Sitting of 22 March 1982

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  HERTSMERE BOROUGH COUNCIL (ROWLEY LANE) BILL
    WEST YORKSHIRE (PARKING AND TRANSPORT) BILL
    As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  INDUSTRY

    Mexborough
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will, taking into account the shortage of jobs in the Mexborough travel-to-work area, now designate it a special development area.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John MacGregor): No, Sir. The specific difficulties of Mexborough were fully recognised in the Government's review in 1979, when we decided that it should become a development area.
    Mr. Wainwright: Does the Minister realise that almost nothing has been done by the Government, despite the fact that it is a special development area? Is he aware that people in the Mexborough area are feeling helpless, hopeless and full of despair and are disillusioned with the Government? When will the Government do something to help unemployed people in the Mexborough travel-to-work area, especially young people, who are beginning to lack in hope and think that Britain does not want them to work?
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman knows that under the various schemes available to Mexborough as a development area there has been some take-up—not as much as he or I would like—amounting to £2 million in the past two years. There is a whole battery of weapons available to the Mexborough area. The hon. Gentleman referred to youth unemployment. All the greatly expanded schemes now available through the Manpower Services Commission are also available to Mexborough.

    Northern Region
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will convene a conference, to include invitations to the Northern Confederation of British Industry and the Northern Trades Union Congress, to discuss the attraction of industry to the Northern region.
    Mr. MacGregor: The attraction of industry to the Northern region is already promoted in a substantial number of ways.
    Mr. Dormand: The Minister will not be surprised to learn that the Northern TUC is completely opposed to the Government's strategy, but is he aware that the Northern CBI has considerable doubts about certain aspects of the Government's regional policies? In view of the continuing rise in unemployment in the Northern region—still the highest in England—is it not clear that completely new thinking is necessary to deal with the region's problems—for example, the ridiculous position of the P & O cruise liner order being placed abroad? That ship could easily have been built in the Northern region?
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman knows that the full battery of aid is available to about 90 per cent. of the Northern region. The North received the greatest amount per head of all regions in 1979–80 and was overtaken by Wales only in 1980–81, because, among other things, of the effect of the steel remedial measures. Substantial amounts of aid have gone into the Northern region.
    On the question of awareness and the need for a conference, to which the hon. Gentleman addressed himself, the Invest in Britain Bureau in my Department and diplomatic service posts overseas promote the United Kingdom as a whole, including the Northern region. In addition, my Department provides grant-aid to the North of England Development Council for precisely the purposes that the hon. Gentleman outlined. The most helpful thing the hon. Gentleman can do to attract industry to the Northern region—I know that he wants to do this—is to persuade the Labour Party and his right hon. and hon. Friends to stop talking about withdrawal from the Common Market, because if that were to happen it would put off firms from coming to the Northern region.
    Mr. Trotter: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Datsun car company felt that Britain was likely to leave the EEC it would in no way be persuaded to bring several thousand jobs to the North-East? Does my hon. Friend also agree that it will be very sad if the future flagship of the British Merchant Navy is not built in Britain? It is small comfort that the reason given by British Shipbuilders is that there was so much work at Swan Hunter that it could not do it.
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is right about the Common Market and the Datsun company. There is much evidence that our withdrawal from the EEC would dry up the flow of inward investment to Britain.
    As regards the P & O liner, the company could not meet the delivery dates because of the orders that it already has.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Is the Minister aware that it was not the EEC that closed the Consett steelworks or those in Workington who ran down regional support to a level below what it was in the early 1960s that allowed the largest cruise liner order ever placed by a British shipping; company to go to Finland? Does he accept that they are the deliberate responsibility and consequence of Government policies?
    Mr. MacGregor: I have already referred to the liner.
    The hon. Gentleman will know that there is substantial over-capacity in the steel industry throughout Europe. Had the decision on Consett been taken earlier, it would have

    671
    been possible to restructure the Consett economy earlier, but we are now having to do it in difficult recessionary conditions.

    Nissan-Datsun Project
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for Industry whether the remaining issues referred to in his answer of 22 February, Official Report, c. 586, on the Nissan-Datsun project have yet been agreed; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Norman Lamont): As my right hon. Friend said on 22 February, further discussions between my Department and the company took place in London last month. Some progress was made, but there remain some issues to be agreed. The final decision of the board of Nissan will also depend upon the identification of a suitable site and a successful outcome to discussions which it is intended should take place with the relevant trade unions.
    Mr. Miller: Does my hon. Friend agree that the imbalance of trade between Japan and the EEC is a matter of considerable moment, and that it is urgent for the Japanese to make a substantial investment in this country to offset it? Are my hon. Friend and the Government doing everything possible to impress on the company those considerations and the fact that a further long delay in the decision might well prejudice the conditions so far established?
    Mr. Lamont: Overseas investment is one way in which the trade imbalance between this country and Japan can be rectified. I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety that the negotiations with Nissan should not be further prolonged, but it is an extremely important project for the company and it naturally wishes to research it thoroughly. I hope that it will not be too long before a final decision is taken.
    Mr. Orme: Will the Minister confirm that the disagreement with Nissan is about the British content of the component input? What level has his Department set?
    Mr. Lamont: I do not believe that I should disclose to the House our negotiations with the Japanese company. It has been said before that local content is one matter that we are discussing. We attach great importance to having a high level of local content.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Is the Minister aware that considerable time, money and effort have been expended by places, such as Teesside, in putting forward cases for having the plant in their areas and that the uncertainty caused by the delay is doing great damage? Will he urge the company to take a speedy decision and to end the delay, which has gone on for much longer than I believe any of us expected?
    Mr. Lamont: I am sorry that Teesside, which has spent money and time on the matter, should find the situation aggravated by the delay. It is an extremely important decision. The Nissan motor company must be allowed to make up its own mind in principle first. I do not believe that decisions on site will be taken until we get further in the more general talks.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Further to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) said, is my hon. Friend certain that the Japanese
    672
    understand the growing political opposition in Britain to the flood of imports from Japan? Is he aware that, unless they do, there is simply no way in which they will be allowed to import into this country? Does he agree that we must make certain that they have no doubt at all that, unless they invest, imports from Japan will be stopped?
    Mr. Lamont: The Japanese are under no illusion about the strength of feeling on the subject. We have taken the opportunity to emphasise it to them. That is one of the main reasons why the Japanese are interested in investing in this country.
    Mr. Dormand: I recognise what the Minister has said about the component factor, but is he prepared to say whether a major sticking point is the amount of financial assistance forthcoming from the Government to Nissan?
    Mr. Lamont: I cannot go beyond what I have said about the stage that the negotiations have reached. To do so would not be compatible with carrying on our discussions with the Japanese.

    Tractor Manufacuturers
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Industry what are the future prospects for the tractor manufacturers in the United Kingdom, in view of recent closures and cutbacks by tractor manufacturers.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John Wakeham): The United Kingdom industry is heavily dependent on exports, and prospects for manufacturers in the immediate future will continue to be influenced by the world-wide recession, which has depressed demand for tractors in the major overseas markets.
    Mr. Dalyell: If International Harvester at Doncaster, Massey-Ferguson at Coventry and perhaps Ford go to Europe, if David Brown cuts down and if the tractor line at Bathgate is cannibalised, where will people who wish to buy British-made tractors find them?
    Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is perhaps a touch gloomy. The Agriculture Engineers Association is expecting a modest growth in the United Kingdom market in 1982.
    Mr. Dalyell: Answer the question.
    Mr. Wakeham: The overseas markets are not under our control, and 50 per cent. of the capacity is unused. It is overseas markets that have to improve.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Does my hon. Friend agree that a thriving tractor market depends on a thriving diesel engine market?
    Mr. Wakeham: Indeed, it does, but the overseas markets for both have to improve.

    Robots
    Mr. Trotterasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will introduce new proposals to stimulate the use of robots in industry.
    The Minister for Industry and Information Technology (Mr. Kenneth Baker): There has been an encouraging response to the Government's robot support programme which I launched last year. The effectiveness of this programme is kept under constant review, and I will introduce additional measures when required.
    Mr. Trotter: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his initiative. How much money has been made available and what are the main headings under which it is being allocated to develop this essential programme?
    Mr. Baker: There have been many hundreds of general inquiries about the scheme. So far, 71 firm applications are being processed and about £1½ million has been committed. I expect more to be committed from the applications in process.
    Mr. Crowther: The need for such development is widely accepted, but does the Minister agree that it has serious social consequences, as robots put men and women out of work? Should not such development be part of a broader plan which includes, for example, a reduction in the length of the working week and measures to create new jobs for people put out of work?
    Mr. Baker: I do not entirely agree that robots put men and women out of work. British companies are automating and thereby staying in business and preserving their position. Many businesses, if they did not use the new technologies, would go out business, and unemployment would rise even more sharply. There is a stark choice for British industry—automate or liquidate.
    Mr. Forman: I warmly welcome the start that the Government have made in supporting robotics and other forms of new technology. None the less, is my hon. Friend not concerned that only a quarter of the Department's budget for the support of industry is going to new technologies and three-quarters is going to regional policy and the old industries?
    Mr. Baker: That is the pattern of spending by the Department of Industry. Our purpose is to shift it so that more money is spent on the sunrise industries and less on dealing with the inherited problems of the past.
    Mr. John Garrett: Does the Minister agree that the Government's policy for robotics depends heavily on applied research in university departments, which are being heavily cut by the University Grants Committee? Is this not yet another case—it applies also to information technology—where the efforts of the Department of Industry are being badly affected by the cuts in university spending?
    Mr. Baker: I understand that the numbers studying the sciences and engineering in 1983–84—I think that I have the right year—will be more than in 1980–81. I will check that. We give significant support, totalling several million pounds a year, to the work of the Production Engineering Research Association. That is one of the main bodies, together with Cranfield, working on robotics.

    Project Mercury
    Mr. Michael Marshallasked the Secretary of State for Industry what continuing responsibility he has for the development of Project Mercury; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Nealeasked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects the Mercury consortium to start providing services under the licence issued by him in February.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: The development of Project Mercury is primarily a matter for the Mercury consortium,
    674
    although my Department will sponsor its interests where they involve the Government. I understand that Mercury plans to begin providing services early next year.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and declare my interest. Does he accept that it is necessary for Project Mercury to agree with British Telecom on linkage, both domestic and international, and can he tell us what would happen in the event of a failure to reach agreement? What powers do the Government have on the international networking of telecommunications?
    Mr. Baker: The first point made by my hon. Friend is a problem arising on a more general front. It is how to police competition when a nationalised industry ceases to have a monopoly. That is happening not only in the case of Project Mercury. The consortium and British Telecom have agreed that if they fail to reach an agreement within, I think, the next four months, the Secretary or I shall decide on the terms.
    Mr. Orme: Does the Minister agree that the linkage with BT could hamper the developments that it wants to make, particularly in cabling, which is the major development that needs to take place? We need investment, including Government investment. Will not the Mercury development get in the way of that?
    Mr. Baker: I do not think so. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is unduly apprehensive. I agree that cabling and recabling of the country is the biggest industrial prospect before the country for the next decade. We published today the information technology adviser's report on cable systems to start a process of consultation with all the interests involved. I do not see a conflict between BT and Mercury.
    Mr. Neale: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that his enthusiasm to liberalise the BT monopoly for projects such as Mercury is being matched by co-operation from BT? Does he agree that the time has come for the establishment of an independent regulatory authority that would approve attachments and independent networks that touch on the BT network?
    Mr. Baker: One thing that I have learnt in the past few months is that monopolies in the process of having their monopoly taken away are most tenacious bodies. I am considering ways in which there can be more competition, and that will involve BT withdrawing from some of its licensing functions. As from 1 April it will cease to be able to license value added network services. That will be done by my Department, so that competitors do not have to submit their business plans to BT. That would be very unfair.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does the Minister agree that the terms between BT and the Mercury consortium are of fundamental importance to both parties and to their future development? I am sure that neither he nor the House wants to see one undermine the other. Will he, therefore, give an assurance that the terms of the agreement between the two will be published?
    Mr. Baker: I think that some of the terms will be of a commercial nature and it will be difficult to publish them. However, I shall consider what can be published.
    Mr. Henderson: Have not the Government substantially increased investment in British Telecom, and is it not

    675
    likely to enhance the prospects for rapid development of the telecommunications industry if there is even greater scope for private investment?
    Mr. Baker: I certainly agree with that. It is a historic fact that the trough of BT's investment was in 1976–77. Since then it has risen consistently, and the recently published public expenditure White Paper envisages it rising to the huge amount of £3 billion a year by 1984–85. We are examining ways in which there can be partnership between public and private funds to finance that investment.

    British Steel Corporation
    Mr. David Watkinsasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement about the financial prospects of the British Steel Corporation.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: The BSC has recently completed its reassessment of the corporate plan for 1982–85. That plan shows that, following the great progress made in the past year, there is a good prospect that BSC will achieve break-even in 1982–83. A full statement will be made when the Government have completed their consideration of the BSC plan.
    Mr. Watkins: Will the future financing of the industry, including Mr. Ian MacGregor's transfer fee—the size of which is not yet settled—be linked to the continuing contraction and dismemberment of the BSC?
    Mr. Lamont: The corporate plan put to the Government was prepared on the basis that the existing configuration of basic steel production within the BSC will remain unchanged, but there will be a need all the time for further slimming down of manpower in order to continue the improvement in productivity. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the chairman's remuneration is tied to the performance of the BSC over a period. It will not be determined until after he has left.
    Mr. Chapman: Bearing in mind that about £6,000 million of public money has been poured into the BSC over the past 10 years, will my hon. Friend assure the House that, however painful the shedding of substantial proportions of labour in the BSC has been over the past two years, it is the main reason why there is a better prospect that the corporation will break even in 1982–83?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right to suggest that there was a great need for BSC to achieve internationally competitive manning levels. The stance taken by the Labour Administration in keeping open the Beswick plants, far from saving jobs, meant that in the long run many more jobs had to go. If only the nettle had been grasped earlier, we would have had a more competitive industry, probably a bigger one and there would be improved security for employees.
    Mr. Hooley: How can the hon. Gentleman justify the massive cut in capacity in our steel industry when in Germany the cut has been only about 5 per cent. and Italy and Spain have had substantial increases in capacity?
    Mr. Lamont: I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman). The cuts have had to be bigger in this country because the steel industry was not so competitive. If it had been competitive earlier, the need for cutbacks would have
    676
    been less. From now on, having made great adjustments in capacity, we are looking to other countries, under the arrangements in Europe, to make reductions in capacity.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will give the latest figures available for United Kingdom manufacturing industry productivity and total output; what are the corresponding figures for three years previously; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: I will arrange for the figures to be published in the Official Report. They show that productivity in manufacturing industry reached a record level in the last quarter of 1981, while output recovered by about 1½ per cent. between the fourth quarter of 1980 and the fourth quarter of 1981.
    We are beginning to see real improvements in productivity, which, if combined with continued restraint in wage settlements, can only strengthen the prospects for British manufacturing industry.
    Mr. Roberts: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in reality, any increases in productivity have been minimal and that output in manufacturing industry is the lowest for 14 years? As that is the result of the Government's slimming down policies, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the effect of those policies has been to put 2 million more on the dole and to destroy the whole background of British industry?
    Mr. Baker: No. The gains in productivity are significant. They were about 9 per cent. last year. Specifically, they were about 8½ per cent. by output per person-hour and 10½ per cent. by output per head. Those figures are not trivial. They are significant, real, tangible and measurable.
    Mr. Stokes: As the productivity of British industry improves, will it not thereby become much more competitive and attract more customers at home and abroad? Will the Opposition perhaps remember that industry wants customers, customers and more customers?
    Mr. Baker: I agree with my hon. Friend, who has made the point with his usual perception.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Welcome though some signs of an increase in productivity are, does the Minister agree that the facts on the other side of the equation are that we have a 15 per cent. drop in manufacturing output, a 20 per cent. drop in manufacturing investment, and that last year we had, in effect, a net disinvestment in manufacturing, without allowing for leasing, which is marginal in the total? When does he expect to get back to the levels that prevailed in May 1979?
    Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman cannot have seen the capital investment figures published by my Department last week. Capital expenditure in the last quarter of 1981 was 1½ per cent. up on the third quarter. Manufacturing was plus 1 per cent. and services 1½ per cent. The Opposition must appreciate that when the economy is turning up, and the figures show it, they should welcome it.
    Mr. Henderson: Does my hon. Friend agree that an important way of improving productivity further in British industry would be for more manufacturers to buy the

    677
    brilliant British inventions in robotics, which would give the robotics manufacturers the opportunity to create more jobs for people?
    Mr. Baker: Yes, and there is growing evidence that that is happening.
    Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman referred to the quarterly figures. Will he confirm that they are worse than my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) implied just now? Since this Government came to office there has been a 20 per cent. reduction in output in the manufacturing sector at a time when it is 30 per cent. down on investment. Is this not the lesson that the country has to learn?
    Mr. Baker: No, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that the fall in manufacturing output last year was halted. Output in the fourth quarter was 2 per cent. higher than in the spring. If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the very bad months of December and January, he should remember that we had the most severe weather that we have had for many decades. In addition, industrial production was disrupted by the rail strike. We can do nothing about the weather, but we can do something about strikes.
    Following is the information:

    Seasonally adjusted index numbers Manufacturing industry 1975=100

    Output

    Output per person hour

    4th quarter 1978

    103·9

    107·0

    4th quarter 1979

    104·5

    109·9

    4th quarter 1980

    88·5

    106·9

    4th quarter 1981

    89·9

    116·0

    Note: Some indicators within the index of industrial production are based on sales data, which may overstate or understate the level of output. The index numbers used in the table allow for this by adjusting for changes in the level of stocks in these sectors.

    Project Mercury
    Mr. Richard Pageasked the Secretary of State for Industry, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) of 22 February, Official Report, column 271, on Project Mercury, what is his policy towards use of the reserve powers as regards the placing of obligations on British Telecom and Cable and Wireless.
    Mr. Wakeham: We would hope not to have to resort to such powers. So far as interconnect and international access for Mercury are concerned, we believe that they are in the national interest and that it should be possible for BT and Mercury to reach a commercial agreement. In line with our overall policy of telecommunications liberalisation, we will be interested to ensure that the interests of customers come first.
    Mr. Page: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. As BT acts as Her Majesty's agent for both national and international agreements, and reinforcing the concern already voiced by my hon. Friends the Members for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) and for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale), does my hon. Friend feel that the Secretary of State has adequate powers to ensure that any limitations on competition set by BT will not frustrate such projects as Mercury, especially in international communications?
    Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend hopes that an agreement will be reached between the parties that does not require him to intervene. However, he has direction and licensing powers which he could use, if necessary.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware of the very damaging effect that the sluggishness of British Telecom in installing telephones and switchboards has had on business? Is he aware, further, that on Friday a gentleman walked into my constituency surgery and said that he had been struggling for two years to get British Telecom to install a proper switchboard so that his business could go ahead—without any result?
    Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes a very good case for Mercury being a competing service with BT. With the introduction of competition for BT the position will improve. I am sure that the chairman of BT will attend to my hon. Friend's complaint.

    Departmental Assets (Disposal)
    Mr. loan Evansasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will list the value of the publicly owned assets disposed of by his Department since May 1979.
    Mr. Wakeham: The restated net asset value of British Aerospace was £592 million at the time of flotation, of which 51·57 per cent. of the share capital was sold to the public; and the restated net asset value of Cable and Wireless was £307 million, of which 49·47 per cent. of the share capital was sold to the public.
    Mr. Evans: As the country has passed through the worst economic recession since the 1930s and private manufacturing industry has been in almost a state of collapse, is it right—even if the Government believe it right that publicly owned assets should be sold off—to sell them now?
    Mr. Wakeham: The reason for privatising these two industries is that they are both engaged in highly competitive international businesses, and we feel that they are much more likely to be capable of responding to the challenges presented to them as part of the private sector, not having to look to the Government all the time for funds for expansion.
    Mr. Michael Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that an additional indication of the correctness of this policy occurs in British Aerospace, where 27,000 employees—40 per cent. of the work force—have spent their money acquiring shares in the business in which they work?
    Mr. Wakeham: I agree with my hon. Friend. British Aerospace is making a great contribution to the many markets in which it operates.
    Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Does the Minister realise that his Government are seeking all the time to take away from any nationalised industry the plums of that industry and that, whenever that occurs, it causes unrest throughout the country? Will he take into account the many countries where management, the Government, trade unions and the banks work together to ensure that greater progress is made in industry? Why do not the Government try to create a better relationship with the trade union movement and the work force, instead of adopting their present approach?
    Mr. Wakeham: I am tempted to say that our policy of privatisation gives all these elements a chance to work

    679
    together. In those industries that have not been privatised, however—for instance, British Shipbuilders—the Government's record of support is one of which we are very proud.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition should realise that without the sales that have been made of the successful enterprises a lot of the funds would not have been available to put 'into British Steel, BL and other loss-makers that the Government still have?
    Mr. Wakeham: I agree with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Are the Government considering disposing of further publicly owned assets in British Telecom, instead of introducing the Buzby bond?
    Mr. Wakeham: The Government announced the Buzby bond in the Budget, but long-term plans could include privatisation. However, I have no statement to make today.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Minister confirm that, despite privatisation, British Aerospace still faces a major problem about how it might finance the proposed A320? Is it not true that British Aerospace has told the Government that, without substantial Government support, there is no prospect of this major project going ahead?
    Mr. Wakeham: There is no major airline project in this country or anywhere else in which Governments of the day do not have a major part to play. That does not make the case against privatisation one whit stronger. The efficiency of the running of the industry is an entirely different matter.

    Loan Guarantee Scheme
    Mr. Viggersasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the progress of the loan guarantee scheme.
    Mr. MacGregor: The encouraging response to the loan guarantee scheme has been maintained. By 5 March, the latest date for which figures are available, 2,741 guarantees had been issued in respect of £99·1 million of bank lending. As has been announced, the ceiling for lending in the year to May 1982 is being raised to £150 million, and a further £150 million will be made available for the following year. A preliminary review of the operation of the scheme is now being carried out.
    Mr. Viggers: Does my hon. Friend agree that this has been a remarkable success story? In view of the important link between manufacturing industry and jobs, will my hon. Friend say what percentage of the applications have been in respect of manufacturing industry?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's opening remarks, and I agree with him. One of the encouraging and optimistic signs about the scheme is that in total value £55·4 million has gone out to manufacturing industry. In other words, more that half has gone to manufacturing industry.
    Mr. Richard Page: When it comes to reviewing the scheme will my hon. Friend consider carefully raising the limit to £¼ million per loan as opposed to the present level?
    Mr. MacGregor: That is one of the items that we shall be considering in the review over the next few months. My
    680
    hon. Friend will know that with the rapid progress of the scheme—and every month it moves faster, with more being taken up—there is a problem about the general ceilings. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already doubled the amount of money allocated to the scheme, which is one aspect that must be taken into account.

    British Leyland
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Industry by what percentage the total number of employees of BL has been reduced in the last two years.
    Mr. Wakeham: At the end of 1981 the number of BL employees world-wide had decreased by 29 per cent. from the level at the end of 1979. In United Kingdom employment alone, the percentage decrease over the same period was 34·5 per cent.
    Mr. Chapman: I appreciate the unpopularity of British Leyland management because of those fairly dramatic reductions in its labour force, but will my hon. Friend confirm that even during this period about £1,000 million of taxpayers' money has been poured into British Leyland? Can my hon. Friend give the House any assurance that these figures will not obtain in the future and that the taxpayer will be asked to bear very little subsidy for this company?
    Mr. Wakeham: The board of British Leyland has said that it does not intend to ask the Government for any more funds. Therefore, I can give the assurance that my hon. Friend seeks. I ought also to point out that output of cars per man has increased substantially in British Leyland—by some 30 per cent. in 1981 over 1980. A balanced view of the company is important.
    Mr. Dalyell: Does the Minister think that his hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) would have asked that question when he was the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth in a previous Parliament? There is a difference between Chipping Barnet and Birmingham. Will the Minister also have a stab at my previous question? With 1,000 tractor engineers flung on the dole at Bathgate, where will those who want to buy British-made tractors be able to buy them?
    Mr. Wakeham: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman keeps running down the tractor industry. The British tractor industry is one of the most efficient—
    Mr. Dalyell: Come off it. Just answer the question.
    Mr. Wakeham: —in the world. Some 70 per cent. of the output of the British tractor industry is exported, and an increase in world demand is required so that the unused capacity in the industry can be utilised.
    Mr. Hal Miller: Will my hon. Friend join me in recording our appreciation of the great increase in productivity achieved by both management and work force at BL, and also join me in looking forward to the new union agreement, leading, we hope, to a more participatory style of management?
    Mr. Wakeham: I pay tribute to the achievements so far. Considerably more steps need to be taken to take full advantage of the upturn in the economy when it comes.
    Mr. Park: Will the Minister, instead of regarding this slashing of the labour force as a matter of congratulation,

    681
    give some thought to the possibility that in its haste to dismantle certain aspects of BL the company got rid of design teams—the very people who could have enabled it to gain a larger share of the market and thereby save this huge number of people from being thrown on the labour market?
    Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view, and as he represents Coventry I understand his feelings on the matter. However, the views that he expressed were not those expressed by the BL management. It is the BL management and the BL work force that we are successfully trying to support in attempting to make the motor industry viable again.
    Mr. Dover: Will the Minister take this opportunity to compliment the workers at Chorley and Leyland, who, despite enormous pressure from the shop stewards, finally agreed to return to work and accept the reduction of 1,855 jobs in the Chorley and Leyland area? Surely that augurs well for future co-operation between management and men and for the profitability of BL.
    Mr. Wakeham: As in many other instances, the work force has shown good sense, realising that viable jobs are the only jobs that matter in the long run.
    Mr. Orme: Does the Minister agree that a successful British Leyland, which we all want, is important not just to the workers in British Leyland but to the tens of thousands of workers in the components industry, who depend for their jobs on the success of a British-owned car firm?
    Mr. Wakeham: I agree. That is why we have invested a substantial amount of money in British Leyland and why we believe that its long-term viability is one of the Government's most important industrial objectives.

    Telecommunications
    Mr. Peter Lloydasked the Secretary of State for Industry what information he has on partnership ventures recently undertaken in the telecommunications industry.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: I welcome partnership initiatives taken in response to the new opportunities afforded by our policy of telecommunications liberalisation, for example, Project Mercury. I particularly welcome partnerships between the public and private sectors, of which a good recent example is United Satellites Limited, which involves British Aerospace, GEC-Marconi and British Telecom.
    Mr. Lloyd: Does my hon. Friend agree that British Telecom could become an even more commercially minded and effective leader in joint ventures with the private sector if it were open to private investors? In answer to a question from the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) it was said that this was a long-term plan. Can my hon. Friend make it a very much quicker one?
    Mr. Baker: We are examining the possible ways of financing BT's substantial investment programme, which is due to rise to about £3 billion per annum in 1984–85, which will be the largest investment programme in the country. We are not ruling out partnership between public and private sector funds.
    Mr. Michael Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that in examining partnerships in the telecommunications
    682
    industry it is important to take into account the partnership between British Aerospace and GEC-Marconi on the defence satellite in supplementing this country's space activities? In that regard, are not he and his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, who I see sitting on the Front Bench, playing a blinder?
    Mr. Baker: Yes. The co-operation between our two largest space companies, GEC-Marconi and British Aerospace, for the defence satellite, is very good. I have already said that there is a strong space industry in Britain. British Aerospace is building about nine satellites, including the large satellite L-Sat, which will be launched in 1986. We hope to have a significant part of the world market for satellites by the 1990s.

    United States Electronic Firms
    Sir Anthony Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Industry how many United States-based electronics firms have indicated to him their intention of establishing a base for their European operations in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. MacGregor: In 1980 and 1981 five United States electronics companies known to the Invest in Britain Bureau took firm decisions to establish manufacturing facilities in the United Kingdom, and 12 more indicated their intention to expand facilities already located in the United Kingdom. The Invest in Britain Bureau is currently in touch with some 30 United States companies about further projects.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my hon. Friend agree that these jobs in the sunrise industries, which are of immense importance both to employment and to the modernising of British industry, could be at risk if doubts grew about the intention of this country to remain in the European Community, as the main reason for investing here would be gone?
    Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend, and there is strong evidence for saying that. A survey published recently in a technical magazine showed that Britain is overwhelmingly the preferred location for the great majority of American electronics companies thinking of setting up a European operation. It is also interesting that the survey shows that for these manufacturers the attraction of the United Kingdom is largely our membership of the Common Market, and over 60 per cent. of the firms responding stated that withdrawal from the EEC would have adverse effects on their decisions.
    Mr. John Garrett: How many American and other multinational electronics firms have transferred production from this country to Third world countries?
    Mr. MacGregor: That is a separate question and I should need notice to answer it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will table that question. The provisional figures are interesting. They show that 60 per cent. of the total United States output non-oil direct investment was in the EEC. They also show that 30·4 per cent. of that total came to Britain. Clearly, our membership of the Common Market is a magnet.
    Mr. Marlow: Does my hon. Friend agree that American investment in the United Kingdom in the electronics industry is determined not so much by the detail of our relationship with the rest of Europe, but by

    683
    the opportunity to make a decent profit? For that reason, will my hon. Friend say how important it is that we have plenty of small factory units available so that the electronics industry can expand?
    Mr. MacGregor: It is important for small factory units to be made available. As my hon. Friend will know, as a result of the 100 per cent. buildings allowance, in-the last year we have approximately trebled the number of small factory units available through the private sector. My hon. Friend should not discount the enormous importance that American companies attach to our membership of the Common Market.

    Industrial Production (Oil Prices)
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisleasked the Secretary of State for Industry what effect he expects the drop in oil prices to have on industrial production.
    Mr. MacGregor: The recent fall in oil prices should reduce some costs and prices and lead to an increase in industrial activity.
    Mr. Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the reduction in oil prices, when added to the recent reduction in the national insurance surcharge on business, will increase the amount of money available to industry? Should not some of the extra profits be used for investment so that extra production will be available when the upturn comes? Does my hon. Friend have any views on how the extra investment can be achieved?
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is correct about the impact of the lower oil prices. Each $1 reduction in the price of oil directly reduces manufacturing costs via reduced prices of oil-based fuels and feedstuffs by about £55 million in a full year. That is on top of the considerable improvement in industry's cash flow as a result of the reduction in the national insurance surcharge. A wide range of investment incentives exist in Britain. It is up to companies to take advantage of them.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Attorney-General whether he will take steps to extend the availability of legal aid.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): Steps to extend legal aid will be taken when resources become available.
    Mr. Janner: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that in the meantime our courts remain like the Waldorf hotel—open to all; that is, all who can obtain legal aid or who do not need it? Does he agree that that means that the majority of people in Britain do not receive the help that they need and that justice is, therefore, not available to them in our courts?
    The Attorney-General: The results of the increase will be to make entitlement to legal aid the same as it was in 1979, which means that it covers at least 70 per cent. of all households in Britain.
    Mr. Hill: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many claims for legal aid are fruitless? Does he agree that too much money is wasted on cases that cannot possibly be justified?
    The Attorney-General: As my hon. Friend knows, in each case a committee of experienced lawyers decides whether there is a reasonable case for granting legal aid.
    Mr. Archer: Does the Attorney-General recollect that when the outgoing Government in 1974 restored legal aid limits to the equivalent of what they were in 1950, both parties agreed that the limit would be uprated annually to stay abreast of increases in supplementary benefit? Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman noted the anxiety expressed in the Law Society's legal aid report for 1981 that that level has not been maintained? Am I correct in thinking that the levels will be restored in due course? Since the whole question of legal services has not been debated since the Royal Commission reported in 1979, will the Attorney-General try to persuade his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to provide time for a debate?
    The Attorney-General: The increase restores the level to where it was in 1979 to cover at least 70 per cent. of all households. I shall pass on to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House the right hon. and learned Gentleman's request for a debate.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The next question is on the same lines.
    Mr. Meacherasked the Attorney-General if he will revise the criteria of eligibility for legal aid under the legal aid fund.
    The Attorney-General: There are no immediate plans to revise the criteria. On 1 April next the financial qualifications governing eligibility for legal aid and advice and assistance will be improved by approximately 9 per cent.
    Mr. Meacher: Is it not an outrage that Shell and BP have just been awarded £33,000 from the legal aid fund—that is, from the taxpayer—in costs in the recent case over lead levels in petrol? Is that not the grossest abuse of legal aid, since under that system costs are awarded only if an unassisted party would suffer severe financial hardship without them? Will the Attorney-General take steps to block the payment and to ensure that such abuse does not occur again?
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman speaks of a matter about which I have no personal knowledge. If he writes to me I shall look into the matter.
    Mr. Dover: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many defendants decide to have their cases heard in the Crown court on the advice of their solicitors? Is he aware that that increases the fee to the solicitor and therefore reduces the amount of legal aid that can be offered to others?
    The Attorney-General: There is always a risk that an accused might not want to go for trial, but, for the wrong reasons, those appearing for him decide to go to the Crown court. It is difficult to pin that down, and I do not think that it happens often.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: How can the Attorney-General maintain that the resources are not available for increasing the eligibility for legal aid when he colludes with an agreement which ensures that the public pay the costs of the abortive action by Mrs. Whitehouse in relation

    685
    to the National Theatre presentation? Is that not an unnecessary infringement on the money available for legal aid?
    The Attorney-General: The only costs being paid out of public funds are not the prosecution costs of Mrs. Whitehouse, but the defence costs. That was a decision for the trial judge.

    Lough Foyle
    Sir John Biggs-Davisonasked the Attorney-General whether, having regard to the opinion of the Attorney-General of the Republic of Ireland regarding the territorial waters in Lough Foyle, he will set out Her Majesty's Government's policies on the sovereignty over these waters.
    The Attorney-General: The Government's position is that Lough Foyle falls within the United Kingdom. The Government of the Republic of Ireland dispute our claim.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is it not essential to maintain British sovereignty over Lough Foyle? Since it is disputed by another power, will the Government heed the suggestion of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) that the port's pilot station be moved from Moville in the Republic to Port Magilligan in the United Kingdom, because its present location creates more doubt and further endangers shipping—two British ships having been sunk?
    The Attorney-General: The moving of the pilot station must be a matter for Departments other than mine, and for the Londonderry Harbour Commission.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Do the Government intend to take any steps to resolve the dispute?
    The Attorney-General: It is maintained by the United Kingdom Government that the present position is in accordance with international law, and so far as I know that remains so.

    Judges (Retirement Age)
    Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Attorney-General whether the Lord Chancellor will review the retirement age for judges.
    The Attorney-General: No, Sir.
    Mr. Price: Does the Attorney-General agree that it is in the public interest that justice be administered by those in reasonable touch with the man on the Clapham omnibus? Does he agree that when legal nonsenses occur they can often be traced to lack of such contact, as in not only the London Transport case, but of "The Romans in Britain" case, when he refused his fiat under one law so that the case was admitted to the courts by a peculiarly elderly magistrate and he had to enter his nolle prosequi to sort the matter out? Is that not unsatisfactory?
    The Attorney-General: It would be unfair to criticise the magistrate who heard the committal proceedings, because the ruling of the trial judge upheld that magistrate's decision. One was in an impossible position, following a decision by the private prosecution. Having obtained a ruling from the judge that there was a case to go to the jury, the private prosecution decided not to go to the jury. In spite of the position, I had to enter nolle prosequi. That was entered with the express agreement of the accused. In spite of press comments earlier in the week, he agreed to that course. It was the only way out of the problem.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Is it not the case that those judges and magistrates who are not subject to an official compulsory retiring age are every bit as good as those who are?
    The Attorney-General: I think that there are only three remaining who are not subject to that--one in Scotland and two in England. I have never heard anything but praise for their judicial ability.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Dubsasked the Attorney-General if he will take steps to improve the arrangements for access to legal aid and representation by persons under 21 years who are defendants at juvenile or magistrates' courts.
    The Attorney-General: I am not aware of any significant defects in the current arrangements, but if the hon. Member knows of any particular aspects of this question which trouble him and will write to me, I will see that he receives a considered reply.
    Mr. Dubs: I thank the Attorney-General for his offer to deal with any matter by letter. Is he not dissatisfied with the large number of young people who appear before the courts on criminal charges, without legal representation? Is that not tantamount to denying those people elementary justice?
    The Attorney-General: If it is a serious offence, or an offence in which there might be a custodial sentence, legal aid is almost always granted. It is of interest that in the Legal Aid Bill before another place, the Lord Chancellor has indicated his support for the duty solicitor scheme. Provision is being made in that Bill for it to be extended. That will be a great help in the sort of case that the hon. Gentleman is thinking of.
    Mr. Anderson: How seriously does the Attorney-General view the considerable variation between magistrates' courts in the granting of legal aid?
    The Attorney-General: That matter has exercised my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. The evidence at the moment is pretty scanty and he will undertake a survey which I hope will be reporting in the autumn on that subject.

BILL PRESENTED
  RIGHT OF REPLY IN THE MEDIA (No. 2):
  Mr. Frank Allaun, supported by Mr. Alexander W. Lyon, Mr. Phillip Whitehead, Mr. Arthur Davidson, Mr. John Tilley, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Laurie Pavitt, Mr. Robert Edwards, Mr. David Watkins, Mr. Dennis Canavan and Miss Jo Richardson, presented a Bill to give members of the public the right to reply to allegations made against them or misreporting or misrepresentation concerning them in the press or on radio or television; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed [Bill 92].

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1982 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

  NORTHERN IRELAND COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That the matter of the proposal for a draft Industrial Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, and in particular plans to set up an Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland, being a matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Committee.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Orders of the Day

  Mental Health (Amendment) Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read
  3.31 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): I beg to move, that the Bill be now read a Second time.
  In introducing the Second Reading of the Mental Health Bill in January 1959 the Minister of Health, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), who is in his place this afternoon, said that, in place of the then legislation on mental health
  "we propose to put a new pattern—comprehensive, simpler to understand and apply, and in line with contemporary thinking and medical and social advance".—[Official Report, 26 January 1959; Vol. 598, c. 704.]
  It is generally agreed that the 1959 Act was a landmark in the care of the mentally disordered.
  The approach of the 1959 Act reflected the principle that patients suffering from mental disorders should generally be regarded in the same way as the physically ill, without the need for isolation or certification. For the majority of patients, admission to hospital was to be without any formal procedure, and that has been the pattern ever since. The latest figures show that there are about 200,000 admissions to hospitals each year. Of these, 180,000 are informal admissions. These patients are on a par with the physically ill and have the same rights.
  It was also acknowledged in the 1959 legislation that some mentally disordered patients present problems which have no parallel among the physically ill. Because of his mental condition, the patient's behaviour in some serious cases can constitute a danger to other people or to himself. He may have little appreciation of the nature of his mental disturbance and his judgment may be grossly disturbed. For such patients compulsory powers may be necessary, and these were defined by the 1959 Act.
  The Bill does not seek in any way to overturn the principles of the 1959 Act. It seeks to build on them and to take account of the developments that have occurred since 1959. The Bill concerns the small number of patients—some 19,000 admissions a year out of 200,000—who have to be detained or made subject to special conditions by way of guardianship. In other words, detention in hospital becomes necessary where a patient needs care and treatment for his mental disorder for his own health or safety or the protection of others and when he is unwilling or unable to enter or stay in hospital voluntarily.
  Although the numbers of people involved are small, the issues raised are, I believe, of great importance. I say that for three main reasons. First, detained patients are deprived of their liberty. Therefore, it is important that detention should be imposed only where it is essential, that there should be proper rights of appeal, and that detention for treatment should be ended as soon as the need for it has passed. Secondly, detained patients are particularly vulnerable, because of their confused or disturbed mental state. Therefore, it is important that their care and treatment should be subject to safeguards. Thirdly, it is also important that society should be protected from the sometimes dangerous activities of a small minority of the

  689
  mentally disordered; indeed, without this the progress made in improving services for, and general attitudes to, mental health could be severely jeopardised.
  I believe that the way society cares for the mentally disordered is an important indication of the general concern of that society. I readily acknowledge all the work that has gone into the preparation of the Bill. After considerable consultation, the Labour Government published in 1978 a White Paper setting out their views, and many of those proposals are now in the Bill. The Bill also takes account of further discussion and developments since then—for example, the proposal for a Mental Health Act Commission is new and owes much to a proposal made by Sir John Boynton's report on Rampton hospital. We have also taken the opportunity to incorporate some of the proposals made by the Committee on mentally abnormal offenders, chaired by Lord Butler, who made a great contribution in this area, as he did in so many others.
  I emphasise that this is in no conceivable way an issue of party politics. The changes to the Bill already introduced by the Government in another place are, I hope, evidence of our willingness to consider improvements that are practicable. I hope that the fact that the Bill will be subject to the Special Standing Committee procedure is further evidence of that willingness. We have few opportunities of mental health legislation and we should endeavour to get that legislation right.
  The Bill is about the rights and interests of the public, the patients and the staff who care for those patients. The safety of the public is of obvious concern, and we shall do everything possible to preserve that. Equally, it is important that we provide safeguards for those detained patients and the Bill does that by, for example, halving the time before a patient's detention in hospital has to be reviewed, giving increased access for patients to mental health review tribunals, and by setting up the new Mental Health Act Commission.
  At the same time, the Bill seeks to clarify the position of staff and removes uncertainties in the law. It is, of course, basic that the success of all our plans depends on the skill and dedication of hospital staff, and I pay tribute to the high standards achieved in this often very difficult work.
  There is perhaps one further point which I suggest we always need to remember. Although the Bill is mainly concerned with detention, it is concerned not with custodial detention but with detention in a hospital for the purposes of treatment and care. For the majority of people who are compulsorily detained, the outcome of treatment will be release from detention with the mental disorder cured or greatly alleviated. For a minority, treatment may mean enabling them to live as full and satisfying a life as is possible, given the nature and severity of their mental disorder. But in either case, detention is for the purposes of treatment and care and is not an end in itself.
  Turning to the provisions of the Bill, it may be for the convenience of the House if I divide the Bill into four broad areas: first, the scope of the Bill; secondly, the arrangements for compulsory admission and continued detention and for guardianship; thirdly, the arrangements for appeal and for ending detention; and, fourthly, the arrangements for the treatment and well-being of patients while they are detained.
  As regards the scope of the Bill, it covers all forms of mental disorder, but changes have been made in the definitions to bring them up to date. A major change here
  690
  was made by the Government in another place. That was the removal of the term "mental handicap" from the Bill as introduced and its replacement by the term "mental impairment". The purpose of the change is to make it clear that for most mentally handicapped people the powers in the Act and the Bill have no relevance.
  It was put to us that one major reason for the confusion in the public mind of mental illness and mental handicap was that the two conditions were dealt with together in the Mental Health Act. The change acknowledges the fact that for the most part mental handicap, unlike most mental illness, is not susceptible to treatment. However, experience shows that a very small number of mentally handicapped people may be able to benefit from treatment and care, and may need to be detained so that it can be provided because of irresponsible or aggressive behaviour associated with their disorder, which puts at risk their own health or safety or that of others. The amended definition in clause 1 ensures that the needs of this special group are adequately covered.
  My second category was the arrangements for compulsory admission and continued detention and for guardianship. Part II and part III make a significant change in the conditions for admission and continued detention under the long-term powers. Together, these criteria for detention ensure that no one is detained or continues to be detained unless there is genuine need. In addition to the test of treatability—that is, that the patient is likely to benefit from treatment—the conditions are that the patient's mental disorder must be of a nature or degree which makes it appropriate for him to receive medical treatment in a hospital, that it is necessary for the health or safety of the patient or for the protection of other persons that he should receive such treatment, and that it cannot be provided unless he is detained.
  Clause 3 amends the procedure for emergency admission under section 29 of the 1959 Act. The power of emergency admission is used more than any other admission power. In 1979 nearly 8,400 patients were admitted under this power. That was greater than the number admitted under any of the other powers. That was never intended, and the Bill shortens the time limits between examination and admission from three days to 24 hours, to help ensure that the power is used only in cases of genuine emergency. The clause also restricts the right to make an application to the nearest relative, rather than to any relative, or to a mental welfare officer.
  Clause 6 concerns applications to detain patients already in any hospital. The need to do so may arise where a patient already receiving treatment for mental disorder wishes to leave hospital against his own best interests and cannot be persuaded to stay. The Act provides that if this arises the patient may be detained for up to 72 hours by the doctor in charge of his treatment. Clearly, that doctor cannot be available at all times to cope with emergencies. Therefore, clause 6 provides that another doctor may be nominated to exercise the power of detention.
  The Bill also gives nurses qualified in caring for the mentally disordered power to hold an informed patient for up to six hours or until the doctor arrives if, in their judgment, it is clearly not in the patient's interests to leave hospital. The power may be exercised only where the patient is already receiving treatment in hospital for mental disorder. It will make the nurse's legal position clear in an important matter which has hitherto been subject to some uncertainty.

  691
  There is also one change in clause 4 which affects almost all admission powers for non-offenders. Under the Act, the mental welfare officer—a social worker—has the important function of making an application for admission to hospital when the nearest relative does not do so. The Bill provides for the replacement of mental welfare officers by "approved social workers", who will have to be specially designated and trained in the care of mental disorder. Training and approval will be the responsibility of the local authorities, and they are now being consulted on this.
  We attach great importance to this new concept of "approval". It is not a once-and-for-all initiative. It will ensure that there is a steady supply of well-trained social workers to undertake these duties. This is of the utmost importance, because social workers play such a central role in admissions.
  Mr. Christopher Price: What extra resources will be available to local authorities to make sure that this is done?
  Mr. Fowler: We are still having consultations with the local authorities on that matter. In many cases the local authorities already have provision of this kind and therefore make provision already. Basically, the new resources which will be required will come mainly from those local authorities which are not at present making provision. We shall keep the matter under review. I do not think that at this stage I can go further than that.
  The third category is that of the arrangements for appeal and for the ending of detention. The Bill will make major improvements in access to mental health review tribunals. The tribunals are essential to the working of the Act. They are independent of the detaining authorities and of my Department. As the House knows, they are appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and they consist of a lawyer, a psychiatrist and a lay member. They provide patients with an independent review of the need for their continued detention. Hitherto, only those detained under longer-term powers have had access to the tribunals, but a new right of application is being introduced for patients detained under the 28-days power under which about 6,000 patients are admitted each year.
  In addition, the length of the periods of detention under the longer-term powers is being halved. That will mean that patients detained under those powers will have twice as many opportunities to apply to a tribunal. Moreover, there will be an automatic review by the tribunal for every detained patient who has not been seen by a tribunal in the previous three years. That will ensure that no one is forgotten.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: With regard to the access to a tribunal, surely the key question is whether people are to be able to be legally represented and whether they will have the resources for it. What is the Minister's attitude to granting legal aid to all those who wish to appear before a tribunal?
  Mr. Fowler: That is another question that we shall keep under review. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Lord Chancellor has power to introduce regulations on that matter, but we shall want to take account of the debates in Committee. We recognise that it is an important issue.
  692
  I cannot give a commitment at this stage, but we shall listen carefully to what is said in Committee, and also to the evidence that is given in the Special Standing Committee proceedings.
  I come now to another group of very important amendments moved by the Government in another place. They affect part III, on mentally disordered offenders. They are necessary to enable our law to take account of the recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. Restricted patients are to be able to apply direct to a mental health review tribunal for a review of their cases, and the tribunals are given the power to direct the discharge of restriced patients independently of the Home Secretary.
  All offender patients will, like other detained patients, have more frequent opportunities to have their cases considered by a tribunal. Clause 18 revises the criteria to be applied by the courts in making hospital orders, so that all offender patients will also be subject to the new "treatability" test that I described earlier.
  Clause 46 also spells out the duty of the hospital managers to give information to detained patients on the grounds for their detention, the ways in which they can be discharged and their rights of appeal. That again was a Government amendment in another place.
  Information on rights leads naturally to the fourth category of improvements made by the Bill—the arrangements for the treatment and well-being of patients while they are detained. Most of this relates to the work of the new special health authority, the Mental Health Act Commission, which the Bill proposes should be established to concentrate its attention on the needs of detained patients.
  The giving of treatment is clearly a central issue. It is the key to the whole concept of the legislation and, indeed, to the 1959 Act. It would be wrong to detain someone in hospital without providing treatment. Without treatment, hospitals for detained patients would become prisons under another name. Staff would be frustrated that they had patients whom they were capable of treating but were not empowered to treat; and some patients, unwilling to agree to treatment which they needed to uncloud their minds, would deteriorate. It has therefore been accepted that in the case of detained mentally disordered patients there should be a right to impose treatment where necessary.
  The point was put very clearly in the report of the Royal Commission which led up to the 1959 Act, when it said:
  "Every effort should be made to persuade patients and their relatives to agree to care without compulsion. But if such efforts fail, doctors and others should not be too hesitant to use the compulsory powers which the law provides when this is the only way of giving the patient treatment or training which he badly needs, or when such powers are necessary for the protection of others."
  The Government continue to support that general view, but we believe that the time has now come to spell out in more detail the Circumstances in which treatment may be imposed on a detained patient and to provide new safeguards. In this way both staff and patients, or those who represent their interests, will be in no doubt about the legal position.
  Clause 41 therefore states, for the first time, the general principle that where a detained patient can understand the nature, purpose and likely effect of treatment, it should not be imposed on him except in the strictly defined circumstances set out in the Bill. There are basically three

  693
  separate sets of circumstances. Under the first, the responsible medical officer can treat a detained patient for his mental disorder without consent in emergencies as defined in the Bill. Secondly, general nursing and other general care can be provided without the patient's consent. Thirdly, treatments such as electro-convulsive therapy, medication, and surgical treatments including diagnostic procedures can be given without the patient's consent, with the agreement of an independent psychiatrist appointed by the multi-disciplinary Mental Health Act Commission.
  Even with these new safeguards there will be certain treatments that cannot be given unless the patient consents. These are the treatments which give rise to special concern—such as psychosurgery—and which are to be specified in regulations. Unless the patient gives his consent to these, and unless, furthermore, the second opinion by the independent psychiatrist is that the treatment should be given, these treatments cannot be given at all.
  The Bill therefore provides a carefully thought out scheme in which the safeguards are graduated according to the particular category of treatment. This inevitably produces a fairly complex clause, but one which the Government believe seeks to balance properly the various factors surrounding consent and the imposition of treatment. On this, as on other parts of the Bill, detailed guidance will, of course, be issued later.
  We also have the safeguard of the independent Mental Health Act Commission, which I regard as the single most important innovation in the Bill. The commission will, in a sense, carry on where Parliament leaves off. When Parliament has finished debating the Bill, the Mental Health Act Commission will take over the role of watchdog for detained patients.
  It has been argued that mental health review tribunals already do that job, but theirs is a quasi-judicial role. The interests of detained patients go much wider than judicial decisions about discharge. The powers of admission, renewal of detention and treatment are of equal concern. The review team under Sir John Boynton, which considered the management of Rampton hospital, suggested in its report a need for such a body to look after the wider interests of detained patients.
  The commission will be set up as a special health authority and will be a multi-disciplinary body of about 70 people, including lawyers, doctors, nurses, social workers, psychologists and lay members. It will operate from different centres and will have specific tasks within a clear-cut remit. It will be concerned only with mentally disordered patients who are compulsorily detained in hospital under the powers of the Act. It will visit hospitals where such patients are accommodated, talk with them and with the staff and examine records. It may also take up with hospital managers, and ultimately with me if necessary, any case where procedures for detention appear not to have been properly followed.
  Mr. Michael Meacher: I wish to ask the Secretary of State about the Mental Health Act Commission. Does he agree that there are two substantial weaknesses in the excellent proposal for the commission? First, the commission will not be able to deal with the 93 per cent. of patients who enter hospital informally. Secondly, while the commission is empowered to
  694
  investigate the complaints of detained patients, it has no powers to take any action if it finds that a person has been detained unlawfully.
  Mr. Fowler: I am coming to the first point that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I understand the argument that the commission's remit could be made wider. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's second point, the powers of the commission will be sufficient for its purposes, bearing in mind the other powers and the other bodies that exist. I shall continue my speech and seek to explain that point.
  The commission will be required, under clause 44, to prepare and keep up to date a code of practice for the guidance of those concerned in the admission of patients under the Act, and for the guidance of doctors and other professionals concerned in the medical treatment of detained patients. It may also, of course, prepare other specific reports on these matters as it wishes, or on any other matters which come within its remit. As well as looking after the interests of detained patients, therefore, the commission will be a source of invaluable advice on good practice in caring for these often severely disturbed patients. It will also provide a forum of experienced people in which the social, medical and ethical problems surrounding the care and treatment of detained patients may be debated.
  The commission will also have special duties in relation to consent to treatment. As I said, certain treatments which give rise to special concern must be given only with the patient's consent and with the agreement of a second, independent medical opinion. Those treatments will be listed in regulations, but it will not be possible to give precise legal definitions to all treatments giving rise to special concern and some will, therefore, be described in a code of practice. It will be the commission's job to do this as part of the code of practice on medical treatment.
  The commission will also appoint the independent doctors to give second opinions. Some might be psychiatrist members of the commission. Thus, the commission will monitor directly the arrangements for obtaining consent to treatment. Moreover, the doctors giving second opinions will discuss the issues which arise with the other, non-medical members of the comission. In short, the commission will function in these matters as a multi-disciplinary body taking a wide and informed view of all the issues.
  It is important that we should have a body like the commission which can focus its attention on the special needs and position of detained patients, and can where necessary bring those needs to our attention through its reports and in other ways. As I have said, we are not giving the commission a wider remit in the field of mental health, because that would overlap with those of other bodies and prevent it from giving undivided attention to this special group. But I am sure that the influence of the commission will over the years have a general influence for good in the wider field as well.
  The Government are deeply committed to the Bill and we shall listen to all suggestions and representations. It is important that we should give as much consideration to mental health as to physical health. It is also important that we should continue to push forward with the work that was at the heart of the 1959 Act—that those suffering from mental disorder of whatever kind should not be seen as isolated and different, but should have their disability accepted as on a par with the other disabilities of life.

  695
  Much of this means looking at mental health in the context of the general health and social services of the country and of bringing the mentally disordered fully into our community life.
  Much progress has been made and I am determined that we should make further headway as fast as we can. In the Bill we are undeniably concerned with only a small number of people and a particular group of patients in the wider mental health field, but fuller recognition of their rights and of the care that society owes them, and of the rights of staff who provide this care for them, is important both in itself and as a mark of our concern for mental health. I commend the Bill to the House.

  Royal Assent
  Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

  1. Consolidated Fund Act 1982

  2. County of Avon Act 1982

  3. London Transport Act 1982.

  Mental Health (Amendment) Bill [Lords]
  Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  4.3 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Secretary of State said that it was tremendously important to draw a clear distinction between the different categories of patients when discussing legislation that affected the mentally ill and disordered. I welcome the Bill because, as the right hon. Gentleman said, we do not often have an opportunity to discuss legislation on this important subject. That is partly the result of the effeciency of the 1959 Act, which operated extremely well for about 20 years.
  It is right to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), who not only instigated an interdepartmental working party to discuss the necessary changes in mental health legislation, but took great care to consult all the interested parties. In addition, he produced a White Paper and took account of the representations that were made to him. He had intended to prepare legislation similar to that before us today.
  At that point the similarity ceases. Aspects of the Bill and of the Secretary of State's speech express an attitude that is radically different from that which a Labour Government would adopt. At no point did the right hon. Gentleman touch on the basic and important question of resources. Any discussion of amending mental health legislation inevitably involves the effects that that will have on those who will operate it and on those who will benefit from the changes in the law. However, I welcome the changes in definition. It is important that Parliament should give a lead to those who, unfortunately, tend to regard mental illness as an overall enveloping term, which takes account of all those who suffer from any form of mental disorder. After all, the Bill covers only a tiny percentage of patients.
  It is impossible to exclude from the effect of the legislation those who may be mentally handicapped but who have aggressive behavioural problems, but I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would find time to mention the consolidation measure that I understand he intends to introduce. I hope that in Committee the right hon. Gentleman will spell out the implications and extent of that consolidating measure.
  The Bill covers several areas of particular concern. Although several amendments have been made in the other place, there are still many omissions. We should like parts of the Bill to be clarified and other parts to be extended. I hope to speak briefly on some of the points of particular concern, as we shall move relevant amendments in Committee.
  It is vital that all the legislation should be tied to the test of treatability. The ability to respond to treatment is one of the most important aspects of the legislation. The care and treatment of detained patients must be our priorities. Although we welcome that aspect of the legislation, we should consider closely the nursing profession's role. Nurses are to be given wider powers, but the Secretary of State did not say that he would hold consultations with the various professional bodies to spell out the conditions

  697
  under which their new terms of service will operate. I should like the nursing profession to be given specific, written explanations of its legal responsibilities and safeguards and the nursing unions would welcome that.
  Hon. Members should recognise that even under the existing legislation difficulties may arise from time to time. The six-hour holding power sounds adequate and is a distinct improvement, because many nurses have been placed in a difficult situation. However, that power may not always he adequate. In our understafed mental hospitals, nurses may experience difficulty—particularly at weekends, or late at night—in gaining access to the independent members of the medical profession who will be required to implement the full effect of the legislation. Will the Minister consider introducing a break clause, which would allow a short time—perhaps as short as 30 minutes—in which the six-hour power could be renewed by the nursing profession? That would cope with the situation in which a patient is thought likely to be a danger to himself or to the community, but who, because of the extent of his mental illness, wishes to discharge himself. If ready support services are not available, that will put tremendous pressure on the profession.
  I hope, too, that close consideration will be given to the whole question of staffing. The nursing profession feels that, even in the Bill, there are provisions affecting people suffering from psychopathic diseases which perhaps should not be included. I hope that the Minister will spell out his attitude towards secure units, of which there are still far too few. Regional hospital authorities do not seem to be moving with the speed and efficiency that one would hope. Of course, it is largely a matter of resources. Indeed, one of my worries about the reorganisation of the Health Service was that in some instances it would be much more difficult for smaller district health authorities to generate the support that was needed for special services. Regional health authorities should be encouraged to move as fast as possible to create secure units.
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: Clearly there are financial constraints, but there are also the constraints of consultation with the communities in which those regional secure units will be located. They are often—as in my constituency—immensely concerned about the location of the units. There has to be a long and carefully planned process of explanantion about their operation so that the local community is carried along with the decision about their siting.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: If the hon. Member means explanation, agreement and co-operation, I agree with what he says. I hope that secure units will not be regarded as highly dangerous operations which local authorities or local groups of residents will regard as a disadvantage rather than an advantage. They are essential, and it would be wrong if we were to allow the public to believe that they would in some way endanger the people living near them.
  Mr. Charles Irving: Does the hon. Lady recollect that quite a large sum of money was made available for secure units, but, alas, that money was diverted elsewhere and not spent on those units? That was rather unfortunate.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I agree with the hon. Member that secure units should have been one of the priorities of regional health authorities. Now that the trauma of
  698
  reorganisation is over, I hope that those authorities will look at the matter urgently and try to get on with the building of suitable units.
  Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I know that she would like me to put the matter in context. There are plans in all but one of the regional health authorities for regional secure units, and we hope that, by 1985, 500 places will be available in regional secure units. That is the latest information. The hon. Lady may say that that does not go far enough, but in my view it is a considerable step forward.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I thank the Minister for that assurance. In view of the financing of the National Health Service, I very much doubt whether that timetable will be adhered to. If we get 500 places in such a short time., I shall be extremely happy.
  This legislation is not just about the staff in mental hospitals; it is in particular about the patients. The changes in the law in relation to applications to mental health tribunals are extremely welcome. The fact that it will be possible to appeal to the tribunals more often, and that in some cases there will even be a degree of automatic review, is greatly to be welcomed. However, I come back to a point which, in my view, is vital. If patients are to ask to have their cases taken before a tribunal, will the Minister now give an undertaking that they will be able to apply for legal aid? That is fundamental.
  There is clear evidence that the majority of cases that go before a tribunal are not represented. Ordinary people—people who do not have the burden of mental illness—are worried by the formal atmosphere of other tribunals. I have represented a number of my constituents at tribunal hearings of different kinds, and I know that those constituents were intimidated by the atmosphere, even when there was a specific attempt by the Church and the tribunals to create a more relaxed atmosphere. How much greater the problem will be for patients in these circumstances. In some cases where there was not proper representation, important papers were not available to the patients and they did not see the evidence that was to be given to the tribunals.
  It is a pity that the Minister did not see fit, in these changes, to give the tribunal greater flexibility in the application of its duties. It has the right to order further detention or further release. There will be occasions in the not-too-distant future when another form of treatment or recommendation will be better than a direct decision on detention. I am extremely sorry that that has not been included in the Bill.
  Then there is the matter of the Mental Health Act Commission. I welcome the idea of having a new group of outsiders capable of assessing what is happening to detained patients, although I think that the commission will have a great deal of work to do. It will have to visit quite a large number of special hospitals, and it will have quite a number of detailed cases to take up. The Minister did not make it clear at any point whether the commission would report to the House of Commons.
  Why should there not be an annual printed report of the work that has been done, and why should not that report be available in the way, for example, that the health Ombudsman's report is available to Members of Parliament? The information that is gathered by the commission and the detailed work that it does would be

  699
  best recorded in such a way that people other than health professionals and the Secretary of State would have access to it and thus learn from the information in the report. I hope that the Minister will look closely at the matter.
  I come now to a delicate area. When the Minister talked about treatment and choice, he said that when a patient refused treatment it was extremely difficult for that treatment to be imposed upon him without safeguards. We all agree, of course, that this is a delicate matter and not one to be changed without much consultation, but a suggestion was made by a group of psychiatrists connected with the Camberwell institute of psychiatry that because of the wording of clause 41 about medication—not about more radical treatments—the bizarre situation could arise whereby a patient admitted to hospital who was likely to become violent could not receive medication from his own doctor until a second doctor was found. That could cause real problems both for the staff and the patient. Considerable difficulties will be caused if it is not possible to give tranquillisers or to carry out such simple operations as blood tests when they are necessary.
  I understand the problems that the legislation creates, but the Minister has managed to do the unthinkable: he has upset organisations such as MIND, which does not want any provision in the legislation for any form of compulsory treatment, and he has not dealt with the practical problems of the medical profession when suddenly faced with the real problems under the existing wording. I hope that this matter can be examined closely in Committee.
  The Bill is an important step in the right direction—but it really is only a step. I wish to refer to the vital function of the social worker. Under the new legislation, a social worker, when dealing with this category of patient, will require a great deal of expertise and will need to have undergone a specific system of training. I hope that there will be consultation with the Department of Education and Science to ensure an overall national pattern in the standard of training for social workers. It would be wrong if the matter were left to independent local authorities and if, for some reason, there was not an agreed standard for social workers dealing with the mentally ill.
  It is essential that the Government face the question of resources. Local authorities are not even aware of how much money will be available to them to fund their existing social services departments. They are under tremendous attack. They are looking for ways of funding services that are already inadequate, in some instances, to deal with the number of patients in the community. If the Minister is not to commit a specific sum of money to help with the training of social workers to provide specific services in relation to the Bill, he will be failing in his duty. Some local authorities, even now, do not provide 24-hour emergency social services cover. In the sort of case covered by the Bill the situation will be virtually impossible for those wanting access to trained social workers unless a 24-hour cover is available within some local authorities.
  While there are good local authorities that are willing to undertake extra responsibilities and that seek to provide a high level of care for ratepayers, there are also local authorities which, given half a chance, will slide out of their responsibilities and will certainly fail to provide the sort of care that is inherent in the Bill. The Minister therefore has a special responsibility. He should say today
  700
  how the money will be provided for the training of social workers and whether there is to be an agreed standard. What efforts will be made, in the two-year period to which he refers, to monitor the creation of an efficient social worker force? What consultations will he hold with the social workers and with the multidisciplinary teams to ensure that a very high standard is achieved?
  Good social workers will make all the difference to the operation of the Bill. Without that kind of advantage, real problems will arise. I welcome the changes contained in the Bill. When talking about the detention of any human being, we must be careful, as a Parliament, to ensure that we pass only legislation that is in the interests of the individual. We have a special responsibility in relation to the mentally ill, and certainly to those who are detained for their own safety and for whom the very best treatment should be made available. Many problems still exist in relation to the Bill. The Opposition will wish to ask many questions in Committee. On balance, however, it is a measure that we should welcome. I am glad to join other hon. Members in so doing.
  4.24 pm
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the terms in which the Minister presented the Bill. I agree with many of the observations of the hon. Member for Crew (Mrs. Dunwoody) speaking from the Opposition Front Bench.
  I wish, in the first instance, to pay tribute to my illustious predecessor, the Rev. Robert Bradford, who took a keen interest in mental health and sought to improve the welfare of those who so suffered or were mentally handicapped. This was typical of a man who cared for people and toiled indefatigably for his constituents, in particular, and for the nation at large. Even those who may not have shared his convictions or dreamed his dreams had to admit his integrity, and admire his courage and consistency in furthering the cause to which he was committed and the manifestation of Christian love that he displayed to those with whom he would otherwise have been at variance. He died, mowed down by terrorists, in the service of the country and of his constituents.
  Ministers of the Crown and others sometimes speak of mindless terrorism. In so doing, they reveal their ignorance or grasp of the situation. In this debate on the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill, I wish to correct such a false opinion. There is a mind directing terror. In Ulster, this is the work of a small number of dedicated murderers seeking to impose their rule on an overwhelming majority who, like Robert Bradford, refused to be bombed or bullied, cowed or cajoled, into a country with whose fundamental position they disagreed. Sometimes, as politicians seek to internationalise the conflict, we, in Ulster, recognise that extra-national forces have been at work, ranging from Eastern bloc countries, through Palestinian terrorists to Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all. Yes, even "the man from Uncle" appears to be meddling. Robert Bradford's people, however, consistently refused to be defeated and returned me to carry on his work.
  I also rise to speak because the Bill is of concern to my constituents. The changes suggested and the overall Act will have import in Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. Within the constituency, we have a very fine hospital in this sphere, and offices of various bodies associated with mental health are also found there. A number of constituents have shown great concern in the

  701
  matter. Some have provided valuable evidence, even if not fully heeded, to the Northern Ireland review committee on mental health legislation. In this context, I offer the comment that a better balance of lay participation in such bodies, rather than merely following the professionals, who may have peculiar axes to grind, could lead to a more healthy report.
  Nevertheless, reverting to participation in this debate on a national Bill, I believe that we can share some of our experience so that the new Act might be improved and Great Britain learn from our experience. We shall consequently benefit, along with the whole kingdom.
  It is my privilege to represent some of the finest people in the nation. Belfast, South has an excellent record with such distinguished servants to this House as Connolly Gage and Rafton Pounder, to name but two.
  There are areas of great need, dismal housing and bad social conditions in Belfast, South. There are also estates with modern housing and contented people looking after their neighbourhood. Faced, like other areas, with too much unemployment, it is good to see the city leading in the provision of leisure centres and some beautiful parks and recreational areas. However, the river Lagan, which flows through it, is a source of pollution. A massive effort, co-ordinated by the Government, is needed to ensure that it is clean and can be used as a helpful amenity. Some steps have already been taken, but much more needs to be done.
  Furthermore, Belfast, South influences not only Northern Ireland but the world at large by the outstanding work carried on in Queen's university and Stranmillis training college. I trust that that work will not be impaired by the present education cuts.
  This is not the time for a detailed discussion of the Bill. However, in welcoming it and paying tribute to the work of the noble Lords and the draftsmen who have brought it this far, I would express some disquiet. Section 141 of the principle Act is similar to section III of the Northern Ireland Act, the outworking of which has given rise to concern.
  I pay tribute to the outstanding improvement in the care both of the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped. I admit that in most cases patients are adequately cared for by staff who do a magnificent job in difficult circumstances. I also acknowledge that there are cases of extreme difficulty in dealing with some patients who refuse to be treated.
  Nevertheless, a basic task of the House is to frame legislation that protects citizens and safeguards their liberties. The Northern Ireland Act tried to do that, as the Bill now tries to do, but it still tends to protect the profession rather than the patient. The rights of the relatives have been subsumed by the tribunal. Even the phrase "as soon as practicable" in section 45 has, in our experience, been interpreted broadly. Patients have not been informed of their rights when they should have been. In one case "as soon as practicable" meant six months. In some cases the nearest relative was not informed. In the Bill, social workers can, on the spot, overrule the wishes of the nearest relative.
  If various local authorities might differ, as the hon. Member for Crewe argued, so may social workers, some of whom are good and some bad. These cases are not of simple human error, but rather of definite decisions where attempted cover-ups were performed, as some hon. Members can confirm. That relates not to one hospital, but to several, and I suspect that it is found also in Great
  702
  Britain. Even the management committee, which is responsible for protecting and informing the patients, was unaware of the position. In one case a distinguished public-spirited member resigned from a management committee when he discovered the facts.
  Although the Secretary of State referred to the distinction between mentally handicapped and mentally ill, to my mind it is better that they continue to be served by separate bodies caring for them. The continued ambiguity over detaining for assessment arid the formalising of treatment requires further study.
  For these and other reasons, I hope that the Bill will be given careful scrutiny and improved before it passes through the House.
  4.33 pm
  Sir Derek Walker-Smith: It is with a keen sense of pleasure and privilege that I express my congratulations and those of the House to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) on his maiden speech. He sits in the House in the place of the late Rev. Robert Bradford, to whom he paid a fitting and deserved tribute. He was a much-loved Member whose loss we mourn and whose memory we cherish. I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman's reference to Connolly Gage, who was for many years my dear and valued friend.
  I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman chose to make his maiden speech on the important, challenging and immensely human subject of mental health. His speech was distinguished by its perspicacity of thought and its felicity of phrase. We look forward with confident pleasure to hearing him on many occasions in the future.
  The House is engaged in discussing amendments to the Mental Health Act 1959, which came of age on 29 July 1980. July 1959 is a long time ago. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who opened the debate with a characteristically thoughtful and interesting speech., was a 20-year-old lad of promise, not even entitled to parliamentary suffrage, when on 26 January 1959 moved the Second Reading of what is now the Mental Health Act in a speech from which he has been good enough to quote today. Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis.
  The Act has weathered well. It was a mammoth measure, with 146 clauses and 8 schedules on its introduction in January 1959, growing to 154 sections on its final enactment in July. It was subjected to detailed and important consideration in Standing Committee and on Report, at the end of which Dr. Edith Summerskill, as Opposition principal spokesman—perhaps I should say in the contemporary idiom "spokesperson"—whom I hold in affectionate remembrance, was able to start her speech on Third Reading by saying that it was an occasion for mutual congratulation. Certainly no Minister could have hoped to have better guidance or a more agreeable ecumenical atmosphere than obtained in the proceedings on that Bill.
  A notable contributor to the Standing Committee was the formidable but very nice and dedicated Bessie Braddock, who was a member of the Royal Commission to whose consideration and recommendations the Bill owed so much. Bessie was good enough to say on Third Reading that the Act would be known as the Walker-Smith Act. It never has been so known. Perhaps the fashion for personalising statutes has passed, or perhaps it is because the rather slender armoury of my political equipment has never included a taste or capacity for personal public relations.

  703
  The Act has justified the high hopes entertained for it. After 23 years there is no question of repealing it, no question of having to repeat the action required and undertaken in 1959 and no need now for the clean sweep undertaken when it was necessary to make a holocaust of the existing law—The Times called it the jungle of mental health law—and substitute a single contemporary design.
  On the contrary, Lord Elton told another place on 1 December 1981—as he was the Minister in charge I am entitled to quote him verbatim—that
  "The Mental Health Act 1959 was a landmark in the development of care for the mentally disordered. It established many important principles … I doubt whether anyone would challenge those principles today; this Bill seeks to amend the 1959 Act but it does not challenge those principles. On the contrary, it seeks to ensure that they are more perfectly implemented."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 December 1981; Vol. 435, c. 933.]
  My right hon. Friend today reiterated that asseveration in regard to the maintenance of the principles of the Act.
  It is against that background, within those parameters, and with the benifit of two decades of experience of the workings of the Act—basically a satisfactory experience—that the amendments have been devised. Although the case for some is clearer than others, taken as a package the Bill is surely to be welcomed.
  Therefore, I shall make some comments on the important amendments in part II of the Bill, which relate to part IV of the Act dealing with compulsory admission, and to part I of the Bill which deals with the definition and classification of mental disorder and the sorts thereof as set out in section 4 of the Act.
  I shall deal also with the provisions relating to mental health review tribunals and the proposed Mental Health Act Commission, and make a brief reference to the controversy on clause 41, to which the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred.
  I do not, however, propose to deal with part III, which relates to "Mentally Disordered Offenders". I do so not solely for economy of time and certainly not out of lack of appreciation of its importance. Part V of the 1959 Act was a Home Office product and responsibility for its conduct was then in the capable hands of my distinguished noble Friend Lord Renton, whose contribution has already been made, with customary clarity and authority, in another place.
  My noble Friend Lord Renton recalled the dichotomy of responsibility and presentation of the 1959 Act and recorded the view that part III of the Bill improves the criminal justice provisions of part V of the 1959 Act in various useful although relatively minor ways. Mention of my noble Friend brings me to a matter of considerable controversy which has commanded much attention and debate both in another place and outside, which is whether mental handicap should properly be dealt with in the same measure as mental illness. Lord Elton said:
  "I am aware of a body of opinion forcefully held by distinguished people that mentally handicapped people ought not ever to have been included in the principal Act and that one purpose of this Bill should be not to change the nomenclature but to take them out of the Act altogether."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 December 1981; Vol. 425, c. 935.]
  Like Lord Elton, I have great respect for the views of Lord Renton, who is the distinguished and active chairman
  704
  of the National Society for the Mentally Handicapped, of which I am only a very undistinguished and non-executive vice-president.
  Of course, there is much force in the argument for separation. Lord Renton said that he would be content to see the dichotomy that he recognises dealt with by separate parts within one measure rather than the more sweeping proposal of two separate Acts. I am sure that the Minister and his advisers will give careful thought to that and to what has been said about it. There were substantial reasons in 1959 for including both handicap and illness in the same measure.
  First, both were the subject of expert consideration by the Royal Commission whose conclusions on both were incorporated in one report on "The Law relating to Mental Illness and Mental Deficiency". Secondly, and even more important, it was necessary to make the definition of mental disorder all-embracing to secure appropriate entitlement to care and treatment available under the National Heath Service. That purpose was attained by enacting in the seventh schedule to the Mental Health Act 1959 an amendment to section 79 of the Mental Health Act 1946 by substituting in the definition of illness a reference to
  "mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act, 1959."
  That replaced the previous reference to mental illness simpliciter, a narrower term which would not have included mental handicap and would therefore have excluded the mentally handicapped from the provisions of the 1946 Act. There was, therefore, good practical reason for including both. mental illness and mental handicap in the single definition of mental disorder which in turn was the passport to NHS facilities. Of course, I do not suggest that that practical consideration is necessarily conclusive against the argument for separation, only that it is an aspect to which my right hon. Friend and his advisers, in their sympathetic and informed consideration of the matter, may wish to have regard.
  I turn now to part II which amends part IV of the Act and deals with the important and sensitive topic of compulsory admission. Having regard to the sensitivity of the subject, the amendment is relatively modest after such a passage of time. The term "admission for observation" is sensibly renamed "admission for assessment" which is, indeed what it is.
  I imagine that the 28-day period for observation and assessment has proved its value over the years, but the addition to section 31 of the Act, through clause 3, which provides the right of application to the mental health review tribunals within the first 14 days, should do nothing to impair the usefulness of the provision while reinforcing the rights of the patient.
  The amendment of section 26 of the Act by clause 4 is also to be welcomed. In the context of admission for treatment in cases of mental handicap it substitutes the criterion of treatability for the more arbitrary criterion of age.
  My welcome to the revision in clauses 1 and 2 of the statutory definition of mental disorder contained in section 4 is less warm as I do not altogether understand their basis. No explanation was vouchsafed by Ministers when the Bill was introduced in the other place.
  The definition in the Act was good and was formulated on proper principles. The principles, as I explained at the time, were twofold. The first was to make the definition

  705
  of mental disorder wide and comprehensive. That was the proper approach for the reason that I have already given. It was a clarifying or entitling definition of those states or conditions by which, lawfully and appropriately, the care and treatment of the NHS can and should be administered. Secondly, and by contrast, we tried to draw narrowly and as precisely as possible, the definitions of the three categories of mental disorder, as those definitions form the basis of compulsory admission.
  As far as I am aware, those definitions have worked well. The amendment proposed in clause 1, the substitution of the terms "subnormality" and "severe subnormality" by "mental impairment" and "severe mental impairment" is cosmetic. If those terms are preferred I have no objection, but I cannot see that they alter much. However, it is the substance of the amendment of the existing statutory definitions of "subnormality" and "severe subnormality" about which I have doubt.
  The essence of the definition of subnormality in section 4 of the 1959 Act was arrested and incomplete development requiring or being susceptible to treatment or special care. The essence of the definition of severe subnormality was a degree of arrested or incomplete development as makes the patient incapable of leading an independent life. In neither definition was there reference to "abnormally aggressive" or "seriously irresponsible conduct". That was the ingredient of the definition of psychopathic disorder under section 4(4), and of that alone. This concept appears to have been extended into the definition of "mental impairment" and "severe mental impairment", so putting those unfortunate conditions of subnormality into the same category as psychopathic disorder. That is hardly the hallmark of an enlightened approach. Perhaps the Minister will address himself to that.
  I turn now to the mental health review tribunals and the proposed Mental Health Act Commission which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has described as the most important innovation in the Bill.
  The tribunals were introduced in 1959 as an entirely new safeguard for the citizen, providing an independent forum for those wishing to challenge the necessity of compulsory admission. The tribunals have worked well, and though part V is entitled "Mental Health Review Tribunals", there is no substantial amendment of their procedure, and there is an extension of their jurisdiction. No doubt consideration will be given to the argument already forcefully made from the Opposition Benches of the possibility of extending legal aid to tribunal cases.
  The commission to be set up by the Secretary of State is to be given powers to perform the functions specified in clause 44 (1) and (2). I favour the visiting and interviewing of detained patients and the investigation of their complaints. However, I should like to be assured that before deciding on the creation of this new, large and presumably expensive body my right hon. Friend has satisfied himself that the performance of these tasks cannot be undertaken within existing machinery. The commission will be what is sometimes called a quango. I am able, in the Churchillian phrase in another context, without difficulty to restrain my enthusiasm within the bounds of decorum. The onus of showing the necessity for any quango must clearly lie on the person seeking to set it up. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to show beyond peradventure that the onus is discharged in this instance.
  706
  The hon. Member for Crewe addressed herself to the provisions of clause 41 on detained patients and on making the consent of the patient a condition of specified forms of treatment. I am sure that it is a well intentioned provision but it has incurred criticsm from those charged with the exacting and responsible duties of caring for these unfortunate people. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the terms of the letter that appeared in The Times on 4 March from Professor John Gunn and other eminent psychiatrists working at the Institute of Psychiatry. The letter spelled out the difficulties and disadvantages apprehended in this provision in that doctors will lose control of the treatment of their sickest patients. I do not have the personal expertise to pronounce on these matters, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend and his advisers will accord to the views expressed the weight and importance that their authorship dictates. No doubt these views will be considered in the context that those legislating on mental health matters have always to seek to strike a delicate and sometimes difficult balance between provision for the liberty of the subject and safeguards for the protection of patients and the public alike.
  Comments on a Bill of this sort may sound more critical than the general attitude of the commentator because one necessarily tends to single out aspects that require closer clarification for consideration. One does not waste the time of the House by cataloguing the much more numerous matters with which one is in cordial and unqualified agreement. All in all, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his Bill and express to him and those associated with him my best wishes for the continued success of the good work in which they are engaged.
  4.54 pm
  Mr. David Ennals: It is a particular honour to be able to take up the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), but before I comment on his speech I shall refer to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), who made his maiden speech.
  We have all made our maiden speeches and I think that we all remember the sense of fear and trepidation when we first addressed the House. I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast, South. He spoke with confidence and compassion. He rightly paid the sort of tribute that I would want to make to his predecessor, the Rev. Robert Bradford, and referred to the tragedy that led to the House being deprived of his presence. However, the House is privileged to have as a new Member the hon. Member for Belfast, South.
  The Bill is of tremendous importance. Its title includes the words "mental health", but it is really concerned with mental ill health. Mental health and ill health affect us all. One in 10 of the population may expect at some stage in their lives to require psychiatric treatment. However, it is not likely that all of the one in 10 will come within the terms of the Bill.
  The Bill represents the culmination of seven years of intense and wide-ranging debate about the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1959, one of the most radical pieces of social legislation passed by the House during this century. It is an especial honour to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East, who moved

  707
  the Second Reading of the 1959 measure, which made a tremendous difference to the attitudes of mind, as well as the law, to problems of mental illness.
  The Act was a reflection of the belief that legal safeguards restricted opportunities for early medical treatment. "Insanity", which was the common word, became "mental illness". At the same time "asylums" became "mental hospitals". There is no doubt that the 1959 Act was born in an age of optimism about the treatment of mental illness. Despite the shortcomings—some of which are dealt with in the Bill—there can be little doubt that it has greatly benefited the mentally ill and, to a lesser extent, the mentally handicapped.
  The provision of treatment for the majority of the mentally ill on a voluntary basis has led to a far wider understanding of mental illness and mental handicap in our society than existed before. It is not inappropriate to comment on the voluntary organisations, especially MIND, which have done a great deal to enable people to understand and become associated with helping those who have suffered from mental illness. I make these comments with some knowledge, because for four years I was the director of MIND. Much of the unfair stigma attached to mental illness or mental handicap has gone.
  From the mid-1960s there was a growing feeling that in the optimism of the 1950s we had perhaps jettisoned too many safeguards of the rights of the mentally impaired. It was felt that the 1959 Act did not deal with that and other crucial issues. The debate intensified with the publication in 1975 of the report of Lord Butler's committee on mentally abnormal offenders and of MIND's document entitled "A Human Condition".
  Almost immediately after the publication of those documents I became the Secretary of State for Social Services. It was under my aegis that the 1976 consultative document "A review of the Mental Health Act 1959" was published. It led, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, to a great deal of further consultation with all the organisations concerned. It led to the 1979 White Paper, Cmnd. 7320, which I have discovered from the Vote Office is out of print. I hope that someone will get it back into print before we consider the Bill in Committee, because I think that we shall want to consider some of the proposals in it.
  When I was Secretary of State, I took a close interest in mental health. I feel a certain sense of paternity for the Bill. Perhaps I had better try to be a godfather rather than a parent. I had hoped that I would move the Second Reading of a Bill of this sort. However, there are many changes in this political world.
  I welcome the Government's stated intention that the Bill should be a non-party issue. I am pleased to note the flexibility and readiness to compromise that was shown during the helpful debates in another place. The Bill was undoubtedly strengthened there. I welcome the Government's decision that the new Committee to examine it should be able to call witnesses. That is an appropriate way to deal with a Bill of this sort. It has many difficult technical aspects that we wish to explore.
  Many improvements were made in the other place, on such issues as the responsibility of hospital managers to inform detained patients of their legal rights, removal from the Home Secretary of his exclusive power to discharge
  708
  restricted patients and the transfer of it to mental health review tribunals following the European court's judgment, consent to treatment, and the removal, in effect, of mental handicap from the Bill and its replacement by a much smaller catgory of patients defined as "mentally impaired".
  I welcome the inclusion of so many of the 1978 White Paper proposals, especially the exclusion of alcoholism, drug dependency and sexual deviancy from the definition of mental disorders. Secondly, I welcome the inclusion of almost all of the White Paper proposals concerning compulsory admission to hospital and guardianship, particularly the tightening up of section 29 admission requirements—the short detaining power—the extension of section 25, the 28-day power, to cover assessment and treatment, and the inclusion of a six-hour holding power for nurses under section 30. That is essential, and I know that nurses and those who represent them will welcome that greatly.
  I am disappointed that the White Paper proposal to allow for removal to a place of assessment rather than to hospital only under section 29 has not been implemented, but no doubt that can be reconsidered in Committee.
  Thirdly, I welcome the removal of age limits for the detention of psychopaths and the mentally handicapped and the replacement of that provision by a requirement that the patient is likely to benefit from treatment. That point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe.
  Fourthly, I welcome the halving of the initial detention periods under sections 26 and 60 to six months and the doubling of the opportunities for patients to apply to a mental health review tribunal to be discharged. Fifthly, on the question of abnormal offenders, I am delighted that the Government have seen fit to follow the White Paper proposals that section 65 restriction orders should be imposed only to protect the public from serious harm, and that restrictions under section 74 should cease to apply at the prisoner's earliest date of release from imprisonment and if he requires further treatment he should be detained under section 26.
  I am also pleased to note that the Bill incorporates many of the recommendations in the consultative document
  "Remands to Hospital and Interim Hospital Orders",
  which extends the court's powers to remand offenders to hospital for varying periods.
  Although the Bill is welcome and was improved by consideration in another place, it has still—as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe said—left some problems unresolved. I shall mention four of them in the hope that we can explore them more fully in committee.
  My first point concerns the powers of mental health review tribunals. Many of the White Paper's proposals on the tribunals have been accepted, and of course I welcome that. However, it is essential that tribunals should be allowed to be more creative in their reactions to patients' applications. That can be effected in two ways. First, it can be done by the addition to each tribunal of a fourth member with specifically social work experience. That situation was different when the Mental Health Act 1959 was passed.
  Secondly, it can be done by extending the powers of tribunals. At the moment, tribunals may discharge a detained patient, refuse to discharge or delay discharge. Not only should there be a time limit on any delay, but, more importantly, tribunals should have the power to recommend a trial leave, transfer to another hospital—this

  709
  is particularly important in the case of special hospitals—or recommend that the applicant patient be subjected to a guardianship order under section 33 of the 1959 Act.
  My second point relates to legal aid. The House knows that, under the Mental Health Act 1974, a solicitor may obtain remuneration for advising and assisting a person on a matter of law. However, that was limited to advice and assistance and did not fund a solicitor to represent a person's case before a tribunal. In 1979 the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee recommended that mental health review tribunals should be given the highest priority and the extension of public funds to representation before a tribunal.
  It is extremely difficult for a patient, for many reasons, to advocate his own case—much more so than it is before other types of tribunal. For example, a detained patient suffers handicaps that applicants to other tribunals do not experience. Many patients are under the influence of psychotropic drugs, or major tranquillisers, to a degree that is often intellectually disabling. Others have been institutionalised for years, leading to excessive passivity. They have perhaps a certain unwillingness to challenge what is said by a doctor, as a result of long stays in hospital.
  Perhaps the greatest handicap to an unrepresented patient is that he is unlikely to know the evidence against him. The mental health review tribunal rules 1960 specifically allow a tribunal to withhold from a patient any part of the evidence before it which it would not be in the interests of his mental health to see. On similar grounds, a tribunal may exclude a patient from parts of the proceedings. These powers are frequently used by tribunals. If a patient is represented, the evidence is normally released to his representative, who is permitted to remain while the patient is excluded. Therefore, we Hmust realise that it is extremely important that every opportunity is given to patient—who is unlikely to have many resources—to be represented. Legal aid should be made available for that purpose.
  My third issue is that the Bill makes no provision for amendment or repeal of section 141 of the Mental Health Act 1959, which requires that a patient shall not bring any proceedings relating to any act done in pursuance of the Mental Health Act without leave of the High Court, which must be satisfied that there are substantial grounds for the contention that the person to be proceeded against has acted in had faith or without reasonable care.
  The 1978 White Paper recognised that that section was in need of amendment. First, we recommended that criminal actions should be removed from the scope of section 141 and made subject to the DPP's consent. Secondly, we recommended that the word "substantial" should be replaced by "reasonable". Thirdly, we recommended that it should be made clear that section 141 did not apply to informal patients—that was not always fully understood. That section first appeared in the Lunacy Act 1890 as a result of doctors threatening to go on certification strike unless they were given a measure of legal immunity. In effect, it differentiates between the mentally ill and handicapped and the rest of the population by reducing their rights to seek legal remedies against those who care for them under the Mental Health Act 1959.
  Doctors and nurses in mental hospitals have a difficult job. When I was Secretary of State, and since then, I have
  710
  many times paid tribute to the remarkable work that they do under difficult circumstances. Many of them regard protection against the constant threat of legal action as vital if they are effectively to care for their patients, so I am not in favour of the repeal of section 141, although if it were repealed I do not believe that there would be the anticipated flood of patient-initiated litigation. We must consider carefully any changes that may be made in the section. I am not happy with the present proposals in the Bill.
  The fourth and perhaps most important issue that I wish to raise is the question of consent to treatment, to which I have referred. In many respects clause 41 is the most controversial part of the Bill. I welcome the Government's stated intention to move amendments to provide for forms of treatment that are hazardous, irreversible—such as psychosurgery—or not fully established, to be administered only with the patient's consent. That is an important step forward. Confirmation by a multidisciplinary panel that the patient's consent is valid and confirmation by a doctor that the treatment should be given are also right, and they are important steps forward.
  The controversy centres on the imposition of treatment on a patient who is adjudged to be competent to understand the consequences of treatment but who, nevertheless, refuses consent. The approach in the Bill and that in my proposal on 1978 are very different. The Bill says that treatment can be imposed against the will of a competent patient by the responsible medical officer alone, or, for certain treatment, such as surgery and ECT, by the responsible medical officer and a second independent medical opinion. The 1978 White Paper proposed the imposition of treatment only where it was necessary to save life, to prevent violence or to prevent the further deterioration of a patient's mental condition.
  There are dangers in taking powers to impose treatment against the will of a patient, be he voluntary or otherwise. It is not enough just to require a second medical opinion. The 1978 White Paper proposed that a multidisciplinary panel should provide the second opinion. The basis of the recommendation was that questions of competence in the imposition of treatment against the will of a patient raised not only medical and scientific considerations, but wider social and ethical issues which require a lay commonsense judgment. I do not suggest that doctors do not have common-sense, but when caring for a patient who is resisting the proposed treatment, it is important for the doctor to capture his confidence. If treatment has to be imposed, it is more likely to achieve a higher degree of acceptability to the patient if it is imposed by a body that is not primarily medical.
  The suggestion of a multidisciplinary panel is resisted by the medical profession, although it has widespread support elsewhere. I respect the doctors' fears. A compromise is possible. If it is accepted that a competent patient should not have treatment imposed on him on the ordinary course of events, a two-tier system could be set up. A multidisciplinary panel could decide whether the patient was competent. If it was decided that he was not, the medical member could decide whether the patient should receive the treatment.
  A further compromise would be to allow the Mental Health Act Commission to provide second opinions or findings of competence, but not limited to medical

  711
  opinion. It could, for example adjust the number of the members that it nominated to consider each case to accord with the urgency and circumstances of the case.
  It has been argued that questions of consent to treatment are too important to be delegated to doctors alone. I agree. The Government have to some extent recognised that by their statement of intent to introduce amendments providing for a multidisciplinary panel to confirm consent in cases of treatment giving rise to special concern. The Government having been pushed in that direction, I hope that in Committee we can push them a little further down the road.
  Those are the four points that I wish to raise. I hope to put many other questions to the Minister in Committee. I have yet to be convinced that the new quango—the Mental Health Act Commission—will serve the purpose in the Minister's mind. There is much ambiguity in the Bill about its purposes and method of work. I do not doubt the sincerity of the Government's intention, but we wish to probe the matter further in Committee. If the commission is to secure the confidence of patients and the public, its powers and its accountability or independence must be clarified. They are far from clear in the proposals in the Bill.
  All those issues can be raised in Committee. At this stage I wish to support a Bill that does much to carry into legislation generally accepted proposals. I was responsible for the 1978 White Paper, and I believe that the Bill does much to carry forward the proposals that formed the basis of our consultations then.
  5.16 pm
  Mr. Charles Irving: There are few occasions when there is so much common ground on both sides of the House in welcoming a Bill that involves so much above party politics in the care and compassionate treatment of one's fellow citizens.
  The Secretary of State and his colleagues and those who piloted the Bill through the other place should be highly congratulated on the steps that they have taken so far. That does not mean—I am sure that the Secretary of State will forgive me if I say so at the beginning—that one can go along with everything in the Bill, but what is so pleasing and remarkable is that this is the first time since 1959 that we have had an opportunity to reflect on and bring up to date a Bill that was a tremedous step forward at the time. In the intervening years much has changed. The 1959 Act was passed at a time when there was far less recognition of the rights of patients and of the need for safeguards against compulsory admission and treatment.
  I join others who have paid considerable tribute to the great dedication and sacrifice of the staff who look after some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Yet we must never forget that it is Parliament's historic function to be vigilant in the face of misuse of authority, however infrequently it may occur. When the House grants discretionary authority, even for the most benevolent of reasons, it must always balance the exercise of that discretion with safeguards against its misuse.
  Reform of the Mental Health Act 1959 is long overdue. The Bill is a remarkable achievement for the Government. It is all the more remarkable because it enshrines rights for patients who are the most isolated in society, and there is little political gain in securing their interests. The
  712
  Government have shown enormous respect and concern for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped. The Government's efforts for the mentally handicapped in the publication "Care in the Community", together with their support for new voluntary movements, such as the Advocacy Alliance, and, most important, the Bill give the Government an unsurpassed record of concern for the mentally disordered.
  I remind the House with sadness that a major impetus for the Bill came from the late Lord Butler. Lord Butler was the president of MIND—the mental health charity—and chairman of the Butler committee on mentally abnormal offenders. He presided over the publication "A Human Condition"—a major report published in 1975 with proposals on the Mental Health Act. He gave personal support to the proposals in that report. I am happy to observe that approximately two-thirds of the proposals in the Bill seem to stem from that publication, and many more from the report of his committee on mentally abnormal offenders.
  The provisions in the Bill derived from those two influential reports include the doubling of mental health review tribunal hearings, automatic referrals to tribunals, increased power of tribunals, new "treatability" tests for compulsory admissions to hospital and much improved safeguards for patients transferred from prison. Those are great achievements, and they must be welcomed on both sides of the House.
  There are still areas of deep concern. There are issues of fundamental principle that will have to be debated forthrightly from both sides of the House. As chairman of the all-party parliamentary mental health group, I have had considerable opportunity with my colleagues to study the issues at first hand.
  I should like to register significant reservations about some parts of the Bill, mainly involving the human rights of patients, which must be resolved. During our all-party visits, we had the opportunity to observe the use of treatments such as ECT in special hospitals. For example, I was made aware that those treatments were administered sometimes in the most unconventional and disturbing manner without anaesthetics or muscle relaxants. More important, treatments are sometimes given without the consent of the patient. Perhaps I did not make it clear at the time, but I must say now that we were very unhappy about the use of such treatments and how they were used.
  I ask myself whether the proposals in the Bill will prevent such abuses. I fear that the clear answer is that they will not. My fundamental dissatisfaction with the proposals—and, bearing in mind the complexity of the Bill, I do not think that I will put too much fear into the mind of the Secretary of State, because I am sure that he will take seriously the points made on both sides of the House concerning several matters of common concern—is that the Bill provides that second opinions should be given only by doctors, when virtually all voluntary and professional groups, apart from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, have always proposed a multidisciplinary second opinion, on the ground that issues of competency and consent to treatment cannot be determined solely on the basis of medical expertise, but require also a social lay judgment.
  According to English law, issues of competency and consent have always been a judicial or quasi-judicial decision. It must be realised that this is one area in medicine where treatment can be expressly imposed on an

  713
  adult without his consent. In such circumstances, it is crucial that the safeguard adopted is meaningful and trusted by the patient.
  The Government's intention is that the Mental Health Act Commission will be able to monitor the use of the power to impose treatment and that the psychiatrist will discuss his decisions with the commission. However, none of those aspects of open and multidisciplinary decision-making flows from the Bill in its present form. The doctor need not be a member of the commission. There is nothing that requires him to discuss his decisions with the commission, particularly before he makes them, and there is nothing that requires him to discuss the matter with the patient or to give reasons for his decision.
  As with any professional group, self-regulation is always open to the criticism that it is not sufficiently energetic or dispassionate. There may be informal pressures to comply with the wishes of fellow members of the profession, and the views and questioning of non-professionals may not be given sufficient weight.
  That is the most important area where Parliament should ensure that not only medical opinion is respected. It is a matter of the deepest concern to patients, voluntary organisations, professional associations and unions outside the medical profession, including nurses, social workers and psychologists.
  One can envisage how the Bill will operate. Will a doctor be able to ask for a second opinion of a doctor from the same hospital? Will he be able to telephone a colleague of his own choice? Will the second doctor have to examine the patient or listen to what the patient or his representative has to say? What recourse is there for a patient if the second opinion is simply a rubber stamp? No doubt these important points will be resolved in Committee.
  I referred earlier to ECT. If a doctor asks for a second opinion from a colleague in the same hospital, inevitably they will concur. There would be a closing of ranks and no meaningful safeguard. Professional self-regulation, as exists for the police and lawyers, will never gain the public's confidence. In deciding on an appropriate safeguard, it is important to avoid expensive, clumsy and bureaucratic machinery. Therefore, it would be preferable for the second opinion to be provided by an existing body. A mental health review tribunal commends itself, because it is a trusted and well-established structure.
  This is the first time in the history of English law that a patient who is competent can still have treatment administered without his consent. I can think of no reason why a patient who understands the nature and purpose of a treatment, and who refuses it, should have it forcibly imposed upon him.
  It must be remembered that we are referring to treatments—such as ECT and major sedatives—of which some patients, perhaps even some of us in the Chamber, have a great fear. We know that such treatments, when properly administered, can have considerable benefits for the patient, but we also know that they can have serious and dangerous side effects when given improperly. In some circumstances the use of ECT or drugs can have hazardous or irreversible effects.
  We must be certain that the safeguards in the Bill do not unduly hamper the proper treatment of patients. In a genuine emergency, the doctors must be able to administer treatment without the necessity for a second opinion. Therefore, I am happy to see that the Government have wisely included a generous emergency clause in the Bill
  714
  If treatment is urgent to avoid deterioriation in a patient's condition, or to avoid danger to self or others, the Bill rightly does not impede the doctor in his task. Those who have criticised the Bill on practical grounds have missed that important provision.
  A doctor should act without a second opinion not for convenience, but only in a genuine emergency. It is important, therefore, that when a doctor has acted in a crisis, he should enter the details in the hospital records. Those records could be monitored periodically by the Mental Health Act Commission.
  Is it widely known that where a doctor unlawfully treats a patient against his will or a nurse assaults a patient, the patient can sometimes be prevented from going to court and receiving a fair hearing? The right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) referred to section 141 of the Mental Health Act. That section can impede and prevent a patient from going to the courts to resolve even his genuine legal rights. Section 141 is perhaps one of the most unjust and discriminatory provisions in mental health law. It violates one of the most basic human rights—full and fair access to Her Majesty's courts of law.
  There are several reasons why section 141 is antiquated and unfair. It is based on the assumption that patients are vexatious litigants. They are seen as paranoid and aggressive. In fact, the reverse is true, and there is evidence to prove it. One-third of hospital patients are mentally handicapped. A high proportion of the rest are severely depressed and, therefore, withdrawn and unlikely to enter into litigation. Section 141 should not be regarded as a barrier against an irresistible tide of groundless litigation. On the contrary, it represents the effective removal of the protection of law from particularly vulnerable sections of our community.
  The courts, in their legislative powers under the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 and the inherent power propounded in Metropolitan Bank v. Pooley, clearly have adequate powers to deal with vexatious litigants.
  It is still not clear whether section 141 applies to informal patients. Court decisions give conflicting rulings. Such confusion cannot be good for staff morale or the care of patients. The Bill could and should be used to clarify the issue.
  I agree with the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East on the Mental Health Act Commission. I had to read the proposals several times, as I found them difficult to believe. Unfortunately, I arrived late for the debate and may, therefore, have missed my right hon. Friend's explanation. However, I did not hear anything to convince me that the Mental Health Act Commission would serve the purpose for which it is, I suppose, intended. It seems yet another bureaucratic tier in the NHS.
  In a recent debate I was highly critical of the reorganisation of the NHS. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East was correct to describe it as as quango. The commission will involve additional cost and bureaucracy, which I should have thought was alien to the Government's thoughts. However, if we must have it, we must ensure that it does not overlap existing National Health Service management

  715
  or the other NHS watchdogs, such as the Health Advisory Service, the Health Service Commissioners, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all.
  It may have been much simpler and more efficient to extend the remitting powers of mental health review tribunals. This could have maintained public confidence and would be more cost-effective. I still believe that we should look to the tribunals as the second opinion on consent to treatment. If we are to keep the Mental Health Act Commission, we must be certain, especially in view of the cost of setting it up, that it is useful. I have heard from voluntary bodies in Scotland that the Scottish commission is not at all popular. Therefore, we must ask ourselves a considerable number of searching questions.
  Currently, mental patients cannot have legal aid for representation before a mental health review tribunal. I feel that this is one of the greatest injustices which still exist. The hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred to it fully, but I take it up again. It is enormously difficult for a detained patient to argue his case before a tribunal. The detained patient suffers handicaps that applicants to other tribunals do not necessarily experience. Many patients are under the influence of psychotropic drugs and major tranquillisers to a degree which is often intellectually disabling. Some patients lack verbal skills. Others have been institutionalised for many years, leading to excessive passivity and acquiescence and often leaving them out of touch with changes that have occurred in the world to which they wish to be discharged. As a member of a board of prison visitors, I have witnessed the acute difficulty of many people who are inarticulate, and much the same applies in this instance. Living in a hospital regime is likely to inculcate deference to staff, and therefore questioning a doctor's opinion can be dangerous and daunting to the patient.
  Arguably, the greatest handicap to the unrepresented patient is that he is unlikey to know the evidence against him. The mental health tribunal rules of 1960 specifically allow the tribunal to withhold from the patient any part of the evidence before it which it would not be in his interests to see. On similar grounds, the tribunal may exclude the patient from parts of the proceedings. These powers are used frequently by tribunals. If the patient is represented, the evidence will normally be released to the representative and he will be permitted to remain while the patient is excluded.
  I believe that the cost—I am not sure, but I understand that it is in the region of £750,000—is well worth while investing for safeguarding patients in these circumstances. In 1979 the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee recommended that mental health review tribunals should be given the highest priority in the extension of public funds to represent patients before them.
  Recent decisions in the European Court suggest that United Kingdom law violates the convention in not guaranteeing representation for detained patients. I quote the case of William Collins, a detained patient in Broadmoor, who applied to a mental health tribunal. His solicitors found themselves out of pocket in preparing the case and therefore could not continue with representation free of charge. With no income to finance a representative, Mr. Collins had no choice but to represent himself before the tribunal. It was virtually impossible as he was denied sight of the case papers and was excluded from all
  716
  proceedings. I hope that steps will be taken during the Committee stage of the Bill to ensure that that is not allowed to occur again.
  We have a wonderful opportunity to make many changes which I am sure society generally will look upon with great joy—especially those people who have relatives and who know others who are in institutions throughout the country.
  I have refrained from referring to a report in the Lancet of 28 November, which I am sure the Secretary of State will have read and viewed with the greatest anxiety and concern, about the administration of ECT and the use of totally outdated equipment for the purpose of giving that treatment. I do not want to take the time of the House by going into the details of that report, but I urge the Secretary of State to study it with the care that it deserves, because it may alarm people who may have to accept that treatment. It should be corrected with the fullest possible speed.
  I am happy in broad principle to support the Bill, and I concur in a most fulsome way in the congratulations to the Government and to all those concerned on bringing forward a Bill which has so much in it which will make improvements for those for whom we care.
  5.47 pm
  Mr. Mike Thomas: Although he is not here, I join those who have complimented the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) on his maiden speech. I suspect that he may find the congregation here a little different from the ones to which he is used. I am especially pleased to be able to refer to his constituency, as it gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to his predecessor, Robert Bradford. When I and others sought to establish the House Magazine he was fulsome in his personal support and secured the support of his party for what I hope all right hon. and hon. Members will agree has been a successful all-party and non-partisan venture.
  That is perhaps a good starting point for a discussion of the Bill. I greatly welcome, as does my party, the proposal that the Bill should go to a Special Standing Committee. If I am fortunate enough to find myself a member of that Committee, I suspect that I may be the only hon. Member with experience of proceedings of that kind.
  Mr. Christopher Price: I must contradict the hon. Gentleman. He may like to know that if I am lucky enough to serve on the Committee, I shall be the only member of it who has chaired a Special Standing Committee.
  Mr. Thomas: I stand corrected. I simply wished to refer to the proceedings of the late lamented Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, which I know the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) will remember, and which in 1978 paved the way for this development by taking the Electricity Bill into precisely the sort of hearing to which we are proposing to commit this Bill. I felt that that was a successful experiment, and I only regret that so revolutionary is the way in which we have proceeded on these matters since that I failed to notice it and the hon. Gentleman's no doubt impressive part in it.
  I join those who have paid tribute to the various individuals and organisations from which the Bill has

  717
  sprung. It is fair to recall that the National Association for Mental Health MIND, played a great part in creating a debate and an atmosphere in which the proposals that we are considering were progressively brought forward. That was due in no small part to the efforts of the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), who, as he has said, carried those through when in Government. I also congratulate the Government on bringing forward the Bill. This is not an area in which Governments in the past have readily relinquished legislative time, and Ministers should be complimented on fighting for and obtaining the time for the House to consider this measure.
  I agree with the Secretary of State that we must look at the Bill in the general context of health and social services provision. Many of the Bill's proposals depend on the Government's attitude, as with community care, to public expenditure and to the facilities available in our mental and other hospitals and outside in the community. The scope for the success of the Bill must be measured by the cash available for after-care provision—in which context I welcome the passage of Baroness Masham's amendment in the other place—and for training the workers who will be involved in implementing the provisions of the Bill, particularly social workers, to carry out the role that is placed upon them.
  The SDP welcomes the Bill, its general move to protect mentally disturbed patients' rights, particularly with regard to detention under section 26 of the old Act, the increased access to mental health tribunals, the proposals for automatic hearings, and, in general terms, the establishment of the Mental Health Act Commission. I hope that neither the Minister nor the Conservative Members will misunderstand me if, in the rest of my speech, I concentrate on the changes that we should like to make in the Bill. That does not mean that we do not support the overwhelming majority of the provisions.
  The SDP-Liberal alliance will be looking at the activities of the noble Lords Kilmarnock and Winstanley in the other place, and I shall return to some of the issues that they raised. I am concerned about six or seven matters that I shall deal with briefly, as they are all matters on which others have, at least in part, spoken, and which will be returned to in Committee.
  Overwhelmingly, I am concerned to ensure that the Bill will meet the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judgment in the case of X v. the United Kingdom means improved access to review for restricted patients, but I should like the Minister's comments on whether the fact that the appointed day is still to be 30 September 1983—if I understand the Government's proposal properly—means that the Government will be responsible for contravening the convention in the interim. Does the Minister feel that victims of this continued contravention, should, if there is such a contravention, be able to obtain compensation?
  Can the Minister tell us whether removing the existing right of unrestricted patients to a review of their cases within the first six months—which is unnecessary and should be removed—will lead us to contravene the convention? In the context of the Mental Health Act Commission it seems that the power, the responsibilities and the methods of working of this body—to put it mildly—need greater clarification. I hope that we shall have a body that is active and real, not a cosmetic approach that is designed purely to satisfy, in some general way, the problems of meeting the provisions of the convention.
  718
  I welcome the proposal for a commission, but should like to see more of what it is to do. We must not get caught between two stools. I am not sure that a body of 70, split up into five or six regional groupings, with a mere 14 staff and the sort of budget that is being talked about in the Bill, will be able to do very much in practice. If it is not to do much in practice, I share the view of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) and should prefer not to have it at all. I prefer to have it, but I want it to be capable of carrying out a sensible task in a comprehensive and satisfactory fashion.
  With regard to legal aid and section 141 of the principal Act, I share the views of those who have spoken. Legal aid for people appearing before mental health review tribunals is desirable and necessary. I cannot believe that it would be an excessive cost to bear and l do not understand the Government's reluctance to move on this matter. I suspect that they will be faced with a Committee that is of one mind on the matter, and representations in the first stage of our proceedings that are also of one mind, and I hope that the Government will respond, as they have said that they are prepared to do.
  Equally, I agree that the protection from litigation that is embodied in section 141 should be modified. The right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) put it clearly. There is need for proper access to legal redress for patients against staff who act in bad faith or without reasonable care and the present provisions do not provide that. I hope that we shall be able to persuade the Government to include provisions to deal with this problem.
  With regard to consent to treatment, I share with the hon. Member for Cheltenham the belief that in principle and practice treatment should not be given to those who are able to understand the nature and purpose of what is proposed and yet decline to give consent. Again, I think that we should return to the amendment narrowly defeated in the other place, amendment No. 47 by Lords Winstanley and Kilmarnock. Perhaps a mental health panel is a good way to assess whether consent is being given, perhaps the two-stage procedure that has been referred to, perhaps some further use of mental health tribunals, but we must look at the question again.
  Generally speaking, I agree with those who have taken the view that we should have a multidisciplinary approach. In that connection I was interested to hear the proposal of the right hon. Member for Norwich, North to add a social work element to the existing mental health review tribunals. That might be a useful thing for us to consider and accept.
  The Speaker's Conference examined the question of electoral registration in the early 1970s and made proposals to get over the various anomalies and difficulties that might arise. It is, in principle, wrong that those legally competent to vote but resident in a mental hospital are disfranchised, although this is again a matter that can be examined in Committee. I warmly support the Bill's general provisions and look forward to playing a pan in its proceedings.
  5.56 pm
  Miss Janet Fookes: I am glad to join the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) in welcoming the Bill. We must always be

  719
  concerned to give the maximum protection to those least able to care for and look after themselves. That is the main purpose of this amendment to the Mental Health Act.
  I do not wish to detain the House for long, but it would be churlish if we did not pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) who was responsible for piloting through the original Act. As he himself said, the Act has stood the test of time well. We now seek only to amend it, not to do away with it altogether.
  The hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) made general inquiries about when we might expect a consolidation measure. I asked the same question. I am perhaps more sensitive about this than I used to be. Since I became a member of the Speaker's Panel of Chairmen, it has been my lot to consider silently many Bills that have come before a Standing Committee. One of the difficulties that arises when we examine Bills in detail is the extent to which we add one Act after another and there is no single document to which one can turn for a definite statement on a particular subject. It is very important that on each and every occasion we seek to have one definitive document.
  After all, one of the chief merits of the Ten Commandments is that they are simple, clear and comprehensive. How much less attractive and vigorous would they be if they had not been complete in one piece and Moses had sought to go up the mountain a second time to bring down the Ten Commandments (Amendment) Act and the two had to be read in conjunction. [HON. MEMBERS: "More tablets."] Yes, more tablets. I make a plea that at the first opportunity the Government, when they have completed this Bill, should seek to consolidate one up-to-date piece of legislation referring to mental health.
  I shall now discuss some of the Bill's general provisions. Under the new definition, mental handicap is to be described as mental impairment. I can understand what lies behind that. The Government are anxious to ensure that they are able to deal with people suffering from mental handicap—or mental impairment as we must now call it—who are dangerous or irresponsible and for whom some compulsion is necessary. I agree with that objective. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health will make clear what is to happen to the bulk of mentally impaired people who offer no such danger. Are they still to be considered in a legal context and will they have proper protection?
  That matter has been raised by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which has expressed its concern. It says:
  "The College is particularly concerned that the protection afforded by Part VIII and Part IX of the 1959 Mental Health Act might no longer be available"—
  that is, to mentally handicapped persons who are not violent. I should like an answer to that tonight.
  I am worried about those who might fall between several stools in relation to the Mental Health Act. I can best illustrate what I have in mind by a case that is exercising public opinion in Plymouth. It concerns a young woman, Beverley Channing, who has been imprisoned on several occasions because she has committed offences. She suffers from a personality disorder which apparently is not sufficiently severe to
  720
  warrant detention in a special hospital, but it is almost impossible to place her anywhere because of her irresponsible behaviour.
  Hostels are not prepared to take her because she has a tendency to set things on fire from time to time. Her mother is at her wits' end and no longer feels that she can take her in. Beverley's behaviour is so dangerous that her mother's insurance company has said that insurance protection will stop the moment the girl sets foot in the house. That is an indication of the difficulties.
  Everybody is at their wits' end to know what to do with her. She has been sleeping rough in winter weather because there is nowhere for her to go. That is a scandal. According to the local paper the defending solicitor in a recent court case said:
  "The principal defect lies in the absence of a separate category within the Mental Health Act."
  I do not know whether the solicitor is absolutely right, but I am sure that there is a gap in the provisions, and possibly a gap in the Mental Health Act. I beg the Minister to address himself to the problem of girls such as Beverley Channing for whom no place can be found.
  The National Schizophrenia Fellowship has pointed out an odd twist. The Bill deals with the right of mental patients to appeal and to have more legal protection. The National Schizophrenia Fellowship makes an interesting counter observation. Referring to the new right of appeal by patients detained under sections 29 and 25 of the old Act, it refers to the dangers of not being able to put someone in hospital at all.
  The fellowship states:
  "Sections 29 and 25 are only used if a person is extremely ill and resists voluntary admission. This resistance to hospitalisation"—
  I use that horrid expression because it is in the letter—
  "occurs with schizophrenia when it is most severe, for then the person concerned is usually most convinced that there is nothing wrong with him, and that he needs no medical treatment.
  So far from being pressurised into hospital needlessly, it is in our experience often extremely difficult to secure admission to a hospital at all."
  The fellowship believes that treatment and the task of relatives will become more difficult if we go overboard on the right of appeal. I am not sure what the answer is within our general concern to give patients better legal protection. I leave the thought with the Minister in the hope that there can be a reasonable compromise.
  Another matter has already exercised hon. Members on both sides of the House. I refer to the consent to treatment as set out in clause 41. I make a general observation about the clause. Perhaps I am less intellectually bright than some hon. Members, but I found the clause complex and difficult to follow. It reminded me of Hampton Court maze—easy to get into but difficult to get out of. I have read the clause a number of times. I hope that I have understood its purport, but I am not sure. Is it within the competence of the parliamentary draftsman to clarify it?
  The clause deals with the question of proof in circumstances where a second opinion is required and with who should give that second opinion. I believe that the arguments are more finely balanced than some hon. Members seem to think. It is at least arguable that the second opinion should be by a psychiatrist or medically qualified doctor. If that is to be so, I take the caution issued by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving). We should ensure that the person is not in cahoots with the original psychiatrist and that he is truly independent and from another hospital.

  721
  If such precautions can be observed, I should be prepared to settle for the second psychiatrist rather than a multi-discipline panel. If I cannot be satisfied of that, I believe that there is some merit in a panel, but I can envisage practical difficulties in arriving at a decision and in getting on with the treatment. We must beware of putting so many safeguards in the way that the patient is not treated. That is the other side of the picture and we must not lose sight of it.
  One matter is not dealt with in the Bill. In some disturbing cases, patients are not treated as well as they might be. Sometimes allegations are made, against nurses in particular. We must consider how nurses who believe that there is something wrong and want to complain about it can translate that into action. I refer hon. Members to the challenging booklet issued by Social Audit Ltd., which says that many nurses are victimised because they dare to speak up when they believe that patients are not being treated properly. I hope that the Bill will give additional protection to nurses who are prepared to speak up in such circumstances.
  In welcoming the Bill I should like to issue one caution. While it is important that we should improve safeguards to patients, we should never allow ourselves to forget that what matters supremely is the quality of the treatment given by the medical and nursing professions. We should concentrate our energies on ensuring that both get not only financial support but every encouragement to carry out their difficult duties in connection with psychiatrically disturbed patients. It is not an easy branch of medicine. In some ways it has been a Cinderella branch, especially in regard to mental handicap. Far more attention needs to be devoted to training, to career prospects and so on, especially for nurses. I hope that the Minister will take that into account when he considers the other important matters in the Bill.
  6.10 pm
  Mr. Stan Thorne: It is probably inevitable that there will be a large measure of agreement among hon. Members about the Bill. So far, I do not think that we have heard a speech that could be considered in any way controversial in regard to the Bill's contents. Some hon. Members have mentioned its apparent weaknesses, and I hope to do likewise.
  The treatment of mental illness is not a purely medical matter—a point that has been made previously. It involves the collaboration of a number of professions—medicine, nursing, psychology, social work and occupational therapy. The jargon for that collaboration is "multidisciplinary teamwork". The importance of effective teamwork is frequently emphasised in official publications—for example, the policy White Paper on "Better Services for the Mentally Ill" and the recent report of the working group on the organisational and management problems of mental illness hospitals—the Nodder report. Collaboration or teamwork is not just a matter of good practice. No one profession has competence in the whole range of treatment methods.
  I shall restrict my remarks to psychology. When what became the Mental Health Act 1959 was debated and enacted—in the late 1950s and early 1960s—psychologists were developing a range of assessment and treatment procedures of proven effectiveness. They have become well known under the general
  722
  terms "behaviour therapy" and "behaviour modification". They are applications of the findings of psychology as a scientific discipline.
  By the late 1960s those procedures were beginning to be used by psychologists in many psychiatric and mental handicap hospitals. They are not usually part of the skills and competence of psychiatrists. Psychologists have worked hard to train medical and nursing colleagues in the use of behavioural methods. It would be fair to say that psychologists are still acknowledged to be the experts in their use. Indeed, the relatively infrequent use of behavioural methods, compared with the use of drugs and ECT, is a reflection of the relatively small numbers of psychologists available to prompt and guide other professions about their use.
  The contribution of psychologists is widely valued, especially since it tends to be concentrated in those areas of health care where doctors have often felt less effective—mental illness, mental handicap and, more recently, care of the elderly. Indeed, the recent report on medical postgraduate education by the House of Commons Social Services Select Committee suggested that the work of psychologists provides a ground for wider experimentation in doctor substitution. The Government welcomed that proposal in paragraph 8 of their response Cmnd. 8479, but none of this comes through in the Bill, and that brings me to the deficiency in the measure.
  Doctors have a central role in the operation of the Mental Health Act 1959. Throughout, there are references to the responsible medical officer—the RMO for short. In the Bill that term is restated in clause 41 (10). Also, references to treatment are almost invariably phrased as references to "medical treatment", which is defined in the original Act as including nursing and care and training under medical supervison. That definition is amended in clause 48 (2).
  The Bill seems to go wrong in relying on medical judgments alone at certain stages in the formal procedures laid down. That seems quite inappropriate in view of the multidisciplinary nature of the treatment of mental illness, and I shall now give two examples of that deficiency.
  In clause 12 there are procedures to be followed when detention and guardianship are to be removed. Clause 12 (4) provides that a test of likelihood of benefit from treatment has to be met before detention is renewed for any of the four categories of mental disorder, and, in the case of mental illness or severe mental impairment, a test of grave incapacity has to be met.
  The way in which those tests are operated is that the responsible medical officer has to certify that one of the tests is satisfied before detention can be renewed, but the Bill places no obligation on the RMO to consult the other professionals involved in the treatment of the patient when making that judgment, although, within the current practice of clinical teams, other team members would usually be involved in making that kind of assessment
  More specifically, since few psychiatrists are skilled in or even knowledgeable about psychological treatments, the RMO may fail to recognise that a patient is treatable by psychological methods. The RMO could be overoptimistic about the potential value of psychological treatments and could commit a psychologist to attempting to carry out a treatment which, had he made his own judgment, he would not have attempted.
  It is not good enough to say that psychiatrists and psychologists should get on well enough together for such

  723
  problems not to arise. This is not the place for me to enumerate examples of the two professions failing to collaborate. I am sure that they are well known to the DHSS, even where they have not been made public. There is no doubt—some of the public inquiries have confirmed it—that some psychiatrists are exceedingly conscious of their authority and guard it so jealously that they do not always consult their professional colleagues as fully as they might. There is a need for a statutory obligation to consult and also for provision for advice on treatability by psychological methods to be given by psychologists.
  In clause 41(i) and (3) and clause 42(2), reference is made to a medical practitioner appointed by the Secretary of State to give a second opinion. In fact, the appointment will be made by the Medical Health Act Commission under the provisions of clause 45(2) (a). The functions of that second opinion are twofold, as set out in clause 41(3) (a) and other parts of that clause.
  It is not clear at this stage how the Government intend that part of the Bill to read, because when the Bill was given its Third Reading in the other place, Lord Elton announced that the Government would table an amendment in the House of Commons to increase from one to three the number of people entrusted with deciding whether a patient had given informed consent to a treatment that gives rise to special concern. However, Lord Elton also said that whether the treatment should be given would be a matter for the clinical judgment of the commission-appointed psychiatrist alone. It is the wisdom of that procedure that I question.
  In order to illustrate the extent of concern, I need to draw attention to some further aspects of the Mental Health Act Commission, the code of practice and the regulations referred to in clause 41(3). Lord Elton made it clear several times during the passage of the Bill in the other place that the code of practice was intended to cover any and all forms of admission and treatment procedures that the commission thinks should be covered, including psychological treatments. For example, on 25 February Lord Elton said:
  "The Code of Practice which the Mental Health Act Commission are to prepare may say more about some forms of treatment in this category, such as behaviour modification therapy."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 February 1982; Vol. 427, c. 1065.]
  That is right and proper. Some behavioural treatments, such as aversion therapy, and some other procedures that are incorrectly thought by ill-informed doctors and nurses to be behavioural treatments—such as shutting up people alone for hours at a time—raise ethical issues.
  Having established a multi-professional commission and having made it draw up a broad code of practice, why leave the final decision to a doctor, who may not necessarily be expert or even knowledgeable about the treatment proposed or about the potential alternative treatments that might be used? It may be anticipated that the commission could get bogged down with that issue.
  In 1980 a report was published by a joint working party of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Nursing and the British Psychological Society—the Zangwill report. The working party was set up to formulate ethical guidelines for the conduct in the National Health Service of programmes of behaviour modification.
  724
  The report illustrates the serious disagreement between the professions concerning clinical decisions about the use of behaviour modifications and associated methods.
  That is one of the reasons why it is important that those issues should be aired in Committee. Leaving them in the pious hope that everything will turn out all right seems unduly optimistic. Therefore, I hope that during the first stages of the consideration of the Bill there will be an opportunity to take evidence—I hope that the Front Bench will take note of this—from the British Psychological Society. I commend that to the House.
  6.25 pm
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) because he clarified for me and other hon. Members some of the differences between psychiatry and psychology. That may be something of which you are aware, Mr. Speaker, operating from the psychological Chair. I am indebted to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification.
  I welcome my hon. and learned Friend to his new post as Minister for Health particularly because it allows me to contribute to this debate from the back benches. I pay tribute to the Government for the Bill. There has been a welcome from both sides of the House for that initiative. I also join in the admiration, thanks and tributes that have been paid by hon. Members to those who look after the mentally ill and mentally handicapped. I should particularly like to mention the two hospitals in my constituency—Hellingly and Laughton Lodge—which are involved in that care.
  One of the welcome aspects of the Bill is the way in which it differentiates between mental illness and mental subnormality or handicap. That is an important difference, The Bill acepts and establishes that difference.
  The Bill is also to be welcomed for its broad thrust in its intent that patients should know more about what is going on, yet have some privacy, and be treated as people with rights. I hope that in turn may lead to the eventual obliteration and elimination of the use of mental patients and the troubles that they must face by quasi-religious groups for their own ends. Such groups pretend to act in the interests of the people they have enticed into their ways. That elimination may be a welcome fall-out from the Bill, which has not been mentioned.
  I share the concern of other hon. Members about some ways in which the Bill may impose restraints on treatment. On that matter, I see entirely eye to eye with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes). I am also concerned about the way in which second opinions are to be structured. In many treatments, time is of the essence.. If a chemical treatment has to be given through sedatives, and that is not immediately available, physical restraint is often the only alternative—mechanically, in some form of straitjacket, or through restraint by hospital staff. Both those methods are unattractive to all hon. Members and all members of th profession when a sedative can be made available.
  Therefore, if a second opinion is not readily available, problems can be caused. That is all the more so when, as with psychophrenics and others, the patients are totally intelligible once one accepts their delusions. A doctor's treatment can be denied at one moment when the patient is suffering from delusion and welcomed in retrospect when the patient returns to normality. We must be careful to avoid increasing the problems of obtaining treatment

  725
  that occur nowadays. New legislation must not create obstacles to treatment or make it more difficult for doctors to give proper treatment. They may be discouraged from doing so for fear of infringing personal rights.
  Recently, other hon. Members and I heard a doctor mention three hard cases. All of them suffered from chronic psychosis and were being treated by their families in the community, which is to be encouraged. They sought treatment, but were refused it. Subsequently, each one killed one or more relatives. The doctor conjectured that the number of such instances might increase if greater obstacles to treatment were created. The Bill does not intend to do that, and I hope that will not be one of its results.
  Perhaps the Government should consider adding to the powers of the newly envisaged commission the power to monitor the Bill's effects. Some of the difficulties stem from the problem of defining treatment. Does a change of drugs require the whole process of clearance, or does that process apply only to a change in a complete programme or course of treatment? To avoid over-treatment or lack of necessary treatment, the Bill should be clarified in that respect.
  Hon. Members have mentioned some of the difficulties inherent in setting up a second body of opinion while maintaining an arm's-length relationship between that person or body of opinion and the person giving the original opinion. In a large institution it may often be necessary to seek a second opinion, and that may lead to a close relationship between those giving treatment and those giving the second opinion. That will not necessarily be overcome if a second opinion is sought from multidisciplinary groups rather than professionals, such as psychiatrists or psychologists. The Secretary of State pointed out that the Bill has a fairly wide remit, but we must be wary of intruding into or curtailing professional treatment to the benefit of no one. That is particularly important, given that the rulings of those second opinion groups will be black and white and will consist of detention or release and nothing in between.
  I hope that the Minister will reassure me about regional secure units. Will he confirm that the Bill does not affect the security of those units or broaden the rights or freedom of movement of those within them? That is extremely important to the communities nearby. I welcome the Government's development of such units and look forward to their establishment on the broad base mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Generally, I join others in welcoming and wishing a fair wind for the Bill.
  6.33 pm
  Mr. Christopher Price: I speak as a member of the council of MIND and as one of the deputy chairmen of the all-party mental health group, although I am not remunerated in any way in either capacity.
  I add my congratulations to those given to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). His speech showed his concern for the civil liberties of those affected by the Bill. His remarks were respected and welcomed on both sides of the House, as was the proper tribute that he gave to his predecessor, who was to be so tragically taken from us. I am not so senior as to be able to talk with the experience of the right hon. and learned member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir. D. Walker-Smith), but I hope that the hon. Gentleman has a long and fruitful stay among us.
  726
  I welcome the Special Standing Committee procedure. There has been a little controversy about it, but my experience of chairing the Special Standing Committee on special schools last year led me to believe that it is one of the most important parliamentary innovations to have been made in my time as a Member of Parliament. I am pleased that the Government have not allowed such Committees to fade away, and I pay tribute to the Minister for agreeing to be another guinea pig. The Department could have vetoed the idea and, therefore, it deserves congratulations. Once the Department has seen the Committee in action, it will believe that such a procedure can improve the Bill. When we discussed the Education Bill, we discovered that we needed a little more time than is allowed by the Standing Order. I hope that the Government will bear that in mind, although it is now too late as the Standing Order has gone through for this session. If I criticise the Bill more radically than other hon. Members have done it is not because I do not welcome it. I pressed hard for the Labour Government to introduce such a Bill. Although they produced a very good White Paper, they did not manage to introduce a Bill. Therefore, the Government should be congratulated on getting the Bill off the ground. The Bill is crucial for the House, because we are the final appeal tibunal for those whose civil liberties are affected by such legislation. We intrude on their right to freedom and on their right to maintain their bodies inviolate, with no treatment without consent. We should enact such legislaion only after careful consideration.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) did the House a great service by reminding us that psychiatrists and the medical profession are by no means the only people with expertise in the treatment of mental illness. The expertise of nurses is crucial, because they are with the patients in hospital all the time, and much more than other members of the medical profession. The role of psychologists, social workers and others is also important. The House must not bend towards one profession, simply because it is the oldest. The House gave privileges to those professions in the nineteenth century, and we must now pay equal regard to the evidence of the new professions. The Committee will no doubt listen to the Royal College of Psychiatrists, but I hope that it will listen equally carefully to all the other professionals engaged in the treatment of the mentally ill.
  I shall contrast the plight of the mentally ill with that of ex-prisoners. The House should be careful not to place the mentally ill in a worse position than those who are subjected to terms of imprisonment. Let us consider employment. A recent tribunal case involved a famous insurance company. The individual concerned lost the case when he said that the insurance company had taken into consideration the fact that many years earlier, he had been mentally ill.
  For prisoners, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act makes it illegal, after a certain number of years, for it to be mentioned that a person has been in prison. A person who goes into a mental hospital at the age of 16 knows that, throughout his life, even if he recovers completely, he is bound to reveal that information to doctors. It remains a stigma on him for the rest of his life. To that extent, he is treated worse than a prisoner.
  Let us take the issue of solitary confinement. In prisons it is strictly limited by prison regulations and by the administrative directions, which are placed in the Library of the House. We can advise prisoners on whether they are

  727
  being treated properly within the law. There are no regulations governing solitary confinement for mental patients. I shall read an account, sent to me by a psychologist from my constituency. She said:
  "What actually happens is that a very disturbed patient is kept locked up in a bare cell room with just a bed and only pyjamas and dressing gown. In our hospital the practice was to do this for a week at a time. Patients had all privileges withdrawn. Apparently going to the loo was a privilege and I witnessed a patient with whom I was involved, being given only a plastic bowl in her room which was not emptied too frequently. The smell on a hot summer's day was awful. I found much of these practices degrading to the patient. When clothes were restored for a few hours at a time, no cupboards were provided so the personal items just had to lie about on the floor. In the second week the practice was to allow the patient out for one hour on the first day and each day the patient was 'good' and conformed to the rules, they were allowed out for an extra hour. If not, all the privileges were withdrawn for yet another week. Of course, these disturbed patients often did violate these authoritarian rules with the result that some were repeatedly placed under solitary confinement. I know of one patient who was treated in this way for over a year".
  That treatment is being meted out to patients without Parliament laying down any rules or regulations, such as we do for prisoners. I do not have much belief in the commission—this new quango—but if it can lay down, within its codes of practice, something to make it quite clear to hospitals, within a statutory framework, how they should behave in that sort of case, we shall have made some progress.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly as I am very conscious of the fact that I came into the Chamber halfway through his speech, for which I apologise. If he is recommending that course of action, which I entirely understand, surely it will be necessary to amend substantially the limitation of liability contained in the 1959 Act? Otherwise, of course, the patient will have no remedy.
  Mr. Price: I shall come to section 141 shortly. Again, if one contrasts the rights of the prisoner with those of the mental patient, the prisoner is in a far better position to bring a legal action than is a mental patient, who is controlled by section 141.
  Let us consider the six-hour rule, which the Government are introducing, at the instance of COHSE. I understand how the nursing unions feel, because nurses are being asked to do something that they believe is completely extra-legal. They are being asked to restrain a person without any law under which they can do so. The six-hour rule allows a nurse to restrain a voluntary patient while a doctor is summoned to decide whether that patient should be classified as a compulsory patient. That is why hon. Members are wrong when they say that the Bill applies only to detained persons. It does not. As a result of the Bill, any patients who enter a mental hospital will be in danger of having their civil liberties invaded to a greater extent than if they had not entered a psychiatric hospital. To that extent we should remember the degree to which, even compared with a person sentenced to a term of imprisonment, we are eroding people's civil liberties.
  I realise that many of these measures are necessary, but I realise too that much of the law, going back to the Lunacy Acts of the nineteenth century, was conceived by the professions and for the convenience of the professionals
  728
  and the institutions. We still have not put the balance right between the needs of professionals in the institutions, and needs of those individuals whose liberties are being infringed, and the needs of the relatives of mentally ill people, whose lives in many ways can be more disrupted than those of the mentally ill themselves. The task of the Bill is to draw a reasonable balance between the needs of those three groups.
  I want to concentrate on consent to treatment. The Bill improves the legal definitions in many ways. The Secretary of State at the beginning of his speech laid down one of the new definitions. He said that if patients come to hospital they should expect to be treated. That worries me. It means that if distressed people, knowing that they need help, want to go to certain hospitals in certain parts of the country, they can do so only on condition that they immediately receive pretty heavy doses of psychotropic drugs. That does not happen everywhere. We know that practice in different hospitals varies greatly. The Normansfield report, to which I shall refer in a moment, reminded Parliament that some hospitals are virtually run by tin-pot dictator medical directors, whose sanity is sometimes in question.
  I have had some experience of mentally ill people. I know that what some of them want is asylum—the idea that was conceived in the nineteenth century. They want to get out of an environment which they cannot stand for one reason or another, and they want treatment in the sense of being looked after and cared for. They do not want treatment which immediately heavily interferes with the whole chemical system of their bodies. That is what the new family of phenothiazines does. These drugs have come on to the market since the passage of the 1959 legislation—they were hardly in existence when that Bill went through Parliament.
  The Bill virtually says to the patient "If you come into hospital, you must have that sort of treatment". I want there to be facilities, which perhaps should not be hospitals in the community—we have one such place in Lewisham—where patients can go, not necessarily to get treatment, because many of the patients have had course after course of treatment, but to be treated by professionals, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) said, such as psychologists, social workers, and others, rather than receive the sort of treatment that they are likely to get from the medical psychiatric profession. That is what disturbs me about the Secretary of State's speech.
  I wish to refer to two sorts of treatment. Yet to be resolved is the issue, taken up by the all-party mental health group, of unmodified electro-convulsive therapy at Broadmoor. I hope that we never see that again. The advice of the Royal College of Psychiatrists was that ECT should always be preceded by a relaxant. Certain nurses at Broadmoor were badly victimised by the Department of Health as well as by others for trying to make facts public. It transpired that the practice in certain cases was to give ECT against the patient's consent without a muscle relaxant.
  The all-party group, in discussion with the Royal College of Psychiatrists, found hardly anyone except the medical superintendent of Broadmoor who believed that this was an ethical medical procedure. I hope that hon. Members can ensure, during the passage of the Bill, that that practice does not occur. I have my doubts about the commission. If, however, the commission can get a grip

  729
  on Broadmoor, Rampton, Moss Side and Park Lane, it might do some good. If the commission is to get a grip on those hospitals and really have an influence on them, the Department of Health must allow it and give it all the access that it needs to do so.
  The most worrying article I have ever read about ECT was the famous one that appeared in "World Medicine" a few years ago by Dr. Easton Jones on the ECT machine that did not work for a year. The machine had no electricity passing through it but patients were put on the machine and pronounced cured afterwards. It became clear that one of the ways in which electro-convulsive therapy works is the sheer shock of knowing that one is to have treatment, rather than the actuality of receiving it.
  A few years ago, I gave some lay opinions on the "Panorama" programme about ECT. I received more letters as a result of a single sentence spoken then about ECT than has been the case for any other public occasion at which I have spoken. Ten per cent. of those who wrote said that it was a wonderful treatment that must be kept, while 90 per cent., including patients, some doctors and relatives of patients, described the permanent memory impairment that electro-convulsive therapy brings on. There is a difficulty with this treatment. Some people swear by ECT, as do some doctors. There is no doubt, however, that in a minority of cases it blocks out whole areas of patient'a minds. The question arises whether the treatment should be used at all now that other treatments have been found.
  Mr. David Atkinson: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's comments about ECT. Is he aware that a number of states in the United States have decided to outlaw the treatment? Should we not be analysing the reasons why they have taken that drastic action, and investigating the matter more deeply? Has the all-party mental health group taken an interest in what has happened in the United States?
  Mr. Price: Our discussion included the California amendments that have taken place over the last six years. Some of the ways in which the debate was pursued in the United States were not edifying. Some of the religious groups that have exerted pressure in Britain were doing so in California. We have to discuss the problem rationally. The difficulty is that no one knows how ECT is supposed to work. The claim is made of much medical treatment that it works. I believe, however, that ECT should be used to a lesser rather than a greater degree now that other methods of treatment are available.
  I refer now to drugs. The mass of psychiatric patients are treated in and out of hospital with a new family of drugs known as phenothiazines that go under many different names of which largactil is the most common. There are many others. There is no doubt that these drugs, properly prescribed, have brought enormous benefits to mentally ill patients. There is also no doubt that they have, been appallingly abused. It is exactly these drugs, in very heavy doses, that we in this country complain are being used in psychiatric hospitals in the Soviet Union. The drug is the same, but more of it is being used. That is why the House should take seriously legislation that enables doctors compulsorily to inject these drugs into individuals who do not want them. It is constantly stated that psychosurgery is a radical treatment, whereas drugs are ordinary treatment.
  730
  There has recently been another instance of what is becoming a common coroner's verdict of therapeutic overdose. This means that individuals in psychiatric hospitals die because, by accident, are given too heavy doses of these drugs. Hon. Members will have seen the report of a recent inquest in The Guardian. I do not believe that these drugs should be seen as treatment different from ECT or psychosurgery. In overdoses, the drugs can kill. In heavy doses, they can ruin people's lives. This is proved by a history of hospital inquiries.
  One cannot escape side effects in medical treatment. The worst part of the drugs is that they produce Parkinsonian symptoms or symptoms of obesity that are then said to be part of the original illness. It is impossible later to distinguish between the original illness and the symptoms of that illness. I should like to remind the House of one or two hospital reports. A succession of a dozen or so reports on psychiatric hospital abuse followed the brave decision of Dick Crossman to set up and publish the Ely report in 1969. Paragraph 232 of the Ely report refers to nursing staff being permitted to administer sedatives without any, or sufficient, reference to, or supervision by, the medical staff. One 10-year-old boy was on six times the dosage of largactil in hospital than he took at home.
  The Farleigh report of 1971 referred to there being no effective psychiatric leadership. Once more the patients were offered little or no rehabilitative or occupational therapy. The responsible medical officer restricted himself to the prescribing of drugs PRN. As hon. Members will know, that means pro re nata. That gives nurses absolute rights to prescribe what they want at their discretion up to the maximum upper limit. That can amount to huge doses.
  The Normansfield report of 1978 criticised the chief medical officer saying that his behaviour was so bizarre that he was at one time referred to a psychiatrist. Paragraph 264 states:
  "Dr. Lawlor abruptly started or stopped five different major tranquillising drugs at levels which were between 50 per cent. and 500 per cent. above the maximum recommended dose."
  Those are reports to Parliament of incidents in our psychiatric hospitals. I have quoted three but I could have quoted many more. Every substantial report of this sort contains details of abuses which are nearly always the doctor's fault, for not supervising matters properly, and not the fault of any other professionals. On a disturbing number of occasions, those abuses led to the death of patients in hospitals. My point is that the administration of psychotropic drugs can, in certain doses, be as hazardous as psychosurgery or electro-convulsive therapy. At the very least, doses over a certain level should be treated in this legislation with as great care as we treat the hazardous treatments which the Government quite properly say should be carefully supervised.
  We must modify section 141 in some way to give mentally ill patients more access to the courts. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) said, the provision was introduced in the nineteenth century through medical blackmail because doctors said that they would not operate the Lunacy Acts unless it was introduced. It has been stuck in the law ever since and it should be changed.
  I am keen to keep compulsory treatment and compulsory detention to the absolute minimum, because I believe that it is now the generally accepted opinion of the medical as well as other professions that mentally ill people, like alcoholics and drug addicts, start to get better

  731
  only when one has their co-operation. One cannot make mentally ill people better against their wishes. One can lock them up, put them in padded cells and dose them down so that they are scarcely human beings, but for them to recover they must be free to walk in and out of hospital and to say to the doctor that, although he may believe that they need a particular treatment, they do not wish to have that treatment. We accord that privilege to everyone else in society, as long as they are not so dangerous that they may harm themselves or others. That is the correct principle to which we must stick.
  In saying that, I am not against the doctors. The rights of professionals must be respected, and I understand the feelings of relatives who believe that family life is broken up by a mentally ill member of the family. That is why I wish to hear more from the Minister of Health about the resources that the Government will provide, because in the final resort hospitals are not the place in which mentally ill people get better. They get better only when they have some freedom and leave hospital.
  I am sorry if I have detained the House for rather longer than I intended. However, this is an important issue and some points of view are not put forward by the various professional bodies and pressure groups outside the House. Patients do not have as large an organised pressure group as they might, and it is right that their point of view should be heard in the House.
  7.4 pm
  Mr. David Atkinson: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) on his maiden speech. I recall clearly my maiden speech, delivered from precisely the same position as his almost to the day four years ago, but I did not deliver it half as clearly or with as much confidence as he did. I congratulate him on his auspicious start in the House following the steps of his respected predecessor, who was so cruelly struck down in such an anti-Christian and abhorrent way last November.
  I welcome the Bill, which is long overdue. Mental illness is far more widespread than is generally realised and is fast increasing. We come across it in our surgeries and in correspondence with constituents just as much as any general practitioner. It represents an increasing inability to cope with the pressure and conditions of modern life, of which there are many causes and symptoms—stress at work, the inadequacies of human relationships, lack of communication, the breakdown in family and community life and widespread loneliness and isolation. I do not wish to pursue that theory, but it has much to do with the loss of support for almost any religion as people become better off and feel that a rising standard of living can be given more priority than peace of mind. They are wrong.
  As the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) said, one in 10 people become mentally ill at some time in their lives. Every year 5 million people see a doctor because they are suffering from mental illness. More working days are lost through mental illness than through 'flu and the common cold put together. Those figures under-estimate the true picture. Mental illness is a modern epidemic, and I welcome any legislation that will improve mental health.
  732
  At the same time, we should always be wary and vigilant about the exact role of the State in the treatment of mental health. I have at the back of my mind the clear abuse of psychiatry that takes place in other countries, often for political reasons. For example, despite the continued persecution and imprisonment of the courageous people who attempt to expose it, much evidence of the political abuse of psychiatry has emerged from the Soviet Union in recent years. One case was that of the Soviet miner Vladimir Klebanov, who was imprisoned in 1978 in a psychiatric hospital for attempting to establish a Solidarity-style association of free trade unions of workers and for applying to the International Labour Organisation for recognition.
  Thus, I take seriously any allegations of psychiatric abuse in Britain, especially in our prison system, such as the forcible administration of medicine and drugs to prisoners who are not ill and drug experimentation on prisoners to establish long-term behaviour patterns, which is a process known as DEX. It is not clear to me whether the rights introduced in the Bill will apply to prisoners, because their scope for complaint is understandably limited. They can petition the Home Secretary or write to their MPs. We know from our own experience how long it can take to receive a reply from Her Majesty's prisons, and how difficult it is to question and to challenge that reply when it comes. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) takes a personal interest in such matters. I applaud him on his compassion and pay tribute to his contribution. I look forward to an assurance from the Minister about the mental health rights of prisoners.
  I turn now to clause 1, which deals with definition. Definition determines public attitudes. Therefore, it is important that we get it right. It was for that reason that the 1959 Act made so much progress. I wonder whether it is right to start with the words "mental disorder". I hope that the Minister is aware of the resolution that was passed at the annual general meeting of the Association of Community Health Councils in September last year. The association expressed concern about the confusion caused by the widespread use of that term by various authorities. The two specialties, mental illness and mental handicap. should be clearly recognised as being distinct. I share that concern.
  It is remarkable that there is no reference in the Bill to the important difference between the mental state and the emotional state. Each disorder requires a different form of treatment. There also appears to be no recognition of the difference between psychiatry and psychology. I hope that I am wrong. If I am right, they are dangerous omissions.
  I have reservations about the clauses which have a direct bearing on the mental disorder known as schizophrenia. I have taken a personal interest in that problem. I had no knowledge of it until I became starkly aware of its existence when a friend suffering from schizophrenia died from an overdose four years ago. Last year, all hon. Members were approached and asked to make a personal contribution towards and take an interest in a disability as part of the International Year of Disabled People. For the reason that I have just given, I chose schizophrenia.
  As part of my researches, I held a meeting in my constituency of those suffering from schizophrenia and their caring relations. It was a valuable experience and I produced a report. I received invaluable assistance in that

  733
  exercise from a young American research assistant as part of an internship scheme. It was organised by Beaver college, which has come under so much criticism recently. I hope that when the appropriate Committee examines the matter, it will not terminate that scheme, which is invaluable to hon. Members.
  It might be useful to deal with schizophrenia in some detail. There is no doubt that it is one of the major incapacitating disorders now facing society. In Britain, more than half of the 60,000 patients in mental hospitals suffer from schizophrenia. One in every 100 people can expect to suffer from if before reaching the age of 45. It is estimated that 250,000 adults suffer from some form of schizophrenia. That is an alarming figure.
  The effects of the disorder are even more tragic and shocking when one bears in mind that it strikes primarily young people in their teens and early twenties. Thus, it creates dependencies and incapacities that often last for the rest of a person's life. The disorder is as widespread as its consequences are tragic, and it remains widely misunderstood and highly contentious.
  The term "schizophrenia" is often misunderstood by the public. That is partially due to the flippant and inaccurate way in which it is used by the media. It is derived from two Greek words—"skhizo" and "phrén". It means a splitting of the personality. It should not be confused—as it often is—with the concept of a dual personality rather like the Jekyll and Hyde character in Stevenson's novel. It is not a form of mental handicap. Some schizophrenics are of very high IQ, having held prestigious positions as doctors, scientists, engineers and students before contracting the disorder. However, the nature of the illness and the fact that there is often no observable disability promotes further the tragedy of the disorder as the community is ofter unmoved or insensitive to a disease that is less explicable or visible than almost any other mental disorder.
  Schizophrenia is a term used to describe a group of severe disorders that have something in common. According to the severity of the illness, the effects may range from a mild dissociation of personality to total withdrawal from human contact. Symptoms occur in widely differing combinations and with varying intensities, but among them are deep disturbances and distortions of feeling, thinking, perception and conduct which lead to a self-imposed withdrawal from the outside world. These withdrawals and symptoms often take various forms and can be exhibited at different times by the same person over a long period.
  Those suffering from schizophrenia may act or talk in ways which appear abnormal or unreasonable. This behaviour may include an insidious reduction in external interests and relationships, in an absence of strong emotions that is often characterised by callous and sometimes violent behaviour to family and friends, self-imposed brooding and withdrawal, inability to concentrate, deteriorating performance at work, bizarre conduct and frequent experiences of false perceptions, delusions and obsessive hallucinations.
  Schizophrenia sufferers often feel that others are conspiring against them. Other abnormalities of schizophrenic behaviour may include rambling, mixed-up speech and the use of meaningless made-up words and phrases. The tragedy is that no one general cause is known for schizophrenia, although research continues in many countries to try to solve the dreadful problem.
  734
  Medical opinion seems to support the theory that partial organic—physical, biological and chemical—factors may contribute. There is evidence that environmental stress may play a part in the development of schizophrenic symptoms. The friend of mine to whom I referred, who may or may not have committed suicide, found it extremely difficult to hold down a job and especially difficult to be in the company of others. However, in some instances there are no obvious indications of a genetic predisposition or of environmental stress. As the specific causes of schizophrenia are as yet unidentified, reliable measures to prevent its occurrence have not yet been conceived.
  In recent years some advance in the treatment of schizophrenia has taken place. Last year, I tabled a number of questions to my right hon. Friend with a view to urging the Government to carry out further research into the problem. I much regret the recent closure of the allergy clinic at Basingstoke. There is an increasingly held theory by those who are researching into schizophrenia that diet may be a cause of it.
  Schizophrenia can be alleviated by various treatments, including tranquillisers, medication, ECT and group therapy. However, there is no cure as such. Much of it is an attempt to contain the condition so that the patient can return to the community. Hospital treatment is the first step for severe cases. The more acute symptoms can be brought and kept under control by certain medications which can be prescribed by a psychiatric hospital, a psychiatric unit of a general hospital or a psychiatrist to whom a general practitioner refers his patient. The effect of those drugs is often to reduce the level of antisocial behaviour and to mitigate the characteristic schizophrenic withdrawal from ordinary living.
  Since the Mental Health Act 1959, with its emphasis on community care, more and more mental health patients have been released from institutional care to be integrated back into their local communities. This must be the correct policy. However, that has led to two situations for the schizophrenic. First, there is a tremendous burden on the families of schizophrenics who are forced to try to cope with a person and situation that they do not understand. Secondly, many schizophrenics and other ex-mental health patients have fallen through the net of community care and joined the growing number of single, homeless people.
  In 1972, the National Schizophrenia Fellowship was established, with the improvement of community care and better support for the caring relatives as its main aims. Its work is invaluable, fully recognised and appreciated by the Government, as the replies to my questions last year showed. I have consulted that fellowship about the Bill. I echo the earlier contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) in expressing the fellowship's concern about new subsection (3A), which provides for a patient who is compulsorly admitted to hospital to apply to a mental health tribunal to be released within 14 days.
  The National Schizophrenia Fellowship believes that that clause should be deleted, with consequential amendments to clause 36, because it feels it would be to the disadvantage of schizophrenics. We must consider particular instances when debating the application of that clause.
  Somebody who is mentally very ill—perhaps suffering from a severe schizophrenic disorder—may become

  735
  uncontrollably violent at home and resist voluntary admission to hospital. The family cannot cope and a general practioner is called in. The family might have to wait a long time before he arrives. The doctor may not be able to contain the situation and may, therefore, compulsorily admit the sufferer to hospital. The patient can then be detained, legally with the approval of two independent psychiatrists under section 25, for up to 28 days for suitable treatment to be given, followed by suitable care after discharge. To suggest, as the clause does, that a patient can apply for release within 14 days is, from what I gather to be the widely held view of the profession, impractical and contradictory.
  Compulsory admission of a patient in that way—in a violent and uncontrollable state—means that he needs help not just for a few days but for some time. Yet, here we are saying that he can apply within 14, 10, 8 days, or even less, to be discharged without benefiting from a proper course of treatment. Therefore, the clause does nothing to help caring relatives of the patient. Their problems arise when the hospital refuses to admit, when compulsory powers are not taken or when patients are discharged while still ill and with no arrangements for after-care.
  The clause does little to help the patient with its provision for appeals and tribunals during the first critical days after admission, when he is likely to be at his most disturbed. Its application also casts doubt, through the machinery of the tribunal, on the collective judgment and good faith of the caring relatives, the general practitioner and the two independent psychiatrists who believed that the patient needed to be compulsorily admitted to hospital for more than the initial 72 hours.
  When a patient is compulsorily admitted, being extremely ill, surely the appropriate medical treatment should be of prime importance, while his rights—we must always safeguard them—should not be given the same priority as the clause suggests in such circumstances.
  In the context of this clause, I shall also refer to clause 46, which provides for the patient to be informed orally and in writing of his rights as soon as possible after his compulsory detention. The fear is that staff in charge, anxious to ensure that they do not break the law, will impose on the patient complicated information and explanations far too soon after his compulsory admission. That will serve only to confuse him further and encourage him to make subjective decisions about future treatment.
  As my right hon. Friend well knows, there is widespread professional concern, including the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, about clause 41 on consent to treatment. The hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred to that aspect. Again, the Bill suggests imposing a complicated and restrictive set of procedures which, if applied when immediate and urgent treatment is necessary, may not be in the patient's best interests.
  I accept that safeguards are necessary for treatments such as brain surgery and ECT, to which the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) referred. However, subsection (2), referring to the administration of medicine by any means, could, for example, rule out the application of an injection to calm a violent patient who may be attacking staff and other patients and obviously will not give his consent, until an independent person arrives to give a second opinion. That will take time. I question
  736
  whether doctors can work on this basis, although I understand the fears that they have about their legal position in such situations.
  This is a good Bill, because my right hon. Friend and his predecessors undertook widespread consultations before it was drafted. It is a better Bill now because of the open-mindedness displayed by the Government in the other place where many amendments were made. It will become an even better Bill if the Government maintain that attitude in Committee. It will go a long way towards creating a legal framework necessary for the treatment and care that every patient has a right to expect.
  7.29 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) into the intricacies of the definition of schizophrenia or a discussion of the technicalities of clause 13. I am sure that those points will be noted and pursued in Committee.
  Like the hon. Gentleman, I welcome the Bill in general and particularly its extension of the rights of detained patients to obtain a review of their detention. I welcome the introduction of the Mental Health Act Commission, to which I would give rather more support than did my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) in the role that it has been set to oversee psychiatric hospitals, and particularly the special hospitals, to see and meet patients, so that they have better opportunities to comment and complain if they wish, and to ensure that the law is adhered to in individual cases.
  As a sponsored member of COHSE, I very much welcome clause 6, which will enable a registered mental nurse to exercise a holding power over an informal patient for six hours, where necessary, in certain urgent circumstances and where a doctor is not immediately available to arrange a three-day detention.
  I welcome, too, the introduction of the approved social worker role, with improved training and more precise duties, which, subject to resource availability—which under current Government policies is a considerable caveat and is a matter that needs to be pressed—should assist the rights of patients.
  Those are all major advances under the Bill. Without wishing to derogate from the importance of those advances I must say that there are a number of omissions from and deficiencies in the Bill. First, there is the important consideration that no fewer than 93 per cent. of mental patients resident in hospitals have been informally admitted and so do not fall within the ambit of the Mental Health Act Commission. There is a good deal of evidence that some informal patients are admitted with the implied or explicit threat of a compulsory order. Also, a patient may not be informed of every alternative available. Hospital admission may seem inevitable to him. In no sense could he be said to be making a free choice.
  More seriously still, if a patient is unaware that he has the right to refuse treatment and is not informed of that right, he cannot be regarded as giving his informed consent to treatment. After all, the unprotesting patient is not necessarily a consenting patient. If an informal patient is treated under those circumstances and suffers severe, or possibly even irreversible, ill effects, he should have access to the commission to discuss his complaint and seek help.

  737
  The Mental Health Act Commission is given powers to investigate complaints by patients detained under the Act, as I said in an intervention in the Secretary of State's speech, but it has no power to take action should it find that a patient has been unlawfully detained. Not unreasonably, the Secretary of State referred to the powers of other bodies, and in particular the mental health review tribunal, but it is an anomaly in the powers of the Mental Health Act Commission, which should be rectified.
  My second point concerns emergency admissions. The Secretary of State referred to this. There appears to be widespread abuse of section 29, which makes provision for admitting patients compulsorily to hospital without the safeguard for mental patients under sections 25 and 26. Many hospitals receive over 80 per cent. of compulsory patients under section 29.
  Recently, Doctors Barton and Hander undertook a study of admissions in one hospital under section 29 in a three-year period. Only 72 out of 182 were justified—only 40 per cent. They concluded that about 5,000 people were compulsorily wrongly admitted every year as emergencies in England and Wales.
  There is a need to tighten the criteria for section 29 admissions in the hope of providing greater safeguards for patients and their families.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is making a serious point. Is he saying that the statutory criteria were not complied with, or that the clinical judgment was wrong?
  Mr. Meacher: The patients were admitted under section 29 because that is compulsory admission and it was easier to secure their admission. They should properly have been admitted under section 25 or 26.
  Mr. Hogg: For assessment?
  Mr. Meacher: Yes. It makes a considerable difference to a patient's rights. It is a serious abuse and one that has lasted for a long time. It is well known. Now is the opportunity for the House to change the practice. Perhaps we can return to the matter in Committee.
  Thirdly, wherever possible, a patient should be able to give his informed consent to treatment. I do not believe that that objective would be challenged. To do so a patient must be fully informed of the disadvantages, as well as the advantages, of the treatment proposed and the alternatives available. Where a patient is unable fully to be involved in a decision to treat him, the nearest relative should be able to examine the issues on his behalf. A social worker should be involved in discussions prior to treatment without the consent of the patient. Relatives frequently feel unable to question doctors on technical medical matters, yet it is vital that they be fully satisfied with the justification for the treatment when a patient cannot take responsibility for giving consent.
  Fourthly, it is desirable to involve an approved social worker in all section 25 and 26 applications, because a distraught relative may himself be in need of help and support, and because a relative's main concern may understandably be for treatment to be given to the patient but he may not know how that can best be done. A relative may not wish the patient to be compulsorily detained in hospital—my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West referred to that—in view of the stigma and long-term disadvantages that detention involves. Without knowing
  738
  the alternatives, the relative is in no position to question a medical opinion that compulsory admission is the right solution to the crisis.
  The Government's recent White Paper rightly argued that social workers approved to undertake the work should have special training and experience in dealing with mental health, so it is inconsistent to assume that a relative can play that role when the crisis may be the first experience that the family has had of psychiatric illness.
  Nevertheless, I believe that caring relatives should be consulted at all stages of hospital admission. There should be an explicit statement in the Bill of the right of a relative to initiate an assessment of the patient's needs. It is also desirable that the reasons for alternative treatment proposed by an approved social worker should be recorded and conveyed to the caring relative. In that way patients and their relatives will be given more opportunity than is envisaged in the Bill to consider the alternatives available to them and to find a solution that is most acceptable to, all concerned.
  Fifthly, there is the important question of the vulnerable position of psychiatric in-patients, in the light of which referral to a mental health review tribunal may prove little more, under the current framework, than a rubber-stamping of medical opinion. There is abundant evidence of that. To ensure genuine consideration of the case, with full information being made available on the alternatives to hospital, the ability or otherwise of family members to accept responsibility for the patient and the feelings of the patient about his hospitalisation, there should be a statutory obligation on the relevant local authority to advise and assist a patient whose case is to be heard by a mental health review tribunal. This is separate from, but closely linked to, the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) about legal aid in such cases. If that is not done by a local authority, we should ensure that such assistance is made available by an alternative agency—perhaps a branch of MIND or some other local voluntary agency. That support is critical if the tribunals are to work properly, as I am sure they are intended to.
  Any person detained in a psychiatric hospital is likely to need considerable support and assistance during the weeks following discharge. At present, a mental health review tribunal is limited to a decision for or against continued detention, without any power to ensure that the necessary support will be made available to the patient on his return to the community, if that decision is made. If the Bill were amended as I have suggested, there would be a dramatic effect, because it is clear that thousands of patients are still resident in hospital, not because they need treatment, but simply because the medical staff, understandably, feel unable to send them home unsupported. A recent MIND study found that more than one-fifth of all patients in many hospitals were ready for discharge if the necessary accommodation and after-care were made available.
  I hope that the Government will seriously consider implementing that change and will not allow their current obsession over cost-cutting in public expenditure to distort the desired framework of after-care, because we are now preparing a system which may go unamended for a further quarter of a century.
  This is an important and valuable Bill, which is wholly welcomed. However, as I and a number of my hon. Friends have sought to suggest, there are some serious

  739
  omissions from and significant defects in the proposed framework of care. For that reason, I hope that we may have an assurance that the Government will keep open their flexibility and discretion by accepting further amendments to the Bill where the balance of argument suggests that they are necessary.
  7.43 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has made two valuable points on which I should like to comment. The first relates to the use of section 29 of the 1959 Act. The hon. Gentleman said that in a number of cases patients had been admitted under a provision of that Act that was not designed for that purpose, and that they should have been admitted not under section 29, but under either section 25 or section 26. That is an important criticism, but it has perhaps a wider importance than that which the hon. Gentleman gave it.
  As the House knows, section 141 of the 1959 Act imposes a considerable restraint on a patient's ability to commence legal proceedings. In short, a patient cannot commence legal proceedings against doctors or hospital staff unless he can establish either lack of reasonable care or lack of good faith.
  That is not the only difficulty facing the patient, because he also has to get leave from, I think, a judge of the High Court, and the threshold that must be satisfied before leave is given is a considerable one.
  I accept that mental care is an unusual form of health care, because those practising it need specific protection. Therefore, I do not suggest that section 141 of the 1959 Act should be done away with, but I believe that the House would be wise to look at the section again and consider whether its terms are too restrictive.
  The matter was ventilated at considerable length in another place and many comments were made about the application of section 141. I believe that the House would be pleased if the Minister would give us some idea of the Government's thinking about the section and whether any useful changes could be brought forward in Committee.
  The other point that I wish to develop also arises from the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West. I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and I hope that he will not think me patronising if I say, in his absence, that he gave us an unusually clear and lucid exposition of an unusually complicated and convoluted matter. The House is grateful to him.
  My right hon. Friend said that mental health review tribunals were essential for the proper working of the Bill. He is right. The operation of the tribunals is critical to the proper working of mental health care. My right hon. Friend deserves congratulations for extending to patients much greater opportunities for their cases to be reviewed. However, I fear that the enlarged right of review, and the benefits that we hope will accrue from it, will remain illusory if patients are not entitled, as of right, to assistance in the presentation of their cases before the tribunals.
  Subject to the ordinary criteria of financial eligibility, patients whose cases are being reviewed by a tribunal should have automatic access to legal aid. Let me summarise the arguments in favour of that proposition. First, a mental health review tribunal is the only tribunal that deals immediately with individual liberty and has the
  740
  power to grant or deny a person his freedom. I cannot immediately think of another tribunal with a comparable power, although other hon. Members may be able to suggest some.
  By the nature of things, many patients, perhaps even the majority, cannot fully or properly argue their case on matters that are inevitably extremely complicated. There may be a variety of reasons for that. It may be because of the nature of the drugs being administered to them or the nature of the malady with which they are afflicted.
  Secondly, patients who have been institutionalised for many years tend to show a degree of passiveness and acquiescence and a sense of institutionalisation that does not fit them properly to present arguments in support of their case.
  Two other considerations may influence the House. The first, as many hon. Members well know, is that tribunals quite properly think that some part of the evidence presented to them is not evidence that the patients should hear. I have no objection to that in principle, but it is very difficult for a patient to present his case in a convincing manner when some part of the material evidence has been excluded from him. That would not arise if the patient had a representative, because probably the representative would be permitted to know what would otherwise be the excluded evidence.
  I put the other consideration before the House, conscious that it is obvious but having in mind that sometimes the obvious is overlooked. If a patient has been in a hospital for a very long time, he has no prospect of having access either to advice or to funds with which to obtain advice. We are discussing people who, by the nature of their position, cannot go into the street to obtain advice. Because of the conjunction of facts that relate to mental patients, there is a powerful argument for such patients, as of right, having legal aid to assist in the presentation of their cases.
  I have three mental hospitals in my constituency, and I visit them regularly. I remember the last occasion on which I went round St. John's hospital, Bracebridge Heath. I saw—the fault was mine—some patients' cards, and I could not help noticing the admission dates. I remember clearly that there were people in that ward who had been admitted to St. John's in the 1930s, the 1940s and the 1950s—people who had been there for 50, 40 and 30 years. I could not help wondering whether they were properly there. The House has to be very sensitive to the special needs of patients. We must strive strenously to create a system which prevents people from being unreasonably and unnecessarily deprived of their liberty. I was pleased to see that a similar view was expressed by the Law Society and the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on legal aid in its thirty-first annual report in pages 16 and 17.
  I hope that there will be agreement in the House about the desirability of extending legal aid to patients to assist them with the presentation of their cases before tribunals. My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor could use his powers under the Legal Aid Act 1979 to achieve that happy result, and I hope that through one means or another the House will tell the Lord Chancellor that that is what he should do.
  Subject to that, I give the Bill a very hearty welcome.
  7.54 pm
  Mr. Ken Eastham: All the representations being made by progressive medical people seem strongly to favour the further review of the Mental Health Act 1959, and they include my local CHC and medical specialist staff working in the service.
  The mental health service is not a glamorous one. The position is quite the opposite. Often it is looked upon as the poor relation. In most cases, patients cannot speak for themselves, which makes it all the more important that we in the House take a special interest, as we are today in this very important debate.
  There is a large hospital in my constituency which caters for a large number of mental patients. They are not criminal patients, but they are included in parts of the Bill. Recently I had a useful meeting with a group of consultant psychiatrists and senior nursing officers. They are dedicated people and all work in the service full time. The consultants have links with MIND and the CHCs and they are united as a progressive group generally in favour of the Bill.
  The consultants mentioned to me one area of possible concern. It is contained in clause 41(6). They are most anxious that it stays in the Bill in the interests of some of their patients.
  At present, 95 per cent. of psychiatric patients are treated informally under current legislation, and there are powers to treat without a patient's consent. The consultants believe sincerely that there is a case for treatment with sedating drugs over the initial crisis period for such disorders as acute suicidal depression, schizophrenia and other uncontrollable outbursts. Usually such patients cannot think properly when it comes to giving consent, and possibly they put their lives at risk if they refuse treatment. I emphasise that only sedation is requested. There is no question of other treatments such as ECT. The inability to treat patients who are unable to consent might even mean their being refused admission to or being removed from a hospital.
  The question of obtaining permission from a visiting commissioner or similar authority should rightly be posed because it must be recognised that in many cases consent to treat will place a major work load on the number of visits required for the purposes of clause 41. If, as in the case of my local hospital, the number was between 400 and 1,000, and if this were repeated in scores of hospitals throughout the country, the problem of making speedy decisions in interests of saving patients would become a very important issue. May I ask the Minister urgently to review the numbers of authorising visitors if they are found to be inadequate, which is possible bearing in mind the great number of hospitals involved?
  Speaking generally about the care and needs of many of our mental hospitals, it must be said that numerous other issues are vitally important and should be aired in the interest of improving patients' health and ensuring their speedy recovery.
  Psychiatry is an increasingly unpopular specialty, and by 1985 it will suffer the greatest shortages of medical manpower. Psychiatrists have to deal with about six times the number of patients that their colleagues on the medical and surgical side see. Buildings generally tend to be the oldest in the National Health Service and usually are grossly overcrowded. Furnishings and beds are nowhere near the required standards.
  742
  I am appalled to learn that in my own local hospital there is discrimination even in the catering provisions for mental patients compared with others in the non-mental wings. I have it on good authority that the catering allowance is £1 per week less for mental patients and that the hospital dietician at Cumpsall hospital has recognised that the diet is completely inadequate for the patients. He has even requested that doctors prescribe vitamins to make up the serious food deficiency. It would be interesting to know the cost of a week's supply of alternative vitamins in place of providing wholesome food. This is occurring at a time when in the EEC there are all kinds of food surpluses going rotten or being denatured to keep up prices.
  It may be that the Minister was not aware of this diet deficiency in some of our mental hospitals. He knows it now, and I should greatly welcome his comments or, better still, a visit from him to my local hospital.
  I am also advised that my local hospital has had very good co-operation and back-up service from the Manchester social services department. Regrettably, there is now growing concern that the compulsorily imposed cuts in social workers, old people's homes, and residential hospitals will seriously affect mental patients, especially the very old. It should be realised that half of all the people aged over 80 years have some sort of mental trouble. My local hospital is 50 trained nurses short, but they could be recruited if funds were made available.
  The Bill is moving in the right direction for mental health care and we must not be put off with the excuse that the money cannot be afforded for the many needs and urgent improvements that I have listed. The progress that we make is a great tribute to all who have helped to formulate the Bill's contents.
  I hope that the Minister will take seriously the fact that if we are interested in improving the lot of mental patients, we must not get bogged down, as hon. Members seem to be, in the various clauses and the various legal aspects, simple and complicated. Other basic considerations have not commanded much attention during the debate. We have to get the fabric of the hospitals, the manning, the ratio of doctors and the diet right. In addition, the shortcomings of the mental hospitals compared with the surgical and medical wards, should be remedied.
  Any fair-minded Minister should recognise that there should be an attempt to correct this imbalance in the mechanism. There seem to be two classes of National Health Service patients. Those in the mental wards are in the forgotten army, but those in the sophisticated specialties such as heart surgery, or related fields, have only the best. I am not saying that we should deny any patient in any sector the fullest benefits of the service, but we must make this special plea and recognise, as many people do, that the time has passed when we can continue neglecting mental health. We need a massive input with massive funding if we are to get these patients out of the hospitals and into the world where they can lead a full life.
  8.3 pm
  Mr. Tom Benyon: I welcome the chance to make a contribution to the debate, which started so well with the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). I am sure that the House agrees with me that we hope to hear many such contributions from him in the years to come.

  743
  I should like to take up some of the points made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) about the attitude in which society holds those afflicted with mental handicaps or illness. They may be regarded as the forgotten legion, and they are neglected by rather more people than just those in the House.
  This is a problem for society and the community at large. I welcome the Bill and the time at which the Government have brought it forward. I feel that it will do much to publicise the plight of these people.
  It is possibly a mark of the lack of compassion in society that we can laugh at those least able to look after themselves. The Government should be especially commended for introducing the Bill. We have a great deal to do in terms of educating the public in their attitude towards those with mental illness or handicap. To start with, many believe that mental illness and handicap are one and the same thing. They also seem, most unfairly, to regard those suffering from mental handicap as being forgivable, but those suffering from mental illness as showing some sign of weakness in having it.
  We have a great deal to do to educate people. I say that because of the connections that I have with charities dealing with those who are mentally handicapped or who have suffered from mental illness but recovered sufficiently to come out of psychiatric hospitals, as I am sure many other hon. Members have. One cannot pluck people from psychiatric hospitals and bring them raw out into the community. They need assistance. I commend those charities and voluntary organisations that dedicate so much time to helping those with mental illness.
  I speak from my experience of St. John's psychiatric hospital in Aylesbury, where about 30 people have been able to come out during the last four years, assisted by the Guidepost Trust. It helps people, many of whom, as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) said, have become institutionalised, having been incarcerated for 25 or 30 years. They forget how to travel on a bus, go to the laundry, shop in a supermarket or manage their housekeeping.
  We cannot just throw resources at this problem. It is a community problem and it will involve people in the community giving their time to befriend and help these people. It requires not vast amounts of technical skill, but an approach of common sense and the giving of the most valuable commodity—time.
  The Bill is the first major piece of mental health legislation since the Act of 1959 that it seeks to amend. The Government are to be congratulated on introducing this measure. By doing so they give the lie to any charge of a lack of compassion, about which we hear so much in many debates.
  Despite the significant change for the better in the attitude of the public to mental health, brought about by the liberating effects of the Mental Health Act 1959, it is still true to say that looking after the mentally ill and handicapped does not win many votes or ensure electoral popularity. It is for this reason, as well as for the content of the Bill, that the Government deserve recognition from all parts of the House.
  I illustrate the point about the Bill not winning votes by saying that the public attitude to mental health might be characterised by the fact that for every £1 raised for mental health, £9 is raised for charities connected with animals.
  744
  The 1959 Act represented the culmination of a debate between the two different approaches to mental illness and its treatment which commenced in the nineteenth century. On the one hand there was what might be called legalism, based on nineteenth century liberalism, the main assumption of which was that no one ought to be confined in any institution without specific safeguards. Against that there were ranged those who might be called the treatment school, who argued that the patient's need for the treatment overrides his legal rights to be committed only by a lay independent tribunal and to legal representation.
  It is in that context—and I have grossly simplified it—that any debate on this subject should be put. The treatment school predominated in the passing of the 1959 Act. It was a revolutionary piece of legislation, because, for the first time since 1774, there were almost no judicial controls.
  The basic philosophy was that treatment for mental illness was of paramount concern and that it could be provided only if judicial committal were abolished, the majority of patients were voluntary and members of the medical profession, as care givers, were pre-eminent in running the system. That stands in stark contrast to the 100 years before, when, for instance, in 1862 a Member of this House, Mr. Montague Smith, on the Lunacy Regulation Bill moved:
  "That the opinion of any medical practitioner shall not be admissible as evidence of the insanity of such person."
  The 1959 Act has resulted in 90 per cent. of patients in mental illness and mental handicap hospitals being voluntary, compared with 20 per cent. in the United States in 1975. The Act has, to an extent, removed some of the stigma of mental illness, by its underlying philosophy that mental illness should be treated in the same way as physical illness. In that context I commend to the House the work of Larry Gostin, who wrote "The Human Condition", an excellent book published by MIND in 1976.
  Despite some faults and drawbacks, a great deal of good has come out of the 1959 Act for the mentally ill and handicapped. In the seven or eight years since the publication of the Butler committee report on abnormal offenders there has been an intense and wide-ranging debate about the position and protection of the detained patient. Underlying the debate there seemed to be a feeling that the 1959 Act had weakened the patient's legal position excessively and that his rights needed strengthening. The Bill effectively remedies that without undermining the essential philosophy of the 1959 Act.
  As is right in such a Bill, the Government have treated it as non-partisan. I am delighted that the Committee stage will be taken under the Special Standing Committee procedure.
  In the spirit of that approach, the Government in the other place either introduced amendments or announced intended amendments which will add considerably to the Bill's importance. Among them are the exclusion from the detention provisions of the 1959 Act of most mentally handicapped people. That represents a speedy and energetic response to the representations of the major charity in the area, MENCAP, and other bodies. The second amendment involves the removal from the Home Secretary of his exclusive powers to discharge restricted patients and the transfer of these powers to the mental health review tribunal. That is a swift response to the European Court judgment in X v. United Kingdom.

  745
  The third provision involves the establishment of a statutory duty on hospital managers to inform detained patients of their rights. The fourth is the requirement of a multidisciplinary confirmation of a patient's consent to treatments giving rise to special concern. The fifth is the requirement laid on the Mental Health Act Commission to publish a report at the end of its first three years and subsequently every two years.
  The measure incorporates numerous beneficial provisions for the well-being of the detained patient. Among them I highlight the tightening of procedures for civil admission, and especially the granting of a right of application to a mental health review tribunal for those detained under section 25. Secondly, I highlight the halving of detention periods under section 26—at present the long-term detention authority of one year—and section 60, under which provision is made for the court-made hospital detention order of the same length, which thereby effectively doubles the number of tribunal applications that a patient can make.
  I warmly endorse the creation of the automatic referral of cases to mental health review tribunals at the end of a patient's first six months in hospital and at the end of three years. I welcome the withdrawal of the age limits for the detention of psychopaths and the mentally impaired and the replacement of a "treatability" test. I welcome the generally pragmatic reforms in the way in which courts can remand mentally disordered offenders to hospital for observation or treatment. Numerous other reforms will be revealed during the Bill's passage.
  I shall refer to some of the controversial issues. The Bill courageously deals with an issue which it is fair to say the 1959 Act studiously avoided. I refer to the vexed question of consent to treatment and to the powers of the responsible medical officer to impose treatment upon an unwilling patient. The issue lies at the core of the doctor-patient relationship and is probably the most important question arising from the Bill.
  Some people say that in no circumstances should treatment be imposed upon a competent patient, but others argue that that will result in a number of patients not receiving treatment who would benefit from it. Up to now the position has been generally unsatisfactory and has aroused the general public's concern. Equally important, it has aroused the concern of staff, primarily because the law does not state the position clearly.
  Clause 41 succeeds in that intention admirably. However, the clause may be amended and the clarification of the consent to treatment issue, which I hope will flow from the clause, will be of inestimable value in promoting a greater understanding of mental health by the general public and a greater acceptance by the few detained patients and their relatives of treatment programmes designed for their benefit, which they find hard to accept.
  I was delighted to hear of the Government's proposed intention at least to accept in part the 1978 White Paper's recommendation that in this complex area there is a role for the intervention of multidisciplinary panels.
  I note that in the other place two other issues came up frequently. The first other issue was legal aid for appearances before mental health review tribunals. It became apparent that all parties, including the Government, recognised that as a priority extension for legal aid. I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham said on that subject, that the only outstanding issue is one of resources.
  746
  Secondly, attempts were made to repeal or amend section 141 which provides a procedural and substantive bar to patients who wish to seek legal remedies, civil or criminal, for any act rising out of their care under the Mental Health Act. I cannot deny that this is a difficult issue, but we must bear two matters in mind. First, we must consider seriously the views of people who are involved in the sometimes extremely difficult, vexing and demanding task of looking after the mentally ill. Secondly, we must inquire whether other safegaurds are either available or capable of being created which would render section 141 redundant. I have an open mind on the subject, and I know that the Government will display a similar openness when the Bill is considered in Committee.
  The Bill gives us an opportunity further to refine and improve the law relating to detained patients. It provides probably the last opportunity to do that for at least 20 years. In our deliberations we must keep to the forefront of our minds not only the mentally ill and handicapped, but their families and friends, who have to live with the effects of mental illness and impairment.
  8.17 pm
  Mr. William Pitt: I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). My maiden speech is fresh in my mind. I remember well the horrors of that occasion, so I can offer the hon. Gentleman sympathy. He spoke eloquently of his predecessor who, sadly, was cut down in the third week of my membership of the House.
  I welcome the Bill. I also welcome the unanimity and humanity from both sides of the House. The Bill is important. It will strengthen legislation which was put on the statute book when I was a callow youth of 20 and not even a member of the party which I now represent.
  I welcome the Bill but, like a number of hon. Members, I cannot welcome it totally. There are areas which the Government could modify and stiffen. I start by welcoming the shift of emphasis in clause 41. Like the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes)—whose mental capacity I am sure is far greater than mine—I find the clause a little like a maze and somewhat arcane.
  I should like to suggest some technical improvements to clause 6. I know that we are not on Report, but it might be worth reminding the Minister of its contents. In regard to the detention of patients in hospital, subsection (3) says that
  "the nurse may record that fact in writing; and in that event the patient may be detained in the hospital."
  When I first read that, it seemed as though the nurse concerned would have to record the fact in writing before the patient was detained. If the patient were in a dangerous condition, or heading somewhere with a carving knife, he should be detained and the nurse should subsequently record the event. That would safeguard the nurse, who would not have to go through a bureaucratic process first.
  In schedule 2, paragraphs 29 and 34, I should like to see the words "severe mental handicap" replaced by "severe mental impairment", as in the rest of the Bill. That might be a printing error. It seems strange that, in schedule 3, page 56, the Government are proposing to repeal part of the Mental Health (Amendment) Act before it becomes an Act. Part II refers to the short title, the Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982, and to the repeal of "section 49(3)". I am sure that that must be a printer's error.

  747
  There are some points that we would like to incorporate into the Bill. Clause 4(2) concerns the detention of patients. The Minister should look carefully at a new wording that would apply to the detention of patients who pose a threat of serious harm but would not apply to cases of minor inconvenience.
  In 1962 a section 65 order was made on someone who stole a pair of slippers and committed a minor assault. That person is still subject to section 65, although no longer in detention. A man was charged with indecent assault. He was unable to plead and was subsequently made subject to section 65. He stayed in Broadmoor for the next 10 years. There is at present before the European Court the case of a woman who has "a tendency to abscond" and commit minor theft. We must look carefully at the powers to detain patients and ensure that those who are detained—there are patients who are in need of detention—are doing serious harm rather than causing minor inconvenience.
  I welcome the Minister's announcement that 500 secure units will be provided. However, like other hon. Members, I feel that this may not be enough. Perhaps the Minister will consider—as my noble Friend Lord Avebury said in another place—the imposition of a duty upon local authorities to provide suitable hospital and accommodation treatment.
  Mr. Fowler: It was 500 places, not 500 units.
  Mr. Pitt: Yes. Will the duty be put upon local authorities to provide those places?
  There has been a considerable drop in admissions to hospital of people requiring secure accommodation. That is not because the courts are unwilling to make orders, but because there are not enough hospital beds. We must look to area health authorities and community health councils to provide the secure units, so that people can receive hospital treatment and not be put into prisons which are ill-equipped to deal with the detainees who are properly there and not equipped at all to deal with people who should have medication and care.
  The subject of legal aid has occupied a considerable part of the debate. I take the point made by the hon. Members for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) and Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) and the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) that legal aid should be available to all patients who come before mental health review tribunals. It is particularly important that it should be made available before the numbers who will be appearing before mental health review tribunals jump to 4,500 as a result of the Bill.
  Legal aid is available in many other circumstances for people who are mentally able to defend themselves. They are not mentally impaired and, by that token, they have an advantage over others who have mental impairment or mental illness. Why should the same facility not be available to people who start with a much greater disadvantage than others? I hope that the Minister will take cognisance of the remarks made by hon. Members on the subject and feel able to include a provision for legal aid for mental health review tribunal cases.
  I should like to consider another part of the operation of the mental health review tribunals—the extension of options and what the tribunals can do with patients. At the moment tribunals can only discharge patients or delay
  748
  discharge for a further period. Will the Minister consider the possibility of leave of absence from residential hospitals, conditional discharge in cases where it is possible to the care of relatives or other caring bodies in the community, and removal from special hospitals to other more suitable hospitals? In other words, whenever it is possible to do it, people should be moved from restrictive accommodation into less restrictive accommodation. They should be able to go out into the care of the community. As the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) said, mental patients will be cured only when they are able to go out into the community and respond from their own selves rather than having something imposed upon them.
  The Government's arguments concerning cost would not apply. If the mental health review tribunals were allowed to do what has been suggested, the cost would be cut and hospital beds would be made available for those whose need was greater at the time in question.
  I am concerned about the proposals for a remand period. I suggest—my noble Friends in another place have already suggested strongly—that the review concerning the remanding of patients for assessment should be very strict. I suggest that it should be for 28 days, renewable up to a total of only 56 days. The provision should not be used to detain patients for an indeterminate period without proper consideration of their needs.
  The issue that has raised most discussion in the debate is the certification by a doctor of the need for surgery, medicine and electro-convulsive therapy. To that list should be added the use of aversion stimuli, restraint and enforced seclusion. The whole ethos of this part of the debate revolves around the principle of no treatment without consent. That principle already exists for those of us who are not impaired mentally, are cognisant of what is going on, are able to make judgments and know when we want something or when we do not want it.
  We must not allow treatment to be given willy-nilly to the mentally ill. After all, they are supposed to be in our care. We should not allow them to be treated in ways in which we would not want our own families to be treated. It is necessary to protect the rights of those who are unable to protect their own rights. Those rights must be protected at least as stringently as the rights of those who are more fortunate. Wherever possible, a patient should be permitted to give his own consent and make his own rational decision concerning any form of treatment—not only ECT and surgery, but drugs.
  The hon. Member for Lewisham, West made a damning condemnation of the use of largactil. Largactil is used in enormous doses not only in our own mental institutions, but internationally. If the patient is able to make the decision, he should be permitted to make it. If he is not able to make it, the responsibility for making the decision should pass to the next of kin. If the next of kin is not available, it should pass to a lay body on the "next friend" basis—a mental health review tribunal or some other appropriate body.
  I do not want to take up the time of the House any more than I must. We have had a useful and successful debate. Hon. Members made succinct and important points. A point that may not occupy much of our time, but which is still important to a number of people detained in mental hospitals, is voting rights. We are told that the Home Secretary is considering that issue. It is interesting that the mentally ill and mentally handicapped in a general hospital

  749
  can vote, but the mentally ill or mentally impaired in a hospital specifically for the mentally ill cannot vote. As a layman, I am a little puzzled why one section of the mentally ill community has the franchise and another section of the community, which may be suffering from the same mental impairment, does not have the franchise. I ask the Minister seriously to consider that point.
  I recommend an anti-discrimination board. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West referred to the stigma of having been in a mental hospital. If such a person has been declared mentally ill, is cured and goes out of the hospital into the world, he may make an application for a mortgage, for example. His or her medical history will come up in its full glory before the doctor who is examining that person for purposes of the mortgage application. The doctor might sensibly say that that illness was a long time ago and that the applicant should tell him about it. He will be able to judge immediately from the way in which the person talks about it whether there is any danger of a relapse into that mental illness.
  On the other hand, such information might appear before the eyes not of a just person but of an employer or personnel department when someone has recovered from mental illness. Already there is a time limitation on the availability of records of those who have been convicted of crimes. We should have an anti-discrimination board so that people who have been discriminated against by the lack of legislation can appeal and obtain redress, or, more preferably, a clause could be included in the Bill or in legislation brought before the House as quickly as possible to limit the time when a person's record of mental illness can be handed out to someone who requires it. The person who has recovered faces a difficult task in going out into the world and part of his recovery is that he knows he can face society with confidence.
  That is the intention of the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill, which I wholeheartedly support. The Liberal Party recommends it. I hope that my remarks have been constructive. I hope that the Minister will examine and take on board the suggestions that I, and my noble Friends in another place, have made because I believe that they will greatly improve and reinforce the Bill as an aid to the mentally impaired.
  8.28 pm
  Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: Like many other right hon. and hon. Members, I congratulate the other place on its initiative and enterprise in bringing to this House a Bill that will be a positive measure in reassuring many people representing all sorts of professions, whose work is relevant to some elements of the Bill.
  I am certain that the Bill will be received with acclamation by the House. I say this as a Whip who has to do a little prodding. It is agreeable that this is a non-party issue. There has appeared to be a genuine consensus among hon. Members on the primary motive of the Bill, which is to build upon the principles of the already successful 1959 Act.
  Some of us still have some minor reservations about Dickensian elements in the Bill. As other hon. Members have done, I shall highlight a specific case that demonstrates the traumas faced by many of those who have been sent to mental homes and institutions under our archaic Acts. Unfortunately, some of them are still there and I shall cite some positive evidence from those with bitter experiences.
  750
  I shall deal with sections 60 to 65 of the Mental Health Act 1959, under which those convicted of criminal offences have been sentenced, in essence, to mental prisons. Under section 60 magistrates or a Crown court can order the detention in hospital of a mentally disordered person who has committed an offence. There are some exceptions, which I am sure will be clarified during examination of the Bill in Committee. However, detention can be ordered, providing that the offender has a mental disorder that warrants detention in hospital and the court thinks that that is the most suitable way of disposing of the case. The Act states that two medical opinions are required. Under section 65, if the Crown court thinks it necessary for the protection of the public, it may make a hospital order with restrictions. Magistrates' courts do not have that power. Indeed, I shall cite a tragic case—which will cause hon. Members to shudder—that resulted from a magisterial decision. As a result the patient can be discharged, transferred or given leave of absence only with the consent of the Home Secretary.
  Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) had to leave the Chamber some time ago, but I congratulate him on his sincere contribution. He emphasised the general importance of human rights. A few months ago I learnt of a tragic case. A lady came to my surgery and told me that 10 years ago she had absconded from a mental home. I asked her why she had done so and why she had been detained. I then asked for an investigation and inquiry to confirm, as she, in her own sweet way said, her "confession". The case highlights the fact that although people have been institutionalised they can, with great courage and tenacity, come forward with their cases.
  I shall refer to the mystery of a woman's 15 lost years. The case has received wide press publicity and national newspapers are carrying out investigations.
  Mrs. Maureen Baker is now 45 years old. When she was 18, she was charged by a magistrates' court with stealing coal worth 5p—then a shilling. Her mother was unable to accompany the girl to court because she could not get permission to leave her work. So it was decided that a neighbour should accompany the girl. That was in 1957—two years before the 1959 Act reached the statute book.
  The girl spent 15 years in Calderstones hospital. and in Brockhall hospital at Blackburn, two well-known institutions, before she attempted to escape—perhaps the correct word is abscond—10 years ago. During that decade she married and now has an 8-year-old son. During all that time no attempt was made by the police or the authorities to inquire into her whereabouts. I am not judge and jury, but it is fairly predictable to say that when a person leaves a mental institution and is away for nearly a decade, during which time she played her part as a reasonable member of society, worked, married and had children, there is great doubt about whether she should ever have spent 15 lost years in those institutions. She said that picking coal was "a common practice" among her school mates at the time. She claimed that most of the people in her area did it, and that most of them were in dire straits. She said:
  "The next thing I knew I was in court one minute and in the hospital the next. During the case I was taken into a separate room then a man and woman told me they would take me to a nice place where there was a swimming pool and games to play'.

  751
  Mrs. Baker found that to be untrue. The newspaper report says:
  "it was not until two months later that her parents and family knew where she had been taken. Her mother was at work on the date her daughter had appeared in court."
  Mrs. Baker said of the 15 years that she spent in Calderstones and Brockhall:
  "When I was in this place it seemed like someone just locked the door and threw away the key".
  None of this would ever have come to light, but for the fact that she remembered the girls who were with her during that time and of the minute offences that had taken them there. She therefore decided to go back. A few months ago she went back to see her friends. She was obviously not identified by the staff but she decided to admit that she had defected. I have spoken of the courage and tenacity of the woman. She wished to challenge the authorities. She approached councillors and her MP to say that she believed that hundreds of people were kept in mental hospitals because no one took the time to examine the circumstances and that there was no machinery available to highlight such cases. According to one newspaper report, she said:
  "I know that they are still there, just rotting away. In all my time inside I was given no reason for them keeping me there, or told I could go. My friends were lovely girls. They seemed to be there just"—
  and hon. Members have quoted similar cases—
  "for the convenience of the authorities who could find nowhere else to put them."
  I hope that this kind of case—a serious indictment of our society in the past—will never recur. I believe that the Bill will tighten up the situation that gave rise to the problems and traumas that I have described.
  I might add that the saga is still not finished. The case attracted some notoriety. On leaving the institution her friend Beryl Williamson, who is now the subject of an inquiry and who had been there 25 years—the periods of 10 and 15 years—decided to follow Mrs. Baker and accompanied her and her child on the bus. This was done openly. There was no one on guard.
  The police were called and Beryl Williamson was discovered at Maureen Baker's home. Inquiries were made. One knows from experience that if one tries to open too many doors in dealing with inquiries of this kind it is difficult to get people to speak out. Mrs. Baker found herself once more back in the courts charged with harbouring Beryl Williamson. I am glad to say that when the court heard the circumstances a conditional discharge was immediately given. The magistrate commented that the whole case should be put under the microscope.
  The solicitor of Maureen Baker, who has asked to go back to Brockhall hospital to see her friends, states in a letter to me:
  "We do know that you have seen Mrs. Baker on several occasions to discuss her friend Miss Williamson who is at Brockhall's hospital in Blackburn and indeed about her own case which seems to be shrouded in the mists of time."
  It was time that condemned people in those days. The letter adds:
  "Since the court case, Mrs. Baker has found it increasingly difficult, indeed impossible even to speak to Miss Williamson by telephone and she is we believe sincerely afraid that Miss Williamson is in fact being punished particularly because of the press activities since the case."
  One can understand why this case received much press attention. Whether those allegations are true or not—it is
  752
  not for me to say—Mrs. Baker is very worried, especially as she has attempted to telephone the hospital several times and has been put off by the staff. She told us that she heard what could be described as scuffling in the background. On one occasion she talked to a doctor whom she described as having a rather strange manner. The Bill is meant to reveal people about whom we must have free and open discussion. Mrs. Baker has real anxieties about her long-standing friends which, understandably, emanate largely from her experiences. The stories that she has told us must surely be the subject of investigation and inquiry.
  I have said some uncharitable things about the other place, but I must congratulate its Members. The debate has done much to reconcile the doubts and the grave anxieties that many of us felt about events in institutions in our constituencies. The fact that there is no vote this evening illustrates our passionate wish for justice for those with whom the Bill will deal. I congratulate everyone who has spoken in the debate, the legislators, the Secretary of State and the other place for bringing such an important and significant Bill to the House.
  8.52 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe), I hope that no one is now detained in a mental institution who should not be there. My hon. Friend illustrated the problems that occur with those who were committed to institutions many years ago.
  However, we should remember that in many ways we are still making the same mistakes. Reference has been made today to someone having to be placed in a secure mental hospital because no other place was available. Within the last two years in Stockport there has been a similar instance of a young girl who should have gone into one sort of accommodation but, because the people running that institution were reluctant to take her on as she had some problems, she had to go into secure accommodation, which was probably unnecessary. The hope is that her case and other such cases will receive a continuous review and that she will stay there no longer than is necessary. At the back of those people's minds is the fear that such people, once they are sent to an institution, stay there. I hope that this legislation will make that less likely.
  We are trying to enshrine good practice in the law. There are some advantages in this area. There is a fairly broad consensus of what good practice is. Of course, if there were agreement on what is good practice and we could achieve it, there would be no need to make laws to enforce it. It is a difficult area.
  One of the elements of good practice is flexibility, yet the law is bad at making matters flexible and enforceable. There is a conflict in that the more we legalise a system the easier it is to enforce, but the further it is pushed away from good practice.
  At the back of the minds of most hon., Members is the perception of many institutions as cages, as something to be avoided, to be worried about and to put people into only with great reluctance. However, it should also be clear that for some people, by not putting them into institutions, but by leaving them in or releasing them into the community, the community can be equally difficult a cage to survive in. When suggesting that people should be out of

  753
  institutions, it is important that we do not merely throw them into the community without providing them with proper and adequate services.
  I turn to the way in which people are persuaded to accept treatment. it is much better to obtain consent for treatment than to go through a legally enforceable system. However, one must also recognise that some people prefer someone else to take decisions for them, and that sometimes one is being harsh by insisting that such persons must make their decisions themselves. Where people are severely disturbed or unhappy, they are often reluctant to come to a decision.
  Although there is much idealism in the principle that consent should be obtained, it is a relief for some people when others take a decision. We should not seek always to weigh the matter too much in favour of insisting that we should work hard on someone to obtain his or her consent, as that process may cause more problems for the person concerned than saying that on this occasion, and in these conditions and with all the safeguards, it would be better for someone else to take the decision. In future, however, the individual should be encouraged to participate in deciding whether he wants to go on with the course of treatment. We must be careful about the concept of consent.
  It is important that patients should be informed of their rights. Once again, there are many dangers. It is easy to give people a piece of written information, but it is difficult to ensure that they fully understand their rights. The only way that that can be done is for them to be given information and told their rights continually. It should not be a case of someone being admitted, told their rights and then be forgotten. There should be a continuing process while he is in an institution. He should be reminded constantly of his rights and have them explained, especially how they can be exercised.
  I am often frightened that someone is given a piece of paper with his rights on it. Often people get the wrong end of the stick and spend a great deal of time writing to Members of Parliament and others about issues that are especially important to them which appear on the list and which they have not fully grasped.
  Several hon. Members have referred to caring relatives. Such relatives are extremely important, but one must watch carefully that they are not caring relatives who tend to care for themselves rather than for the patient. I have sometimes been distressed by so-called caring relatives who want a patient off their hands and put into an institution rather than finding out what is best for the patient. I do not blame them. They are often left to bear the brunt of the problems. However, we must be careful about the concept of the caring relative, especially where there are two relatives, equally closely related to the patient, who have different ideas on what is the right treatment or help.
  It is vital that the Government extend the legal aid system to include the mental health review tribunals. It would be unfortunate if we spent much of the time in Committee arguing about that. The Government should be able to make a concession. It may appear at first sight that the Government will have to spend a little money in making provision for legal aid, but really it is a matter of avoiding money being wasted. What is the point of having a tribunal if the individual who goes to it feels that he has not derived some benefit from so doing? How can he feel that he has had some benefit from attending the tribunal
  754
  if he has not been properly represented? It is no good having a tribunal that is merely a piece of window dressing.
  The Government must ensure that those who appear before the tribunals are properly and adequately represented. Surely that cannot be done unless they are prepared to concede entitlement to legal aid. I hope that they will make that concession at an early stage so that we do not waste time in Committee arguing over what is really a relatively small issue. We must be careful to ensure that the tribunals are sufficiently informal so that the individuals who go to them feel at ease, feel that they are relevant to them and do not feel that it is a process that is so far removed from them that it means nothing.
  I am concerned about the idea of producing evidence at a tribunal that the individual does not know about. I realise that there are difficulties but it seems that there should be a primary duty to ensure that as little information as possible is put before the tribunal that cannot be shown, described or explained to the individual that it concerns. To submit evidence of which the individual knows nothing is not in the best interests of justice and will always leave the feeling in the back of the individual's mind that he has been cheated and that a veto was imposed that he could not challenge.
  Consent to treatment is one of the most difficult issues. Such consent is based on having accurate information on the consequences of giving or not giving consent. Recently I have been approached by three constituents who did not have mental problems but who had consented to undergo operations. They said "If we had known what was to happen to us, we would never have given our consent". Their claim is that the doctor did not tell them what the true alternatives were. It appears that the doctor told them what he hoped would happen and did not tell them what could go wrong.
  This is a major problem, especially when those concerned may be disturbed. It is extremely difficult to persuade someone in that state to consent to treatment. The doctor may think that it is in the patient's best interest to receive treatment, but at the same time he has the task of trying to give them a balanced view of the possible consequences of having or not having treatment. These are difficult areas. We should not claim that we are solving the problem merely because someone gives consent. It has to be informed consent, and that is a difficult area.
  I am disappointed that the Mental Health Act Commission will be concerned only with those who are to be detained. It should be concerned as much with those who are not to be detained. The danger is that when only one group has the protection of the commission, that may influence the way in which decisions are taken. We ought to be concerned whether a decision is taken in one direction or another. The Mental Health Act Commission ought to consider proposals put forward about people who ought to be detained and the position when the proposals have been turned down. It should also certainly consider the position of some people in the community who are unable to get into hospital and who are not necessarily getting access to the facilities they need. Further consideration should be given to guardianship orders. The commission ought to go much further than is proposed.
  Living in the community can be worse for some people than being detained in an institution if the community does not care for and show reasonable interest in them. I fear that that happens too often and individuals end up as the

  755
  responsibility of social workers. Not enough people are showing concern, and most hon. Members are well aware that people are often unable to be released from institutions because of lack of accommodation.
  We also ought to be aware that people are often released into inadequate accommodation or, having been released into adequate accommodation, which is often transitional, they then gravitate into less and less satisfactory accommodation. People often have to be readmitted because the accommodation is so unsatisfactory. We have a duty to consider the available accommodation in the community and to ensure that it helps people to remain in the community and does not push tham back into some institutions.
  We must consider the amount of money upon which many people released from institutitions must survive. Even if one has all the skills necessary to survive, it is difficult to get by on some of the levels of supplementary or invalidity benefit. To ask people who have not had to manage for themselves for a long time to get by on these minimal levels of income can cause them many difficulties and stresses that may well push them back into the institutions they have left.
  Unemployment is one of the most worrying aspects now. Work offers many people the opportunity to meet others and to feel that they are performing a useful role. If one denies people the opportunity to work, it causes them many difficulties and problems. Those who have spent time in mental institutions or have had problems find it increasingly difficult to get work, which is extremely important in ensuring that they do not return to institutions. I make the same point on recreational facilities.
  I recently encountered three constituents who, on travelling around my constituency, fell out with almost everybody they met. They managed to row with their family doctors, social security workers and members of the housing department. They often managed to row with me at my advice bureau. Of course, one wonders why they managed to row with everybody. Everybody feels that they are awkward so-and-sos and that they might perhaps be better off somewhere else. However, the truth is that they can cope with having a row because somebody then takes notice of them.
  That presents an opportunity to talk to another human being. They probably go virtually unnoticed when left in their accommodation. They cannot easily visit their doctors unless they are complaining of something. They cannot go into the housing department or the Department of Health and Social Security offices to have a chat; they must go in with some purpose. The one thing they can cope with is having a row. A major problem is represented by the far too many people left in the community feeling that they have no worthwhile role. They have no opportunity or excuse to talk to others. Therefore, they get into rows, difficulties and confrontations with their neighbours because that is the only way they can get some individual human reaction. Such people must be fully integrated members of the community.
  When we discuss legislation we should also discuss resources. I am disturbed that the legislation offers a new legal framework but no more resources. The Minister paid tribute to the dedicated staff in the service. I am sure that they would rather have heard him announce that a little
  756
  more money was to be made available. They would prefer firm recognition to praise. The Government need to spend a lot more money training staff both in institutions and within the community.
  I mention briefly a constituency matter. In the Stockport area a private hospital has recently opened. It is to take patients with mental problems. I am disturbed by the fact that it may take staff from NHS hospitals in the area which are extremely short of resources for their patients. Had the hospital been prepared to cope with long-stay mental patients, I should not have minded so much, but it is interested only in people who are likely to stay for only short periods.
  We have had a useful debate. The proceedings in the other place were also extremely helpful. We are to have a Special Standing Committee on the Bill. Having sat on such a Committee, I believe that there is a danger that everyone who has a view on the legislation will swamp the Committee with information and demand to be heard. The Committee should ensure that the evidence is relevant to the parts of the Bill that could be changed and that the information will enable it to make improvements. I appeal to bodies that may be interested in submitting views to concentrate on the areas of the Bill that can usefully be changed. They should not feel that they must demonstrate their importance in the lobbying business by making lengthy submissions that are not relevant to the legislation.
  I welcome the Bill. I hope that the House will give it an unopposed Second Reading.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. Terry Davis: I should like to begin with three tributes.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) on his first speech in the House. We were impressed by his knowledge of the subject, and I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were especially pleased with his brevity. He will understand if I say that our pleasure in his speech was qualified by our deep sadness about the tragic circumstances leading to his election. On a happier note, let me say that we were impressed not only by the hon. Gentleman's speech, but also by the fact that he stayed in the Chamber for almost the whole debate.
  I also pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) who was responsible for the Mental Health Act 1959, which was a major advance in the treatment of the mentally ill. Indeed, it was the major advance. It put greater emphasis on care and treatment than had previously been the case.
  Thirdly, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals). We all recognise his deep knowledge and personal interest in this subject. When he was Secretary of State he took the initiative in publishing the proposals on which this Bill is based. To a great extent the Government are finishing the job which he began and in which he was interrupted by the general election. If the Mental Health Act 1959 could be known as the Walker-Smith Act this Bill could become the Ennals Act.
  We welcome the Bill generally, but we welcome it especially for the greater frequency of application to mental health review tribunals and for the automatic review after three years. However, some areas need careful consideration. Notably, we shall want to examine the arrangements for consent to treatment contained in

  757
  what has become clause 41. Incidentally, the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) is mistaken in saying that clause 41 could mean that a patient could refuse treatment even in circumstances where he is a danger to himself or to others. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) explained, clause 41(6) covers that point. Nevertheless, this question of consent is much less clear-cut than the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) gave us to understand. It is not simply a case of treatment being used improperly and having serious side effects. The real problem concerns cases where the treatment is entirely proper and suitable for the patient, but will have some unpleasant side effects. What should happen if a patient refuses treatment in those circumstances? The Government's answer is to provide safeguards against the imposition of treatment—at least in some of those cases. The hon. Member for Cheltenham was slightly unfair in saying that consent has always been a judicial question. This is a change by the Government, and it is one that we welcome.
  It is clear that some hon. Members who have participated in the debate want to go much further in the protection of a patient's right to refuse treatment. The hon. Member for Cheltenham was not alone in his advocacy of that point of view. My right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North also holds that opinion.
  However, there is a third point of view—that the Government have already gone too far. The hon. Members for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) and Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) drew our attention to the problem of delay which could be caused as a result of a refusal of treatment. Many hon. Members will have received correspondence from the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, which is also concerned about the effect of clause 41.
  The hon. Member for Cheltenham asked a number of questions. I hope that he will be on the Standing Committee so that he can put his questions again there.
  The second aspect of the problem is the unique role of doctors. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) asked whether other people should be involved in deciding what should happen in an individual case. I shall approach the subject with an open mind. I hope that the Government will be equally open and that they will not display the rigidity which, so far, they have displayed in the passage of this Bill. I also hope that the Government will not argue for what I call the silly middle—that because some people believe that the Government have gone too far, and others want them to go further, therefore the Government must have got it just about right. I hope that we shall examine the whole subject with an open mind, because it is a good example of the need for the Special Standing Committee procedure. I am glad that the Government acceded to the Oppositions's request.
  The unique role of doctors is not the only aspect of the Bill on which our consideration will benefit from the new procedure. We expect to receive evidence on several omissions from the Bill, and it is clear from the debate that we shall have a number of representations about section 141 of the 1959 Act. Several hon. Members have referred to that section, which requires the permission of the High Court before legal action can be undertaken by a patient who has been detained in hospital. This is a difficult point,
  758
  because it involves balancing the interests of patients with those of staff working in hospitals. That, too, will need careful consideration.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Pitt) made several more suggestions that we also want to consider. In Committee, the Opposition will look at all these ideas with an open mind, but we do not have an open mind about legal aid. The Bill extends the rights of appeal to a mental health review tribunal especially by making it possible to appeal more frequently. Such rights are useless if they cannot be exercised because a patient cannot afford to employ a lawyer. What could be more important arid, therefore, more suitable for legal aid than a case involving personal liberty? Several hon. Members on both sides of the House have urged the Government to provide legal aid, and I agree with them. I was disappointed that an amendment to that effect was narrowly defeated in the other place. We shall certainly consider the subject in Committee.
  On the other hand, I was delighted that another lastminute amendment was carried in another place. It dealt with the duty of a district health authority and a local council to provide after-care. The importance of after-care cannot be exaggerated, nor can the importance of cooperation between the district health authority arid the local council with each other and with voluntary agencies.
  The new clause reminds us that it is a matter not only of legislation, but of staff and facilities. The legislation will be effective only if it goes along with the provision of staff and the development of facilities both in the community and in hospitals. That was pointed out by my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Blackley and Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett).
  We need a choice of facilities—between hospital arid day care and between facilities provided by the NHS arid those provided by local authorities. Within the NHS we need a choice between care in institutions and care in the community, and we need more community psychiatric nurses. Community care does not mean discharging people from hospital to sleep under bushes in the hospital grounds.
  I return to the point that I made in the debate on 6 November. The Bill is not about mental health; it is not about how we can reduce the incidence of mental illness; it is not about mental illness, its causes or its treatment. The Bill is much narrower than that. It is about the rights of patients in mental hospitals. I should say that it is about some rights, and for proof of that point I refer the House to the powerful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price). It was significant that when he quoted a psychologist's letter about one of his constituents the word "privileges" was used in reference to things that many of us would call "rights".
  This is a very important Bill and the rights in it are important, as we were reminded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe). Like the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East, I would not want my comments on one or two of the clauses and several omissions to detract from the general welcome given to the Bill. If I have not listed its merits and the many progressive steps that it contains, it is only because we can depend on the Minister to do that.
  The Opposition welcome the Bill, and the House will not be surprised to learn that we do not intend to vote against its Second Reading.
  9.23 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) for his concluding remarks and for the fact that he echoed the fairly general welcome that the Bill has received. Understandably, right hon. and hon. Members on both sides have dwelt on points of detail and concern that we shall be able to consider in Committee.
  We welcome the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) to the House and I add my congratulations to those that he has received on the quality of his maiden speech and on choosing a subject of such considerable social concern for that speech.
  I also add my tribute to the hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the Rev. Robert Bradford. I knew and liked Mr. Bradford and we all bitterly regret the tragic circumstances of his death, which led to the by-election won by the hon. Member for Belfast, South.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke about the general merits of the Bill and touched on the law affecting Northern Ireland. He is aware that only limited provisions of the Bill apply direct to Northern Ireland, but his speech was timely, because the Northern Ireland Office is reviewing the mental health legislation that applies to Ulster, which is governed by the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Act 1961.
  A committee chaired by Mr. Justice MacDermott published a report that recommended amendments to the law and comments on that are now being sought. In addition to taking on board the points that the hon. Member for Belfast, South made on the Bill, I am ensuring that Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office consider his points as part of the review now in hand into mental health legislation in Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Gentleman chose this important subject for his speech, and all hon. Members who spoke stressed its importance, even although the Bill directly affects only a small number of people. I agree with those hon. Members who said that one of the tests of a civilised society is how it contends with the problems of dealing with the most severely mentally disordered in its midst. The Government give high priority to the care and concern which they believe should be given to the mentally ill and mentally handicapped.
  To that extent I am delighted that we are able to continue the work embodied in what I am happy to call the Walker-Smith Act of 1959, which was steered through the House by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). That Act had a tremendously civilising effect on the treatment and care of the mentally ill and mentally handicapped. It affected the outlook of society as a whole towards those people and the way in which their problems should be tackled. We are not repealing, or setting aside, that work, but are carrying it forward in important but limited areas.
  The Government are giving high priority to the subject and are finding legislative time for the Bill. We are also happy to approach the subject with flexibility and are prepared to listen to all those who wish to make representations. There has been no mental health legislation since 1959, and it is important that the House should now get it right.
  The Government's flexibility was shown in the proceedings in another place. My noble Friend Lord Elton acceded to a number of amendments which were pressed
  760
  upon him by peers, including my noble Friend Lord Renton. The Bill comes to us already improved because the Government have been prepared to listen to reasoned representation. We now suggest that the Bill should be handled by the Special Standing Committee procedure. This will allow a wide range of interested groups to make representations. Again, although the Government have clearly taken a view, which is incorporated in the Bill, we are not entering the Committee proceedings on any dogmatic basis. We are prepared to listen and to consider the evidence on the difficult judgments that have to be made if the House is to get the Bill right.
  The answer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes), is that the legislation will not stop with the Bill, whatever form it finally takes. I give her an undertaking that we will endeavour to get the consolidation measure that she rightly said was required on to the statute book before September 1983, when this legislation comes into force.
  The Government's approach is to give high priority to this area and to listen to all reasoned representations from interested groups. We are deliberately dealing with a subject which has a number of difficult, delicate, ethical, medical and legal judgments to be made.
  The people with whom we are concerned are, fortunately, a small minority of the patients who at any one time are in mental hospitals. Only about 7,000 people are actually detained as patients in hospital at any given time to receive treatment for their own, and other people's wellbeing. One of the main breakthroughs achieved by the 1959 Act is that most patients are now dealt with on an informal and voluntary basis. I am glad to say that the tendency is for more patients to be treated on that basis.
  We must address ourselves to a number of changes needed in the law, and to clarification of the law, for the minority of patients who have to be detained for treatment against their will. The amendments that we are making are an attempt to recognise, or clarify, the individual rights of those patients and at the same time to strengthen their rights in such a way that we do not interfere with the necessary care and treatment of the mentally disordered who have been admitted to hospitals.
  There is also an area of mental handicap which we have largely excluded from the Bill especially by accepting certain amendments moved in another place to make sure that on the whole this legislation was confined to the mentally ill and the tiny minority of mentally handicapped who required detention, and was not extended to the mentally handicapped as a whole. That was welcomed in another place. It has been largely welcomed in this House, and that explains the differences in definition which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East noticed between his Act and the definitions applied there to "sub-normality" and "severe sub-normality" and the definitions that we have now, following amendments in another place, of "mental impairment" which specify irresponsible or dangerous conduct.
  We are confining the Bill to that very small number of mentally handicapped who need to be detained because of their conduct. The mentally handicapped otherwise are being treated in a way that makes it clear that we recognise that there is an absolute distinction between the mentally ill who may be suffering from temporary difficulties which can be treated and the mentally handicapped who are probably born with limited mental facilities or with mental

  761
  problems and have to be dealt with on the same basis as the physically disabled have to be dealt with by our medical and other services.
  Having explained what the Bill does, before I plunge into the measures that we are providing for the group of people with whom the Bill is still concerned, let me touch on what has been said about resources, especially by a number of Opposition Members.
  The Government are demonstrating their concern by legislating, but legislation in itself requires adequate resources going into the treatment and care of the mentally ill as well. There will never be the resources available which everyone desires for his chosen specialty. Nevertheless, there is a welcome increase of resources going into mental health care, backing up the Government's determination to do more for the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped. I have no doubt that I shall have cause to go into more detail in Committee when it takes evidence on various aspects of National Health Service expenditure, but mental illness and mental handicap hospital expenditure is rising in real terms, although the number of in-patients is declining. That means, among other things, that staff-patient ratios are being improved in our mental illness and handicap hospitals. Also, local authority spending on the mentally ill and handicapped continues to increase in real terms.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister guarantee that when he talks about resources in Committee he will give a specific amount for the training of social workers in their new role?
  Mr. Clarke: If the hon. Lady wishes, I shall deal with that next.
  One of the important features of the Bill is that we are asking local authorities to train and approve a category of social workers who will be known as approved social workers. They will largely have the same powers and duties as the present mental welfare officers, but they will be more specifically trained in the specialised problems of dealing with the mentally ill and they will be brought up to the approved standard within two years of the Bill receiving Royal Assent.
  The hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) both asked about resources for that training. As my right hon. Friend made clear, many local authorities already provide training to the level that we have in mind. The Bill is making sure that practice everywhere is brought into line with the best practice of local authorities. For that reason alone those local authorities already specialising in the training of their social workers will find that there is little, if any, increased expenditure required. What is more, because we are going over to this corps of approved social workers there will tend to be fewer of them than at the moment there are mental welfare officers, the latter being drawn from the wider ranks of social workers all over the country.
  Our present estimate is that, although it is extremely important that we are developing this corps of approved social workers, the extra public expenditure involved in training and approving them will be minimal. Nevertheless, we are consulting local authorities on the guidelines that we have set out for training and approval. We shall review any financial problems when we discuss standards of training.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: Can the Minister confirm that the Government do not propose to try to reverse Baroness Masham's amendment?
  Mr. Clarke: We have not finally decided about that. We shall decide before the Committee stage. The Government's submission in another place was not that they were against the amendment in principle, but that it was unnecessary or otiose because it repeated a statutory duty incorporated in other legislation. I shall examine the drafting and other problems, but I assure the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas), who has expressed a wish to be a member of the Committee, that I have an open mind and shall reach a conclusion by the Committee stage.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: Is the Minister's mind so open that he is not prepared to tell the House the truth that he does not want to find the money?
  Mr. Clarke: That is not the basis upon which the amendment was debated in another place. One must ensure that the legislation makes sense. We shall have to consider whether the statutory duty expressed in the Bill conflicts unacceptably with statutory duties in other legislation. That can be dealt with in Committee.
  The question of resources is involved throughout the Bill. Hon. Members have mentioned regional secure units. The provision of such units is an important addition to the treatment of detained mental patients. We need more regional secure units to provide secure accommodation for patients who cause the greatest difficulty.
  There have been delays in the programme for regional secure units, which everybody recognises are needed. I am glad to say that in the last two years the Government have made substantial progress and advances are being made. When my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) was Minister in November 1980 he opened the first treatment unit at St. Luke's hospital in Middlesbrough. Of the 14 regional health authorities in England, only one has yet to submit formal plans for a regional secure unit. Four of them are already under construction and when finished will provide 160 places. Another five, providing a further 295 places, should be under construction by the end of the year. By 1985 the Government expect that 500 permanent places will be available.
  We are also increasing the number of places in interim secure facilities which regional health authorities were asked to make available until the permanent secure units are ready. There is welcome progress, and we are finally producing the places required.
  I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) that the position of people in those units is not affected by the Bill. Most are detained patients and therefore the law will apply to them as much as it applies to detained patients anywhere else in a mental hospital.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake and the hon. Members for Oldham, West and for Leigh (Mr. Cuniliffe) talked of the need to take mentally handicapped and mentally ill patients out of hospital and to ensure that people are not being housed in hospitals when they might be better off in the community with facilities to give them support. I refer all hon. Members to the Government document "Care in the Community" which is aimed at moving people out of hospital into more suitable care in the community, whenever that is appropriate for the

  763
  patient and when the patient chooses it. We hope to develop that approach in relation to mental illness as well as to other illnesses. It is plainly wrong to keep patients of any kind in hospital when they would benefit from treatment in the community and would wish to go there.
  Mr. Ennals rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way when I have completed my point. We issued the document, which is aimed at removing barriers to co-operation between health and local authorities, to achieve that movement in the community. We expect to announce our conclusions in the light of all the comments that are received this summer.
  The financing of what is proposed comes largely from the joint finance arrangements that are entered into between health and local authorities. Once more the Government have increased resources from £75·3 million in 1981–82 to £85 million in 1982–83. We would like to build on the whole concept of care in the community and produce more flexibility in the arrangements that are entered into between health and local authorities to produce it.
  Mr. Ennals: I am grateful for the fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman continued on from the point at which I sought to intervene. He referred to the resources under joint financing as well as the care in the community consultancy document. How does that mesh in with the White Paper proposals on public expenditure, which show local authorities' social services expecting about an 8 or 9 per cent. cut over the next two years? How will they be expected to pick up the tabs, which they are required to do on joint financing, if they are being squeezed so hard as a result of the decisions taken by the Government?
  Mr. Clarke: I do not have the figures at my finger tips, but I do not believe that they show what the right hon. Gentleman describes as a cut. It is true that for the personal social services we show some increase in the White Paper. I believe that it falls short of anticipated inflation, but that can be accommodated by improved efficiency in the use of resources to provide the services—a concept which we apply throughout the Health Service.
  The history of all the areas that I have set out so far in this speech makes it clear that that concept has been applied with some success in the last two or three years. The hon. Gentleman for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) is shaking his head. I repeat—as I set out with some care when I started my speech—that resources have been increased in real terms both for hospital and personal social services care for the mentally ill. I think that that is still attainable.
  I come now to the provisions of the Bill. It deals with that small core of patients who have to be detained for their own benefit. We have introduced additional safeguards in the Bill to ensure that we protect the rights of patients, without at the same time inhibiting their access to treatment or preventing treatment from being given to those who are in desperate need of it. The Bill covers all those areas which might otherwise give concern.
  First, the Bill deals with the admission of patients to detention, introducing the important concept that has from time to time been described as "treatability". It makes it clear that the basis of admission to hospital, even for those
  764
  patients being admitted and detained, is that they are likely to benefit from treatment and receive it. At the same time we have tightened up the categories of people who can apply for the admission of patients in various ways, including moving over to the concept of approved social workers, restricting the rights of relatives to apply to the person who appears to be the nearest relative, and so on.
  We have tightened the emergency admissions, which so concern my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. Member for 019 am, West, under section 29 of the 1959 Act. We accept that there has been an unexpected increase in the number of people admitted using the emergency provisions. It is possible that they are not always the right provisions of the 1959 Act that are being used. Therefore, we have tightened those criteria.
  I move on from admission to detention and the basis upon which someone can be detained in hospital for treatment against his will. We have greatly improved all the provisions which give rise to a review of the basis upon which a patient is still being detained. We have increased the safeguards for patients by improving access to the mental health review tribunal. I shall come back to the details of that in a moment. At the same time, we have tried to make sure, that the safeguards that we give to patients do not give rise to their being released when they are still in danger or when other people might be in danger because they have not completed their treatment.
  We have covered the basis upon which people are initially detained, and the basis upon which they are denied release. We have set out rules covering the basis upon which they should be given treatment during detention. In particular, we have for the first time gone in detail into the whole sensitive area of exactly which treatments require consent and which do not, and we have tried to strike a satisfactory balance.
  With regard to improved access to mental health review tribunals for patients who are being detained, the enlargements of access to the tribunals provided by the Bill are substantial. We are doubling the opportunity for approach to the tribunals by those detained in mental health hospitals for longer spells. We have introduced a new right of approach to the tribunal by those detained for a limited period of 28 days for assessment.
  We have made it absolutely clear—this covers the kind of case referred to by the hon. Member for Leigh—that every detained patient will have an initial hearing of his case after six months' detention and thereafter every three years, to ensure that no one in hospital is forgotten.
  Every hon. Member who has spoken has welcomed the enlargement of access to the mental health review tribunals and recognised what an important advance that is for ensuring that an independent quasi-judicial element is brought in to review cases and make sure that people are being detained only for their own well-being or that of others.
  Many hon. Members on each side—including again my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham—wished to go on from the greatly enlarged access to consider the question of legal aid for representation in all cases where patients apply to the tribunal. This is not an area in which we are being parsimonious, because the increased access to tribunals will alone cost £1·7 million each year. That is just for enlarging the work of the tribunals.
  Obviously, the Government will listen to what has been said today in pressing the case for legal aid. I have no doubt that my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord

  765
  Chancellor will consider whether legal aid can be granted to those who apply to tribunals along with all the many other competing claims that he has upon the resources available for legal aid for people of all kinds whose individual liberty or substantial interests are affected.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is my hon. and learned Friend able to quantify the cost of extending legal aid to representation before the tribunals? I have seen the figure of £60,000 given as the cost.
  Mr. Clarke: I have not seen that figure, and I should like to know whether it refers to the position pre-dating the Bill or to the position that will arise once the increased access to tribunals has been granted by the Bill. The process of increasing the work of the tribunals is involving an additional expenditure of £1·7 million. I have no doubt that my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor will be happy to contemplate an addition to the Legal Aid Act once he has had a look at that claim alongside the other competing claims upon the Bill.
  Mr. Terry Davis: Will the Minister clarify his approach to this question? Is he saying that the decision whether the Government will accede to the request from both sides of the House for legal aid to be provided will be taken by the Lord Chancellor and not by the Ministers in the DHSS in the course of dealing with the Bill?
  Mr. Clarke: It will be taken by the Government, as all these decisions are. My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is the Minister responsible for this item of expenditure, so he has the first duty of weighing up this claim against the legal aid fund against many other competing claims that flood in to him in regard to tribunals of all kinds.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I shall not be able to give much more information when I do, because I am not resisting in principle the suggestion that there should be legal aid before the tribunals. [Interruption.] Several Opposition Members are getting agitated, but for 22 years no Government have given legal aid to people appearing before tribunals. That includes the Labour Government. I assure hon. Members that this Government and my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor will consider the problem seriously. We could have other debates concerning other tribunals. It is obvious that in those cases the first demand from many sides is for legal aid for representation. All Governments have found that there are practical limitations to the extent to which the legal aid funds can be extended across a wide range.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister confirm that the Lord Chancellor will take the decision and that, therefore, he will be prepared to come to one of the first three sessions of the Committee on the Bill so that we can put questions specifically to him?
  Mr. Clarke: I am sure that we all look forward to my noble Friend giving evidence to the Committee, but I think that we should wait for the proceedings on the Committee before deciding how the evidence will be managed.
  The mental health review tribunals received unreserved welcome. So delighted was the House with the increased availability of review by the tribunals that it went on to press for legal aid to be given to all who came before the tribunals.
  766
  There was a slightly more guarded welcome "for the Mental Health Act Commission, which I thought was surprising, because I believe that that is an extremely useful addition to the Bill and an extremely important innovation. There was a little confusion about exactly how the proposed commission would sit alongside the mental health review tribunals. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East was not sure why we needed the commission in addition to the review tribunals.
  Although the review tribunals carry out an important task—for which everyone wants the applicants to have finance—they consider a fairly narrow range of subjects. They exercise a quasi-judicial role and decide whether continued detention is justified in the case of each patient. What we are contemplating for the Mental Health Act Commission is a much more substantial and continuing role, looking at patients' interests and the best practice for treatment of detained patients across a wide area.
  I remind hon. Members that the commission arises directly out of a recommendation in the Boynton report of the review of Rampton hospital. In paragraph 4.7 of that report the committee recommended such a body. Dealing with special hospitals, the report said:
  "There is no mechanism, as in local authority institutions, NHS hospitals and prisons, to ensure a regular and authorised public scrutiny of the special hospitals."
  I refer right hon. and hon. Members to paragraph 4.7 of the report. It refers to the other limitations to the present arrangements and the narrow, although important, function of the mental health review tribunals. The report came to the conclusion:
  "We think that on the face of it there is a strong case for an appointed body to inspect and monitor closed institutions such as Rampton and the other special hospitals or indeed wherever patients are subject to detention under the Mental Health Act."
  We have decided, upon further consideration of that recommendation, to propose the Mental Health Act Commission at a limited cost estimated at £700,000 each year. In order to provide a substantial watchdog body, it will be a multidisciplinary body, to use the phrase that has been frequently used by hon. Members. It will be concerned with the best practice in treatment and the rights of detained patients. I can tell the hon. Member for Crewe that the commission will report to the House and that she will find the provisions for reporting back to the House in clause 45(2). I agree with those hon. Members who have welcomed the commission. The main part of having it is to make sure that it does a worthwhile job. I shall deal with consent to treatment.
  Mr. Ennals: The Boynton committee could make a recommendation only about patients who were detained, as it was considering Rampton. I have an open mind about the commission, but I should be much more attracted to it if it dealt with not only detained but voluntary patients. I hope that the Minister will give some thought to that before the Committee stage.
  Mr. Clarke: I shall certainly give some further thought to that. However, Boynton was concerned with the special hospitals. We propose that the commission should concern itself with the interests of detained patients in all types of hospitals and not just those in the special hospitals. Several other bodies are actively involved in the welfare of voluntary patients and the commission might cut across those if it spread itself across the spectrum.

  767
  Any recommendations from the commission—although strictly applicable only to detained patients—are bound to have an effect on the practice of giving treatment to voluntary patients.
  Sir Derek Walker-Smith: My hon. and learned Friend has not put my point with the accuracy that we normally expect of him. I did not for a moment think that the proposed Mental Health Act Commission would have a purely quasi-judicial function, as in the case of the mental health tribunals. I did not suggest that. I said that the onus was on my hon. and learned Friend and on the Secretary of State to show that the task of visiting patients and listening to their complaints—which is not a mental health tribunal task, but is a task that I warmly welcome—could not be discharged within the administrative machinery available to the NHS. That is all I said.
  Mr. Clarke: I accept that the onus is on us to demonstrate that, and I undertake to seek to discharge it in Committee, or afterwards, to my right hon. and learned Friend's satisfaction.
  In the brief time available I shall illustrate the need for such a provision by dealing with the important but difficult matter of consent to treatment by detained patients. It is important to strike a balance and I accept that that balance should not be the silly middle, as the hon. Member for Stechford said. We should avoid that. However, there are conflicting considerations and difficult ethical judgments to be made about the extent to which detained patients should consent to treatment. Informal patients have to consent to all the treatment that they receive.
  Everyone would prefer patients to consent to all the treatment that they receive, but we cannot ignore the fact that we are dealing with the mentally disturbed, whose ability to make judgments may be impaired or clouded. We are also making detention more dependent upon the likelihood of the patient benefiting from treatment and we are making treatability the main criterion for admission to a hospital. It would be odd to do that and then to place doctors under an impossible restraint, so that they cannot give the treatment for which the patient has been admitted.
  It would be frustrating not only to medical staff, but to friends and relatives, if they had to watch a patient continue to suffer from a condition that could benefit from treatment, but for which treatment cannot be given because the House has gone too far in hedging round the doctor's ability to give it. Therfore, clause 41 is convoluted, because it deals with a difficult and complicated area. However, it sets out clearly differing sets of circumstances, according to the seriousness of the treatment, in an attempt to strike the right balance between the patient's need to receive treatment and the need for consent, wherever it can properly be obtained.
  Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) and the
  768
  hon. Member for Crewe, raised the matter of emergencies. Clause 41(6) allows treatment to be given for emergencies, including that in which a patient is acting in a way that is dangerous to himself or to others. Apart from emergencies, general nursing and other general care can be provided without the patient's consent. Some treatment, such as ECT and other controversial methods, can be given without the patient's consent, but with the agreement of an independent psychiatrist, appointed by the Secretary of State. He will devolve those powers to the multidisciplinary Mental Health Act Commission.
  For the most worrying treatments, consent will always be required from the practitioner in charge and then, by means of a second opinion, from an independent psychiatrist appointed by the commission. In the other place we undertook to introduce amendments to ensure that consent was given generally.
  The Committee will have to consider immediately that delicate area. However, I hope that I have said enough to show that the legislation aims to cover those difficult areas in a sympathetic and understanding way. It is a valuable manifestation of the Government's great concern that more should be done in this area.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Special Standing Committee.

  Mental Health (Amendment) Bill [Lords]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Mental Health Act 1959 and for connected purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of expenses incurred by the Secretary of State and any increase in the sums so payable under any other Act, being expenses or an increase attributable to provisions of that Act of the present Session—

  (a) conferring additional rights to apply to Mental Health Review Tribunals, imposing additional duties to refer cases to such Tribunals and enabling such Tribunals to pay allowances in respect of travelling expenses, subsistence and loss of earnings to applicants and other persons attending the Tribunals otherwise than as counsel or solicitor;

  (b) for remanding persons to hospital in criminal cases and making interim hospital orders in such cases;

  (c) requiring the giving of certificates in connection with medical treatment of particular descriptions and providing for visiting and investigating complaints by detained patients;

  (d) providing for the establishment of a special health authority for the purpose of exercising functions which include the matters mentioned in paragraph (c) above.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Agricultural Training Board Bill [Lords] and the Industrial Training Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

  Agricultural Training Board Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  10.1 pm
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  We have two consolidation Bills to consider. They are closely connected with each other, so, although I shall move them separately, I hope that I shall have the leave of the House to speak to them together. They are both pure consolidation measures, consolidating the law relating to the industrial training board.
  The law relating to the agricultural training board has developed separately from the rest, and so it has been thought easier to consolidate the matter in two separate Bills—the first dealing exclusively with the agricultural training board, and the Industrial Training Bill [Lords] dealing with the rest.
  Mr. Arthur Davidson: The Opposition are satisfied that both these Bills are pure consolidation Bills. They will make the law more easily accessible and understood on both these topics. Thus the Opposition are happy to speed the Bills through the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.— [Mr. Boscawen.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

  Industrial Training Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.—[The Solicitor-General]
  10.3 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I realise that this is a very narrow issue of consolidation. On the other hand, as is well known to the Government, because of my pleas both to Ministers in interviews, during the Budget debate, and on the Consolidated Fund, there is a live and urgent issue involving the road transport industry board at MOTEC. I do not wish to stray out of order, but—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of order. He cannot raise the issue of MOTEC on this Bill. This is just a consolidation Bill.
  Mr. Dalyell: There is the issue whether the proposals for MOTEC are legal. Some people, including authorities in the road transport industry training board wonder whether the proposals—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know how strongly the hon. Gentleman feels. He has raised this matter previously, but he is out of order on this occasion and must resume his seat.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Boscawen.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

  Industrial Training Bill [Lords]
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
    LEGAL AID (SCOTLAND)
    That the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1982, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd March, be approved.

    LEGAL AID AND ADVICE (SCOTLAND)
    That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1982, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd March, be approved.—[Mr. Boscawen.]
    Question agreed to.

  Bridgend Hospital
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]
  10.6 pm
  Mr. Ray Powell: I should like first to apologise to the House for the fact that I was not present for Question Time earlier today. My absence was unavoidable due to the fact that I was attending a meeting of the Mid-Glamorgan area health authority in Cardiff at 2.30 pm and was unable to attend the House. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond in regard to certain issues affecting the new Bridgend general hospital. A deputation at today's area health authority meeting consisted of a number of people representing organisations within the Mid-Glamorgan area who were protesting about the introduction of pay beds within the area.
  The matter was debated by the area health authority. It is significant that a decision was taken by 10 votes to 2 to oppose the introduction of any pay beds in the Mid-Glamorgan area. This is an area that has suffered considerably over lack of hospital facilities that I intend to highlight. I hope that the Minister will accept the decision of the Mid-Glamorgan area health authority and that he will not try to force the introduction of pay beds within Mid-Glamorgan.
  It is with great anxiety that I participate in the debate. My anxiety is echoed throughout the Ogmore constituency, the whole of the Ogwr borough area and the catchment area of Bridgend. Members of the area health authority in Mid-Glamorgan, the county council, the borough councils and the community and town councils of the 23 areas have expressed similar anxieties.
  Ogwr community health council, whose chairman Harry Davis and his secretary Paul Barker have helped to lead a campaign that has been responsible for highlighting this worrying position, deserves the highest praise for ensuring that the problems are brought to everyone's attention.
  The senior consultant at Bridgend hospital, Dr. Powell, who is chairman of the medical staff committee, is also responsible for ensuring that staff opinions are made known to all. I place on record my thanks to him and the other members of the medical and nursing staff, especially Dr. Chappell, who is a colleague of mine on mid-Glamorgan area health authority and who has ensured that the deficiencies of the new hospital are placed on record.
  I wish to represent the views not only of the present campaigners but of those who have passed away and who will never see their hopes and dreams fulfilled. I thank all those who for 31 years have devoted their time, effort and energies to ensuring the establishment of a new Bridgend general hospital. I also thank all those who have taken the trouble to explain their fears and doubts about the present proposals and those who have highlighted the suggested deficiencies in the new hospital.
  It is not my intention to cast blame on anyone, nor is it my intention to level criticisms. I am sure that the House can and will determine from my submission any faults or deficiencies and that the Minister will show the intention of the Welsh Office to resolve some matters.
  On behalf of the future generations that will use the new hospital, I place on record my grateful thanks to Mid-Glamorgan county council which, through the highways department, commissioned road works that helped to
  772
  finalise a favourable decision, because one could not have a new road leading into a field without embarrassing someone. I applaud their initiative.
  The new hospital received planning consent as far back as 1951–31 years ago. Therefore, the House will recognise the numerous changes of Government since and appreciate that my observations are not critical of the present Administration any more than past Administrations. However, when one considers that the present hospital at Bridgend—Quarella Road—was built in 1830 and was at one time the poor law institution, or the workhouse as it was called in Wales, and is still in use as the administrative wing of the hospital, one can have little wonder that a new hospital with modern facilities to provide adequately for health care is long overdue and the subject of anxious and searching consultations by all.
  Planning permission was received for the new hospital in 1951. Due to the delay in the land acquisition, the commencement date was given eventually as 1974. In 1972, the Welsh hospital board and hospital management committee agreed on a scheme, and the revised commencement date was 1976–77. It is perhaps significant that a major conference in 1972 between the DHSS and the regional hospital board said that Bangor hospital would be built in stages whereas Bridgend would be built as one major project of 640 beds. However, Bangor hospital has since been built in one stage, the cost far exceeding the original premise of £12·9 million, and Bridgend hospital will now be built in several stages.
  It was agreed in 1974 that the Bridgend district general hospital was to be built and designed as a "Harness" hospital, and at that time it was placed third in a provisional capital programme of the Welsh Office for 1975–76 to 1984–85 at a cost of £16·1 million and with a commencement date in 1977–78. Unfortunately, the planning of the new hospital was frustrated by the emergence of new concepts in the planning of the hospital and restrictions on Governmemt spending.
  In 1976 the restrictions on public spending resulted in the original estimate of the development of £16·1 million being reduced to £12 million. That was achieved, but demands for a further cost reduction exercise meant that the scheme was reduced to £10 million. It was in December 1976 that the Secretary of State announced a major capital programme for five schemes in Wales with the Bridgend hospital being the first priority. However, the Secretary of State decided that, as the capital programme was so heavily over-subscribed, it was necessary to place on each scheme an upper cost limit related to urgent needs. The outcome was that the allocation for Bridgend was further reduced to £9 million. That meant a further drastic reduction in the Bridgend scheme, to the great disappointment of all concerned.
  The effect on the morale of the staff was apparent, and severe criticisms were expressed by the senior medical staff. However, the subsequent cost reduction exercise arrived at a figure of £9·8 million. The authority was placed in an impossible situation and it took the extraordinary decision that the cost of major furnishings and fittings, at about £500,000, would be met out of the programme in the year preceding the final commissioning of the hospital. That reduced the cost to £9·3 million, which gained the approval of the Welsh Office.
  That is the background, but the money envelope of £9 million was conceded by the Welsh Office. As a result, the Secretary of State announced an increase in the basic limits

  773
  of the five Welsh schemes which meant a 10 per cent. addition to the Bridgend scheme, making a total money envelope of £9·9 million. By November 1978 the Welsh Office had indicated that the Secretary of State had expressed the hope that authority could be given for tenders for some of the schemes in 1979–80. In March 1979, the Secretary of State announced that provided all went well the scheme would start towards the end of 1980.
  I am pleased to inform the House that, following start dates of 1974, 1976–77, 1977–78 and the end of 1980, work on the main building contract commenced on site on 14 September 1981, when the first sod was cut by the Minister who is to reply. I was present and I wish to place on record my tribute to his excellent skill in managing the JCB.
  In 1976, a decision was taken to reduce the allocation for the Bridgend hospital from £16·1 million to £9 million, although the latter figure was index linked. It was therefore necessary for the Mid-Glamorgan area health authority to make a drastic cut in the Bridgend scheme, which in the estimation of many meant the deletion of many of the central features from the modern district general hospital. These features have been listed by the medical staff committee of the Bridgend district general hospital, which have been supported by the community health council. I share the concern of those bodies for the deletion of some of the essential sections of the hospital.
  I shall list those features hurriedly to give the Minister time to reply. First, there is no outpatients department. The dislocation caused by the running and staffing of a department on a separate site wil inevitably be considerable and costly. Secondly, there are insufficient acute beds. Thirdly, there is no operating theatre for Caesarian sections. Fourthly, there is no specific coronary care unit. Fifthly, there is no postgraduate medical nurses training centre. Sixthly, there is the split of pathology services. Seventhly, because of the inability to accommodate ENT beds in the new hospital, the existing theatre suite has been retained for ENT surgery alone; grossly uneconomic use of a theatre suite. Eighthly, there is completely inadequate provision of consultant and junior medical staff rooms which, in many departments, will be insufficient to meet the stipulations of various Royal colleges. This, in turn, will lead to a refusal of recognition of training posts, which will have catastrophic results on hospital services. Ninthly, of course, there are the revenue implications.
  The mid-Glamorgan area health authority has recognised in the past, and will continue to hold the view, that there are no moneys left in hand and that, as a result of a favourable tendering climate well below the budget cost, it does not necessarily follow that savings will be available to the health authority. It is argued that the Welsh Office controls the major capital programme and has to balance the whole of Wales with overspendings and underspendings, and that it has been the policy of the Welsh Office to redistribute any savings over its total programme among health authorities in Wales on a pro rata basis. That argument might stand up if the Welsh Office had used the established costing planning principle for this development. However, a "money envelope" principle was applied and, consequently, it was argued that this money was allocated to the Bridgend development and, therefore, should be used as such.
  There are many generous people in Ogmore. The mayor, councillor Vernon Chilcott, has just announced
  774
  that the mayor's fund for laser beam equipment in Bridgend hospital raised £25,000. That fund was started by councillor Elwyn Davies, last year's mayor, and displays the degree of public spirit and generosity of the councillors and public in my constituency. That attitude will continue.
  I thank the Welsh Office, because the area health authority today received a letter stating that the furniture and equipment costs for the new hospital will be waived. That will mean a considerable saving to the area health authority of which I am a member; and I thank the Minister for the Government's generosity in that long-awaited development.
  In conclusion, may I say that it is of great importance to the people of Ogmore and those in the catchment area, that the Minister should consider the whole submission of the area health authority and allay the fears of the general public in the area. He must ensure that promises made and moneys made available are used in the development of Bridgend hospital and he must ensure that all the issues raised by the community health council and the medical staff are not overlooked. That is the only way in which the morale of the staff can be restored and the upsurge of public anger avoided.
  My constituents have waited more than 30 years for this development. They have a right to be afforded a modern hospital, with proper and adequate provisions. Whatever the arguments against it might be, I call on the Minister to ensure that the promised basic essentials are provided to the satisfaction of all concerned.
  10.25 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) on securing this debate, having so nearly done so on an earlier occasion. I am grateful to him for raising the matter of Bridgend district general hospital, because I had the pleasure to cutting the first sod to inaugurate the advance works for the hospital. The main contract for the first phase of the hospital started on site last September and I expect it to be completed in 1985.
  The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of issues relating to what some people in his constituency consider to be faults or omissions. I am aware of pressure and of a campaign to add works to the present contract to rectify what are regarded as faults, to repair what are regarded as omissions and to advance works from phase II of the project to take advantage of an undefined sum of between £2½ million and £4 million thought to be savings achieved because of a good tendering climate and regarded as being available to the area health authority as the uncommitted balance of an allocation of money to build phase I of the hospital.
  The campaign is based on a surprising misunderstanding of the facts—surprising because the people concerned ought to be aware of them, having been involved in the consultations which preceded the decisions on the content of phase I of the project. I believe the pressure to be misguided. It can only serve to mislead the public and sap the morale of staff in the authority. It is clear from a press release issued by the area health authority on 17 March that I am not alone in that belief.
  In its press release the authority stated that it wished to make it clear, once and for all, that there are no moneys left in hand for it to use. For my part, I want to make it equally clear, once and for all, that there is not a packet

  775
  of money left over from the Bridgend district general hospital phase I for use on other works by the health authority at Bridgend or in any other scheme. I shall now explain why.
  The Bridgend hospital scheme is one of a number in the major capital works programme for the National Health Service in Wales. There are contracts at Morriston and Wrexham, also at an early stage of construction, others, like Bangor, at late stages, and others, like Llanelli, in planning. The funds which pay for them, and, indeed, for the whole of the NHS in Wales, are not parcelled up into separate envelopes: There is not what one would call an allocation for any particular hospital building scheme.
  There is a budget cost—a target estimate based on cost guides for the type of provision that is to go into the hospital. Depending on the market, the tenders that we get can be above or below the target, and, if we accept the tender, that becomes the price which we are working to and which goes into our financial planning over the following years. The budget cost ceases to exist and the agreed contract price replaces it.
  The all-Wales capital programme, of which Bridgend district general hospital is a part, is centrally funded, and our expenditure throughout every year is subject to constant revision to account for contracts let above or below the estimate slippage and contingencies such as fire, floods, and site problems. If a contract costs less in any one year than we expected, and is not balanced by others that cost more, we share the saving among all AHAs. Mid-Glamorgan, for instance, received £625,000 recently because of savings in the all-Wales programme.
  I turn to the figures for Bridgend, as there appear to be varying views about the difference between the budget and the contract cost. The budget, uplifted to May 1981 figures, was £15·3 million. The main contract was let at £12·5 million, but we have to bear in mind that there were advance site works, roadworks and other works totalling just over £½ million. In addition, we agreed, following discussions with the authority, to move the mortuary at a cost of about £200,000.
  We have also been considering representations by the authority about the cost of furniture and equipment, and my Department has agreed to further central funding subject to discussions with the authority's officials. I cannot put a figure to that yet, but the authority has been talking in terms of over £700,000. There is, therefore, at the end of the day not a great deal of difference between the target that we set ourselves and the amount that we are likely to spend. It is about £1 million.
  I will turn shortly to the various items that are being claimed as faults or omissions, but I want first to refer particularly to suggestions that those items should be added to the present works. Such a course, I must say straight away, is a recipe for disaster. If there is one factor that causes delays, escalation of costs, contractual problems, and sheer frustration, it is messing about with contracts after they have been let, with the employer having second thoughts—then third thoughts—about what he wants, and adding bits here and there. The Bridgend contract has been let, and the contractor is on the site, and I hope that he will be allowed to get on with it.
  As to the complaints, they have been listed in a report in the Glamorgan Gazette of 4 February, which has attributed them to the medical staff committee. The
  776
  general tenor of the complaint is that certain things were left out of phase I which should not have been left out, and this £14 million development is being presented as a cut-price hospital providing a dislocated service, a real danger of inefficiency, lower standards, and less than ideal patient care.
  As a member of the area health authority, the hon. Gentleman will be fully aware that the content of the first phase of the hospital was a matter for the area health authority to decide in the light of its own appreciation of the needs and priorities of the area, and of the likely availability of funds.
  There is criticism by the medical staff committee that provision is not made in phase I for an out-patients department. I understand that the authority considered the options either of providing one on the first phase, and consequently providing fewer beds, or of providing more beds and leaving the out-patients department till phase II. My information is that the authority's decision to opt for more beds in phase I and to leave the out-patients department to phase H was taken on consultation with the senior medical staff.
  The area health authority is examining the need for a mother and baby unit and a play area, and I believe one possible solution that it is considering is that such a facility could be provided at the existing hospital in Quarella Road.
  A commissioning team has been set up by the authority to examine in detail the facilities for health provision in the area following the completion of phase I. That is the usual procedure when a major new hospital is being built; and any decisions taken, including decisions on coronary care facilities, will be made after full consultation with the hospital consultant staff.
  Mr. Ray Powell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Roberts: I have a lot to say and not much time in which to say it. Criticism has been made on the ground that there is a lack of Caesarian operating theatres and too few acute beds for emergency medical and surgical patients. I am told that the authority is satisfied that there are sufficient delivery rooms to allow one to be converted to cope with abnormal and Caesarian deliveries, and that, although the number of acute beds is up to standard norm, the authority is considering the possibility of improving the situation even further.
  Some of the points of criticism concern facilities which are to be provided in phase II, and I find it surprising that they are being presented as omissions—and, by implication, unacceptable omissions—from phase I. I should like to make it absolutely clear that the senior medical staff have been under no misunderstanding from the very beginning that this is a phased development, that there were facilities which would not be provided until phase II, and that it would be necessary for some time to divide services between Quarella Road and the new site. They have, for instance, been fully aware that a postgraduate medical centre and nurse training unit are included in the provision proposed for the phase II, that an ear, nose and throat department is proposed at an early stage of the phase II works, and that the effect of the division of radiology and pathology departments between the two sites will be minimised by phase II works, when all surgery and acute work will be carried out on the new site.

  777
  The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my Department has recently approved the design of a scheme for 131 residential units for medical, nursing and other staff, including married accommodation on a communal centre at a cost of £1½ million, which will be finished before the hospital itself.
  I want to deal with a criticism which I consider to be extremely ill-conceived and calculated wrongly to disturb both staff and the public. That is the assertion that the allowances for consultant rooms would possibly lead to the Royal colleges withdrawing their approval of certain departments. The area health authority—and I agree with it—totally refutes the idea that this will have any bearing on the educational suitability of the hospital, or that it would lead to the Royal colleges withdrawing their approval of certain departments. I can appreciate the
  778
  keenness of senior medical staff to try to get as much money as possible allocated to the development of this hospital, but I think that they would be better advised to accept the fact that the contract is let, there is no package of spare money, and that their energies should be concentrated on ensuring that this £14 million hospital provides, as it is intended to, a real improvement in medical facilities.
  By a device, the hon. Gentleman managed to begin his speech by referring to the pay beds issue—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-four minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TRADE
  Companies Registration Office
  Companies Registration Office
  Manufactures (Export)
  Manufactures (Export)
  Counterfeited Locks (Imports)
  Counterfeited Locks (Imports)
  Replacement Doors and Windows (Safety)
  Replacement Doors and Windows (Safety)
  Bristow's Helicopters (Emergency Landings)
  Bristow's Helicopters (Emergency Landings)
  United Nations Liner Code
  United Nations Liner Code
  Registry of Business Names
  Registry of Business Names
WALES
  Social Service Departments (Funding)
  Social Service Departments (Funding)
  Hospital Building Schemes
  Hospital Building Schemes
PRIME MINISTER
  Police (Pay)
  Police (Pay)
  Tobacco Industry (Advertising)
  Tobacco Industry (Advertising)
  British National Oil Corporation (Privatisation)
  British National Oil Corporation (Privatisation)
  Privatisation (Bank Fees)
  Privatisation (Bank Fees)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Law and Order
  Law and Order
  Civil Disturbances
  Civil Disturbances
  Polyurethane Foam
  Polyurethane Foam
  Police
  Police
  Special Constabulary
  Special Constabulary
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Burglary
  Burglary
  Electoral Registers
  Electoral Registers
  Representation of the People Act 1969
  Representation of the People Act 1969
  Police Recruitment
  Police Recruitment
  Naturalisation
  Naturalisation
  Paul Worrel
  Paul Worrel
  Voluntary Repatriation
  Voluntary Repatriation
  Charities
  Charities
  Fire Service
  Fire Service
  Alcohol Education and Research Council
  Alcohol Education and Research Council
  Cable Broadcasting
  Cable Broadcasting
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Republic of Ireland (Extradition Arrangements)
  Republic of Ireland (Extradition Arrangements)
  Theatrical Performances (Prosecutions)
  Theatrical Performances (Prosecutions)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Milk, Cereals and Sugar
  Milk, Cereals and Sugar
  Tomatoes
  Tomatoes
  Fish Farming (Calshot Spit)
  Fish Farming (Calshot Spit)
INDUSTRY
  British Aerospace
  British Aerospace
  Small Factory Units
  Small Factory Units
  Special Development Areas
  Special Development Areas
  Satellite Broadcasting
  Satellite Broadcasting
  Rolls-Royce RJ 500
  Rolls-Royce RJ 500
  British Shipbuilders
  British Shipbuilders
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Robots
  Robots
  Satellites
  Satellites
  Information Technology Centre (South Bedfordshire)
  Information Technology Centre (South Bedfordshire)
  Manufacturing Industry (Costs)
  Manufacturing Industry (Costs)
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Engineering Industry
  Engineering Industry
  Manchester and Oldham
  Manchester and Oldham
  British Telecom
  British Telecom
  British Airways (Ramp Dispute)
  British Airways (Ramp Dispute)
EMPLOYMENT
  Microelectronics
  Microelectronics
  West Midlands
  West Midlands
  Work Permits
  Work Permits
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Liverpool
  Liverpool
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Industrial Training Boards
  Industrial Training Boards
  Community Enterprise Programme
  Community Enterprise Programme
  Job Search Scheme (Mid-Glamorgan)
  Job Search Scheme (Mid-Glamorgan)
  Employment Transfer Scheme (Mid-Glamorgan)
  Employment Transfer Scheme (Mid-Glamorgan)
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Polychlorinated Biphenyl
  Polychlorinated Biphenyl
  Wage Differentials
  Wage Differentials
  OECD Countries (Wage Levels)
  OECD Countries (Wage Levels)
  Wage Comparisons
  Wage Comparisons
  Youth Training Programme (Devonport)
  Youth Training Programme (Devonport)
  Voluntary Community Programmes
  Voluntary Community Programmes
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Medical Consultations (Recordings)
  Medical Consultations (Recordings)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Unemployed Persons (Benefit Entitlement)
  Unemployed Persons (Benefit Entitlement)
  Junior Doctors
  Junior Doctors
  Anaesthetists
  Anaesthetists
  Blood Supplies (Private Health Care)
  Blood Supplies (Private Health Care)
  Social Security Offices
  Social Security Offices
  Hearing Therapists
  Hearing Therapists
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970
  Dental Treatment
  Dental Treatment
  Homoeopathic Medicine
  Homoeopathic Medicine
  Regional Health Authorities (Vacancies)
  Regional Health Authorities (Vacancies)
  Voluntary Repatriation
  Voluntary Repatriation
  Private Health Care
  Private Health Care
  Voluntary Work Programme
  Voluntary Work Programme
  Private Hospital Construction Programme
  Private Hospital Construction Programme
  Overseas Visitors (Health Care)
  Overseas Visitors (Health Care)
  Dental Charges
  Dental Charges
CIVIL SERVICE
  Professional Accountant Class
  Professional Accountant Class
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council
  Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council
  El Salvador
  El Salvador
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Industrial Production
  Industrial Production
  Building Societies Association
  Building Societies Association
  Companies (Trading Losses)
  Companies (Trading Losses)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Civil Servants (Pension Rights)
  Civil Servants (Pension Rights)
  Budget Measures (Effects)
  Budget Measures (Effects)
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Personal Information
  Personal Information
ENVIRONMENT
  Urban Programme (Wirral)
  Urban Programme (Wirral)
  Private Sector Housing
  Private Sector Housing
  Multi-occupation Houses
  Multi-occupation Houses
  Housing Allocations
  Housing Allocations
  Salford
  Salford
  Housing Investment Programme
  Housing Investment Programme
  Safety Glazing
  Safety Glazing
  Charities and Voluntary Bodies
  Charities and Voluntary Bodies
  National Heritage
  National Heritage
  Housing Subsidies
  Housing Subsidies
TRANSPORT
  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  London Transport Strike (Press Notice)
  London Transport Strike (Press Notice)
  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Level Crossings
  Level Crossings
  M4 (Repairs and Modifications)
  M4 (Repairs and Modifications)
  European Committee of Transport Ministers
  European Committee of Transport Ministers
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Blood Lead Levels
  Blood Lead Levels
  Public Libraries
  Public Libraries
  Schools (Vandalism)
  Schools (Vandalism)
  Adult Education
  Adult Education
  National Maritime Museum
  National Maritime Museum
  Guildford
  Guildford
  Scottish Universities
  Scottish Universities
  Alcoholism
  Alcoholism
DEFENCE
  Trident
  Trident
  Okehampton Range
  Okehampton Range
  Home Service Force
  Home Service Force
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Transport Aircraft
  Transport Aircraft
  Queen's Flight
  Queen's Flight
  International Military Services Ltd.
  International Military Services Ltd.
  Foreign Exchange Costs (BOAR)
  Foreign Exchange Costs (BOAR)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Teacher Training (Reorganisation)
  Teacher Training (Reorganisation)
  Chemical Spillages (Emergency Services)
  Chemical Spillages (Emergency Services)
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  De Lorean Car Company
  De Lorean Car Company
SCOTLAND
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Mental Illness (Services)
  Mental Illness (Services)
  Oil-related Employment
  Oil-related Employment
  Home Helps
  Home Helps
  Atmospheric Lead
  Atmospheric Lead
  Housing (Lead Pipes)
  Housing (Lead Pipes)

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

Nurses and Private Medicine
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement about alleged poaching of National Health Service nurses by private institutions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Elton): No, my Lords, we are not aware that any does take place.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that those who represent the interests of nurses, like the Confederation of Health Service Employees and the Royal College of Nursing, are aware that this is an example of frustration for British nurses? It is confirmed by advertisements in the Nursing Times. There are pages of advertisements from overseas organisations offering jobs to British nurses to leave this country and give their services elsewhere in the world. Would the noble Lord please be prepared to consider his reply and examine what I have said?
Lord Elton: My Lords, nurses are free to seek employment wherever they choose. Being the major employer of nursing staff, the National Health Service is bound to lose some qualified staff to posts abroad. The department does not collect information on the number of nurses who leave the National Health Service to seek employment abroad. However, the General Nursing Council for England and Wales provide details of the number of nurses who apply for verification of their qualifications to be sent to a registered authority in another country. There were 4,523 of these in the year to March 1981. They do not of course include nurses taking up employment in a country which does not require verification of qualifications.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it not an appropriate tribute to the standard of British nurses that they should be so much in demand abroad? Is it not also slightly offensive to them to suggest that they can be poached like pheasants?
Lord Elton: My Lords, whether the term is culinary or sporting, the Government remain of the opinion that the standards are indeed high and welcome the fact that the private sector is beginning to contribute to this.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, is it not true that the conditions of employment and the facilities—and sometimes better pay—tend to attract nurses from the National Health Service into private medicine? Is not the solution to get the private hospitals to run, and pay for, their own nurse training?
Lord Elton: Indeed, my Lords, the Government think that still more can be done in the way of involving the private sector in the training of nurses, though in fact a good deal is being done. It is not our impression that the standards of remuneration and conditions of service are so very much better in the generality in the private sector than they are in the National Health Service.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, are there not at the moment something over 200,000 qualified nurses employed in the state sector and a mere 6,000 in the private sector? Is not the total number of nurses in all parts of the country at the moment desperately seeking work in excess of 15,000?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the private sector is a very small part of the health services. The level of trained nursing unemployment is below 1 per cent. of the whole.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it not rather odd to think that the party opposite are encouraging private education in nursing; and, secondly, is it not interesting that they do not complain when state-educated engineers work in the private sector? Are they honestly expecting that they all have to work in the state sector?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the study of the parties opposite is a matter of continuing fascination to me, but I would not seek to explain it to my noble friend.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I would readily agree with him that it is not possible to stop nurses applying for a job wherever they want to go? Secondly, does he not agree that the high standard of nursing in Britain is entirely due to the state system of nurse training paid for by public money? Therefore, under those circumstances, would he not agree with me—I mentioned this in the recent debate—that so far as the private sector in Britain is concerned they should at least pay some token sum towards the training incurred at the expense of the British taxpayer?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I said that such a scheme had not passed beyond the possibility of being considered. The noble Lord will be aware that, for instance, at the Royal Masonic Hospital there is the training of both state registered and state enrolled nurses, and at St. Andrew's Psychiatric Hospital there is training of registered mental nurses, so the private sector is not doing nothing. I hope, as does the noble Lord, that it will do more.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, am I right in saying that if nurses by their free will choose to work in private institutions they will not get pensions, whereas those who work in the health service do get pensions? So what one loses on the swings may be gained on the roundabouts.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the question of pensions in the private sector varies from institution to institution.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, arising from the Minister's answers, would he not agree that the deprivation of nurses in the National Health Service is due to the fact that because of their lower scale of wages they are attracted to three other spheres: not only overseas and the private hospitals but to the nursing agencies? The National Health Service has to pay higher wages to nurses from the nursing agencies than it does to its own staff at the cost of its revenue.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as I said earlier, the question of the conditions of service and remuneration of nurses in the private sector is very much a matter for them, but I understand that many independent sector establishments and organisations base their pay scales on Whitley rates and that in a large number of cases no additional financial payments are made. Indeed, the annual salary received by a qualified nurse in the independent sector can be less than she would receive in the National Health Service. Comparisons such as this are difficult to make because of the other terms and conditions of service which might be involved.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, would the Government care to take a leaf from the Metropolitan Police and print the percentage of coloured people among the serving nursing profession?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think that by any stretch of the imagination that is another question.
Lord Kinnaird: My Lords, from the nurses' point of view—because this is a Question about nurses—might I ask the Minister whether it is not possible that some nurses might prefer to work for private institutions?
Lord Elton: My Lords, we return to the point at which we started—that the nurses have freedom to work where they wish to do so.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the point of raising this Question in the beginning was the grave apprehension experienced by those who represent British nurses? Because, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, quite rightly said, the British nurse, male or female, is held in high regard throughout the world, therefore, that must mean that their standard of training, whether for SEN, state registered nurse or state certified midwife, reflects a great deal of credit on those who train them in the National Health Service and—
A noble Lord: Speech!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is a strong feeling that poaching is going on by people from foreign nations? Would he not at least be prepared to consider perhaps talking to the representatives of our nurses, the Royal College of Nursing and the Confederation of Health Service Employees—
Several noble Lords: Speech!
Lord Molloy:—so as to understand what the problem is and how it affects the National Health Service?
Lord Elton: My Lords, if I can give a brief reply to that rather long question, the Government always have the interests of nurses very close to them and wish to be well informed as to what those interests are.

"Ben Ocean Ranger": Safety
2.45 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the major casualty off the Newfoundland coast of the oil rig "Ocean Ranger", they are fully satisfied that there will be adequate safeguards for the British operating crew of the new semi-submersible of similar design, "Ben Ocean Ranger", without a further independent design appraisal by an unbiased and disinterested third party.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, the "Ben Ocean Ranger" will be required to comply with United Kingdom safety requirements for mobile offshore installations operating on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf. This requires an independent appraisal of the design and construction by a certifying authority appointed by the Secretary of State for Energy.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I thank the noble Minister. Will there be an independent inquiry before the "Ben Ocean Ranger" puts to sea? Is he aware of the reports, which appeared in the media after the sinking of the "Ocean Ranger", of the unhappiness of the skipper in charge of the vessel, who said that there were approximately 200 design defects in his craft?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I would not want the noble Lord, or indeed the House, to be under any misapprehensions about this matter. The certifying authority for the "Ben Ocean Ranger" will be the American Bureau of Shipping. We have to appreciate that the cause of the loss of the "Ocean Ranger" is not yet known. It is therefore premature to call into question the validity of safety assessments by the American Bureau of Shipping. In the case of the "Ben Ocean Ranger" the American Bureau of Shipping will be applying United Kingdom requirements, and in certain areas they involve a more comprehensive assessment of the design than that required to meet the classification rules. In some areas the United Kingdom's exceptions criteria are more stringent.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, can the Minister then confirm that the "Ben Ocean Ranger" will put to sea before the final reports and conclusions have been reached by the American Bureau of Shipping as to the causes of the catastrophe that occurred to the "Ocean Ranger"?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I cannot possibly give any such undertaking because we do not know what results, if any, the inquiries into the tragic loss of the "Ocean Ranger" will reveal.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, would not the Government agree that a full inquiry is necessary, as the safety of the crew is at stake?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, we have established contact with the Canadian authorities investigating the incident and we shall be informed of the findings as and when they are known.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, will the noble Earl answer one final question: are the Government prepared, then, to accelerate the developments in free-falling safety capsules and lifeboats which have been worked on, in order to look after the safety of crew members of these very high structures, which appear to be causing considerable danger to those who sail in them?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I have no doubt that these are questions which will occupy a great deal of time and energy on the part of the Canadian authorities in establishing the facts of how this tragedy occurred.

Mr. William Beausire
2.49 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: 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 whether they will confirm their 1977 conclusion that responsibility for the fate of William Beuasire rests with the Chilean secret police; and whether they will make a public protest, and require a statement and compensation from the Chilean Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the Government remain convinced that the evidence of Mr. Beausire's detention in Chile is strong. In the absence of a full and satisfactory explanation from the Chilean authorities we cannot regard the case as closed, and we shall continue to press the Chilean authorities to resolve it. Because of Mr. Beausire's status as an Anglo-Chilean dual national, we would have no formal standing to demand compensation from the Chilean Government on his or his family's behalf.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. Will he say, however, that it would be possible for the Government to ask the Chilean authorities to make a statement on this issue—indeed, to demand it? Will he do that?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, an investigation was taking place into Mr. Beausire's fate. This investigation was suspended, but we understand that there is a possibility of these inquiries being reopened, and we very much hope that that will happen.
Lord Morris: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the Anglo part of Mr. Beausire's nationality is satisfactorily established?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, so far as I am aware, there is no doubt about Mr. Beausire's status; that is, that he is an Anglo-Chilean dual national. Therefore, while the difficulties surrounding his circumstances relate to Chile, we do not have a status in this case.

Iran and Poland: Human Rights
2.51 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: 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 why they do not react to more serious infringements of human rights in Iran in the vigorous way they do to lesser infringements in Poland.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we deplore violations of human rights wherever they occur and have reacted clearly and consistently to such violations. The views of Her Majesty's Government and our partners on developments in Iran have been made clear to the Iranian authorities, as have our views on Poland to the Polish Government.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that of over 3,000 executions which took place throughout the world last year, over 2,600—that is, around 82 per cent.—took place in Iran; that many of them took place within hours of arrest, and that they were for such offences as intending to demonstrate? So would the noble Lord agree that no one should, in any circumstances, be deported from this country to Iran?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the question of deportation from this country would have to be considered on its merits, in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time. But, as I said in the Answer, we have made our views about human rights violations in Iran very clear, not least in the Unstarred Question that I answered a week or so ago about the Bahá'is.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there was a programme during the weekend about the American attitude to what went on in Iran, where the officials who spoke—I am sorry that I cannot remember their names—confessed that they had been wrong about Iran from the beginning, and that they had caused a lot of confusion and made a lot of mistakes about what has gone on?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I did not see the programme to which the noble Baroness has referred and I do not know what it was that the American officials confessed to, or, indeed, which officials were confessing the error of their ways. But it behoves all Ministers and officials to confess the errors of their ways occasionally.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Foreign Secretary is not proposing a visit of friendship to Iran or to Poland, but is about to visit Israel? May we have an assurance that when he is in Israel he will represent to the Israeli Government the damage done to Israel's reputation in this country by the repression of human rights on the West Bank and, in particular, by the use of firearms against unarmed demonstrators?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord's ingenuity knows no bounds, but even he is hard pressed to draw an analogy between what he asks and the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, although I welcome what the Minister said about deploring what is happening in Iran, and the Government's protests about what is happening in Poland and to the dissidents in the Soviet Union, would not the Government's credibility be rather stronger if they made similar protests against the denial of human rights among allies of the West, such as El Salvador and Turkey?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think that I should answer that question in the same way as I answered the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: If I may press the noble Lord just a little further on this matter, I think he will agree that the general impression, rightly or wrongly, is that the Government are concerned only with human rights violations which occur in eastern Europe, and not so much with where most of the torturing and killing occurs, which, unfortunately, is in the so-called free countries of the West. Will the noble Lord do what he can to correct that impression, making it clear that he is even more concerned about violations in the area of which we regard ourselves as a part, than in those areas to which we do not regard ourselves as belonging?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, let me say, yet again, that the Government deplore violations of human rights wherever they may occur, and we lose no opportunity in expressing our views on the matter.

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 18th March), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Filament Lamps for Vehicles (Safety) Regulations 1982
2.56 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin)rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 10th February be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to explain why we are introducing these
836
regulations. The United Kingdom vehicle filament lamp market totals about 130 million units a year. About half of these are imported. Half of the imports are not approved to any recognised standard and many replacement bulbs from the Far East are of extremely low quality. In the case of headlamp bulbs, if the filament within the bulb is not in exactly the right position the beam of light emitted is directed in the wrong direction, towards oncoming drivers, and it can fail to illuminate the road ahead as it should. In the case of other lamps, the light output is frequently not up to the intensity specified for the type of lamp unit in which it is installed. It makes a mockery of our requirements for vehicles to have to be fitted with approved lamp units, if very low quality unapproved bulbs are lawfully permitted to be fitted within them.
United Kingdom vehicle manufacturers, as well as filament lamp manufacturers, have pressed the department to adopt the relevant international standard, UN: ECE Regulation 27. (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe: this body, based in Geneva, has now made about 50 standards for vehicle components over the last 25 years). This is not an extravagant standard but one designed to secure reasonable performance and life from filament lamps of the types which can be used in those vehicle lamp units which are themselves subject to approval. In response to consultation, wide support was received from vehicle and lamp manufacturers and users, including the Transport and General Workers' Union, the Co-op Union and the Freight Transport Association.
The only way to deal quickly with the problem is to introduce regulations under the powers available in the Consumer Safety Act 1978. This is what the department has prepared—the draft statutory instrument is before your Lordships. Very simply, these draft regulations would require nearly all new vehicle bulbs on sale as from a date six months after these regulations are signed to be marked, so as to show that they comply with the relevant international standards. It would be impracticable to try to enforce these rules at the roadside. The approval marks would be readily seen on bulbs when sold as separate items, whereas it would be necessary to remove the lens and the bulb from a light fitting on a vehicle to inspect these markings. The Trade Descriptions Act 1968 makes it an offence for any item marked with an approval mark as being of the required standard to fail to meet that standard.
I hope that this brief introduction is sufficient to explain the main purpose of these draft regulations which I recommend to your Lordships. The Government believe that they are in the interests of road safety and will ensure that consumers get a fair deal. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 10th February be approved.—(Lord Bellwin.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, this is one of those occasions when I think one can say that one is grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his interpretation of this order. I only wish that the explanatory note had said some of the things which he has told us about, for it says nothing at all about cheap imports or about safety precautions. I spent quite a long while going through the whole of Schedule 2 to the 1979 Act to

837
see where the new regulations fit in with the 1979 regulations. Frankly, it was impossible. And I could have saved my time because of the excellent explanation which has just been given by the Minister.
I should like to ask the noble Lord the Minister two questions. First, do the regulations change the wattage of the lamps, or are they as previously? Whether the Minister can answer that question I do not know. They are listed. Secondly, I take it that the consultations which have been held suggest that existing stocks without the new markings will be exhausted within the period of six months, after which the new regulations will come into force. Could the Minister therefore tell me whether there is any possible danger, if I may use that word, of small suppliers having stocks which may last beyond that six-month period and what their position will be under these new regulations?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, on the point of wattage, I have nothing before me upon it. However, I should not have thought that it ought to be a problem. Obviously, the wattage will vary. The requirements as to standards must surely apply, I should have thought, regardless of the wattage. If that is not so, I shall of course let the noble Lord know. As to his point about whether there will be stocks in some people's hands after the six-month period, I suppose there must always be that possibility. Hopefully, it would only be de minimis. Again, so far as I am aware, nobody has brought forward that point as a cause for concern. On the point of wattage, I understand that what I said was correct: that there is no change. Finally, had the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, got in touch with me beforehand, I should have given him at any time a very detailed explanation.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Royal Assent
3.2 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Consolidated Fund Act,

County of Avon Act,

London Transport Act.

Travel Concessions (London) Bill
Report received.

Taking of Hostages Bill [H.L.]
3.4 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Hostage-taking]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("without lawful excuse").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1 which stands in the names of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and myself. May I apologise on his behalf first for the fact that he cannot be here and, secondly, for the fact that this amendment is moved at such a late stage in our proceedings. But both my noble friend and I feel that before the Bill goes to another place we need an explanation from the Government as to why the words in line 6 on page 1—"without lawful excuse"—have been inserted. Those words were not included in the convention—that is to say, in the articles which the Bill follows fairly closely on the convention—and would seem to be contrary to the spirit and purpose of the convention.
Those words, when applied in our criminal law, import a special defence of lawful excuse which it would be for the defence to raise and upon whom the burden of proof would be. However, it seems rather strange to have that in juxtaposition to the statement of the offence itself. I would ask your Lordships to bear in mind that it is perfectly clear in Clause 1(1) that the offence contains three elements: First, the detention of somebody. I would mention in passing that the convention uses the expression "seizes or detains", but I agree that "detains" is good enough because you cannot detain without the person either having surrendered or having been seized. That is the first ingredient, detention. The second ingredient is that there should be a threat to kill, injure or continue to detain the hostage. The third ingredient is that that threat should be carried out in order to compel a state, international governmental organisation or person to do, or abstain from doing, any act.
There could be a wide variety of acts which the person trying to detain the hostage might have in mind. It might be a question of forcing the hand of a Government to release prisoners. It might be a question of forcing the hand of a Government to grant asylum. All kinds of things spring to mind from examples which have occurred, of which there is no need to remind your Lordships. The very thought that there could be a lawful excuse if those three things are proved seems, to put it midly, somewhat incongruous. There-for one feels that an explanation is needed as to why those words are put forward. That is the reason why this amendment is moved, and I look forward to hearing such explanation as my friend Lord Trefgarne is able to give.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I can see the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for this amendment regarding lawful excuse. I have studied the convention which this Bill seeks to ratify. It seems to excuse such acts of terrorism by allowing terrorists to plead lawful excuse. That, I think, is not compatible, or it seems to be not compatible, with the convention. If hostage-taking is permitted with lawful excuse, it is difficult to know what case could be made by terrorists who could plead political and other circumstances or that they were acting with the authority of another Government. The convention lays down very clearly the circumstances or acts which constitute the offence. It is hard to see the justification for the claim made by the Minister, when on Second Reading he said at col. 1121:
"Lawful excuse is a justification in law where the taking of hostages occurs".—[Official Report; 1/3/82.]

839
In seeking this change, the amendment seems to raise a number of facets. First, it is important that the Bill which seeks to ratify the convention should be compatible with it. This may have been the point made by the noble Lord in moving the amendment. Article 1 of the convention allows no excuse for the detention of persons, or the taking of hostages, or the threatening of Governments. Secondly, it is important that all Governments who ratify the same convention should have similar legal procedures and enactments to deal with terrorism and to make it watertight. Thirdly, it is important to have the fullest co-operation with the states which have ratified, and compatibility of legal procedures between countries will help to facilitate the convention's proposals and the common objectives. It would be very helpful to the Committee, and beyond, if the Minister were to clarify the position in relation to the Bill and the convention itself.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for explaining this amendment and indeed for the helpful approach taken by his noble friend and mine, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in their earlier discussions on this. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, has said, that this phrase does not appear in the definition of the offence in Article 1 of the convention. However, the Bill creates a new criminal offence and it was considered necessary to adapt the definition of the offence of the convention but without changing its substance, so as to be consistent with the laws of the United Kingdom and ensure no room for ambiguity. Since a threat to continue to detain a person in order to compel another person to do or abstain from doing any act is one of the elements of the offence, it was necessary to ensure that a situation which fell within those elements but which was not in any ordinary sense the taking of a hostage, was not caught by the Bill.
It is possible to conceive of cases where it would not be appropriate to apply the Bill. For example, there was an episode which was commented on in court in 1959, Regina v Smith, where a company of troops was kept on parade until a soldier involved in some fighting confessed; the court regarded this as an entirely proper way of inquiring into the incident. There is also the more usual case where a group of schoolchildren is kept in school until some petty malefactor owns up. Despite the controversy on educational discipline nowadays, I imagine that none of your Lordships considers that this type of case ought to be caught by the Bill.
It is for the courts to decide, of course, what constitutes lawful excuse, but it is not intended that the addition of this phrase should qualify the scope of the offence so that cases of hostage taking which clearly fall within the scope of the convention would, as a result, escape prosecution. In particular, the phrase would not allow an offender to argue that an act of hostage taking committed on the orders or on the instigation of a Government constituted a "lawful excuse". Nor are the motives of the offender in committing the offence—for example, to force a Government to grant asylum—of relevance in determining whether there was a lawful excuse. In short, the ends do not justify the means. It is certainly not the intention that the inclusion of these words should in any way
840
water down the provisions of the convention. I hope that I have explained the meaning of these words to the satisfaction of my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, and that my noble friend will feel able not to press his amendment.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend just one question? In the example that he gave it seemed to me that the words "without lawful excuse" were qualifying,
"detains any other person",
in Clause 1(1)(a) but were not relevant in Clause 1(1)(b). If that is so, would it not be reasonable to transfer the wording "without lawful excuse" to Clause 1(1)(a)?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not believe that my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn is right in saying that, if I may say so. The provisions of Clause 1(1)(a) and Clause 1(1)(b) are accumulative; that is to say, they both have to be satisfied in order to create the offence.
Lord Renton: My Lords, if I may have leave to reply, I should first like to thank my noble friend Lord Trefgarne for his very interesting explanation. It seems to me to be a very fine and subtle point. Having listened carefully to my noble friend, I believe it is only the presence in line 10 of the words "continue to detain" that really justifies the retention in line 6 of the words "without lawful excuse". I think so. I take that point and therefore thank my noble friend and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
3.14 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, that the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I raised a number of points on Second Reading which were not pursued at Committee stage and I have given the noble Lord the Minister notice of one or two points on which it would be helpful to have clarification. On Second Reading I raised several matters. One of them was in regard to extradition. Clause 3 refers to extradition procedures and I should like to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied with the procedures and situations where no extradition arrangements exist between the United Kingdom and other countries? The noble Lord the Minister was kind enough to reply to me on a number of points raised in the debate, but I note that in his letter to my noble friend he states:
"I would like to point out that in the Taking of Hostages Bill there is no obligation to extradite, provided we are willing to submit the case for prosecution".
It would be helpful if the Minister will be kind enough to clarify that point. It seems that, where another state is not a party to the convention, the Bill cannot provide for extradition, although I appreciate that extradition could be possible through powers available

841
under other legislation. I am concerned about other countries which are not party to the convention. The noble Lord the Minister was kind enough to detail in his Second Reading speech those other countries which have not ratified, or which have no extradition or offender fugitive arrangements with the United Kingdom. I anticipate that other conventions such as the hijacking convention, which I understand has more than 100 parties backing it, will help.
The other point I made on Second Reading concerned ratification. There is an urgent need for ratification so that the convention's objectives can become realities as soon as possible. The noble Lord the Minister told your Lordships' House that 17 ratifications and accessions have been made so far and that the convention will come into force when 22 countries have ratified or acceded. This is very slow progress in the period of two and a half years since the convention was signed, in December 1979. As I have implied, five more signatures are still required for enforcement. It would he helpful if the Minister could say something about the action taken by Her Majesty's Government and the United Nations to speed up the rate of ratification—especially by the United States, Canada, Italy and New Zealand, among others, who still have to ratify. I am sure there is particular concern that Eastern European countries are not represented at all. Does this mean that they will not be co-operating in the signing of the convention or in the ratification that must follow before the convention can be enforced? It seems vital that every country and every state signs the convention and ratifies it as soon as possible, to ensure world-wide enforcement. Those who do not do so are providing a refuge for terrorists, and such countries are not discouraging such people as terrorists and hijackers on their soil, with all the terrifying problems they bring to their own nationals and to others.
As I mentioned earlier, while it is vital that all countries should back the convention, it is important too that there is the sharing of knowledge. I believe this is covered by Article 3 of the convention, which concerns the techniques that should be operated when terrorists come to a country. Obviously, powers such as those we are discussing today are not enough alone, because what matters also is the manner in which countries deal with hijackers and with emergency situations on their soil, if bloodshed is to be avoided. It has been proved in the past that already Britain can deal with such situations with firmness and fairness, and so it will be helpful if the noble Lord the Minister will assure the House that the Government really are concerned about the delay in ratification by other countries. Until something is done by all countries there is refuge for people who should be apprehended and dealt with as soon as possible.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, may be interested to know that the convention requires ratification by 22 states in order to enter into force. Our ratification would be the 18th and it is likely, therefore, that the convention will enter into force without much further delay. Indeed, I would hope that the fact of our ratification will encourage other states to complete their own domestic legislation. I happen to know, for example, that the United States,
842
Japan, Australia, Austria, Italy and the Netherlands are in the process of preparing legislation. I certainly agree with the noble Lord that it is desirable that this convention should come into force at the earliest possible date, and that as many of the nations of the world as possible should be persuaded to adhere to it. But the convention cannot come into force until 22 nations have signed and ratified the convention. We hope that that will happen before very long.
On the question of extradition, it is the case that the provisions of the Bill are permissive so far as this particular matter is concerned. Thus, it will be open to us to extradite under the terms of the Bill where we think it is appropriate to do so. I am sorry that that was not precisely clear from the letter I sent to the noble Lord, and I hope I have been able to set his mind at rest.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Coal Industry Bill
3.20 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is the second Bill to make provision for financial support for the coal industry which has been introduced during this Parliament. The first became the Coal Industry Act 1980. I should like, therefore, to say a few words about why the new legislation is needed and to say how the Government see their future strategy for the coal industry, against the background of its recent history.
In 1947, the year of the nationalisation of the coal industry, there were 958 pits in Britain, over 700,000 men on colliery books and total United Kingdom production was 200 million tonnes. Total inland coal consumption was 187·5 million tonnes, and coal represented 90 per cent. of our national primary fuel needs. By 1972, however, the coal industry had been in decline for over a decade, as British industry, in common with the industry of the rest of the world, had grown increasingly dependent on cheap oil imports from the Middle East. It has become fashionable to talk about the coal industry as an archaic relic of a bygone age. In 1967–68 alone, 62 pits closed, and the reduction in men on colliery books was 43,000. In March 1973 there were 281 pits, 263,600 men on colliery books. United Kingdom coal production in the financial year 1972–73 was 140·5 million tonnes. In 1972 coal contributed only 36 per cent. of our primary energy needs compared with 48 per cent. met by oil.
It was with the realisation that these circumstances could change and in the belief that the coal industry should not completely founder that, under the then Conservative Government, the NCB in 1973 began to formulate its 10-year Plan for Coal. The intention was to restructure the industry, arrest its decline, replace old capacity, improve working conditions, and create a modern efficient and competitive industry, capable of expansion.
Plan for Coal could not have been more timely. After the first major oil crisis it became increasingly clear that imported oil could no longer be counted on as a cheap and reliable source of energy supplies,

843
and that the energy market would shift back towards a greater reliance on coal.
Plan for Coal was approved by the Labour Government in 1974, with full support from both sides of the House. It was based on investment of £140 million per annum at 1974 prices for 10 years, compared with the annual capital expenditure by the NCB of some £80 million, and it was intended to place the NCB in a position of being able to satisfy an assumed demand of up to 150 million tonnes in 1985. Modernisation and efficiency were to be secured by an annual increase in productivity of 4 per cent. and by an annual closure of old capacity of some 3 to 4 million tonnes.
Investment under Plan for Coal has gone ahead and, indeed, has exceeded what was planned. However, the other main targets have not been achieved. It is also now clear that the market opportunities for coal, to which Plan for Coal was geared, are somewhat further off than was envisaged. This means that the coal industry is now having to adapt its plans and strategy in order to work within the parameters of its changed circumstances, while still seeking to secure competitiveness and commercial success.
The facts speak for themselves. First, in 1980–81 United Kingdom energy demand was 3 per cent. lower than in 1972–73. Total National Coal Board sales of coal were 117·7 million tonnes, compared with sales in 1972–73 of 136·6 million tonnes. Moreover, with production of 124·9 million tonnes in 1980–81, the NCB is supplying more coal than the market wants and is incurring the expense of having to put large amounts o coal to stock. Secondly, coal's competitiveness with oil has not improved to the extent that was thought. Since 1979 oil prices have not risen as fast as was feared; and the NCB, whose costs rose at an average of 4 per cent. per annum higher than overall inflation in the five years up to 1980–81, did not make the savings on costs which were hoped for. Finally, productivity, as measured by output per man shift, in 1980–81 was still below its 1972–73 level, and only during the past year have encouraging improvements in productivity been made.
For the reasons which I have outlined, the coal industry's progress towards financial viability and competitiveness has been delayed, and the taxpayer has continued to commit large sums of money to the industry, not only to provide it with funds for capital investment, but also to help finance the gap between the board's revenue and expenditure. The Bill will make it possible for the Government to continue this support of the industry, and its passage gives Parliament the opportunity to reappraise the industry's plans and progress. I am sure that we all share a common concern that the National Coal Board should progress as quickly as possible to a position of financial soundness and viability and play a key role in meeting our future energy needs. The Government's commitment to this is expressed in the substantial amount of public money which will be paid under the framework of this Bill.
The NCB's capital expenditure approval of £886 million for 1982–83 will ensure that its substantial capital investment programme of £805 million this year continues at broadly the same level. The grants to the NCB this year will be over £550 million. In
844
1982–83 the Government expect to pay to the NCB, subject to parliamentary approval of the Estimates, total grants of over £480 million. Such substantial sums express the Government's confidence in the industry's future potential. We believe that that future can be a secure and prosperous one, provided the NCB can overcome the problems which it faces. This will require a real effort from employees at all levels.
I have already indicated the main areas where improvement is needed. There needs to be a constant drive to keep down unit costs and to improve efficiency. The 3 per cent. improvement in productivity which has been achieved so far this year is encouraging, but it has to be seen in the context of the disappointing performance over the past decade, when there was no real improvement in output per man shift. The recent trend needs to be consolidated and bettered. If the productivity levels which Plan for Coal envisaged had been achieved, output per man shift today would have been 25 per cent. higher than it actually is.
Whatever the savings on its costs, the board can only win commercial and financial success if it can penetrate new markets and strengthen its position in existing ones. The most important area for the board to concentrate on in the short and medium term is the industrial market. However, businesses make their decisions on a commercial basis, and coal has to earn its way by demonstrating its competitiveness on pricing and in terms of reliability and quality of supply. To help industry, and to encourage increased coal burn, an extension of the availability of grants under the Department of Industry's Coal Fired Boiler Scheme was announced in the Budget: the scheme has been renamed the Coal Firing Scheme, and it now covers switching to coal firing from a wide range of oil and gas fired industrial equipment, including boilers, ovens, furnaces, kilns and driers. The minimum threshold for projects has been reduced from £25,000 to £15,000 and the scope of the scheme has been extended to cover several service industries. I very much hope that these changes to the scheme will contribute to its success.
The purpose of the Bill is to increase the borrowing powers of the National Coal Board, to increase the limits on the operating and deficit grants which the Government pay to the board, and to make small adjustments to the arrangements for the payment of social grants. Clause 1 provides for an increase in the borrowing powers of the National Coal Board and its wholly owned subsidiaries, from the present limit of £4,200 million to a new limit of £4,500 million, which may be increased by order to £5,000 million. Clause 2 extends the period in respect of which deficit grant may be paid to the board until the end of 1983–84. It also increases the total limit on operating and deficit grants from the present £590 million to a new limit of £1,000 million, which may be increased by order to £1,750 million.
Clauses 3 and 4 deal with social grants, and reflect the latest improvements to the schemes of payment which successive Governments have made to help with the particular problems of individuals affected by changes in the industry. In March last year, substantial improvements were made in the Redundant Mineworkers' Payments Scheme for people made redundant on or after 11th March, 1981 and Clause 3 gives powers to the Secretary of State to reimburse

845
the board in full the cost of payments related to improved pensions under the new arrangements.
Clause 4 also stems from the improvements in redundancy terms and increases the limits on payments of grams to the board under Sections 6 and 7 of the Coal Industry Act 1977. The relatively modest increases reflect the cost of the improved terms, and also the fact that their introduction has led to a rise in the level of redundancies over the past year. I would emphasise, however, that the potential of the industry's future success can only be realised if those who work in the industry make a really determined effort to win through the present difficulties. I would not wish to understate these difficulties. They are very real and I know that there is no overnight solution. Nor is there a solution which the Government can produce on a platter. It is our job to set the financial guidelines and provide the financial framework which can help the board get back on course. The Bill will help us to do just that and it demonstrates our confidence that the board has the ability to succeed. It is in that spirit, my Lords, that I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
3.32 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, for explaining the purpose of the Bill which, as he said, makes provision for Government financial support to the coal industry. It is an important Bill, providing investment—I do not like the word "subsidy"—in what is perhaps, with agriculture, our most important basic industry. I think that the Bill is also somewhat unusual in that it was passed by another place without a Division on either its Second or its Third Reading. Certainly, as far as these Benches are concerned, we shall do nothing to impede its passage, particularly as I understand, from the point of view of the industry, that the Bill should receive Royal Assent before Easter; and this is certainly in the interests of the nation.
As the Bill is mainly a financial one, I should like, if I may, to make a few general points about the industry, and to ask the noble Earl one or two questions about Government policy over certain specific matters which are causing concern. If I may say so, I think that it gives the wrong impression to describe these borrowings, which are really long term investment, as a subsidy. In spite of all that the noble Earl has said, the British coal industry has the lowest production costs in the EEC. The production costs, including interest payments and depreciation, in the United Kingdom are £35 per tonne compared with £44 in West Germany, £45 in France and £61 in Belgium. In the United Kingdom again, the price per tonne is £1·4, while in West Germany it is over £12, in France about £15 and in Belgium nearly £28. These continental countries also receive much greater Government grants.
I am sure that the House is glad to note that the coal industry has had a very good productivity record in recent months and, as the noble Earl said, output per man shift is increasing. Last month productivity was over 3 per cent. up on February 1981, and last November it set an all-time record. But there is a
846
price to pay for this increased productivity, and I am concerned to see reports that, since the introduction of the productivity incentive scheme four years ago, fatal accidents have increased by 25 per cent. We remember the accident at Cardowan earlier this year. This was not, happily, so serious as was at first feared, although I am sorry to say that nine of the injured miners are still in hospital. However, I am glad to hear that they are on the road to recovery.
Although there were 35 fatalities last year throughout the industry, compared with 46 in 1979, that is still 35 too many. I hope that the Government and the NCB will do all they can to help increase research into safety and to encourage investment in efficient pits; because, my Lords, an efficient pit is likely to be a safer pit. But mining remains a hazardous occupation. There is, furthermore, the risk of pneumoconiosis. I understand that the National Union of Mineworkers has suggested that the Government should finance an extension of the NCB's pneumoconiosis compensation scheme, so that those miners who were previously excluded from the scheme as commuted cases, or their widows, could receive a lump sum of about £600.
I hope that the Government will look sympathetically on this proposal. The sum involved is not large. What we have to strive for continuously is a safer industry, and every pound of capital investment directed towards this end is surely money well spent. Too often we hear the word "subsidy" used by the party opposite, as if this was a one-way affair, when in actual fact we should regard these payments as long-term investments for the coal industry, the people who work in it, and through them for the nation as a whole.
Dealing with the long term, I should like now to ask the Minister about Belvoir, or the North-East Leicestershire project, as I prefer to call it. The NCB has spent £2 million on the planning inquiry. The Central Electricity Generating Board has stated in evidence that the capacity is replacement capacity, and needed to replace the existing pits in Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire which are becoming exhausted. The NCB, the NUM, the Department of Energy and the European Energy Commission all want this project, which will take about 10 years to develop, to go ahead. Indeed, every Member of another place took the same view during the debates on the Bill.
The board's application was made nearly four years ago. The inspector's report was sent in over a year ago. The decision rests, I believe, with the Department of the Environment, although that department is not directly responsible for the energy needs of this country. Surely the Department of Energy cannot be content to leave this important decision to another Government department? But it appears so, since the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, Mr. John Moore, said in another place during the Third Reading debate on 4th March, that this was a matter for his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and the noble Earl's right honourable friend the Prime Minister confirmed that on 11th March. I must, therefore, ask the noble Earl, who speaks for Her Majesty's Government, when we may expect a decision; why it has been so long delayed; whether the Department of Energy is being consulted;

847
and whether this decision, when it is made, will be on environmental grounds alone—and I may say that the NCB are fully aware of their responsibility to the environment—or will our future energy needs be taken into account as well as the future efficiency of the coal industry?
It is a further matter of great disappointment that Government financial cheeseparing of the most shortsighted kind, by their own standards, has been extended to the essential oil-from-coal liquefaction project. The Labour Government had made £20 million available for this project and the present Government said initially that they would continue this. But now they have had second thoughts apparently, and Labour's £20 million has been cut back to a quarter—to £5 million—and the pilot scheme has not even been started.
This is a most important project and one that is vital to our future. North Sea oil will begin to run out early in the next century, which is under 20 years away, and by then we must have liquefaction sufficiently developed on a national and commercial basis, otherwise there will be little industry and no transport, except perhaps bicycles and horse transport. Perhaps the noble Earl will let us know, when he comes to reply, the latest position on liquefaction and the anticipated timing for the next two decades.
Lastly, I should like to ask about the new chairman of the National Coal Board, because the delay in nominating him is causing unease in the industry. Sir Derek Ezra has been chairman since 1971, and I should like to take this opportunity to pay a warm tribute to him and, from these Benches, to congratulate him on his splendid work for the National Coal Board, for which we are all indebted. Sir Derek is due to retire shortly. He has been with the NCB since 1947, a board member since 1965 and, as I have said, chairman since 1971. Sir Derek has an unrivalled knowledge of the industry and he will be difficult to replace.
I hope that the Government, when looking for a new chairman, will consider someone from the coal industry, or at least someone with knowledge and experience of the industry, because this is important. I hope that, for once, they will not follow precedent and appoint someone from outside—as they have done with other nationalised industries—who has come from another field, either from merchant banking or from the academic world, or even whoever is next in turn from the ranks of "the great and the good". I conclude by saying that I support the Bill. I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading and that it will pass rapidly through its remaining stages.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, we wish to add our gratitude to the noble Earl the Minister for presenting this Bill and we also wish to confirm that it is not our intention in any way to obstruct it during its passage through your Lordships' House. However, in view of the total lack of debate in another place on this Bill, I am tempted to go into more detail than possibly I should normally have done on a Bill of this kind, which is primarily a monetary Bill.
My intervention in this debate is based on the background of a strong support from these Benches in the
848
past for a healthy and vigorous coal industry, and acceleration of its modernisation programmes as outlined in Plan for Coal. It has long been recognised that, during a period of recession and a temporary oversupply in the world oil markets of the mid-1980s, the national coal industry will suffer a difficult period until the energy shortages foreseen in the 1990s become apparent and coal again takes a proper place and receives a profitable return for its contribution to the energy equation.
However, the Bill before us bears little or no relation to the overall policies which I have mentioned. It appears to be nothing more than a request to the taxpayer to subsidise in-built obsolescence in the deeper and more dangerous coal mines of this country. This view is not just my own, but is confirmed in the Second Report from the Select Committee on Energy, as shown in the conclusions reached in paragraph 33. The contention was also expressed by the committee in paragraph 28, that the cost of grants contained in this has,
"more to do with social than energy policy",
and,
"should be borne on the appropriate Votes, which in this case would relate to employment protection or social programmes".
The report then goes on, in paragraph 18, to criticise the departments concerned by saying that,
"it would seem safe to assume that the interests of the consumer and taxpayer were not uppermost in the minds of Ministers when they reached their decision".
This decision, of course, refers to the reduced closure rate of uneconomic pits.
It is my intention to attempt to see how the Coal Industry Bill and the increased borrowings and grants contained in it, affect the taxpayer as well as the consumer in ways which were perhaps not at first sight immediately clear to its authors in the Department of Energy or the Treasury. I say this because, in spite of the very finely produced accounts of the National Coal Board, they do not show up clearly the real costs to the taxpayer in a way which is readily understandable. Furthermore, when these accounts are scrutinised by the Public Accounts and Select Committees, it should be borne in mind that there are only 18 Members of another place in this Parliament—none of whom appears to be in the Cabinet or the Shadow Cabinet—who are professionally qualified to interpret a balance sheet of any kind. It is all too easy for Government departments and nationalised industries to present their accounts and their accountability to the taxpayer in a form that is quite incomprehensible to the majority of Members of Parliament, and equally to the taxpayer.
Therefore, it is with some relief that I read somewhere recently that it is the Government's apparent intention to simplify all accounts for which they are responsible, both directly and indirectly, so that better controls and accountability to the taxpayer can be achieved. I shall return to this point a little later on.
Meanwhile, until this day of dawning arrives, as a non-accountant, I shall make an attempt to interpret the figures contained in this Bill in conjunction with the latest National Coal Board accounts and the effects the implementation of this Bill may have on them. If noble Lords will bear with me, I shall attempt to show—with, I hope, a minimum amount of arithmetic—the financial

849
implications of the public spending contained in this Bill and its apparent reversal of the Government's economic policy intended to hold down inflation.
I wish now to return to the Second Report of the Select Committee of Energy, paragraph 33, in which the effects of the Coal Industry Bill have been summarised as follows, and they are exactly as the noble Earl the Minister has said. The committee states that this Bill,
"provides for an increase in the total outstanding borrowings of the NCB from £4·2b. to a possible £5b."
It then goes on to say that the:
"Secretary of State may pay operating and deficit grants to the Board. The aggregate limit on such grants is raised from £590m. to a possible £1,750m."
In other words, under this Bill, the taxpayer is being asked to subsidise in-built obsolescence in the coal industry to the tune of approximately £1 billion. The committee has made quite clearly the correct distinction between the extended borrowing powers already given to the Coal Board and the extended operating and deficit grants also proposed in the Bill before us. I intend to make the same distinction and to show what effects these very large sums could have on all future accounts of the National Coal Board and, possibly, on the end-consumer as well, be it in the form of coal or electricity.
Nothing has been said from the Government or from the National Coal Board to indicate that the interest charges on these extra injections of finance will be treated any differently from previously—in which case the increased capital borrowings for the board would appear to increase the interest burden by an extra £42 million per year. In the same way, the indirect grants payable to the National Coal Board in this Bill will add to the PSBR an interest burden of a further £162.4 million per year, giving an approximate running total of an extra £204 million per year as interest chargeable to the taxpayer. Coincidentally, this sum of £204 million per year matches almost precisely the current running deficit of the National Coal Board of £206 million per year, as shown in the latest accounts on page 46.
To my knowledge, nothing has been stated by Her Majesty's Government or by the National Coal Board to the effect that the Treasury is prepared to waive its requirement for a 5 per cent. return on capital employed. However, if we look at the Coal Board accounts, the calculations for capital employed, amounting to £2·39 billion, appear to be related only to the fixed assets, while the net current assets do not take into account the current net borrowings. As far as I am aware, this procedure is quite contrary to normal business practice and creates an air of unreality with regard to the Treasury requirement.
Nevertheless, if we accept the terminology of capital employed as shown in the accounts, it would appear that the Treasury is looking for profits in the region of £130 million a year, which, by any assessment, must be hopelessly optimistic against a current running deficit of £206 million a year. If this deficit total of £206 million is then added to the profit target anticipated by the department of £130 million, the board are then faced with finding an extra £336 million per year out of revenue in a market already over-supplied with coal and affected by a downward pressure on prices,
850
with no real sign of an end to the industrial recession to increase demand.
I have the greatest sympathy for the chairman, Sir Derek Ezra, and appreciation for his board for the work which they have done up until this time. They are rather like the nut in the nutcracker: on the one hand they are under pressure to increase revenue to meet a Treasury target while, on the other hand, there is a falling demand with a downward pressure on prices. But the only way the nationalised industries can increase revenue is by increasing prices. If my calculations—which are rough in the extreme, I must admit—are even approximately correct, it would appear to me that the price of coal will have to be increased by about £3 per ton at the existing rate of output; that is, if the Coal Board is to fulfil the targets set by the Treasury and meet the additional interest charges on the new loans extended to it under this Bill. Unfortunately, however, even supposing this were either possible or practicable in real terms, a price increase of this magnitude would have considerable side effects on other industries which directly affect the rate of inflation and daily costs to the taxpayer.
The noble Earl will recall that, in all the calculations submitted by the Central Electricity Generating Board, a price increase of only 2½ per cent. per annum has been allowed for in calculating the future cost of electricity generated from fossil fuel power stations. A price increase of £3 per ton of coal would call for about a 9 per cent. increase in fuel costs to these power stations, which must in turn bring pressure for a large upswing in the price of electricity for industrial and domestic consumers alike—that is, if the CEGB is to produce its 5 per cent. return on capital target set by the Treasury.
It may be worth reminding the noble Earl the Minister that in a CEGB publication entitled Costs of Producing Electricity figures show that there has been a commendable increase in efficiency of generating costs by those power stations which were commissioned between 1965 and 1977, when the fossil fuel charges accounted for 83·2 per cent. of generation costs; whereas coal-fired power stations under construction today are expected to reduce this figure, and therefore the demand for coal, to 62·5 per cent. of the total generation costs, which include by the way the increased construction and interest charges for these new stations.
The reason for including all these figures is to attempt to show the very considerable effect on generation costs if there were a large increase in price on coal delivered to power stations. I shall make no attempt to calculate the increased generation costs in detail, but a £3 per ton increase in the cost of coal could increase the costs per kilowatt hour from 3·8p up to over 4p. The inflationary effects of such an increase, even on the most efficient coal-powered stations built, will inevitably be carried on to the consumers and add to the national inflation statistics.
I am sure it is not the intention of the Government or the noble Earl the Minister to pursue a policy of public expenditure which would in any way aggravate the economy to increase inflation dramatically at this time. Therefore, I hope he will first consider seriously the proposition made by the Select Committee on Energy which suggested that the deficit and operating

851
grants contained in this Bill should be treated entirely separately from the overall financing of the production of coal. These are social grants—some would even call them "ransom" money—and have little or no connection with the promotion of an efficient and modern coal industry in this country.
Secondly, will the Government consider scrapping the rates of return on capital for the nationalised industries which, when all is said and done, are figures taken out of the air by the Treasury officials and bear no relation to responsible industrial forecasting? I doubt whether taxpayers will be either impressed or misled by Government statements insisting publicly to the chairmen of nationalised industries that these targets must be met; while at the same time propagating a public spending policy for the nationalised industries which is claimed to be anti-inflationary, yet in practice is quite the reverse.
I have attempted to show, using the figures contained in the Bill, coupled with the accounts of the National Coal Board, that the time has now come for a complete revision of the kind of thinking which has led to the introduction of this Bill, without apparent further consideration of its side effects on other nationalised industries, the taxpayer, the consumer, or the economy as a whole.
Therefore, I hope that the noble Earl the Minister will confirm that in future the nationalised industries will soon be able to present their accounts in a form more closely aligned with the statutory requirements of private sector industries; in particular that the financing by grant or loan in the Coal Industry Bill before us will be clearly identified by purpose and intent in the balance sheet, so that social and political measures are isolated under a separate Vote from the trading accounts, and can be judged accordingly by the taxpayer at a general election.
The Government would do well to take note of a statement by the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council in their latest annual report, which said that,
"we have told the NCB that we intend to press on resolutely with a policy of seeking more and better information about their finances in order to respond positively to price increase proposals."
This is just one fairly small section of taxpayers who are bewildered by the figures published by a nationalised industry, as they cannot see the effect in terms of their daily life or the way in which their money has been spent.
If the noble Earl the Minister confirms that the Treasury requirement of 5 per cent. return on capital employed will still apply to the National Coal Board in the years to come, I also hope that he will give his definition of the term, "return on capital employed". In particular, will he say whether the current liabilities—that is, the existing borrowings, plus those contained under this Bill—will not be applicable to this formula? It would appear to me that, whatever calculations are used, the National Coal Board is grossly under-capitalised in its fixed assets, and this fact is confirmed by the chairman, Sir Derek Ezra, in his statement on page 3 of the accounts, in which he says as follows:
"the Board's difficulties are part of the overall problems arising from financing arrangements for public enterprises, where the whole emphasis is on short-term 'cash limits'. These make no distinction between the finance required for current operations and that for fixed investment. This, and the inclusion of the external funding requirements of public enterprises in the PSBR make the
852
implementation of strategic investment programmes more difficult. A solution to this problem must be found, to the benefit of both public and private sectors, which are closely interdependent".
The chairman's plea to the Government is similar in its terms and in its urgency to those of other chairmen of nationalised industries, like British Rail, who appear to have difficulty, as do many others, in interpreting the present Government's policy on capital investment; in particular, the lack of distinction between short-term cash limits and long-term financing for modernisation.
It would be quite wrong to pursue these wider issues involved at this time. However, I would be grateful if the noble Earl could perhaps solve one problem for me, which is to explain in the simplest terms as to how long-term capital investment in fixed assets is inflationary, and short-term subsidising in-built obsolescence is not.
There is one further thought which occurred to me while preparing for this debate, and it is simply this. I wonder whether the problems that are being experienced with communication between the chairmen of all the nationalised industries and the members of the Government of the day are primarily due to an inability on the part of the Government Ministers to understand some of the basic terms used in balance sheets, and which affect the operation of any company, whether it be the sweet shop on the corner or one of the biggest commercial enterprises in Europe. Having read and listened over a number of years to speeches given by Ministers, and terms like, "return on capital employed", "net current assets", "revenue and capital", "gearing", and all the normal jargon of a business in the market place, from the way these terms are used it is quite clear to me that they do not understand what they mean. If this is the ease—I apply these remarks equally to members of the executive of the National Union of Mineworkers—it is small wonder that the efficiency and the accountability of this great industry is in such disarray.
I want to end as I began with stating that it is the desire of all of us on these Benches to see the strengthening of the coal industry take place over the next 14 years, in order to meet the demands of the 1980s at a profit for all those who are employed or connected with it. Therefore, we wait with increasing impatience, against a background of 3 million unemployed, for the Government to agree a long-term capital programme, which has to be implemented now if it is to be effective, and which bears no relation to the short-term cash limits contained in this Bill.
Our warnings of the past about the dire consequences of lack of investment in the coal industry have apparently gone unheeded. They may pass unheeded again, so perhaps the Minister may pay attention to a warning of a completely different kind which was reported in the Guardian on Friday 19th March:
"The National Coal Board press office said that one of their miners at Silverwood Colliery had fled in terror from the pit after confrontation with an apparition at the coal face".
The report described the apparition as representing a mine worker in a distressed condition wearing an outdated helmet and a tattered old pullover and waistcoat.
"The Coal Board went on to say that a miner had been killed near the same spot 14 years before this incident occurred".

853
The question I ask is whether the apparition was from some tragedy 14 years past, or was it an omen for the state of the coal industry 14 years hence?
4.1 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, it would be churlish not to join with the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in saying a fond farewell to Sir Derek Ezra, whose achievements for the industry over many years have been outstanding. Sir Derek himself knows that he has his cirtics, but I am certainly not one of them. I have always admired what he has accomplished, and, as noble Lords know well, whenever I speak in a debate on coal I am really speaking about one of my loves, because I sat for a mining constituency for many years, and nobody will accuse me of wanting to bash either the industry or the splendid men in it.
I was much interested in that part of the racy exposé of the economics of the industry which I could understand given by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw. I do not know whether he is an accountant by profession. Listening to him, I could not help saying to myself that accountants are barnacles on the backside of industry. However, he drew attention—rightly, in my view, and not a minute too soon—to the urgency of getting a clear distinction which everybody can understand between capital and trading accounts. Members of your Lordships' House on both sides have said that time and again when addressing successive Governments. We have pleaded for it, but we have never received a proper answer.
Because of that, it is possible, on the one hand—and the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, was closer to the truth than I should like to admit—to describe social grants as ransom money, or something very like it, while on the other we have the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that there are no subsidies, that it is all investment for the future. Whether they are subsidies or investments for the future, we all know that a Conservative Government were innocently optimistic in the last Coal Bill several years ago, and I wonder whether they are not still being so.
Perhaps it is important, before we rejoice in the great help the Government are now proposing to give the industry, to remind ourselves of the trenchant comments which stemmed from the unanimous conclusions of the Select Committee on Energy in another place when looking at the Department of Energy's estimates for 1981–82. I will quote a few lines from that report, repeating and stressing that this was unanimously agreed by an all-party committee:
"The aggregate limit on … grants is raised from £590 million to a possible £1,750 million. We have pointed out that the practical effect of the extra financial support is to enable the surplus output created by the continued operation of uneconomical pits to be exported at subsidised prices… We have argued [that] a programme to phase out high-cost, uncommercial pits would bring down the average cost of the Board's coal and might lead to an increase in sales to the home market based on a genuine competitive advantage".
Those were significant and serious points made, I repeat, by an all-party committee in the other place. That committee finally concluded:
"We shall return to this matter in our examination of the estimates for 1982–83, paying particular attention to the need to ensure that the additional funds made available by the Government
854
to the Coal Board have been spent on the purposes for which they were granted and that the taxpayer is not being asked to pay twice over for the consequences of the Government's change of policy".
The change of policy referred to was of course a consequence of the crisis in the industry just over a year ago. The figures concerned are enormous and they are partly to enable the board to match up with and join in resisting the importation of cheaper coal.
The difficulty the industry has to face—and I believe it is the wider context of which the industry needs to be reminded and of which we should remind ourselves—. is that, in the generation of electricity, coal is steadily losing ground to nuclear power. As a matter of fact, once the first two PWRs are commissioned, the nuclear content in the generation of electricity will be about 18 per cent. Should the Severn Barrage come into being, that, on the face of it, would eat into the Coal Board's market by a further 6 per cent. Thus, the Coal Board is up against it in competition with other sources of energy.
Yet the Coal Board need not, or should not, be unduly frightened because, when one compares the capital cost of providing a new kilowatt/hour capacity, one finds that oil works out at more than 7p; that the Severn Barrage, if it is amortised over 25 years, would work out at 6p; but that the Severn Barrage, if amortised over 50 years (which might be more reasonable when the time comes), would come down to 3p. That is roughly the price of new energy capacity from coal; but, when one comes to nuclear, one finds that Sizewell B will be 2p per kilowatt/hour capacity and Hinkley Point 1.5p. Here is a measure of the competition coal has to face.
It is relevant in that context to remind ourselves that Selby will be a tremendous step forward, replacing the old Yorkshire coalfield, producing probably 10 million tonnes a year for a century, at a capital cost of about £1,000 million, which is not high for capacity of that sort. It will bring a wonderful change—namely that the wages content will decline from an average of 48 per cent. elsewhere to only 18 per cent. I join the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in anxieties about the depredations upon common sense that originate under the aegis of the Department of the Environment in regard to Belvoir. If and when Belvoir goes ahead, no doubt that will replace the Leicestershire coalfield on terms similar to Selby. If coal is to keep its position and defy world competition, costs must go on coming down, so the old pits have to go, as the Select Committee stressed.
Although it is true—and we welcome it, and we must honour the miners and, indeed all concerned, for it—that productivity in 1981–82 was of the order of 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. more than in 1980–81, that is still lower than the Plan for Coal target. That was an increase in productivity of 4 per cent. per annum. But what surely is important to bear in mind is not simply that there is, or should be, a good domestic market for coal; there is an enormous overseas market. It is interesting to look at the estimates made by the World Energy Conference a few years ago as to the world reserves of energy. The estimate was that there is enough oil for 25 years, enough gas for 45 years, enough uranium for 70 years, and that there is enough coal in the world for 300 years for all the world's needs.

855
The World Energy Conference pointed out, furthermore, that if one takes only a 1 per cent. per annum growth in the world industrial societies' economies, and of course a great deal less for the less developed countries, it looks as though the world's need of energy by the year 2020 will be rather more than three times what it is today. Indeed there is every reason to expect the world coal trade in the early part of the next century to be as lively and widespread as is today the world's trade in oil. So coal has it in itself to take up the eventual oil/gas deficiency, although there is a factor of about three to one in thermal efficiency as between coal on conversion to oil or gas and the alternative fuels.
The question is: can the United Kingdom coal industry grasp this opportunity over the next generation? In this House we all know that the lead time on any major energy project is of the order of 10 years. So we are now talking about anything that might happen in the mid 'nineties. Therefore the early years of next century are only about 10 years on from now in terms of lead times, and that surely argues the immense urgency of disentangling the Coal Board's muddled finances. I am not blaming the Coal Board, but I am blaming the tradition that capital account on the one hand and trading account on the other are hopelessly muddled up and confused. So it is quite easy to say here that every miner is subsidised to the extent of £35 a week. That is not a term that I especially like, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, does not at all like the word "subsidy". But there is an element of subsidy, as there is also an element of investment, and these need to be disentangled.
Far the most encouraging feature of the coal industry now is—and I am sure everyone will agree—the enormous bank of common sense among the men. We have all recently heaved a sigh of relief at the decision of the miners to pursue what I would choose to call a steady course. Much depends on their leadership from now on. I greatly hope that the new president of the National Union of Mineworkers—a man of enormous ability and, may I add, charm as well—will focus on trying to make the best of the industry, rather than, let us say, falling back on attitudes that might amount to confrontation. The greatest asset of the coal industry is the men. I think that the greatest liability is the muddle of the accounts.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, before dealing with the subject of the Bill, I, too, should like to add my word of tribute to the work done by Sir Derek Ezra as chairman of the Coal Board. His quiet efficiency has been impressive, and while joining the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in that tribute, I would not go along with him entirely on the job description for the new chairman of this nationalised industry. I hope that the Government will find a man who can interpret the policies of the Government, live with the Treasury, give leadership to the workforce, and explain to the public the objectives of his business. If the Government get a man who has all those qualities, they will be very fortunate. I have never felt that the fact that Peter Parker never drove an engine made him a better chairman of the Railways Board. So I wish the Government well. The appointment of chairmen of
856
nationalised industries is an extremely difficult task. I often feel that there should be a course at the Civil Service College for potential chairmen of nationalised industries.
I now turn to the Bill. We on these Benches will support it. We are talking about very large sums of money, and when the taxpayer sees a Bill of this description, like any other investor he has to look at the prospectus. Invariably when one looks at a prospectus one looks at three main headings: First, has the industry a future? Secondly, is it efficiently run? Thirdly, should the taxpayer be asked to carry the total burden of the investment, or are there any other sources of finance available to the industry?
I consider that sufficient has been said today in connection with the future of the industry, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, who is to follow me in the debate, will add his weight and experience to the case for the industry having a future. However, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I believe that the question of coal as a competitive fuel source will require that costs be kept in mind, and of course the hope is that investments like Selby will make that possible.
The second question is: is the industry well run? What is its track record? What has it done in the past few years? In productivity terms it has met its targets. In 1979–80 it increased productivity by 2·24 per cent., in 1980–81 productivity increased by 2·32 per cent., and last year by 3·5 per cent. Absenteeism used to be one of the great plagues of the industry. In 1977 it stood at 17 per cent., in 1980 it was 12 per cent., and last year it was down to 11 per cent. In terms of streamlining the industry and slimming it down, we note that in 1947 there were 704,000 employees, while in 1981 there were 226,000.
I always believe that the other great criterion of good management is labour relations, and here again, although there have been much-publicised confrontations between workers and employers in this industry, I consider that the labour relations have not been too bad, and I am sure that we all rejoiced in the acceptance of the last wage agreement. I should like to say as an aside—and this is perhaps a Social Democratic point—that the avoidance of strikes has been due in some part to the fact that the miners' union is a democratic union, and it observes secret ballots, rather than votes at the local football ground, in deciding where and when a strike might take place. So, in terms of running the industry and meeting its targets, if I were looking at the prospectus of this company I would say that the trends are encouraging.
I should like to say a few words about the running of the industry and the management, since recently Mr. Patrick Jenkin, the Minister in another place, has said that he is going to restructure nationalised industries, recruit more part-time directors to the boards, and then recruit in the Treasury a number of economists who will again monitor the performance of the industries. That is quite apart from the monitoring that goes on in the particular Ministry to which the industry is responsible. So we are going to get a new structure in what is a reasonably well managed industry at the moment.
Yesterday the Sunday Times had an interesting article on this subject in which it pointed out that this

857
Government were always regarded as the non-interventionist Government. In fact, in the running of the nationalised industry and in the Coal Board there is a great deal of Government intervention, which must blunt the edge of good and efficient management. Let me describe the situation according to yesterday's edition of the Sunday Times. It says that there will be,
"a majority of non-executive directors in the latest establishment fashion. Finally, the Treasury is recruiting a cheap six-man unit of economists and industrial accountants to monitor the board's performance against agreed objectives".
Then it goes on to say we should look at what will happen.
"First, planners and managers make their plans. Then they must convince non-executive directors; the board then submits plans to sponsoring Ministries and the Treasury, which draft alternative briefs for their political chiefs, who eventually decide in a cabinet committee. For simplicity, I ignore the Monopolies Commission and Commons Select Committees…".
In fact, the National Coal Board, whose record I have just described, is going to be one of the candidates for the Monopolies and Mergers Commission audit team, who will shortly investigate.
I ask your Lordships this. Suppose you were running a private industry and you had, first of all, naturally and rightly, to convince your board. Presumably the function of a non-executive director of a nationalised industry—at least, this is how I have always understood it—is to monitor managerial performance and measure how far they are meeting the objectives, long-term and short-term. But that is now to be subject to a management audit by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It is then to be monitored by the sponsoring Ministry and the Treasury, and then back it goes again to the new team of accountants who will survey the progress. How will you get efficient management in any industry with that degree of intervention?
I counsel the Government, when I say that the taxpayer is being asked to commit himself to very large sums today, to ensure that the structure for spending that money provided by the taxpayer is such that it can be spent wisely, and is streamlined and efficient. I cannot understand the Government, who applaud private industry and say that one of their achievements is that they have slimmed down industry and have been able to streamline industry as a result of their policies. Yet it looks as though in the nationalised sector they are adding a heavy bureaucracy which will certainly blunt the edge of management and, if I may say so, make it extremely difficult to attract the right people to the chairmanship. The chairman is going to spend half his time, not running the industry but attending committees, investigations and inquiries, and that is not good, sound and efficient management.
If we agree that investment is necessary—the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, made the point about the hopes for Selby—the average production of tonnes per man-hour in the United Kingdom at the moment is 2·3 tonnes. The 23 pits which were scheduled by the NCB as possible closures were producing only 1·5 tonnes per man-shift. The Selby coalfield will produce 10 tonnes per man-shift. It is estimated that production costs at Selby could be £18·5 per tonne. Last year, the NCB delivered price to the power stations was £40
858
per tonne, so there is undoubtedly a case for investment of this kind.
Now if we agree that investment is necessary, we should be warned that, even though we are dealing with very large sums in supporting the industry today, just last week Sir Derek Ezra pointed out in the Financial Times that support will require to go on for at least another five years, and confessed that some of the bills for the last financial year's closing had not been paid to machinery suppliers because they had to keep within the EFL, the external finance limits—the rigid limits set by the Government. So we come to the question that if it is true and if it is right that there ought to be investment according to the Bill the funds made available for investment are all, as usual, to be channelled through the National Loans Fund.
I want to ask the Minister an interesting question which occurs to me at the moment, and it is this. Increasingly, according to the Budget, Government funding will be done on an index-linked basis. The NLF is simply the instrument for transmission of money raised in the gilt market to finance the nationalised industries. I am rather interested in what are the long-term borrowing anticipations of the nationalised industries if we are going to raise money in the market on an index-linked basis. You cannot possibly relate these two forms of borrowing, and it is an interesting point.
But I suggest that we ought to be breaking through these rigid EFL and PSBR controls. If you are borrowing entirely through the National Loan Fund, it means that there is a certain rigidity in your borrowing. This may have been all right when you had a comparatively high inflation rate and when, in fact, you had a negative interest rate situation so far as repayment was concerned. But if you are now borrowing on a 15-year basis, and the interest rate is declining, it is a rather different picture. You are not repaying in cheap pounds. So I should like to see the Government look at these large sums and ask, "Is there no other way of financing?"
We on these Benches are committed to a mixed economy, and there are opportunities in the Coal Board financing, as in other areas, for injecting private capital. There is no reason in the world why you should not experiment with the injection of private equity capital into the nationalised industries. It makes much more sense than the doctrinaire commitment to sell off nationalised industries. You should in fact look at the possibility of private investment being fed into the nationalised industries. I was encouraged to see in the Chancellor's statement the other day at least one glimmer of hope in the Telecom bond. Considering the long-term prospects of the Selby coalfield, I wonder whether a Selby bond, which would be on the market and available for private investors, might be an interesting experiment.
A number of people have been looking at this, and on Wednesday, 17th March, the Financial Times, in an article which begins,
"Mrs. Thatcher's Government is getting itself into a tangle over the nationalised industries",
goes on to say:
"Preoccupied with the need to screw down nationalised industry spending, ministers have given little thought to some of the underlying problems. One of the weaknesses of present

859
arrangements is the fact that for historical reasons most nationalised industries depend almost wholly on loan capital".
When you consider the vast assets that are in the balance sheet of the National Coal Board, they should not be based on purely loan capital.
Then the Financial Times goes on to commend the report of the 100 chartered accountants who looked at the financing of state-owned industries. I hope that the Minister can be encouraged to read that interesting document because it points out that the constraints that are placed on the nationalised industries in this country do not exist in any other country in the world. The nationalised sectors in France, Australia or elsewhere do have the same kind of constraints which our nationalised industries have to live with.
I shall not quote the many recommendations which they make, but they say that the financing of nationalised industry should be more flexible, with greater access to the full range of private sector finance, giving a bigger role to management in pursuing the methods of financing best suited to their own widely varying circumstances. This would contribute a corresponding increase in commercial financial disciplines which might be more effective than the whole team of monitoring economists with which we are going to be saddled. It is for these reasons that from these Benches we will support the Bill in the hope that we can encourage the Government to look at this burden which is being placed on the taxpayer in the provisions of this Bill and see whether there is not a mixed economy solution.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Mansfield: My Lords, I welcome this Bill because it gives an assurance that the industry will have a future. My reply to my namesake, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, when he asks me whether the industry has a future, is this: As I see it at this moment, if this industry has no future then neither has the country.
I join with those who are grateful to the noble Earl for explaining the clauses. I wish he had said a little more about social grants, grants for other purposes and the deficit grant. But we will look at his speech tomorrow, when perhaps I shall find I am mistaken in that regard. Summarising the purpose of this Bill, it is quite simple to me: it is raising the limits of the borrowing powers of the National Coal Board to enable it to carry out the statutory requirements, both so far as today is concerned and so far as the future goes. In the other place there was general agreement on both sides of the House in welcoming this Bill. I should like to say that, as I understand it, all who are connected with the mining industry, the Coal Board and the unions, welcome the proposals that are contained in the Bill.
Before I come to them, I should like to make a digression. It has been mentioned. It was also mentioned in the other place. Only a few days before the Second Reading took place there was a very nasty accident in a colliery in Scotland, at a place called Cardowan. The miracle was that there were no fatalities; but many of those miners received very serious injuries. We heard today that nine of them are still in hospital, and unfortunately many of them
860
are suffering from very severe burns. Imagine a man working in a 2½ ft. seam! I have some experience of that. You are not able to stand up, my Lords. So when the flames were travelling down the face the men were not able to stand and run away from the danger. They were there on their knees, and they were trapped.
The reason why I mention this matter is that it would be appropriate—although so far as we are concerned it is a little belated, but this is the first opportunity we have had—to join the other place in extending our sympathy to those who were injured, and at the same time we should join in paying tribute to the rescue parties and to all who expedited the passage of the injured from the pit. Just imagine getting stretchers in a 2½ ft. seam to bring the men out! Praise is due to all who took part in expediting the passage from the pit to the hospital, where the men, as I have said, are continuing to receive treatment.
Now I come to the purpose of the Bill which, as I have said, is to lift the ceiling of the borrowing powers of the NCB. To put that in its proper context, we should understand that coal mining today is not merely a pick and shovel affair, as it used to be. The transport of coal from where it lies, where it has been placed by nature, to the surface is no longer by putting it in tubs which are drawn by ponies. Now the mining industry is a highly technical and mechanical operation; it has completely changed. The advance of technology has brought about changes in the getting, the transporting and the preparation of coal. The preparation is not unimportant because the customer wants as clean a product as he can get. A complete revolution has taken place in these operations. Today, as I see it, the mining industry is a highly capital intensive industry. What we required in terms of liquid capital before the technological revolution to sink a couple of shafts and equip the faces for production was peanuts compared with what is required today.
With your indulgence, my Lords, I shall give one or two examples to prove beyond any doubt whatever the assertion that the coal industry is highly capital intensive. First, my information is that the monetary cost to equip a coal face today—say 300 to 400 yards long—is £1 million. Before the war and since, the same length of face was split into eight or 10 units—or "stalls" as we used to describe them. A figure of £50 a unit would not be an under-estimate. Some of the equipment was purchased by the men themselves. The old coal owners found the flat sheets; they found the sleepers and the rails; but the men themselves provided the other tools that were required: picks, shovels, sylvesters, and so on. They brought that equipment themselves.
Number 2: Think of the new virgin coalfield which has been mentioned already today—Selby. It was referred to by Mr. Eadie in another place as,
"that jewel of the United Kingdom coal industry".
I repeat what has already been said, that by 1988 or 1989 the hope is that it will be producing 10 million tonnes of coal a year. I would ask your Lordships to think what that means before Selby is in full production. It means an investment of £2 million to £3 million per week. In round figures that is £100 million a year. If the time of cutting the first sod to the time of full production is 10 years, as has already

861
been said, that is £1,000 million before any production takes place.
May I give one more example? A month ago I read, and have since had it confirmed by one who was present, that at a conference of NUM branch officials in the Nottinghamshire area, the chairman of the Coal Board, Sir Derek Ezra, said:
"In Nottinghamshire alone in the last full year the Coal Board have invested £100 million".
I do not mind confessing to your Lordships that I thought I had got one or two noughts wrong, because it is a staggering figure that £100 million in one year should be invested in only one area of the whole of the British coalfields. But he also added: "It is proving to be justified". I am pretty certain that what Sir Derek meant by justification was increased production and productivity. Without going into a lot of detailed figures, may I summarise by giving a quote from the latest report of the National Coal Board, from the chairman's statement. He said:
"The trends in operational efficiency during 1981–82 were most encouraging: (A) an overall OMS record of 2·47 tonnes"—
that happened during May 1981—
"(B) overall productivity for the first quarter of 1981–82 was 4 per cent. above the quarter of the previous year".
So the large sums of money that have been invested are now beginning to pay off, on the evidence of the chairman of the Board himself.
This is not the first Bill of its kind, although it may be the last before the general election; but I do not think it will be the last, taking the long-term view. The Bill gives the NCB the opportunity to invest in major projects at existing collieries and in providing new capacity for future energy requirements. Selby is the up-to-date example.
I believe myself that investment is the key to providing a highly efficient coalmining industry, not only in meeting current energy requirements but in securing future requirements. So far as energy requirements are concerned, today is important; but so is tomorrow. Since the agreement of 1974, to which the noble Earl referred, there has been a progressive increase in capital investment in the industry. In 1974 it was as low as £68 million; in 1981 it was £736 million. Coal-mining is an extractive industry, as we are all aware. It is once for all: there is no second helping. I quote from the latest annual report at page 19:
"Because mining is an extractive industry in which individual collieries become exhausted as the available coal is removed, substantial investment is necessary each year simply to maintain the industry at its existing size. Apart from essential replacement of plant and machinery, the main thrust of the board's investment programme is to provide capacity in new mines and at existing collieries where there are proved reserves of coal which can be worked economically".
We have heard a lot today about subsidies. I do not accept much of what was said when I think of the interest payments, which is an indication that the Coal Board have some loans upon which they have to pay interest. Last year, interest payments were £256 million and an operating profit of £69 million was turned into a loss of £186 million. It would be interesting to know what loans have been received since the board took over the industry, the interest that has been paid and the grants, the net amount paid by the board.
In conclusion, there are two matters I should like to mention. The first concerns subsidence. No industry
862
carries such a burden for subsidence as that carried by the coalmining industry. Our local Mansfield paper only last week reported that the Co-operative Society dairy, which was opened in 1950, only 30 years ago—an up-to-date dairy—has to be demolished because of subsidence. The latest amount that the National Coal Board had to pay for last year was £85 million. The interest payments of £256 million and the payment of £85 million, added together, make a pretty heavy burden for the Coal Board to carry. I wonder sometimes whether people south of the Trent—excluding Wales—where there are no coal-mining operations, realise the amount of this burden and what a serious matter it is not only to the Coal Board but to others who are affected. The NCB, rightly, are legally responsible for the repair of damaged property and, on evidence that comes to one, the board had a good reputation for dealing with it. It would be morally indefensible, as was the case at one time, not to repair damaged property or not to replace when damage is so extensive that the place has to be demolished.
The only other question that I want to put—it is becoming an annual one, and I hope that the noble Earl will have something definite to say to us—is about the Vale of Belvoir project. The application of the Coal Board to mine coal in the Vale of Belvoir was made in 1978. The inquiry took place and it cost the National Coal Board £2 million in planning requirements and consultative fees. The inquiry ended in May 1980. The inspector reported in December of the same year, and it is now getting on into 1982, but we still do not know the answer, or why the Minister for the Environment is procrastinating by not coming down, after all this time, and saying, "Belvoir shall" or "shall not be operated as a mining area".
I hope that the noble Earl will have something to tell us on that, because the Coal Board is anxious and the union are anxious—particularly in the areas of Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire, where I come from and where pits are likely soon to be exhausted—about what provision is being made to absorb the men, so that they can continue in the industry which is necessary for the energy requirements of the nation.
4.52 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I must first thank noble Lords who have given this Bill a general welcome. The debate has been an interesting one and, of course, it has gone down avenues which are slightly broader than the subject matter of this Bill. For instance, mention has been made by several noble Lords of the recent report of the Select Committee on Energy. As the House will know, the Government have not yet adopted a stance and, as it were, given a reply to the Select Committee, although it is true to say that my right honourable friend felt bound by a letter dated 11th March to write to the chairman pointing out a number of misunderstandings of fact, and that letter was made public.
What I must do is to reply to some of the points which noble Lords have made and answer some of the questions put to me. It may very well be that I shall not get round to all of them, or shall not be able to

863
answer all the questions, but I shall read the Official Report with care and perhaps I may answer later any noble Lord whose question or point is not covered.
The first noble Lord to speak was the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and the first point which he took up, which I should answer, was on the matter of productivity and safety. What I have to say to him is that there is no indication that the introduction of the incentive scheme in 1978 has led to an increase in accidents. The noble Lord pointed out, quite rightly, that fatalities in coalmines in 1981 amounted to 35 persons, and I agree with him that 35 is too many. But I equally must remind him that that figure was at a record low. The individual year's figures fluctuate up and down, but the average rate of fatalities in the four years up to 1977 was over 50 a year, while the average for the four years since 1977, during which the incentive scheme has applied, has been under 47. So I do not agree that the introduction of the scheme has, in any way, adversely affected safety in the pits.
The noble Lord also mentioned Cardowan, as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield. I am sure I am speaking for the entire House when I say that the conduct of all those who were involved in the rescue operation was absolutely exemplary, and the courage and fortitude of the injured men themselves excited the admiration of everybody in the country—not least in Scotland.
The next matter which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, raised—and it was raised by a number of other noble Lords—was the question of Belvoir. I understand the points which have been made about this by several noble Lords. The fact of the matter, though, is that this is a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. It is his job to consider the inspector's report, which is what he is presently doing, and it is his task to make his decision and to give it and publish it as soon as possible. I hope noble Lords will appreciate that, in those circumstances, it is impossible—and, indeed, it would be quite improper—for me to comment in any way.
The next matter which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, raised was that of liquefaction—
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but surely the Department of Energy have something to say about Belvoir. Are they being asked?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, when a decision comes—and the noble Lord, who has been either in Government or, at any rate, on the periphery, if I may so describe a Lord in Waiting, knows—
Lord Strabolgi: I am sorry, my Lords, but I must interrupt the noble Earl again. I was not a Lord in Waiting. I had the honour of being Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, that is a bit nearer the centre. But at the centre of Government, decisions like this are for the Government and I can say no more. May I get on to liquefaction? This Government have never swerved from their commitments to the board's oil-from-coal project. In May last year,
864
we announced £5 million support towards the cost, construction and commissioning of the pilot facility. A decision to concentrate development on a single process facility based on liquid solvent extraction technology was then made by the board, in the light of the commercial interest, and we fully accept that decision.
We committed funds to extend process design studies, and we agreed to pay 53 per cent. of the cost of the three-month proving run on the small-scale equipment at the Coal Board's coal research establishment. This run was carried out in the period September to December last year to test the performance of the LSE process in conditions comparable to commercial activity. The results of this proving run have been encouraging in showing a satisfactory catalyst life, and further tests will be carried out this spring, with Government support, to assess process changes and also to confirm performance with different coals.
In addition to support from the Department of the European Community, the NCB is holding discussions with the private sector, with a view towards their financial support and participation in the project, and it is no secret that both BP and Phillips Petroleum are interested in the LSE process. BP participated in the proving run last year and made a valuable technical and financial contribution. Both they and Phillips are considering support for this further proving run, which should provide the information which they require before a decision to support construction of the pilot plant can be taken. The board have a free rein in their negotiations to form an industrial consortium to manage the project. This Government believe that the commercial discipline and technical experience of private industry are vital to the success of the project, and we endorse and encourage such participation.
That disposes of most of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, except that about the chairman of the National Coal Board. I say at once that I join in the general acknowledgment of the House in thanking Sir Derek for all his efforts on behalf of the National Coal Board, and of the community, over a very difficult period of time. We are in the process of finding a successor to Sir Derek and I am afraid that I cannot comment further at this stage. That does dispose of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. I have been thinking on my feet. If I in any way minimised his contribution to the efforts of the last Labour Government, which in many ways were deplorable, but not so far as he was concerned, then I apologise to him unreservedly.
I pass now to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, who I think was concerned with the social considerations, not least, of this Bill and also with the incomprehensibility, or otherwise, of the National Coal Board accounts. I think he said that he was not an accountant. I certainly am not, although in another life I used to look quite frequently at fraudulent sets of accounts. I have to say to the noble Lord that the form of the National Coal Board accounts is a matter for the board. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has given a direction to the board which requires that their accounts shall conform, so far as practicable, with the Companies Act 1948, as it has been amended, and the best commercial accounting practices, including statements of standard accounting practice.

865
The noble Lord then turned, so far as the taxpayer is concerned, to deficit and operating grants and asked in effect, I think, whether they should be considered to be social spending. Deficit and operating grants for the National Coal Board have nothing to do with the entirely separate social grants which take account of the industry's legacy of social problems. They have everything to do with the board's mainstream operation of producing coal.
The noble Lord suggested that we should scrap the required rate of return so far as the National Coal Board are concerned and waive their interest. The National Coal Board must justify to the nation the very large funds—as I think I have already said, over £800 million in the past year—which were made available for capital investment. They must offer a real prospect, on the basis of sound appraisal, of earning a proper return on capital. Similarly, the National Coal Board must service their interest costs like any business—or any citizen. Not to require this would, I feel, be suspending the laws of reality in favour of the board. The Government help the board to meet their interest costs on revenue account by means of the deficit grant on their operations, but we do believe that the true cost must be visible and must not be suppressed.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl can clarify one point for me. The accounts appear to show that the net current assets of the National Coal Board are outweighed by far by the net current borrowings. This is not normal commercial practice in a company which is to be considered solvent, and it is not normal commercial practice to use this formula for return on capital employed.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. The next matter was the question of long term investment which the noble Lord said is inhibited by a concentration on short term cash limits. This takes us to the financial guidelines which we set. The board are given these as to their external financing limits and their capital approval. The board's capital investment is continuing at a substantial level. I said in my opening remarks that their capital this year had been approved at £805 million and that next year it would be £886 million. However, commitment to the board's future which these figures represent does not minimise the need to set the board some financial guidelines in the form of external financing limits.
The other noble Lord who touched on this matter was the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, particularly on external financing limits. Speaking as an individual, if Ministers are ever allowed to, this is something to which future Governments are going to have to pay the very closest heed. One of the Government's principal roles in relation to the National Coal Board, is the same as for other nationalised industries: to set for the board a clear financial framework within which the industry will have to operate. The main ways in which this is done are the following: setting an external financing limit for each year, a capital investment approval and a limit on the amount of operating and deficit grants which the National Coal Board may receive. The external financing limit is the full measure of the board's demands on the public sector borrowing requirement and is an important tool of management
866
for the board and for the Government. The previous Government recognised this. It was they who introduced EFLs during the economic difficulties which they encountered in 1976 to 1977.
So far as the National Loan Fund is concerned, the Government are the National Coal Board's banker. The board borrow from the National Loan Fund on terms which they certainly could not expect in the private market unless and until they had a full Government guarantee. I was very interested in the noble Lord's suggestion as to the importation of private capital into the National Coal Board's finances. I think the Government are ready to consider practical and realistic ways of introducing private capital into the nationalised industries, but any such capital must be against the background—I think this is common sense—of the particular industry's financial performance and difficulties. The Government's aim, as I think I have said, is to see the establishment of efficient, competitive, financially sound industry, and this of course applies particularly to the coal industry which we are considering today. But this target will require a great deal of dedicated effort by all those in the industry.
This Bill, as I said at the beginning, is an earnest (if that is the word), if any further proof is required, of the Government's commitment to the coal industry and to the National Coal Board. In the circumstances, therefore, I hope that noble Lords will realise the immense benefit of a Bill like this, short term as its aims are, to the industry and, most importantly, to its confidence over the next couple of years or so.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Wages Councils (Abolition) Bill [H.L.]
5.9 p.m.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I beg leave to move that this Bill be now read a second time. First I want to thank the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for giving me such a detailed Written Answer on 4th March to my Question about awards made or proposed by some wages councils during the lifetime of this Government; it appeared at columns 1449 and 1450 of the Official Report. My interest in this subject arises from my attempts to suggest ways in which to alleviate unemployment through the creation and expansion of small businesses. Wages councils are quangos which not only cost more than £3½ million annually to run but are also highly inflationary, are increasing unemployment, and are pricing young persons out of their first jobs. I have received many letters from retail trade associations and from their members throughout England, Scotland and Wales, but two which arrived only this morning illustrate very clearly what is wrong. A retail tobacconist and confectioner says:
"I am taking the liberty of informing you that my business is bleeding to death, owing to the enormous increase in wage levels for counter assistants over the past three and a half to four years. When the latest increase takes effect next month the hourly rate will have risen from 75p to £1·55 an hour—this being an increase of 107 per cent. in approximately four years. During the same period, owing to the combined influences of inflation, the approximate doubling of VAT and the punitive increases in tobacco tax, the shop is taking more money but the effective turnover is 10 per cent. less. To survive, each time the Wages Council increases the rate of pay, we have to reduce the staff or their hours.

867
The so-called minimum rate of pay has become the impossible maximum. I hope you may be able to help reinstate our basic human right to negotiate the terms of our own survival".
I think that that is a very telling letter. As I said, it arrived with me only this morning. The second letter comes from a fashion shop for women, which employs several staff. I will quote just one sentence:
"I could take on a teenager if the wages council adopted a more realistic approach—but further, the levels of awards inhibits me from taking on staff in general".
That is my chief complaint about wages councils; they are inhibiting the small shopkeeper from increasing his staff and are certainly preventing teenagers from getting their first jobs.
A little history. Most wages councils came into being in the 1920s, some taking over from trade boards created under the Trade Boards Acts of 1909 and 1918. In 1945 the Wages Councils Act started to bring the various councils together. They were consolidated further by the Wages Councils Act 1959 and by the Employment Protection Act 1975. Now the Wages Councils Act 1979, which is the Act I want to see abolished, has consolidated,
"the enactments relating to wages councils and statutory joint industrial councils".
The power to establish a wages council or to vary its jurisdiction lies with the Secretary of State, but he has no power to control its activities once it is established. Abolition is the only remedy. Incidentally, the 1979 Act does not cover agricultural workers or butchers but it does affect some 2¾ million employees. The functions of wages councils are laid down in the Act. Section 14 provides that councils may make orders fixing the remuneration, requiring holidays to be allowed, and fixing any other terms and conditions for all or any of the workers in relation to whom the council operates. Subsection (7) gives a wages council the power to make its orders retrospective to the date on which the council agreed to the new order, irrespective of whether its proposals have been circulated for comment by employers or employees.
I asked a question last year about that, and the answer I got was that in the 12 months to 31st March 1981, 36 orders were made, of which 25 were issued after their effective dates of operation. So 25 out of 36 orders were made retrospectively. Section 15 gives wages councils the power to enforce their orders and makes failure to operate conditions at least as good as those laid down in the orders a criminal offence. Section 22 allows the Secretary of State to appoint inspectors to help carry out enforcement.
Schedule 2 to the Act deals with the constitution and appointment of members of the board. It states that a wages council shall consist of not more than three persons appointed by the Secretary of State as being independent persons and such number of persons appointed to represent the employers and workers as the Secretary of State shall fix. He has power to make up numbers if necessary. The Secretary of State appoints the chairman and the deputy chairman from the three independent members. The schedule is not absolutely clear about voting, but I understand that there are generally only three votes cast—one from each side of the trade and one from the independent members. Members can be appointed for up to
868
five years without prejudice to reappointment, and remuneration and expenses may be paid to members as the Secretary of State thinks fit; that is a subject I have not gone into.
The Act also deals with statutory joint industrial councils, which allows the Secretary of State to convert wages councils into them in certain circumstances. They have a far less damaging effect because there are no independent members and disputes between employers and employees which cannot be settled in such a council go to arbitration in the normal manner. My Bill would also abolish these councils, but I am quite prepared to have the Bill amended to allow them to continue functioning.
There is one more piece of background information which we must consider, and that is the ILO convention from the League of Nations of 1928; a convention concerning the creation of minimum wage fixing machinery. It was accepted by the United Kingdom and ratified by us in 1929. Article 1 states:
"Each member undertakes to create or maintain machinery whereby minimum rates of wages can be fixed for workers employed in certain of the trades in which no arrangements exist for the effective regulation of wages by collective agreement or otherwise and wages are exceptionally low".
Article 3 states:
Each member shall be free to decide the nature and form of the minimum wage fixing machinery … provided that the employers and workers associated with operating the machinery do so in equal numbers and terms".
Article 9 states:
"A member may denounce ratification every five years".
Our next chance, I believe, is in June 1985, but neither the USA, Japan, South Korea, Singapore nor any of the Russian soviet republics have ratified that convention.
So much for the background; now for some facts and comments. Again, on 31st March last year, I asked a Question about the number of wages councils. There were 33 wages councils then, using, on 31st December 1980, 148 outdoor inspectors, 122 other staff, costing, for 1980–81, £3.68 million. A year later, now, there are 27 councils. This reduction has been achieved by the winding up of one council, the Pin, Hook and Eye and Snap Fastener Council, and by the merging of seven councils to form the Clothing Manufacturing Wages Council for Great Britain. In July 1979 there were two other mergers. Six councils had been merged to form the Retail Food and Allied Trades Wages Council, and three councils had been merged to form the Retail Trades (Non-Food) Wages Council. So there are now 27 councils, each having three independent members, a total of 81 posts.
According to a very interesting Written Answer given by the right honourable lady the Prime Minister in another place on 19th February this year, those 81 places are held as follows: by 39 persons of whom 30 are academics; 18 lecturers hold 50 posts between them, 5 professors hold 8 posts, 7 other academics hold 9 posts; the other 14 posts are held by 4 barristers with 9 posts, and one each by a retired civil servant, a retired industrial manager, a director, an administrator and a chartered accountant. So 67 of the posts are held by 30 academics and only 14 by 9 persons with possible commercial experience. When we look at this membership in relation to particular councils, we find for clothing manufacture a barrister, a dean of

869
faculty and a senior lecturer; for hairdressing, a barrister, a senior lecturer and a lecturer; for retail food and allied trades, 3 senior lecturers; for retail non-food a principal lecturer, a senior lecturer and a lecturer.
My Lords, I intend to confine the rest of my comments to those two retail trades wages councils, because they affect the livelihood of more than 1 million employees spread all over the country, and, of course, their employers, in such businesses as bakeries, confectioners, greeengrocers, grocers, newsagencies and tobacconists, under the retail food wages council; and booksellers, stationers, drapers, boot and shoe shops, outfitters, furnishers, fancy good shops, do-it-yourself shops, under the non-food retail wages council. As I said, both of these wages councils are, as it were, controlled entirely by lecturers—admittedly lecturers with experience of wages councils, because one member sits on four other wages councils boards, one member sits on three boards, three members sit on two other wages councils boards, and the last member sits on one other wages council board, but not on the other retail council.
Can these lecturers be completely impartial? However eminent, and however knowledgeable of industrial affairs they are, they probably have never had any experience as employers in commerce. But all have experience as employees because they are themselves employees. Even Lord McCarthy's tribunal has as one of its members an employer. In the two councils I am now looking at, I have heard criticisms about this situation, and also criticisms about inconsiderateness, or at least casualness, because one of the independent members did not bother to turn up. in one case there was an adjournment of a meeting to another date when the gap between the two sides was only 50p. It probably costs the country £1,000 for each meeting of that wages council. Finally, no employers' representatives, as far as I know, have ever been consulted about the appointments of these independent members.
These councils are quangos of the worst kind. would like to quote, if I may, from the excellent speech made last Wednesday by the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, which reads:
"I do not think that we ought to let people like Professor Clegg wander around too much. I was in the shadow Cabinet before the last election, and I think I can honestly say that I begged my colleagues to dump Professor Clegg before the election: to say that we would have nothing to do with him. I thought he was a public danger and I was right. …my colleagues …felt that they could not follow my advice. But the results have been disastrous—in loss of jobs, in increase in interest rates. This profession of the professional negotiator, conciliator, arbitrator, and the rest is one of the biggest dangers we have in this world. I am not referring to Members of your Lordships' House. Members of your Lordships' House rise to the head of every profession, including this one. But there are others, throughout the country—wages councils, for instance—who are all pricing people steadily out of jobs".—[Official Report, 17/3/82; col. 680.]
I agree entirely with those remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft.
My Lords, are there 30 little Cleggs sitting upon the wages councils, sitting on 67 seats of the 81? I do not know. But I suspect that there may be six sitting on the two retail wages councils. I am assuming that the awards made in the autumn of 1979 which were shown in the Written Answer of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to me were consolidatory rather than increases, and I use those awards as my base. Since the autumn of 1979 one of those councils has made two further
870
awards and the other has made three, and both now have further awards due to come into effect next month. Just taking sales assistants in the two councils, the percentages increase on the 1979 level of their pay for those over 20, in the non-food council, 31½ per cent.; in the food council, 27·8 per cent;. for 19 year-olds, 53·9 per cent.; and 47 per cent., because the adult age had been brought down to 19 years old. That is straight arithmetic, and it does not take account of the various accessories, which also happened.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, if the noble Lord would allow me, would the noble Lord like to tell the House the actual amounts of earnings those percentages relate to, whether or not the workers got them?
Lord Spens: My Lords, I have not worked that out. I have no doubt the noble Lord himself will do so if he wants to speak. I am now going on to the accessories which happened with the wages councils awards. I think the best one to look at is the non-food proposal which is due to come into effect on 5th April. There are 11 points intended to take effect from 5th April; increases in minimum rates for all workers; reduction in the number of separate categories of workers to four; the establishment of common rates for workers outside London by merging provincial areas A and B; an increase in the differential to £2·50 per week for all workers in London; no deduction specified for the provision of meals and/or accommodation; four weeks' annual holiday for workers with at least 12 months' service with a proportionately increased holiday entitlement for workers with less than 12 months' service; the additional day of customary holiday provided for in the Christmas and New Year period to be taken between 23rd December and 2nd January; and other changes which have resulted from the harmonisation of the three wages orders whereby certain conditions already applicable to workers in one or more of the three trades have been extended to the others—and of course, they have always been extended upwards.
In addition to that, and intended to take effect from 4th October this year, are the following. The working week is to be reduced to 39 hours for all workers, but weekly overtime is still to be based on hours worked in excess of 40. The hourly rate for part-time workers is to be calculated on the basis of a 39-hour working week and there is to be increased payment for Saturday work for those full-time workers who are currently excluded from this provision because they do not work on a rota system. I have not been able to calculate the total effect of that proposal but it is enormous and most of my correspondents say that this proposal alone works out at about 11½ per cent. over the last one—11½ per cent. at a time when the Government norm is 4 per cent. That must be inflationary.
We have not only got an inflationary situation which is damaging the small shopkeepers. Why should my fashion shop in Lincolnshire be made to pay the same wages as Debenhams in Southampton or Birmingham? Why should my tobacconist from Kent or my baker from Suffolk have to pay the same wages as the multiples like Tesco in Manchester or Leeds? This is not only a horribly inflationary set of quangos—it is far worse

871
than that. We have a closed shop, or rather 27 closed shops, backed up not by union management agreements, but by the whole force of the law. I defy anyone to argue that these are not closed shops. The wages councils fix all the terms and conditions for these 2¾ million employees and no employee may take a job except under terms and conditions as good as, or better than, those promulgated by the councils. If an employee is prepared to accept something less than that set down, he or she becomes a party to a criminal offence and is not allowed to do so—not even to give up a holiday or work extra hours without claiming overtime. That, to my mind, is the worst of closed shops. I know that Her Majesty's Government are very "anti" closed shops and I hope that they will make that another reason for abolishing wages councils.
In normal wage bargaining, even within a closed shop, the employer and employee have to reach an agreement which could, in certain circumstances, even lead to lower rates being paid temporarily, or a standstill for a period. But such an agreement for the employer and employee within wages councils is a criminal offence. It is not collective bargaining as we know it. It is the relentless creation of further unemployment by persons out of touch with reality, and the Government can do nothing about it unless they abolish those councils.
It will, of course, be argued that there are 2¾ million people who will become liable to harsh treatment from hard-hearted employers if these councils are abolished. That was certainly the case in the 1920s and may even have been so in the 1950s. But now that we have had a welfare state for more than 30 years it is no longer a serious danger. The poor employees are protected by the rates of unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit. Unless an employer offers more, he will be most unlikely to find anyone to take his job.
I have with me the latest claim of the employees' side of one of these two councils. I do not think that I shall follow that point because it is rather late. But that claim does show that the claimants—the union—are not interested in the small shopkeeper. I believe that the Government are sympathetic to these arguments, but feel constrained by the International Labour Organisation convention to keep these councils going, at any rate until the next date of termination of our ratification of that convention which will be 1985. But why should they consider that they cannot abolish wages councils ahead of that date? I quoted from Article 1 of the convention, which qualifies the need to set up this machinery for trades or parts of trades in which no effective arrangements exist for collective bargaining and where wages are exceptionally low. I do not believe that there are any places where wages are exceptionally low today. I, therefore, see no need to keep wages councils. I believe that they could be abolished straight away without breaking the convention. What I would like to see is the union come to its own collective bargaining arrangements with employers who employ its members, and let the small employer and employee go their own way—make their own bargains in different parts of the country to suit each other. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Spens.)
5.37 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before considering the merits or otherwise of the Bill before your Lordships' House, I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to take up one or two points which the noble Lord, Lord Spens, has made. First, I think that it is a pity—and it is becoming something of a practice in certain parts of your Lordships' House—to use the term "quango" as a term of abuse. There have been many quangos which have done extremely useful jobs. A quango is, in fact—despite its rather unfortunate name—a way in which jobs can be done in a more expert way and often a great deal more cheaply than if they were done through ordinary bureaucratic machinery. All the quangos that I happen to sit on are unpaid, but that does not make them any less useful. I am a great supporter of the quango in its proper place. So every time anybody uses "quangos" in that way I intend to defend them.
The second point that I should like to take up—and here I must declare an interest—was the curious attack which the noble Lord, Lord Spens, made on academics as independent members of wages councils. It appeared to be a great argument against the existence of wages councils that they had a number of academics on them in an independent role. I never sat on a wages council while I was an academic—and neither before, nor since—but I know a great many people who have done so and if we are to have independent members—and the constitution of the wages councils requires that we should, and it is necessary at the present time that we should for reasons that I shall refer to later—it seems to me that appropriately selected academics are very appropriate people for doing the job.
The noble Lord, Lord Spens, seems to have a picture of an academic as someone who has never emerged from a cloistered university town, who does not know anything about what is going on inside industry, and who is quite incapable of making independent judgments. The fact of the matter is that a number of the people who sit as academics on wages councils come not only from universities, but from polytechnics, which work very closely indeed with industry. A number of the people who take posts of this kind have, in fact, come from industry; a number of them, as part of their academic duties, take part in consultations in industry and, in both research work and in consultation, are very closely associated with the work in industry. So why they should be regarded as so totally unsuitable for the task of the independent member I find very difficult indeed to understand.
The third point that I should like to raise is the rather curious use by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, of the term "closed shop". I am no particular admirer of the closed shop, but by no conceivable stretch of the imagination can the definition of a "closed shop" be used to include a wages council. So far as I can see the only way in which he was using that term, is that the wages council prohibits people from taking employment below a particular level of pay. I can see no possible link between that and a closed shop, which, as we all know, requires the membership of a particular trade union. Indeed, it is one of the problems of a wages council that a great many people inside industries concerned are not, and are extremely unlikely to be, members of trade

873
unions. Therefore, what the closed shop has to do with the whole argument about wages councils I am afraid completely escapes me.
I turn now to the matter of the Bill as it stands. We, on these Benches, do not support this Bill. In saying this, I am not saying that we have any great enthusiasm for wages councils as such. A great many people who have looked at wages councils believe that by no manner of means are they the ideal instrument for doing the job that needs to be done. I will go along with the noble Lord, Lord Spens, in agreeing that in some cases the pay of youngsters is higher than is appropriate, and that in certain cases it prices people out of a job. As a matter of fact, I doubt whether this is true of very many of the wages councils. It happens in certain other areas of industry, I think largely because, for quite different reasons, the age at which young persons reach the adult rate was reduced to 19 and in some cases to 18. This has narrowed the differential between the adult rate and the starting rate, and in some cases has made youngsters too expensive. I accept that.
I also accept that wages councils are not a very efficient instrument for doing the job that they are supposed to do. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Spens, seems to believe, it has been shown that in a considerable number of cases wages council requirements are not met and that, in fact, people are being employed below the level to which they are entitled under the wages council for a number of reasons: partly because there is great ignorance among many people as to what, in fact, they are entitled to; secondly, because in bad times people are unlikely to take up complaints of this kind; and, thirdly, because where wages councils cover people in outwork—a notoriously difficult kind of employment to control in any way—and where in outwork there is a considerable amount of sub-contracting, as happens quite frequently in certain trades, a great many people are being paid (I do not know how many; by definition, one does not know how many) below the required level laid down by the wages council. Therefore, for the job that they are supposed to do, it is true that they are not, in fact, doing it very efficiently.
I agree of course, with the noble Lord, Lord Spens—this is inherent in the whole idea or wages councils as it was in the trade boards when they were originally set up in the first decade of this century—that it would be very much better if we had properly organised collective bargaining between employers and employed for determining pay and conditions of employment for people covered by that particular industry The whole point is that wages councils were set up because such organisation was lacking, and it is generally agreed by all concerned with these questions that the sooner people get round to being organised as employers and as trade unions, so that they can negotiate effectively—as in the major areas of industry—the better.
It is built into the legislation that when this happens and when it is agreed by the two sides that they are now ready to negotiate in the normal way, the wages councils will he folded up after a request by the Minister. I agree that the sooner that happens, the better. However, the point of the matter is that it has not happened in a great many concerns and in a great many industries,
874
and there are whole areas—especially areas where women are concerned, who, although they are now more inclined to join trade unions than they were in the past, tend to be under-represented in trade unions—and whole tracts of employment in which organisation is not sufficiently strong to enable proper collective bargaining to be set up. As long as that continues, the case for a wages council continues.
I should like to see much more effort put into getting the kind of organisation that is needed, and perhaps the burden of the noble Lord's criticism might lead the Government or other appropriate persons to attempt to stimulate once again proper organisation in the industries concerned. However, although it is easy to criticise wages councils, this is not the time when they should be abolished. With 3 million unemployed, and with levels of school-leaver unemployment in some parts of the country running to 40 per cent. of school leavers, surely to withdraw the only protection about minimum levels of pay would be to ask for exploitation of a pretty crude kind.
The noble Lord, Lord Spens, said that with the modern welfare state it would not be possible, or that it would be highly improbable, for people to be employed at what used to be called "sweated" wages. But, after all, adult unemployment benefit is only £25 a week, and I imagine that one is not suggesting that pay levels should get anywhere near that figure. In the case which the noble Lord quoted in the retail trade, where, to his horror, over a short period of years the rate had gone from 75p an hour to £1.55 on a 39-hour week, it works out at only about £60 a week. Noble Lords will agree that to live on £60 a week with modern transport costs, modern rents, not to mention modern rates, does not leave very much spending money in anyone's pocket. If that is the kind of figure that wages councils are giving, they can hardly be regarded as a dangerous instrument of inflation. Therefore, although we need to move away from this system in due course, when we have unemployment levels of the kind we have at the moment, surely now is not the time to do it.
Is it likely that collective bargaining will be strengthened at the present time? I said a few moments ago that what is needed is, of course, proper organisation on both sides so that free collective bargaining can take place. But, again, with over three million unemployed, it is patently clear that trade unions are in a much weaker position than they are under conditions of full or near-full employment. Is it in the least realistic to imagine that this is a time when trade unions will be able effectively to organise those who they have failed to organise through so many decades? We only have to state the position to realise that this is the last time when collective bargaining will effectively take over.
If we want to do something about the, I agree, in some cases, too high rates for youngsters, we need a comprehensive policy to show what we can do for the employment of young people. If we had agreed that we would move to a position in which youngsters between the ages of 16 and 18 were virtually trainees and we had a proper programme for ensuring that they were treated as trainees rather than as young workers, then their position in relation to wages councils could well be reviewed. But we are not in that position yet.

875
There are signs in some of the policies coming through from the Manpower Services Commission, which we understand, to some extent at any rate, have the support of the Government, that the time may come when a programme of this sort will come into being. When it does, then of course the position of young people, school-leavers and under-18s, in relation to wages councils would have to be totally reviewed. But until we have a position in which we have not got such high unemployment, until we have a comprehensive policy for dealing with the 16s to 18s, until trade unions are in a position to organise effectively in these difficult areas for organisation, until there is evidence that the levels of pay being given by the wages council are in fact, instead of being still really very low, dangerously inflationary, then I submit that this is not the time to get rid of the wages councils.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, we must thank the noble Lord, Lord Spens, for producing this Bill and asking us to debate it for a Second Reading in order to study this problem. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I think it is pejorative to describe all bodies of that sort as quangos, and automatically assume they are wrong as a result. What is important is that when we have a system or structure which was first set up in the 1920s, it is almost essential that we should have a good look at it. In many cases it is fair to say that it may well have expended its usefulness and no longer be relevant to the affairs of today. Things have changed, and we need to look at it from that basis.
My experience is more with joint industrial councils. As your Lordships may know, I was an employer member of a joint industrial council for some four years until last year. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Spens, has said in his rather sweeping Bill which is going to sweep away the 1979 Act that the joint industrial councils would go too, but he generously said that he might keep them if we put amendments down to that effect. I shall disclose in due course what I think about joint industrial councils, but I mention them at this point only to say that that is where my knowledge of the matter mainly lies. I have not had the privilege of sitting on a wages council, though a lot of what I have to say has relationship to both types of council.
The first thing I would say, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Spens, said, is that surely in the 1920s and 1930s there was every justification for these bodies to be set up in the first instance. At that time it was perfectly natural that we should sign the ILO Convention to which the noble Lord referred. But once again I am not sure that one need automatically therefore think that they are the right thing for the present day. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, rather said this, but said, on the other hand, that this is not the right moment to sweep them away. Maybe she is right. We shall come to that.
Joint industrial councils have a great advantage in that they are voluntary, and to a greater extent in that not to comply with the minimum earnings levels which they strike is not a punishable offence as it appears to be for a wages council. I should have thought that maybe a way through this is not to sweep away the wages
876
councils, or to sweep away bodies which look after the minimum earnings levels of people, but to sweep away the wages councils and make them all joint industrial councils and all voluntary, because I rather suspect that the threat of a criminal punishment is not particularly justified in this area.
There are one or two basic points which apply—and always have—to all companies and employees in this general area. It has been my experience, in getting to know small companies and large ones very well indeed, that there are people who would rather go to work for a small company for a lesser wage because the small company is more friendly, everybody knows each other—I am talking about companies employing fewer than 100 people; in fact, in the main companies that employ more like 20 or 30 people—and people will enjoy that because they can get to know each other, and they will accept a lower wage accordingly.
Dare I say it?—in some cases people would rather go to a company like that because it is unlikely to have a trade union, and in many cases people definitely dislike what I would describe as the bossiness of trades unions. Sometimes the bossiness has a rather nasty, harsh note to it, and that is disliked even more. You must accept, therefore, that there are some people who will accept a lower wage; but the question is what should that be.
Large firms, on the other hand, have to pay relatively more (certainly this is my experience) because they are paying, if you like, for anonymity; for the fact that people do have a less interesting job, and quite often a less interesting task within the firm. But, of course, the larger firms on the whole can afford the extra wages because they have the economies of scale which go with the capital expenditure of the larger firm, and they can economise on that side and then afford to pay more to the workforce that they have to employ. Therefore, there is a difference of attitude, and it is important to accept this.
Another basic factor which comes back to something I said earlier is that I have found that on the whole trades unions lack the resources to service small companies, so even if they would like the membership of those companies they really cannot do it because they have not got enough officials to get around and see all the small companies and bother with the interests of the people who work within them. That is another basic factor.
Another factor on the contrary side is that unquestionably unfair competition develops in small firms where one firm will pay a wages council, or joint industrial council, rate and another will not. So far as I can tell, though it is difficult to get these things pinned down, where this happens it tends to have a local reason. If one firm is in a particular part of the country, it will find that the going rate for that part of the country is higher than it is in another, and therefore it will pay more and pay the wages council rate, and in the other part of the country where the general wage level is lower they will pay less.
When this happens there is unfair competition because the firm that is paying less in wages, particularly a small firm, can retail its goods at a lesser price. This then leads to people grumbling. I have had people ring me up and say, "What can I do about this?" I say, "You can report them". They say, "I could not

877
possibly do that. That would be sneaking, and we don't want to report people to officialdom". I have described all that because it is a useful background point. One wonders—I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, mentioned this, and certainly the noble Lord, Lord Spens, did—whether in fact the wages councils are being effective even though they are there. Perhaps it is better not to have something that is not being effective.
There are three changes since 1950 which I should like to call to your Lordships' attention which have accentuated the differences to which I have referred. have been associated with the biscuit industry for the last five years. In 1950 there were about 400 different company members of the Cake and Biscuit Alliance and there are now fewer than 40. Whereas when there were 400 they represented a total range, from the very large companies right down to the very small, today the structure has changed completely. We have very few really big companies, a moderate number of medium-sized firms which are subsidiaries of large conglomerates—both of which have the same attitude to the employment of people and the same sort of resources with which to conduct their businesses, so they have the same way of doing things—very few medium-sized companies and only one totally independent medium-sized company.
As for small companies—the Bolton Report described a small manufacturing company as one employing fewer than 200 people—there are very few of those, and the vast majority of the remaining companies employ fewer than 30 people, and there are a lot of those. They are the people who are particularly affected by joint industrial council rates because all the other companies—that is, those employing 200 and more—all pay more than the JIC rates. The whole point of the gap represented by firms in the middle is that the difference between the attitudes and needs of the bigger companies compared with the smaller ones are more accentuated now than they were, say, 30 years ago. That means that the sort of results produced by the JICs are not necessarily entirely suited to the smaller companies.
Another relatively recent happening—I suspect it has been going on all the time but it has got worse in the last year or so—is that there is always a tendency on the part of the trade unions to seek to reflect wages council and joint industrial council increases in the negotiations they are having with individual companies. One must try to resist that because the wages councils and JICs are dealing with very small firms and the amount of increase they obtain, in real terms as well as in percentage terms, may be very different from that which has been struck by the bigger company, for whatever reason. The pay-off, as it were, from that is that increasingly the people in the bigger companies are beginning to say, "Why should we serve on these councils? It is a waste of our time. All we find is that the trade union members are using what we negotiate for the smaller companies, which are not our companies, against us and sometimes they are extremely rude to us because they say, 'We are paying lots of money. Why don't we force the little chaps to pay a lot of money as well?'".
There is, therefore, an attitude growing in the area in which I am operating by which the people in the bigger companies do not want to serve on the joint
878
industrial councils—and I suspect the same applies to the wages councils; the membership statistics produced by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, seemed to endorse that—and the present situation is resulting in the councils being second-rate. I do not want to run down the academics, but Lord Spens made the point that there were more academics than perhaps were needed, out of proportion to the total membership of the councils, and that there should be more independents generally. I support that. If the councils are getting a second-rate membership, they will not do their job so well, and that is another reason to wonder whether they should be swept away.
I must mention the important topic, to which several noble Lords have referred, of the threat to young people. I am absolutely sure that trying to narrow the gap between the adult worker and the 16 and 17 year-old, a movement which has been going on consistently, has been to the detriment of young people. It might be a good thing if, as the noble Baroness said, we had a system more akin to the German one—in effect of compulsory further education for everybody up to the age of 18—and that may be so, but in the meantime, small firms with juvenile rates established for them by their councils are not so inclined to employ young people as they used to be. The multiplicity of small firms in various districts which can take on a youngster for a relatively low salary which they can afford was one of the beneficial ways in which people got on a friendly basis and could see what business and industrial life were all about.
I am, of course, referring to tendencies rather than cut-and-dried results. On the whole, the sort of wage levels being struck for young people are pricing them out of the market, and in my view that is disgraceful. If we did not have such regulated procedures, maybe there would be a greater opportunity for people to be employed at an acceptable rate. As the noble Lord, Lord Spens, pointed out, the unemployment rate and the supplementary benefit rate between them provide a yardstick which did not exist in the same way in the 1920s. I am not for one moment saying it is the yardstick we want as the working wage. I am simply saying that because it is relatively high compared with the 1920s, even the poorest firms have to pay more, so it gives us a better yardstick than we had before.
Taking all those points together, probably the wages councils have expended their usefulness, as have many other bodies of that type. I should like to see joint industrial councils retained on a wholly voluntary basis as between one side of industry and another, and I hope that in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Spens, as he indicated, will encourage an amendment allowing for that provision, along with anything else that goes with it in the 1979 Act to be retained, and I should have thought that would provide all the basis we needed to justify ourselves before the ILO. We should probably find that we would not have so many wages councils as at present, and there might be larger groupings. Perhaps the Government would do what they have done with the training boards, and say, "You can wind up your wages council if you will have a voluntary joint industrial council", which effectively is what they have said over the training boards.
I hope something will be retained, because an aspect, which has nothing to do with wage rates or training,

879
which is gradually becoming eroded by the winding up of all these bodies is that the areas in which representatives of trade unions and employers can meet in an atmosphere which is not one of direct wage negotiation affecting their own companies are being narrowed down. The training boards are being swept away—on a previous occasion I spoke to your Lordships about that—and perhaps we shall now lose the wages councils. Let us hope we keep the JICs, for that reason alone, for all we shall be left with will be Neddo. The trouble with Neddo is that although it has subsidiary bodies, it tends to operate at such high levels, talking only to top businessmen and very grand trade unionists, that people at the ordinary working level do not get to meet each other in an atmosphere in which they are not directly negotiating. So I should like to see saved out of this something that allows that kind of dialogue. But, on the whole, let us sweep away the wages councils.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Roberthall: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in welcoming the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Spens, in introducing the Bill, and even if your Lordships do not give it a Second Reading, I think we should nevertheless be very glad of an opportunity to discuss this subject, because I believe that the whole attitude represented by the wages councils needs looking at again. I should make it clear that I am speaking only for myself. The Social Democratic Party has not, I think, reached so precise a view as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, seems to have done. As your Lordships will know, the SDP is committed to an incomes policy when it comes to power, and it will then have to decide whether or not it will need something like wages councils. But in my view it is quite certain that a new incomes policy will be one in which in all wage bargaining the public interest is much more closely represented than it is at present. So, even if there are wages councils, they will be different from what they are today. But, as I say, I am not able to use the term, "We on these Benches".
The very first job I ever had when I was an engineering student was in a railway workshop. I worked with a fitter. I do not know whether the IWW was then represented in Australia, but if it was not, that fitter was a corresponding member of it. I was indebted to him for a little book of songs for the use of militants. One of them began:
"There is a factory over the way, Where 80 wage slaves toil all through the day".
Looking through the songs, I found that the term "wage slave" kept coming up, and I think that we need to concentrate on that when thinking about the history and the present use of the wages councils. Of course the term "wage slave" implied that the worker was not in a much better position, if any better at all, than the slave, The slave had to choose between obedience or death. The boss could not actually kill the worker, but the alternative to disobeying was that, if he did not get his wage, he would starve to death. So the wage slave had the choice between obedience and starvation.
880
It was recognised that the unions were able to exercise some countervailing power on behalf of their members, but, in the trades or occupations where there were small units scattered all over the place, it was very hard to organise them. It was even more difficult, if there were an agreement, to see that it was carried out. So the whole attitude towards the classes of workers who were covered was that the state had to step in and behave in a paternal manner towards them. That is expressed in the great detail in which the wages councils today are empowered to set out all the conditions of work. Furthermore, as the noble Lord, Lord Spens, has pointed out, the worker is not at all free to make a bargain with the employer, unless it is on the same, or more favourable, terms. There is a degree of rigidity about the councils which is not, I think, found anywhere else.
The mentality that we meet when dealing with wage slaves does not take any account of the changes that have taken place in the last 30 years or so—the changes brought about by full employment and by the welfare state. I appreciate that we do not now have full employment, but we had it for 30 years, and in my view it did much more for the workers than the trade unions or wages councils could do. In those conditions it is impossible to think about anything like that is meant by wage slaves. If a man with a reasonable degree of health and capacity wants a job, the state creates the conditions in which he can get one, and the market processes in fact are the great safeguard. So, that makes the thinking behind the wages councils something of an anachronism. That is my attitude towards them—that they are anachronistic. I mentioned the welfare state, and it has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. That is the other side of the situation. Now the choice is not between obedience or starvation; it is between obedience or social security, which is a very different thing.
The councils do not take any account of public policy and are on the whole inflationary in their impact; and here I should like for a moment to come back to the question of full employment and mention a point that I meant to make earlier. When we had full employment, there was always a residue of unemployed of about 200,000 or 300,000. Some of them were people moving from one job to another, but some were people who could not quite fit in to the ordinary structure. They could not work regular hours, or could not do a full day's work, or were living in a difficult part of the country.
When one operates a full employment policy—on which I was for many years responsible for advising the Government—one cannot push the management of demand to the point where it would reduce the unemployment to nil. That would be very inflationary. The people who say, "Oh, there are still 200,000 unemployed, and therefore you must expand more", are quite wrong. What is needed is a degree of flexibility so that those who cannot quite fit into the ordinary system can find places for themselves. It happens that those places arise most of all in regard to small businesses, for people in special circumstances, and, due to the extreme rigidity of the limits that the councils set, their existence is actually militating against the absorption of those who are somewhat excluded

881
from the system. Of course it is certainly the case that today a great many people would be employed if there were more latitude, if there were at least the ability to strike a bargain between the individual and the employer, which is precluded.
I have been talking as if we were back in full employment, and we have not got full employment today. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, raised an awkward point when she said that this is not the time to get rid of the councils; but the reason why I think we have not got full employment is that the Government of the day have put the defeat of inflation ahead of maintaining high levels of employment. They have rejected the idea of an incomes policy, and so they have adopted a monetary policy in some way. The purpose of that is clearly to have some control over wage settlements and to say to workers, as they do say, "If you insist on inflationary wage settlements you will price yourselves out of a job". Of course, there has been some success in that policy. A great many workers now, when they find that their employers are on the verge of bankruptcy, accept lower levels of wage.
I do not agree with that Government policy: I think the price we are paying in terms of wasted resources is much too high a price, and that, whatever the difficulties of an incomes policy in the past, if we are to get back to full employment and some sort of wage stability, we shall have to have an incomes policy. But I wonder whether the Government can explain why, if they are adopting this particular method of dealing with inflation, they still have the wages councils. If the policy is to let the existence of surplus labour press down on wage bargains, why do you have, in the area where this is most likely to have some effect, this very rigid system? I hope the noble Earl will deal with that point when he winds up.
To sum up, my Lords, I think that at least in conditions of full employment the wages councils are an anachronism. I think that if we are to keep them we ought to ensure that the public interest is represented on them, and that the extreme rigidity which entirely prevents people from striking an individual bargain needs to be looked at.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I am glad to join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Spens, for bringing this Bill before us. I particularly want to congratulate him for his perseverance in moving from asking polite Questions about wages councils to proposing their outright abolition. In this he has the support of the informal group known as the Repeal Group, whose efforts I referred to when the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, moved her Bill to repeal the Shops Act on 9th February. I am delighted to follow, for the first time, the noble Lord, Lord Roberthall, and I hope to demonstrate that economists are not obliged to disagree on these matters. I urge him to keep on raising his voice in the Alliance, because he may help to lead the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, back into the paths of true Liberalism.
It seems to me, my Lords, that the case for this Bill is a good deal stronger than that for the Shops Bill, to which your Lordships gave an unopposed Second Reading in February. As we have heard, wages councils had their origins in 1909, when four trade
882
boards were set up to fix minimum wages in the sweated trades of tailoring, lace, box and chain-making. The Act was extended in 1918, and the boards were renamed wages councils in 1945. Although they have declined in number, that bears testimony rather to the merging of small councils than to the abolition of many very significant councils. Certainly since 1938 the tally of workers covered has increased from 1½ million to 2¾ million.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, have raised the question that what was fitting in 1909, when workers lacked the bargaining power that comes from education, from knowledge, from employment exchanges, from greater mobility and from generous social benefits, bears no relation whatsoever to the conditions of the 1980s. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, might ponder the transformation in conditions of domestic servants before telling us these stories about the likelihood of workers being greatly exploited in the absence of minimum wages. It seems to me that what started as benevolent welfare policy has come to exert a malevolent economic effect, and it has done this at a time when low pay has much less to do with poverty because the low paid are preponderantly young people or women who live in households with two or more earners. What is worse, from prescribing bare minimum wages, which the least efficient employer was compelled to pay, wages councils have come to set what they regard as "reasonable" wages, especially for young people, at levels that even the most profitable firms find it difficult to improve upon.
The report Priced Out by the National Federation of Self-employed and Small Businesses shows that during the 1970s the dubious independents and employers' representatives on these councils did not prevent the more single-minded trade union representatives from pushing up wages much faster than inflation. The figures there show that the six largest councils increased adult wages 4-fold and juvenile wages 4½-fold, compared with a 3-fold rise in prices over that decade. At the same time, in retailing the age at which the adult wage was paid has been lowered from 21 to 19. So that where, 10 years ago, a school-leaver would start at a little over half the adult wage, he must now be paid 60 per cent., and by the age of 18 he must be paid 85 per cent. of the wage of an adult with, perhaps, a lifetime of working experience.
The wages orders issued by the councils are often of the most baffling complexity. They deal with holidays, hours, regions, meal and rest breaks and unsocial hours, and they prescribe different rates of pay at varying times. An LSE study in 1980 identified in one wages council 166 minimum rates that were prescribed. The personnel director of a leading retail chain told me last week that he could not be sure of understanding the annual changes even when he had expert legal advice at his elbow. Nor are wage costs the end of the matter. At least 30 per cent. must be added for national insurance and other employment expenses, without allowing for what are called compliance costs and for such benefits in kind as staff buying discounts and meals, which are totally ignored by these jolly quango men on the wages councils.
There can be no doubt that the escalation of total wage costs has reduced employment opportunities.

883
The foundation of all economic analysis is nothing more arcane than that prices affect quantities. If wages are increased, other things being equal, the demand for workers will be reduced at the margin. All the empirical evidence of the operation of minimum wages, particularly in the United States of America over a very long period, shows that they cause unemployment especially among the most vulnerable. Two leading black American economists, Professor Sowell and Professor Williams, have recently shown that when the cost of employing people is artificially raised under the federal minimum wage law, the resulting unemployment is concentrated on the young, unskilled, inexperienced, female and, even more severely, on the ethnic minorities.
Nowhere—except perhaps in rent control—has well-intentioned policy produced more perversely damaging results than in raising wages without regard for market realities. Thus, in Britain the pace has been set by the Low Pay Unit, which would today be more accurately branded the "No Pay Unit". Why could they not learn from the evil experience of South Africa, where minimum wages were deliberately supported by white trade unionists to reduce the job opportunities of unskilled black workers by pricing them out of the labour market?
It is no use opponents of this Bill taking refuge behind their undoubted good intentions. In economics—as in much well meant private conduct—good intentions are no guarantee of good results. In Britain the bleak road to higher unemployment has been paved by good intentions. Indeed, all our most grievous economic and social disorders have been caused not by malevolent design but by the amiable confusions of misnamed "do-gooders", who undoubtedly meant well but who have inadvertently caused much of the havoc that we see around us.
I hope that we shall avoid verbal competition in compassion. There is no important difference between us in all parts of the House on the principle of a minimum income. But whether that is provided through supplementary benefits or, as I would prefer, through a reverse income tax, it is the province of social policy and should not be attempted by manipulating prices, such as wages, rents or interest rates which must lead to costly distortions throughout the economy.
Whatever the sceptics may say—including the noble Baroness, Lady Seear—we know that wages can be too high for the good of employment. That is why Labour and Conservative Governments have been driven to multiply job subsidies—especially for the young—simply to undo the damage of the trade union wage push. It is also why some workers have voluntarily settled for wage standstills or even for wage reductions to save jobs—an option that is rendered illegal by the Government's stubborn enforcement of the Act which we are now seeking to repeal.
My Lords, I urge all who care more for reducing unemployment than for preserving their emotional purity to join in supporting this Bill, if necessary through the Lobby.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, when we on this side of the House first saw the Bill that has been
884
introduced by the noble Lord this evening we thought that he must be joking and that his main purpose in bringing forward the Bill was to secure an adequate parliamentary opportunity to discuss the whole question of the operation of wages councils in a constructive way. Instead of that, what we find tonight is that the noble Lord has followed the true precept of his Bill and wants the abolition of wages councils.
There has been much discussion this evening about the percentages in which the various awards of wages councils have moved over the past few years. Of course, as is inevitable when any question of econometrics arises, we have had the learned observations of noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, who certainly cannot be accused of compassion, but who nevertheless makes some claim—albeit modestly—to intellectual purity.
However, I am afraid that his reputation in this regard has become somewhat devalued since many of us recall his speech of 13th February, 1980—two years ago—when he was supporting Lord Cockfield's contention that the rate of inflation would automatically go up with the increase in the money supply after two years. I invite the noble Lord to contemplate his own speech, which is at col. 247 of Hansard for that day, so that before he makes any further observations on economic matters he can go through a piece of intellectual refurbishing.
The reason why wages councils were originally established—and indeed they were pioneered by the Liberal Party—was in order that those who were very low paid could be protected from exploitation. Oddly enough, in times of full employment it could possibly be argued that their existence would have less justification than in times of unemployment, because of course it is precisely in times of unemployment that the protection of the weak—if that indeed be a valid political objective—ought to be safeguarded.
What we have had so far this evening—with the notable exception of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear—has been nothing more nor less than a desire, quite overtly expressed and precisely because of the existence of large-scale unemployment at the present time, to go back to the law of the jungle and have the weakest to the wall and the devil take the hindmost. This has been the argument, with the notable exception of the noble Lord, Lord Roberthall, whose speech ought to be printed and circulated immediately in the Hillhead division of Glasgow so that the electors there would know precisely what is the policy of the Social Democratic Party.
Lord Roberthall: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way for a moment? I made it perfectly clear that I was speaking for myself and not for the Social Democratic Party.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I quote the noble Lord's words—I took a note of them:
"The SDP will need to decide whether it needs wages councils or not".
Those are the noble Lord's words. It has not made a decision yet. The noble Lord reminds me of the story about the late President Hoover when on an election campaign. He invariably answered questions:
"Well, yes; and then again, no",
and thereby of course he pleased both parties.

885
For the real truth of the present position, so that we can assess it not so much in terms of percentages but in terms of actualities, I venture to draw your Lordships' attention to a feature in The Times of 3rd March. It says:
"… official figures show that 4,750,000 people earn less than £85 per week. Perhaps a quarter of this group earn less than £60 a week and many are unquestionably at or near subsistence level".
The article goes on to give an individual example which I venture to give to your Lordships this afternoon, because behind all the percentages and other statistical calculations there does lie the personal position of people who are in receipt of very low wages indeed.
I shall quote only one example. Mrs. Doreen Marriott, who is 51, and has to look after her disabled husband, her unemployed son and an 18-year-old daughter, lost her job last week. As one of the better paid home workers—she sewed pants and T-shirts for a local firm in Hinckley, Leicestershire—she used to earn about £45 a week. It was a vital addition to the £70 a week the state provides. With half that £70 going on rent and fuel, the loss of her job has forced her to rethink her family budget—"We are just living from day to day".
Your Lordships will observe that the earning figure there was £45 a week. From some of the statements made this afternoon one would imagine that the wages councils have been making wage awards in double figures and indeed, in the case of younger people, have been making wage awards on adult scales. I have in front of me the statutory minimum rates in respect of the hairdressing industry. First-year apprentices are paid £27·50 a week, second-year apprentices £31, third-year £42; hairdresser, first year, £49, hairdresser, second year, £53, hairdresser, third year £57, chargehand £61 and manageress £73. Those are the statutory rates. I venture to suggest to your Lordships that sums on this scale do not add anything to the inflationary pressure in the country at all, bearing in mind the extraordinary rates they now have to pay. In fact, these statutory minimums in most cases are below those paid by firms negotiating agreements with the trade unions. If it is suggested that all these areas of activity should be covered by trade unions, I could not agree more; but it is fair to say that in the food industry in particular, the Co-operative Society, Sainsbury and Tesco, all pay wages which are substantially above the statutory minimum. The point has been made that this means that there is unfair competition between the smaller and the larger firms; but the real principle behind that argument is that precisely because a firm is small, perhaps inefficient or does not do its buying correctly, it is the workers in those industries who should pay. That is the real argument.
I very much doubt whether this evening Her Majesty's Government would argue for the abolition of the Wages Councils Act, which would take these provisions away: at least, I sincerely hope they would not, because at the moment there are 27 wages councils responsible for laying down minimum pay for over 2½ million workers in this country. That is accomplished through the Wages Councils Act 1979.
The gravamen of my argument is this: it is absolutely vital for the interests of nearly 3 million people and their families that this minimum protection is retained.
886
I shall argue further that it is not only important that it should be retained, but that in fact it should be enforced, because one finds that in a very large percentage of the cases that are investigated at least one-third of those cases reveal under-payment to the workers concerned. If the noble Lord will refer to a Written Answer given by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State on 17th March to a Question raised by Mr. John Grant, he will find that of the establishments inspected where under-payments were expected, no less than 41 per cent. of the cases investigated revealed under-payment by employers.
The real question is: Why is it that so few cases were investigated? Why is it that, bearing in mind the fact that there are some 390,000 firms involved, we have only 119 inspectors to be able to supervise the enactment?—because if every firm were visited it would be about once every 10 or 20 years. Quite clearly, the existing inspectorate is inadequate to carry out the task. Indeed, where the investigations have ultimately resulted in some discovery of the facts, no less than £2 million has already been paid to the under-paid workers concerned.
I do not like to lecture the party opposite too much on law and order, which I believe ranks fairly high in their philosophy, but the Wages Councils Act 1979 is part of the law, and it is the duty of the state to enforce the law. Therefore, if I may quote—
"(3) If an employer fails—

(a) to pay a worker to whom an order under section 14 above applies remuneration not less than the statutory minimum remuneration; or

(b) to pay him arrears of remuneration before the expiration of the period specified in the order; or

(c) to pay him holiday remuneration at the times and subject to the conditions specified in the order; or

(d) to allow to any such worker the holidays fixed by the order;

he shall for each offence be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100".
In this case, in the year 1981 which we are now discussing, there were a very large number of cases indeed in which the Act was infringed: nine prosecutions only were taken. One wonders why. When we come, as the noble Lord will recall, to defrauding the Department of Health and Social Security, which is disobeying the law—and I would not in any way defend it—we find that when there is the merest suspicion of that 1,000 extra staff are employed, bringing their total to 5,000, in order to detect alleged frauds among the people in receipt of social security. On that principle, the person concerned has been found guilty of stealing from the state.
What then happens to these people who are known to have broken the law and, in effect, have stolen from the workers whom they employ, by paying under the amount which the law prescribes under Section 14 of the Act? We find nine prosecutions, in spite of the fact that extending the percentage that has been detected so far to cover a full investigation shows that the amount involved, so far as the underpaid in this country are concerned, is in the region of £28 million. It looks very much as though there is another kind of law for a person who has been found guilty of defrauding the state by claiming excess social benefits, even though it could be argued—and I think that noble Lords opposite have argued it from time to time—

887
that any amount involved is greatly exceeded by the amount not taken up by people who do not claim their benefits.
So the gravamen of my charge is that this Act is not being enforced and that where offences are detected prosecutions are obviously undertaken with reluctance. I do not think that this is a satisfactory state of affairs. As I have already shown, the minimum wages fixed by the—
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene?
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I shall be finishing in a moment, if the noble Lord will forgive me. The minimum wages fixed by these wages councils are, at the most, in the region of £50 or £60 a week, which in this day and age, with the prices and the rents now existing, is a very poor wage indeed. The poorer section of the community, including the people who ought to receive some benefit from the operations of the Wages Councils Act, do not get very much support at all in the popular press. They get no organised help from those great leaders of the media who occupy editorial chairs or other positions of media responsibility, by drawing the attention of the public to their plight. They have very few champions. They have a lot of attackers, some of them snide, and most of the attackers living in very comfortable circumstances, with very considerably in excess of the £50 to £60 a week which constitutes the top level of the awards by the wages councils.
Members of your Lordships' House will have to make up their minds as to what they think about this. Noble Lords will have to make up their minds whether they really want this residual protection—however badly applied, however patchily administered and however much abuse and disobeying of the Act there is—taken away. It is not our custom to deny a Private Member's Bill a Second Reading. Many of us would like to introduce Bills from time to time, and we should always like to feel that when our Private Bills are introduced they will get a Second Reading. But I have to tell the House that if this Bill is not withdrawn tonight, we shall have to oppose it—and oppose it very vigorously—in any remaining stages that the House might decide to accord to it.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, was he arguing that he sees the Government as spending lots of money employing many more inspectors, so that more of these firms which are not quite paying the minimum earnings levels declared by the wages councils should be taken to court and punished for their offences? Is he therefore saying that he would like those firms to employ fewer people or to go into liquidation, and thereby increase the unemployment of the country at large?
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I do not concede the inference which was contained in the noble Lord's question. The purport of my remarks was very clear. The law is set out in the Wages Councils Act 1979. It is up to the Government of the day to enforce it by the best means that they know. Otherwise, they run the
888
risk of not being even-handed in bringing people before the law.
6.57 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, we have had an interesting debate this afternoon, partially because it was not wholly unanimous. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Spens, on the enormity of his Bill. In about eight words of Clause 1, he would succeed in sweeping away all the wages councils. Some may say that that would be a very very profitable use of eight words, but of course life is not quite so simple as that. I thought that the noble Lord put his case in a very moderate, persuasive and engaging manner and I congratulate him on—to use a colloquial term—his in-depth research which he has clearly carried out on wages councils.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, somewhat churlishly, I thought, criticised the intellectual purity of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross. He said that it had been tarnished, and the reason why it had been tarnished was that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, had agreed with my noble friend Lord Cock-field. Far be it from me, a mere non-intellectual, to comment on the intellectual purity of other people, other than to say that if the crime of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was to agree with my noble friend Lord Cockfield, then his intellectual purity, which in my mind was never in doubt, might assume an even greater pristine clarity.
The wages council system is not, of course, an unchanged creation of the early decades of the century and it has reacted to change circumstances. My noble friend Lord Mottistone said that, as wages councils were set up in the 1920s—although, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, they started in 1909—it might not necessarily be inappropriate to consider whether they are correct for today. They have not remained the same. In 1969, there were 57 councils and since then 16 councils have been abolished and others have been merged, with the result that there are now only 27 wages councils. Those councils which form the major part of the system today—those covering retailing and creating—came into being only after 1940, and not in 1920. These councils exist only where there is shown to be no adequate alternative collective bargaining machinery to replace them. The need for them is kept constantly under review.
The councils are independent of Government. It is for them to decide what minimum rates should be set for the 2¾ million workers, the majority of whom are women, who are estimated to come within the system. The councils are made up essentially of representatives of employers and trade unions. These representatives are appointed by the trade and not by the Government. But the Government do appoint three independent members to each council, as the noble Lord, Lord Spens, quite correctly pointed out, whose job it is to assist the parties to reach agreement. For this, the Government pick people who can be seen clearly to be independent of the two sides and, indeed, of the Government—as they must be if they are to carry out their role under the legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Spens, was somewhat derogatory about academics

889
and got, if I may so describe it, a political thick ear from the noble Baroness, Lady Spens.
Noble Lords: Lady Seear.
Earl Ferrers: I am so sorry. It is perfectly terrible that I should have even begun to confuse the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, with the noble Lord, Lord Spens. They are two totally different—I was going to say "objects" but I will say people. However that may he, I enjoyed the way in which the noble Baroness came to the spirited defence of the academics and of the quangos. The noble Lord, Lord Roberthall, reminded us of a little bit of poetry. I am bound to say that while the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was referring to quangos I could not help recalling the little jingle which I saw one person write that began:
"You should see me dance the quango".
I accept that there is very real concern about the operation of the system. Many criticisms are currently made and they demonstrate a very great deal of feeling, which the Government readily recognise. The fact that councils are independent of Government does not of course mean that the way in which they function should not be a proper concern of Government, and I can assure your Lordships that we take most seriously the many comments and criticisms which have been made to us of late about what people see as the defects of the system.
The most worrying accusation is that the existence of the councils has adverse effects on inflation and employment. Those views have been mentioned tonight. I am bound to tell your Lordships that we have received many letters about recent proposals for increases in minimum rates in the retail trades and I have no hesitation in telling your Lordships that the Government have been concerned about the volume of protest which has arisen therefrom. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Employment has written to those councils drawing their attention to the weight of feeling which has been expressed directly to Ministers.
We have on very many occasions emphasised to all negotiators, whether in the wages council sector or in the economy at large, the need to consider the effects of their decisions on inflation and employment levels. It is right to point out, though, that over the years the rates which have actually been paid by many employers in industries which are affected by wages councils have been above the minimum which have been set by the councils, although it is arguable that the difference is at present diminishing. Clearly increases in the statutory minimum rate are bound to have an effect, although not necessarily a uniform one, on the rates which are actually paid. Smaller companies in particular may well be paying close to minimum rates. That is one of the reasons why we ensure that small businesses are fully represented on the councils. But to keep it in perspective, overall earnings, excluding overtime, are, on the latest figures, still substantially above the minimum rates which are set by the councils. This suggests that a large proportion of those wage-earners who are affected are in businesses which, probably for perfectly sound reasons, are content to pay above the minimum. This may well not apply to the many very small businesses which, although large
890
in number, may each employ relatively few people and who may well not be able to pay above the minimum. I accept that these are the ones which are the most hardly affected by a council's determinations.
When the noble Lord, Lord Spens, said that he is wanting by his Bill to help small businesses—that this is what his Bill is about—I accept that the Bill would have that effect. But of course there are other facets to the problem. Inevitably, at times when people are worried about the state of their businesses and are aggrieved at increases in costs which may be forced upon them, some of the criticisms must centre on the way in which decisions are finally reached in councils when there is no agreement between the two sides. I have to tell your Lordships that while the Government are not privy to the proceedings of the councils, we have ascertained that over the years there is no evidence of any bias on the part of the independent members towards one side or the other. But the effect of wages councils' determinations is bound to have an effect on the employment of young people. The Government are concerned that all negotiators, including those on wages councils, should take particular care in setting rates for young people.
One particular concern which has been put to us, although I do not think that it has been very much in evidence this evening, is about the present minimum rates for those under 18, in so far as they might prevent employers applying under the recently introduced Young Workers Scheme. The aim of the scheme is to encourage employers to pay more realistic wages to young people and thereby to improve job prospects.
Employers within the scope of wages councils must of course pay at least the minimum rate which is set by the wages councils. At present, most wages councils have minimum rates for those under 17 which lie between £30 and £40. The rates for 17-year-olds are between £40 and £45. Therefore, the majority of 16- and 7-year-olds would attract grants under the Young Workers Scheme. It would of course defeat the object of the Young Workers Scheme if we were to set the earnings limit at such a level as would accommodate all young people, even those whose minimum rates of pay were relatively high. The point is that negotiators on wages councils should keep the Young Workers Scheme in mind when fixing minimum rates for young people and, as soon as details of the scheme were announced, the Government wrote to all members of wages councils so that they might be fully aware of the scheme's provisions. I hope that they will take these into account in their negotiations.
There are also worries, which I accept, about the burdens which are placed upon employers by the sheer mechanics of the wages council system. They often focus on the complexity of the wages orders themselves and the requirements on employers to supply information and to deal with the wages inspectorate whose task is to enforce the wages orders. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, described the orders as being sometimes of baffling complexity. The Government are concerned to help councils to simplify their wages orders, and for some time now we have been ready to assist councils in their work. I am glad to be able to tell the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, that considerable progress has been made:

891
eleven councils have now issued simplified orders and several more are expected to do so shortly.
It is right that the law should be enforced, and the wages inspectorate has an important job to do. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, accepted that. We have, however, made reductions in the number of inspectors by reverting to a level of inspection which operated satisfactorily for many years up to 1978. There will, therefore, be a consequential reduction in the burdens which the system of inspection imposes on employers.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, complained that there are not enough checks on employers. He said, I think, that the schemes are badly applied and inadequately enforced. I can tell him that in 1978 the Labour Government increased the number of staff to 320.5, including 177 outdoor inspectors. The new level is, according to the statistics, not 320.5 but 221.5—quite a reduction, including 119 outdoor inspectors. Using the modified methods, the reduced level of staffing should enable one employer in 10 to be contacted each year, which is the same proportion of checks on pay rates as was carried out prior to 1978. But the figures for 1981 show that pay checks were made on 37,800 establishments during the year. This total is above the 36,000 achieved in 1977 and the 36,800 achieved in 1976 under the terms which existed when the party to which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, belongs was in Government. The protection which is currently afforded to workers in wages councils' trades is therefore no less and is numerically somewhat more than that afforded in the years preceding 1978.
I thought it right to put the generality of the picture; in view of the many criticisms which have been made, I thought it only right to make the position clear on major matters. If I have appeared somewhat defensive of the present system, this is not because the Government accept it unquestioningly but in order to put it in balance. I accept the force of the view that wages councils can in theory do just what they like in setting wage rates which then have the force of law; that by so doing they can force employers to pay more and therefore force up costs, prices, and inflation; or that they can reduce profits margins, which at a time of recession are already slender, and thereby create unemployment. In any of these circumstances, such action does not create employment, which is what the Government wish to see done.
On the other hand, to do away with wages councils, which is what the Bill in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Spens, would provide, when there was no other wage bargaining procedure at all would result in a free-for-all in wages in those industries which by their nature tend to be small and diverse. This could undoubtedly lead to exploitation by some employers. It could result in those people who are already in employment actually finding their wages cut or finding themselves put out of work by the employment of young people at very much lower rates of pay. At a time of high unemployment, we do not wish to see (and nor does any other noble Lord) employment prospects curtailed. At the same time, no one wishes to see others who are in work being summarily displaced by
892
those who would be paid less or being themselves paid less.
It is a difficult balance to keep. It is not just an economic argument—there are also social factors to consider. Whatever views one may have, there would be one overriding problem if this Bill were to go through, and that is our commitment to the International Labour Organisation Convention No. 26, to which the noble Lord, Lord Spens, quite rightly referred. This convention binds us to provide a minimum wage-fixing machinery where there are no other arrangements for the effective regulation of wages and where wages are exceptionally low. The noble Lord, Lord Spens, said that the United States, Singapore and Russia have not ratified this agreement. He may be right but we have, and our signature on the convention inhibits our freedom of action. To take any dramatic action before 1985, to which year the noble Lord also quite rightly referred, when we may denounce the convention, if that seems appropriate, would leave us in clear breach of our obligations. This is something that we could not easily contemplate.
This Bill is, of course, a Private Member's Bill and it is not for the Government to dictate its future. I will only ask the noble Lord, Lord Spens, to consider whether, in view of this, he thinks it appropriate to proceed with his Bill and if so, how. As I have explained to your Lordships, there are fairly far-reaching considerations here. We must have regard to binding international commitments which presently inhibit our freedom of action. I will only add that, whatever your Lordships decide to do with this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Spens, has provoked a most timely debate on an issue which we know concerns and worries a great many people. I can assure your Lordships that the Government will be looking closely at the arguments which have been put forward today. We share the belief of the noble Lord, Lord Spens, in the need to do whatever we can to free the labour market from any unnecessary and artificial restraints which may affect business performance, competitiveness and jobs. I can assure your Lordships that we will continue our efforts to slim down the system where it has outlived it usefulness.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords and to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear—whom I see departing—for their contributions this afternoon. We have had a very interesting debate. I do not propose to summarise the debate again, because the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has done that very well for me. I want to make just two points. The first point is that which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, finished up with; our international obligation. It seems to me that there is no reason why we cannot continue or ratification of this convention yet abolish wages councils. The provision in Article 1 of the convention says only that there is the need to make these arrangements for collective agreements where wages are exceptionally low. I do not believe that wages are exceptionally low any longer. We now have welfare state benefits which protect member employees from such a situation. Therefore, I do not see why the Government cannot just say that wages are no longer exceptionally low—"exceptionally", remember—and go ahead with abolishing the councils without

893
incurring the wrath of others who have ratified the convention.
The other point is that which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, when he said that the protection of the weak ought be to safeguarded. Of course it ought to be safeguarded. I do not believe that wages councils' awards are doing that job. The awards are now such that the ordinary small retailer is unable to continue paying them. Therefore, he has either to put up his prices or get rid of some of his staff. He cannot put up his prices because he is in competition with larger stores who are able to accept such increases; he is left with no alternative but to sack some of his staff. Would not the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, consider that it is better to allow member employees to negotiate something less than the full increase from a wages council award in order to keep their jobs? I believe that that is the way in which we can protect the weak; following the rigidity and inflexibility of wages councils is not the way to do it. I should like to see this Bill go further because I should like to see whether we can amend it in Committee to take account of the joint industrial councils.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Spens, sits down I ought perhaps to inform him, in the light of what I said before, that, if he does press his Second Reading we shall—in view of what he has had to say—have to divide against him.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I am sorry to hear that. I thought that the noble Lord had said that he was not going to divide against me at Second Reading, but at any further stage. I feel that I should like to go ahead and so, my Lords, I beg to press the Motion.
7.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Bill shall be now read a second time?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 42.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mersey, V.

Craigavon, V.

Monson, L. [Teller.]

Feversham, L.

Mottistone, L.

Glasgow, E.

Orkney, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Renton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Robbins, L.

Kilmany, L.

Roberthall, L.

Kinnoull, E.

St. Just, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Spens, L. [Teller.]

Loudoun, C.

Tweeddale, M.

Mancroft, L.

NON-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Aylestone, L.

Collison, L.

Bishopston, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Denbigh, E.

894

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Northfield, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Peart, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale,

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

L.

Seear, B.

Hampton, L.

Stedman, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stone, L.

Jacques, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Jeger, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Tordoff, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Underhill, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe,

Whaddon, L.

B. [Teller.]

White, B.

Longford, E.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Winstanley, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion for Second Reading disagreed to accordingly.

Drug-Taking by Young Persons
7.28 p.m.
Lord St. Just Lord St. Just rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to deal with the great increase of hard drug-taking by the young in major cities.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. My Lords, hard drug addiction is not a pleasant subject to introduce, but it is a very serious subject, due to the great increase of hard drug-taking in our major cities. This is borne out by the latest figures from the Home Office and also by people who work in the overall field connected with drug abuse. The number of addicts notified to the Home Office at 31st December 1981 was about 3,800. The large increase of about one-third over the 2,846 known at the end of 1980 was much greater than any of the increases during the last 10 years. In another place on 26th February, they had an Adjournment Debate connected with drug-taking, and it was then stated that as far as known 20,000 hard drug addicts must be added to the number, as well as and including barbiturate addicts.
Having opened with that, I would like to go back and say a few words about drugs in general before I return to the question of hard drugs. It seems to me that it is one of the things in this age in which we live that the young do take an interest in and I am afraid some of them fall for it, for every type of different drug. We know that it even goes to the sniffing of glue, and it has been stated in the past that they have brewed up bootpolish and got some kind of kick out of that.
I think that one of the problems which must be faced is the different point of view that is taken by the Government as a whole from the line that is taken by psychiatrists. Psychiatrists are, after all, the people who basically have to cure drug addiction. The other day I spent some hours talking to a consultant psychiatrist who had run a drug addiction unit. His line on the whole matter was that those drugs that one swallowed fell in one category and those that one injected oneself with came under a totally different heading. The main legislation that we have to go by is the Bill that was passed by Parliament on the misuse of drugs. That legislation plainly categorises under what headings various drugs come.
Returning to the question of hard drugs, one of the groups of people who we are obviously out to try to deal with is the pushers. We know that the pushing of drugs is a most difficult problem for the Customs and Excise or the police to deal with. I feel that the penalties connected with pushers should be increased, In my view, they are the most despicable type of human being—if we can call them such—that exists in this world. They make a great profit out of their beastly trade and all the small pushers, even if they are fined or sent to prison for a short time, will have their fines paid by the large pushers and will come out of prison and continue in exactly the same way as they were doing before they were sent to prison.
We must not be too pessimistic about hard drug addiction, because there is no doubt that some people are cured. One of the difficulties about the whole problem is that we must take these people out of the environment in which they have been living and that, in a sense, is more difficult than the situation we were dealing with under the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill the other day. If there is to be a cure, one thing that is essential is that the person is taken away from the group of people with whom he has been mixing and taking drugs. I was talking to a Roman Catholic priest the other day and he said, "If only these people had been given some useful work right out of their environment". From a negative point of view one of the difficulties, especially as regards a heroin addict, is that he may go to a drug addiction unit and he may get cured, but probably within a very short time he will be back again on heroin and then the whole cycle starts once again. Apparently—I did not know this—a great many heroin addicts find it an amusing game to go, I believe to the South Kensington area in London (I cannot talk about the other big cities) to try to discover how they can beat down the pushers, mug them or whatever, in order to get hold of the drug, and then off they go again.
I think that one of the most serious aspects is the number of people who may complete one cure in a drug addiction unit, and after that they might come back again, but then they disappear—they are on the road to be a totally lost cause. They disappear into some small garret in London and we all know from what we have read and seen on the media the ghastly and frightful end that comes to a great many young people.
I think that the customs are doing a fine job. I only hope that the Government will not decrease any further the strength of the Customs and Excise who are starting to have some definite affect on the channels. The channels come from Pakistan and Turkey. The Golden Triangle may be out, but as one saw on the media the other night, they have had a bumper harvest and it is bound to find its way through one of the channels back again to this country.
The only other matter I wish to raise concerns something which is rather like an Alice in Wonderland idea. It is known as "the black box" by the psychiatrists who use it. It is a machine invented by a Scottish lady doctor, Dr. Meg Patterson. She worked on it for many years and it is based on acupuncture. I know the feeling of some Members of your Lordships' House on the question of acupuncture. But the fact
896
is that this machine which is called "the new electric stimulator", really works. It has the effect of cutting down the withdrawal period, which is the ghastly period which these people have to go through. They are on the machine for 10 days and generally they come completely off it. In fact, nobody really knows a great deal about it, but one could ask the same question about electric shock treatment. What exactly does it do?—the medical profession do not know. But the fact is that it has worked. People have to continue wearing the machine day and night for some 10 days and then they can be taken completely off it. They are not given any other drugs and if they have the will, the push and the power they can be cured. I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne whether it is a possibility that these machines could be generally hired and tried out at one or two of the addiction centres throughout the country?
In conclusion, I should like to thank all noble Lords who will take part in this debate, especially the right reverent Prelate, who, like all other noble Lords, has waited a long time to speak. Therefore, as I have no right of reply, I take this opportunity to thank noble Lords who will take part in this debate very much indeed.
7.40 p.m.
The Earl of Denbigh: My Lords, we, on these Benches, are extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. Just, for initiating this short debate this evening. I should like to thank him for such a timely debate, because, with the recent release of the Home Office figures—which show a 40 per cent. increase of new notifications over previous years—it is time that we showed some concern for this increasing problem.
I speak as chairman of the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse, which is the representative body of all the non-statutory agencies working in the drug-related field. The question of Home Office notifications is one that was last raised in a debate which I initiated in October 1979. As many of your Lordships may or may not know, the Home Office figures show only the people who are taking opiate-type drugs. There are many other people—particularly abusers of barbiturates and amphetamines—who are not referred to at all in these statistics, and there is no accurate way of figuring out exactly how many there are. However, I think that a figure of 25,000 is a fairly modest estimate of the number of people with drug-abuse problems in the country; in fact, it may well be nearer 50,000 than 25,000. There has been a particular attempt to try to reduce the prescriptions of barbiturates through normal medical channels, but still large quantities of them are found on the streets. There is even evidence to show that illegal manufacture of barbiturates is on the increase.
Like the noble Lord, Lord St. Just, I should like to praise the efforts of the customs and the police who have been seizing ever-increasing quantities of hard drugs, particularly heroin. I believe that last year the figure was 191 lbs. I think it is true to say that in the last three years the price of heroin on the street has remained stable; in fact, at one point it even dropped. In times of inflation—to use a well known political phrase—in real terms this actually means that heroin is considerably cheaper now than it was three years ago.

897
We also have reason to believe that heroin is infinitely more readily available throughout the country, not just in London, as it was mainly in the 1960s. There is a particular increase in Scotland; I think that Glasgow has shown a dramatic increase in the number of addicts being registered there. As regards the availability of barbiturates, we must remember that most of these pills originally come from a legitimate source in this country. They are not being imported; this is a home-produced problem and one that must be looked at very carefully.
As the noble Lord mentioned, many addicts are pushers. Obviously, for many addicts the only way in which they can finance their own addiction is by dealing in the drugs. I think that one must define fairly clearly someone who is attempting to make a vast fortune out of the improper use of drugs, and someone who is in the unfortunate position of being a drug addict but having to find some way of financing his habit. indeed, if there had been a shortage and a reduction in the amount of heroin around, I am sure that we would have seen the price go up, and that has not been the case.
City Roads, which is a short-stay, multi-drug abuse detoxification centre in London, was originally set up mainly to deal with people with barbiturate and amphetamine problems. Earlier on there was virtually no instance of anyone going there with a heroin problem. Now many people who go there use heroin as part of their cocktail of drugs. This is mainly because it is relatively cheap and also available.
I should like to give one more example to show how the figures do not relate to what is going on. Another London agency, the Hungerford Centre, carried out a survey between September 1979 and December 1980. it had 430 contacts; 51 per cent. of them were regularly using opiates; 31 per cent, were using barbiturates and amphetamines, and only 13 per cent. of these people were in treatment, receiving prescriptions and believed to be notified to the Home Office. That is a small example, but I think it shows that the size of the problem is much greater than that which is reflected in the Home Office figures.
Considerable concern is also being expressed over the widespread use of hard drugs on a national scale. In fact, there are few facilities outside London and the Home Counties, and these were mainly set up in the 1960s, when we were talking about a much smaller problem than we are today. As those facilities can no longer handle the situation that now exists, we must start planning for the future.
As I have said, SCODA represents the non-statutory agencies which with the drug treatment centres, are doing an extremely valuable job. Another example is the rehabilitation houses' survey during 1980, which showed that eight houses with 103 beds had 998 inquiries. They followed up 539 applications, and 67 per cent. were assessed as suitable referrals. Unfortunately, only 37 per cent. of those people could be admitted, and 28 per cent. of those people were self-referrals. I am particularly concerned about this because here we have an addict who, for whatever reason—it may or may not be intended prosecution for a drug offence—actually wants to stop being an addict and, unfortunately, through lack of space or lack of per capita funding from local authorities,
898
is unable to obtain admission to a rehabilitation home. I think that we must look at creating more space for rehabilitation, particularly for people who want to get off of their own accord and who obviously do not have the unlimited funds which are available to certain sections of the private sector to receive treatment.
Funding of services in the drug field is obviously an extremely difficult problem. It is a known fact that they are not a particularly popular client group in accident and emergency units of hospitals, in the courts, or on the streets of whatever town they are in. As has been suggested, it is difficult to obtain funding from charities, because, again, it is not a popular sector of the community. In many instances local government is increasingly reluctant to provide funding for people seeking treatment. I believe that it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to finance a network of services throughout the country, or to make a requirement that local authorities should provide the same facilities.
At the moment the situation is that many agencies are having great difficulty in obtaining funds at local level. City Roads, which I have already mentioned, has just had a reprieve for six months by virtue of a further grant from the Department of Health and Social Security. I might add that it is funded by the London Boroughs Association, two regional health authorities, the Home Office and the DHSS. An independent study, which has just been undertaken for the DHSS, shows that, subject to one or two minor things, it has been doing an extremely good job, and this extra funding has been given so that it can try to raise the money at a local level.
I do not think that it is really fair to expect a relatively small unit to have to spend an enormous amount of time dealing with about five or six different organisations in order to try to get the funding that it requires to continue in business. That is a particular operation which requires 24-hour, round-the-clock nursing for their clients. It is a hand-to-mouth existence which is unfair to them, and it is also unfair to their drug addicts who go there. I was told the other day from somebody working in a drug dependency unit that they also have expended an enormous amount of time trying to justify their existence and their financing. The facilities available for drug addicts were fairly inadequate several years ago, and for them to have to justify their existence now is really rather pointless.
This is a common problem in both the statutory and non-statutory field. It is very demoralising for the workers who work long, unsocial hours in that particular field. Their future is not assured, and I might remind Her Majesty's Government that rehabilitation is still considerably cheaper than prison, and a more attractive alternative. I would urge the Government to consider the possibility of central funding for drug services, and hope that something concrete can come out of this short debate, because I am sure that by the time we come round to the next one the figures will he showing an even greater increase.
7.52 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell: My Lords, I am sure that all of us taking part in this dedate feel that it is tragic that we should have to debate this issue at all, not only because drug addiction destroys those who

899
become addicts but because it is essentially a problem amongst the young. It is said that there are no old addicts. They have either been cured or they are dead.
I am personally very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. Just, for raising this issue tonight. The statistics which have recently been produced, inadequate as they are bound to be, are still horrifying. The peak age for drug addiction seems to be around the age of 29, and it is people between the ages of 16 and 40 who are mainly involved. But the increase in the numbers of those becoming addicted is so dramatic that it is a cause for real heart-searching on the part of us all.
It has been said that the present crisis could have been predicted, and indeed that it was predicted, but it is no use wasting time on time wasted. We need to address ourselves to the present situation. The first point that I wish to make is that all drug-taking of whatever kind is dangerous, and young people can all too easily graduate from one drug to another until their case is hopeless.
My particular responsibilities lie in the East Midlands and I have been trying to discover what the situation is there so that your Lordships can get a picture of what happens in the provinces. Drug addiction is certainly not a purely local London problem any more. The major cities of the country have a greater problem than we do in Nottingham. Nevertheless, it is well for us to hear what is happening in the provinces.
One of the startling things is that although we do not have so much addiction to hard drugs there is a real problem at the younger end of the age range. There has been a quite dramatic rise in the number of young people glue sniffing; an activity which is legal, quite uncontrollable, but the consequences of which for the future are at present totally unknown to us. Who knows whether the next step for one of these youngsters who is at school—because it is between the ages of 15 and 17 that this is particularly taking place in our part of the world—may not be soft drugs, and then hard drugs?
At this age it is almost a sort of recreational drug-taking; something done for kicks under the influence of their peers. But, as with all crime, it leads to other crimes of petty theft and then to something worse. In Nottinghamshire 80 per cent. of police time in the drug squad is taken up with the question of cannabis abuse. As I said, other major cities are facing worse problems than we are, but the warning lights are on for us, and we need to act now if we are to prevent a worse future.
It is not that the police have been backward in making some significant seizures of cannabis resin in our part of the world: up to about £½ million-worth. In talking to the police I am impressed that they feel that they are not being hindered by the law from doing their work. In the field of drugs they believe that the law is clear, that the penalties are ample, and that the police powers of search and arrest are adequate. So it is not legislation that is required.
The problem we are debating today is, I fear, at heart a commercial one, and even a political one. Too much money is being made in the traffic of drugs, and Governments have not been beyond using this trade to influence policy and secure advantage. I
900
speak of course of Governments outside this country. We are up against a big problem. The point I am trying to make, however, is that there is something that we can do to help the future; namely, to work at the problems facing young people before they add drug-taking to their unlawful activities and ruin their lives.
It requires some financial help to those who are able to work at the problem among the young people themselves. Recently the Government have been farsighted enough to put some modest resources into a scheme pioneered in Nottingham whereby field workers get involved with teenagers who are either truanting from school or are unemployed. This is a voluntary scheme in which young men and women of great dedication and social conscience are seeking to provide for disillusioned and bored young people the motivation to do something constructive, so that they are helped to avoid getting into trouble and starting that long slide from intermediate treatment to borstal, and eventually to prison.
Nottingham Youth Action, as it is called, is an imaginative scheme which has the support of both the city and the county of Nottingham, and I mention it because it has in fact only got off the ground because central Government saw that there was here a serious attempt to deal with a serious problem and were prepared to support it financially. Again I quote this because the same needs to be done for drug-addiction. The problems are allied.
Financial stringency is a healthy incentive to look at the way in which we spend our money and make sure that we are getting our priorities right. I submit that, if the Government say that this is merely a local problem, as I believe they do say at times, then they must be failing in their responsibilities. Some help, even of a temporary nature, is essential to get worth-while schemes off the ground locally. I was interested to hear what the noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, said just now about the unpopularity of local funding. It is all the more urgent then that the Government give a lead.
The problem that we are debating can only be solved by strong policing of criminals, by adequate support of Government funds, and by one other thing which I should like to mention; we need to engender in the media helpful reporting of this problem. There is evidence that at times the press have not been wise in the way in which the problem has been presented: we need to help people see that it is pathetic rather than sensational to be a drug addict.
I am told that drug addition in Harlem, on the other side of the Atlantic, is not the problem it might be in the black community because that community has its own pressures against the taking of hard drugs. I was interested in talking to the police in Nottingham to discover that the same is true there. We have a fair number of people of Caribbean origin and they do not graduate from soft to hard drugs because of the pressures exerted within their own community. We could learn a lesson from them. Support in peer groups for common-sense reasons to enable young people to avoid getting into the drug habit is a way of dealing with the problem, and we need to support young people working among young people.
I should be failing in my duty to the East Midlands if I were not to speak about the work that is being done

901
in the therapeutic field. The East Midlands is served by the Trent Regional Health Authority. Our area has a population of about four and a half million people. Statistics reveal that the opiate-dependent population is as high as one in 2,000. Recent research, as yet uncompleted, could put the figure as high as one in 1,500. What resources do we have in the East Midlands with which to tackle the problem? There is an addiction unit in Nottingham at the Mapperley Hospital. Like most addiction units, its main responsibility is for opiate addicts. Patients are seen as out-patients, although the unit has access to in-patient beds. It is staffed by a consultant psychiatrist, social worker and other support staff, and it serves patients who, in the majority, live in the Nottingham area. In Sheffield, in the same region, the Royal Hallamshire Hospital provides an out-patient service, although it does not have the staffing support available to the Nottinghamshire unit. The Doncaster Royal Infirmary provides a similar service to that provided in Sheffield.
That is the total statutory provision for the Trent Regional Hospital Board. You may say we are lucky. If you are a drug addict in Truro, you have to travel to Bournemouth, I believe, to get any help. In addition to that statutory work, there is in Leicester a voluntary organisation called INFO which funds one social worker dealing with drug addicts, but all appeals for financial help in what is an increasingly big job have gone unheeded. There is also in Nottinghamshire, only about three miles from where I live, work by the New Life Foundation, a charismatic organisation led by a Baptist minister which has done devoted residential work in what was a large retreat house for the Kilham Fathers. I know how desperately hard that organisation has found it to raise support for the work it is doing, with the result that in some cases they are charging fees to patients.
That seems to me to be paltry provision for such a great conurbation of cities as Sheffield, Nottingham, Leicester and the four and a half million people who live around us. I believe that throughout the country there has been no very real increase of support services for drug dependents since the early 1970s, even though the problem has escalated alarmingly. My plea therefore is that the Government should really take the problem on board, see it as a problem which needs priority funding and so give local authorities the chance, first, to support those who are already doing some work, for they have the valuable experience they have gained and dedication to the job, and, secondly, to enable new work to be started which can give a much wider geographical spread to the efforts now being made. This is an important debate, despite the lateness of the hour and the short list of speakers. I hope with all my heart that the Government will be able to take the problem much more into their own hands and that the debate will evoke a very real response from the Government.
8.5 p.m.
The Marquess of Tweeddale: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord St. Just, for the opportunity to speak on this subject. The Government should address themselves not only to the problem of hard drugs but to the so-called problem of soft drugs. We have heard from several speakers that there is
902
supposed to be a link between soft and hard drugs, but in my view that is a great over-simplification. Certainly the majority of hard drug users started with cannabis or something of that sort, but, then, one might as well say that every meths drinker there has ever been started with milk. There does not seem to me to be anything inevitable about the progression from one to the other, and indeed the right reverend Prelate gave an example of that in the black community in Nottingham. The progression might be rather more inevitable if the milkman, to continue my metaphor, brought meths or lager along with the milk.
I feel that the connection between cannabis and hard drugs is largely one of supply, the same pushers, if it is possible to talk about the supplier of cannabis as a pusher, supplying both. I would, therefore, argue for the separation of the supply of those; in other words, for the legalisation of cannabis and the amendment of the Misuse of Drugs Act to allow for that. The open sale of cannabis would abolish the exposure of cannabis users to the temptation to go on to something harder and lethal. As the Government must be aware, there are a great many users of cannabis. The law is being abused throughout the country, not just by Rastafarians, hippies and other wierdos or freaks.
The average cannabis smoker is no more a freak than the average drinker, yet the law treats him entirely differently. I cannot see why that should be so, for there is hardly any evidence that cannabis in itself harms the health or society or that it is addictive; it may be habit-forming, but that is different. If we compare cannabis with the widely tolerated—in fact, virtually obligatory—alcohol, the list of hazards to health resulting from drink are endless, starting with sclerosis and heart disease and ending with a hang-over, something which most of us have experienced at some time. The social effects of drink are colossal—driving, crime, domestic strife and so on. How does cannabis compare? So far as I have been able to make out, from experience and what I have read about it, cannabis may induce one to be idle, silly and sexy but very rarely, if ever, nasty.
I conclude, therefore, that if one views the matter from a sufficiently detached viewpoint, one could make a far better case for the prohibition of drink than of cannabis. Goodness forbid that should be so, as would be one of the first to suffer. But I feel one could make quite a good case for saying that an enlightened Government would encourage cannabis rather than prohibit it, which is what the present Tory Government do and what Governments in the past have done. I therefore ask the Government to consider amending the Misuse of Drugs Act.
8.9 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. Just, for bringing this subject before the House. I would remind noble Lords that the Question tabled by Lord St. Just was:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to deal with the great increase of hard drug taking by the young in major cities".
I hope the Minister will tell us of some constructive proposals and suggestions.
I was very interested in what the noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, said about the difficulty of voluntary organisations

903
working in this field. It seems to me that in all the cuts that have been made by the Government in funding for the health service and social work in the localities great pressure is being placed on voluntary organisations to step into what is really an unattractive field of work. This is very unfair, and I know of several voluntary organisations that are in great difficulty as a result of the recession, of having to pay VAT, and of being faced with other problems which arise from the current economic position. I believe that it is the duty of Government to take a fuller responsibility for these less attractive, yet vital, services in the community.
To be honest, the ordinary members of the public would rather give some money to Oxfam, blind babies, or lifeboats—all of which are excellent in themselves—than they would to running a centre for drug addicts, perhaps next door to themselves. This is one of the least popular efforts that can be made, and the Government must try to accept that they are placing an unfair burden on voluntary organisations in this field.
In this short debate we are trying to deal with a problem which goes deep into the history of human fallibility and one which has proved intractable throughout the ages and in many countries. I have talked to a police officer in Hong Kong, where the favoured treatment was what they called "cold turkey" where a person was shut up in a cell and left with a glass of water to sweat it out. That imposed terrible strains on the human body. I was in America last year, when I talked to psychiatrists who were undertaking long, expensive treatments of Vietnam war veterans who, under the terrible stress of the war, had found some comfort and release in the taking of drugs. I discovered that nowhere from Hong Kong to New York had anyone found a total answer to the problem.
I have to ask the Minister whether in this country the Government are doing all that they can, through the Health Education Council, for example, to try to deal with preventive measures. For instance, I wonder whether we are doing as much as we could to inform parents and teachers more fully about the hazards involved. Last week I was talking to a young teacher, who said that in the whole of her teacher training the question of possible drug-taking among pupils was never raised. No information was given on spotting the symptoms among older teenagers—and we know from statistics that the 15- to 18-year age group can be involved. If a teacher has no knowledge with which to spot that a child is behaving in a difficult way, and so cannot relate that to the possibility that the child is taking drugs, there is a breakdown in the system.
I wish very briefly to refer to a report from Glasgow, and to quote what the Minister said in another place on 3rd December 1981, as reported at col. 5 of the Official Report.
The Minister said:
"There has been a dramatic increase in the number of new heroin addicts seen at the two drug clinics in Glasgow in the first six months of 1981".
But it seems to me that by the end of that debate the other place had not gone on to produce a programme which would deal with the question which had been investigated and set out in a very serious report relating to Glasgow, which is something of a new location for
904
this kind of problem. Many years ago it was not such a problem in Glasgow, but suddenly there has been an epidemic of drug taking in Scotland. I am not sure that we are doing enough to tackle the problem—and I am not at all making this a party point, since goodness knows! in my living memory at least no Government have been able to find the answer.
I should like to return to the theme of prevention and of Government help. Dr. John Strang, who is the Director of the Manchester Drug Dependency Unit at Prestwich Hospital, was quoted in the Observer of 28th February 1982, as saying that he has 60 out-patients a week, and a waiting list of 100. Now here is the breakdown. A young man or a young woman, having got to the point of facing up to his or her addiction, has the courage—I am sure that it does take courage—to march to a hospital and say, "Please help me. I want to get off these drugs." The doctor has to say, "You will be No. 101 on my waiting list". I say in all sincerity that, if that happens, the young man or woman is not likely to go back again. Often a young man or a young woman goes along to seek help in a moment of crisis, and to be turned away is entirely destructive.
I want to ask the Minister, why is there a waiting list of 100 at the Manchester Drug Dependency Unit? And if there is a waiting list of 100 there, how long are the waiting lists all over the country? Why are the resources of these essential places being restricted? This is the politics of the situation. The only political point that I want to make in the debate is the question of making resources available, of finding the priorities. The fact that people who seek help should be turned away from hospitals is totally deplorable. To me it is as inhuman as turning away someone who has been badly hurt in a car crash. One would not say to a person who had been half killed in a motor accident, "Go away; we have a waiting list of 100. You will have to wait". But drug addicts are often in a position that is just as serious. So I very much hope that the Government will tell us that they are taking positive steps to increase the amount of help that is available, and that they will make the extra help available quickly. I repeat that the person who is turned away will be very unlikely to go back.
I want to ask the Minister a particular question, of which I have given him notice. I have been very interested in the history of legislation on this matter, and I found myself wondering whether we should give more thought to returning to the pre-1968 decision about heroin, when there was a tolerance for prescription by GPs for registered addicts. I must confess that I am in two minds about this question, because I have seen both sides of it. On the one hand, if a person who was dependent on heroin could go to his registered family doctor and reveal his position, he could then get a monitored prescription. This meant that he was under medical care—and we all know the medical side-effects of drug abuse of malnutrition, of liver damage and so on.
At that time it seemed to some of us that thus being under medical care was a good thing. On the other hand, I know that there was a great deal of abuse. I regret to say that there was abuse by some doctors by way of over-prescribing; there was abuse by patients I who sold part of their heroin to friends or to other

905
pushers; and there was abuse by patients who came and made temporary residence arrangements in different areas covered by several doctors, and so were able to accumulate drug supplies.
On the other hand, at least that gave us some statistics. At least we were able to find out something about the number of people coming for help. I submit that the Home Office figures for addicts are a complete nonsense, because there is now no reason why an addict should come forward and register. At least before 1968, by registering, he stood to get some heroin from his general practitioner. But now he does not. So why should he (or, I regret to say, she) bother to register? This makes me query all the figures we are getting from the Home Office.
I should also like to ask the Minister whether the number of break-ins at pharmacists have increased since these new rules were brought into force. Has addiction been reduced? So far as I can obtain figures, there have been more break-ins at pharmacists and people stealing hard drugs, and addiction has not been reduced. So I am not sure whether we should not enter into some meaningful new discussions with the medical profession about whether we should have another look at the situation and consider (I do not go any further than that) looking again at these new rules.
Then I have to ask the Minister about the work of the Customs and Excise department. One reads in the press—and I will not go further than this—that there is to be a reduction in the number of civil servants. I am wondering whether the reduction applies to the customs service; whether we are to have fewer searchers, fewer customs men and women on duty trying to keep heroin and other dangerous drugs out of the country. It seems to me that it would be quite unfair for the Government to say kind things about their concern if at the same time they are cutting down the number of customs officers who might be helping.
I think we all appreciate the part that the police are playing in various parts of the country, but I should like to ask again—I am sorry I am asking the Minister so many questions, but I think that this is a very important debate—what discussions they are having with the Governments of those foreign countries which are the providers of some of these drugs. It seems to me absurd for us to be trying to get our customs service and our police service to deal with these drugs if at the same time their production in overseas countries is increasing. I should have thought that it ought to have been a priority for the Government to try to discuss with Governments in Pakistan, Iran, Turkey and South-East Asia how we can stop this poppy-growing epidemic.
That is an easy question to ask but it is a hard one to answer. To my mind it is very much involved with the standard of living and with alternative employment in these countries. It is no use telling a peasant in Pakistan to stop growing poppies if you do not tell him how to earn a living otherwise. This is where I feel it really is an international problem which is much concerned with overseas aid and development, so that it ought not to be necessary for anybody anywhere to grow poppies to produce hard drugs to destroy another human being in another part of the world.
I was very glad that the noble Lord, Lord St. Just, referred to the pushers, because they are the real criminals; and I am not sure whether or not the Government
906
are thinking about increasing the penalties for these destructive people in our midst. As I say, it is a very complex question. I think that there may be some connection with the present mood of despair and failure, and that it has something to do with unemployment, with boredom and with the lack of facilities in many of our big cities. In fact, when the police in London issued a report the other day which gave the colour of certain criminals arrested for assault and battery, I would have been more interested if they had broken the figures down into the unemployed and the employed.
I should very much like to know how this pattern fits into the number of people, especially young people, who have been charged with the possession of dangerous drugs. How many of them are unemployed, and how many are employed? I think that is much more important than the colour of their skin; and I think that if we are going to put this problem into the social framework that it deserves, we ought to be asking questions of that sort. Of course, the pity is that if this continues to be an epidemic among unemployed young working-class people, they quickly become unemployable and they quickly become involved, not only with related health diseases but with crime and with blackmail.
The report from the university in Glasgow to which I referred earlier, the Ditton Report, has found that addicts are increasingly coming from working-class families. There is a quite different epidemic today from the rather trendy university experimenters of the 1960s. Therefore, we are faced with a very serious social problem. I do not think we know enough about it. We certainly have not yet found the answers. All I would ask the Government tonight, as we look at these complex social and personal problems, is what they are doing about it. Because that is the Question before us tonight, asked by the noble Lord, Lord St. Just: what steps are they taking to deal with the increase in hard drug-taking? I look forward to hearing some hopeful and positive reply.
8.29 p.m.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, may I congratulate my noble friend Lord St. Just on raising this important and difficult issue. It is a fact that there has, over the last few years, been a substantial rise in the extent of drug misuse in this country. We do not have precise figures of the number of individuals who misuse hard drugs, but the indicators of a growing problem, in terms of quantities seized and reported addiction, clearly exist. The number of addicts notified to the Home Office by medical practitioners has doubled in the last five years, from 1,700 in 1977 to 3,400 in 1981. Although the majority of notified addicts are currently in their late twenties, there has been a significant growth in new notifications among the younger age group. There are, however, many who misuse drugs who never attempt to seek treatment. Estimates for the total number of hard drug misusers range from 5,000 to 40,000, and the true figure probably lies somewhere between these two estimates. My noble friend is very right, therefore, to bring this situation to your Lordships' attention this evening; and I am grateful for the opportunity to reply to the many points that have been raised. It would be wrong of me

907
to suggest that there is any easy or quick response to this problem. It is one which must be tackled in a number of ways and over a considerable period of time. I will try to explain briefly the various forms of response that are being planned or made.
The increased availability of hard drugs, particularly heroin, on the black market is undoubtedly a major factor in the increase in drug misuse; and part of our efforts are directed at stemming the movement of drugs into this country. Drug trafficking is very much an international problem which requires close co-operation between the authorities of the countries involved—which might be termed the producer countries, the transit countries and the consumer countries. This co-operation takes place at a number of levels. First, the United Kingdom takes an active part in the work of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs; that body last year agreed a five-year programme of action, which was endorsed by the General Assembly, aimed at achieving united action in the fight against drug abuse.
Assistance is also given to individual countries in practical ways through advice and training, particularly for law enforcement officers; and the United Kingdom makes an annual contribution to the United Nations Fund for Drug Abuse Control, which, in addition to enabling law enforcement capacity in key countries to be improved, finances major projects in developing countries aimed both at reducing the illicit production of narcotic drugs and at countering the effects of drug abuse.
In Europe, the United Kingdom participates in the work of the Council of Europe Co-operation Group against drug abuse and illicit trafficking in drugs (known as the Pompidou Group). This body is now developing a programme of activities particularly suited to the needs of European countries.
Co-operation between national law enforcement agencies is also of great importance in the fight against drug trafficking. I am pleased to be able to report to your Lordships that the liaison developed between our own customs and police officers and their counterparts in other countries is now closer than it has ever been. These close links make a valuable contribution in detecting drug traffickers, and the customs officers and the police deserve much credit for this. I should also mention the Central Drugs Intelligence Unit, located in New Scotland Yard; this is staffed jointly by police officers from a number of forces and by customs officers, and has an important national and international role to play in this task.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked about the reduction in the number of customs officers, and my noble friend Lord St. Just said that he hoped that there would be no further reduction. It is true that there has been some reduction in the overall numbers of customs officers deployed, but these have been predominantly in areas where results were meagre, and in support staff. The emphasis has been on concentrating available resources in those areas which have proved the most successful and in developing expertise and initiative. In particular, the Investigation Division, which is staffed by selected personnel who are highly trained investigators, has been substantially increased.
908
Turning to the work of our own law enforcement agencies, I am sure your Lordship would wish me to join in paying tribute to the valuable work done by HM Customs. They have had notable successes in the past few years, and in 1981—as has been mentioned by several noble Lords—there has been a total of 326 seizures of hard drugs which I understand are worth at street level about £20 million. They have seized 90 kg of heroin, 6 kg of morphine, nearly 10 kg of opium and 13½ kg of cocaine. The task of these men is difficult and sometimes distasteful, and it can be dangerous work.
I have already mentioned the important role of the police in preventing and detecting illicit traffic in drugs. About a year ago, the Association of Chief Police Officers held their first National Police Drug Conference; a second conference is to be held later this week. These conferences provide an opportunity for chief officers to review their priorities and practice. They indicate the seriousness with which our police service now views this problem and the determination with which it is responding.
The police are increasingly concentrating their efforts on those who traffic in hard drugs. Many noble Lords have referred to the terrible pushers who make money out of this. The police have had some notable successes over the past year or so. My noble friend Lord St. Just and the noble Baroness asked whether the penalities for pushers should be increased. The maximum penalty under the Misuse of Drugs Act is 14 years and/or an unlimited fine. This indicates the seriousness with which Parliament has viewed this offence, and the courts have on occasions-imposed the maximum penalty. That is a high penalty.
Turning to the subject of treatment, I should have liked to give your Lordships a clear picture of the facilities available for treatment; but I find that these vary widely from area to area. The right reverend Prelate gave us examples of this. Within the hospital service most drug misusers are treated as out-patients. The consultant psychiatrist responsible may run a full-time drug dependency service for a 100 or more out-patients; he may be a general psychiatrist with a special responsibility in his contract for drug misusers providing a limited number of sessions; or he may be a general psychiatrist who sees drug misusers within a general psychiatric clinic. The staff support may vary from none at all to a team which may include other medical staff, nurses, social workers, clinical psychologists and clerical support. In some areas, psychiatric nurses work with drug misusers in the community. Precise information is not available centrally about "hospital-based treatment facilities"; but interpreting those words to cover everything I have described, there are about 50 such facilities in England and Wales, 18 of them in London, which provide some specialist service for opiate addicts.
Relatively few hospitals have designated in-patient beds, but these range from a whole ward to one or two beds. We know of about 100 designated beds for drug misusers in England and Wales, mostly in London. Most consultants, however, depend on the availability of general psychiatric or medical beds when in-patient treatment is needed—for example,

909
when a patient is willing to undergo complete withdrawal from drugs or is in an acute intoxicated state.
Help is made available to patients in many ways. First, from some general medical practitioners, as the recent notifications of addicts show, and some work within the hospital service. My noble friend Lord St. Just questioned whether there were enough psychiatrists trained and working in the drug misuse field. I would say that the question of the professional training of staff of all descriptions is a matter in the first instance for the appropriate professional training bodies, including the universities and the Royal Colleges. As I have already said, the services are patchy. The staffing of clinics for drug misusers, both medical and nursing staff, and their in-service training, are matters for individual health authorities—and in the case of social workers, individual local authorities—to determine in the light of local needs and available resources. It is likely that health and local authorities and those responsible for professional training will wish to review the situation in the light not only of the statistics indicating an increase in the numbers of drug misusers but of the recommendations expected from the comprehensive report of the treatment and rehabilitation working group of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Those reports are expected during the course of this year.
Help is also available from local authorities, though I doubt that many, apart from members of the London Boroughs Association and metropolitan authorities, would claim that they play a major part in helping misusers as such. They may, however, become involved in helping with associated family problems, with children or adolescents in trouble, or in co-operating with housing departments on accommodation for vulnerable young people. Help is also available from voluntary organisations. There are over 200 places provided in rehabilitation houses in England and some local authorities, notably the London Boroughs Association, contribute to the financial support of rehabilitation houses and other voluntary agencies providing support and counselling for drug misusers. The Department of Health and Social Security and some health authorities also contribute in cash and kind to some voluntary organisations. Two national organisations whose valuable work is recognised by the Department of Health and Social Security in the form of grant aid are the Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence and SCODA, the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse. The noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, is the chairman of SCODA and his speech today was immensely interesting and has greatly helped us to understand the problem of drug misuse and the part played by dedicated voluntary organisations in helping drug misusers. I am sure that his speech will be read with great interest by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. People who have already begun to misuse drugs can be helped, and the evidence suggests that the earlier help is sought the better the outcome. The drug misuser may need a wide range of help over time for a chronic, relapsing and sometimes fatal condition. His or her problems are complex and daunting. It is no easy task for the health, social and voluntary workers in this field to provide a network of effective support of the right kind and at the right time.
910
Your Lordships may ask: Is this demanding work worthwhile? So much depends upon the motivation of the client and on his willingness to be helped and to help himself. The answer most surely must be, Yes. It is encouraging that in areas where treatment and rehabilitation facilities are available over a period to drug misusers this increases significantly the number enabled to live a more normal, socially acceptable and ultimately drug-free life. We need to know more about what factors make misusers of drugs more likely to seek help, and we can hope that as knowledge is gained and experience of providing effective responses is disseminated successes will become more widespread for the benefit of the drug misusers, their families and our society.
The Secretary of State for Social Services is far from complacent as to whether the present services are adequate to respond to the needs of drug treatment and rehabilitation. The problem has been changing. Not only is there the increase in opiate abuse shown in the recent notification figures, but a recent trend is multiple drug misuse, including opiates as well as other drugs which are not subject to the same control. In consequence, professionals working within the established hospital-based facilities are reviewing their roles. I repeat once more that services are patchy. Resources for statutory and voluntary services are constrained and the question must be asked: could they be better deployed to provide the range of help that is needed?
This is, however, a very difficult area. The advisory council, a statutory body set up under the Misuse of Drugs Act to advise the Government on all aspects on drug misuse hopes to produce reports on prevention, treatment and rehabilitation by about the end of this year. Meanwhile, the Department of Health and Social Security pump-primes innovation by statutory and voluntary agencies and provides research, for example, to determine how information on the nature and extent of drug misuse problems can be obtained in particular localities with a view to helping health and local authorities to make reliable assessments of the appropriate responses required from their services. Also the department, jointly with the Medical Research Council, funds the Addiction Research Unit whose work, it is hoped, may give new insights into dealing with this difficult problem.
I shall now attempt to answer some of the questions I have not yet turned to. My noble friend Lord St. Just referred to the black box and said that it definitely worked. He also said that he did not quite know how or why it worked, and I do not think that anybody else knows that yet, either. The question of whether the black box itself and the treatment works or whether it is some psychological operation is not yet decided, but it is entirely up to local health authorities to have the black boxes if they wish to have them. The choice of methods of treatment is for the medical profession and the funding of medical equipment and in-service training is for the decision of the health authorities.
The noble Marquess, Lord Tweeddale, raised the subject of cannabis. This subject has been raised many times before, so I think I must pay attention to that. The House will be aware that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs asked a group of eminent experts to assess the evidence of the effects of cannabis

911
use. The group's report, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House, states after very careful assessment that there is insufficient evidence to reach any incontestable conclusion and that more research is needed, especially with regard to long-term effects. As long as there is substantial uncertainty about the harm caused by cannabis the Government share the view expressed by the advisory council that a cautious approach to any change in the present law is necessary. Noble Lords will be aware of the danger that reducing the current penalties might be misinterpreted in certain quarters as an acknowledgement that the health risks involved in using cannabis have been exaggerated. That could lead to an increase in its use, and surely none of us would want to encourage that. The Government could not responsibly support a change in the law relating to cannabis as long as the dangers of using that drug are not adequately known. We do not intend to introduce or support legislation to alter the existing law concerning cannabis.
The right reverend Prelate, in his extremely interesting speech about the Midlands, referred to glue-sniffers. I will only say to him that we in the department have no evidence to suggest that those who abuse solvents or glue in their youth, later graduate to the abuse of hard drugs. I know that it is early days, so I hope that evidence of that kind will not come to us in the future.
The noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, referred to the financial problems of voluntary organisations which are doing valuable work in this field, and the right reverend Prelate mentioned the problems of funding local schemes for young people at risk. If the advisory council makes recommendations on changes in the arrangements for funding voluntary organisations or statutory treatment in rehabilitation services, these will receive consideration by health Ministers. But there would need to be compelling reasons for departing from the policy that provision of services is a matter for local decision and local initiatives by the health and local authorities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked about waiting lists. While I am aware of some difficulties, precise information cannot be obtained without disproportionate cost. The scale of services provided by a particular hospital is a matter for the district health authority to decide in the light of their assessment of local needs. But if the noble Baroness has other cases in mind, apart from the one in Manchester to which she referred, I shall be very glad if she will let me know. I am grateful for the information which she gave us about Glasgow.
The noble Baroness also asked about the registration of addicts. A person who is addicted to heroin may still receive heroin from a doctor in a drug treatment centre, and a general practitioner can still prescribe drugs, other than heroin or cocaine, to addicts. The major abuse problem in the 1960s was caused by doctors who were over-prescribing drugs to addicts. The present arrangements were introduced to combat this, following the recommendation of an interdepartmental committee chaired by the late Lord Brain.
The noble Baroness also referred to prevention measures. Experience has shown that the scaretactics
912
which were popular some years ago do not succeed in preventing people from experimenting with drugs. Evidence suggests that, as in other areas, a person can be well aware of the dangers of drug misuse and yet not be deterred from experimenting. Experts in this field argue now that a more positive approach is needed, which attempts to promote a healthy attitude to living in general and which does not concentrate specifically on drugs. A number of bodies have adopted this approach, particularly as regards health education in schools.
If I have not answered all the questions—and it is getting very late—I will certainly write to noble Lords. I have tried as quickly as I could to give an indication of the range of responses that are being made to what is undoubtedly, and regrettably, an increasing problem. I repeat that it would be wrong to suggest that there is any quick or easy answer, but that must not be an excuse for complacency. We need to respond in a cool and discriminating way, and to develop the expertise and the range of services that are already available. This will require a close and continuing partnership between the many agencies involved at local, national and international levels. The reports which are awaited from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs will, I am sure, make an major contribution to the development of policies and strategies for prevention, treatment and rehabilitation of drug misusers, and will assist in ensuring that available resources are used to the best advantage.

John Francis Dare and Gillian Loder Dare (Marriage Enabling) Bill [H.L.]
The Bill was reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
Hugh Small and Norma Small (Marriage Enabling) Bill [H.L.]
The Bill was reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
  LONDON TAXIS: EXTERIOR ADVERTISING
  LONDON TAXIS: EXTERIOR ADVERTISING
  HUNTING ON CROWN ESTATE AND GOVERNMENT-OWNED LAND
  HUNTING ON CROWN ESTATE AND GOVERNMENT-OWNED LAND
  IMMIGRANTS: AGE ASSESSMENT BY X-RAYS
  IMMIGRANTS: AGE ASSESSMENT BY X-RAYS
  THE PRISON STANDING ORDERS
  THE PRISON STANDING ORDERS
  THE ALCOHOL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH COUNCIL
  THE ALCOHOL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH COUNCIL
  CHEMICALS: CONTROL OF USE
  CHEMICALS: CONTROL OF USE
  THE SALERNO MUTINY
  THE SALERNO MUTINY
  IMMIGRANTS: SPECIAL VOUCHER APPLICATIONS OCTOBER-DECEMBER 1976
  IMMIGRANTS: SPECIAL VOUCHER APPLICATIONS OCTOBER-DECEMBER 1976
  SOMALIA: EEC AID
  SOMALIA: EEC AID
  SOMALIA: REFUGEE PROGRAMME
  SOMALIA: REFUGEE PROGRAMME
  EL SALVADOR: INSURANCE FOR OFFICIAL OBSERVERS
  EL SALVADOR: INSURANCE FOR OFFICIAL OBSERVERS
  USA/LIBYA DISPUTE: ADJUDICATION
  USA/LIBYA DISPUTE: ADJUDICATION
  POLAND: HUMAN RIGHTS INVESTIGATION
  POLAND: HUMAN RIGHTS INVESTIGATION
  IRAQ/IRAN CONFLICT: ISLAMIC MEDIATION
  IRAQ/IRAN CONFLICT: ISLAMIC MEDIATION
  EL SALVADOR ELECTION: UN RESOLUTION
  EL SALVADOR ELECTION: UN RESOLUTION
  AFGHANISTAN DAY
  AFGHANISTAN DAY
  THE "HOUSING BRIEF"
  THE "HOUSING BRIEF"
  HOLLAND: GAS SUBSIDY FOR HORTICULTURE
  HOLLAND: GAS SUBSIDY FOR HORTICULTURE
  TEACHER TRAINING: PUPILS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
  TEACHER TRAINING: PUPILS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
  EDUCATION OF CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
  EDUCATION OF CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
  POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS: AWARDS
  POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS: AWARDS
  THE TRIDENT PROGRAMME
  THE TRIDENT PROGRAMME