if we received an assurance that something will happen as a result of this debate.
I repeat, my Lords, that we are looking at two separate but related matters. The fact that the screening process is important and should be carried out more effectively does not mean that we should necessarily acquiesce in the continuation of the operation of restrictive trade practices which are acting to the detriment of the consumer. I hope we shall hear news of some kind of action not very far off on the horizon.
6.56 p.m.
Lord Richardson: My Lords, I crave your Lordships' indulgence to allow me to leave the House before the end of the debate, and I offer my apologies to the noble Lord the Minister and to my noble friend Lord Rugby. I have an engagement of many months standing that I feel I cannot possibly break.
When Lord Oram sat down I felt that I would do myself the relieving process of striking my name off the list of speakers and relieve your Lordships' House of a speaker. But then I thought of the delightful way in which Lord Rugby had introduced this Bill with his historical references and his imagery. Delightful thought it was, there was in it a certain amount that I felt was unfair to the profession of ophthalmic opticians and dispensing opticians, and in particular to the General Optical Council. Like all those statutory councils controlling professional matters—the General Medical Council (I declare an interest as I was its president for seven years) the General Dental Council—the General Optical Council were set up with one purpose only and that was protection of the public.
The General Optical Council has nothing whatsoever to do with the commercial aspect of the preservation
700
of the sight of this country. It has everything to do with the standards that can lead to the preservation and the proper preservation of that sight. It is composed of half and half doctors and opticians or those that represent their interests; doctors and members appointed by the Privy Council, one half, opticians, opthalmic opticians and examining bodies for opticians and ophthalmic opticians the other half. The Privy Council appointees are drawn, as are those for the other two statutory councils I have mentioned, from Members of the other House, from lawyers, from laymen of all kinds and all sorts of expertise. I cannot believe for one moment that this body is influenced by commercial interests. It will be solely concerned with the efficient and proper regulation of the profession; and I repeat the profession, because we are talking about professions, although they have got a strong commercial attachment. The ophthalmic opticians undergo a long university training. They are put through basic science at a high level, and to write them off as pseudo and ill-educated in their own particular sphere is less than fair, and I am sure is not what the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, would really wish to imply.
We have heard of the opinions of various people, screams of hysteria from various directions, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. I wish to refer to the opinion of the president of the Faculty of Ophthalmology of the Royal College of Surgeons, an ophthalmologist, a surgeon, a doctor, the head of that most august body. His opinion cannot possibly be regarded as biased. It cannot matter to him about the profits or the lack of profits that are enjoyed by opticians. What he is concerned about is the effect of withdrawing Section 21 of the Opticians Act 1958, I stumble over that date, not in a Freudian sense, but because I have so often said 1858, the date when the General Medical Council was created exactly 100 years before.
I wish to make the point that the ophthalmic opticians who examine the patients are largely dependent for their living on their other function—namely, that of fitting and of supplying spectacles. Your Lordships may find that that needs inquiry and, indeed, I am sure that all would welcome Mrs. Sally Oppenheim's last act as a Minister in this respect. But it does mean that if the patient has the benefit of a proper examination and properly fitted spectacles he can at least see. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, pointed out most amusingly the family habit of handing round spectacles and I can endorse that. He also said that sometimes people could not see. If you cannot see, you are rather dangerous when you are driving. If you cannot see you are at a social disadvantage because you may cut your best friend or your best enemy, and cause considerable disturbance by so doing. The importance of seeing really well and of being comfortable and of obtaining the best help with your vision that you can, affects your life very considerably indeed. In fact, it affects your intellectual appreciation and your enjoyment of visual matters.
I cannot help feeling that to go back to a state of affairs where there was an open market, and a free market where no one really knew who was most capable of doing a professional job and who was virtually untrained or self-trained, is most undesirable.

701
That is the viewpoint that I mentioned a moment or so ago of the President of the Faculty of Ophthalmology of the Royal College of Surgeons. He feels, and he has stated so in the medical press, in a letter to the Minister in another place and in The Times recently, that the passage of this Bill, as it now stands, would be very greatly to the detriment of the public good. He does not claim that all is perfect in this profession, any more than he would claim that it is perfect in his and mine. But he is perfectly clear and he does represent this most august body of ophthalmologists. The General Optical Council is of the same view. I have tried to persuade your Lordships that their opinion cannot have any colouration from commercial bias. So we have two bodies—one of which is there solely to protect the public, and the other is solely concerned with the standards of optical care in this country— who feel that the passage of this Bill would be a very serious blow to the public interests.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Allen of Fallowfield: My Lords, in taking part in this debate, I should first like to express my interest in it on two fronts. The first is that up to mid-1979, and for many years before that, I was privileged to have an organisational representational view of those people who are working in the prescription and service industry of this particular profession. And in the knowledge that I know something about the tremendous skill, workmanship and, above all, reliability that is discharged in that function, I feel that that is my interest in making what representations I can in opposition to the Bill.
Secondly, I have no wish at any time to defend an unnecessary monopoly, particularly a monopoly that can be claimed to be dangerous to the public generally. I do not see Section 21 in that setting. If I felt that that monopoly was highly dangerous and inadvisible for the public good, I would not hesitate to say so.
I know, like many other noble Lords here, that the eye is one of the most fragile and precious organs of the body and any useful measure to protect it is worthwhile. I see Section 21 as that useful measure, and I am sorry that I cannot agree, as a layman, with some of the medical advice that one has heard in this House. I know that those in the profession with which we are concerned are not pure and right on all accounts and I suppose that the same can be said of those engaged in some parts of the medical profession. But I believe that the repeal of Section 21 will be seen, if not in this House, outside, as an attack on the ophthalmic optical and dispensing optical profession. It can be nothing more than that. I think that it is sad that one should use Bills of this kind to attack a profession which is a long-standing, time-honoured profession and a profession which discharges tremendous skill in the benefit books. If the price of spectacles is too dear, then I say, like other noble Lords who have spoken before me, let the Director General of Fair Trading in his review determine so; it should not be dealt with by the process of this Bill based on individual experience, because individual experience differs from one person to another.
I am also unhappy about another effect of this Bill if it were passed. I believe that it would open the door to the importation of cheap and shoddy spectacles—
702
cheap and shoddy spectacles from Taiwan, Hong Kong and places like that. Those engaged in this profession know full well that they cannot match those standards. Are we to have a repeat—
Lord Rugby: My Lords, may I interrupt for a moment? Is the noble Lord saying that because something is made in the Far East it is shoddy?— because I believe that some of the finest lenses in the world are today made in the Far East.
Lord Allen of Fallowfield: Yes, my Lords, I am saying that on the evidence of those who have purchased them. I quote:
"We bought a pair. Frame: cheapest quality, moulded plastic with plastic joints. Sharp edges from moulding. Lenses: Inaccurate power, vertical prism, surfaces pitted, scratched and with concentric waves, flat form, chipped edges with no bevel".
That is an indication of the glasses that one is told one can pick up in Woolworth's and probably in the hardware shop on the corner, or maybe the butcher's or somewhere stupid like that; and I think that this is running a great risk.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords—
Lord Allen of Fallow field: No, my Lords, I have given way once. This is running a great risk with the health of the public of this country.
The second point I want to make—a point which interests me considerably—is that if we have an importation into this country, of what I can only describe, quite unrepentantly, as cheap and shoddy products, it will advance the 3 million unemployed in the United Kingdom. There are a few thousand people involved in the industry making lenses and frames, and, obviously, if the British market is to be flooded with that kind of cheap commodity, that will have its effect in the same way as cheap commodities have had an effect on the textile industries of Britain and many other countries.
Therefore, I ask the House, but particularly the Government, not to be too influenced by the clamour to support the repeal of Section 21, but to pledge themselves to examine most carefully the upshot of the review report of the Director General of Fair Trading. If he, in all his wisdom and all his in-depth examination, advises that the cost of spectacles in this country is too dear, so be it. But I prefer that process of determining how one is to proceed in this matter than the individual experiences of people, whether they buy a pair of spectacles in Hong Kong or Taiwan, or whether they buy them here in Britain.
The criticisms of the supporters of the Bill seem to fall as follows: first, the price of spectacles in the United Kingdom compared with other countries; secondly, the availability of cheap reading glasses; and, thirdly, the alleged lack of competition in the profession. I say this as a non-member of any repeal lobby or anti-repeal lobby. I accept—although from what I have heard in this House already from those who support the Bill, I doubt whether some others do—that the subject and the arguments are extremely complicated, with close interrelationships between clinical and professional service, the supply of prescription spectacles, eye care and health screening, the price fix of

703
health service, part health screening, fashion spectacles, and so on. At the end of the day I think that the criticisms crystallise down to: Do the present arrangements that exist in the United Kingdom mean that the public are paying relatively too much for optical services and spectacles? If that is the case, as I said previously, let the review determine it and let it not be determined through the process of a Bill of this kind.
It seems to me to be assumed by some that because it is possible in a few countries—and I hasten to add very few of the developed countries in the western world—to buy unprescribed, ready-made, cheap frames, with lenses already fitted, to assist in close vision for as little as £2 to £3, the price paid for individually prescribed spectacles manufactured to British Standards and supplied under the control of registered qualified opticians is expensive. I ask, is it not this basic assumption, which is both misleading and very largely incorrect, that is at the heart of the divergence of views in this House on this Bill?
To all those who find it possible to support this Bill, I must ask very sincerely and seriously that they reconsider their position in the light of the following considerations. First, relative to all other countries, optical services in the United Kingdom rate among the best, and they are freely and conveniently available daily to the public, very much more so than in many other countries. Secondly, the eye examination and sight test is free to all in the United Kingdom who cannot afford to pay; the service and the spectacles are completely free and are provided to a very high standard under the National Health Service.
Thirdly, for those who can afford to pay, the price of spectacles range from £8·85 to as much as £100, in steps of roughly £3, for the exclusive high fashion frames, with sophisticated lenses. They are available to be taken advantage of if it is wished. Complete freedom of choice is given—the standards and the service are the same, irrespective of the price paid. I defy anyone who goes into an optician's shop to say that there is a differentiation in standard or service.
Fourthly, I understand that approximately 68 per cent. of people who wear glasses are over the age of 40. I am informed that this is due mainly to natural changes that take place in the lens of the eye in the mid-forties, resulting in the need for assistance in close and intermediate ranges of vision. I am advised by those whom I have consulted in the profession that the demands on the human eye, due to technological and environmental changes and increased literacy and longevity, have resulted in continual pressures during the last 30 years for developments and improving standards of eye care. Also, many people over the age of 40 develop signs and symptoms of abnormalities relating both to their eyes and to their general health, which certainly manifest in their eyes.
I think that it is frivolous to lead the public to believe, or to lead Members of this House to believe, that you can go into any old place and pick up a pair of glasses or that you can carry on with a pair that you have had, which your in-laws have had, or which your father or mother has had, in the belief that this is a satisfactory alternative to the protection that is already written into Section 21. I do not believe that.
Again from information that I have sought, I
704
understand that there are no countries in the western world or any developed countries where spectacles and optical appliances made to prescription can be obtained from anyone other than a qualified or trained person. The Bill before this House repealing Section 21 of the Opticians Act 1958 would clearly mean, if passed, that any spectacles made to prescription or ready-made, contact lenses or any other optical appliances could be obtained from any source and without qualified supervision and advice. That is a disastrous step backwards, not forwards.
When one looks at the arguments objectively and rationally, I think it can be seen that there would be substantial reductions in the quality and the standard of service and product that the British public enjoy at present if the noble Lord's Bill goes through. The Bill seems to want to destroy quality and reliability, and to replace it by a cheap and shoddy product range. That is the essence of the repeal of Section 21. It saddens me to believe that people who, in this Bill, want to replace quality and good standard of service will, in other places, defend the importance (as I do) of high standard and good quality products. More than that, if the Bill is successful, it would mean opening the doors to the importation of cheap, shoddy imports. In my view, that would be a disaster for the profession. I sincerely hope that the Bill is not given the protection it seeks, particularly by the Government.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I also must apologise for having to leave before the end of the debate. This Bill is in principle an attractive Bill. The idea behind it is well worth while. Where there is a monopoly, or where there is a restrictive practice, then obviously every effort must be made to get over it. There is no doubt that we have some very expensive spectacles on the market. Most of the very expensive ones are expensive through fashion as much as anything else. If one wants a fairly ordinary pair of spectacles—like these—which are perfectly respectable, they do not cost a huge amount.
Having said that I support the principle of reducing the price—and who does not?—there are a number of dangers that have to be taken into account. Many of them have already been covered, so I shall not do more than mention them. Under the Bill it will be possible to obtain very much more simple spectacles without examination. It has been mentioned already that there are many pathological conditions of the eye which are now discovered during examination which will undoubtedly go undetected. In some cases this will lead to impeded sight, blindness, and in fact even death.
In one small practice in the country near my home there are some five patients a week who come in for eye testing, and who are referred for medical treatment. The sight of several patients a year is saved by this particular practice through early detection of various diseases such as glaucoma, and no doubt there are others. Last week one lady came in for a routine examination and it was discovered that she had an active tumour in her eye, and action was taken which has undoubtedly saved her life.
It is also rare (and this has been mentioned) even for reading that simple magnification is the best answer. Both eyes are never the same—or very seldom the same.

705
There will also be patients who will be tempted to buy cheap spectacles; those people with low incomes. We know that they are now entitled to have them prescribed and fitted free—that is to say, school-children, the unemployed, the low paid, people on supplementary benefit, and so on. It is quite likely that these people would see the cheap Taiwan spectacles and buy them over the counter when they could be getting them free. If either this Bill or some similar measure was passed, it would be desirable to have an advertisement to show people, who might not otherwise realise it, that they need not even buy the cheap spectacles but they could get spectacles for nothing.
Now almost anybody can get national health spectacles for about £8. They are probably cheaper and better than some of the imported ones. We have had mention of £2, but I have been advised that they are more likely to be about £9. Again, where they were being sold it would be necessary for public warnings to be given that, in spite of the cheap ones, spectacles are free for certain people who cannot afford to buy them.
So far as the opticians are concerned, their trade in private spectacles and private work subsidises the loss they make on national health work. Undoubtedly if the profit from the private work were creamed off, then the opticians would need increased payments for their National Health Service work. At the moment National Health Service lenses and frames account for some 43 per cent. of the national work. The national health lenses in private frames account for about 44 per cent., and private lenses in private frames about 13 per cent. That 13 per cent. virtually subsidises the work on the national health.
Then we come to the question of the comparison of costs for spectacles in Britain as opposed to abroad. I am advised that United Kingdom spectacles are actually cheaper than the average in the Common Market. Obviously they vary, but that is on the average. Then one compares with the United States where we know that spectacles are much cheaper. Of course, in the United States the cost of an examination is about £8 to £12 whereas here you can have a National Health examination for about £4, so the British make up for the profit in selling the spectacles.
Also, in the United States there is no National Health Service, and therefore all the examinations and all spectacles sold are private, and therefore are all profitable. Obviously, if everything is profitable then the profit on each pair of spectacles and each examination can be less than where there is very much less of the profitable work. The result of this is that the average income of opticians in the United States is probably about twice that of the British opticians.
We then also had the point made that under the Bill if one is not careful one will find that contact lenses will be able to be fitted by unqualified people. This could have horrific results. I am advised that it could lead to corneal damage, blindness, and so on, and there would be no public protection. Contact lenses require not only a great deal of training for fitting but also equipment which I am advised is valued up to about £5,000. It could be a very serious situation if they started to be fitted by people who are not qualified.
The optical service in Britain is certainly one of the finest in the world. I do not think there is any cause
706
for criticism of it. There is no reason why a way should not be looked for to make it more efficient at less cost. I do not think that this Bill is in any way an attack upon the profession, as has been mentioned. It would be quite wrong for that thought to be allowed to stand unchallenged. But there is always room for change in any system, and I hope that the Government will take this as the start of an initiative and either accept the Bill or, more likely, start their own initiative to bring down the price of spectacles and look at the whole matter. We must beware of the too easy path, because that could lead to great damage to the service and damage to individuals.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, we owe a great debt to the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, for having persisted in his concern about these matters. I am told that some 40 per cent. of opticians' premises now display the prices of lenses and frames. This is substantially due to his efforts in the past. The fact that the Government have thought fit to refer certain aspects of this matter to the Office of Fair Trading is also a result of public concern. The case for what appears to he an unnecessary restriction on purchasing has been made, and the amending Bill before the House proposes quite simply that Clause 21 be struck from the Act. Nothing else. The question is, what is the effect of this Bill and what consequences will ensue?
The Bill will mean that persons will be able to obtain spectacle frames and corrective lenses, including contact lenses, with or without a sight test and prescription from any qualified or unqualified person. The effect of the Bill, then, would be to deregister the dispensing element of the optical services, and allow dispensing of prescriptions by unqualified persons. It seems unlikely that a qualified prescriber would be happy about this. More seriously, a point which has been mentioned several times is the proposal that fitting contact lenses could also be done by unqualified persons.
The Act would continue to set rigorous standards for dispensing opticians. But anyone who wished could set up in business in competition with them. Dispensing opticians qualified to supply lenses and frames but not test sight would still be required to register with the General Optical Council under Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Act.
Making alterations to legislation is important if the case for doing so is made out, and therefore one must examine the medical side of this issue. I was surprised to see the figures—they have been circulated to many people—which show that between 10 and 15 per cent. of patients in a recent survey were referred to their general practitioner for study. I knew that many were—of course, one does not know which ones were referred—but I found that a surprising figure.
I am also concerned about children with eye complaints. There was only one part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, which upset me, and that was with regard to children trying on glasses and being told, "You will be all right if you can see with those". I am sorry to have to tell the noble Lord that that will not do. If a child has a lazy eye, he may be blind by the time he grows up if he gets the wrong prescription for his glasses and is not able to explain what is wrong with him. Inevitably, similar considerations apply to the

707
elderly with eye complaints. There are, therefore, quite serious medical difficulties; and let us not forget that for the person who gets glaucoma it is 100 per cent. so far as he is concerned.
The consitution and role of the General Optical Council would have to be revised with the abolition of the monopoly in the supply of glasses. There would have to be changes, for example, in the acitivities of its disciplinary committee; likewise the duties of the companies committee, which deals with matters relating to bodies corporate, other than matters which go to the disciplinary committee; and the rules concerning companies' requirements, which are at the moment approved by the Privy Council, would have to be changed also. Undoubtedly, therefore, the constitution and role of the General Optical Council would have to be altered, and of course, in that respect, Section 20 would start to look rather foolish.
I can summarise the position, as I see it, in a few points. I believe it is proper to use the correct machinery to determine whether a monopoly situation has arisen. Next, it is proper to ask whether there is serious interference with individual freedom, and in that context I must cite one example of interference, and it is something which appears to be a nonsense. You can go into a shop and buy spectacle frames containing sunglasses, but if you buy the same frames with lenses, then restrictions apply, whereas in respect of sunglasses there are no restrictions. Thus, there seems to be something of a nonsense concerning frames.
What are the medical consequences and has the Act worked well? We are told—the noble Lord, Lord Richardson, has taken a lot of trouble to research this—that those who work closest to the matter believe it has worked well. I believe the whole question of charges has confused matters, which is a pity because, for reasons which are nobody's fault, I understand that the whole question of charges and the upping of rates has been under consideration since 1978. Your Lordships should put that matter aside because I should have thought that it will almost certainly be resolved soon as a result of negotiations.
As I said, the constitution and role of the General Optical Council would need to be revised in the light of the abolition of this monopoly. I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, considers carefully the consequences of the repeal of Section 21 and that the Government consider the slightly ridiculous position about spectacle frames and sunglasses frames, along with the matters referred to the Office of Fair Trading. But the examination of the person, the prescription and the dispensing of that prescription is part of a service of which we in this country can be proud. Each is essential to safeguarding the standards of the eye care of the people of this country. Tidy things up by all means, but do not recklessly abandon a system which has worked well in the past.
7.35 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I would not have intervened following so many distinguished medical speakers had it not been for the fact that no one has mentioned my noble friend Lord Crook, who was in on the first Act but who, sadly, cannot be here this evening. He is a man of great integrity and compassion who has
708
been responsible for many interesting pieces of legislation on health and safety matters. He has particularly asked some of us to speak tonight.
I thought the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, introduced the Second Reading of the Bill delightfully. He attempted to turn our flesh by hinting—I admit, in ways I did not quite appreciate—that Slater Walker had had something to do with the supply of spectacles. That, as the noble Lord probably realised, was enough to make most noble Lords on this side of the House decide to support his Bill. It was a rather clever move on his part.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, mentioned a family with a collection of spectacles which were passed round for selection. I might inform him, if he does not already know, that a number of families also have, and pass round, a selection of drugs, no doubt dispensed through him. I have even known families with a selection of false teeth which are passed round. I suggest that that sort of thing is not a particularly good argument for saying it is a desirable practice.
Lord Winstanley: I am sure the noble Baroness would not wish to misrepresent me, my Lords, and I did not suggest for a moment that it was a desirable practice. I merely pointed out that it went on, and it goes on largely, I believe, because of the present cost of spectacles.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, by introducing the Bill, is seeking to put certain things right and a lot of sympathy goes in his direction for that. One aspect of his appeal is the cost of spectacles. I personally do not wear spectacles, but every supper party of mine since the Bill was published has been ruined by friends shouting at me that they are paying too much for their spectacles. That may or may not be the case, but I suggest that competition will not necessarily bring people cheaper spectacles. Where can one find a higher degree of competition than in the car repairing industry? Nevertheless, the charge is £40 just to look under the bonnet. Can that be put right by an Act of Parliament? Call in a plumber and he will charge you twice as much as you pay for a new pair of spectacles, merely to join two pipes together. In other words, competition does not necessarily being reduced prices. On the other hand, it can bring many undesirable elements in its train, so there are misconceptions flowing from many of the arguments.
I accept that possibly opticians have been guilty in not always giving information about National Health Service spectacles; that seems to be a frequent complaint. However, I have many medical people in my family and I have great respect for the profession. It is easy to say that people have not been "knocking" the profession, but I think from some of the comments that have been made, that they have been, perhaps selecting the one who is not so good and using that example as an argument to represent the whole.
The National Health Service are very slow payers; I would say the Government generally are slow at paying. Six months ago I gave a lecture and I am still waiting for my fee from the Department of Education. All doctors and dentists will tell you how slow the NHS are at paying, and those who receive money

709
for the dispensing of spectacles will say exactly the same. Surely that could be put right—and it would not need an act of Parliament to do so. Equally, I think we would agree that there is a lack of information about prices. As I understand it, action is being taken to put right the fact that prices have not been clearly displayed, and this, too, does not need a sweeping Act of Parliament.
Two or three days ago we were dealing with the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, and your Lordships will have noticed in it several clauses referring to registering people who are dispensing certain services, presumably in competition. In other words, the emphasis of the age is more towards accountability, not towards moving out into an open market. If it is important to register a person who undertakes ear-piercing, tattooing, electrolysis and acupuncture, I am sure we would all agree that it is equally important, if not more important, to have some form of accountability and a system which protects the standards of a profession, the members of whom look after one's eyes.
Everyone has quoted figures this evening. A statistic which I thought was interesting arose from a week during which ophthalmic opticians recorded figures which showed that 25 per cent. of the patients were not issued with a prescription. To me that seems, above all to show the opticians' integrity, since obviously it would be to their advantage to recommend spectacles, but that they have not done. To me that is the mark of the professional. The professional will tell you what you need or what you do not need. Incidentally, I recall my son-in-law, in general practice as a doctor, saying that the worst thing one could tell a patient was that there was nothing wrong with him, because he simply would shop around until he found a doctor who was more obliging and who would diagnose a particular disease or ailment. So perhaps the people who were told that they did not need spectacles shopped around until they found an optician who told them that they did need them.
I was also rather intrigued to learn that the noble Lord who introduced the Bill placed great emphasis on the fact that there was no description of an optical appliance. Well, he might not like it, but there was a description in the original Act, which states:
"Optical appliance' means an appliance designed to correct, remedy or relieve a defect of sight".
If we are going to talk about the old days and about going to Woolworths, I can recall my father—he was a countryman—describing how people used to take out teeth at a fair. One particular individual had no skill beyond having a strong arm, and I gather that a large brass band played outside the tent to drown the screams of the people inside receiving the attention of the unskilled operator. So if we go back far enough, we see that it was possible to purchase anything. I am not very happy about the fact that we have too much self-medication. It is too easy to purchase all kinds of things over counters, and we certainly do not want to add to this situation yet another great professional service.
I believe that this Bill, if passed, would be a very sweeping Act. It would put us right back, it would be a retrograde step. I rejoice in the National Health Service. I think that we have the most wonderful
710
health service in the world. A member of my family, who is a doctor, went to America recently. He was enthusiastic about the National Health Service before he went, but he came back doubly enthusiastic. He said he had seen someone lying on a stretcher, bleeding to death, being questioned, and the first question was, "How much can you pay?" Do we really want to return to a world in which we buy spectacles over the counter? Presumably one could then go and buy false teeth in that way—it is a very close analogy—if one has the space to put them in and can determine which is which. If one thinks about it, there is no limit to this kind of thing.
We are talking about what is a very honest profession. The fact that they are not too well paid by the National Health Service will not be put right by a Bill of this kind; it will probably make it even worse. I am very intrigued by the fact that many noble Lords have emphasised how rich opticians are. I am astonished that noble Lords on the other side of the House worry about someone being rich; I thought that that is the system they believe in. It seems to me that the labourer is worthy of his hire. If opticians are dispensing spectacles, one is receiving the benefit of their years of training. If it is right for an engineer to argue like that, it is certainly right for anyone trained in the opticians' profession to do so, too. I hope that this Bill does not go any further because I feel that it would become a sweeping Act of Parliament and would have very retrograde effects.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness who has just sat down not only upon the robust nature of her speech, which saves me several pages of what I was going to say, but also upon her reference to the noble Lord, Lord Crook, whom we remember so well. My memory of his taking part in debates in this House goes back 20 years or more and I hope that the noble Baroness will convey to him the extent to which we miss him. While on the subject of people who are not here, I would mention that in his opening remarks the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, referred to optical glass used for spectacles. I vividly recall talking with my old friend Lord Ritchie-Calder. In none of the obituary notices that I have seen was there any reference to the fact that as a young man he had a lot to do with H. G. Wells, and I remember his confirming something that I said to him. H. G. Wells, in one of his books—I think it was The Outline of History—measures the advance of civilisation by the development of optical glass, going back to the study of the stars in Egypt.
I must also mention the touch of surprise and delight that there seems to be a consensus of opinion that we might ask the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, to withdraw his Bill when the time comes, after we have heard what the Minister has said. I have two strong reasons for saying that. The first is simple and is that in my view the Opticians Act 1958 is an integral part of the National Health Service and Section 21 as I see it is the kingpin of its fabric. To remove it would be of vital significance, as many noble Lords have said. I am a staunch supporter of the National Health Service—I agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has said—and the fact that I am strongly critical of its

711
apparently stubborn response to recognising the place which manipulative therapy now holds in the relief of back pain—the therapy generally—does not mean that I am not a robust supporter of the main fabric which is or should be the envy of the world. I want to add to its efficacy, not to detract from it as the Bill appears to be suggesting. The manifold benefits of the National Health Service must not be imperilled.
The second of my reasons is a rather personal one and many of the points I have noted down have been dealt with by other speakers, so I shall be brief. I had not intended to say too much about it until I read the hysterical and inaccurate ballyhoo which appeared in an article in the Daily Express this morning. The article got wrong even the number of the section of the Act which the noble Lord wants to repeal.
The fact is that one must respect the dedication of the noble Lord and his supporters, and the sincerity of their commitment really makes a nonsense of the position today. What I mean is this. The noble Lord's campaign has highlighted a position which should never have been allowed to arise had the nettle been grasped some years ago. My information is that the situation sprang from the wholly inadequate 20-year-old provision for the remuneration of the professional skills which these practical opticians apply to the service of the public. This point was touched on by I think the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. If opticians have been compelled by circumstances to charge high prices for special supplies, as may well be the case, I say, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said in other words, the old Latin tag, caveat emptor.
I have a foxhunting daughter who is approaching middle-age. She has had a pair of spectacles built for her for hunting, with special frames and wide vision. They cost her £75, which she was willing to pay; she sees no reason why she should have any subvention from the state for spectcales of that nature. There must be many special spectacles made which cost money, and there is no reason why people should not pay for them.
I do not pay much for mine. I am wearing now spectacles which to the amusement of my optician I describe as my battle specs. I have reading specs here, and I have those which I use when I look at television and now when I am driving my car, or, indeed, when I go to the Peers' Gallery if I want to observe closely what is going on in another place. I do not think any of them cost me £20. They are all standard frames under the National Health Service, and they were supplied by three different practitioners in three different towns. So I have reason to feel that there is a good deal of error in some of the unkind judgments of what Lady Phillips properly described as a most important profession.
I look back over rather a long life. I was granted, I believe, above average sight which was possibly impaired a bit by many years in the tropics, and yet I wore spectacles at my prep school because I got astigmatism, whatever that might be. Then I served in the Army and I went to the East, and I became quite a decent shot with a rifle, and so on; and I seldom wore dark glasses. Then I was struck down by malignant malaria and was treated, as we were in those days, with massive doses of quinine, and so I
712
found when I had been sent home ill that I had to wear spectacles for my desk work, and I have worn them ever since. This was all I needed until the years caught up with me, and every now and then I have taken the advice of my medical adviser and had an examination.
Four or five years ago I went to my oculist, who said, "I do not want to fuss you but you should get your doctor to send you to a specialist lest you might be getting glaucoma", whatever that may be. I say this because glaucoma has been mentioned by several noble Lords, and it was also mentioned in this article I spoke of as being something which professional opticians have tried to treat. I have never heard of any such thing. My experience is that I was sent to a specialist, and the specialist examined me for quite a long time. I must say I wondered what he was up to, but apparently my long years in the tropics made me rather an interesting subject.
This specialist said, "The first thing I can tell you is that you can tell your optician how wise he was to send you to me". I said, "It was a she, as a matter of fact", and he said, "Well, tell her, because I can see what she was up to. I have given you a careful examination, and you are not liable to get glaucoma". I give this as an instance of what can go on between the ordinary person like myself, ageing like anything, and a professional optician.
As for what the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said, I told this story about my experience to a friend who said, "It is interesting you saying that, because my aged mother had attention drawn to the presence of a brain tumour by the condition of her eyes". As the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said, the eye can show warning signs of danger in various parts of the body.
Finally, is the noble Lord aware that under this Government negotiations are proceeding now to improve the fees payable to opticians for their services to the state, and that these fees are to apply from the end of next month; and, further, that when agreed they are to he back-dated for four years to indicate the accepted fact that they have been too low for too long?
The noble Lord, Lord Oram, was right in mentioning this position. Further, the noble Lord will know now, if he did not before, that the Department of Fair Trading is carrying out this examination to which the noble Lord, Lord Allen, referred, and the relative questionnaire to interested parties is going out at this moment. I am informed that the various optical organisations are co-operating wholeheartedly with this inquiry, and find it a most welcome proposal with which they propose to co-operate.
I hope the Minister who is going to reply will set out what Dr. Vaughan said on this subject the other day in reply to a Question in the other place. Might it not have been wiser if the noble Lord has held his horses before involving your Lordships in this, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Oram? At the same time, as I have said before, one respects the sincerity of the noble Lord's belief; and the fact is that his campaign over the years has served to highlight and to help to clear up a situation which has become, in some parts of the media, at least, almost a witch-hunt.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I am delighted

713
to follow for the first time a charming contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier. But I must say that I am disappointed in what I regard as his misguided conservatism in this matter tonight, remembering that a year or two ago he led me in a magnificent charge against the medical profession over their bigoted exclusion of chiropractics—an interest we have in common. Yet, tonight, he seems to have fallen for the view of the noble Lord, Lord Richardson, or he has fallen for the view expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that what we are proposing in this Bill would in some way damage the National Health Service, which I do not believe for one moment.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, will the noble Lord permit me to interrupt him? I certainly did not mean to say what he thinks I did. I am highly critical, as I said in my speech, of the National Health Service where it does not take on more, as it should over chiropractics, and think that it should not cast some away, as proposed in this Bill.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I will pursue that with the noble Lord another time and hope to win him to my more consistent view in the matter. I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, and congratulate him on his persistence and perseverance over a number of years. I hope he will not mind my revealing that he is a founder member of the non-party Repeal Group which I mentioned briefly in connection with the Shops Bill the other week. It is the Repeal Group which has encouraged him to bring this Bill before your Lordships' and I personally hope that he is ready to carry the issue to a Division if that looks like being necessary to jolt the Government into taking some action in place of their repeated words of concern.
Others have exposed the questionable, if not often false, medical arguments that buttress the present scheme, which requires, we are now told, 7 million people buying glasses each year, to shop at a registered optician for what are grandly called their "optical appliances". I want to develop a more general argument. The essence of my complaint against Section 21 of the 1958 Act is that it confuses the roles of the professional and the tradesman in a single person and gives that person power to raise his income by keeping up the price of what he sells.
The consequent abuse of collusion among opticians was predicted over 200 years ago by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations—and I will now offer one of my favourite quotations:
"People of the same trade seldom meet together even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices".
In this, a profession is not wholly different from a trades union which naturally endeavours to raise the income of its members by restricting competition from alternative suppliers who could do the job equally well. The noble Lord, Lord Richardson, took the view that anyone concerned with the profession of medicine or its ancillary activities is somehow above any concern for his income. I beg leave to doubt that—and I could bring many friends from the medical profession, at any rate in private, to my side against the noble Lord.
714
No one denies that opticians perform valuable services and that may include diagnosing eye diseases that call for treatment. For this purpose opticians receive due training, as do electricians. But we are not required to hire an electrician when we want to change a light bulb or to mend a fuse. Yet most people who, as the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, said, wear glasses for simple magnification, are now legally compelled to go through a full medical examination each time they want stronger spectacles and are then compelled to buy those spectacles from a registered optician.
It was likened by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, in an earlier contribution (on 14th October at col. 373) to requiring a medical examination before allowing anyone to buy a walking stick—although he did not add that it would also be like giving doctors a monopoly of selling walking sticks, which, we may be sure, would then come in more ornate varieties at suitably fancy prices.
Turning to another useful profession, it is true that regular dental examination can spot tooth decay, but we would not think of making everyone buying a tooth brush go to the dentist and buy their tooth brush only after submitting to a full inspection of teeth. Periodic check-ups with dentists or with opticians are a matter of prudence. May I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, that the proper role of compulsion in optics is in school examination of eyes, especially for squints which, I gather, are best corrected at an early age.
Despite what we have heard tonight, it remains true that among the fears that are played upon by the apologists for the opticians' cartel is the old wives' tale that wearing the wrong glasses can damage your eyes. We are now told that it can no more damage your eyes than listening to pop music might damage your ears. I think the House ought to recognise that the optician's union is running one of the most blatant, Government-protected closed shops. Of course, it dresses up its special pleading in a professional white coat. The game was rather given away in an earlier code of practice by the now defunct British Optical Association, which regretted that for over 300 years opticians had practised in shop premises, and went on to urge them to get away from the shop atmosphere and, above all:
"No prices should be exhibited, otherwise the optician can hardly escape from the accusation that he is a salesman rather than a professional man".
Difficult though it may be for some of the earlier speakers to accept, I believe that there is no hard and fast dividing line between a profession and skilled trade—except perhaps the accent of the practitioners. There is certainly no justification for questioning the restrictive practices of ASLEF and SOGAT whilst viewing the professional restrictive practices that we are here concerned with through the rose-tinted spectacles conveniently provided free by the Association of Optical Practitioners. I would venture to say that anyone who cannot see through this optical illusion needs more than his eyes examined.
Accordingly, I commend this Bill and would leave with your Lordships the magisterial words of a leading article in the British Medical Journal of 13th December 1980:
"Deletion of the monopoly clause from the Act … will be hotly

715
contested by opticians. Yet what harm would result? As in other countries where there are no statutory restrictions, the mass of the public would continue to have their eyes tested by opticians or eye doctors, and the simple puchase of glasses over the counter would be confined to the normal-sighted over-50s who simply need reading help".
8.6 p.m.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I feel that we can all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, for having brought to our attention some matters which I think can only be described as rackets. On the other hand, I felt that in his opening speech he took a far too extreme view. He rather tended to represent opticians as ignorant artisans laughing all the way to the bank. I do not think that anything like that is a fair description. I think that the great majority of them are highly conscientious, professional men, often working, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has said, in close and fruitful partnership or co-operation with the doctors. I believe that the service that they provide is a good service and again I believe that the national health optical services are probably the best in the world.
The trouble is that for the services which the opticians are providing they are quite grossly underpaid in cash. The idea of these being rich, overpaid people is really nonsense. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, who referred with horror to a payment of £60 a day. I do not think that he has caught up with inflation. There are not many garage hands who are not getting that; and here we are dealing with professional men. That is the gross amount; and after tax and insurance there is very much less when they get it home. I believe that the National Health pay is about £4·05 for a test and a conscientious test should take half an hour; and £4·05 when one relates it to premises that have to be kept, to the employment probably of a receptionist and probably a secretary, and all the expenses that go with premises, is a hopeless under-remuneration.
I believe that it works out like this: 90 per cent. of the optician's time is spent on NHS for which he gets rather less than 30 per cent. of his income. Instead of cash, he is remunerated by a monopoly. This is a method of payment which was more familiar in the days of the first Queen Elizabeth than in the days of our Queen Elizabeth. Public servants whom the Government could not afford to pay were granted monopolies. Those monopolies turned out to be very unpopular. They were among the great grievances that ended in the parliamentary war. When Thomas Wentworth (late Lord Strafford) forced his great Bill through Parliament, one of the leading subjects was the abuse of monopolies because monopolies outlived the service for which they had been granted and passed into other hands.
That I think to a considerable degree is what we are seeing here. The private partnerships of opticians, professional men working together like dentists or doctors, providing an excellent service. But this is an ineptly drafted Act. It is contrary to the report of the noble Lord, Lord Crook, which expressly advised that companies should not be allowed to start in the optician business. That aspect was cut out. Companies came in and there is a situation in which one
716
finds opticians ceasing to be primarily professional men, although many of them serving the companies try hard to retain their professional independence and do a good job.
Nonetheless, when one finds some of the companies offering television sets as a reward to the optician who sells the most spectacles, it becomes a little difficult not to regard the examination as auxiliary to the sale instead of the sale a consequence of the examination. It is a conflicting motive, a conflicting interest. So we see the monopoly passing from the man who required rewarding and is being justly rewarded by the public—since the Government cannot afford it through a monopoly—into the hands of a shareholder who has done nothing at all. This is the main problem which we have run into. That is seen regarding national health frames.
There are optical shops whose primary job is selling spectacles with an examination subsidiary to the spectacle selling. Naturally, the effort is made to sell the more expensive frames rather than the utility frames. This is where I became interested in a purely personal way. Like the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, I broke a pair of spectacles when I was about to go abroad. I went to two West End opticians, both of whom told me that they could provide me within 24 hours with a set of spectacles so long as I bought private ones. If, at third or half the price, I wanted national health ones, that would take at least three weeks. When I went down to the country, where I live, Market Harborough, and went to a non-company private optician, he had a drawer in which he kept frames for temporary use if somebody was short of a pair of spectacles. He provided me with what I wanted without charge. This is the difference in attitude that one finds.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, said that the question that we have to consider is whether the public are paying too much for optical service and spectacles. My answer to that is that they are paying far too little for optical services and far too much for spectacles. We want to try and get these more apart. On any reasonable basis if you compare them with the dentist or anybody else in a very similar position, payments to opticians under the National Health Act should be at least doubled—probably more than doubled. If we were simply to pass Lord Rugby's Bill and deprive them of their monopoly payment, they would be left without a living wage, without any possibility of maintaining their standards of service, and the whole national health optical service could be wrecked. We could not allow that to happen just because one form of payment is objectionable. If one wants the service one must provide for it. Where is the money to come from? That is a problem for the Government, who at heart have always been opposed to a free health service and certainly think that the patients should pay something, or something more than they do.
I personally suggest that they put a tax on glasses, remove the monopoly, and vote that tax to paying the optician a proper fee. There is a tremendous lot of scope here. We go back to the old Woolworth's tray. That contained perfectly good, reading glasses from a physical point of view with serviceable frames. The cost of them was not six pence a pair

717
but sixpence a lens. The total cost was a shilling. If one uses the multiplier of 15, which I think we do these days, there are sunglasses with frames which are not as durable as the national health glasses, or even others, but which do reasonably well at round about the 15 shillings mark. One can see them in many chemists today.
One could open up competition and, if necessary, import. If anybody bought the kind of imported glasses described by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, that kind of "mug" would have only himself to blame, for this is a case of caveat emptor. They could carry a very substantial tax without their price going up if competition is allowed. From the point of view of the optician being properly paid by the National Health Service, the prescription could go to anybody in a position to perform it. I would have thought that that proposition was at least worth looking at.
I conclude with these words. The speech which impressed me most was that of the noble Lord, Lord Richardson. He spoke from great experience and knowledge. He pointed out in a moving way what folly it would be simply to remove this section and do nothing else about it. Although I am in great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, said, I hope that he will withdraw this Bill if he gets an assurance that the Government will look into this matter, and get on with it.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Energlyn: My Lords, permit me to follow the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, that we should attach a tax to the provision of spectacles and use that tax to give adequate and proper fees to the practising optician. That brings me to a point that has not been brought out, namely: Who are the opticians who could qualify for that tax? When you look at the Bill it is perfectly obvious that too little care was given to the qualifications of the people who can be regarded as opticians servicing the National Health Service. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the register, in which you will see that there are two groups. There is the group which the noble Lord, Lord Paget, supports and which is also supported by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and others—the optician who is an ophthalmologist or pharmacist, who is well trained, well versed and holds responsibility for diagnosing complaints in the eye. Why is it that it requires nine different diplomas to cover that subject?—because in nine different ways these gentlemen or ladies can become qualified to receive payment from the National Health Service. When you look at their qualifications you find that at least three of them come under the Worshipful Company of Spectacle Makers. That clearly has nothing to do with a malformation of the eye or other clinical problems.
I speak with some confidence, because for many, many years I have taught optical mineralogy. This is a form of optics which is really quite erudite, but inside it are simple and thoroughly understood parameters, touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, who has been the only speaker to talk about optical glass. The situation, as revealed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is that you are dealing with a group of
718
people who are practising within a narrow subject, controlled by simple optical parameters, thoroughly understood, but all of them dependent upon the quality of optical glass. Therefore I suggest that there is merit in my noble friend's Bill, if only to cause the Government to appreciate that there is here great room for registration improvement.
If we take a comparable profession, say, the pharmacy profession, here is another profession that services the National Health Service. Here you have a service which is strictly controlled—it has been controlled for three-quarters of a century by the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, which is renowned throughout the world for its standards—and every pharmacist is legally held in his shop and is not allowed to discharge a prescription if he is not in the dispensary.
There is nothing like that in the qualifications of these so-called "dispensing opticians". These are the gentlemen to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. In order to qualify for NHS prescriptions as a dispensing optician, they have to win a diploma, of which there are no fewer than seven; and the qualifications for embarking upon obtaining such a diploma are three O-levels and two A-levels. That is the primary qualification.
Here are people making a great issue about the professional skill, et cetera, of these dispensing opticians, and these are the people I am talking about. Therefore I say that as regards this Bill, if we were to revise the whole thing, let us next time state, as in pharmacy and in other areas of medicine, precisely what we mean by "a registered optician". That person should have the highest possible qualifications. It is really the gentlemen and ladies called "dispensing opticians" who have created the situation to which my noble friend is referring: they are the people who are commercialising spectacles.
I turn now to the actual manufacture of spectacles. What have you got? You have got a magnifying glass held in a frame; and the only reason you put it in a frame is for convenience, because otherwise a hand lens would do the job just as well. We have had a great deal of talk about measurement of the focal length of the eyes, and so on and so forth. It is clearly a lot of eyewash, because it is the eye which does the job. All the lens does is to help the eye to bring into focus the object one is trying to look at. It is just as simple as that. The parameters are known.
Therefore, in manufacturing the lenses we have a method of mass production and we in Britain are as good as anybody else. I do not fear competition from anybody in the production of the lens. Where the trouble has arisen, in my opinion—and this is why I support my noble friend's Bill—is that the gentlemen who have these very curious qualifications and have formed High Street "optical salons", are drawing over the whole situation a mystique. They say to you: "I am very sorry but we cannot let you have these spectacles for at least two days." If you put the screw on, you might get them perhaps in a day; but always there is a delay, when in point of fact I would guess that if you went into the back store you would find all the lenses ready to be put into the frames. If that was not the case you could not produce these lenses at

719
the price at which they are being produced today. It is a mass production process.
We come now to the question of contact lenses. Why is it that, as my noble friend has pointed out, there is a differential so that contact lenses in this country cost about three times the price they cost in America? There are good commercial reasons for that, but what I should like to point out is that contact lenses could be made more efficiently than they are at present if the Government allowed free enterprise to examine the method of making the polymer which is the basis for the lens.
I can claim to have had some experience of this, and have been fortunate enough to obtain some of the materials that have been looked at in different parts of the world for the making of contact lenses. It seems to me that if private enterprise or free competition were allowed to enter this world of contact lenses they would produce a contact lens which could be inserted into the eye as easily as a set of artificial teeth is put into the mouth. By that I am not exaggerating, because the contact lenses that are made at the moment are bedevilled by the irritation caused by the fringe of the lens, and it is the nature of the polymer that controls the fringe.
In summary, what I am really saying is this. I shall naturally support this Bill, if only to raise the level of this profession by concentrating rules and regulations regarding qualifications. There should be only one qualification, such as pharmacy, aad the rest of it I would regard as so much eyewash. Lastly, I support the Bill, too, because it is a very sad thing that in microscopy we are about to lose the only firm in this country that is now making microscopes. This is very sad, when you think of the raw material from which optical glass can be made. We are looking at areas of unemployment. In Lochaline, there are deposits of sand of incredible purity, but because of the lack of a commercial outlet they are not being used. They are the sands that you would use for super optical lenses. Therefore, I would support my noble friend by making such remarks as I have made. Some of them may be oblique, but I hope that some of them may impress your Lordships to support the Bill.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, is to be congratulated on bringing this Bill before us. There is a great deal behind what he has said, in that reading glasses are what most people require. I can tell a story about a Canadian admiral friend of mine, when I was the naval adviser to the United Kingdom High Commissioner in Ottawa some 15 years ago. He was in his mid-40s, and he went into his office one morning without his specs. So he had to borrow his secretary's specs and unfortunately, it was at a time when ladies had very ornate specs with great curls up the sides. About an hour or so later, he was told that the Minister wanted to see him. He was desperate, because he felt that he could not go to see the Minister in his secretary's specs. On the other hand, he could not read without his own. So he hastily rang up the medical director-general and said "I must have a pair of specs, and quickly", to which
720
the medical director-general replied. "Certainly. All right, Bob." He sent them alone in time and they were very respectable specs, probably like mine.
After the meeting was over, he thought "That's very peculiar. How did he know what to give me?" So he rang up the medical director-general and asked him how he knew what to give him, and the reply was "It's perfectly all right Bob. I know that you are in your mid-40s, I know that you are in the navy, I know that you started off with very good eyesight and everybody requires exactly the same specs." That is the point which the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, made to us. It is probably true that something like 75 per cent., if not more, of the glasses that people get are reading glasses, and 95 per cent. of the people who have them are quite unharmed if they get the wrong ones. If they do, it is their own fault, because they have not complained. All of that makes a great point about this Bill.
But I am sorry to have to say to the noble Lord, having started off so encouragingly, that because of the nature of the Bill I cannot support it in its present form. As so many times when we deal with legislation in your Lordships' House, it would be so splendid if we did not have to start from where we are now. We have an Act of Parliament of 1958, which is jolly nearly 25 years-old. That is getting pretty old for legislation of this kind these days, and it probably needs revision anyhow. It would not be right to sweep away Section 21 just like that, without any other modification of the Bill, and it would not be very easy. I have examined this Bill fairly carefully to see how, if we give this Bill a Second Reading, we could later provide what might be called a rational set of amendments to make it work. I have come to the conclusion that we would have to put Section 21 back in again by amendment, and that would make a bit of a nonsense of the whole Bill.
Your Lordships may wonder why I say that. I think it is because the Act, as it stands, has created the General Optical Council and all that goes with it. I go alone with those noble Lords who take the view that most of the ophthalmic opticians—and it is those that I am concerned about—are good honest chaps who try to do a good job. But here I go alone with those noble Lords who have pointed out that they really do not get paid for their expertise. The noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, rather said to us that they have no expertise, anyhow. Those whom I know are bachelors of science and I think that you would count that as some kind of expertise. Why they are is another matter, but they seem to be. The fact is that they use a fair amount of expertise. Maybe we need to look into whether they need to have this expertise, and whether in practical terms it is necessary for them to—
Lord Energlyn: My Lords, may I interrupt?
Lord Mottistone: I would rather not, because it is a bit late. One could go on popping up and down all the time. The point is that you have to think how these people are rewarded. From what I have heard, it seems that the Government are extremely mean in what they pay them for such expertise as they demonstrate when they are doing their testing, and it is in this area where, if we want to have cheaper specs under the

721
present system, we should invite the Government to make their correction and concentrate on rewarding people in the right way for the job that they do.
Furthermore, they are providing a service against the general background of the National Health Service. I think we all applaud the National Health Service, in principle, though we probably all have points of detail to find fault with. It creates its own aura and part of the by-product of it is Acts of Parliament, like the 1958 Act which we are being asked to amend. I suggest to your Lordships that it is not reasonable to muck about with the 1958 Act too much, without having a look to see how this fits into the National Health Service.
It may well be that we could have people who were less highly qualified than the ophthalmic opticians, but we should have to make sure that the service which the opticians provide is provided from somewhere else. For example, I have a daughter who is very short-sighted, and we were at least two or three years later than we should have been in finding that out. That may or may not have done her harm. It never occurred to us to take her to the optician, because she did not know that she was short-sighted, as she could read perfectly well and did not trip up. So her condition was not very obvious. If the doctor had provided the sort of service which doctors used to provide in the 1930s, it could have been that he would have been more aware of the fact that this child was short-sighted, and something would have happened. But he did not, because, on the whole, he has decentralised that side of his activity to the opticians. Whether or not this is a good thing and whether or not this shares out the load in the right way I do not know, but before we start playing about with the opticians we have got to look at what is provided for those people who need a service. I think everybody is agreed that some people, however few in number, do need this kind of service.
The noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, mentioned the pharmacists. They are a similar problem. They also are an offshoot of the National Health Service. When I was the director of the Distributive Industry Training Board who had dealings with the pharmacists, because we trained them in their shopkeeping activities, I discovered that now they all need to have university degrees. Many of these young men with university degrees who are temperamentally inclined to become pharmacists do not want to be shopkeepers. Some of them are stupid enough to think that they are too grand to be shopkeepers, while many of them just do not have the "feel" for ringing up the till, exchanging money over the counter and all the other things which go with the excitement of shopkeeping. This is very understandable, because they are people with university degrees who do not do that sort of thing. The problem is that it is becoming more and more difficult to get people to become pharmacists and then to run small chemist shops. There is room for them in the big chain stores. They can have the professional who, as the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, quite rightly said, has to be there if they are doing business in drugs. He does not have to be bothered with running a shop. You have another fellow in, say, a branch of Boots to do this for you. This is tragic. If this attitude is carried too far we shall lose many of our little chemist
722
shops which, like our corner shops, we should dearly like to be given a reasonable chance to continue in the foreseeable future.
I suggest to your Lordships that this rather blunt Bill is not suitable to be given a Second Reading. I am sorry to have to say so because there is a lot of good behind it. When my noble friend on the Front Bench comes to reply to the debate, I hope, as many other noble Lords have said, that he will be able to say to us: Yes, we are going to take this reference to the Office of Fair Trading very seriously indeed; Yes, we are going to study the problem; Yes, we realise that the Act of Parliament which is under consideration is 25 years old and needs a good look at; and yes, we will look at it against the general background of the National Health Service with a view to coming up with legislation of our own within at least a year, and possibly less, in order to try to provide a balanced picture which is better for the public and better for the opticians.
8.44 p.m.
Lord Bowden: My Lords, the hour is indeed very late. The best thing I can do for your Lordships is to recount, only briefly, the way in which the ophthalmic opticians have developed and become professional men in the last 25 years. A great deal of the history was made in Manchester, and not a little of it in my office. For many years my institute trained people to go into ophthalmic optics by giving them a two-year course which led to a diploma. About 25 or more years ago we decided that the time had come to improve the education of these people.
We had lengthy discussions about the best way to achieve this. As a result, we decided that they needed much more contact with the medical profession so that, when looking into people's eyes, they could become aware of malfunctions of various kinds which needed reference to the medical profession. So I organised some very lengthy discussions between the two protagonists: the ophthalmic opticians on the one hand, and, on the other, the representative of the General Medical Council. It so happened that he was in charge of the eye hospital in Manchester and my own director of our little department was the representative of the ophthalmic opticians. By getting these two people together in my office, I could dragoon them into making agreements which, when they went to London, they had fair copied and signed on behalf of the two professional bodies which they severally represented.
This put me in a very privileged position. We decided that there must be much more intensive training of these ophthalmic students in the whole problem of medicine. We were able to negotiate a very satisfactory agreement, by which all students of ophthalmic optics had a period under training in the eye hospital watching the consultant, or the registrar or whoever it might be treating patients and learning the kind of thing which needs the attention of the highly trained, highly-skilled and sometimes highly-paid medical man.
I remember that I caused a certain amount of frenzy by reminding the medical representative, when he became a little uneasy about these things, that it was not until the barbers severed their connection with the surgeons that the surgeons became respectable about 200 years ago. I reminded him, too, of the days when a man needed nothing more than a pair of pliers to set

723
himself up as a dentist, and that these days had not gone past until about 1922. Now I said that the time had come to do a similar job for the ophthalmic opticians, because their profession was becoming more and more demanding and needed more and more sophisticated techniques and apparatus and a much greater understanding of the anatomy of the eye. This was agreed.
After the system had been working for a year or two we were able to institute the very first degree course in ophthalmic optics ever to be given in this country. That is why, the noble Lord will be glad to know, so many of the ophthalmic opticians these days are now B.Scs. The first were Manchester graduates. Now there are many from all the other schools of ophthalmic optics in this country, all of whom have followed our example and co-ordinated their activities with those of some local teaching hospital. It is a splendid arrangement. It is still working very well indeed. Only last week I attended a meeting at which a library was dedicated to the memory of Mr. Marton who was the representative of the ophthalmic opticians and who led the discussions with the medical profession.
I remember that when the time came to discuss our entry into the Common Market we had a series of committee meetings to discuss the equivalents of the professional qualifications which people had in Europe and in England. There were many profound differences. The medical profession here has a totally different series of consultancies and specialisations from those in Europe. The architectural profession in Italy at that time was open only to Italian citizens who had taken an engineering degree in one of the ancient universities of Italy. We decided that, of all the professions, the one in which the qualifications were most different was that of the ophthalmic optician. Our people were very much better educated than their equivalents in Europe. There was no doubt about this. It was decided that there could be no equivalents easily given between what the French call an opticien and what we call an ophthalmic optician. They had never had the opportunity of contact with a medical school which our people had been having for several years.
I introduced a debate in this House at the time of our discussion of the conditions for entry into the Common Market in which we discussed this and many other equivalents of professional qualifications. At that time the Commission in Brussels was trying to enforce rigid uniformity on all professions of similar types throughout Europe. I remember that I announced, to the astonishment of this House, that it might well be that our entry into the Common Market would be possible only if there were a shotgun marriage between the Bar Council and the Law Society. I was not in the least surprised when the Lord Chancellor leaped to his feet and, without taking those two steps to the left which I believe are obligatory before he makes a speech, said: "Under no circumstances will this happen". I thought to myself, "The opticians are safe", and I rubbed my hands as I did so.
There can be no doubt at all that the opticians have transformed and turned themselves into a profession over the past 25 years. They are studying all sorts of new techniques and ideas for diagnosing not only the rudimentary refractory troubles, including astigmatism, which the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, will remember
724
was first discovered by an Astronomer Royal who had it himself and spent a great deal of time and effort calculating how to cure it. Our optical men are well trained. They are an extremely dedicated profession. I discovered when talking to them last week, as I have done many times in the past, that they still have enormous self-respect and enormous regard for their ability to treat the problems of the public, and they also have enormous regard for the trust and goodwill which the public obviously feel for them.
I want your Lordships to believe that the ophthalmology profession is worthy of this country. It is probably the best of its kind that there is. It became the best of its kind by its own efforts over some 25 years, starting just after the war. It would be a most dreadful thing to try to downgrade it because, like so many other professions, it has its own black sheep.
The problem of remuneration has been adequately discussed already. There is no doubt that these people are underpaid, grotesquely, for the work they do in prescribing in the first place, and it is scandalous that many of them feel forced to persuade people to buy more expensive spectacles than they need in order to make up the balance. It must be said that most of these spectacles use continental frames. One of the problems which the Office of Fair Trading should study is why it costs, wholesale, about 50 per cent. more to buy a Zeiss frame in England than it does to buy a Zeiss frame in Germany. This is a problem analagous to that of the purchase of motorcars, which come much cheaper in Brussels than in England (and which is equally worthy of the study of the Office of Fair Trading).
There are many things which we could properly discuss tonight, but I am quite sure that the idea of solving any problem at all by eliminating the responsibility of these dedicated people and making it unnecessary for the ordinary person who needs spectacles to consult someone qualified would be a disastrous mistake. There is no doubt that some lucky people need only reading glasses; my goodness! I wish I could say the same.
There is no doubt, too, that some ophthalmic opticians are good and some surgeries are not. I myself had occasion to feel this. I have strong views about what I call the iatrogenic diseases. I went in for an operation on a cataract and emerged with the cataract still intact and all my front teeth missing because somebody's hand must have slipped while I was on the operating table. This was a few years ago, and I am afraid that I have since lost the sight of an eye. Be all this as it may, I do not feel the medical profession as a whole is to be blamed for this. There are some things which one has to accept as being inevitable, but I believe that the ordinary community get a very much better deal as a result of the dedicated service of ophthalmic opticians than they would in any other way. For this reason, I do not think we should give this Bill a Second Reading.
8.54 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, for giving us the opportunity to have this debate, but, without being discourteous, I do not thank him for this Bill. I should make it clear that, although I am speaking from the

725
Front Bench, so far as this side of your Lordships' House is concerned there is a free vote, but I believe I am expressing the views of many of my noble friends.
I should like to repeat the tributes which have been paid to the noble Lord, Lord Crook, who chaired the original committee dealing with these very difficult matters. Had he been well enough to be here, I believe we would have had an even better debate. I hope he will read with interest, although I am sure with criticism also, some of the speeches which have been made tonight. We must surely all look forward to having him back among us.
The ophthalmic services are an integral part of the National Health Service; that has to be the starting point and many speakers have made this clear. Eyesight is one of the most precious of the human faculties and it has to be cherished. I believe that we have the best service in the world and it should not be reduced in any way at all. The problem has emerged during this debate that essential diagnostic and prescription services have been caught up in the market place of spectacle sellers, especially frame sellers. It is claimed by some that there is a racket, and some noble Lords have given examples. In my view, these accusations must be met by dealing with the system and not damaging the service. I understand that this question is at present before the Director General of the Office of Fair Trading, and I would like to ask the noble Lord the Minister when the report is expected. I am sure that he will have understood from all the speeches made tonight that there is some impatience and anxiety that this work, which has long been delayed, should go ahead as quickly a spossible. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, that I do not suggest that it is in anybody's interest for important decisions to be taken before this report is received. I understand there have been discussions and some progress has been made in consultations with the profession.
There have been references to the display of National Health Service frames and prices, and I understand that there has been much progress. That is one of the important factors in this argument. I have also heard that National Health Service payments for diagnosis and the supply of NHS spectacles are so low that running expenses (and we all know about increased rates, heating, lighting and wages bills) are getting way ahead of the income that can be derived from providing these services. If this is so, perhaps the Minister can tell us whether any consideration is being given to upgrading the National Health Service payments.
I should like to remind the House what the payments now are. I understand that the current gross NHS examination fee is £4·50, and that the gross dispensing fee is £4·20. Talks have been going on with the Optical Whitley Council for a long time and it would help our discussions if the Minister could give us tonight some news of the outcome of those discussions.
While the talks are continuing I should like to make one or two suggestions which might meet some of the genuine grievances made by the public. For instance, I believe NHS opticians should always be required to give their patients a copy of the prescription. This could be very useful to the patient if he lost his glasses on holiday or just wanted a spare pair. It would also give the patient the freedom to shop around with his
726
prescription—but always getting that prescription made up by a qualified dispenser, and not (as some noble Lords seem to be suggesting) giving it to a shop girl in an American chain store who would have no idea of how to begin interpreting or reading the prescription. It would be rather like taking a doctor's prescription to a grocer instead of a pharmacist, if that was allowed to happen.
I have referred to the movement towards the display of prices. I also believe that any optician receiving NHS payments ought to be required to show clearly in his window, so that the patient does not even have to go inside his shop to see them, a display of National Health Service frames and their prices. I would also, without vanity, like to ask that there might be some wider range of choice in National Health Service frames, which I am sure could be arranged without necessarily increasing the expense. It is the variety I would like to see increased.
Part of the problem could be solved by the patients. In my view, some noble Lords have made rather wingeing speeches about exploiting patients. Patients do need more information, though they are not a captive audience. It is easy, I know, to be overwhelmed by a dazzling display of fashionable and even exciting spectacles. The glamour trade in spectacles has exacerbated this problem, and many people fall for the temptation of some quite outrageously exciting spectacles for which it would be quite unfair to ask the NHS to pay. I find that too many patients do not realise their rights. I think there should be much more of a campaign on this, and particularly that they should not have to buy their spectacles from the firm where their eyes are tested. I think this would do something to break this link, of which many noble Lords have complained, between the clinical work and what I call the marketing work.
I find that not many patients know, as I have found out, that they can insist on new lenses being put into old frames, if suitable. Of course, the temptation not to tell patients of these economies is all the greater when the people concerned are being so desperately and unfairly underpaid. I think that is at the heart of much of the problem. What we need to do tonight, I think, is to hope that the Government will agree to some ways of tackling the abuse without dismantling the essential part of the National Health Service.
I know that references have been made to the fact that in some states in the United States of America the whole situation is more relaxed; but, my Lords, I ask: when do we have to take lessons in health care from the United States of America? I know doctors in America, where I spent several months last year, who envy the protection that ophthalmic patients have here, and only wish that they had the same arrangement that we have. The United States is a long way behind pre-war Britain in the provision of health services. Of course we were selling spectacles as they are now being sold in the United States, but we brought in the 1958 Act because we recognised that that situation was intolerable and was damaging to the public. For noble Lords to suggest that we should now strike out this most important part of the Act, which was brought in to rectify an intolerable situation, means regression in every sense of the word.
I must emphasise, though I speak with hesitation

727
after the very powerful speeches of Lord Richardson and Lord Hunter, the very great danger in the free supply of contact lenses particularly. The thought of contact lenses and fluid being sold over the counter by totally unqualified people is frightening and dangerous, and would particularly affect many young people who seem to prefer contact lenses for all sorts of reasons of their own, and I feel would face abuse and damage.
The difficulty is that self-diagnosis really does not work with eyesight. Of course an old person feels that all he wants is some magnification, and if this Bill were to pass he could shop around for glasses which would help him to read. As he got older I suppose he would go and buy an even stronger pair. But as has been made clear, the difficulty in reading may indicate all sorts of other problems, often without symptoms presenting themselves. So that this professional approach is something that we must not lose. I feel if it were just a question of buying glasses, then there might be some merit in giving consideration to the noble Lord's Bill if glasses were just a decorative feature; but glasses are part of the health and wellbeing of our people. I am sure we would never have passed the 1958 Act had that not been so.
The arguments have of course been elegantly advanced by the profession. I think much of the information that has come from the profession has been very helpful and useful. I certainly do not regard it as hysterical or over-stated in any way. I have learned a lot when trying to understand this Bill. But I would say that if we accept—and I am sure the Government will—their clinical arguments, they must help us to clean up the monopoly of the marketplace. The two must go together. As long as people feel "ripped off", as we know some of them do, the propaganda against the profession will continue and we shall hear more of Bills similar to this Bill. To this extent I think the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, has done a service, and I hope he has alerted the profession to public disquiet and to urgency in this matter.
My Lords, if Section 21 is repealed the clinical protection of the public afforded through the General Optical Council will be removed. But the public also needs protection against profiteering and restrictive practices. In opposing this Bill, none of us want to sustain a situation where professional expertise could possibly be used as a cover-up for restrictive practices. What we arc hoping the Government will be able to say tonight is that steps they have in mind will bring about changes in the whole situation, so that we can sustain the invaluable clinical work that is part of the NHS, and at the same time we can see that remuneration is fair, conditions of work are fair, and that the market in spectacles is not totally inseparable from the clinical work, which is invaluable.
9.7 p.m.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, we have had an extraordinarily interesting debate. Quite a number of the issues are familiar ones, but we have had many other quite new aspects spoken about today, and many of these aspects, 1 think, will be of great interest to the Director General of Fair Trading, who, as your Lordships know, is now examining the whole position.
728
On many occasions over the past two years or so we have heard the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, together with my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, and the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, express their concern about the level of prices being charged for private spectacles. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, is not here because I regard him as one of the "Three Musketeers" who have been operating on this matter for so long. I am also very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Crook, was not able to be here today because he really is the father of the Opticians Act. It is unfortunate that he is not here and I am sure that he is sad not to be here.
Outside this House there have been many expressions of concern on the score that the noble Lord has raised, not only through the media but also through a large volume of letters from individual members of the public. Ministerial boxes have had more than their fair share of letters on the subject of spectacle prices. As the House well knows, Her Majesty's Government have consistently expressed their own concern at the widespread allegations of overcharging by opticians. They have well understood the pressure for action from within this House, and indeed, are sympathetic to the aims which underlie the Bill. Despite this, however, the Government's view has been, and still is, that it would be highly irresponsible to initiate hasty changes in an area where public health is involved. They have never lost sight of the fact that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, has just pointed out to us, the Opticians Act was put on the statute book to safeguard one of the most precious of our senses.
As your Lordships well know, I have on many occasions over the past two years stressed the point that to make spectacles freely available "over the counter" could result in patients missing the opportunity for the early detection of eye and other disease which a sight-test by a qualified practitioner affords. Several noble Lords have even gone to the lengths of playing down the importance of these medical considerations, whereas other noble Lords may feel that I have laboured the point and overstated the case.
I think that those of your Lordships who have such thoughts would do well to ponder on the results of a recent survey sponsored by the Association of Optical Practitioners. This has been referred to by several speakers—in particular, I think the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. The survey shows that over a five-day period, 417 ophthalmic opticians tested the sight of 16,152 patients. Of these, 2,047 patients were referred to their general medical practitioner. These referrals represent approximately 13 per cent. of all patients having sight-tests which, for the ophthalmic optician profession as a whole implies that something of the order of 1,000 patients per week are found to have a condition warranting medical advice. And 18,000 patients per week means nearly 1 million patients a year. Therefore it is no trifling matter.
The types of condition detected and referred for treatment range widely; they include cataract, suspicion of systemic disorder (such as diabetes), vascular abnormality, possible side effects of medication and glaucoma. This last condition is a particularly insidious one which, in its early stages, while the sufferer is unaware of his condition, can cause irreversible

729
damage to the eyes. I am sure that, on the basis of this information, many of your Lordships will feel that, if anything, in my past statements I may have understated rather than overstated the case.
It is for reasons like this that the Government have refrained from taking precipitate action; they have foregone the opportunity for quick and easy popularity through the hasty amendment of the Opticians Act which, like the Bill we are debating here, might appear to be a ready answer but which, on closer examination, would have serious and anomalous effects.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunter, pointed out the effects of the present Bill in considerable detail so I shall not say very much about that. The effects would be to allow the freedom to purchase spectacle frames and simple lenses "over the counter" which the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, and other noble Lords seek. However, it would also allow the parents of children who need spectacles and patients with very poor sight or with the need for more complex prescription lenses, to purchase spectacles freely from unqualified pesrons without prescription. I am sure that I need not elaborate on the possible consequences of this; nor, indeed, on one of the most extreme consequences which the Bill would allow—and again this is a matter to which the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, referred—that any unskilled person would be able to supply and fit contact lenses. The dangers of this must be apparent to all of your Lordships.
It is for these reasons that the Government's own actions in this matter have been taken only after the most careful consideration. Many of your Lordships will recall that at the end of 1979 the Director General of Fair Trading gave consideration to making a reference of the optical market to the Monopolies Commission. He decided instead to try to obtain a voluntary agreement with the General Optical Council to revoke its long-established statutory role prohibiting the display of prices in opticians' windows. Sadly, this was not greeted with wholehearted enthusiasm, though the General Optical Council decided to lift its ban on the price displays. This relaxation came into effect in May last year, but, to the Government's regret, brought only a limited response from opticians.
Some opticians began to display prices but the response was not a ready and wholehearted one. In view of this, Her Majesty's Government decided that it was necessary to obtain a thorough assessment of those parts of the Opticians Act concerned with the monopoly in the supply of spectacles and the powers of the General Optical Council to place restrictions on optical trading. This review, which was announced by my right honourable friend the then Minister of State for Consumer Affairs in another place on 16th December 1981, is now being carried out by the Director General of Fair Trading. He expects to have completed the substantial task of obtaining evidence from the widest possible range of interests, and to report later this year.
The Director General has not been asked to make recommendations about the Opticians Act itself as this would clearly involve health care questions which require wider consideration. But what this review is designed to do is to give a clearer picture of the state of competition in the optical market and to identify the factors underlying the pricing of spectacles. Once
730
its results are known, Her Majesty's Government will consider possible hanges in the present arrangements on a sound basis and with a full understanding of all the issues involved.
In addition to initiating this review, the Government been taking action to improve the ophthalmic services offered by the National Health Service. My honourable friend the Minister for Health has been discussing with the optical professions and with manufacturers, proposals to improve the range of NHS frames and lenses. He has secured the agreement of the professions to amend the NHS terms of service so as to require opticians to display or show the range of NHS frames to patients. Several noble Lords have mentioned the importance of NHS frames being actually displayed or shown patients, and this has now been agreed with the professions. Discussions on the addition of new frames to the NHS range are well advanced and the Minister for Health hopes to make an announcement on this shortly. I have no doubt that all sides of the House will welcomd these changes and the improved facilities they will offer to patients.
In addition, negotiations have been taking place between the health departments and representatives of opticians on the level of fees payable for the sight-testing and dispensing which opticians carry out for the National Health Service. The noble Lord, Lord Oram, will be pleased to hear this, as I am sure will my noble friend Lord Mottistone. From 1st April 1982, these fees will be increased so as to reflect the increased costs of providing NHS services. Because virtually all optical practices in this country undertake both NHS and private services, practice income from NHS fees may well have a bearing on the pricing of private spectacles. I have no doubt that the Director General of Fair Trading will be examining this factor in the course of his review.
My noble friend Lord Ferrier also mentioned that there was to be a payment for arrears, and when the final negotiations re completed in two or three months' time, there will be an arrears payment. I trust from what I have said that the noble Lord, Lod Rugby, will accept that the concern of the Government over allegations of over-charging matches his own. The difference lies in the method of tackling the problem. I think that the warnings expressed by a number of your Lordships during this debate confirm that the Government's carefully considered approach is the right way to tackle this particular problem, and that hasy measures, however well-intentioned, can be dangerous. The prospect of unqualified people suplpying contact lenses is infinitely more serious than that of wearers of private spectacles being overcharged.
In conclusion, I can assure your Lordships that the Director General's review has not been initiated as a convenient device for shelving the matter, but as an important first step in the Government's programme for action to ensure that the public gets value for money and that patients get the spectacles they need, whether through the National Health Service or privately. I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, as I think every speaker has said, for his efforts over the past few years, which have played no small part in highlighting the problem and prompting the action which Her Majesty's Government have initiated. I hope that he may feel that we have had a valuable

731
debate with many views aired, and that he will accordingly be prepared to withdraw his Motion.
9.21 p.m.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, for giving us his summary. I do not myself altogether feel that the public at large are going to have many of their fears allayed as a result of this debate. All too often I have heard the-word "patient" used, whereas we have also heard that 80 per cent. of the people who require spectacles are people who merely need reading glasses; they are in truth perfectly healthy people merely suffering from increased age, requiring standard spectacles which, as a noble Lord has said, are immediately available somewhere in the optician's shop and are withheld officiously on the basis of an eye test, and a lot of mumbo-jumbo, in order to pretend that that person in fact has something wrong with his eyes.
All too often the optician concerned will know perfectly well exactly what he is going to apply to that person's eyes by way of a pair of spectacles, which he will make him wait for for possibly up to a fortnight. I believe that this is really where the great fear of the public is today. This is why one's files are full of people complaining. Two years ago I put down an Unstarred Question. I believe that that was a knock on the door. Today I think we have had more of a battering ram on the door. Next time, my Lords, I am afraid that the key that you have will not be sufficient to hold the door shut. But, at the same time, in view of the late hour and the few Members who are here, I would beg leave of the House to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Second Reading, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

  N. IRELAND: REGISTERED UNEMPLOYED TEACHERS
  N. IRELAND: REGISTERED UNEMPLOYED TEACHERS
  N. IRELAND STUDENTS: TRAVEL ALLOWANCES
  N. IRELAND STUDENTS: TRAVEL ALLOWANCES
  N. IRELAND STUDENTS: UNIVERSITY STUDY AWARDS
  N. IRELAND STUDENTS: UNIVERSITY STUDY AWARDS
  CONCORDE: OPERATIONAL STATISTICS
  CONCORDE: OPERATIONAL STATISTICS
  OECD EXPORT CREDIT CONSENSUS: THE SOVIET UNION
  OECD EXPORT CREDIT CONSENSUS: THE SOVIET UNION
  MANPOWER SERVICES COMMISSION CHAIRMAN
  MANPOWER SERVICES COMMISSION CHAIRMAN
  JOURNALISTS: STATUTORY REDUNDANCY PROCEDURE
  JOURNALISTS: STATUTORY REDUNDANCY PROCEDURE
  NHS GENERAL DENTAL SERVICES
  NHS GENERAL DENTAL SERVICES
  THE HORN OF AFRICA: MEDIATION POLICY
  THE HORN OF AFRICA: MEDIATION POLICY
  BBC WORLD SERVICE: UK RECEPTION
  BBC WORLD SERVICE: UK RECEPTION
  THE FORESTRY COMMISSION: LAND SALES
  THE FORESTRY COMMISSION: LAND SALES
  HOME CIVIL SERVICE: BRITISH EMPIRE AND IMPERIAL SERVICE ORDER AWARDS
  HOME CIVIL SERVICE: BRITISH EMPIRE AND IMPERIAL SERVICE ORDER AWARDS
  WORLD WAR I ORDERS OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE
  WORLD WAR I ORDERS OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE
  STATUTORY RIGHTS OF APPEAL
  STATUTORY RIGHTS OF APPEAL
  EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK: POLICY CHANGES
  EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK: POLICY CHANGES