Sitting of 16 December 1983

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

    Income Tax Returns
    9.35 am
    Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I rise to present a petition:
    To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled:
    The humble Petition of Anthony John Miller, of Daisymouth House, Exeter Road, Ottery St. Mary, in the County of Devon, national Chairman of the Taxation Committee of the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Limited, sheweth:
    That whereas in a letter dated 5th May 1983 to Norman Miscampbell, Esq., MP, the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Nicholas Ridley MP, stated inter alia that
    "Section 29 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 requires the Inspector to make an estimate to the best of his judgment where the taxpayer has not made a return of his income, or the Inspector is dissatisfied with the Return. The Inspector is expected to exercise his judgment honestly and to do so by reference to any relevant material which might be available. This would include for example the evidence of past returns and profits, as well as his knowledge of profit trends and changes in prices and the cost of living";
    1296
    And whereas the practical effect is that some taxpayers, could be forced knowingly to send in false income tax Returns showing falsely inflated takings and profits because the Inspector refuses to accept an honest, accurate and true Income Tax Return, which refusal on the part of the Inspector involves the taxpayer in greater professional charges anent the consequent appeal than the extra tax payable from the inflated Return which is acceptable to the Inspector, or for the same reason with the connivance of the Inspector agrees to accept an additional liability to tax known to be false;
    Therefore your Petitioner humbly prays this honourable House to take the premises into consideration, and to do therein as to this honourable House shall seem meet.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Contraception (Under-age Girls)
    9.37 am
    Mr. David Atkinson: I have the honour to beg leave to present two petitions, worded in identical terms, one organised by Mr. and Mrs. Peter Lane, Mr. and Mrs. A. R. N. Carter and others, and another prepared by the Boscombe Corps of the Salvation Army, which together contain in total over 1,094 signatures of my constituents in Bournemouth, East,
    It calls on the Home Secretary to recommend to the House that parents must be given statutory rights to be considered before any contraceptive drugs or devices be given to their daughters whilst they are under 16.
    I have no doubt that this request—based, as it is, on article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that
    "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by Society and the State"—
    reflects the views of a great many of my constituents, and I am glad to be associated with it.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Electricity Prices
    9.39 am
    Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, the Leader of the House said that he would pass on to the Secretary of State for Energy my request during business questions for a statement to be made on electricity prices. This issue is of great concern to our constituents. It is being read about in the press and covered by the media, and I should have thought it only courteous of the Secretary of State for Energy to make a statement, although I know that energy questions will be dealt with on Monday. However, this incident is one more illustration of the way in which the House is being treated with disrespect. An important matter is not being put before the House. I should have thought that the Secretary of State for Energy would use the very first opportunity to explain the Cabinet's decision to force up energy prices next year.
    Mr. Speaker: I have no knowledge of any statement, and may not have knowledge of one until 10 am. As the hon. Gentleman has correctly said, there are energy questions on Monday and no doubt the matter can be dealt with then.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that you have not as yet heard anything about a statement, or about the row that is going on in the Cabinet between the Secretary of State for Energy and other Ministers. You will recall that last week an attempt was made at this very same time to secure an answer from the Dispatch Box, and as a result of the efforts that were made—no doubt you yourself played a small role — we managed to get the Minister to the Dispatch Box. There is a big row going on between the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Energy, and it is important that the Prime Minister should let the nation know whether the right hon. Gentleman has resigned or been sacked by her.
    Mr. Speaker: I think that I shall content myself with saying that I have no knowledge of any rows in the Cabinet or anywhere else.

Orders of the Day

  House Buyers Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  9.41 am
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I introduce this Bill because we live in a society in which every major party represented in the House is committed to a home-owning democracy, and to extending the spread of home ownership. It is a slow, painful process, but already 60 per cent. of our people own their own homes. That is a lower proportion than in Australia and New Zealand, but it is increasing rapidly. People are far more mobile in a home-owning democracy. Indeed, people change houses more frequently than ever before, and do so on average once every seven years. Therefore, house buying is important, and we can do much to improve the situation of our people if we make it easier, quicker and cheaper, as the Bill seeks to do.
  Despite the increasing proportion of home ownership and the increasing number of transfers, house buying is still in the age of the quill pen and it is almost as if people were still paying feudal fealties. It is slow, and certainly far slower than it need be in an age of computerisation and quick access to information. The process is complicated, because the strict compartmentalisation of the professions and organisations involved keeps them all in their separate boxes, attending to their particular activities, and so leaves the house buyer to co-ordinate all the efforts of the separate groups. The solicitors do the conveyancing, and then there are the estate agents, surveyors and building societies. It is up to the purchaser to bring them all together, and to keep them all working in step with one another, and to try to push the whole process along. That is difficult to do, particularly for a new generation of house buyers.
  Furthermore, the whole process is fraught, risky and aggravating. It is subject not only to delays but to the risks of breakdown of contract. The most glaring feature of all is that such things need not happen. The whole business could be as easy and straightforward as transferring a car's logbook. It is true that my Bill does not take us the whole way towards such a happy state of affairs. After all, it is not a script written by the Law Society, although we shall no doubt hear some such scripts today. Therefore, I shall not make any extravagant claims.
  However, the Bill removes some of the obstacles that prevent us from moving in that direction. The key obstacle and problem is the solicitors' monopoly of conveyancing, or more accurately their monopoly over drawing up the conveyancing document, for which no particular skills are required other than perhaps the ability to write and put names on a standard form. The origins of that monopoly go back to 1804.
  I have been deluged by mail on this subject. The overwhelming majority of letters have supported the Bill. However, I have also received letters from solicitors defending their vested interests. One such letter arrived late last night, which beseeched me to vote against my own Bill. In a snide way it said that it would be interesting to know of the origins. It said that it surely had something to do with consumer protection and that the House must

  1299
  have passed a measure for the protection of the consumer that would be abolished by my Bill. Of course, the contrary is true.
  The monopoly was conferred in 1804 by the first modern Tory—I suppose—Pitt the Younger, who gave the solicitors the monopoly of drawing up the conveyancing document as a useful quid pro quo for taxation which was being imposed on the profession. It was a convenient way of organising taxation. Therefore, despite the song and dance made about the conveyancing monopoly being a means of protecting the consumer, its origins are strictly fiscal. Indeed, it remained a fiscal measure right into this century.
  However, today conveyancing is a monopoly that prevents other people from doing solicitors' work and also prevents solicitors from competing with estate agents, as they do in Scotland. There they have property centres to provide a service to the customer. In addition, the monopoly prevents the development of a comprehensive service to the consumer. Such a comprehensive service would undoubtedly make house buying much easier, quicker and more straightforward by putting the consumer in touch with one organisation which could fulfil—if he so chose — his every need and carry out the whole process, from start to finish, for him. That would make the whole process easier and more straightforward, yet such a development is inhibited by the conveyancing monopoly.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: At some stage, will the hon. Gentleman be explaining how the conflicts of interest that will inevitably occur within a multi-purpose body such as a bank or building society—if it fulfils all those functions—are to be dealt with?
  Mr. Mitchell: Of course I shall do that, and I hope that the Solicitor-General will too, as I gather that the Government propose to extend the conveyancing monopoly only to building societies. That represents a rather bigger problem. On Second Reading we are dealing with the general principle of the Bill, and not with all the niggling details that will no doubt be raised by the posse of pedants who want to trip up the Bill by using Committee stage tactics.
  The development of property centres, which could speed up the whole process, and which could be provided by estate agents, solicitors, computer organisations, or even by building societies, could offer a comprehensive service, or one-stop shopping. This is being prevented by the present monopoly. That monopoly makes change in the system inordinately slow, because solicitors have no stimulus to innovate. The very fact that they have been unable to advertise means that even if they did innovate they could not tell anybody about it, or about how efficient their service is. They must prove their worth by pure and applied pedantry, and show how difficult the job is by the time taken to do it. They are so safe and secure in their monopoly that they do not need to change.
  Four years ago, the Benson Royal Commission on Legal Services recommended that solicitors should keep their monopoly of conveyancing. It was a misguided decision, but it was taken because that commission was considering the issue from a strictly professional viewpoint. It was considering it not from the consumers' point of view but from that of how to obtain a better
  1300
  organised profession. It saw the monopoly of conveyancing as forming the basis of that profession. That recommendation was made only as a result of a majority verdict. The recommendation was exactly the opposite of that made by the Hughes Commission on Scottish legal services. The recommendation was made on the basis that a series of changes would take place to improve efficiency and lower costs in conveyancing. Most of the changes have not been made. What stimulus is there to make them without competition?
  Mr. Nicholas Baker: The Royal Commission said that the consumer was protected by the standards of skill and expertise of the people, whoever they are, who deal with perhaps the most important transaction in a consumer's life. How can the consumer be protected in that vital transaction?
  Mr. Mitchell: The best protection for the consumer is competition. Competition will provide a better and more efficient service for the consumer. That is the essence of consumer protection. [HON. MEMBERS: "Never."]
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: That is Tory doctrine.
  Mr. Mitchell: In June this year Lord Benson said that, if the profession was as slow to change in the way that he wanted it to change in the next three years as it had been in the past four, it deserved to lose its monopoly. I agree. It deserves to lose it now. No other profession has such a monopoly.
  The legal profession is feather-bedded and that has stopped it from developing the full range of legal services that it provides for the community. It is concentrated where the house market is, not where legal services are required. It is not concentrated near the poor or where the problems are. The lack of competition has stopped the profession developing in an entrepreneurial fashion as it has in America.
  Mr. John Spence: Does the hon. Gentleman intend to apply his ideas not only to houses but to flats on long lease and to houses in multi-occupation? The hon. Gentleman keeps mentioning houses, but I do not know the definition of "houses".
  Mr. Mitchell: I am advised that the definition in the Bill is satisfactory. If it needs to be tighter, we can use the definition in the Housing Act 1980. That can be debated in Committee.
  If the legal profession is saying that solicitors cannot manage or exist without the conveyancing monopoly, it is asking house buyers to subsidise other legal services. That is the reason for the touching picture painted of country solicitors. How can the legal profession justify that? Why should people be asked to subsidise other services provided by the legal profession?
  Mr. Barry Porter: The hon. Member prayed in aid entrepreneurial activity in the United States. I refer him to the Royal Commission report, which states:
  "We are unanimous that a free-for-all in conveyancing would not be in the public interest, and are reinforced in this view by the information we have received about the practice in many parts of the United States where there is no limitation on the right of any person to undertake conveyancing."
  On what evidence does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the Amercian system is better than ours?
  Mr. Mitchell: On the west coast of America at least conveyancing is much cheaper and quicker than the service provided here by our solicitors.

  1301
  The important part of the Bill is clause 1 which ends the conveyancing monopoly in respect of domestic property on the land register. There is no definition of that but we could use the Housing Act definition if necessary. I deliberately restricted the Bill to property on the land register because the procedure is easy and straightforward. If complications arise people can turn to a solicitor. Entry on the land register guarantees title. My measure partially eases the monopoly to allow solicitors to adjust to the competition which will undoubtedly come. Solicitors will be able to adjust more gradually than they would if an attempt were made to remove the monopoly at one fell swoop.
  Just over 70 per cent. of property in Britain is in areas subject to registration. Not even reference to the land registry shows exactly how much property is unregistered. Probably about half domestic property would be freed from the monopoly.
  Mr. Tony Fave11: Although the land registry may guarantee title, many first-time buyers buy property on a housing estate from a builder. They cannot be sure that the part of the title that they purchase is guaranteed. How will the Bill protect such first-time buyers?
  Mr. Mitchell: If problems arise, the builder will have to turn to a solicitor. That is natural, inevitable and desirable.
  The proportion of registered land is much lower in country areas than it is in cities and towns. The country solicitor, about whose fate we hear so much, will be less affected by the measure than the urban solicitor. The Bill allows them the opportunity to show that their service is as good as they say it is.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way to someone who has come here to be converted, who is not a solicitor and who does not like to see an hon. Member being roughed up. The Achilles heel of the Bill is that, although it asks for financial guarantees from the people empowered to do conveyancing, it does not seem to require a qualification or knowledge of the law, or of the problems to which reference has been made. Is not that a grave deficiency?
  Mr. Mitchell: I shall deal with that later. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that in his home town of Grimsby the proportion of registered property is lower than in many other places.
  The Bill opens up competition in conveyancing to banks, building societies and licensed conveyancers. Two categories of licence are proposed. The first is for handling money. The second is a restricted licence and does not permit the handling of money. For a full licence it will be necessary to have such insurance or bonding as the Secretary of State may specify.
  The Bill's financial provisions ensure that the consumer's money is not endangered. It is up to the Secretary of State to define whether that is done by bonding through an organisation for conveyancing or through collective or individual insurance. I am sure from consultations, that those involved will be able to comply
  1302
  with those requirements, but if they cannot they will not be licensed. The Bill provides for a guarantee of customers' money.
  It is argued that educational or professional qualifications should be required. In many practices the work is already done by unqualified people. Solicitors may deny that, but as Mandy Rice-Davies said, they would, wouldn't they? Among my mail from people working in solicitors' offices are several letters telling the same story. One, from a lady who prefers to remain anonymous, states:
  "The fact that I am only employed as a part-time typist in a Solicitor's office but do the whole process of house conveyancing —including the preparation of deeds—without supervision and have done so for 20 years without any transaction at all going wrong would seem to point to strong evidence that it does not take a legal training or even great intelligence to undertake the work."
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Contrary to that view, the Benson report states that 70 per cent. of conveyancing is carried out by solicitors, and the remainder is carried out under the supervision of solicitors. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that I, as an efficient solicitor, would not for one moment justify the work carried out by that lady for so many years? If a firm employs clerks to carry out the written work, an efficient solicitor partner vets the transaction first to ensure that it is straightforward. If the clerk feels that he does not have sufficient expertise to deal with the transaction, he passes it back to the solicitor. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the whole duty of the solicitor system is that an expert is always at hand? How on earth can the hon. Gentleman claim that that pattern will be repeated if the Bill becomes law?
  Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is describing the procedure in a perfect solicitor's practice—that is, his practice. Most practices differ widely from that described by him. The evidence presented to the commission by solicitors can be nothing less than what they believe should take place, rather than what does take place.
  The letter I was guoting continued:
  "It is only rarely that a conveyancing transaction is out of the ordinary and the fact that more and more land is registered makes the whole process even simpler."
  It is argued that the Bill should require qualifications. As the essence of the monopoly is the preparation of a document, what qualifications can be prescribed for that? I have a document known as the "Transfer of Whole", which describes the house of Mrs. Judith April Seaton Tench that is being transferred to Mr. Austin Mitchell. Unfortunately, the document has not been filled in. What qualifications could we prescribe for the filling in of that document, apart from a measure of literacy? It would be difficult for the Secretary of State or the Government to prescribe examinations to fulfil that requirement.
  The best qualification for doing the job is experience at the job. With the backing and bonding required under the Bill, a conveyancer can provide the same efficient service as a solicitor. Indeed, solicitors themselves do not provide the full range of services that are necessary in most conveyancing transactions. For example, they do not go to see the house on the spot; they do not find out whether the neighbours are obnoxious; whether the neighbours' son has a drum kit that he plays all night; whether the National Coal Board is operating only a field away and so on. Many difficulties can arise, especially between neighbours.

  1303
  Before the Bill appeared, the Law Society pointed out in its brief to its members in October that to require qualifications would simply replace one monopoly by another, and that that would require a cumbersome framework of regulation. It was right to say that. But when the Bill was published, and did not prescribe qualifications, the Law Society then insisted that it should do so. The Law Society wants it both ways.
  The question of qualifications is a matter for the Committee stage. If the Committee wants qualifications prescribed, that can be resolved in Committee. It is unreasonable to begin a detailed examination of the alternatives now. I have opted for what I believe to be a practical, workable, straightforward and simple system —and that is all that is necessary. If anything else is considered necessary, that can be discussed in Committee.
  The Committee, if it so wished, could insert provisions for qualifications similar to those in section 22 of the Estate Agents Act 1979. However, we must remember that that requirement for qualifications was never brought into force because of the difficulties of operating that sort of framework.
  Clause 2 allows solicitors to advertise. Indeed, they will want to advertise their property services as competition develops.
  Clause 3 facilitates the computerisation of local land charge registers and allows interchange at a later date. That can develop only over a long period. It also suggests that pressure should be brought on local authorities to speed up searches. It provides for a rebate of fees where the search is dilatory. We all know that many local authorities can be dilatory in their search procedures, and that that is one important reason why chains build up.
  As part of the research for the Bill, I asked the Consumers Association to request searches from 20 local authorities. With one exception, they were chosen at random. The Bill requires that half of the fee should be repaid if the search is not completed within 14 days. Four local authorities replied within the 14 days, and among those were two of the foremost authorities—Sheffield and Great Grimsby. Eight authorities replied before 28 days — after which the whole fee is repayable. One authority replied after 29 days and the other seven — Barking, Blaby, Lambeth, Sedgemoor, Three Rivers and Tunbridge Wells—are still outstanding. Such delays are unreasonable.
  The Bill will bring pressure on local authorities to speed up the search process. It is all very well for local authorities to say that people can have recourse to the Ombudsman, but that is an even slower and more difficult process. The only pressure that will speed up the search process is the provision to rebate fees. It is the red light on the dashboard that warns local authorities that there will be a loss of money. Without such a provision, there is no pressure on local authorities to increase their staffing to the level required to provide an efficient service and, at a later date, to computerise the system. I see no reason why the consumer should pay for a dilatory service that costs him both money and time.
  Clauses 4 and 5 introduce a simple and effective provision that allows the vendor to commission a survey that will be valid for the purposes of both the purchaser and the building society, as though the building society had commissioned it. It is an important and permissive measure. As this is a conservative House and a conservative country, I did not want to impose change or
  1304
  be dictatorial in my approach. However, I believe this to be a good measure because it amounts to a warrant of fitness for the house.
  The vendor will have before him, in black and white, a detailed survey carried out by a professionally qualified person, setting out what is wrong and what is right with the house. That will end the present practice, under which most people buy a house without having it surveyed. Some commission a survey, but if the deal falls through they then have a survey but no house, which is a waste of their money. The building society insists on its own survey, for its own purposes — which appear to be restricted to discovering whether the house will stand up for the 25-year term of the mortgage. That odd and curious system will be put right by the Bill.
  The time will come when purchasers will demand such a survey from the vendor. They will be suspicious if a full report is not provided. Purchasers will want an accurate description of the house on which they can rely.
  That then is my Bill. It constitutes collectively a major improvement for the house buyer. It will bring down the cost of buying a house. After all, the Law Society says that conveyancing costs have come down 13 per cent. in real terms since the Price Commission reported in 1973 and since competitive tenders began. There is still a long way to go. We could well secure another fall of that scale.
  Indeed, despite competitive tenders in some areas of the country the range of competition is often narrow. Again, as part of the research for the Bill, I asked the Consumers Association to find out in two parts of the country which interested me—it has also found the information for other parts of the country — what was the range of competitive tenders. The Consumers Association telephoned and asked 20 solicitors in Grimsby for tenders. Eleven of the 20 were telephoned in November 1983 and were asked to give estimates for the cost of conveyancing — six for a freehold house at an asking price of £38,000, five for a leasehold house at an asking price of £23,000. Of those solicitors, four of the 11 made the point that all the solicitors in the Grimsby area charged about the same amount. They were reluctant to give a quotation although they did so. There was a significant difference in the charges quoted for the £38,000 property, which ranged from £482 to £590, but on the £23,000 house there was no significant variation. The price quoted ranged from £420 to £440. That looks odd, does it not? That is a variation of £20 in competitive tenders for conveyancing work on that house. In Scunthorpe, the prices varied but on average were lower than the charges suggested in Grimsby for the equivalent house.
  Competitive tendering is not producing a wide range of bids, particularly in the smaller centres such as Grimsby and Scunthorpe, from which the consumer can choose. There is considerable room for prices to come down and my Bill puts on the pressure to bring them down by the only feasible way—through competition. It takes us into the computer age and allows the development of comprehensive services that can only benefit the consumer.
  What stands between the Bill's enactment and the people of this country who want the Bill, who will benefit from the Bill and who will have more efficient services as a result of it is the vested interest of the legal profession, which is here today in a rare display of attendance and participation which is welcome and which we hope will be sustained for the rest of this Parliament. The solicitors are

  1305
  perhaps the Sinn Fein of the legal profession, the political arm of the profession. Indeed, the Law Society is behaving in this matter like the provisional wing of the legal profession. Some hon. Members are here today with a passionate desire to defend something that is completely out of place in this day and age. The way the Law Society has behaved in defending its monopoly brings to the fore the whole issue of the role of professional responsibility and leadership in organisations such as the Law Society.
  As I see it, it is the responsibility of leadership to lead, to tell followers what the reality is, to help them to adjust to change when change becomes inevitable and not to demonstrate a backwoods, instinctive, negative reaction to change. The service provided by lawyers is on the whole good. If it is good people will continue to use it when it is competitive but they will use it out of choice and not because they are forced to use it. That is the important point. If the service is that good it will survive. When conveyancing becomes competitive many people will continue to use solicitors. They may have an established relationship with a solicitor and trust him. They may fear legal complications and so will want to use a solicitor.
  The important point is that people should use solicitors through choice. When the service provided by solicitors is that good, a responsible leadership should say to its followers, "Let us take the opportunity that the measure provides of a partial adjustment and gradual introduction to competition. Let us take the inoculation to change. Let us offer our experience of the regulation and management of conveyancing. Let us see how in consultation we can improve the Bill."
  That is the responsible course. It is a test that the Law Society has failed. By taking this obscurantist, backwoods approach, by setting out from the first to destroy the Bill rather than to improve or change it, by constantly making negative criticisms of the Bill, the Law Society has lost the opportunity to provide a great bonus for the house buyer and has contributed to the demise of this monopoly. The Law Society has brought this monopoly to the forefront of public attention and has produced the reaction we have seen among the public and in the press. The Law Society has guaranteed that the monopoly will go and that it will go because the public want it to go.
  This is not a party political measure. It is introduced by a Labour Member which is appropriate because hon. Members change houses more often than most sections of the community and Labour Members in the present political climate tend to change more than most hon. Members. It is not a party political measure, although it was in our manifesto. Competition is a central part of Conservative philosophy and of the Conservative manifesto, and is a declared aim of the Government. It is a measure to which the Liberals and Social Democrats are strongly sympathetic. They believe in the same objectives. Most of all, it is a measure for the people. I am aware that the Bill must have faults. I have not found them, but I am in a sense the proud progenitor. It is difficult for a private Member who is not equipped with the resources and expertise of Government to develop a word-perfect Bill, particularly when the Government are bound to take a superior attitude—the Bill is an amateur effort—and will perhaps today confine themselves to praising the Bill
  1306
  with faint damns. It is even less easy when it is opposed by the Law Society, which is judge and jury in its own case.
  The Bill may have its imperfections but that does not mean that it should be rejected. It means that the normal course of action on this type of Bill should be followed, that it should be made perfect in Committee. We should agree today the general principle, which is an important principle and a major step forward, and we should go on in Committee to make the Bill perfect. The Government have a responsibility to the measure—not to praise it with faint damns, but a real responsibility.
  When a private Member's Bill goes into Committee, the Government normally shepherd, cosset and guide, helping to shape the Bill in the direction that they prefer. The Bill offers a vehicle for the Government to achieve what they want to achieve in respect of competition and of the monopoly of conveyancing. It is the Government's responsibility to see, first, whether the Bill is acceptable to the House, which I think it will be, because it is sensitive to public opinion which demands it, and, secondly, whether it fits in with the general tenor of Government policy, particularly towards competition. If it fulfils both those criteria—the Bill undoubtedly does —the Government have a responsibility to improve the material of the Bill in Committee.
  That is what I want the Government to do and what I hope they will do. I hope that they will offer every co-operation in Committee to carry out the improvements that they want. We will be co-operative. The Bill has sponsors from all four major parties.
  Apparently, though, that is not what the Government intend to do. For weeks, Ministers have dithered, pulled one way by the vested interests of their legal friends and pulled another by everythng they have said about competition. We have seen for several weeks the smack of firm indecision in Government circles as they have been unable to make up their mind. Yesterday they decided; they decided not to decide.
  The Government have decided to go in for what amounts to a confidence trick. I hope that the rumours are incorrect — we shall know later from the SolicitorGeneral—but judging from yesterday's rumours, which is what I am basing myself on, the Government have decided to go in for what amounts to a confidence trick. They are pretending to do something in order to buy off those Conservatives, of whom there are many, who rightly support the measure because they believe that it implements principles that the Government would like to see implemented; in other words, to draw them off and then not do anything.
  What is being suggested will not end the monopoly, and without its end we cannot achieve the other changes that are necessary to bring in real competition and bring down the price of conveyancing. Instead, the Government have decided to allow solicitors in building societies, and perhaps in banks, to do conveyancing. Solicitors will still be doing it. There will be no end to the monopoly. Solicitors employed by other people will still be doing the conveyancing. That is not real competition and there can be no effect on prices without the competition that this measure would introduce.
  The Government's proposal—if that is what it is—appears to mean only that building societies, without restriction or supervision, will be able to say, "Of course

  1307
  you can have a mortgage"— we are reminded of the Solicitor-General's description of the poor of London—"providing that you do your conveyancing with us, in the same way as you take out your insurance with us." It puts the building societies in too strong a position, without the guarantee of competition among the conveyancers which my Bill proposes. If that is the Solicitor-General's alternative to my measure, then, so far as I can see—we await his words with great anxiety and interest, particularly, I because a lot has gone into this measure —it will not be satisactory. Nor will it do the solicitors any good. In fact, if they will be facing that type of competition from building societies, and if it is to be extended to the whole range of property, registered and unregistered, I expect to see them in the Lobby on my side, voing for the Bill, to put off what will undoubtedly be worse from their point of view, for my measuure at least allows them to adjust to change in a sensible way.
  The public will not like the Government's approach either, because it will do nothing for the consumer, nothing for the Government's credibility and nothing to bring down prices. However, it does a lot to get the Government out of the hole they have dug for themselves. Let us be clear: it is a buying-off manoeuvre, not a real change of the kind that the country wants and that the measure proposes. We shall wait to hear exactly what the Government have to say and its time scale, but if the preliminary indications are correct it does not look as though it will be satisfactory.
  Few measures in recent times, particularly private Members' Bills, have struck so strong a chord of popular sympathy and support as this Bill. That the public want it is shown not only by the enormous amount of mail that I have received in support of it—the support has been overwhelming, though of course there have been criticisms from solicitors, as was to be expected—but by the Marplan survey commissioned by the Consumers Association. In a survey of 1,400 adults, 46 per cent. thought that the solicitors' monopoly should be ended and only 20 per cent. thought it a good thing. Of 899 house buyers in that sample, 67 per cent. thought that others should be allowed to do conveyancing and only 12 per cent. thought that others should not.
  As for the press, every editorial in the national newspapers and every newspaper that has written about the Bill has supported it, a unique chorus of support for a Bill. The Times wrote that the Government
  "would do well to enact the Bill and take the protestations of the solicitors with a pinch of salt".
  We shall hear from the solicitors today; let us rub in some salt.
  The Daily Express wrote:
  "The solicitors' cosy little monopoly has no more justification than the one the Social Services Secretary, Mr. Norman Fowler, is about to end."
  The Daily Telegraph:
  "Closed shops are not the less to be deplored because the participants are drawn from the middle classes."
  The Daily Mail:
  "We give wholehearted support to Mr. Austin Mitchell's private member's bill."
  The Daily Mail today in an editorial headed, "Shameful Tory Surrender", said:
  "what… the Government… have in mind is that … the solicitors' monopoly of conveyancing will be unimpaired … It looks as if Mrs. Thatcher has allowed her populist instincts to be
  1308
  pushed aside in order to placate an interest group which is ridiculously over-represented in the House of Commons and which, in this matter, has been shamelessly self-serving."
  The Guardian said:
  "The Bill should prove a godsend to house buyers "
  It will. The Daily Mirror:
  "The legal monopoly of house conveyancing is a State supported racket."
  The Sun—after what it said about me yesterday, this must be the most important source one could find—stated:
  "We know that, as expected, Margaret Thatcher and Norman Tebbit support the Bill. Why is it that so often they seem to be the only top Tories with any idea of what the voters expect of them?"
  Why indeed? Why is it that their resolute approach has failed in the face of the special pleading and the pressure group tactics of the Law Society and in the face of the wrath of the Lord Chancellor? This monopoly is odious, unpopular and contrary to the spirit of the age, and it must go.
  The Secretary of State for Social Services said on 28 November:
  "all laws which create a monopoly have to be examined to see whether, under the cloak of public protection, there is not simply too much protection for the seller … We believe that the most important person is the customer. Customers should have the right to make an informed choice and to have more information and lower prices." — [Official Report, 28 November 1983; Vol. 49, c. 437–39.]
  If that spirit of competition is important in industry—if it is important to opticians—how much more important is it in a property-owning democracy in which 60 per cent. of the people own their own houses, in which they change houses every seven years and in which the house represents the major purchase of their lives?
  10.28 am
  Sir Walter Clegg: I must begin by declaring an interest, as a member of the quill pen brigade and the posse of pedants and various other vituperative adjectives that have been hurled at my profession this morning. I am a practising solicitor. My firm does a large amount of conveyancing and I am pleased to say, being immodest, that it does it very successfully.
  I have another interest to declare as an investor in building societies. Obviously they hope to make a profit as a result of the Bill should it receive a Second Reading and reach the statute book. I am also the chairman of the all-party solicitors' group, which has an obvious interest in the Bill.
  We had the usual jolly speech from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) taking us at a swift canter through the Bill, and I shall reply to some of the points that he made in criticism of my profession.
  Since the hon. Gentleman announced his intention to bring in the Bill there has been considerable publicity about it. I was always aware that politicians and lawyers were not the most popular members of society. Indeed, as Shakespeare said in Henry VI about rebels and their leaders:
  "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
  I have never been one to underestimate the unpopularity of these twin professions, but if I needed convincing of that I needed only to listen to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and read this morning's Daily Mail. I am sure that if the press had its way all the lawyers in the House of Commons would be merrily rolling in a tumbril from Fleet Street to Tyburn, and I should be in good company,

  1309
  not only with my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister, who was a member of the Bar, but with sundry other hon. Members of repute.
  The Bill has received much publicity. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby is correct in saying that, as many people own their houses, more people have experience of conveyancing transactions, and the trend is bound to grow. The Bill promises that transactions will be cheaper through competition and that it will increase protection for those who wish to buy or sell houses.
  It has been assumed that there is no competition within the solicitors' branch of the legal profession. That used to be the position when I commenced practising after the war. Under the system of scales there was effectively no price competition. Nowadays, however, considerable competition exists among legal firms for conveyancing transactions and it is not unusual for firms to be asked for quotations and for prospective clients to shop around. That position arose as a result of the removal of the scales by the Lord Chancellor, and has proved to be of advantage and benefit.
  I have been told by the National Association of Conveyancers, whose members are unqualified, that it handles thousands of conveyancing cases, and has done so especially in the past 15 years. To say that we are dealing with a monopoly would be strange. Competition within the so-called monopoly comes from persons who are not members of the legal profession. Does the hon. Member for Great Grimsby expect those people to become registered conveyancers under the Bill, as there seems little incentive for them to do so?
  The long title of the Bill states that its aim is to
  "Extend competition and to protect consumers in relation to the provision of services in connection with the transfer of ownership of real property in England and Wales".
  The Royal Commission on legal services, chaired by Lord Benson, was in no doubt about the importance of protection for clients. The commission stated on page 253 of its report:
  "It follows that it is essential that, in his relationship to a conveyancer, the client should be protected from: (a) dishonesty or carelessness with money; (b) ignorance and incompetence; and (c) a level of charges higher than is fair and reasonable."
  We must examine the Bill to establish how it deals with those matters. Clause 1 provides for the licensing of two sorts of conveyancer—the restricted conveyancer, who I understand will not handle money, and the full conveyancer, who will. Be the conveyancer restricted or not, he must provide evidence
  "of insurance policies or other security or indemnity for the discharge of any liabilities which he may incur in the course of his business as a conveyancer",
  as determined by the Secretary of State.
  The object of the clause, I assume, is to guard against carelessness, ignorance and incompetence. There is no evidence in the Bill to show that the person acting as a restricted or unrestricted conveyancer need be qualified. The hon. Gentleman's argument is that, given good insurance cover, such a person should be allowed to practise, and that the judge should be the Secretary of State.
  A condition of the Law Society's scheme is compulsory insurance cover against negligence. Such insurance is costly. Not only does its policy cover ordinary negligence,
  1310
  but it contains a non-disclosure clause, which is expensive and increases the premium. Even if negligence is not disclosed, the client can obtain compensation.
  Mr. Budgen: Has my hon. Friend inquired of Lloyd's how much more expensive it would be for a less qualified conveyancer to insure himself compared with a solicitor?
  Sir Walter Clegg: I have not. It would be common sense to provide that anybody insuring against professional negligence would have to produce a track record or to demonstrate some form of professional competence or qualification. It may well prove difficult for a conveyancer under the provisions of the Bill to obtain such insurance if the standard of protection offered is to be the same as the Law Society's scheme. It would be radically unfair if the Secretary of State insisted on anything less from unqualified conveyancers than from solicitors.
  A major difficulty with the Bill, to which the hon. Gentleman has not addressed himself, involves dishonesty or carelessness with money. I understand that it is impossible for a person to insure himself against his own dishonesty, and solicitors do not. They have a fund to which they contribute annually to provide compensation against solicitors who default or run away with clients' money.
  How on earth would such a system operate for unrestricted conveyancers? I assume that they would have to form groups, and have to prove to the Secretary of State that they had previously run their businesses properly. If they had not previously been conveyancers, how could that be done? The hon. Member for Great Grimsby implied that such matters were nitty gritty issues for Committee. I wish to know how such matters will work in practice, and that is one of my objections to the Bill.
  Mr. Ken Weetch: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with great respect. Groups of non-solicitor conveyancers throughout the country—one such group conveyed my property when I moved into my constituency, and when I moved subsequently—have a corporate policy covered by an umbrella contract, which insures each of the independent conveyancers against dishonesty and fraud. A corporate insurance policy is negotiated which covers against dishonesty. The insurance provision for independent non-solicitor firms throughout the country is perfectly satisfactory. I have examined the issue.
  Sir Walter Clegg: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has a long-standing interest in these matters. He has espoused the cause of the non-qualified conveyancer for some time. However, in June or July he said that if there were to be competition some technical qualification would be needed, but that is singularly lacking in the Bill. However, in an untried market, the cost could be substantial and may not lead to the amount of competition about which the hon. Member for Great Grimsby is talking.
  Mr. Michael Shersby: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Law Society's scheme cannot be repudiated? What is the cost to the average solicitor of participating in the scheme?
  Sir Walter Clegg: My firm has a non-repudiation policy that costs more than £40,000 a year. However, on average, the cost would be £1,000 to £1,500 for each partner.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: That is not just for conveyancing.
  Sir Walter Clegg: I did not say that it was, but it covers a solicitor's conveyancing practice.
  The Bill would have us say to insurance companies, "You judge whether this man is fit to be a conveyancer." Insurance companies will be asked whether a person should be allowed to hold clients' money. The sums involved can be large in a busy conveyancing practice. The House would not wish to let loose on the public those whose only test of competence has been conducted by an insurance company. The House should set its own standards.
  It has been argued frequently that conveyancing is a simple matter which anyone can do without training. If it is that easy, why do we need 730 grammes worth of the Consumers Association's brief for the House of Commons? If the hon. Member for Great Grimsby believes that most of my colleagues have read it, he had better think again.
  There is nothing magical or difficult in drawing up the document of transfer, but there is much more to conveyancing than that. It is only part of the service provided by the solicitor. Most solicitors would like their clients to come to them before they buy or sell their houses, when they can advise them of the proper steps to take. If his client is a vendor, the solicitor can begin searches and drawing up contracts so that time is saved. However, often people consult solicitors only after they have bought or sold a house through an estate agent.
  Solicitors must ask their clients, "Can you really afford it?" It is surprising how many persuasive estate agents can convince a couple that this is just the house for them. The solicitor must also ask, "How much money will you get for your old house?" If we seem to be a cautious profession, it is because we know that a client needs the money from the sale of his old house before he can buy another. The cost of bridging loans from banks is extremely high. Solicitors must know the law on inheritance and what will happen to the house if the person dies. We also advise on the matrimonial consequences of buying a house in joint names. We must consider mistresses, planning permission and a range of other matters.
  Mr. Cormack: No one would have any doubt about my hon. Friend's probity, and everyone would wish to use his firm of solicitors, since it obviously provides a comprehensive and marvellous service, but is that service necessary for the average first-time buyer of a small house on an estate in a constituency such as mine, which has many such estates, where the price is fairly standard, and where the building society has a good rule of thumb on how much it will lend?
  Sir Walter legg:In one word, yes. It is a complex issue. There may also be problems with capital transfer tax, although that affects only a minority of clients. I understand that the Bill provides that title will be guaranteed by the Land Registry, because it refers only to registered land. However, from experience, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that problems are caused not so much by bad title as by peripheral matters such as rights of way and restrictive covenants. The Bill also provides that a licensed conveyancer could deal with long registered leaseholds. However, leaseholds represent a minefield of difficulty for
  1312
  solicitors, who must consider the obligations which the tenant will undertake. Only someone trained in the law of leaseholds and their consequences can do that properly.
  The Bill's major deficiency is that it provides no test for competence. It could be argued that one does not need the whole of legal training to be able to act as a conveyancer, but the Bill does not even provide for training for conveyancing. I do not know how the Consumers Association, which is the body behind the Bill, could have backed a measure that will inflict on the public people who have no experience of conveyancing. It seems contrary to everything for which that organisation stands.
  Mr. Christopher Chope: Is my hon. Friend arguing that do-it-yourself conveyancing should be outlawed? If he is not arguing that, should it not be left to the house purchaser to decide whether he wishes to take advantage of the expert service of a solicitor or to have something slightly short of that?
  Sir Walter Clegg: Do-it-yourself conveyancing is not outlawed at present. Anyone who wishes to do his conveyancing may do so, but he will not find it as easy as the pamphlet suggests. The object of the Bill is to provide competition, but the House should say that that competition must be competent and trained.
  Mr. Toby Jessel: Does my hon. Friend believe that competent service should be obtainable in future at a rather lower cost? Is it not true that clients who are buying or selling houses are almost compelled by the present system to subsidise the solicitor's other clients? Why should a constituent of mine who wishes to buy or sell a house be forced to subsidise another client—for example, someone getting a divorce? Is not the system inequitable, are not the public right to be concerned about it and does my hon. Friend agree that it should be ended?
  Sir Walter Clegg: Everyone is involved in conveyancing and it should certainly be improved. I do not for a moment subscribe to the argument that solicitors use the proceeds of conveyancing to subsidise other part; of their practices. Solicitors who have written to my colleagues saying that that is so do themselves an injustice. No attempt is made to do such a thing in my practice. It would be entirely wrong and I have no patience with that argument.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: This aspect is important to me in making up my mind about the Bill. The hon. Gentleman, as a solicitor in a country area, has spoken in a way that illustrates the wide concerns of a solicitor. I have here a letter from a man who thinks that he is in my constituency, but because of the boundary changes in fact is not. I do not sneer at him for that. It simply shows that he knows the local area and that the Boundary Commission did not. He says that his firm is just about the only solicitors' firm in my part of the city and provides a service which is
  "not one that many of my more distinguished colleagues in the Law Society would take on board, since it is largely a Legal Aid practice."
  He then gives a list of the work done by that firm and goes on to say that
  "the main point is that the house buyers effectively help to keep this office open so that we can do Legal Aid work at a loss."
  I believe that solicitor's words. If legal aid work has to be subsidised in that way the Government should do something about the legal aid system, but that is another

  1313
  matter. The point at issue today is that many solicitors clearly use conveyancing to subsidise other work, which means that they must be charging too much for conveyancing.
  Sir Walter Clegg: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point and I appreciate the position of the firm to which he refers, but I do not envisage that situation continuing. With the new competitiveness in conveyancing, that will no longer happen. Firms charging high prices will be attacked by other members of the profession, because there is no standard charge. Legal aid perhaps requires more subsidy than it currently receives, but I do not intend to go into that now.
  Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are now many more new entrants to the profession and that a considerable number of young solicitors are unemployed? Surely that means that where a cartel exists it will inevitably be eaten into by new young solicitors putting up their plates.
  Sir Walter Clegg: That is a good point. When young solicitors put up their plates they always want to compete with the more established firms. One of the best ways of doing that now, which was impossible when I was younger, is to undercut the bigger firms. That is why I have stressed that there is already strong competition in the profession.
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I have received 11 letters from solicitors backing the Law Society and two supporting the Bill. Of the former, 10 use the cross-subsidisation argument which my hon. Friend disowns. Is he disowning it on behalf of the Law Society, as it is clearly not rare?
  Sir Walter Clegg: I am not the creature of the Law Society. I am a Member of Parliament and the views that I express are my own. I disagree entirely with those who say that we use conveyancing for cross-subsidisation. If we do, we should not.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The point has been made to me and to many other hon. Members that, especially in rural areas, if a large part of the income of the practice derives from conveyancing there is less likely to be competition because the chance of several firms surviving in a village or small town is clearly smaller than it is elsewhere. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the number of firms and the amount and percentage of income involved in cross-subsidisation? I appreciate that the need for a reallocation in relation to legal aid is a different matter, but cross-subsidisation inevitably implies that conveyancing charges are higher than they should be. The hon. Gentleman has not answered that case. If there is substance in the case, does he agree that the present rules of competition in the profession do not protect the public because they do not produce the competitive rates which would otherwise be available?
  Sir Walter Clegg: I thought that I had made it clear that there is now considerable competition from both within and outside the profession, as the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) will confirm. On the matter of increased competition affecting rural practices, I perhaps disagree with some of my colleagues in the profession, as I believe that the country practices are least threatened. If
  1314
  a new breed of licensed conveyancers are let loose I cannot see them going into remote country areas. They will go to places where there are lots of houses. Therefore, I believe that the fears of some of my colleagues are misguided in that respect. It would be quite wrong for the profession to try to sustain the cross-subsidisation theory because it would be thoroughly unfair if people seeking divorces paid less and were subsidised out of the conveyancing fees.
  Another innovation in clause 1 would allow banks and building societies to set up conveyancing shops. I shall not comment on the Government's intentions, as I am waiting for Godot in the shape of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General to tell us what the Government intend to do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Godot never came."] If banks and building societies are allowed to set up their own conveyancing businesses, it seems strange to suggest that there is no conflict of interest between banks and their customers or building societies and their borrowers. It has never seemed to me that the interests of money lenders and borrowers necessarily coincide. Again, this aspect of competition does not greatly worry me as, unlike the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, I cannot imagine licensed conveyancers or solicitors sitting in high street branch offices ready to deal with people as they come in. What is much more likely is that there will be some remote central point to which the house buyer will have to go.
  My profession will be capable of standing up to such competition, provided that it is fair, and provided that the banks and building societies are not subsidising their conveyancing from their profits or offering loans to pay the legal fees over the long term, which in the end would cost the client far more at the rates of interest now being charged.
  Mr. John Ryman: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the point about banking and building societies, is not the reality that building societies in particular—the general manager of the Halifax building society said this the other day publicly — are very anxious to get in on the conveyancing business, and that their attraction for potential purchasers is that no cash has to be paid by the purchaser to the building society? Instead, it is all added to the loan and this is repaid over the years, together with the mortgage. This is rather like giving a free refrigerator or a free piece of furniture to potential house buyers as an incentive to buy a particular house. The building society, which is anxious to compete, will dangle this bait in front of potential purchasers and tell them that if they conveyance on credit there will be no need to pay cash on completion of the conveyance.
  Sir Walter Clegg: Solicitors' costs can already be paid over a period of time. This is something that we shall have to face. The on-cost will have to be pointed out clearly to the potential client by the building society. I am interested in the Halifax building society, because not only am I a depositor with it, but my firm is an agent for it. It should look at matters carefully to consider who have been its friends over the years in getting deposits for it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Oh yes—why not? We have been taking the humpy all morning. It is time that somebody else did.
  Sir Edward Gardner: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Royal Commission on legal services made it clear,

  1315
  from the evidence that it received, that the building societies and banks are not prepared to entrust conveyancing to anyone other than a qualified solicitor?
  Sir Walter Clegg: That is true. I cannot see them queuing up to use unqualified or restricted or unrestricted people. They would find it a costly operation.
  Mr. Michael Carttiss: Does my hon. Friend agree that the gravest aspect of the Bill is that it would remove the independent legal adviser from the scene? When a bank or a building society is negotiating a mortgage as well as conveyancing property, the purchaser puts himself lock, stock and barrel into the hands of the moneylenders and does not have an independent legal adviser who sees things at arm's length and whose duty it is to protect his client's interests.
  Sir Walter Clegg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I could not have put it better myself.
  Clause 3 deals with local land charges. On this, I have a common cause with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby —the delay is atrocious. One of my colleagues who practises in London told me that searches can take as long as three months, and although a personal search is time-consuming, if one gets an agent that costs an extra £80. We are in the hands of the local authorities. This may not be the right time, but the hon. Member for Great Grimsby is on to an important point which the Law Society—that wicked creature — has been pursuing with the local authorities over the past year or so. One of the difficulties which the Law Society is up against is the independence of local authorities. No Government Department can control or tell them what to do. This matter must be looked into because it is a source of infinite delay, and delay for which we cannot accept responsibility. We do the searches as soon as we know that there will be a transaction.
  Clause 4 is another attempt to speed up the conveyancing transactions. I have some sympathy with the idea that there should be a standard report which the vendor can produce, which can be followed up by the purchaser. That might work quite well for the structural survey, but I am doubtful about the practical consequences of valuation. One is asking a valuer to say that a house is worth, for example, £35,000, but for how long will that house stay at that value, because the market fluctuates up or down as the fashion in districts changes? How long will it be before we have litigation over whether the valuation was correct? If a purchaser puts the house on the market four years later and does not get the price that he paid for it, is he likely to complain?
  There will be much trouble getting surveyors to give such valuations, which will extend their liability so far. He can give a valuation on the physical construction value of the house, but not on its total value. Nevertheless, the Bill is a pointer to the way and perhaps we should get together with other professions to try to iron out the non-legal aspects of conveyancing to see whether they can be improved.
  Mr. Favell: The problem with clauses 4 and 5 is that if the vendor does not like the first valuation he can go to another surveyor, and possibly a third, fourth or fifth until he does get one that he likes. Under those circumstances, how is the purchaser to know which of the five is the best or the worst? There is the same problem for the business that is lending money on valuation.
  Sir Walter Clegg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.
  The Law Society will permit advertising soon and I welcome that. It is pity that we have not had it more quickly than we have, but we shall have to await the outcome to see what its effect will be. This is an added on-cost and that argument has to be taken into account. We hope that advertising will be productive and attract more business, and that solicitors will welcome it even more.
  I have been through the provisions of the Bill and sought to show that in its present form it is not a practical proposition. I do not believe the hon. Member for Great Grimsby when he says that the deficiencies can be put right in Committee. That would be a tremendous task to ask of any Committee. I am loth to comment on the drafting of the Bill by a Back Bencher, because it is a difficult and skilful job to draft or amend legislation. However, The Guardian assured us that the Bill was carefully drafted with the help of the Consumers Association. However, it is sloppily drafted and is incapable of rational change.
  I do not ask the House to accept my view, but that of Lord Benson in a letter to The Times on Wednesday l4 December, in which he said:
  "Sir, The House Buyers Bill, which is shortly to be debated in Parliament, is crudely drawn and ill thought-out. The provisions which are necessary for the protection of the public are spelt out either inadequately or not at all, such as the definition of the transactions which are to be encompassed by the Bill; education and training; post-qualification education; protection of clients' money; standard of professional work; discipline; insurance; compensation and many others …
  But it would be wrong to load the whole, or even the major part, of the blame on the legal profession. Many others involved in the conveyancing process have, for years past, been equally sluggish, including Government departments, local authorities, building societies and others.
  All of them should work together on a concerted plan. This was examined with care and set out in painstaking detail in the report of the Royal Commission…It would, I suggest, be a convenient starting point for the reforms which are necessary for the public benefit."
  I could not agree more. That is all that I have to say.
  11.11 am
  Mr. John Morris: My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has done a great service by introducing the Bill, which has concentrated wonderfully the minds of those involved in conveyancing. I hope that it will be revealed that it has concentrated wonderfully the various minds within the Government. It would have been good to be a fly on the wall in Wednesday's Cabinet Committee meeting and to watch the battle between those who wanted to conserve at all costs and the militant free marketeers. It would have been even better to be present at yesterday's Cabinet meeting to hear the Lord Chancellor's oratory, in what I understand was a protracted Cabinet discussion.
  The Bill has cross-party support. I support its principle., because it was made clear in the election that we would act to help home owners. We said that we would
  "simplify and reduce the cost of house purchase, ending the solicitors' conveyancing monopoly".
  It is on that main purpose of the Bill — ending the solicitors' monopoly—that we should concentrate today. My hon. Friend quoted the recent utterance by the Secretary of State for Social Services, when he said only last month:
  "all laws which create a monopoly have to be examined to see whether, under the cloak of public protection, there is not simply too much protection for the seller … Customers should have

  1317
  the right to make an informed choice and to have more information and lower prices." — [Official Report, 28 November 1983; Vol. 49, c. 437–39.]
  I should have thought that few would dissent from that approach. We should concentrate on the interests of the consumer, who is the most important person. His needs and interests should be at the forefront of our minds throughout the debate. Unfortunately, the legal profession starts off at a distinct disadvantage in the House. The House has never warmed to lawyers. I hope that, whatever the feelings of hon. Members on both sides of the House towards the profession to which I am proud to belong, those feelings will not colour their attitudes to this very important issue. I include the large number of solicitors in the House this morning. Some of us are perhaps not always aware that the House sits on Fridays. So be it.
  If I thought for one moment that, at the end of the day, whatever is eventually agreed upon would result in a disservice to the consumer or lessen the protection that he needs, I would not support the legislation finally presented to us. There are many criticisms of the Bill. We have heard some already. It is right, as my hon. Friend said, that, whatever criticisms there are, if they are justified, the place to correct them is in Committee. I shall make some myself, but they will not be exhaustive. That is why it needs to be re-emphasised that on Second Reading we are asked to approve the principle.
  We are dealing with a billion-pound industry. It is the bulk of many solicitors' incomes. It is a great industry. The question is whether it is meeting today's needs in the best way. Around 1925 there was a spate of property legislation. As the Benson Commission says, the standard textbook, "Emmett on Title", contains references to 400 statutes and 4,700 decided cases. Most transactions may appear, and may be, routine, but to describe them as merely administrative, as they have been described, is neither accurate nor helpful. Many are conducted by unqualified personnel, under supervision I hope. Throughout, the consumer has high protection, certainly in the recourse he has if anything goes wrong. Today we must be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water.
  The buying of a house—indeed, a home—is the most important commercial transaction in the lives of most people, and probably of most of us here today. That transaction involves the acquisition of the family base. In most cases, it involves a liability over many years. It is not like buying a pound of sugar or even a motor car. If we are breaking the monopoly, can we be sure that we are not replacing it with another? Perhaps we are setting up a duopoly, if that is the right grammatical description.
  If the banks and building societies do this work, there will have to be amendments to their legislation, too. I am not aware that the banks are keen to do the work. The building societies are divided, although the Halifax has said clearly that it is very interested in it. One point needs to be watched carefully. If the building societies or the banks do the work, there could be a conflict of interest within the responsibility of whoever did the work for the banks or the building societies.
  My gut feeling is that the Law Society is being unduly alarmist in its fear of licensed conveyancers. For example, it referred to a conveyancer who failed his conveyancing papers in the solicitors' final examination 12 times, which
  1318
  was not its most telling point. Although I took my conveyancing paper, for some unknown reason, in my Bar final—without being boastful, I passed—I would not dream of doing my own, let alone someone else's, conveyancing. At the end of the day, most people go to solicitors. If I may be so bold as to advise the Law Society, I believe that it has been on the wrong track in its fear of licensed conveyancers. Its real opponents will be the building societies if they are ever minded to take on the work seriously.
  The building societies' control of funds, coupled with customer interia and the possibility, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Ryman) referred, of the transfer costs going on to the mortgage, as is done today with carpets, fridges and a host of other things, could deliver the business into the building societies' hands. That is why my gut feeling is that the alarm about licensed conveyancers is misplaced. If the Law Society were to brief its members properly, it would say that its alarm was about competition from the building societies.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is not the real problem that, although in theory there will be choice, the very people who are unlikely to choose to go to the more expensive solicitor are those in the poorer sections of society who are buying houses for the first time?
  Mr. Morris: That may be so. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will want to advance that argument during the debate, but it does not affect this stage of my own argument.
  I was talking about the possibility of a conflict of interests. Let us suppose that a building society wants to be shot of a customer who is a bad payer, and let us suppose, further, that the same society's officers are looking after the buyer of his property. When it comes to prudent warnings and investigations and inquiries on behalf of the buyer, may there not be a conflict of interest?
  In my hon. Friend's worthy and proper attempt to give people freedom to go elsewhere, I wondered why he should want to give this power to banks and building societies. It is not necessary in his attempt to break the monopoly to go this one stage further. My hon. Friend sets out the responsibilities that he believes to be necessary for licensed conveyancers, but this part of the Bill needs a considerable amount of tidying up, especially when we come to discuss their qualifications. It appears from the Bill that any old officer of a bank or building society will be entitled to do the work.
  According to the report in The Times today, the Government are likely to suggest going down that road in an attempt to buy off some Conservative supporters of the Bill. But I wonder whether it has been thought out fully. I am passionately concerned about the interests of the customer. If this power is to be transferred from one monopoly to what may turn out to be similar monopoly, I want to be satisfied that there will be no conflict of interests. A moment ago, the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) spoke of the poorer person buying a house. It is he who most needs proper inquiries to be made when the same organisation is acting for both the seller and the buyer and the possibility arises of conflicting interests in seeking to get rid of one customer and acquiring a better one.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Since the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a barrister, can he tell the House whether at the moment it is unlawful or merely not recommended for a solicitor to represent both vendor and purchaser?
  Mr. Morris: I am not sure about the law, but it has been recommended again and again that one firm should not represent both. There have been recent unfortunate cases. One in the south of England springs to mind immediately where there appears to have been a conflict of interests when the work was done by two persons in the same firm. Whether it is good law I cannot say, but it is very good practice, and it has been recommended over the years in guidance notes from the Law Society.
  It is important that there should be independent advice. If the source of advice and wisdom is under one roof, there should be adequate safeguards. I do not say that it cannot be done, but there will have to be assurances that if a building society embarks upon this role two different officers with appropriate qualifications look after the respective interests of the seller and the buyer. I refer to this matter merely as a warning to ensure that we do not throw out the baby with the bath water in our concern for increased consumer protection.
  Until a few years ago, the building societies insisted on nominating the insurance company to cover a property when granting a mortgage. I believe that that is no longer the practice, but how much difference it has made, in view of customer inertia, I am not too sure.
  In my fairly wide reading over the past few weeks, I have become more and more concerned about the need for care in approaching this subject. One of Benson's suggestions which has not been implemented was the idea of a conveyancing standing committee under the aegis of the Law Commission to consider
  "from time to time procedural changes in coveyancing transactions some of which may involve amendment to the substantive law of property."
  Obviously such a body would include lay members and others involved in the business.
  I referred earlier to "Emmett on Title" and the 1925 legislation. As my hon. Friend said, procedurally the age of the quill pen is still with us. The Bill empowers local authorities to convert local land charges to computer operation. Given the poverty of local authorities and the threat of rate capping, I am doubtful whether we shall see quick progress to this end, despite my hon. Friend's good intentions. It may be that the clause is not needed in any event.
  The greatest service of all that my hon. Friend has done is to act as a catalyst. Given the need for a fundamental examination of the law of property transfers and adaptation to today's technology, my hon. Friend's achievements may be on a smaller scale compared with the real need to provide a proper basis for the reform of the law of property transfer. That is why the Law Commission should be given the steer and the resources to get on with the job envisaged by Benson.
  In following Benson, we must ask ourselves whether the client will be protected, first, from dishonesty or carelessness over money; secondly, from ignorance and incompetence; and thirdly, from a higher level of charges than that which is fair and reasonable.
  The Bill makes a very brave attempt, coupled with the power to draft regulations, to meet the first point. The arrangements for meeting any losses may need filling out, since no man can insure against his own dishonesty. The
  1320
  organisation and supervision of those arrangements will need looking at with care. There may be initial problems arising from the size of the pool to be insured.
  The second point is concerned with ignorance and incompetence. In my view, the Bill is inadequate to protect the consumer. There is no reference to the qualifications necessary for a licensed conveyancer. The difficulty is that with home transfers there may be hidden dangers. We have to bear in mind domestic rights —matrimonial rights and the rights of those who share the home—joint ownership and the problems of leasehold which, as I understand it, are covered by the Bill. It is people's ignorance of the dangers which causes me some apprehension. I have been asked what would be the standard of care expected from a licensed conveyancer. It is hardly that of a trained and qualified solicitor—that might be said to be too onerous a burden—but if it is not, what practical loss will there be to the consumer and how may he suffer?
  The third point concerns the level of charges. Proper insurance and professional supervision may not in practice reduce costs as much as many expect. We simply do not know. However, generally, competition sharpens the minds of competitors, and I am hopeful on this score.
  If we are concerned about the costs of house purchase, as I am, we should remember that the Law Society has made three very attractive suggestions. The first is that the 10 per cent. deposit received in a sale might be used as the deposit in the purchase of a new home, thereby avoiding commission and interest. At present it is stuck in one slot in a solicitor's clients' account and it cannot be used for the next step forward. More money has to be found and charges paid for it.
  The second suggestion concerns the removal of the mortgage guarantee premium. When a person borrows more than 80 per cent., the cost can be between £75 and £150. In my view, that is a real rip-off. The imagination boggles as to the actuarial basis for that charge, in view of the extreme unlikelihood of insurers being called upon in an inflationary age.
  The third suggestion concerns the need for an agreed fixture list to avoid the high cost of chasing fixtures. To that I would add the scandal of the high stamp duty that has to be paid on a modest property. When I bought my first and modest house in London more than 23 years ago, stamp duty was not an issue. A similar property today attracts a considerable amount of duty. Why not abolish it for modest homes worth, say, £40,000 or £50,000? Of course, the cost in London is much higher than in the provinces. People who now buy very modest properties have to pay substantial amounts of stamp duty. If the Government want to reduce the costs of house purchase, this is something that they should seriously consider.
  I believe that those are practical suggestions, and would make it cheaper for most people to buy a property. Indeed, it might do more, in terms of costs, than merely abolishing the monopoly. Action on most, if not all, those ideas would require legislation or administrative action, and the ball is well and truly in the Government's court. Despite my hon. Friend's sterling service on a transaction which is so important to every one of us and which is fraught with problems, I believe that the right way to approach the matter is through Government action and Government legislation. It is right for a private Member to initiate legislation, it is right for him to act as a catalyst, and it is right for him to sharpen the minds of Government and

  1321
  those who are involved in industry, but, in view of the limited resources that any private Member has, it is exceedingly difficult for him to bring his proposals in such an area to a conclusion.
  So today the House should express its view on the principle that my hon. Friend has canvassed quite properly, and into which he has put so much hard work, and should take cognisance of the warnings about the difficulties. In any event, the Government should recognise the considerable feeling that exists on the issue — some of it, perhaps, misplaced, but most of it, consciously or unconsciously, mindful of the needs of the consumer, as set out by Benson. We need safety, competence and fair charges. None of those can or should be sacrificed. We need reform in the law of property and we need a repetition of that great era of the law of property, 1925. The Government should respond to today's needs, and either amend my hon. Friend's proposals in Committee or present their own proposals. Above all, they should take the necessary action to invigorate and sustain the Law Commission in a fundamental and continuous review of this issue.
  11.33 am
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I warmly congratulate
  the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). He won a high place in the ballot, and he has selected a subject of supreme importance for all our constituents who aspire to own their own homes. As the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) said, the hon. Gentleman has produced a Bill which has properly attracted a vast amount of attention, and no doubt it will continue to inspire an interesting debate today. As so often happens in the House when we discuss an issue which crosses party considerations and is dealt with on a non-partisan basis, we get debates of the highest order. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that, up to now, the debate is proving no exception to that rule.
  Mr. Lawrence: Would it not only be a courtesy, but a better earnest of the good intentions of the Bill if its promoter were good enough to be present, not only during the speech of his party's Front Bench spokesman but when the Solicitor-General is making his response?
  The Solicitor-General: I cannot believe that his absence is through any discourtesy to the House.
  I hope that it will help the House if, on behalf of the Lord Chancellor and the Government, I tell the Hose now — it is a somewhat unusual stage, I know, for a Minister to intervene—about our thinking on the Bill and also about our proposals for the objectives which it seeks to achieve.
  I followed with interest and admiration the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon and I particularly noted his views about the need for action by the Government. There was much in his speech with which I agreed, and I shall come to that later.
  If we read the long title of the Bill, we see that we are on solid common ground with the sponsors of the Bill. It says that the purpose of the Bill is to
  "Extend competition and to protect consumers in relation to the provision of services in connection with the transfer of ownership of real property in England and Wales".
  1322
  I am glad to say that it is now well known, from our deeds as well as our words, that the Government think that competition is beneficial. To whom? It is beneficial to the public, whom all Governments must serve.
  We see nothing in the craft of conveyancing to cause that principle not to apply. Lack of competition with a conveyancing practice acts just as insidiously to induce unnecessarily high charges and indifferent service as lack of competition with a greengrocer. That is why my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, in his first term of office, abolished the fixed scales by which, up till then, solicitors had calculated their conveyancing fees merely by reference to the value of the property conveyed. He thereby made possible and encouraged price competition. The process has since gone further, and we believe that it should now go further still. I shall come back to that matter later. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby said that he had found scant evidence of competition in Grimsby. Against that, we must put the evidence of the Benson commission, which in 1981 showed substantial and significant competition.
  The Bill's promoter is equally right to recognise the need to secure protection for the public when they use the service of conveyancers. That is common ground between both sides of the House today, and I particularly noted the importance which the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon attached to it. As has been said more than once, buying a house is probably the most expensive and momentous personal transaction that any of us and our constituents undertake. If it goes wrong, it can cause disaster and misery—perhaps even years later, when the person responsible is no longer available.
  A person can do his own conveyancing at his own risk, but most people think that it is safer to pay someone who has expertise to do it. It would be perfectly possible to take a position of the purest laissez-faire and to hold that it is up to the customer to take what risks he likes and to shop wisely, to say that there should be no control over who holds himself out as an expert and that we should let unfettered competition thrive, but none of us, I think, with constituents to serve would go for that. Indeed, so far no one has done so, and I doubt whether anybody will.
  The Bill focuses on important matters and the issue is, then, how best to achieve competition that is compatible with adequate safeguards for house buyers who are not sufficiently expert to be able to safeguard themselves. I know that the sponsors of the Bill agree with that proposition. It is not an easy issue to resolve. As the House knows, the way in which we have gone about it in England and Wales in the past 170 years or so has been to prohibit unqualified persons from doing such work, or from drawing or preparing for reward any instrument of transfer, or charge. By that means, Parliament has excluded everyone, except barristers, solicitors and notaries public.
  Parliament introduced that rule because of the muddle and incompetence of lay conveyancers at the end of the 19th century, which must have been quite something. I note the point that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby made about it, but I think he will concede that that was the real reason for the rule.
  Mr. Budgen: It was at the end of the 18th century—
  The Solicitor-General: It was the 19th century, because the Stamp Bill was enacted in 1804.
  Mr. Budgen: —or at the beginning of the 19th century.
  The Solicitor-General: Perhaps Parliament reacted a good deal more rapidly then than it does now. However, I am rather doubtful about that. I am quite prepared to fall out with anybody on any issue, but I think that there are more important issues before us today.
  We have maintained that restriction because we and our predecessors have believed it to be the best way of protecting the public. Of course, the fact that it has survived for so long is no reason for it to continue to survive, if its true function has now become the protection not of the public but of the practitioners. That would, indeed, be a closed shop. However, I do not believe that it has become that.
  I should not dream of suggesting that our present arrangements represent the only practical means by which a degree of protection can be afforded to the public. Of course they do not. The scheme in clause 1 provides an alternative, but, for the reasons which I shall explain, the Government consider that its protection is insufficient and unfair. We believe that it is not better but inferior to the protection given by our present arrangements. Equally, however, we think that the degree of competition provided by our present arrangements is unduly restricted. I shall explain how we think that it should be extended and what steps we intend to take.
  First, as to the merits of abandoning our present qualification arrangements, may I ask the House to recall the circumstances in which the Benson commission was set up in 1976? The then Prime Minister referred to the fact that great public anxiety had been expressed about the organisation and practices of the legal profession, and accordingly among the matters referred to the Royal Commission were
  "the rules which prevent persons who are neither banisters nor solicitors from undertaking conveyancing and other legal business on behalf of other persons."
  That is a quotation from the commission's terms of reference.
  The hon. Member for Great Grimsby said that the Royal Commission was asked to consider such matters not from the point of view of the consumer, but professionally, from the point of view of the profession's organisation. However, that is not a sustainable argument. The commission was asked to inquire whether changes were desirable in the public interest.
  The commission covered the rules which prevent persons who are neither banisters nor solicitors from undertaking conveyancing. Therefore, its members were appointed slap on the question whether those rules were in the public interest. The commission reported in 1979. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg) reminded us of its conclusions. It considered conveyancing in some detail, having received a large volume of evidence on the subject from both laymen and lawyers in this country and abroad. The commission found that, although the process of conveyancing had been made less complex by land registration, the benefits of that had been largely offset by the increased importance and intricacy of the law relating to landlord and tenant, to planning, taxation and the matrimonial home. Those are matters to which the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon has just given proper weight.
  The need to protect the public from incompetence led a clear majority of the commission to recommend that the restrictions should not be relaxed. Indeed, it recommended
  1324
  that they should be strengthened by excluding notaries public from those perrnitted to undertake conveyancing and extending the restrictions to cover the contract of sale. It looked particularly at the suggestion that there should be a limited class of conveyancers, restricted to undertaking domestic conveyancing and subject to certain constraints. It made the following general comment on those who advocated abolition of the present restrictions.
  It said that abolition
  "tended to underestimate the number and frequency of difficulties which may be encountered unexpectedly in any conveyancing transaction, domestic or otherwise, and which required the advice and skills of a qualified practitioner".
  The commission then referred to matters which the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon mentioned.
  It said:
  "It was argued that a licensed conveyancer in doubt or difficulty could seek the advice of a solicitor or barrister. Such a precaution would, however, be effective only if a problem were seen to require expert advice and the advice was taken and we consider that there would be insufficient protection in any such arrangement."
  The commission then dealt with the suggestion that one could define certain types of domestic conveyancing that are unlikely to attract difficulties. It said:
  "Registered conveyancing is usually given as an example. This argument does no more than repeat the argument in the preceding paragraph … We are satisfied by all the evidence given to us that any form of conveyancing, whether described as domestic, registered or in any other way, may give rise to difficulties apparent only to the expert. In any case which may be specified, ancillary problems may arise and strict control will be needed over the handling of client's money."
  We should take a heavy burden on ourselves if. without finding answers and solutions to the problems and obstacles that defeated the Royal Commission, which sat for three years and was appointed on those terms of reference, we said that surely a way could be found, and that it could not be beyond the wit of man, so we should make a change despite those recommendations.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: If I remember rightly, the commission had 13 members, at least five of whom signed a minority report which did not go along with the comments the Solicitor-General is making. They thought that there could be a change.
  The Solicitor-General: I have already acknowledged that the Royal Commission found by a majority of about two to one. It was not unanimous. The commission said that a licensing system would be unable to provide the level of positive control required, particularly in respect of standards of competence and ethical conduct. That point has already been dwelt upon. The result of the Bill would be effectively to reject those findings and conclusions. I must advise the House that if it adopts the Bill's principle and argument it will be doing a very unsafe thing.
  I deal now with the sufficiency of present competition.
  Given our objective of ensuring the maximum possible degree of competition that is consistent with consumer protection, we are faced with three main options: first, to develop competition between solicitors in private practice; secondly, to enable solicitors employed by organisations such as banks and building societies to undertake the work; or, thirdly, to widen the field of conveyancers still more by establishing some form of licensing system to permit non-solicitors to do it.
  As to the first proposition, competition between solicitors has improved considerably in recent years. Since the Lord Chancellor's abolition of the scales, surveys by

  1325
  the Law Society and the Consumers Association show that solicitors' charges have been falling in real terms. Recent initiatives by the Law Society have also helped competition. The Law Society has devised a form of estimate to enable proper comparisons of charges to be made so that people can shop around. Its decision to relax restrictions on individual advertising is also a significant step in the right direction.
  Today we have discussed whether the advertising of individual charges should be permitted. I am sure that it is right to leave it, in the first instance, to the profession to consider changing its practice rules. The Law Society has that under consideration. I have already expressed our views on the licence provision. The proposed system cannot provide the necessary protection.
  The remaining option of extending conveyancing rights to employed solicitors offers a serviceable means by which a further element of competition can be injected. We therefore intend to introduce our own legislation where necessary to extend the right of conveyancing, not just of registered land, but of all land, to solicitors employed by, for example, building societies and banks, subject to safeguards.
  There are potential dangers in allowing solicitors employed by building societies and banks to act for both employer and borrower. It is essential that the borrower's interest should not be prejudiced by a conflict between the solicitor's duty to the borrower and his duty to his employer. Such conflict can arise if, for instance, a borrower seeks advice about the form of mortgage that he should have or if the lender wants to impose special conditions on a loan. We are conscious of the fact that Benson recommended against permitting solicitors employed by lenders to act for borrowers as well because of the potential conflict of interest.
  We think that before we legislate it is necessary to consult interested parties on how the potential conflicts might be overcome. For example, we could provide that employed solicitors owe a primary duty to the consumer. That could be enforced by the Law Society's conduct commitee. We could provide that the use of a building society's solicitor should not be made a condition of a loan. We could provide that where costs are spread over the life of a mortgage the true cost and rate of interest should be disclosed. We should investigate all those possibilities.
  Mr. Budgen: If a solicitor were acting for both the lender and the borrower, how could he owe a higher duty to one side than to the other?
  The Solicitor-General: That problem is capable of being overcome by specific legislative provision. One could say that if a solicitor was invited by a building society to advise the borrower of the terms on which money was to be lent, he must place the interests of the borrower above those of the building society. It is a difficult matter, which must be investigated, but I believe that it is possible to overcome the conflict of interests. The possibilities must be investigated before legislation.
  Mr. Jesse!: Will costs be reduced by ending cross-subsidisation? Can my hon. and learned Friend satisfy the House about the urgency with which the matter will be
  1326
  treated? Will he set a time limit on consultation to ensure that it is not interminable? Does he intend to bring forward legislation soon?
  The Solicitor-General: Competition almost always reduces costs and I would expect the same in this instance. That is our hope. We believe that competition can be increased without prejudicing consumer protectin. We intend to proceed promptly so as not to delay the introduction of the additional competition that I have mentioned.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: Will my hon. and learned Friend spell out what he said about extending the ability of solicitors to operate in building societies, banks and other like institutions? That is important if we are to have more competition. What does my hon. and learned Friend have in mind when referring to other institutions?
  The Solicitor-General: We are satisfied that it is possible and proper to legislate in respect of solicitors employed by building societies. That will need legislation. We think that it is right that solicitors employed by banks should be able to convey. Our mind is not closed to the possibility of solicitors employed by other institutions being permitted to convey, but in some cases there could be an insuperable conflict of interests. We shall investigate the possibilities.
  Mr. Cormack: Am I right in thinking that those who act within building societies and banks must be qualified solicitors? Many solicitors delegate conveyancing functions to managing clerks. Will it not create a strange situation, since one could guarantee being looked after by a solicitor only by going to a building society or a bank?
  The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend is the victim of an amusing misunderstanding. It is not possible for anyone to effect a conveyance, whether it is of non-registered land or a transfer of registered land, unless he is a solicitor. Delegation of preparatory work is a matter for the individual office.
  Mr. Alan Williams: How can any statute ensure that the normal human instinct of looking after one's future employment will not prevail? If a solicitor is employed by a building society, his future is dependent on that building society. It will not matter what is done in terms of imposing a statutory duty—human nature will prevail.
  The Solicitor-General: That observation does less than justice to the conscientiousness of solicitors and to the effect of the rules on professional conduct by which the legal profession is governed. Such matters need to be examined, but I believe that they are capable of being overcome without prejudice to the proper protection of the consumer. It is possible for a solicitor to ask himself, "Is there, or is there not, a conflict of interest if I act in the conveyance of a house both for the lender and for the borrower?" That ability is not held to have been abused.
  It is important that the changes do not permit unfair competition. We intend to ensure that that does not happen. In particular, there must be no question of borrowers' prospects of securing a loan being affected in any way by their choice of a solicitor in private practice or one employed by the building society. The Director General of Fair Trading will ensure that competition is fair.

  1327
  We intend to do more than that. We want house buying to be made simpler and cheaper for the public. The Benson commission identified a number of sectors where reform could achieve that by simplificaion of the law, of records, of procedure and of documents. The commission recommended that a standing committee should be established to examine suggestions for the simplification of land law and conveyancing. The Law Commission, as part of its continuing programme of law reform, already considers many aspects of the substantive law involved.
  Further consideration can be given to the process of conveyancing as a whole, with a view to simplifying practice and procedure wherever possible. We have decided to set up a special committee, under the auspices of the Law Commission, to examine the various proposals and to ensure that work in many different areas is co-ordinated and the whole question kept under review. We intend that the committee should come forward with recommendations which, if they provide for the cheapening and simplificaion of conveyancing and house purchasing for the ordinary member of the public, we shall be anxious to debate.
  The Law Society supports that, as the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon said. It suggests that the committee should consider not only the key issues such as whether there could be a parallel profession of licensed conveyancers as a viable alternative to our present arrangements, but specific ideas such as those referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, which appear generally attractive to the Government.
  We intend, therefore, to consult on these matters by this and other means. I am confident that that consultation will bear valuable fruit.
  Mr. Rob Hayward: How long will it take?
  The Solicitor-General: If I knew that I should not need to consult. There is a commitment to legislate in the particular sense that I have described. Further legislation must depend on the setting up of the committee and the speed with which it can come forward with proposals. We intend to move as promptly as we can, consistent with the protection of the public.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Solicitor-General assure us that the proposals will be dealt with with far greater speed than many other recommendations from the Law Commission? Many of its recommendations, not only on legal services but on other matters, have not been brought to the House. We need to be satisfied not only that the consultation process will be brief, but that the Government consider it their duty to bring the commission's proposals to the House within a short time of their publication.
  The Solicitor-General: On Wednesday I moved the Second Reading of the Occupiers' Liability Bill, which followed exactly the lines of a Law Commission report. We wish to proceed quickly on these matters, and I am a great admirer of the Law Commission.
  Mr. Alan Williams: The Solicitor-General has put forward a peculiar proposition—that it is not possible to put a terminal date on the consultations because if he does they will not be proper consultations. How does he reconcile that with the statement on regional policy by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry earlier this week,
  1328
  when he put a clear terminal date on consultation and swore to the House that the consultation would be genuine?
  The Solicitor-General: There are many ways of going about these matters. We could adopt the jurisprudence of the White Queen and give the verdict for execution first and listen to the evidence later. On the other hand. we could consult those recommended by the Benson commission about what steps should be taken.
  I ask the House to trust the Government. We are not reluctant to encourage competition. I have made it clear that there is nothing in the craft of conveyancing to lead us to depart from our principles on competition. I hope that we will be trusted to get on with this matter as quickly as it is safe and prudent to do.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby will forgive me if I do not go through the remaining clauses. They have been covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre, and I should be unjustifiably trespassing—
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I am not sure whether the Solicitor-General is speaking on behalf of the Law Society or the Government. The Government published a White Paper on the Benson commission four weeks ago, perhaps prompted by the Bill, which made no mention of maintaining the monopoly on conveyancing. Now the Minister tells us that, after agonising deliberations in Cabinet, the monopoly is to be maintained. The Government hold out no hope of allowing conveyancers to compete with solicitors. Without such competition there can be no reduction in prices and no development of the services provided for the consumer. I find the Solicitor-General's reply disappointing.
  In referring me to the points made by the hon. Member for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg), is the Solicitor-General accepting everything that the Law Society says about the Bill? Do not the Government have a view? Cannot they take the Bill as a vehicle and reshape it to achieve competition? The Solicitor-General appears to be relying on the Benson commission's recommendations on conveyancers, but opposing its recommendations on building societies.
  The Solicitor-General: It is always a mistake to try to take a short cut, even with the aim of sparing the time of the House. Each of the subsequent clauses after clause 1, which is the principal clause. contains material which is objectionable to the point of being impossible to amend in Committee.
  Clause 2 would override the Law Society's practice rules, which prohibit solicitors from advertising for conveyancing. We agree that the Law Society should review those restrictions, but legislation at this stage would not be appropriate. It is important that the profession should be self-governing. If it were to abuse that position and act contrary to the public interest, the Government would have a responsibility to act, but that has not arisen.
  Clause 3 seeks to improve the local land charge system. We are all aware of the criticisms about the time some local authorities take to respond to inquiries. However, when delay occurs it is not usually attributable to the searchers of the local land charges registered, because local authorities also answer a wide range of supplementary inquiries in accordance with arrangements negotiated between various associations and the Law

  1329
  Society. They cover such matters as building regulations, road schemes and planning proposals. The need for several departments within a local authority to contribute to the inquiry sometimes leads to delay. Official searches can invariably be dealt with quickly. It is a matter of convenience that they are usually given at the same time as replies to other inquiries, but they could be given separately and sooner. Therefore, the clause is directed at the wrong target.
  Clauses 4 and 5 seek to reduce the time taken between offer and contract and the costs to prospective purchasers of commissioning surveys on properties which they do not eventually buy. They wish to make it possible for a purchaser to rely on a survey provided by the vendor. The Government have serious doubts about these clauses. The main reason why purchasers commission surveys is common prudence. Who would want to buy a house on the strength of a vendor's survey when he may have commissioned a number of unfavourable surveys before obtaining one that satisfied him? Why should building societies have to take that risk, which would tend to weaken the value of the security given to loans? That would be to the disadvantage of borrowers generally.
  I very much dislike having had to speak so discouragingly of a Bill which seeks to serve the purposes which we all share — purposes which, by our past actions, we have implemented and which we intend by future actions—and they will be taken promptly—to implement further. The Bill's objectives are congenial to the Government but the ability to achieve competition is qualified by the need to achieve protection for the public. I regret to say that, on that point, the Bill fails beyond redemption.
  I regret that I must advise the House that if it supported the Bill it would do no service to its constituents to whom it owes a duty to provide proper standards of safety.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I remind the House that more than half the time available has been taken up by four speeches. I appeal to both lawyers and non-lawyers to be exceedingly brief. I have a long list of hon. Members who wish to put very different points of view to the House.
  12.9 pm
  Mr. Ken Weetch: I shall be as brief as I possibly can. I particularly appreciated the speech of the hon. Member for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg), who is a practising solicitor. I listened to him as a practitioner with great interest and respect.
  This is a debating chamber; therefore, I wish to take the debate some steps further basing my remarks on what the Solicitor-General had to say. I wish to comment on the proposals that he put forward. I support the Bill—I am one of its sponsors. I regard it as an important opportunity for a breakthrough on behalf of the owner occupier. I do so for two fundamental reasons.
  First, the reform of house transfer is long overdue. To underline that I can quote no better authority than the chief general manager of the Halifax building society, who said:
  "There is now 60 per cent. house ownership in this country and procedures have not changed much since the overhaul of the law in 1925 when the figure was 10 per cent. Home buyers are entitled to more competitive and cost effective service. The cost of buying and selling is far too high."
  1330
  Secondly, the Bill is significant because it seeks to bring to bear on the whole process of house transfer more competition and freedom of choice. I believe that because of expensive restrictive practices—the current structure of conveyancing being one and there are others—the cost of moving house in Britain today is nothing short of a scandal. The Bill offers a series of measures which aim at constructive reform but, as in all Bills before the House, some parts of it appeal while others do not. What I should like the Government to grasp is that the whole system of house transfer, including conveyancing, valuation, survey, registry and local searches, needs a complete overhaul. I impress on the Minister that if we wait for the professions to bring about these improvements, we will wait for ever. Despite the crying need for reform, the professions over the years have moved with disciplined lethargy.
  The most important part of the Bill is clause 1, which seeks to amend section 22 of the Solicitors Act 1974. It aims at breaking what the general public understand to be the solicitors' monopoly of conveyancing and it seeks to do so in terms of registered property.
  I should like to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Wyre when he was trying to define the nature of the solicitors' monopoly. Here we must choose our words carefully. The "monopoly" applies to only one small part of the conveyancing transaction. In simple terms, any person in Britain can do his or her own conveyancing if he or she so wishes. Monopoly does not cover do-it-yourself either on purchase or on sale. Neither does the monopoly cover conveyancing for sale. If one wishes to employ someone to conveyance a house for sale for fee, gain or reward, one can do so and there is no monopoly provision. But in house purchase the position is different. Section 22 of the 1974 Act says that the transfer of the deed in the purchase operation can be done only by certain people. In practice it means that commercial preparation of the deed is confined to a solicitor. Thus the "monopoly" bears only a limited meaning, but it has been sufficient over the years, through skilful promotion and scare stories from Chancery lane, for conveyancing to be the virtual province of solicitors.
  The root of the restrictive practice is to load down the conveyancing of registered property which, although it must be done with care, is high grade clerical and administrative work, with an expensive legal qualification. As time goes on and as compulsory land registration becomes more complete, so the qualification restriction on registered property becomes more and more bogus.
  The present position is also hypocritical. I have scores of letters in my constituency office to say that in many solicitors' offices unqualified and often unsupervised clerks do the job. There is no high-powered solicitor wrestling with esoteric complexities on the client's behalf but a clerk sending out standard forms with standard questions ritually eliciting standard and usually evasive answers. It is what Michael Joseph in his book called the "conveyancing fraud", and what a fraud it is.
  The net result has been serious. First, it has led to prices that are far too high for the work done. My researches over the years have revealed that conveyancing charges on both sale and purchase are now around I per cent. of the purchase or sale price. If one buys and sells at £40,000, the conveyancing cost alone on sale and purchase is £800. That is not a conveyancing fee; I consider it to be daylight robbery. Conveyancing law may be an ass but it is an ass

  1331
  that knows how to charge. In the second place it has prevented many competitors other than solicitors from entering the arena and having a beneficial effect on costs. Last but not least, for many years it has prevented the emergence of improved technical and adminitrative procedures. The monopoly feather-bedding has meant a vested professional interest in things as they are, ensuring that the managerial revolution has passed conveyancing by.
  But not only is the present framework inefficient and expensive; it is offensive in a free society. If the consumer wishes to use a solicitor, then so be it. But it is quite another thing when a piece of legislation says, "You will use a solicitor whether you like it or not." In a democratic society that should not be the case.
  The Government have a high moral tone when pointing to restrictive practices in trade unions. I should like to see the Government adopt the same moral tone when the restrictive practitioners are in striped suits. From the supply side of conveyancing services, if a non-solicitor conveyancing firm—there are some good ones up and down the country, firms which I have used myself for my own conveyancing business when I have moved house; I do not wish on anyone else what I am not prepared to do myself—wishes to offer a more cost-effective service, it faces being hauled before the court on a criminal charge. Trying to reduce prices opens a firm to a criminal charge of breaking the monopoly, not from the police but from those well-known purveyors of freedom, the Law Society. I am delighted to say that many of its recent prosecutions have been dismal failures, but the fact that in 1983 it can bring charges in court against competitors is a complete disgrace.
  The sponsors of the Bill have performed a service for the owner occupier in bringing these ideas forward. The building societies have taken a good deal of stick during the debate. The Government's response to the Bill has been botched. I mean no disrespect to the SolicitorGeneral—I respect his performances in the House—but this is a rushed and ill-thought-out response from the Government. I do not believe that they have thoroughly considered the consequences. The Government have made a hurried response to get themselves out of a political difficulty. They have had to try to reach a balanced position between the clamour of the public for reform and an overbearing solicitors' lobby behind the scenes. In trying to make that response, the Government have responded in an unsatisfactory way.
  One of the key proposals is that a building society could, if it wished, offer the service, and I believe that to be a sound approach. But if one says that even inside the building society a solicitor must do it, one is simply removing the restrictive practice from the solicitors' office to under the building society roof. The Government have made no effective change; the monopoly still stands, the restrictive practice is still there and costs will not come down. We have had a plethora of words from the Solicitor-General but we have had nothing of substance. The Government, in response to overwhelming popular support for the Bill, have reached for their feather duster and done nothing.
  The other category of people to have received a lot of stick are the non-solicitor conveyancers. They figured in the major piece of legislation that reformed the position this century. In other words, the conveyancer was part of section 118 of the Land Registration Act 1925, the pillar
  1332
  legislation on which much of the reform stands. The conveyancer was in that legislation in 1925, but subsequently, by Acts of Parliament forced through the House by solicitors, the conveyancer was eliminated. We should not forget that he was there at one time and had a respectable place in the situation.
  The hon. Member for Wyre asked why, if there was a monopoly, non-solicitor conveyancers were competing. There appears to be a paradox in that, and indeed there is. The only part that is a monopoly is the preparation of the standard transfer deed. Conveyancing firms often farm that part of the process out to a solicitor, so the monopoly is being broken every day of the week by people in banks and building societies, with the active connivance of solicitors.
  I am also willing to concede that non-solicitor conveyancers vary a good deal— some are good and some are rubbish—so I agree that some people who are conveyancing property outside solicitors' offices need regulation. The point remains that the monopoly, because it is unsatisfactory and is being broken every day of the week, must be reformed so that we regularise the procedures. As things are, with more holes than a fisherman's net in those procedures, we have the most unsatisfactory system of all, and the Solicitor-General is doing nothing to remedy it.
  It is impossible for the Law Society to police this monopoly because, as time goes on, more and more people will break it in view of their dissatisfaction with high prices. Some of those who are breaking it are undesirables, I concede, but at the end of the day we need reform to regularise the position, and we must ensure that we have a sensible basis of reform.
  Mr. Lawrence: Can the hon. Gentleman point to any provision in the Bill that will oblige the unsatisfactory, non-solicitor conveyancer to register?
  Mr. Weetch: That is a significant intervention and I admit, in answering the hon. and learned Gentleman, that had I been drafting the Bill my approach would have been different. While I believe that there should be more competition, I do not feel that it should go so wide. There should have been a clause in the measure laying down minimum qualifications. Although I am one of the sponsors, I should be willing in Committee to move an amendment to that effect because I believe that that part of the Bill is unsatisfactory.
  The Bill is about a number of things: first, it is about freedom of choice; secondly, it is about having more competition; thirdly, it is about bringing down costs for the owner occupier; and fourthly, it is about creating a more mobile society. If we are to achieve all those objectives, conveyancing must be set free. We should widen, under proper regulation, the category of persons who can do it.
  The Conservatives were elected in 1979 and again in 1983 on a platform of more competition. Their response today has been totally unsatisfactory. Unless the Government can come up with some alternative, not only the Bill but the cause of the owner occupier who wants to move at reasonable cost will have been in vain. I beg the Government to think again.
  12.27 pm
  Mr. John Page: I came to the House this morning with the intention, as my intervention will

  1333
  show later, of opposing the Bill, but I thought that it would be reluctant opposition. I was not impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), and the only speech in favour of the measure that I found persuasive—that of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch)—made me feel that he did not have too much confidence in its drafting.
  We are discussing what is called the solicitors' monopoly. I wonder whether dentists have a monopoly in drawing teeth; there are plenty of dentists to visit and there is freedom of choice. I understand from inquiries that I made in my constituency and elsewhere in the last week or two that people genuinely telephone different solicitors' firms to obtain quotations on the cost of conveyancing properities, though I accept that there are many fringe activities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg) pointed out.
  I also hoped from the hype that the Bill received in the press that it contained measures on gazumping, but I gather that it has nothing to do with that subject. It would perhaps achieve a speeding up in the process because only one surveyor's report would need to be used. I hope that the Solicitor-General will haul in the strong feeling that exists that something must be done about gazumping. I suggest that when the sale of a house reaches the subject-to-contract stage, each party should have to put down a deposit of, say, 1 per cent. which would be forfeited by one side should the sale not go through.
  The proposers of the Bill have got the wrong end of the stick and they have taken the wrong route to achieve their objectives. They should have gone for an element of self-regulation for house conveyancers. To obtain a full conveyancer's licence, a person must satisfy the Director of Fair Trading that he has an insurance policy or some form of indemnity. The Secretary of State will be left with the task of putting some meat on to the carcase provided by the Bill. He may do so by order or otherwise. The carcase is so small, and there is so much meat to be put on it, that it would be ridiculous to expect such matters to be dealt with in Committee. Does the hon. Member for Great Grimsby believe that it is more difficult to convey a house than to insure it? Surely the conveyancing side is more complicated. To insure is more simple than to convey.
  The proposers of the Bill have missed a magnificent opportunity. They could have followed the Insurance Brokers (Registration) Act 1977, known nationally and internationally as the Page Act, which is perfectly well tried, was brilliantly conceived and is economical. The Act covers many of the points raised by Lord Benson. All that the proposers needed to do was to read the brilliant Act, comprising 30 sections, and wherever it says "insurance broker" insert the word "conveyancer". The Bill should provide for the registration of conveyancers, for the regulation of their professional standards and for purposes connected therewith. The establishment of a conveyancers' registration council would be self-regulatory, without requiring one additional civil servant. The Bill should include provision for a conveyancers' register, qualifications for registration, a list of bodies corporate which are carrying on business as conveyancers —building societies, banks and so on—appeals against refusal to register or enrol, approval of educational institutions and qualifications, supervision of educational
  1334
  institutions and qualifying examinations and the publication of a register and list. Such matters are too extensive to be dealt with in Committee. What about regulations of conduct, a code of conduct, requirements for carrying on business, professional indemnity, preliminary investigation of disciplinary cases, a disciplinary committee, erasure from the register for crimes or unprofessional conduct and for appeals in disciplinary and other cases? The Bill is so thin and inadequate that it does not attempt to deal seriously with such important subjects. Had the proposers of the Bill followed my sensible route — I would not even have charged them a fee—[Interruption.] I have no interest to declare except of a proprietorial nature for an excellent and wise Act. The Bill in its present form is not worthy of a Second Reading.
  I have the greatest regard and respect for my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, but I am not very happy with what he said earlier. I shall now turn my speech upside down as I have strong reasons for disapproving of banks and building societies undertaking conveyancing work for their clients. When the ordinary house purchaser goes shaking, with sweating hands, to his bank to ask for a bridging loan or help with a mortgage, and the bank manager says, "We have Miss Jones in the outer office who will do all the conveyancing for you", will the purchaser say, "How much is it? Can I get a quotation from a solicitor, and will she look after my interests completely?" I must be careful not to offend the banking fraternity because of my personal position, so I must not mention the fact that mistakes can be made in accounts. It would not be ridiculous to say that banks acting as trustees usually—I have some experience of it—charge much more than do solicitors.
  I regret to say that I am even more worried about the building societies. As the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) said in a wise, illuminating, clear and persuasive speech, building societies have slightly opened their closed shop of the insurance companies which they allow borrowers to use. I did not know that it had opened, although I have been working on it for the past 23 years. Unfortunately, the constituent who used to raise this matter with me has moved elsewhere, so I do not now receive his annual letter. In trying to break a monopoly, we may be creating two new closed shops. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will make the terms of reference of the proposed inquiry so wide that he will not be caught on any embarrassing hooks. It should be a wide-ranging examination of the matters that have been discussed so interestingly this morning.
  I came here today with second thoughts about the wisdom of not supporting the Bill. The more that I heard this morning, especially from my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre, the more I believe that it would be better to accelerate the changes inside the profession regarding those who carry out the registration. It might be better to retain matters as they are, but in a slightly higher gear.
  12.37 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I declare my interest, which is primarily that I am sticking my neck out. As a barrister, the risk of coming out on the side of the sponsors of the Bill is that I may alienate myself from solicitors who have large conveyancing practices. However, I am prepared to take the risk.

  1335
  The duty of the lawyer is to serve the public. The legal profession is a service industry, and the test of every lawyer—solicitor, barrister or otherwise—is to do a job that the public desperately needs to be done with the competence and expertise that training and experience can produce. It is clear that many solicitors do not believe that conveyancing always requires the solicitor's experience and competence to perform. There have been many examples—no doubt many hon. Members have received letters from solicitors—which show that it is wrong and unprincipled, especially with this Government's attitude, to guarantee the solicitors' monopoly.
  I quote briefly from two letters to show that it is not only non-solicitors who suggest that the law needs substantial amendment. The first states:
  "I am not alone in the view that its existence"—
  that is, the monopoly—
  "is not only a scandal but also a humiliation to a large number of solicitors who expect to survive because people choose to use their services and are not compelled to. Moreover, I believe that freed from the monopoly many solicitors would seek to offer a wide service in the house transfer market, as they do in Scotland, and would be more than able to hold their own against non-legal competition."
  The letter ends:
  "So get to it and persuade some Thatcherites of the beauty of free competition."
  Another solicitor, who lives in my constituency, also wrote to me. The Southwark and Bermondsey area is not overpopulated by solicitors. Indeed, there is a dearth of legal services to meet the needs of people in the inner city. He said:
  "I should like to place on record that at least this member"—
  of the Law Society
  "disagrees with the Council's policy and considers the response of the Society which appeared in the Gazette on 9 November an unconvincing and unconstructive response to a state of affairs that cries out for change."
  First, therefore, it is not true that solicitors unanimously believe that conveyancing should remain with their profession. It is fundamentally important that qualified solicitors and lawyers adapt their services to the changing needs of people requiring their services and that they release in theory, as they do in practice, those tasks that are easily performed, do not need a lawyer's experience and qualifications and are daily carried out by non-solicitors employed in occupations dealing with those matters. We all know that much conveyancing work is carried out by non-solicitors. Indeed, the majority—probably 80 per cent.—of all conveyancing involves no solicitor's activity at all.
  Mr. Porter: The hon. Gentleman may not have heard the earlier part of the debate. The Royal Commission found that 70 per cent. of conveyancing was carried out by solicitors. Moreover, no one has suggested that change is not needed. The change required, however, is that described by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General — a fundamental change in property law and practice.
  Mr. Hughes: I shall deal with that in a moment. Certainly, the commission found that there was an element of solicitor involvement in the cases to which the hon. Gentleman refers. We know that in practice, however, the solicitor's involvement may be minimal in supervising competent, experienced and non-legally qualified people who carry out the conveyancing work. The solicitor plays a cursory, occasional supervisory role to ensure that the
  1336
  job is being done and is completed on time. So long as the work is being done properly, solicitors do not need to become further involved.
  Those of us in the Opposition who believe that the monopoly needs to be broken base our view on three premises. First, we share the view of those who write in the terms that I have quoted. We believe that solicitors who are doing a good job and are competitive in performing the kind of service that is readily available to the public will hold their own.
  Secondly, it is not sufficient to retain, as the Solicitor-General proposed in the Government's response simply a variation of monopoly—that is, retention of the work by solicitors alone whether they practise in solictors' firms or elsewhere in building societies, banks or other institutions. Clearly, however, that requires investigation as "other institutions" could cover a wide area and might thus be a matter of interest to us. Nevertheless, it need not be solicitors alone who do the job, partly because so many other legal services are needed but are not at present being carried out. For example, in many areas—usually areas which also suffer a dearth of doctors, dentists and other services—welfare rights are increasingly important for a large number of people, given the volume of social security legislation, employment legislation, tribunals, and so on. Legal advice is often required on all those matters.
  It is important that the legal profession adapts to take on the role that it is not yet fulfilling — that of performing the functions that people are asking of it, but are finding inadequately met. The legal profession is adaptable enough, although it often does not evidence itself as being so, to be able to convert to do the new work that legislation requires of it. The profession generally need not fear, although rural solicitors may often be justified in this concern, that it would lose a substantial amount of its work and have nothing to replace it.
  At the moment much conveyancing work subsidises other work. That point has not been defended by Conservative Members. That is unjustifiable, and I hope that all hon. Members accept that. Solicitors in small country practices depend on conveyancing and have built that up as a substantial part of their practice to keep going. The other services that they provide are supported by conveyancing. There must be parallel reform of legal aid provision and other civil work to eliminate that need. However, that is not the argument today.
  The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) made the point that, in the interests of the public, we need a fundamental review of the way in which conveyancing and property law applies. We are left with an enormous body of legislation, largely dating from 1925, much of which retains practices that are no longer the easiest or the most obvious method for a quick and efficient transfer. For example, we need to accelerate registration of land, to regulate gazumping practices and to provide conditional contracts to deal with that point. There are a whole range of necessary reforms. The Bill seeks to establish the principle — this is why I support it — that it is unnecessary for a solicitor, with his legal experience, to deal with the often straightforward task of conveyancing.
  Some criticisms have been made of the drafting of the Bill. My support for it does not extend to suggesting that it should go through unamended or that it does not need much additional work and safeguards to be built in. As the

  1337
  hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) said, there are things that need to be put into the Bill in the interests of the consumer, which is one of the criteria in the long title.
  As it is drafted, the Bill deals with the conveyancing of the house. We all know that conveyancing is also done on leasehold property such as flats, and property with tenants or sub-tenants or licensees, all of which involve much more substantial problems. If we are to license people who are not practised in the legal profession and do not have solicitors' experience and legal qualifications, it would be right as a first stage to do so only for the categories of property that do not suffer these inevitable complications. If one is concerned with a flat in a block, or a property with licensees and sub-tenants and complicated lesser interests in land, it might be proper for that to be retained for the legal profession.
  A major objection to the Bill is that the safeguards that are in part provided by subsections in clauses 1, 3 and 4, in particular, do not go far enough. I accept that, but the Bill allows us to hang on the licence, which would be the prerequisite for one of the two categories of people able to do conveyancing, a set of conditions. They are set out in clause 1(2) and (3). The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) said that there should be a list of qualifications and conditions, such as those in his Act on a different profession, and that his Act could be adapted to provide the list of protections that the consumer would need.
  We should be happy to accept amendments to the Bill that would set preconditions to registration before anybody is allowed to carry out conveyancing. There would need to be a condition as to competence and ethics, or professional standards. We would need to make sure that the insurance cover provisions were adequate. There is the problem of insuring against one's own default or fraud. One needs to make sure that categories of building societies, banks or other institutions could generically, as it were, be said to have fulfilled those requirements if they had given the relevant undertakings, and their professional rules governed them in an appropriate way. It needs to be made clear that, for example, if one issues a licence to a company that company is of sufficient validity and standing for the consumer to have confidence in it.
  Those are conditions to the principle that the consumers will be able to inquire who is entitled to convey his land or property. Provided that the consumers see that there is a list certified and authorised by the Director General of Fair Trading, they will be satisfied by that reassurance. Perhaps the double licence provision is inappropriate. The consumer might be muddled by seeing two categories of licence. I accept that entirely. All that the consumer would want to know was that there was a licence that governed any person or company that would be permitted, after the check by the Director General of Fair Trading, to act as a conveyancer.
  A provision for a compensation fund would also have to be inserted into the Bill. There might be a defect in the activities of someone who was not sufficiently insured. For example, in motor injury cases, when an accident is caused by someone who subsequently disappears, the Motor Insurers Bureau provides an indemnity scheme. A fund should be set up to assist and make sure that the individual does not suffer. All those who had a licence would have to contribute. They would have to pay, as
  1338
  solicitors, barristers and members of any other profession do at the moment, towards that indemnity fund, which would protect the public.
  Such amendments are needed to protect the public. The Solicitor-General's response, which, if anything, was to buy off those who want action now, was unsatisfactory. He proposed, first, that there should be a consultation period, which is proper. That is how the Government should react. However, we have not had an assurance about how long that would take. We are concerned about that.
  Secondly, the hon. and learned Gentleman said that a committee of the Law Commission would be set up. That is good as long as the committee's recommendations come before the House and we have an early opportunity to debate them. One of the problems has been that much of the law reform work done diligently and extremely competently by the Law Commission has been neglected by the House. That is a shame.
  Thirdly, the Solicitor-General proposed a transfer to other solicitors in building societies, banks and other institutions. The hon. Member for Harrow, West is right to say that if one asked the consumer where he or she would find the best value for money and service, the answer would not be, "In the building societies and the banks." Perhaps they are the appropriate people to provide the service, but there is the danger not only that they would not provide the most competitive and best-priced service, but that there would be a conflict of interests, which the Solicitor-General did not deal with adequately. That would be a matter of great concern to the consumer. I cannot accept that someone who went to a solicitor employed by a building society would be satisfied that he would act always in the interests of the consumer—the client — as opposed to his employer — the building society. The same would apply to a bank.
  The consumer needs to know that he is getting a service at the best value and has a choice of the range of people to perform it. My contention is that in many cases that does not involve a solicitor's experience, competence and professionalism, which could be used for the many other tasks in legal service and support.
  We should support the Bill. We should amend it sufficiently to meet the properly voiced concerns of those who want to ensure that the consumer is protected. If we fail, we can await new legislation, but if we succeed we shall have reform now, which is often better than reform later.
  12.55 pm
  Sir Ian Percival: I, too, have an interest to declare as a member of the Bar, but I do not regard myself as in any way speaking to defend a vested interest. As at present drafted, the Bill would be more likely to make work for the Bar than to reduce it.
  As I have to catch a train at 1.30 and as many other hon. Members wish to intervene, I shall confine myself to three topics, and I shall not try to string them together.
  Hon. Members have all talked about consumer protection. One consideration that we all have in common is that buying a house is of enormous importance to the purchaser and that, however we legislate, we must ensure that we provide consumer protection. The worst thing that we can do for the consumer is to allow the belief to go out from the House that the conveyance even of registered title is, as it has been described in some newspapers, a

  1339
  "doddle". It is not a doddle. Some conveyances are very easy. The difficulty is discovering which are the easy ones. Someone has to do some very cautious and skilled work to ensure that it is easy and that it only consists of the completion of a form.
  My second fear arises directly from what my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General said. One of the effects that the debate has had on me is that I am infinitely more worried now about extending the right to convey to banks and building societies than ever before. I do not like the thought of someone who has to get a bridging loan from his bank having the bank say, "And we will do the conveyancing as well." The more I think of both sides of the argument, the more I think that far from providing consumer protection we may in fact put consumers in an invidious position.
  My third comment arises from a point made so often in the debate and made again just now by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). My complaint about the other provisions in the Bill dealing with the qualifications for conveyancers is that they contain no reference to competence. If we establish a category of persons who can put up a notice saying "Licensed conveyancers", they are given a cachet of respectability. People will be led to believe that they have been licensed by the Government to do this work, so they must be all right. The only protection provided in the Bill at present is that if the licensed conveyancer makes a mess of the work, at least his client's claim will be met. That is not kind of protection that I want to see for the consumer.
  I am thinking about the buyer of a house. He is engaged in a transaction of tremendous importance to him. He has found the house that he can afford. He wants that house. He does not want a good claim against someone for losing him the home by making a mess of the conveyancing.
  I have many other comments on the Bill, but they are of lesser importance. To me, those three considerations are fundamental objections to the Bill. They are so fundamental as not to lend themselves to correction in Committee. If I did not have a train to catch, I should be in the Lobby against the Bill.
  12.59 pm
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I have to confess that it is with some diffidence that I seek to intervene in this debate, not just because in the end I shall oppose my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), despite his eloquent and powerful speech, but also because I am almost alone among those hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, with the exception of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), in having no connection with the legal profession. Despite having moved house no fewer than 20 times in my life, before studying the Bill and its consequences I had only a hazy idea of the complexities and difficulties of conveyancing.
  The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) said that he started his approach to the Bill and came into the Chamber today with an open mind, ready to be persuaded. Originally, I was entirely sympathetic to the aims of the Bill, and I remain entirely sympathetic to its aims. Indeed, I had to reply to numerous letters from solicitors before seeing the Bill on 5 December, when it first appeared which, may I say, was somewhat late. However, before seeing it, I had to reply to letters from
  1340
  solicitors in my constituency, and I said that I thought that the general aim of the Bill was very worthwhile. In my judgment, there is a desperate need to break the monopoly that we have heard about this morning. There is also a desperate need for the fresh and invigorating winds of competition to blow through some of the dusty corridors and the dusty minds that are expressed from those corridors.
  That general sympathy for the Bill — perhaps even enthusiasm—greatly increased when I heard the reaction of the Law Society. I am a non-conformist and one who prefers to sit on these Benches than on the Conservative Benches, and the spectacle of a powerful organisation such as the Law Society wildly overreacting before it even saw the text of the Bill encouraged my enthusiasm for the general principle. It is perhaps even further encouraged by the considerable ranks of those who oppose the Bill, many of whom have turned up today, and perhaps even by the Government's evident lack of resolution over how to act, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby said.
  However, we are here to decide and to vote, not just on the general principles of the Bill and its aims but on its details. When I saw the Bill, I did some research and had discussions with a wide range of people — not just solicitors, I hasten to add. The flaws in the Bill became apparent. We must make a judgment. However much I support the aims of the Bill, which are clearly set out in its first lines, to
  "extend competition and protect consumers."
  the question is: is the Bill likely to fulfil its aims? Regretfully, I have had to come to the conclusion that in at least one of those two aims, the protection of the consumer, it fails. Then we have to decide whether the Bill is so flawed that it cannot be amended in Committee. Again, regretfully, I have had to decide that it is so flawed that amendment in Committee would be difficult to achieve.
  Let me give my reasons for saying that. I shall take the Bill in chronological order. It is interesting that the points get more important as one goes deeper into the Bill. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby said that there was a safeguard in that the Bill would involve only registered land. If one takes the gradualist view, that is a safeguard. However, it seems to me to be inevitable that it will create two classes of people who can sell their houses—those who have registered land, and those who have not. I represent a rural constituency, where the vast majority of the property is unregistered. So the people whom I represent will not enjoy the benefits that the Bill may offer. It is not desirable to have a two-tier system. In some areas the Bill goes too far, but here it does not go far enough. If we are to break the monopoly, we want to extend the advantages to everyone and extend the cheaper conveyancing that the Bill might provide to people in my area and in other rural areas. So in that sense the Bill does not go far enough.
  I should like a change that encompassed all conveyancing and gave equal opportunities to both registered and unregistered property. I accept, of course, that the inclusion simply of registered property may be an impetus to the registration of further property, but I very much doubt whether that will come about quickly, even with that impetus.
  It is odd that the Bill refers only to housing. I do not know whether it also covers flats. It is significant that it

  1341
  does not provide for the conveyancing of land. That is an important drawback. I should like reform to exend across the whole of conveyancing.
  More important is the question of qualification. Should we be content with conveyancers without the appropriate skills or qualifications? The only qualification required in the Bill is the ability to take out an insurance policy. If we are to change the system, we must set up a training mechanism.
  Mr. Porter: Such machinery exists already. It is called the Law Society.
  Mr. Ashdown: I am about to deal with that. We must have a governing body. That is another major flaw in the Bill. A governing body needs to do two important things. First, if we are to set up a conveyancing system as proposed it will have to have an interface with solicitors doing the same work. Without the safeguard and standing that a governing body would give conveyancers, solicitors will not be happy or confident when dealing with conveyancers. They will not conduct financial negotiations or place deposits over the phone as they do today. That lack of confidence will not speed up conveyancing, but delay it.
  Secondly, a governing body could provide assurance on standards and protection for the consumer. The Bill sets out to protect the consumer, but in the absence of the proper mechanism that protection will not be effective.
  It is important to know whether a compensation fund is proposed. What about conveyancers who take out an insurance policy but then break its terms? How will the consumer be treated in that case? If the insurance policy conditions are not met, will the client suffer or will the Government underwrite the loss?
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: The hon. Member is presenting an interesting amalgam of briefs from the Law Society and the Consumers Association. His mixture of arguments from all sides is shoddy. All his doubts can be cleared up by amendment in Committee. The hon. Gentleman's concern about insurance can be answered because the Secretary of State will make the necessary provisions for that insurance and if a conveyancer does not have insurance or a bond he will not be able to practise.
  Mr. Ashdown: I wanted to examine the Bill from both sides with an open mind and come to a conclusion. I believe the Bill to be so flawed in almost every clause that it cannot be amended satisfactorily in Committee. That is why I am against the Bill, although I support the principle behind it.
  There is a deep inequality in clause 2 which allows conveyancers to advertise in a way in which solicitors doing the same work cannot. That is an inequality that worries me.
  Although I concur with the spirit of clause 3(3), which encourages local authorities to speed up the process of searches and so on, I have some doubt as to whether, as drafted, it is workable. I agree that the Bill could do something profoundly useful. It could help to extend competition. Perhaps it has already done that—as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby said—in that it has encouraged the Law Society already to make several significant moves. However, in the last analysis I must
  1342
  conclude that it will not protect the consumer as it claims to do, and cannot be reasonably amended to achieve that aim.
  I welcome the Bill. It has stimulated a necessary debate both inside and outside the House. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. My diffidence about discussing legal matters when the House is predominantly full of members of the legal profession only makes me full of admiration for the hon. Gentleman. He has done both the subject and the House a great service. Reluctantly, however, I must conclude that the Bill is too flawed and provides insufficient safeguards in some areas. I shall therefore have to oppose it.
  1.10 pm.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: I very much welcome the attention that the Government have given the Bill and the statement of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. He said that it was the Government's aim to introduce a system that would make house buying simpler and cheaper. It also needs to be more speedy and efficient. On Second Reading, we are concerned not with the body of the Bill, but simply with the long title. If hon. Members agree with the long title, they will give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Essentially, we are dealing with an important human problem that is becoming bigger and bigger as more people buy their own homes. The Conservative party stands for home ownership and is extending it with all the means known to it. It is therefore our responsibility to new home owners to ensure that they can buy and sell their houses in a way that does not involve them in the long, bitter and frustrating exercise that is now becoming ever more prevalent—the house buyers' chain. That chain is a nightmare that confronts almost all those who buy or sell houses. Sometimes chains can involve as many as 13 or 14 people. Tremendous co-ordination is needed, and if one person pulls out, the whole chain collapses. An enormous amount of time is being spent unnecessarily by expert solicitors and others in trying to get the system to work.
  It is essential that the House should find a means—in consultation with all the professions involved — of ending that great delay, and the awful frustration and bitterness. I introduced my ten-minute Bill in May 1983, and it predated this Bill. Before then, we did a survey of the effects of the system. It was on the BBC programme "You and Yours". We heard many terrible tales of financial loss and bitter disappointment at being unable to sell, which went on for months and even years. We also heard much about the cost of bridging loans and the interest charges involved. Sometimes defenceless people were involved, such as the elderly, who were bewildered by what was happening. No one explained to them how they could get out of the problem, and they were not helped by the current situation in all the professions.
  Mr. Greg Knight: How will the length of those housing chains be shortened by the creation of a registered conveyancer? Is not the problem that the person at the end of the chain often cannot sell? If he cannot do so, there will be a long chain causing delay for others, regardless of who does the conveyancing.
  Mr. Wells: I was about to deal with that point. It is common ground amoung most of those who have studied the problem that the way to minimise conveyancing chains

  1343
  —they can never be eliminated—is to ensure that an enforceable contract is entered into between the two parties at the earliest possible moment. If that analysis is right, we must make the necessary changes—mostly in practice rather than in law—to get the two parties into an enforceable contract, and that is the aim of the Bill. That is the basis from which the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and I begin.
  The subject-to-contract system, which was supported by the Benson commission, and also the committee set up by the Lord Chancellor to investigate gazumping and conveyancing chains, has many merits. However, it must be changed so that contracts are exchanged as quickly as possible. One possible way to do that, which is permissible under present law, is to require a deposit to be put down between the two parties which is forfeit if the deal does not go through. I want that practice to be encouraged by solicitors, estate agents and building societies.
  How can we achieve exchange of contracts at an earlier stage? The 1973 Law Commission report spoke about the necessity for the vendor to prepare his house for sale. Before he puts his house on the market, he should institute local authority searches so that they are available at an early stage of the transaction and no time is lost. He should find the guarantee for any timber treatment; he should obtain the title deeds or land registry number; he should prepare the contract of sale and answer the standard inquiries that will come from the purchaser's solicitor.
  I am sorry that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General did not look with favour on clause 4, which deals with surveys. I believe it necessary to prepare a house for sale with a survey available so that a purchaser and a building society can use that survey for their different purposes. The survey will show that the house is in good condition or, if it is not in good condition, it will fairly and properly state that. After all, any other product sold in Britain must be shown to be in proper condition before it is bought. That is the objective of the clause, and I ask my hon. and learned Friend seriously to consider including such a provision when he introduces legislation.
  Estate agents have not been mentioned this morning, but that is another profession which desperately needs to reform its practices. It is wrong that estate agents should charge sometimes double the fee charged by a solicitor simply for throwing a couple of keys across a table and telling the customer to go and look at a house. That is wholly irresponsible.
  The purchaser must also prepare himself to buy a house. He must obtain a statement from whoever lends him the money, or from his bank if he is fortunate enough to have sufficient funds. By doing so, when he puts himself forward as a buyer he can prove that he is genuinely able to purchase the house.
  Mr. Nicholls: Does my hon. Friend accept that the main problem in a conveyancing chain is that most people must sell their houses before they can buy another house? It does not matter what reforms are introduced; no one should advise that person to enter into a contractual relationship quickly. Whatever else the reforms that my hon. Friend proposes may achieve, they cannot possibly speed up that process.
  Mr. Wells: My idea is that the process for the person selling his house will be very much shortened. Therefore,
  1344
  by carrying out the practices that I have outlined, the length of the chain will be very much shorter. The chain will not then be so onerous.
  I should like to say why, although I have a great respect for the solicitors' profession, we must find a way to break the monopoly. We propose in the Bill for it to be eliminated only in a narrow way, on registered land. In my ten-minute Bill I said that it had to be done on houses being sold for a second time. We have found that the monopoly has meant that solicitors have failed to introduce the reforms which favour the house buyer and house purchaser. Unless someone else comes forward and offers the house buyer and house purchaser a better and quicker service, I do not believe that solicitors will take on board the necessity for them to reform the system. I believe that it is the solicitors who will reform the system and that they will do it well once they allow themselves to do so.
  When I ask solicitors why they do not reform the system they say, "It is not our responsibility. It is not our responsibility that the searches take so long or that the surveyors survey houses two, three, four or five times. It is no one's fault, but it is certainly not the solicitors' fault that this process has built up." The only way that I cart see to make solicitors put their clients' interests first is to ensure that they know that, if they do not do it, somebody else will.
  A solicitor who began in practice in 1925 wrote to me and said that he supports us utterly. He said that when he began in practice solicitors acted for both sides of the transaction, that they provided the money, they drew the mortgage deed and they completed the sale of a house in under three weeks. He said that he was now ashamed to say that in his practice, as he leaves it, it takes more than three and a half months. He is saying that as a solicitor he is ashamed of the service that his profession now gives the house buyer and the house purchaser. That is what I want to see reformed and moved ahead. If, with the aid of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, we can persuade solicitors to take seriously reform of house purchase and sale, and ensure that they serve the public., the introduction of the Bill will have had a good effect.
  I am not convinced that the Solicitor-General and his Government colleagues can produce the answers we need in the time we need them. My hon. and learned Friend was unable, first, to give us a date by which he could introduce the Bill to which he referred, and, secondly, he did not know for how long the Law Commission committee would sit. Such committees sit for a long time. The Benson commission reported in 1979. The Law Commission committee on gazumping and house building chains to which I referred reported in 1973. We have not yet seen a reform of the system.
  Are we to allow this whole change to seep into the dusty corridors of the Law Commission, the Attorney-General's Department and the Lord Chancellor's Department? Unlike his predecessor, F. E. Smith, my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor seems bent on trying to prevent the introduction of changes which would benefit his own legal profession and which would benefit the 60 per cent., 70 per cent. and 80 per cent. of people in this country who will be home owners.
  Reform is necessary and urgent. I ask the House to vote for the Bill at this stage and work hard in Committee to produce a measure in which we can all have confidence.
  1.25 pm
  Mr. John Ryman: As the hour is relatively late, it may be helpful if I deal with some points that have not emerged in the debate so far rather than repeat points that have already been made, however eloquently and sincerely, by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  I am concerned about the timetable for the legislation that the Government envisage. My understanding is that they agree that reform is necessary, that they understand that the crux of the matter is the protection of the house purchaser, that they appreciate the dilemma of the solicitors' monopoly and that, in the interests of the public, they are willing to act. However, I understood the Solicitor-General to say, in effect, "We shall act at some time in the future. We cannot be more precise than that now because widespread consultations will have to take place with all interested parties and organisations."
  The Benson commission reported in October 1979—there was a short Adjournment debate on 5 November of that year—and, in effect, after hearing representations from many quarters, recommended the strengthening of the solicitors' monopoly, but also recommended that certain steps should be taken by the Law Society to improve the situation, which everybody acknowledged was unsatisfactory. I disclose an interest as a member of the legal profession, though not of the solicitors' branch. The Law Society has only itself to blame for being under fire and subject to severe criticism by the general public for not moving sufficiently fast since 1979 to put its house in order.
  It ill-becomes me to criticise any solicitor. I shall not do so, although the temptation is sometimes strong. They are an honourable group of men and women who perform sterling service for the community, but, like all professions, they contain some bad apples. I am reminded of Dr. Johnson's remark that, while he did not wish to speak ill of a certain gentleman, he believed that he was an attorney.
  If the Law Society cannot move with expedition to protect the interests of the buyer, it cannot be surprised that the Government should intervene on behalf of the public —and "public" in this context means the public who buy and sell houses—and solicitors cannot be surprised that there is an overwhelming desire, as reflected in the representations that hon. Members have received from their constituents, for reform in this sphere.
  Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that many solicitors, like myself, feel aggrieved that the Law Society has not given greater backing to solicitors to enable them to be competitive? Will he further accept that solicitors who have tried to price their work competitively — and inevitably have priced their work lower than some of their colleagues— have often found that they are not the most popular solicitors with the Law Society? Does he feel that if that were not the position solicitors might now have a rather better press than they have?
  Mr. Ryman: It is tempting, but it is not for me to comment on the internal politics of the solicitors' profession with respect to the Law Society. Since the Lord Chancellor abolished fixed fees for conveyancing several years ago, the Law Society has had ample time in which to make adjustments, bearing in mind the evident desire of the property-owning public to have a swift, speedy and
  1346
  competent conveyancing service. Solicitors, as is reflected in one's correspondence, are unpopular and sometimes their lack of popularity is based on a misunderstanding of the profession, perhaps by aggrieved litigants or persons who do not understand the intricacies of the legal world. Sooner or later—what I am about to say may be outside the scope of the debate — we must examine the solicitors' branch of the legal profession to ascertain whether the Government should introduce provisions to give the public greater protection when they wish to raise matters against solicitors. The Benson commission investigated this matter in detail.
  A well-publicised recent case illustrated the fact that the Law Society's machinery for dealing with its members is unsatisfactory in many respects. The "Lay Observers' Report" also illustrated the fact that general dissatisfaction exists among the public as to their remedies against solicitors in several areas including conveyancing. It is difficult, expensive and time consuming, as we all know, to get an action for negligence on its feet. The Law Society will not commence disciplinary proceedings if litigation is pending, even if the complaint is of a disciplinary nature.
  The layman, rightly or wrongly, often thinks that lawyers are making decisions about other lawyers and therefore he considers that he is not getting a fair deal. Such legitimate criticisms can be made of solicitors, but those criticisms are not relevant to the debate. The essence of the debate is to establish what is the best machinery for providing an efficient, competent and cheap conveyancing service.
  The proposers of the Bill have a laudable and high-principled objective in mind, but the principal question is whether the Bill satisfies the need to protect the consumer. I am most concerned about the licensed conveyancer and whether sufficient protection will exist for the public, bearing in mind that the Bill contains no criterion of competence or experience.
  I believe that conveyancing is not easy. The experience of the courts at every level is of innumerable problems, some of which were decided in the Court of Appeal as recently as the last summer term. Grave difficulties can arise in cases where solicitors have advised on conveyancing matters. An obvious example is the section 35 case where a young married couple buy a house for the first time, the marriage subsequently fails, the parties separate and long before divorce proceedings take place grave difficulties are incurred in the sale of the matrimonial home and the distribution of the proceeds of sale. The Court of Appeal heard two cases recently where vastly experienced solicitors got it all wrong. In one case the lay client's husband had to seek legal remedies against the solicitors who were acting for him. When the Bill's opponents say that they are worried about the lack of qualifications of licensed conveyancers, one could reply with some justification that some competent and experienced solicitors get it wrong.
  It is unfair to say that the legal profession is lethargic in reforming itself. The legal profession has taken many steps to reform itself, and I know of no other profession that has voluntarily reduced its fees, abolished the two thirds rule and abolished the practice of sending juniors with silks out on different circuits. Although those criticisms are unfair, I fully understand why they are made. Lawyers have always been unpopular and are easy prey for those who wish to criticise them.

  1347
  I am not impressed by the concept of insurance policies. If the young couple that I described wish to buy a house, but something goes wrong with the sale, they do not want financial compensation in four years' time. They want their house. They may have built all their plans around the house purchase—the marriage, the purchase of furniture and giving notice at their previous accommodation. It is no solution to tell them, "You will be all right because you have an insurance policy under which you can take action and, unless the case is settled, you will get judgment in two or three years' time."
  It is no solution to say to a widow who does not receive damages under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 arising from the death of her husband at work, because her negligent solicitor was statutorily banned and did not issue the proceedings in time, "In six or seven years' time when the matter has been settled you will receive damages." She needs money immediately to keep herself and her children. Insurance has been taken out of perspective in this debate because, apart from the fact that insurance is not available for fraud or dishonesty, it can never be adequate compensation for losing the house that one wishes to purchase.
  It has been said, although it is denied strongly —I suspect inaccurately—by solicitors, that the conveyancing side of the profession pays for the less remunerative side. The hon. Member for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg), who is an experienced solicitor and chairman of the all-party solicitors' group, said that that was not the practice in his firm and that he deplored it. My experience is that if many firms did not do conveyancing they would suffer enormous financial setbacks and would probably go out of business. Since the debate was advertised I have received letters from two firms of solicitors which said that if the Bill was passed they would probably go out of business. They were saying, by implication, that the conveyancing side of their practice subsidised the litigation and probate department.
  That is an admission by solicitors that they are overcharging for conveyancing. It is not consistent with any other proposition. It is no use saying that litigation does not pay well enough and that the legal aid fund does not provide enough money for crime and matrimonial work. Charging more for conveyancing is not the answer. Solicitors must organise their practice in such a way as to make it a viable economic proposition consistent with providing a comprehensive legal service to the public whom they serve. It is no use solicitors saying that they cannot afford to do without a large slice of conveyancing. The answer may lie in the increasing tendency for smaller firms to amalgamate with larger ones in an effort to reduce overheads, which may or may not be a good thing.
  Mr. Porter: We do not deny that some firms argue that they need the conveyancing work to remain in business, but my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Sir W. Clegg) made it clear that that was not our argument against the Bill. We agree entirely that solicitors should organise their affairs so that one side of the practice does not have to subsidise another.
  Mr. Ryman: The hon. Gentleman may not use that as an argument against the Bill, but I understand that the Law Society does. I shall not dwell further on that, however, as there is clearly some dispute about the evidence.
  Having talked frequently to solicitors over many years, I have noticed a kind of forensic sneer at litigation—
  1348
  "Oh, no! We do not touch crime. Litigation is just a shop window for our conveyancing and probate." It is implicit in the conduct of many solicitors that the staple diet of the firm is commercial and conveyancing work and, unless it is a specialist firm, litigation is an ancillary service as a shop window for the more lucrative conveyancing work. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has met many professional colleagues who sneer at crime and litigation as rather infra dig and a class of work tolerated only as an ancillary to more lucrative work.
  There is thus considerable evidence, and it is implicit in the correspondence that many hon. Members have received, that if the Bill were passed or the Government produced similar but more comprehensive legislation solicitors would suffer considerable financial hardship. The solicitors will have to accept that, because it is in the interests of the consumer and the public that the conveyancing system should be arranged in such a way that, although solicitors must make reasonable profits, the public cannot be expected to pay over the odds simply to keep solicitors in business.
  Solicitors must recognise their prime duty to the public. In this context, that means the people who buy and sell houses. It is no use solicitors constantly coming along with hard luck stories, making one's heart bleed for them and saying that if their monopoly is broken they will go to the wall. I am sure that responsible solicitors do not take that attitude. The amalgamation of firms to share overheads is evidence of efforts to find a sensible solution. One appreciates the difficulties. Overheads are enormous, especially in the London area, and I fully appreciate that, with increasing overheads, VAT and so on, many solicitors have grave difficulties. However, that is irrelevant. We are not here to protect the vested interest of either branches of the legal profession. In my part of the legal profession we have given concession after concession voluntarily and without interference or persuasion by the Government, because we considered that it was our duty to do so and that it was in the public interest. I suggest that the solicitors should do the same thing.
  Another point that has often been mentioned, although I shall not dwell on it at great length—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am sorry to be taking so long. That timetable suggested by the Government does not give us any prospect of early reform in this branch of the law, and particularly in respect of banks and building societies. I have been interested in building societies for a long time. In March 1976, totally unsuccessfully, I introduced a private Member's Bill to reform the building societies, and they still need reforming.
  As I understand it, the building societies and banks now want to enter the conveyancing business in a big way. This will require comprehensive legislation not only through this Bill, but through reform of building societies. I have with me a slim volume, with which I am sure the Solicitor-General is familiar, called "Wurtzburg and Mills on Building Society Law" by John Mills QC, and it is the leading textbook on building society law. It is obvious that if the Bill, or something like it from the Government, is enacted reform of building society law will be essential, because under the present building society legislation the building societies have no power to do conveyancing.
  Similarly, reform of banking law is also essential. I do not wish to criticise the individual wording of the Bill, because that would be grossly unfair. I am talking about

  1349
  the principle of the Bill and the spirit behind it. If one looks at the matter objectively, however, one sees that the difficulty for the supporters of the Bill is that they have not considered the implications of the Bill on building societies and banks. The Government's suggestion is that they should introduce a comprehensive package. What makes me suspicious of the Government's suggestion is that we do not know how long this will take, and experience has shown that when committees and commissions are set up there is interminable and inordinate delay. That is what worries me.
  The Solicitor-General has been frank enough to say that he cannot give us a timetable for when these events will occur. I want to know from somebody — and the Chamber is full of solicitors today — why the Law Society has done nothing since October 1979 to reform itself on conveyancing. If it has done something, what has it done? I understand from friends in the Law Society that some attempts have been made on reform, but four years have passed and what has it done? The Law Society cannot complain if we reform it, when it has been sitting around for four year discussing the problem and got nowhere.
  The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman has unintentionally put an inaccurate gloss on what I was saying about time. I said that we intended to move promptly on consultation with the committee associated with the Law Commission, to which I was referring. We intend to move promptly because we do not wish to delay the legislation which we intend to introduce. That is different from the impression which the hon. Gentleman has given us on this important matter.
  Mr. Ryman: I am grateful for the Solicitor-General's intervention. If I inadvertently gave an inaccurate impression, I apologise. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for putting the matter right. The House and the country will be reassured that the Government intend to move promptly on the matter. Nevertheless, one wants to know how prompt that will be, although I appreciate that it is difficult to predict. However, I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman's reassurance will be of considerable comfort to many of those with experience of reports from commissions and committees, with no action being taken even years later. It is obvious, in view of the assurance given by the Solicitor-General on behalf of the Government, that after the matter has been considered things will move much more speedily on this occasion.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been worried about competence. If I want to have my teeth done, I go to a dentist, who can drill the holes, rather than to a carpenter, who can also drill holes. It is no consolation to me when I hear people say about the Bill, "More fool he if he does not consult a solicitor about the conveyance of the house. If he consults a licensed conveyancer, he has only his just deserts, so no blame can be attached." That is a false point. There is a duty on the Government and Parliament to protect people from themselves to some extent and from their own folly. It would cause chaos in the conveyancing system if a lot of incompetent, negligent and tardy people ran around attempting to do conveyancing and getting people wrong titles or making serious mistakes.
  1350
  The sponsors of the Bill should address their minds to this matter. The difficulty that they have is in deciding what amendment in Committee could deal with a test of competence for a licensed conveyancer. They may find that that is an insuperable objection. No test has been put in the Bill and no argument has been put forward by the sponsors—my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) went out of his way to say that he would prefer to see a clause to that effect in the Bill—to provide for the competence of the licensed conveyancer. That will worry hon. Members in all parts of the House who have not made up their minds on which way to vote. It certainly worries members of the public.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the House of the earlier appeal for brief speeches. Speeches that are over long are made only at the expense of the rights of other hon. Members.
  1.53 pm
  Mr. Richard Tracey: I am grateful, as a non-lawyer, to be called to speak in this important debate. I hope that as a non-lawyer, with respect, I shall be briefer than some of the lawyers we have heard.
  As a journalist, I admire the work of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) in winning the column inches battle in this controversy. He was helped by Mr. Jimmy Young's former legal eagle, Mr. Tench of the Consumers Association. From the press coverage that has been sent to me and the coverage that I have noticed, it seems that the hon. Gentleman definitely won that battle.
  I hope that what might come out of the debate is that the representatives of the Law Society, both Members of Parliament who are present and those in the Strangers' Gallery, will convey to the Law Society the tone of the debate and the need for real reforms and real urgency in this important matter of conveyancing. They might also convey to the Law Society the fact that it does not always work, when lobbying hon. Members, to write extremely long letters, four, five or six pages long, some of which are rather offensive to the work of the House.
  The protection of the consumer is paramount. At the end of the day the house buyer is more concerned about the security of his title than about the bill that he has to pay. He may have to pay a fairly large sum to be certain that his title is secure. I am surprised that a body such as the Consumers Association should put a radical idea before the House, through the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, but one which in the end will not properly protect the house buyer.
  We have heard the view of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby that solicitors are pedants. What he is really saying is that they are extremely careful. They are paid by the public to be careful in their investigations to ensure that they are not stampeded into advising clients to sign documents which in the end may be dangerous to the security of their title.
  We have heard references to various groups. The building societies and the banks have been talked about as one of the main vehicles through which conveyancers will work. We have also heard that the protection of the consumer would be provided by insurance. Before I accepted all these arguments I felt that I should undertake some research with the bodies mentioned.

  1351
  I first took up the matter with the Building Societies Association. Apparently the Halifax building society would welcome what the hon. Member for Great Grimsby proposes. However, in answering my request to it the Building Societies Association quoted what it told the Benson commission:
  "Persons undertaking conveyancing for the public should be properly trained, have practical experience, have insurance available against losses sustained by their clients through their negligence or fraud and be subject to discipline in the event of misconduct … The Commission will immediately appreciate that these four conditions are currently satisfied by solicitors who normally perform their duties to societies' satisfaction … any new breed of conveyancers should meet the foregoing four points."
  The association tells me that it finds clause 1 inadequate, clause 4 inappropriate, and clause 5 unfair to building society directors, and that clause 3 does not solve the problem of preliminary inquiries. I think that we can conclude that the building societies as a body are not very happy with this legislation.
  Mr. Ryman: What does it say about clause 2? Surely it says something.
  Mr. Tracey: It says that clause 2 does not directly concern it.
  My next inquiry was to the Committee of London Clearing Banks. Again we hear that the banks would be a vehicle for the new form of conveyancers. That committee also told me what it had put to the Benson commission:
  "Banks attach considerable value to the availability of a solicitor's undertaking and they consider that the absence of such an undertaking or some other totally satisfactory security in lieu thereof will lead both to an increase in the costs and in the time taken, if only because Banks would normally wish to take legal mortgages and instruct their own solicitors in instances when at present they may not feel the need to do so."
  One of the complaints from the Committee of London Clearing Banks is that it was not consulted about the Bill in advance.
  Apparently insurance would be the saviour of a house buyer who found himself in a mess. However, the British Insurance Association, representing insurance companies, says:
  "from the soundings we have taken within the insurance market, it seems unlikely that any insurer would be prepared to offer cover for what would be regarded as a new 'profession' on the basis of premium rates charged to the established and traditional professions.'
  I see little evidence that the vehicles mentioned by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby will be available. It is clear to me that many of those good ideas would founder when investigated fully. I am glad that, spurred on by this private Member's Bill — we must accept that the Government have been spurred on—we now have the announcement this morning from my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General that the Government will ask the Law Commission and others to look more deeply into the matter. However, I have to agree with those who have said that the lack of a statement on timing is unsatisfactory. If the building socities and banks were to become involved, employing solicitors as we have heard, there would be a real problem of conflict. A man who works for two clients, but is employed by the same master, would surely have to give his loyalty to the organisation that is paying him. That matter will have to be seriously considered in the investigations that take place and in the consultations that will take place through the Law Society.
  1352
  The Law Society should, and probably will, be spurred on by what has been said in this debate. Indeed, it would be foolish not to find ways to relax its rules about advertising and about solicitors publicising their services and charges, thereby allowing clients to shop around rnore realistically for legal services.
  Moreover, I take the view that the Government should seriously consider reforms in the present machinery for registering land. Only just over 25 per cent. of land is registered, and that is an appalling state of affairs. I accept the problems of paying for more civil servants to do work, but it would represent a real reform and help to oil the wheels, making it much more reasonable for people to secure services from solicitors, and to secure those services far more quickly.
  I was not impressed by the suggestions made this morning by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. In my opinion, the protection of the consumer must be paramount in our considerations here. I should like to quote Professor Dahrendorf, who was a member of the Benson commission. He said:
  "in practice … it is quite clear that those who buy and sell houses would wish to be protected from errors and fraud. Whoever advises them, therefore, will have to be bound by pretty strict rules, by professional rules."
  This could undoubtedly be a separate and specialised profession, but Professor Dahrendorf says:
  "why create a new profession if there is one which has the skill and experience to do what needs to be done?"
  I believe that the way forward is by means of reforms through the machinery of the Law Society. Therefore, we should not vote today to redesign that wheel.
  2.4 pm
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I rise to intervene briefly in the debate, if only because my two pins will not hold me in a vertical position for long. However, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on introducing a Bill which is excellent in many ways, although flawed in one part.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If it is more convenient for the hon. Gentleman to make his speech sitting down, it is within the power of the House to grant him permission to do so.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is very kind of you to offer, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I think that I would show some disrespect to the House if I took advantage of that opportunity.
  During the passage of the Competition Bill 1980, I moved an amendment in Committee which was very much in line with the objectives set by my hon. Friend. It sought to break down what many of us regard as a restrictive, and certainly anti-competitive practice. We set out our case in detail against the solicitors' monopoly. I recall that the Government's response was very similar to that given today. Equally, the representations made by the Law Society were not so different.
  Because this debate has received more national attention than my amendment, the Law Society has now set about publishing innumerable briefs to sway public opinion and Members of Parliament. However, on the earlier occasion, its representations only went as far as meeting me in the Lobby to tell me that I was wrong. I insisted that I was right and said that I would press the case again in the future. I did so. Earlier today I saw a former Solicitor-General on the Conservative Back Benches. He

  1353
  answered, on behalf of the Government, the questions that I tabled then about the monopoly. The response that he gave was very little different from that given in Committee or again today.
  The Solicitor-General said, in effect, that the Government intended—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said—to leave the matter in a pigeon-hole and to use the mechanism of yet one more inquiry and committee to delay introducing a measure which the public want. The public demand what the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) referred to as urgent action. There is an obligation on the House to pass the Bill, if only to ensure that it has the opportunity of being debated fully in Committee. There is nothing that has been said that cannot be dealt with in Committee. For the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and other hon. Members to use that sort of excuse is to demean this House.
  Amendments can be made in Committee, and indeed the matters that I wish to comment on can also be dealt with upstairs. The part to which I object most strongly is clause 1(a) relating to building societies and banks. I oppose the extension of the right to convey to those organisations, because they will not act in the spirit of what the public want. They may well set out further to restrict the practice, by increasing prices and costs to the consumer.
  Building societies may be highly competitive in what they offer the investor, but they are never competitive in what they offer the borrower. When someone walks into a building society to ask for a mortgage, he does not ask what the building society's interest rate is. The borrower is interested only in finding out whether a mortgage is available. Therefore, we cannot talk as if the competition between building societies to offer services to borrowers is crucial to the debate. If a building society says that a mortgage is available but that it wants to retain the right to convey the property, the borrower will accept the offer, irrespective of the interest rate and the charge paid to the building society's conveyancer.
  The building society will be in an even better position now, because it will be able to say to the borrower, "Furthermore, we are able to extend the payment for the act of conveyance over 25 years by simply adding it to the mortgage." The mortgagor will believe that the offer of extended credit on the conveyance costs is worth more than the benefit that might be gained from going to a solicitor, who may be cheaper than the building society. The same applies to the banks. They already offer services at uncompetitive rates. The banks charge double for the act of probate, for example. The precedent is set and therefore I firmly oppose any measure to give the building societies and the banks conveyancing trade and the chance to damage the interests of our constituents.
  I heard the Government's objectives with sadness. The Bill which the Solicitor-General said he intended to introduce will cause the difficulties which I have just described. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that there must be some form of liberalisation, but that he wishes to extend the right to building socieities in a way which will further restrict competition and cause anti-competitive practice, although it is not covered by the Competition Act 1980.
  1354
  We should take the opportunity of going into the Lobby, supporting the Bill and removing mistakes in the Bill in Committee. If we did that we would fully serve the public interest.
  2.12 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate. We have had an interesting and important debate in which the subject has been well ventilated. I am disappointed at the Government's reaction. The House Buyers Bill is a simple and straightforward measure. The misunderstanding arises from its simplicity. Much has been left to the Secretary of State's discretion. That must be so because it concerns matters which must be decided by Government. It is not for a Back Bencher to ordain such matters.
  The Bill is criticised for being imprecise. That is wrong-headed. If the Bill had been too precise with an elaborate framework of control hon. Members would have criticised it for being too detailed and long. The Bill is right to give discretion to the Secretary of State.
  The Bill commands strong support outside the House and if the Bill is rejected its supporters will be disgruntled and disappointed. They will have a sense of betrayal and believe that Parliament is not defending their interests or improving their lot. They will believe that once again Parliament is discussing issues remote from their lives and aspirations.
  The Bill proposes a sensible way of making the conveyancing business cheaper, quicker and more straightforward. The Solicitor-General proposed as the acceptable face of a vested interest a scheme that will not improve competition more than marginally. His ideas will not bring down prices because they will not create genuine open competition. The development of new institutions will not take place because his proposal maintains professional segregation. It maintains the solicitors' monopoly of conveyancing. That was the whole objective of the Bill. Nor will it allow the attainment of the other objectives that were so brusquely and unreasonably dismissed by the Solicitor-General.
  Reform is to be postponed to the Ides of Mayhew. There is no timetable for adequate and speedy reform. That is disappointing, and shows that the Government, despite their slow and agonising deliberations, and despite the mountains of labour, have laid before us today a half-dead mouse. The Lord Chancellor has, effectively, triumphed—Rumpole's last case of a battle in Cabinet has led to this decision. After constant rumours that the Government would take action, they have proposed an unsatisfactory measure. It is unsatisfactory for anyone who believes in competition — as I do, and as the Government tell us they do—and it is unsatisfactory for anyone who wants to help the house buyer.
  On our calculations, a majority of Members are in favour of the Bill. Some Government supporters may have been bought off or talked off by an exaggerated version of what the Government propose. Therefore, our majority has been undercut, which is a shoddy manoeuvre. It does not defeat the Bill, but undercuts its support by an unsatisfactory compromise measure.
  In those circumstances, the Bill's proposers have two choices. First, they can say thank you to the Government for what they have been offered—but the Government have not offered enough for us to take that course. Had their offer been just a little more generous, had they shown

  1355
  a greater sensitivity towards the intentions of the Bill, had they taken a more reasonable attitude, we would have withdrawn the Bill or amended it in Committee. That cannot now be because the Solicitor-General has not held out adequate hope. That is a bitter disappointment for me, after all the work that has been done. Therefore, I have no alternative but to take the second choice and call for a closure of the debate.
  It is wholly unreasonable of the Government, who could have amended a perfectly workable Bill in Committee, to carry out such a manoeuvre against it. If the Government had seriously wished to achieve the purposes of the Bill, to which the Solicitor-General paid lip service, they would have allowed the Bill to proceed to Committee.
  The supporters of the Bill and public opinion in favour of it have been cheated by a squalid manoeuvre. We may lose the skirmish, but we will not lose the battle. The monopoly may be retained for a brief period, but it cannot prevail. The problems have been highlighted, and there is a chorus of anger against a monopoly. We have begun something today which, although it will not be completed by the Solicitor-General, will certainly be pursued.
  Mr. Weetch rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 100, Noes 14.

  Division No. 110]

  [2.18 pm

  AYES

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Hayes, J.

  Ashton, Joe

  Haynes, Frank

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Hayward, Robert

  Bagier, Gordon A. T,

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Barron, Kevin

  Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

  Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Biggs-Davison. Sir John

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Body, Richard

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Jessel, Toby

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Knowles, Michael

  Cartwright, John

  Leighton, Ronald

  Chope, Christopher

  McNamara, Kevin

  Clay, Robert

  McWilliam, John

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Madden, Max

  Cohen, Harry

  Marek, Dr John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Cormack, Patrick

  Michie, William

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Deakins, Eric

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Dobson, Frank

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Dubs, Alfred

  Murphy, Christopher

  Dykes, Hugh

  Ottaway, Richard

  Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Prescott, John

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Raffan, Keith

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Flannery, Martin

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Freud, Clement

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Ryder, Richard

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Golding, John

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Gould, Bryan

  Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Silvester, Fred

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Smith, C.(Isl'fon S & F'bury)

  1356

  Snape, Peter

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Soley, Clive

  Winnick, David

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wood, Timothy

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Woodall, Alec

  Tinn, James

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wareing, Robert

  Mr. Bowen Wells and

  Weetch, Ken

  Mr. Tom Clarke

  NOES

  Bendall, Vivian

  Page, John (Harrow W)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Brinton, Tim

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Butterfill, John

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Heddle, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Mr. Richard Alexander and

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Mr. John Whitfield

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now react a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 96, Noes 76.

  Division No. 111]

  [2.30 pm

  AYES

  Ashton, Joe

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Knowles, Michael

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Leighton, Ronald

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  McWilliam, John

  Barron, Kevin

  Madden, Max

  Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

  Maples, John

  Body, Richard

  Marek, Dr John

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Meacher, Michael

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Michie, William

  Cartwright, John

  Mikardo, Ian

  Chope, Christopher

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Clay, Robert

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Cohen, Harry

  Murphy, Christopher

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Cormack, Patrick

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Raffan, Keith

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Deakins, Eric

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Dobson, Frank

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Dubs, Alfred

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)

  Ryder, Richard

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Flannery, Martin

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Forman, Nigel

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Freud, Clement

  Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Silvester, Fred

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Sims, Roger

  Golding, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)

  Gould, Bryan

  Snape, Peter

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Soley, Clive

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Spearing, Nigel

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Tinn, James

  Hayes, J.

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Haynes, Frank

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Wareing, Robert

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Weetch, Ken

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

  Winnick, David

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Mr. Bowen Wells and

  Jessel, Toby

  Mr. Tom Clarke

  1357

  NOES

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

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

  Baldry, Anthony

  Major, John

  Bendall, Vivian

  Malins, Humfrey

  Berry, Sir Anthony

  Mather, Carol

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Mellor, David

  Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Neubert, Michael

  Brinton, Tim

  Page, John (Harrow W)

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Porter, Barry

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Price, Sir David

  Budgen, Nick

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Butterfill, John

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Renton, Tim

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Cope, John

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Dover, Denshore

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Eyre, Reginald

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Farr, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Fox, Marcus

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Steen, Anthony

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Tapsell, Peter

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Ground, Patrick

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Heddle, John

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Hickmet, Richard

  Tracey, Richard

  Hind, Kenneth

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Howard, Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Waller, Gary

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Wood, Timothy

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Lester, Jim

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Mr. Richard Alexander and

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Mr. John Whitfield

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Bearing in mind that a Committee will shortly be set up to consider the Bill, may we have an assurance through you that the appropriate body setting up that Committee will not put too many lawyers on it to slice its throat?
  Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Committee of Selection will put its recommendations to the House and the matter will be for the House to decide.
  Mr. Peter SnapeOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House will be aware of the detailed submissions made about the Bill by the legal profession in the past week. The surprising thing about those submissions— I make no complaint about this—was that they were all free. This must be the only occasion on which any hon. Member has received free advice from the legal profession.
  My point of order is this. Hon. Members on both sides will be aware of the pressure and of some of the subtle and not subtle arm-twisting that has taken place to persuade hon. Members, especially those in the legal profession, to vote against the excellent Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). Will you rule that if any attempt were made to discipline
  1358
  any hon. Member who is a member of the legal profession for voting in favour of my hon. Friend's Bill such action would be a breach of the privilege of the House and you would refer it to the appropriate Committee?
  Mr Deputy Speaker: The point raised by the hon. Gentleman sounds very similar in substance to the matter raised earlier with Mr. Speaker, on which Mr. Speaker gave a ruling on 12 December at c. 685 of the Official Report.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was my understanding that Mr. Speaker ruled that there was no interest that would disbar an hon. Member who belonged either to the Law Society or the Bar from taking part in the discussions or voting in the Division on this matter, but the point that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) was raising—I wish to follow him in raising it as I probably represent more lawyers than any other hon. Member — is that considerable pressure has been brought to bear on individual hon. Members who belong to the Law Society to vote what might be described as the Law Society party line.
  The Law Society, or part of it, at one stage circulated a letter saying that it hoped that as many hon. Members as possible who supported my hon. Friend's Bill would be stopped from coming to the House. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East is seeking a ruling, not necessarily today, but from Mr. Speaker, that any effort by the Law Society to bring pressure to bear on solicitor Members would be a clear breach of the privileges of the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is right in his allegations, the procedure is that he should write to Mr. Speaker outlining the allegations, before raising the matter on the Floor of the House. If he has substantive to evidence to support his allegations, he should follow the correct procedure.
  Mr. Peter Shore: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House has made an important decision by the Division, and I think that it is normal in these circumstances to have a statement of the Minister's attitude to the Bill, about what facilities he and his colleagues are prepared to make available to my hon. Friend in bringing forward his measure and about what we can expect from the Government, including, one would hope, their pledge that there will be no attempt to frustrate what is clearly the will of the majority of the House of Commons.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: No doubt these matters can be pursued in the Committee that will be set up.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is normal on occasions when the Government's advice has been disregarded by the House for the responsible Minister to make a statement about the Government's intentions, following the decision of the House. The Solicitor-General, who spoke for the Government in the debate, is present in the Chamber and the least that the House can expect is a clear statement of the Government's intentions from him—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have serious doubts as to whether that is normal procedure, as the normal

  1359
  procedure is for the matter now to be referred to a Standing Committee where such points can doubtless, with the permission of the Chairman, be raised.
  Mr. McNamara: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to pursue this matter, but you will recall that in the time of the Administration of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), when the Government's advice was disregarded, the Minister of the day was expected to make a statement. As that was a minority Government, on various occasions, regrettably, the Government were defeated, and on one occasion when they should have been they were not. When that happened, the Minister of the day who was responsible for the proceedings got up and, out of courtesy to the House, stated what the Government's intentions were. It is a gross discourtesy for the House when the Solicitor-General, who was present in the debate—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. McNamara: —does not get up—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that we have been discussing a private Member's Bill on private Members day and it is not usual, every time that a private Member's Bill is accorded a Second Reading on a Division, for the Government to make a statement. Indeed, that would be most unusual.

Private Members' Bills

  CHILD ABDUCTION BILL
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  COMPANIES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 30 March.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would help if hon. Members below the Gangway would sing out loud and clear, as I occasionally suffer from occupational deafness.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (ELECTORS ON HOLIDAY) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
  Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): On the instructions of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, Friday 6 April.

  PREVENTION OF DELAYS OF TRIALS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
  Mr. John McWilliam: With the permission of the sponsors, Friday 16 March.

  TELEVISING OF PARLIAMENT BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 January.

  ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 January.

  CONTROL OF DOG NUISANCE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  ANATOMY BILL
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills.)

  ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVING INSTRUCTION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
  Mr. Heddle: On the instruction of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, Friday 20 January.

  JURIES (DISQUALIFICATION) BILL
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills.)

  LOTTERIES (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills.)

  CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [18 November].
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 January.

  TRADE MARKS ACT 1938 (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [11 November].
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put and agreed to.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills.)

  AGRICULTURE (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills.)

  MEMBERS INTERESTS
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Robert Adley, Mr. Peter Griffiths, Mr. Ian Grist, Mr. Patrick Ground, Mr. Brynmor John, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith,Mr. Gregor MacKenzie, Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson,

  1361
  Mr. David Madel, Mr. Roy Mason, Mr. Tom Pendry and Mr. William Shelton be members of the Select Committee on Members' Interests.—[Mr. Cope.]

  MEMBERS INTERESTS
  Ordered,
  That the Minutes of Evidence and Appendices taken before the Select Committee on Members' Interests and reported on 11th May, in the last Session of Parliament, be referred to the Committee.—[Mr. Cope.]

  EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND ARTS
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Jim Callaghan be a member of the Education, Science and Arts Committee.—[Sir Walter Clegg, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Sport (Drug Abuse)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
  2.53 pm
  Mr. Colin Moynihan: The subject of drugs in sport is concerned with much more than simply enhanced performance. It is about the image of sport and, above all, the long-term health and welfare of our sportsmen and women.
  Without sufficient measures to combat drug abuse on both the domestic and international fronts, international competitive sport has fast become the competition of chemical athletes. That must be stopped. Abuse can lead to serious physical consequences. In particular, there are acute, potentially fatal, health hazards, and the possibility of chronic disability. Moreover, there are ethical considerations. Drug abuse contravenes what is meant by sport. It is a form of cheating that can result only in the degeneration of sport.
  This year, the prevalence of drugs in sport was highlighted dramatically. At the Pan-American games in Venezuela, a major forerunner to the Olympics, some improved drug testing equipment was installed unbeknown to the athletes. Stretching medical advance by its ability to detect steroids taken not just in the previous few days but throughout the previous several months, 11 weight lifting medal winners from nine countries, including Cuba and the United States of America, were tested, found positive and disqualified. On hearing this, 13 members of the American track and field team suddenly flew home without competing.
  The Americans have been notoriously lax in enforcing drug control, with countries behind the Iron Curtain only marginally better. If the Americans are to lead the sporting world by holding the 1984 Olympics, they have a duty to lead the world in drug detection in sport at the same time. The recent era when the Americans nominated a convicted drug taker as their athlete of the year must end now. To do this the most modern drug-testing equipment must be used extensively at Los Angeles at the coming Olympic Games.
  At home we have a duty to put our own house in order. Last year's Sports Council initiative in investing £150,000 to ensure that random testing fully subsidised by the Sports Council was available to every sporting body needs developing further. This small but excellent pilot scheme needs to be replaced by a major drive towards minimising drug abuse in sport. It is no good having voluntary random testing if governing bodies fail to take the initiative in what should be to them a matter of the highest priority.
  Excuses, be they apathy, evasion, unawareness of the seriousness of the problem, lack of facilities or lack of will, are all wholly unacceptable. With a few notable exceptions such as cycling, athletics and rowing, our own governing bodies have failed to take up the important Sports Council initiative both to the detriment of their sports and to the detriment of the health of our sportsmen and women. The administrators simply have not been tough enough. Where dope-testing is used it is no good if, on confirmation of positive tests, governing bodies of sports have neither regulations to penalise those who cheat by taking drugs nor the will to enforce life-time bans.
  Governing bodies, both national and international, have a crucial role to play in the control of drug abuse. Without

  1363
  their active support and commitment the fight against the spread of drugs and all that that entails for sport and sports people is lost.
  What is now needed is a code of conduct pioneered in Britain but far from exclusive to Britain. The rules and regulations of governing bodies should contain five essential conditions. Drug abuse must be strictly forbidden. A clear definition of drug abuse should be included in governing bodies' rules.
  It should also be stated that any athlete must, if requested by a responsible official, submit to a drug test. Refusal to do so should be taken as if a positive result had been obtained and should be dealt with accordingly. Furthermore, if an athlete withdraws from competition after having been selected for testing, he or she should be required to undergo testing.
  The finding of a banned drug or one of its major metabolites in the body fluid should constitute an offence and the offender should be penalised with a ban for life. There can be no mitigating circumstances save where drugs are prescribed on strictly medical grounds.
  These cases should be referred to an appeals procedure controlled by each governing body seeking, where necessary, the assistance of men of the highest calibre in sports medicine such as Professor Raymond Brooks, Professor Arnold Beckett and Arthur Gold, all of whom in their own right have led the world in developing, recognising and explaining the serious consequences of drug abuse.
  Furthermore, any person—not least coaches keen for the glory of their proteges—assisting or inciting others to drug abuse should be considered as having committed an offence against the governing body and should be subject to disciplinary action.
  I also recommend that a current list of examples of banned substances be included in the body of the rules. The one best adopted at present is the International Olympic Committee list, which should be regularly updated to cover the advent of new drugs. Those recommendations must be considered essential.
  At present, the chances of detection are minimal and the punishments are nominal. For many athletes today, taking drugs is a calculated risk. In Britain, we should substantially extend the present system of random testing, analysis and detection, making sure that tests are implemented throughout the calendar year, not just during major events. That can be the only sure deterrent.
  The Chelsea college drug control unit, which is one of the world's foremost accredited centres for drug control, should continue to take the lead in undertaking tests, financially backed and co-ordinated through the Sports Council. Agreement to participate in the scheme, adoption of a suitable set of rules and regulations for governing bodies, reflecting the Sports Council code, should be a prerequisite to the receipt of financial assistance from the Sports Council. Lack of adherence to the code, either from the outset or in its implementation, should be sufficient completely to cut off Government aid through the Sports Council.
  As hon. Members know, the Sports Council is an independent body, set up under Royal Charter, but in considering these matters I urge all those on the Sports Council to bear in mind that many right hon. and hon. Members have expressed to me the view that determined action now is vital.
  1364
  In Britain, we have no need to legislate to implement such a scheme. The Sports Council, with its financial control in sport, has a built-in, ready-made administration and framework. The Chelsea unit can be developed and extended to handle the additional tests at minimum cost, compared with the Sports Council's projected budget. Other centres can be accredited too.
  No one knows which or how many of our sports men and women are on drugs. Suffice to say that in the calendar year 1982, of the tests undertaken, 15 were positive, which included British sports men and women. There should be no reason for not publicising their names.
  The problem continues today. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) visited the Chelsea centre on Tuesday. The first test that he saw—a footballer—proved positive. It is time to lift the shroud of secrecy that now covers today's tests. In the future, we shall need to develop new tests for new drugs, and in particular for the new so-called wonderdrug, Somatatrophin, which is drawn from the pituitary glands of human cadavers and is sickeningly available by mail order from the British drug runner, Paul Townsend, who is at present earning his black market income from a base in France, from which he sends out a list of dangerous drugs, some with fatal side effects. It is no surprise that, as a result of such people, the case of four Canadian weightlifters, who were stopped recently at Montreal airport on their way back from an international event, revealed a stock of 22,000 anabolic steroid pills in their luggage.
  It could be argued that we are putting ourselves on a moral or idealistic limb, out of touch with all other countries. That is not so. Not only do two wrongs not make a right, but in Europe the French and Belgians have passed laws against drugs in sport, and Denmark and Norway are both shortly to do so, already having far more comprehensive independent testing groups empowered by the Government to swoop when and where they like.
  Action now to implement a code of conduct, both at home and through our influence abroad, both through international sports governing bodies and the Committee of Ministers on the European anti-drug charter for sport, provide the only method to pre-empt a repetition of the black days of the Pan-American games, when frightened drugged athletes scampered back home and medalists were rightly stripped of their titles, exposing their shame.
  Corporate will by a few people in certain powerful international bodies is required. One day we shall see the arrival of a machine capable of tracing all known illegal substances taken during the previous year. But until we move to that, we need to employ strong deterrent measures. We shall not remove the problem, but we can certainly minimise it. It is not just the handful of medal winners with whom we should be concerned, but some hundreds of young people who, if the sporting world does not act now, will think that drugs are the route to follow. Without determined action by our opinion formers, doctors and sports administrators today, the chemical games will regrettably be here to stay.
  I should now like to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) who has considerable interest in the subject and would like to conclude with a few words.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) have the Minister's consent also to take part in the debate?
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): Yes, Sir.
  3.6 pm
  Mr. Rob Hayward: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) for allowing me a few moments in which to comment about drug abuse in sports. I echo his comments about the experts at the Chelsea drug centre who so diligently and tirelessly try to end the abuse of drugs by athletes, and sportsmen and women throughout the world. I refer, in particular, to Professor Beckett and Dr. David Cowen. Reference has been made to the Pan-American games. They demonstrated to the world the disgraceful drug abuse that goes on, particularly in the United States of America and the Americas generally.
  It is significant that last year dope tests were taken at 51 major European sporting events, while no drug tests were carried out at any major sporting event of any sort in the United States of America. The Olympic games to be held in Los Angeles next year will be the first time that dope testing is widely used in the United States of America. Compliments should be paid both to Mr. Simon and Dr. Daly in respect of their efforts on behalf of the United States Olympic Committee to introduce dope testing for the first time in any sporting event in the United States.
  Without any shadow of doubt the United States is ahead of even the East Europeans in the abuse of drugs not only in athletics, but in weight lifting, cycling and many other sports. It is a shameful state of affairs that people should be winning medals and participating as a result of their expertise in taking drugs rather than their athletic prowess. I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend about banning people who are found guilty of taking drugs before any form of sporting occasion. Under current circumstances, there is little alternative to that ban.
  With the increasing use of drug testing and the adoption of some code of practice by many European countries, it should be possible in future for Western Europe's sporting federations to refuse to participate in events with those countries that do not apply similar drug testing codes. Some people might choose to describe that as a boycott, and that may well be the appropriate word. We should not only address ourselves to the Olympic games, the World Cup and other major sporting events, but be willing to accept random tests at any sporting event anywhere in any year, and not just in the season leading up to the Olympics, the World Cup or whatever.
  For those reasons, I support the comments of my hon. Friend.
  3.8 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) for raising this important topic and to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) for his comments. It is probably very appropriate that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East should have raised this subject, as he is not only a member of the Sports Council, but is a sportsman of international repute. In the former
  1366
  capacity my hon. Friend is also a member of the council's drug abuse advisory group. That group brings together a unique blend of sporting and medical expertise in the area of drugs and sport—unique not only to this country, but perhaps to the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East has therefore spoken from a position of some authority and I have considerable enthusiasm for the thrust of his remarks. I shall deal with them in more detail shortly. I feel, however, that I should begin with more general remarks.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East has confirmed, this country is among the world leaders in the techniques of drug detection. However, the problem of drugs in sport is not merely one of technicalities, but goes much deeper. Indeed, without exaggeration, the drugs problem— doping —cuts through to the very core of sport itself. Most obviously, it poses a threat to the metabolisms of the sportsmen and women who dope themselves. These medical risks to the individuals concerned are real, but the greatest dangers of doping are for sport itself; for the ideals of fair play, and open and equal competition, of sportsmanship.
  Sport is a form of physical activity, involving a greater or lesser degree of co-ordination of mind and body. It is an end in itself where success is achieved through competition with others — a trial of ability and application. Doping distorts this so that success increasingly reflects the misguided expertise, the medical and scientific support available to the various competitors. In my view, the problem of doping is therefore fundamentally an ethical one. Put simply, doping is no more and no less than blatant and premeditated cheating. It is yet another manifestation of the triumph of ends over means.
  Doping is perhaps the most pernicious and intractable problem in sport today. There is, however, no prospect of success in combating it if we do not appreciate its essential character. The efforts of experts such as Professors Beckett and Brooks, and their colleagues at Chelsea college, which I visited last year, and throughout the world provide the techniques of detection—no more. They are pursuing a moving target. The users are devoting just as much effort to staying one step ahead. The real problem is ethical and it will not be overcome without changed attitudes, without winning over the hearts and minds of those involved — the competitors themselves, the coaches and the administrators who support them.
  Government tread only tentatively in the realm of ethics. This is true in sport as in other fields, perhaps more so. Sports bodies are proud of and protect their autonomy as few others can and do. I do not begrudge them this; on the contrary, I am firmly committed to helping sustain their independence. The Sports Council, created by a previous Conservative Administration, embodies this. It exists at arm's length from the Government but is charged by them with promoting the interests of sport and recreation and with spending public money to that end. Its role, like that of the Government, is, however, limited. The governing bodies and their members are similarly autonomous and responsible for their actions, in doping as elsewhere.
  I am pleased to say that the Sports Council has for its part given a firm lead, notably through its support for the testing centre at Chelsea college under Professor Beckett, and the associate research with Professor Brooks at St. Thomas's. Most recently this support has been extended

  1367
  to include 100 per cent. subsidies to governing bodies to cover the costs of tests. Over recent years this has represented the Sports Council at its best. Its approach has been forward-thinking, far-sighted and responsible, and I was delighted that the chairman chose to highlight this area when presenting the council's annual report last month.
  The council's support for the centre last year, 1982–83 —its contribution towards its operating and equipment costs—totalled more than £100,000, and this figure did not include the open-ended contribution towards the costs of individual tests. Last year these cost only £12,000 for some 800 tests. This take-up is frankly disappointing and I know that hon. Members will be disappointed. Only 14 governing bodies make use of the facilities, and some of them only intermittently.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East can take some satisfaction from the leading role of the Amateur Rowing Association of which he is a member. However, he will, I am sure, take less pleasure that boxing, in common with other major sports such as football, cricket or hockey, is among those which have not yet taken up the opportunity offered by the Sports Council. My concern is that they have not done so. Is it that they and the other sports without any programme know that there is no drugs problem in their sports? If so, how have they established this? I suspect that the explanation is rather more prosaic—that they cannot contemplate the possibility of such, and if they do are not prepared to face the responsibility to combat it.
  In the United Kingdom the facilities exist, but neither I nor the Sports Council can compel their use. This responsibility lies with sport itself. There is certainly no prospect of legislation, as my hon. Friend said. It would be wholly inappropriate and contradictory to the spirit of voluntarism which is so important to the organisation of sport in the United Kingdom. Moreover, such legislation would also not be feasible. The substances which can aid a sportsman's performance are many and varied, and not all of them are controlled or generally proscribed; indeed, in other contexts some can be beneficial. Consequently, I find it impossible to conceive of an approach which would proscribe usage of certain substances by sportsmen but not by others—after all, most of us are sportsmen for some of the time, if only for a half hour of incompetent squash every week. I see no welcome for the creation of a new "drugs police" force for sport. There would not be much approval for that from my hon. Friends.
  One alternative of course, as my hon. Friend suggested, is to extend the Sports Council's powers of persuasion. I can see the attractions of making grant-aid to governing bodies conditional on their instituting drug-testing regulations and programmes. However, such moneys do go to benefit the development of the sport as a whole, including, of course, the grass roots and especially young people. The problem is, therefore, that the innocent would pay the penalty along with the guilty. In effect, that might be deemed blackmail, and the ethical basis of such an approach is, perhaps, to be questioned.
  My own view is that there could be some potential in that approach if it could be focused sufficiently to exclude the innocent from its gamut—for example, by limiting financial sanctions to the council's grants towards the costs of international preparation, training and competition. However, that is a matter for my hon. Friend, in his capacity as a member of the Sports Council, to advance. He knows that I never interfere in the day-to-day running
  1368
  of the Sports Council. The use of that approach, if applied bluntly, might also incidentally leave the Sports Council with a large financial surplus in its initial years. Nevertheless, despite those doubts I would, of course, be delighted to discuss the potential of that approach with him if he has specific proposals. The decision ultimately would, however, be for the Sports Council.
  This discussion has confirmed my long-held view that the problem lies outside the Government and in the sport itself. Internationally, the same appears true. At the intergovernmental level, the Council of Europe, supported by non-governmental sports organisations, has maintained a consistent interest in and concern about this problem. Interestingly and reassuringly, it has looked consistently to United Kingdom practice for much of its inspiration.
  In 1979 the Council of Europe adopted a recommendation urging member states to act to combat drug abuse in sport. This applies to the 23 western European members of the Council of Europe, and it clearly identified sport as being in the lead, the role of Governments being to support the efforts of the governing bodies of sport to eradicate the problems. Indeed, much of the recommendation's detailed provisions appear to have been modelled on how we were already approaching the problem here. It called on Governments to encourage the development of testing techniques, to promote research, and to consider —where this had not already been done—the establishment of a national anti-doping committee along the lines of the Sports Council's drugs abuse advisory group.
  That was a good beginning, but no more, and efforts to promote European co-operation continue. In particular, the Council of Europe has formed an expert group to prepare a code of practice, a set of guidelines for Governments and sports bodies to follow in their efforts to eliminate drug abuse in sport.
  As my hon. Friend has pointed out, the United Kingdom is representd on this group by a fellow Sports Council member, Arthur Gold, of athletics fame, who is one of our most experienced, talented and distinguished sports administrators. The work is continuing, but the preliminary draft produced by the group, which I have seen, has the makings of a most impressive document.
  The expert group's work draws heavily on the pioneering work of the International Olympic Committee, which maintains a list of banned substances, and of the International Amateur Athletics Federation, whose guidelines on carrying out doping controls are annexed. The recommendations fall into two groups—those for Governments and those for sports bodies. The former urge Governments to develop and consolidate their supporting role, elaborated in the earlier 1979 recommendation. Most of the detailed provisions — promotion of research, provision of subsidies for tests and the dissemination of anti-doping advice — are already part and parcel of United Kingdom and especially Sports Council practice. The problem is, of course, to encourage a more positive response, if that is not ambiguous phraseology in this context, on the part of sport itself.
  The working group work has highlighted one area where the Government can do more. My hon. Friend referred to the activities of overseas drug suppliers, and a Mr. Paul Townsend in particular, who offer a drugs-by-post service to supposed sportsmen. That was, of course, highlighted by the press at the time of the Helsinki athletics world championships earlier this year. I share the deep concern which my hon. Friend and the media have

  1369
  expressed about this. It is an international problem and the co-operation of other Governments is obviously a key factor in stopping this scheme. However, my investigations suggest that in this case we may be able to act within the United Kingdom to inhibit the activities of Mr. Townsend and, possibly, others like him who ply their destructive trade.
  Many of the substances banned in sport are not proscribed more generally — some may indeed be beneficial. Some are, however, classified as controlled drugs, and their supply, possession and import are criminal offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. These include the psychomotor drugs such as amphetamines. Many of the substances associated with drugs abuse in sport fall into a second category—prescription-only medicines. Their manufacture, import and supply are regulated by the Medicines Act 1968 and require a licence. These include anabolic steroids.
  It is here that I believe there may be a loophole which should, if possible, be closed in the interests of sport. The Medicines Act allows exemptions, and in particular section 13 permits individuals to import prescription-only medicines for their own use. Legally, therefore, sportsmen are free to make use of the services of people such as Paul Townsend, so long as they do not forward their purchases to third parties. I am concerned by this and will discuss with my colleagues at DHSS possible solutions. One way might be to amend section 13 to limit the right of importation to authorised individuals only. The only guarantee that I can give today is to look into it.
  For sport, the effects of the European charter would be more far-reaching; it looks for action which has been sadly lacking in many cases. The draft charter itself is very comprehensive and leaves reluctant sports few excuses to drag their feet. In more detail the charter calls for the institution of random tests throughout the season, and as a condition of eligibility for selection athletes and sportsmen generally should have to agree to random testing.
  I welcome and support such moves and was heartened to hear Mr. Arthur Gold advocating the establishment of a voluntary register of athletes prepared to agree to such testing when he addressed the Central Council of Physical Recreation annual conference last month. Certainly I am looking forward to discussing this proposed charter when
  1370
  I and my fellow Ministers with responsibility for sport gather in Malta for the fourth conference of Ministers next May. I realise that this will not meet the optimistic timetable which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East has outlined, but the Council of Europe is not renowned for its speed of progress. I should regard it as a major achievement if this document could be adopted by the Council of Europe before the Los Angeles games in August of next year.
  There is clearly much hard work to be done here. The task inevitably falls to the international sports federations led, of course, by the International Olympic Committee. As my hon. Friend said, next year is Olympics year, and all eyes are turning westwards. I am pleased to note that Chelsea college is one of about a dozen drug-testing centres accredited by the International Olympic Committee. These are concentrated in Europe. The United States has no such centre, though Los Angeles is awaiting accreditation as a pre-condition of hosting the games.
  My hon. Friends touched on the incidents at the Pan-American games, when a large number of United States athletes withdrew, and other participants gave positive samples. There is a real problem in American sport. Many people would say that a great deal of the problem originated in America. The participants had not been expecting such rigorous tests and were caught literally unawares. They had not phased their drugs programmes correctly. I was delighted by the response of Mr. Bill Simon of the United States Olympic committee, who announced that in future random tests would be a precondition of selection to represent the United States of America. I support his policy wholeheartedly and I hope that many people will take note of that. People should take notice of these examples.
  In the United Kingdom the governing bodies need to face the problem and make use of the facilities available at Chelsea college. As Sebastian Coe commented at the Baden Baden Olympic Congress in 1981, speaking on behalf of the competitors:
  "We consider this"—
  doping—
  "to be the most shameful abuse of the Olympic ideal: we call for the life ban of coaches and the so-called doctors who administer this evil".
  Sport must face this call.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Three o'clock.

ARTS
  Government Subsidies
  Government Subsidies
  English Dance Companies
  English Dance Companies
  National Theatre and Royal Shakespeare Company
  National Theatre and Royal Shakespeare Company
  Theatres
  Theatres
  Orchestras
  Orchestras
  Arts Council
  Arts Council
  Financial Support
  Financial Support
  South Bank Arts Complex
  South Bank Arts Complex
  Friends of the Iveagh Bequest, Kenwood
  Friends of the Iveagh Bequest, Kenwood
NATIONAL FINANCE
  European Community (Information and Publicity)
  European Community (Information and Publicity)
  Fuel Duty
  Fuel Duty
PRIME MINISTER
  Government Contracts
  Government Contracts
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Appointments
  Appointments
  Commissioners for Complaints
  Commissioners for Complaints
  Population Statistics
  Population Statistics
  Regional Industrial Policy
  Regional Industrial Policy
WALES
  Geriatric Care
  Geriatric Care
  Mentally Handicapped Persons (Treatment Costs)
  Mentally Handicapped Persons (Treatment Costs)
  Elderly Persons (Homes)
  Elderly Persons (Homes)
DEFENCE
  Chinese Laundrymen
  Chinese Laundrymen
  Army Transport Units
  Army Transport Units
  Pay and Allowances
  Pay and Allowances
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Polytechnics
  Polytechnics
  Children (Special Educational Needs)
  Children (Special Educational Needs)
  Health Education
  Health Education
  Religious Education
  Religious Education
  Agricultural and Food Research Council
  Agricultural and Food Research Council
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Motor Cars (Trade Statistics)
  Motor Cars (Trade Statistics)
  Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Restrictive Trade Practices
  Restrictive Trade Practices
  Regional Industrial Development
  Regional Industrial Development
  Steel Council (Meeting)
  Steel Council (Meeting)
  Consumer Affairs Council (Meeting)
  Consumer Affairs Council (Meeting)
  Employment Concentration Ratios
  Employment Concentration Ratios
  Clothing (Origin Marking)
  Clothing (Origin Marking)
  Engineering Construction Industry
  Engineering Construction Industry
EMPLOYMENT
  Youth Training
  Youth Training
  Youth Training
  Youth Training
  Careers Officers
  Careers Officers
  New Technology (Training)
  New Technology (Training)
  Young Persons
  Young Persons
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  El Salvador and Nicaragua
  El Salvador and Nicaragua
TRANSPORT
  Publicity (Departmental Expenditure)
  Publicity (Departmental Expenditure)
  Motorways (Roadworks)
  Motorways (Roadworks)
  Welham Green (Railway Station)
  Welham Green (Railway Station)
  Marine Navigation Aid Systems
  Marine Navigation Aid Systems
  A428 (Bromham Bypass)
  A428 (Bromham Bypass)
  Bedford (Bypass)
  Bedford (Bypass)
  Okehampton Bypass
  Okehampton Bypass
  Trunk Roads (Contracts)
  Trunk Roads (Contracts)
  M25 (Traffic Loads)
  M25 (Traffic Loads)
SCOTLAND
  Student Numbers
  Student Numbers
  Radioactive Waste (Disposal)
  Radioactive Waste (Disposal)
ENVIRONMENT
  Metropolitan Counties (Expenditure)
  Metropolitan Counties (Expenditure)
  Greater London council (Abolition)
  Greater London council (Abolition)
  Rents
  Rents
  Sewers
  Sewers
  Brent
  Brent
  London Festivals
  London Festivals
  British Waterways Board
  British Waterways Board
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prisoners (Police and Court Cells)
  Prisoners (Police and Court Cells)
  Remanded Prisoners
  Remanded Prisoners
  Overseas Visitors (Statistics)
  Overseas Visitors (Statistics)
  Immigration Statistics
  Immigration Statistics
  Immigration Statistics
  Immigration Statistics
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Metropolitan Police (Forms)
  Metropolitan Police (Forms)
  Magistrates' Courts (Committal Proceedings)
  Magistrates' Courts (Committal Proceedings)
  Suspended Sentences
  Suspended Sentences
  Iranians
  Iranians
  Interpol
  Interpol
  Shoplifting
  Shoplifting
ENERGY
  Energy Efficiency
  Energy Efficiency
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Deputising Services
  Deputising Services
  Flosint
  Flosint
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Child Support
  Child Support
  Voluntary Employment Deductions
  Voluntary Employment Deductions
  Form SB20 (Claims)
  Form SB20 (Claims)
  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Invalidity Pensioners
  Invalidity Pensioners
  Invalidity Pension
  Invalidity Pension
  Retirement Provision (Inquiry)
  Retirement Provision (Inquiry)
  NHS Property (Repairs)
  NHS Property (Repairs)
  Campylabacter
  Campylabacter
  Sickness and Invalidity Benefit
  Sickness and Invalidity Benefit
  Disablement Awards
  Disablement Awards
  Industrial Injuries (Assessment Scale)
  Industrial Injuries (Assessment Scale)
  Home Responsibilities Protection
  Home Responsibilities Protection
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  Unemployment and Sickness Benefit
  Unemployment and Sickness Benefit
  Chiropody Clinic, Husbands Bosworth
  Chiropody Clinic, Husbands Bosworth
  International Population Conference, Mexico
  International Population Conference, Mexico
  Pharmaceuticals (Profits)
  Pharmaceuticals (Profits)
  Population Statistics
  Population Statistics
  Child Care
  Child Care

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle.

South Africa: Government Relationships
Lord Hatch of Lusby:My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attitude to the South African Government has changed as a result of the constitutional referendum in that country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne):My Lords, we continue to attach importance to our relationship with the South African Government. We have expressed the hope that the referendum result will facilitate the process of peaceful change which we all wish to see in South Africa.
Lord Hatch of Lusby:My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord two supplementary questions? First, he refers to the importance of relations with the Government of South Africa. Could he expand on that?What is the state of relations between the British Government and that of South Africa? Secondly, he will recall that in the Commonwealth communiquéthe word "fraudulent"was used to describe the new constitution on which the referendum was based. In another place the Prime Minister objected to the word "fraudulent" and said that she would not have used it. The word was used because the vast majority of the inhabitants of South Africa—the Africans—are not to be represented in the new constitution. Can the Minister explain the British Government's objection to the word "fraudulent"?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I doubt whether anyone's interests are served by extreme language of any kind, particularly in the circumstances that surround the problems of that part of the world. The noble Lord asked me about the importance of our relationship with South Africa. I should have thought that that importance was self-evident, having regard to the fact that we have such long-standing relations of most kinds with that country.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos:My Lords, whatever strategic or commercial advantages some people may see in an improved relationship with South Africa, does the noble Lord agree that the attitude of Her Majesty's Government must always be conditioned by our loathing of the system of apartheid? Is he aware that we fully endorse what his right honourable and learned friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said to the Royal Commonwealth Society last month? He expressed some doubt,
"that the constitutional reforms—to bring the minority Coloured and Asian groups into junior partnership in a white-dominated
390
system— answered the need for a system 'acceptable to the people of South Africa as a whole' ".
Will the Minister confirm that that clearly is the policy of Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Trefgarne: Indeed, my Lords, the words of my right honourable and learned friend are exactly the policy of Her Majesty's Government, as the noble Lord would expect. We have never deviated from our view that it is for those in South Africa to decide upon their own political development, but we have made it clear that. we are looking for progress towards constitutional arrangements that are acceptable to the people of South Africa as a whole.
Lord Paget of Northampton:My Lords, when the noble Lord is considering our attitude to South Africa, will he bear it very strongly in mind that South Africa is on our side?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the views of the noble Lord in these matters are always interesting and sometimes unusual.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the Foreign Secretary's statement gives encouragement and a form of hope to black people all over the world, and that any statements to the contrary damage this island race of ours? Will the Government maintain this policy and let the world know that we are in opposition to the degradation of people in South Africa and elsewhere who happen to be born with black skins? Finally, does the noble Lord also agree that it is about time that Namibia had its freedom from this terrorist organisation masquerading as the state of South Africa?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I said earlier, I think extreme expressions of view of any kind are not particularly helpful in this context. I do not think that there has ever been any doubt about the United Kingdom's attitude to apartheid.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls:My Lords, will my noble friend emphasise the fact that the words used by our right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary when he said that he had doubts are very different from the word "fraudulent", which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, wants to use? That word can only be divisive and hinder any approach towards getting an arrangement satisfactory to Africa and to the whole world.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. I think it is wrong to imagine that all the right is on one side in this matter.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, as the noble Lord the Minister objects to the word "fraudulent" as extreme, will he take the opportunity to state categorically that in the view of the British Government, and of all the Heads of Government who met in New Delhi, the new constitution in South Africa does not meet the requirements which he has laid down for the development of a democratic system in South Africa? If he is sincere in believing on behalf of the British Government that apartheid is abhorrent, and the

391
British Government are looking for a full democratic system in South Africa, can the noble Lord suggest how the 70 per cent. of South Africans who at present do not have any part in that constitution can gain that participation, other than by acts of terrorism?
Lord Trefgarne:My Lords, I am afraid I do not have a formula at my fingertips for a total solution to the problems of that part of the world,and particularly the internal problems to which the noble Lord refers. The new constitution, following from the referendum to which the noble Lord has referred, is a step in the right direction, but a very tiny step, and does not go anything like far enough.

Trading Standards: Metropolitan Councils
11.12 a.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what estimates they have made of the additional cost of providing the existing level of trading standards service in the areas of the six metropolitan county councils under the recent proposals for abolishing those authorities.
Lord Lyell:My Lords, the Government believe that the existing level of trading standards service can be provided by the district councils in the six metropolitan areas at no additional cost. It will be for the districts to decide on the future level of service and the most effective and efficient means of provision.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: But, my Lords, does not the Minister appreciate that his proposals to scatter the trading standards service would be looked upon as an act of supreme folly? When one looks at the White Paper and bears in mind that a recommendation in it calls for the need to ensure consistent standards of enforcement, why does the Minister believe that creating more authorities rather than less will lead to a consistent enforcement of standards? Does the Minister recall that in 1974, when reorganisation took place, there were 250 weights and measures authorities and the total was reduced to 86,and does he agree that in the intervening period those who advocated larger organisations providing a comprehensive range of services have been fully vindicated?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, my answer to the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is, no. In answer to the second part I would say that he and your Lordships will appreciate that the problems regarding trading standards are, and will continue to be, for the district councils to handle. Perhaps I may give the noble Lord three examples: one of the district councils within the area of one of the existing six metropolitan county councils which we are discussing might agree to provide the service on behalf of the others; or a consortium could be formed among the district councils for the purpose; or a neighbouring shire
392
county might be asked to provide the service for one or more adjoining districts. I am sure that the noble Lord and your Lordships will agree that different arrangements would be appropriate for different areas.
With regard to the third part of the noble Lord's supplementary question. my reply is, no, I would not necessarily agree.
Lord Drumalbyn:My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he will invite his noble friend to take steps to cross-check with the metropolitan county councils on the expectation that he has expressed that there would be no extra cost? Is he aware that, according to information that I have received, an estimate has been made by at least one of the metropolitan county councils that the cost would be doubled?
Lord Lyell:My Lords, with regard to the first point raised by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. certainly I shall pass on his very valuable comments to my noble friend. I am very interested in the second point put forward by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. I am afraid that I was not aware of it, and perhaps I may write to him.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does not the noble Lord's answer to the first supplementary question indicate that the Government have not at all thought out this matter, but, having made a political decision, are now trying to find arguments to justify it?
Lord Lyell: No, my Lords.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords,will the Minister explain why,as he said in reply to a supplementary question, he expects that one metropolitan district might provide the service on behalf of another, bearing in mind the jealousy that already exists among the various authorities?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I trust that I stressed that I hoped it would be a shire county, not a metropolitan county, though the noble Lord has asked about metropolitan counties. I stressed that one shire county might provide a solution on behalf of the others. I am sorry that I have forgotten what was the noble Lord's second point, and I wonder whether he will briefly remind me of it.
Lord Dean of Beswick:My Lords, does the noble Lord really expect one local authority to allow another authority to act on its behalf, bearing in mind the jealousy that already exists among local authorities?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is keen on a hyposthesis as to what might happen.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, as an antithesis to the hypothesis will the Minister take very careful note of a very respectable body, the Institute of Trading Standards Administration? Has the Minister seen the recent report by the institute which points out the following comparison among three different categories of authorities which provide trading standards service? For instance, the cost of service per

393
head per annum in metropolitan county councils is 89.4 pence; in shire counties it is 93.5 pence; and in London boroughs it is 169.5 pence. If the Government are looking for savings, surely in this particular service, if not in others, it is demonstrated that bigness certainly provides efficiency which the Government are seeking? Why persist in abolishing a service which is efficient, desired, and successful?
Lord Lyell:My Lords, there is no need to abolish this particular service. I would stress to the noble Lord that the service will continue. The noble Lord mentioned the London boroughs, but they are not referred to in the Question. Certainly, in regard to the figures that he has quoted, there is not much difference between 93 pence and 89 pence.

Equal Pay
11.18 a.m .
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take in the light of the views expressed in the amendment of the Motion concerning the Equal Pay (Amendment) Regulations passed by this House on Monday 5th December 1983.
The Minister of State, Privy Council Office, and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie):My Lords, the Equal Pay (Amendment) Regulations will become operative on 1st January 1984. We remain firmly convinced that the amendment takes full account of the 1982 decision of the European Court of Justice, and is therefore in conformity with European Community law.
Lord McCarthy:My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for answering the Question in a rather uninformative way. Is he not aware that severe disappointment will be bound to follow in all parts of the House from what he has just said? Does he not recall that, in the debate that we had on 5th December, an unusual number of distinguished Members of the House told him that what he had in his hand were incoherent, protracted regulations which did not discharge our obligations to the European Court or under the EEC directive? Would not the noble Earl agree that on that occasion he said what he is now saying: that his advisers have told him that we shall be all right on the night?
Can he tell me today what he did not then tell me; namely, how the new Section 2A(1)(a) can provide for a dismissal case without reason and without giving appeals? How can that be a judicial process? How can the new Section 1(3)(b), which allows for a general labour market defence which will run through the regulations like a coach and horses, take into account the terms of the equal pay directive? Can the noble Earl please give us those reasons, and not say to us merely, "My advisers tell me that it is sound"?
The Earl of Cowrie:My Lords, I am afraid I am too old a hand to be drawn into debating amended regulations during Question Time. The fact is that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, was perfectly at liberty to invite the House to throw out the amended regulations. He did not do so and therefore they went through.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, notwithstanding these drafting defects there is absolutely no reason to suppose that our courts will construe this regulation contrary to Community law? Will my noble friend agree that this is particularly so having regard to decisions such as Clay Cross and Albion Shipping which, in fact, apply a stricter standard than that required by Community law, and that the concept that the courts would apply a general market labour defence is misconceived?
The Earl of Gowrie:My Lords, I am most interested to hear the view of my noble friend. As I said, it remains the conviction of the Government that, in spite of the views expressed by the House on 5th December, we are, in fact, in conformity with European law. The object of the exercise of bringing the amended regulations before your Lordships' House was as expeditiously as possible to close the gap between our domestic legislation and the European equal pay directive. I know that it is the view of the noble Lord and others that we have not adequately done this but, nevertheless, we are convinced that we have.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the noble Earl saying that, although there was a vote in this House which made it quite clear that these regulations, as they stood, were not acceptable and were not in conformity, the decision of your Lordships' House is being ignored by the Government?
The Earl of Gowrie: On the contrary, my Lords, the vote in this House was on an amendment stating:
"that this House believes that the regulations do not adequately reflect the 1982 decision of the European Court of Justice".
Therefore, I register the beliefs of the House, but the House did not seek to overturn the amended regulations.
Lord Shinwell:Is the noble Earl aware that, apart from this specific issue, my noble friend Lord McCarthy has raised a matter of substantial importance to this House of which I hope the Chief Whip will take note? Time and again it happens that the opinion of the House takes a certain form which seems to indicate that a majority of Members of your Lordships'House favour a particular line in policy affecting legislation on some matter arising out of debate, but the Government pay no attention. The opinion is completely ignored. Therefore, the point that my noble friend Lord McCarthy raises is not only on the specific issue involved. That is very important but I know nothing about it; he is the authority on the subject. I am concerned about the implementation of ideas of substantial importance ventilated in this House. Is the noble Earl aware of that?
The Earl of Cowrie: My Lords it is not the case that the Government do not take into account the views expressed in this House. They take them most seriously. The Government also take into account the fact that all this legislation is subject to scrutiny, by statute, by the Equal Opportunities Commission. Our job was to try to get our law into line with the European directive. The job of the Equal Opportunities Commission, by statute, is to keep equal pay legislation under review. I am sure that the Commission and, indeed, also the House and people outside the House will want to get this working as soon as possible and see that we are in conformity.
Lord Diamond:My Lords, will the noble Earl be good enough to reconsider his first answer to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, which suggested that the noble Lord, and those who thought as he did, had had an opportunity, which they did not exercise, to vote against a substantive Motion? Will the noble Earl reconsider that, in view of the fact that if he does not he is suggesting to both Oppositions that it would be proper for this House to engage in a deliberate constitutional confrontation with the other place on a matter such as this?
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, perhaps it would be appropriate for me to reply to this point. What my noble friend said was, of course, correct. Equally, I accept what noble Lords have said and how they feel, that in constitutional terms when another place has passed regulations it is the normal practice of this House not to vote against those regulations. Perhaps I could at the same time make it clear, as I believe my noble friend was seeking to do to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and others, that far from not paying attention to the House. it is my job as Leader of the House, and I accept it absolutely, to pay strict attention to what this House says and to the votes on that particular occasion.
The noble Baroness, and noble Lords, know that I took considerable trouble over the procedural regulations and withdrew the original regulations in order to make it better for this House. I did that quite deliberately because that was the view of this House, as I understood it, before the vote. I shall certainly make sure that my right honourable friends fully appreciate the feeling of this House. That is my job and that I shall do. However, I must stand by what my noble friend said: that this House constitutionally, and correctly as I see it. did not vote against the regulations, but did express a view. Of course, that is not the same. The regulations do come into force, as my noble friend said, and I shall make sure that my right honourable friends realise the feelings of this House. Again, I shall draw that to their attention.
Lord McCarthy:My Lords, while thanking the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for that clear exposition of the constitutional position, I hope we can have from the noble Earl that he also accepts that position and that he knows why we did not divide the House last Monday week. May I put this question to the Leader of the House? He said that he made changes in the procedures and rules. I accept that.
396
There are further changes he could make. Will he include a passage in the procedural rules allowing appeal against the giving of reasons in the case of the new Section 2A(1)(a)? Will he write, or have the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor write, to the Industrial Tribunal so that it does not have to take the "general labour market" defence which was put up in another place? There are still ways in which the Government could make this order a little better if they tried to improve the procedural regulations.
Viscount Whitelaw:My Lords, I am too old a bird to be drawn or allowed to fly in the face of those sort of accusations on points of detail. I am sticking firmly to the constitutional position which I set out. I said I would represent the views in general of this House to my right honourable friends, and that I will most certainly do. I do not think it would be right or proper for me to be drawn any further into the details, particularly as I know that the noble Lord knows all the details and I do not.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton:My Lords, whatever our ages, would it be proper for the Government to clarify a matter which is perhaps of profound constitutional importance? Is it the Government's position, in the light of the obligations of Community law, that legislation is nevertheless valid at Westminster if it passes through the customary stages of both Houses, even though one or more of the Houses clearly expresses the view that it is not in accord with our Community obligations?
The Earl of Gowrie:My Lords, there are, of course, and rightly so, procedures for testing the law and for testing whether our legislation is now, as we believe, in conformity with European legislation. As I said earlier, what the Government have sought to do, taking the views of this House, is to try to bring our legislation into that conformity. We are confident that we have done so, but I have to tell the House that, of course, only time will tell whether we are right. We believe we are right but only time will tell whether our belief is well founded.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, we had a good debate on this matter and perhaps I may raise one point, without wishing to seem at all self-important. Does the noble Earl recall that I raised one or two matters in that debate which I think were relevant to the substance of the case the Government are putting forward? Will the noble Earl be kind enough to look at the reply he made at the end of that debate and refer to a couple of questions which I asked and which were not answered? Will he write to me about them? Is the noble Earl aware that this is an honest query and that I think my questions were right? If the Government can convince me that I was wrong, I shall not say that I will be happy but I shall be understanding. Will the noble Earl write to me on those questions?
The Earl of Gowrie:My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness and to the House if I have been dilatory in any way in replying to a point she made in the debate. I shall, of course, look into the points that she has raised and consider them again.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos:My Lords, before we finish this matter I should like to thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for his helpful response to the points that have been put by noble Lords from all sides, and to ask him whether he would be good enough, after consultation with his right honourable friend and bearing in mind the points of detail that have been made by noble Lords, to make a further statement to the House?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, of course I must respond to the noble Lord by saying that I will speak to my right honourable friends. I do not think that I can give a guarantee to the noble Lord, but I will do my best to see what further help I can give to the House as regards this matter. However, as my noble friend has stated, under our constitution as it stands the regulations come into force on 1st January 1984.

Greenham Common: Policing Costs
11.31 a.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will undertake that all costs incurred in the policing of Greenham Common will be borne by the Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton):No, my Lords. The Government already contribute about 66 per cent. of the costs of policing in the Thames Valley area, including Greenham Common, through police grant and rate support grant. But we recognise the exceptional additional costs being borne by the Thames Valley police authority and are considering whether there is some means by which we can make as additional contribution.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that slightly encouraging reply. Is he aware that Buckinghamshire County Council have been requested to pay £½million to the Thames Valley police towards Greenham Common peace camp policing, although of course Greenham Common is not in Buckinghamshire? Is he further aware that, if they comply with that, it is understood that Buckinghamshire County Council will be penalised for overspending their budget and will have to forfeit another £1.1 million? What action will the Government take to ensure that such an absurd and unjust situation will not arise?
Lord Elton: My Lords, as regards the first of the noble Lord's supplementaries, I must point out that the Government are aware of the implications of this for the constituent bodies of the Thames Valley Police Authority. As to the noble Lord's second supplementary, all I can say is that it is open to local authorities to approach my right honourable friend the
398
Secretary of State for the Environment about this matter under Section 8(4) of the Local Government Finance Act 1982.

Social Security (Contributions, Re-rating) Order 1983
11.33 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur):My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Social Security (Contributions, Re-rating) Order 1983 be agreed to; I should also like to speak to the Social Security (Treasury Supplement to Contributions) Order 1983 and the Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 6) Regulations 1983, all of which were laid before this House on 17th November.
Your Lordships will know that the first and second of these instruments result from the annual event known as the contributions re-rating exercise which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State carries out. The Social Security Act 1975 requires him to review the general level of earnings each year and your Lordships will know that he customarily combines this with a review of the state of the National Insurance Fund which the same Act empowers him to carry out.
With your Lordships' permission, I will also speak to the Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 5) Regulations 1983 and the Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 7) Regulations 1983 which my right honourable friend made on 14th November and 15th November respectively. These regulations, which set Class 1 earnings limits and the level of the abatements in the contribution rates for members of Her Majesty's Forces, are not part of the Motion before us, because they are subject only to the negative resolution procedure. However, the Class 1 earnings limits are inseparable from the matters under discussion and all five instruments deal with the amount of contributions to be paid next year.
In a sense the most interesting change is one that is not being proposed. For the first time in several years there is to be no change in the Class 1 contribution rate. The changes of most significance for employees and employers, the raising of the lower and upper earnings limits, are routine events as these limits are linked by law to the pension rate.
The Social Security Pensions Act 1975 provides that the lower earnings limit must be equal to, or no more than 49p below, the basic pension rate. As this will stand at £34.05 a week next year, a lower earnings limit of £34.00 is inevitable if we are to deal in round numbers. The same Act requires the upper earnings limit to be between 6½and 7½ times the basic pension rate. A figure of up to £255 a week is therefore possible. However, £255 would represent an increase of over 8½per cent. on the present limit of £235 and we are therefore proposing a figure of£250 which is about 7.3 times the pension rate and represents an increase in line with the movement of earnings. Most people, that is people with earnings between the lower and upper

399
earnings limits, will be unaffected, or virtually unaffected, by these earnings.
For employees with earnings above the present upper earnings limit of£235 a week, contributions will increase slightly: by up to £1.07 a week for contracted-out employees and up to £1.35 for others. In the case of married women, and widows paying at the reduced rate the maximum increase will be 57p per week. For the employers of people with earnings above £235 a week increases of up to £1.17 (for contracted-out employees) and £1.71 (for those not contracted-out) will apply.
The only other changes directly affecting contributions of employees and employers are those in the No. 6 and No. 7 amendment regulations. As your Lordships will know, the contribution rates for mariners and serving members of Her Majesty's Forces are set at a slightly lower level than those for other employees. This reflects factors such as their exclusion from the redundancy scheme and ineligibility for certain benefits. However, for various reasons, including the fact that the pattern of expenditure on some benefits has changed, the level of abatement now needs to be adjusted. We are therefore proposing to alter the abatements in the light of advice from the Government Actuary.
I turn now to the self-employed. We are, of course, pleased that it is possible to leave the profits-related Class 4 rate, like the Class 1 rate, at its present level. The formula for determining the Class 2 rate points to a figure of £4.80 per week. However, as your Lordships know, we have for the last two years fixed on a figure 20p below that indicated by the formula and we propose to continue this modest relief with a rate of £4.60.
The profits limits between which Class 4 contributions are payable rise automatically each year like the earnings limits for Class 1 contributions. The figures proposed for next year are £3,950 and £13,000, the latter figure being exactly 52 times the weekly upper earnings limit. The small earnings exception for Class 2 liability also rises automatically—in this case from £1,775 to £1,850 a year. The rate of the voluntary Class 3 contribution is traditionally 10p a week below the Class 2 rate. We are therefore proposing a figure of £4.50 a week from next April.
Finally, the Treasury supplement is being reduced from 13 per cent. to 11 per cent. of contributions paid. This change will help to keep in balance social security expenditure by the taxpayer and the contributor. Your Lordships will have noted in the Government Actuary's report that the reduction in the supplement will leave the estimated balance in the fund comfortably above the minimum level recommended by the Government Actuary.
My Lords, these five instruments are the result of a routine exercise to ensure that the National Insurance Fund has sufficient money in it to pay for benefits. On that basis I commend them to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Social Security (Contributions, Re-rating) Order 1983 laid before the House on 17th November be approved—(Lord Glenarthur.)
11.39 a.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister has quite rightly said that this is a routine exercise. It is a routine exercise which some of us regret because the routine seems to be disregarding some of the fundamental thinking that is necessary about the whole social security situation in this country. The emptiness of your Lordships'Chamber indicates the reaction of many people to these rather arcane and complicated matters, although they affect almost the whole population of the country and deserve more consideration. However, this morning is not the time to go into the deeper problems and, as I see it, into the necessary revision of some of the legislation to which these orders relate.
But I should like to ask the noble Lord why it is necessary to increase contributions. I, too, have read the Government Actuary's report very carefully, and I see that he reports a surplus of £4,280 million this year, with an expectation next year of £4,480 million. Why are we taking more money off the working people of this country in order to swell the balance in the National Insurance Fund? I can see only one reason: that this Government prefer the regressive taxation by national insurance contributions to the progress of taxation by income tax, which shares the burden more fairly.
The result of the policy is to make heavier demands on the lower paid. I would remind your Lordships that, when we are talking about the cost of living and earnings in general, national insurance contributions are not reckoned in the retail price index. Therefore, any increase in contributions is a real loss to the people concerned. I very much hope that as soon as possible we shall take a more fundamental look at these problems.
I do not propose to take the time of your Lordships' House by going into the figures in detail, because it is the whole policy which we on this side regret, and we look forward to a change as soon as possible.
11.42 a.m.
Lord Banks:My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for his explanation of the purpose and content of these instruments that are before us this morning. I think the noble Lord must be glad that housing benefit is not paid out of the National Insurance Fund since, as a consequence of that, we are not discussing the confusion over the most recent cuts which the Government are proposing in that connection. Having watched the programme, "What's It Worth?" on Channel 4 this week, it seems to me that Ministers are not fully aware of the implications of what they are proposing in that field.
The noble Lord said that, generally speaking, there is no increase in national insurance contributions this year, except for the 20p increase for voluntary Class 3 flat rate contributions, and that certainly is good, particularly as, since the present Government came to office, employees' Class 1 contributions have increased from 6.5 per cent. to 9 per cent. As the noble Lord explained, the lower and upper limits have been raised to take account of inflation. I make the increase in the upper limit 6.3 per cent. The figure of £250 per week

401
for the upper limit is closer to the 7½times maximum than the figure of £235 was. The effect of the change of course will be that every employee earning over £235 per week and his or her employers will pay more. Those earning over £250 per week will pay £70.20p a year more.
One asks again why should the person earning £250 per week exactly have to pay the highest percentage of his income in increase? Would it not be fairer to eliminate the top limit and reduce the general rate of contribution? Is there any reason why, in these circumstances, pension calculations as opposed to pension contributions should not continue to be based on an upper and lower limit?
The noble Lord has explained to us that, continuing the trend which the Government have commenced, the Treasury supplement is to be reduced, the Treasury supplement having gone down from 18 per cent. to 13 per cent. and now this year to 11 per cent. of national insurance contributions before contracted-out contributions are taken into account. So more of the burden is being thrown on to contributors. Would it not be fairer for any reduction to be shared between taxpayers and contributors? Indeed, is any reduction at all justified in view of the problem of the retirement pensioners with no, or very little, earnings-related pension, and in view of the gap which will open up between these people and the younger pensioners on earnings-related pension as the earnings-related scheme matures? The oldest will be the poorest until all those born before 1933 have died—that is, the poorest in terms of their national insurance pension.
Both the Select Committee on Social Services in another place and the Social Security Advisory Committee in their second annual report have highlighted this problem and both have indicated that resources will have to be found to supplement the resources as of right of the poorest pensioners. I wonder what the response of the Government is to that. The re-emergence of a surplus in the fund, with the revised estimate for the current year set out in the Government Actuary's report, is encouraging and may possibly assist some solution to be found for the problem to which I have just referred.
But one wonders about the long-term prospects for the fund. The Select Committee in the House of Commons, to which I have referred, said in its recent report that the increase in the bill for national insurance retirement pensions might rise from 110 per cent. to 120 per cent. by the year 2031; and at a seminar organised by the Institute of Actuaries and the Faculty of Actuaries in London on 30th November, Mr. G. T. Pepper, an actuary, pointed out that the cost of national insurance pensions is expected to rise from 9½ per cent. of total wages and salaries to 19 per cent. in about 50 years—that is exactly double. At the same conference the Government Actuary estimated that ultimately contribution levels would increase by about 50 per cent. But that figure assumed a Treasury supplement of 13 per cent., whereas one of the instruments before us this morning will reduce that to 11 per cent. It also assumed unemployment at pre-recession levels, and I am not quite sure how low that is, but unfortunately it may be too optimistic an assumption as well.
402
To conclude, the two problems for the long-term are: what is to be done about those with little or no earnings-related pension, and what is to be done about the long-term costs? The first is not really a long-term problem; it is one we have with us now. I have put forward a suggested solution, and if the noble Lord the Minister is interested, he can see it in the November issue of Pensions World. Of course, it would not be appropriate for me to go into that this morning. However, I should appreciate some indication from the Government of their thinking on these two important problems which relate to the long-term future of the National Insurance Fund.
11.48 a.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we on this Bench should also like to thank the noble Lord for introducing and explaining these amendment regulations. The most significant of the regulations is the one reducing the Treasury supplement contribution from 13 per cent. to 11 per cent., to which my noble friend Lord Banks has already referred. I should like to add my voice to his on this point.
The main cause of the rise in social security expenditure has been the rise in the long-term unemployed who are dependent on supplementary benefit. This has also led to a rise in the proportion of benefit expenditure that has be be met from taxation. Now the Government propose yet again—having reduced the Treasury supplement from 18 per cent. to 13 per cent.—to reduce it from 13 per cent. to 11 per cent., which means that any shortfall must be loaded further on to contributors, who are made to pay more for non-contributory benefits.
My concern is as follows. Is it equitable to pass the buck for unemployment arising as a result of Government policy on to contributors at work, mainly on average earnings, rather than on to general taxation, which includes all earners. Does it not discourage low earners from seeking employment? Will the Government look again at the balance of social security finance and keep the Teasury supplement steady in the future?
The second thing I want to refer tois the work of the Social Security Advisory Committee on regulations, dealt with in Chapter 3, paragraph 4, of their recent report. They refer to the procedure which allows Ministers to make regulations urgently, without prior submission to the committee.I see that this procedure has in fact been invoked in one of the orders before your Lordships this afternoon, the one relating to mariners. Was this really necessary? I am only asking for information in view of the assurance that the SSAC received from the Secretary of State that urgency powers will be used only in exceptional circumstances.
Another instance of this, as the noble Lord will recall, was the recent Supplementary Benefits Single Payments Amendment Regulations which were pushed through both Houses of Parliament before the SSAC had been able to comment and enter into their normal consultative process with interested bodies and parties. I should like to have a reassurance from the noble Lord that in future the urgency procedure will be invoked only when it is strictly necessary.

403
I want to turn briefly to the Statutory Sick Pay Up-rating Order. When this was introduced employers were worried at the risk of abuse.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth:My Lords, I understand that my noble friend has not yet spoken to that point. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, would like to make his remarks after my noble friend has spoken.
Lord Kilmarnock: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I thought he had spoken to all the orders at once. Perhaps I could revert to the point when he has introduced that order.
Lord Glenarthur:My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and the noble Lords, Lord Banks and Lord Kilmarnock, have raised a fair number of points. I may not be able to cover all of them. Certainly the noble Lord, Lord Banks, raised a great number of points which I should like to study, and perhaps I may write to him about them. The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked, effectively: why raise the contributions at all when the fund is in surplus? As I hope I made clearwhen I spoke, the Class 1 contribution rate is not in fact being raised, nor is the Class 4 self-employed rate. We are raising the upper earnings and profit making limits and the Class 2 rate because they are expressed in cash terms and need to be raised each year because the Act requires them to be looked at in this way.
The noble Baroness also asked about the reduction in the Treasury supplement. In managing the national insurance fund we try to achieve a broad balance between expenditure and income, taking one year with another. How the income should be split between contributions and general taxation is a question to be looked at in the wider context of the burden of taxation generally. In view of the other increasing costs of social security being met by the taxpayer, we felt it right to make a reduction.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked why the supplement was being reduced by the figure of 2 per cent. The appropriate level of the supplement is a wider question to be looked at, as I think I indicated, in the context of fiscal policy generally. In this context we felt that the maximum adjustment allowed without primary legislation would be desirable in this particular case.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked why we do not abolish the upper earnings limit altogether. The upper earnings limit provides a ceiling, not only for contributions but also for earnings-related pensions and the guaranteed minimum pensions provided by contracted out occupational pension schemes. This link is an essential feature of the contributory principle—and I hope that the noble Lord would agree with that—and there could be no question of removing the ceiling for benefits. It would be prohibitively expensive to do so. To remove the limit for contributions only would mean breaking the present link between contributions and benefits, and would be a major departure from the pension arrangements agreed in 1975.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, suggested that the load on contributors should be relieved. Social security benefits are funded by both contributors and the
404
taxpayer. In recent years the taxpayers' share has increased from 47 per cent. in 1979–80 to 50 per cent. in the current year. The effect of this order is to reduce the demand on the taxpayer by 1 per cent., stopping the drift towards higher pressure on the taxpayer. The noble Lord. Lord Kilmarnock, asked whether it was really necessary to invoke the urgency powers referred to by the SSAC so far as mariners are concerned. It was impossible for formal SSAC consultation to take place. They were consulted informally, and they are content with the regulations.
I am conscious of the fact that there were a great many technical questions asked, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. I think I would not follow him down the road of discussing something which we are not here to discuss—housing benefits—but I should be delighted to respond. perhaps in writing, to the more detailed questions he put to me.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 6) Regulations 1983
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17th November be approved.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question. Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Treasury Supplement to Contributions) Order 1983
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House an 17th November be approved.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Statutory Sick Pay Up-rating (No. 2) Order 1983
11.57 a.m.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th November be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move, that the draft Statutory Sick Pay Up-rating (No. 2) Order 1983 which was laid before the House on 28th November, be approved. The purpose of the order is to raise the rates of statutory sick pay (known as SSP) from 6th April 1984, together with the levels of earnings which determine the rate of SSP which is payable. This fulfils the requirement of Section 7 of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982 that the value of these amounts be reviewed annually in relation to the general level of prices obtaining in Great Britain. The draft order provides that all the amounts in question are increased to reflect the increase of 5 per cent. in the general index of retail prices during the 12 months up to and including October 1983.
The rates of SSP have been rounded to the nearest 5p, in line with normal social security practice. I can assure your Lordships that this does not cause undue problems for employers in calculating daily rates of payment. Each year, to help them, we include a table of the daily rates of SSP in the contribution tables which are sent to every known employer in the new year.
The two earnings thresholds which are subject to up-rating by this draft order have been increased by the same 5 per cent. to maintain the same relationship between the SSP rates and the employee's normal earnings as before. The thresholds have been rounded down to the next 50p, in line with practice when setting the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions. It is that lower earnings limit itself which forms the lowest earnings threshold for SSP, below which no SSP is due. Thus, the effect of the order, if approved by your Lordships, will be that from next April employees who earn £68 or more a week will qualify for SSP at £42.25. Those who earn at least £50.50 but less than £68 will qualify for SSP at £35.45. And those who earn at least £34 (the lower earnings limit from next April) but less than £50.50 will qualify for SSP at £28.55.
Your Lordships will wish to know that it remains the Government's intention to increase the SSP rates and earnings levels each April in line with the actual annual increase in prices up to the previous October, subject to taking account of all relevant factors. This timetable is a practical one. It allows time for the proposed figures to be approved by Parliament before inclusion in the contribution tables which are sent to employers in the New Year, and thus enables employers to have reasonable and individual notice of the new rates. The new rates are also included in the up-to-date version of leaflet NI 208 available from my department.
Your Lordships may wish to note that this year's contribution tables will also include some explanatory notes on a few aspects of the statutory sick pay scheme which have given rise to some queries and misunderstandings during the first year of operation. But these problems are few, and I should like to take this opportunity to commend the efforts of all those concerned with launching and implementing the SSP scheme—both employers, large and small, and officials of the DHSS at local and central levels. The SSP scheme has been operating quite smoothly since April 1983, with few and minor difficulties of a type which could be expected in the early months of any major new scheme. In particular, we have no indication that the rates of SSP have resulted either in hardship for employees or in administrative or financial difficulties for employers. The draft order provides for these rates to keep pace with the rise in the general level of prices, and I therefore hope that it will meet with your Lordships' approval. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th November be approved.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, it is no surprise to your Lordships to know that as we fundamentally opposed this scheme, we are not particularly concerned with the details which the noble Lord has put before the House this morning. We are much more worried
406
about the whole concept of the scheme. The noble Lord said that the revision was taken in relation to the actual increases in prices. The people who are to get this small increase, which relates to prices in retrospect, are now facing considerable increases in the costs of gas and electricity during the coming colder months. Earlier this morning we heard that some may have to pay higher contribution rates because under this sick pay scheme, unlike previous schemes, people who are away because they are sick do not have their cards franked and have to pay their contributions as if they were at work. It makes no extra provision for children.
I dare not mention rents because I think the noble Lord must have suffered enough from the confusion and complaints about the housing benefit disarray which is afflicting the country and which greatly concerns people who are off work for periods because of sickness. However, I realise that that is not the subject before the House this morning.
I was sorry that the noble Lord, who is always very fair and honest, should have expressed himself as rather satisfied with the way this abominable scheme is working. His own department told us last month that it knew of 4,000 firms that had paid out the wrong benefit. I am appalled to think how many there really are if 4,000 have come to his attention. Surely the full number is likely to be many more. It would be useful for the House to know how many people away for reasons of sickness have been underpaid. How many firms are still in confusion about it in addition to the 4,000? I know that the party opposite is interested in small firms and the self-employed, but a leading member of the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses said in the Daily Telegraph of 29th November:
"The scheme has gone down like a lead balloon. It is a bureaucratic nightmare for many small businessmen grappling with the complexities of operating the rules at the same time as running their businesses".
That is a very different view from the view that the Minister put before your Lordships this morning. I hope that there will not be this continuing complacency from the Government.
I know that many small businessmen are worried about the delay in getting refunds. They are having to pay sick pay out of their current income and some are running on overdrafts. It is serious that they have to wait for the refund. They are paying for doing the Government's work for which many of them think they ought to be paid and not the other way round. Though we are not disagreeing with this small, and some of us think very mean, increase, I hope that the Minister will promise us that there will be a more detailed study of the scheme. We are glad that the rates are going slightly upward, but to change the rates again will mean that these employers will have to do some more arithmetic to get their records updated. It is a poor, poor scheme and I am sorry that we have not been able to throw it out. We only wish that the order were more generous.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for having jumped the gun on this order, but now that he has been kind enough to introduce it and explain it, there are one or two points I should like to raise.

407
The Social Security Advisory Committee says that employers are worried at the risk of abuse arising from self-certification and the consequences of the changes for their own management of sickness absence. I am not sure I would go quite so far as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. in referring to an abominable scheme. In chapter 3 paragraph 11 of the report the Social Security Advisory Committee says:
"Initial experience does, in fact, seem to show that these worries were unfounded".
But there is a curious factor that is mentioned in the report. It turns out that the number of spells of short term sickness have reduced dramatically since the new system was introduced. The Social Security Advisory Committee is not clear why this has taken place. I gather also from the report that the noble Lord's department has been monitoring the new system. Has the noble Lord any news of the results of that monitoring? Does it mean that the new lower rates are discouraging people from going sick when they might otherwise have done or ought so to do? I am asking only for information, but on the face of it it seems unlikely that there should have been a dramatic improvement in health simply as the result of the introduction of a new system. I should be grateful to the noble Lord if he would comment on that.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for their comments. I will try to answer as many of the points that they raised as possible. The noble Baroness asked particularly why we have based the SSP up-rating on the historic movement of prices. In answering all these points I should say that I understand that she is thoroughly opposed to the scheme anyway, but I do not think there is any point in going over that ground again. As she will know and as I described, both benefits and SSP are now up-rated by reference to the known movement of prices over the year just prior to the announcement of the new rates; this is known as the historic method. This was always the intended practice for up-rating SSP and it has been generally welcomed and is in line with other up-rating. Apart from anything else, it means that one has a clear picture of what has happened, as opposed to the rather haphazard way of guessing what might happen in the future, which in the past has more often been wrong than right.
The noble Baroness asked why was RPI chosen as the general level of prices. In relation to a general provision not aimed at any particular section of the population there is no reason for giving weight to any particular element of the prices index nor eliminating any other element. The published RPI figure is the one on which we worked and is the one we envisage using in years to come.
The noble Baroness also drew attention to the fact that SSP is subject to tax and national insurance contributions. Sickness benefit is not. She was asking whether or not the comparison with the rate is fair. The rate of SSP was set to ensure right at the beginning of the scheme that employees as a group would receive the same extra income from the SSP scheme after deduction of tax and contributions as they would lose by withdrawal of sickness benefit if that benefit were
408
taxable. This is something which successive Governments have agreed should be the case. In individual cases, the net amount received in SSP may be greater or less than the amount of sickness benefit which would formerly have been payable. As was the case before the SSP scheme these amounts may be topped up with occupational sick pay or, if necessary, supplementary benefit under the normal rules which exist. With the rates of SSP that have been set, it was not estimated that there would be a net increase in claims to supplementary benefit, however.
The noble Baroness asked whether SSP has led to an increase in the numbers of people having to claim supplementary benefit when sick. During sickness, supplementary benefit is available subject to the normal rules: SSP and occupational sick pay are not treated as earnings but as resources to be set against need. It was estimated that there would be no net increase in supplementary benefit claims because of the SSP scheme. Although it is too early to provide statistics on this. there is no indication that claims to supplementary benefits have increased because of the scheme.
The noble Baroness was concerned about the ability of firms or employers to handle the scheme. She produced some figures which I cannot confirm. I do not believe that the situation is nearly as black as she makes it out to be. As far as small businesses are concerned, officials from my department at local offices around the country, are carrying out a programme of visits to all main employers in their areas during which they check a sample of cases of SSP payment and give guidance on the operation of the scheme. A number of mistakes are found; they are usually very minor in effect and a visit from the department is usually all that is needed to clear up any misunderstanding or lack of knowledge on how it operates. An improvement in performance can be expected once the scheme has settled in and the rules become more familiar. We are satisfied that the SSP scheme has made a good start despite what the noble Baroness says and that employers are generally managing quite well.
If it was her intention to suggest that it provided a huge administrative burden for employers, we have been very conscious of the need to keep employers' procedures simple and flexible and, in consultation with their representatives, have made every effort to achieve this in the context of other constraints on the scheme. The administrative burden on employers, I hope, has been mainly the initial one of setting up the thing in the first place. We hope that the on-going administrative costs are not large. The method of compensation by which employers can recover in full the SSP that they have paid out, while being able to offset payments against contractual sick pay, has meant for many' individual employers, and employers as a whole, that additional costs in the form of the administration and their national insurance contributions are more than met.
The National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses (and maybe one or two others) have criticised the scheme. I hope that the explanations which I have just given to the noble Baroness will help put it more into context. The noble Lord, Lord

409
Kilmarnock, asked about sickness-absence management. He asked what evidence there was that self-certification is being abused. That seemed to me to be the theme of what he was asking. I think that there have been some recent press reports which have linked the start of self-certification with the introduction of the SSP scheme in April this year. In fact, self-certification was introduced in June 1982 and operated within the state scheme for nine months. Experience in that period showed that it did not lead to any increase in claims to state benefits and there was therefore no reason to believe that employers would be faced with an influx of self-certified sickness absences when SSP was introduced. It is understood that some employers have experienced an increase in sickness absences lasting for a week or less but a decrease in absences for longer spells. Such developments will be for each employer to monitor and to consider. It is true that we are monitoring self-certification. The study will not be completed for a few months but we have no evidence that people are deterred from claiming SSP or benefits by self-certification. I am sure that there were a number of question which I have not been able to answer for the noble Lord—
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, the main burden of my question was whether the Minister would comment on the SSAC's findings that there had been a dramatic reduction in short-term sickness claims since the introduction of the system. As his department is apparently monitoring this, I wondered whether they had come up with the answer and whether the answer is that people are being deterred from claiming owing to the lower rate they will be receiving.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not think that that is the case. There was a reduction in claims to benefit following the introduction of self-certification, but this may be part of what is a general decline in claims since 1979. I will study the noble Lord's remarks in the Official Report and write to him if I can help him further.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consumer Credit (Increase of Monetary Limits) Order 1983
12.17 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd November be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the draft order standing in my name on the Order Paper. The purpose of this order is to increase certain monetary limits in the Consumer Credit Act 1974. These limits determine the coverage of the Act and hence the agreements which will benefit from protection under the Act. As your Lordships will be aware, the present limits were set in 1974 and they have not been changed since then. They have not required revision before now because they are of limited significance while much of the Act remains unimplemented. Since 1974, the fall in the value of money has meant that the protection intended by Parliament has been eroded, and the Government
410
consider it right to restore the limits to something like their real, original values now that a commencement order has been made to bring the major remaining provisions of the Act into force from 19th May 1985. The changes proposed in the order before us this morning generally reflect the movement in money values since 1974.
With your Lordships' forbearance, I will outline briefly what the limits in the order are all about. The most significant limits are the upper limits for consumer credit and hire agreements in Sections 8 and 15 of the Act. At all times when I am speaking of "the Act", I mean this rather complicated and very interesting Consumer Credit Act 1974. Beyond these cut-off points, credit and hire agreements are not within the scope of the Act. The limiting factors are, for credit agreements, the amount of credit which is provided; and, for hire agreements, the total of the hire payments. The limits are currently £5,000 but as from 20th May 1985 the limits will be £15,000. The same change is proposed for the limit in Section 43, which is the normal cut-off point for compliance with advertisements regulations. Advertisements for agreements above that limit have to comply only if the agreement is to be secured on land.
At the other end of the scale is the so-called "small agreements" limit in Section 17, under which a limited range of small agreements is excluded from the documentation, cancellation and certain other provisions of the Act. The most important exclusion is for low-value purchases of goods on credit. This limit is being raised from £30 to £50 from 1st January 1984. This is proportionately less than some of the other increases because this is an area where we have found that there is real public concern. But I would stress that this limit does not apply to money lending: all money lending, however small, is covered by the Act.
The other limits in the order relate to Section 75, subsection (3) of which contains upper and lower limits which determine when a creditor is jointly and severally liable with a supplier of goods and services for misrepresentation or breach of contract by the suppliers. At present, joint and several liability can apply in the case of any single item of goods and services costing over £30 and not more than £10,000. From 1st January 1984 the lower limit will go up to £100 and from 20th May 1985 the upper limit will be £30,000.
As I have said, some of the increases will take effect on 1st January 1984, while others will not take effect until 20th May 1985. The later date is necessary for some of the increases in order to ensure that some of the retrospective provisions of the Act will not bite on agreements for more than £5,000 which are made before the Act is fully in force. For example, it would be inequitable if the statutory right to rebate were to affect an agreement for £12,000 of credit made some time in the late 'seventies and settled early in 1986. But that would be the consequence of changing the upper cut-off point for the Act before or on the same day as the right to a statutory rebate becomes law. There is no such problem with the small agreements limit and lower limit on joint and several liability: the order therefore increases these limits on 1st January 1984.
The limits covered by this order are the most important monetary limits in the Consumer Credit Act. I should add that the Act contains various other monetary limits and amounts, which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is similarly increasing by a separate order which does not require parliamentary approval.
Finally, I am sure your Lordships will wish to know that the Standing Committee in another place debated this order on Wednesday, 30th November (as a Scot, may I say "St. Andrew's Day") but the committee did not draw special attention to the order. With that brief explanation. I beg to move that this draft order be approved.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd November be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think it would be fair to say that we on this side of the House have the converse reaction to this order as compared with our reaction to the orders we have just been debating on social security benefits, where my noble friends were less than welcoming of the implications for individual taxation and Government funding for those regulations. In this case, as we understand it, the purpose of the order is to restore the original intentions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. To that extent, I think we will all welcome the upper limits that are now being revised in this way. We accept that the Government are right to do that, and that in general the upper limits follow the original intentions of the Act.
There are a number of questions which arise from this, and perhaps the noble Lord would be good enough to enlighten me about them. I understand it is the case that the Government originally expected the number of applications for consumer credit licences to drop off after the first burst in 1974, and that, because of the continuing recession, this has not been the case. Can the Minister tell us whether he expects any further rush of applications for consumer credit licences as a result of the changes in these upper limits?
Can he also tell us whether the Government are satisfied that we have, through the Office of Fair Trading and through the trading standards offices, adequate regulatory and enforcement capability for the additional cases which are liable to come before the enforcement authorities? It would also be very helpful if the Government could tell us what publicity is planned for these changes. Clearly, regulations of this kind have no benefit for the general public unless the general public actually knows about them. On that matter, too, I would be grateful for some further guidance; but, in general, I am bound to say that there is no opposition here, either to the intention or to the detail of this order.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, may I express gratification that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is in consonance with this order, if that is the right expression. I personally am; but I should like to ask one or two questions. First, may I congratulate my noble friend on the clarity of what he has said. This is a very complicated subject, and I hope I do not seem in any way to be diminishing my appreciation of the
412
intelligence of your Lordships as a whole when I say that I do not suppose that a great many of your Lordships will have completely understood what has been said today. But a very large number of people will read very carefully what has been said today, and I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in asking my noble friend what publicity will be given to this. I suppose there will be the normal statement to the press, and it is likely to be picked up; but will any special publicity be given, apart from that?
It seems to me there are really two aspects to this order. The first is the general one covered in Part II, which covers what one might describe as the average requirements of consumers, the upper limit representing the limit beyond which people are regarded as being able to look after themselves. This is the general coverage, and in this case the increases in the limits roughly reflect the changes in the value of money. They are all alike, in the sense that in each case the upper limits are tripled. Perhaps I need not say anything about that because it is pretty plain sailing. But when we come to Part I of the order we are dealing with a different range of problems altogether. These are, in the main, dealing with the limits so far as the poorer sections of the community are concerned, and for that reason the protection required is greater. It so happens that the increases in the limits in this case are not simply mathematical formulae. In the case of these small debts, they are increased from £30 to £50.
In the case of the Section 75 coverage, which deals with what I might call the three-cornered transactions between the lender, the customer and the supplier, where the customer is given protection against both the lender and the supplier, a different formula is used—if it is a formula at all—and there is an increase from £30 to £100. This is to protect the customer from misrepresentations made by the supplier, or from a breach of contract by the supplier, and it enables the customer to have recourse against both the supplier and the lender, which in many cases is a finance house.
I think it could be argued, and indeed it is argued, that it would have been better to leave the small agreements out of this altogether and to leave the figure at £30. The reason for that is that the more unemployment there is, the more members of the public get into financial straits and need to have recourse to loans, and keeping the limit at £30 would be a considerable help to the borrower. Perhaps the word "borrower" is wrong, because I mean the person who receives credit.
Can my noble friend say whether this was considered at the time? It would have been helpful to leave the limit at £30 and there does not seem to be any essential reason for increasing it. On the other hand, if you increase it, it might be thought desirable to keep the same proportionate relativities throughout the order. But, as I said, I do not think that applies; and, indeed, it is quite the contrary. I think that the figure should have been kept at the lower limit of £30 in order to secure greater protection for consumers who need it more in existing circumstances.
I do not think I need go further than that, except to ask my noble friend why the limit was raised by more than the proportionate amount in the Section 75 transactions. Is there any particular reason for this,

413
and is it likely that in the future when the limits have to be raised they will be raised by different amounts in different cases? I hope that my noble friend will be able to answer those two points.
Lord Kilmarnock:My Lords, we on these Benches would also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for explaining this order. I have only two questions to put to him. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, mentioned, the upper limit has been tripled and I think I am right in saying that it is considerably more than the movement of prices since 1974. I wonder whether there is any particular reason for that. Secondly—and I have a slight concern about this—it is obviously correct to provide further protection for transactions between £5.000 and £15,000, but will the Government bear in mind that it was recently reported that the savings ratio has dropped to, I think, 8 per cent. from about 14 per cent. only a couple of years ago? If you are going in for the further encouragement of consumption on credit, this may well further stimulate that downward movement of the savings ratio. As the savings ratio is very important in relation to general investment in the economy, I should like an assurance from the noble Lord that the Government are keeping a strict eye on this.
12.35 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, it is a pleasure to have encomiums and thanks from all round your Lordships' House and, in the spirit of the time of the year, I should like to return our compliments and thanks to all your Lordships who have listened to, or spoken on, this order this morning. First, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his welcome and I should also like to congratulate him and all your Lordships who have spoken on the detailed study, not just of the order, but also of the Act. The noble Lord asked me a number of questions. He spoke, first, about licences. I hope I can assure him that the raising of the limits is, we believe, unlikely to change greatly the number of firms who will require licences. We hope that the situation will remain fairly constant. We do not see a vast increase in the demand for licences.
The second point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was enforcement, and we hope that the new provisions will be largely self-enforcing in this sense. If a trader does not obey the Act and the regulations, he cannot enforce an agreement against a consumer without a court order, and for some breaches of the Act or the order he cannot enforce the agreement at all. The third point raised by the noble Lord was publicity. I hope that I can reassure him on two aspects here. We understand that the Office of Fair Trading will be issuing guidance material to traders on the monetary orders very soon, but consumer publicity will be done nearer the time for the Part II orders, which is May 1985.
I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn for his compliments, and particularly for his comment that I explained the order with clarity. Coming from my noble friend, who has vast knowledge of such orders and similar matters, and who does his homework, I regard that as a specially cherished compliment and tribute. My noble friend
414
raised the question of publicity and I hope I have covered that in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I was interested when my noble friend mentioned the upper limits. These will reflect increases in inflation. The fact that he regards this as plain sailing shows that he has studied these problems and understands them.
As regards the lower limits, my noble friend expressed very real concern which has indeed been voiced to my department. Perhaps I may try to answer him, and those of your Lordships who are interested, by suggesting that this area of Section 17 agreements, small agreements, is an area of the market where we have found there to be great public concern. The decision to increase the limit to £50 was taken only after considering very strong representations from consumers, from enforcement bodies and from trade bodies. We took into account the fact that the £50 limit might create a burden on the credit industry, which could be passed on to the consumer in higher costs. But we were of the opinion that the increase which we propose is the best compromise between the interests of the trade and those of the consumer.
My noble friend said that the Section 17 limit, the lower limit, should not be increased at all and that was the strongest point that he raised. The current limit was set in 1974, since when inflation has significantly eroded the value of money. We believe it is right that there should be some increase to reflect that fact, but in recognition of the need for protection in this area of the market we have increased the limit to £50, which I believe my noble friend will find helpful. My noble friend raised the point that economic life is hard. We believe that the raising of the lower limit to £50 will assure the consumer of all the benefits to which he is entitled. I stress to my noble friend that this limit does not apply to cash loans. Money lenders will remain subject to the Act, however small their particular loan.
Turning to the upper limits which are dealt with in Section 75, my noble friend asked why we had trebled them. The reason for trebling them is the one which I have already given: that prices have more than trebled since 1974. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, raised two points with me. I was grateful for his detailed study of these very complicated orders and of the Act.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, before my noble friend turns away from the point which I raised, may I ask him one other question which I omitted to put? In the case of Section 75 orders, why was it that the Government first intended to increase the limit to £50 and then proceeded to double it to £100? It would be useful to know why this was done.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, may I finish my encomium to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and then come back to my noble friend's point? The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked about the trebling of the limits. I found it incredible, too; but it has been proved to my satisfaction that the trebling of the limits is fair, since prices have trebled since 1974. Therefore all we are seeking to do in the order is to make the figures which appear in the Act realistic. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, raised the very interesting point of the savings ratio rising from 8 per cent. to 14 per cent. I was not aware that that had happened.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, my point was that it had declined from 14 per cent. to 8 per cent.
Lord Lyell:My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for putting the figures in the wrong order. I have noted the noble Lord's interesting point, and I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will keep it in mind.
In conclusion, I refer to the point raised by my noble friend, that under Section 75 the lower limit is to go up to £100. There are good reasons, which I hope I have explained, for making a small increase in the limit in the case of agreements under Section 17; but we believe that it is right to restore the Section 75 lower limit to something like its 1974 value. To enlarge slightly on this point, the limit included in the Act was intended to exclude from Section 75 those transactions where credit cards were used primarily as a convenient substitute for cash rather than as a source of credit. This aspect of Section 75, which has been validly raised by my noble friend, is very closely related to money and wage movements. The increase from £30 to £100 recognises this, and it is the overall factor which has caused us to raise these monetary amounts.
I hope that I have dealt with these points in sufficient detail; but if I have missed any we shall pick them up and I shall write to noble Lords.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
12.45 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill. Those who thought I was unwise, in these later years, to speak three times on Thursday have been vindicated by the fact that as a result of those long orations I have rather a bad throat. If any noble Lord cannot hear me, I hope he will ask me to speak up.
I do not intend to speak for very long. Quite apart from vocal troubles, there are to be many very distinguished speakers whose standing in this field is much greater than mine. I shall not mention any names except that of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who is to make his maiden speech today. He is the son of one whom I shall always regard as a truly great man. That opinion is I believe coming to be accepted more and more widely as time goes by—not that he would have minded very much, but it would have given him quiet satisfaction to know that that is how people regard him nowadays. I can imagine no subject upon which his son might more suitably make his maiden speech than this, bearing in mind the lifelong services of Lord Attlee to the disadvantaged. In order to show that I am not suffering from the supposition that all high principle is confined to my own party, I realise that the present Lord Attlee is not speaking from the Labour Benches. And as I look across the Floor of the House I see the son of Lord Halifax, who set such an extraordinary example of Christianity in practice during my time in politics.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl will forgive me for interrupting him. While expressing condolences for his temporary disability, he would marginally improve his audibility if he placed himself opposite one of the amplifiers.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am most grateful for the suggestion. To be interrupted after paying a few tributes is what I call a thoroughly bad start. I suggest that as time goes on and I approach more controversial matters, I shall have a very rough passage, not least from the noble Lord. If the noble Lord cannot hear me, I must not suggest that perhaps he, like myself, is a little advanced in years and finding hearing somewhat harder than it is for younger people. But that might be unfair.
I rise to move the Second Reading of the Bill. It is the same as that which was introduced into the House of Commons by the honourable Member for Liverpool West Derby, Mr. Wareing. In spite of 10 hours having been spent upon discussing the Bill and its predecessor, a Bill very much the same as this, no vote has yet been taken on its merits. I stress that point, because somebody might say that the House of Commons has decided against the measure. That cannot honestly be said; there has not yet been a vote on its merits. If the Bill attains a Second Reading and passes through all its stages in this House, I hope that nobody will suggest that we are defying the House of Commons. I say that in order to counter possible argument later by some misguided person. I shall be ready at the Committee stage to consider any possible amendments. I have at least one to suggest, and it may be that I shall have other minor changes to make. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, will forgive me if I do not attempt to discuss the Bill which he has tabled, except to say that it comes from one who has laboured long and hard for the disabled.
It may be asked—possibly by the noble Lord opposite if he is in that kind of mood—whether I am the person best qualified, apart from any vocal trouble, to bring this Bill before the House. I agree that that is a good question, but it is hardly one I feel able to answer. When the Bill was blocked in the Commons, I was approached by the honourable Member for Wythenshawe, Mr. Alfred Morris, whose name will always be associated with the 1970 Act, and who has rendered unflagging service to the disabled both when he was in office and out of it. I myself cannot imagine—nor can I imagine anyone else—refusing to attempt to render any service to the disabled which I was asked to undertake by Mr. Alfred Morris. I suggested, honestly enough, that there were other more suitable persons—the names of whom will readily occur to your Lordships. But Mr. Morris insisted that I should take on this task—no doubt because I was in charge in this House of the Bill of 1970, although there are others here who were more eloquent and more influential.
We cannot abolish disability, however strenuous and well-intentioned our exertions. We can diminish it, but we human beings cannot abolish it. We can abolish discrimination by human beings against the disabled, and that is the purpose of the Bill now before us. The central principle of the Bill is one which I commended to the House when we debated the matter

417
last year. It derives most recently from the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled Persons—usually known as CORAD. That committee was set up by Mr. Alfred Morris when he was a Minister and it was chaired by Mr. Peter Large, whose services in this field have certainly not been surpassed by anyone.
The committee published its report in February 1982. There were a number of recommendations. The most striking was that discrimination should be made illegal. At present, it is illegal in this country to discriminate against our fellow human beings on grounds of sex or race. It is not illegal—in fact, it remains perfectly legal—to discriminate against our fellow human beings on grounds of disability. This Bill will make that illegal from now on.
Do we, or do we not, accept that principle? The central issue is as simple as that. Machinery will be set up under this Bill to give effect to that principle. The Bill would, for example, set up a Disablement Commission to act on behalf of disabled persons and to make recommendations to the Secretary of State for Social Services. The commission would have the ability to investigate alleged discriminatory practices as well as individual complaints. It would have the ability, where necessary and appropriate, to take legal action. It would have the power to require people to furnish information to assist it.
That machinery would, no doubt, be carefully scrutinised in this House, but at the present stage, if I may suggest it, this is a very simple, yes or no, black and white issue: are we ready to make it a criminal offence to discriminate against the disabled? I say with all my heart that that, I feel sure, is our duty.
In the time available to me, I propose to concentrate on that central issue. If we really decide to make discrimination illegal, I cannot believe that we will decline to take such steps because they are too expensive. The Minister, in dealing with this issue in another place, said some excellent words on that subject:
"None of us would begrudge spending extra money on the disabled if we were convinced that it would help". [Official Report, Commons, 18/ 11/83; col. 1131.]
He was not placing his main objections on economic grounds. The money involved in setting up the commission and in enforcing the law would be a mere bagatelle compared, for example, with the money we are prepared to spend on the defence of the Falklands and the 500 families who are resident there. The Sunday Times put that figure at more than £600 million a year in an article last week. It was earlier said that the figure was £1,000 million. Even if one takes the lower figure, the sums we are talking about today are a mere bagatelle compared with those.
The Minister in another place spent some time on the alleged difficulties of definition. Here, I cannot really believe that if we seriously want this Bill, difficulties of definition will prove a fatal obstacle. Section 28 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 gives the Secretary of State powers to define the disabled and disabilities by regulations. South Australia, in their Handicapped Persons Equal Opportunity Act 1981, have been operating successfully a definition which does not seem to raise any
418
difficulties. Similarly, in the United States of America, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 1963 has also been operating successfully in respect of its definition of disability. The Human Rights Act of 1977 in Canada covers discrimination in relation to physically handicapped persons and employment; and it is clearly reflected in legislation in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. None of them seem to have any problems with definition.
In Australia, again, neither New South Wales nor Victoria envisage problems in respect of definitions of disability in regard to proposed legislation to outlaw discrimination there. I cannot seriously believe that anyone who would like to vote for this Bill on other grounds will say, "I am sorry, but I can't vote for it because of the technical, semantic problems of definition". If any one of your Lordships said that to me, I would wonder whether he really had given the matter proper thought.
I hope and believe that all of us should like to see a reduction in and the eventual elimination of discrimination against the disabled. The serious question is: can that be effected by education alone or will legislation of the kind now suggested also be necessary? The CORAD committee, which contained both disabled and non-disabled members, recognised the important role of education and persuasion. But it insisted—with the exception of one dissentient who refused to sign the report—that such could not in the foreseeable future be made effective without legislation.
For years we have had ample opportunity to end discrimination against the disabled through education and persuasion—yet discrimination on a wide scale still persists. Education and persuasion, particularly of the indifferent, is extremely expensive. Some £7.8 million, I am informed, was spent between 1971 and 1980 on publicity to persuade motorists to wear seat belts. But it only managed to increase the percentage of those wearing seat belts from 14 to 32 per cent. It was only after legislation was introduced that the great majority came to change their behaviour.
One argument—and I have no doubt at all these arguments are put forward in complete sincerity—against legislation is that it might damage the goodwill that exists towards disabled people. Personally—no doubt through some mental deficiency of mine—I cannot understand how any disabled legislation could upset or cause pain and distress, except to those who discriminate and wish to discriminate. How can people of goodwill object to a legal statement of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour towards disabled persons? My personal conviction is that legislation will reinforce the goodwill, and that the goodwill will ensure that the legislation actually works.
Given the fact that discrimination exists, it seems to me reasonable to set down in statute that which is not acceptable behaviour. The very existence of the law will ensure that people of goodwill will take steps to avoid transgressing it. The vast majority of those people are law abiding. They may not always be very conscious of the needs of all their fellow countrymen if they do not suffer from disabilities themselves, and the law will encourage this vast majority, in many cases for the first time, to think about where their duty lies

419
in relation to disabled persons. The habit once formed should in time produce a general attitude which would automatically rule out discrimination among the great majority of our population.
I well remember, if I am allowed one reminiscence, the objections raised by many Members of the House to the entry of women Peers for more than 40 years after women had become an accepted feature of the House of Commons. It was argued seriously, in the Chamber and outside, that we the Peers, who at the time were all men, would be greatly embarrassed if women came into the Library when we were half asleep; we would have to rise to our feet. All sorts of minor inconveniences were pointed to at that time. The problem of lavatories was, of course, treated by many people at that time as insuperable. So it is with prejudices. The most ridiculous arguments are brought up to justify them. It is not until an Act produces a new situation that everyone discovers suddenly that there was nothing in those old prejudices at all. Now, as I have ventured to say elsewhere, the women Peers have proved in recent years the great success story of this House. The old prejudices have been eliminated by experience. At least I hope they have. If there are any Peers now who object to women in the House, they do not dare say so in public or in my hearing. So, I feel confident, it will be with the disabled.
There is no doubt about the views of the disabled themselves collectively speaking. Neither I nor anyone can speak for every single disabled person. No one, for that matter, can speak for every single member of the Labour Party. In case anyone thinks that is a double-edged compliment for my party, I can say that the same is true for the Alliance Party or for the Conservative Party, which, as far as I know, still includes large numbers of "wets" in spite of the prevailing rule. None of us can get up and say, "I speak for all the disabled". but I can quote a letter in The Times which must carry a great deal of weight with your Lordships. It is quite short and I shall read it:
"We, all of whom have intimate knowledge of the prejudice and discrimination"—
they mean the existing prejudice and discrimination—
"suffered by disabled people, implore Her Majesty's Government not to block the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill when it returns to the House of Commons for Second Reading this week".
It was signed by Mr. Beckingham, Chairman of the Disablement Income Group, and by 12 other official representatives of societies concerned with the disabled. I have been given the names of a whole lot of other organisations concerned with disablement which support the present Bill. Mr. Peter Large, whom I mentioned earlier, and who is Chairman of CORAD and is spokesman to Parliament for the Disablement Income Group, has written to tell me that there is no organisation of disabled persons that is, to his knowledge, not supporting a Bill of some kind to make discrimination illegal. Mr. Jack Ashley, the very remarkable MP, who is chairman of the All-Party Disablement Group, has sent a strong letter of support.
I do not intend to take up your Lordships' time in trying to demonstrate the fact of grave discrimination today against the disabled. Later speakers, some of
420
them from poignant first-hand experience, will provide, no doubt, some telling illustrations. The letter in The Times which I have just quoted, coming from the representatives of the disabled themselves, will carry, I am sure, more weight with your Lordships than any words of mine. In a few moments the House will be listening to some who have had much more intimate, sometimes tragic, experience of disablement than I have. But I yield to no one in my conviction that discrimination against the disabled is a revolting, a contemptible evil, and we none of us should sleep easily in our beds if we do not take this opportunity of doing all in our power to bring it to an end. One leading newspaper has described the Bill as a charter for the disabled, another as a Bill of rights for the disabled. I am happy with either description. For myself. I would describe it as a long overdue measure of justice to our disabled fellow citizens. As such, I commend it to the House. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Longford.)
1.6 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy:My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for he has enabled us to have a debate on this subject. He has explained his Bill very clearly: despite the trouble he described with his voice, I can assure him that he came through very clearly indeed. His sincerity is there for all of us to see, and he did pilot the 1970 Act through your Lordships' House.
The noble Earl and I must both have had similar ideas at about the same time. He presented an identical Bill to that of the honourable Member Mr. Wareing when that Bill had apparently run out of time in another place. On the same day I presented another Bill on the same subject which I had ready for that moment. My Bill also proposes the establishment of a disablement commission. It has been suggested that for the convenience of the House the two Bills might now be discussed together in one Second Reading debate. I am. therefore, speaking to explain my Bill and to compare it with the noble Earl's.
My Bill is based on one which I introduced when I was in the Commons and had been successful in the annual ballot for Private Members' Bills. It would have established a disablement commission, like the other Bill which is before us today. But it failed in another place when the Government Whips, Labour at that time, forced a Division at the end of the Second Reading debate, acting themselves as Tellers in the Division. The idea of a disablement commission is now clearly more in favour in those quarters than it was then.
The noble Earl's Bill is exactly the same as Mr. Wareing's Bill, whereas mine offers an alternative course. My Bill makes the commission the chief instrument for investigating difficulties and discrimination experienced by disabled people, and it does not include two features which were causes of objection to Mr. Wareing's Bill. In the first place, my Bill does not attempt to create new law and new offences in an area difficult to define and prove, namely, deliberate discrimination against disabled people. Secondly, my

421
Bill does not require local authorities to carry out door to door surveys of their areas. In my opinion, the results to be obtained are not worth the expenditure involved. Local authorities are already free to do this if they so decide, and a few have done so, often using volunteers. As the House will remember, during the International Year I was encouraging volunteers to direct their energies to doing useful work rather than entering into sponsored walks, climbing Snowdon or other activities. Obtain sponsorship, yes, but direct the energy to useful purposes in helping with such surveys.
I am sure that my Bill would benefit from redrafting and amendment at later stages. In particular agreement could be reached on defining more precisely what the functions of the commission are to be. I am ready to listen to suggestions from all quarters.
When my original Bill was in another place it was mainly directed to the financial plight of severely disabled people. The reason for that was that it was before the present allowances had been devised or introduced—for example, invalidity benefit, attendance allowance and mobility allowance. These and other benefits were introduced later, in the early 1970s, when I was one of the Ministers concerned. Before the 1970s I had been engaged in drawing attention in Parliament to the categories of severely handicapped people who received nothing—those who from birth or early youth had not been able to work and had therefore not entered the national insurance scheme and did not have even a number. There were also disabled housewives who were not then eligible for any help for total incapacity, which could often come suddenly as a result of accident or illness.
One of the few organisations which then existed to represent such disabled persons was the Disabled Income Group (DIG), which had just been set up in the mid-1960s. I have with me today a letter from the then chairman, the co-founder and leading spirit, Mrs. Megan du Boisson. The letter strongly supported my Bill as it was then in another place. Unfortunately, she died the following year in a road accident. She was a housewife in a wheelchair, and I think that she will always be remembered as a pioneer in this field by those in both Houses of Parliament who knew her.
In comparing the two Bills I should point out that my Bill has a different approach to discrimination. The commission would look into both difficulties and discrimination experienced by handicapped people. It could examine situations in general or particular cases. Every noble Lord in the House will be united in wishing to eliminate any deliberate discrimination because of disability and to reduce to the minimum the difficulties encountered by all kinds of disabled people—for example, people in wheelchairs, the deaf and dumb and the blind. But it is not easy to classify precisely the cases which can arise.
The large majority of situations in which handicapped people are at a disadvantage and could be thought to be discriminated against are not intentionally created or contrived. For example, in this country not every bus is equipped to carry a wheelchair passenger, but it is arguable whether every bus should be so equipped. For example, the requirement would tend to accelerate the disappearance of
422
rural bus services if new vehicles had to be produced or expensive adaptations had to be made to existing ones. Let me give another example. Epileptics are denied driving licences unless a certain period has elapsed—it used to be three years—without a fit. Road safety must be paramount. If an epileptic were to have a blackout at the wheel, many lives could be in danger. This example has been put to me quite genuinely during my parliamentary life as discrimination. I am sure that the noble Earl would not regard that as the kind of case to be covered by Clause 1 of his Bill, but he must be ready for such cases to be put forward if the Bill becomes law.
Yet another example concerns access to buildings for the wheelchair disabled. The House will recall a new clause which I tabled here two years ago to a Scottish Government Bill and which the Government accepted. It has caused some progress to be made. The provisions of that clause were later extended to England, Wales and Northern Ireland by additions to a Private Member's Bill. It was carrying out the recommendations that had been put forward by the Jubilee Committee on Access. I must point out that the progress was limited to new buildings for public use. To apply such requirements to existing buildings has not been attempted for reasons which I can illustrate in this way. If lack of access except by steps were to be regarded as a form of discrimination, the most flagrant offenders would probably be the Churches,of all denominations. Church buildings provide a good example of difficulties for disabled people being created unintentionally. When most of these churches were built no one involved was thinking about disabled people or wheelchairs. To legislate now that ramps, lifts or other alterations should he added would place unbearable financial burdens on many congregations.
There can then be instances of alleged discrimination in employment. Besides the basic suitability of the work, safety again has to be taken into account. I can illustrate this point best by the example of very good employers in the textile industry in Northern Scotland. They have a special plan for employing deaf and dumb people. In parts of a factory it would be dangerous for people who cannot hear or speak to be employed among the machinery. But these employers have found places where they can be employed. Often the eyesight of deaf and dumb people is particularly acute and that can be made use of. If someone wanted to be difficult he could say that discrimination exists within that factory because disabled people are limited to working only in certain sections. Fortunately, everybody is sensible enough to fit in and recognise that the firm is carrying out an enlightened policy.
For those who do not know, I should explain that I happen to be in a good position to comment on the difficulties that may be encountered by the disabled. Over the past 38 years I have experienced various degrees of handicap. At times I have been in a wheelchair, for many months I have been on crutches and, thanks to surgery and the medical profession, I am lucky to be on my pins. But at times I have been limited to only a few steps, and of course I am easily knocked over. From this past experience I am aware of the obstacles met by people with mobility handicaps and of the need for ramps, handrails, seats, perches,

423
wide doors and, above all, consideration in the design of vehicles and public places.
However, I am very doubtful about the wisdom of passing a new law to create offences, with the accompanying procedure for the courts. That is what the noble Earl's Bill seeks to do. Most of the cases in which charges would be brought would not refer to deliberate discrimination but to inadvertent action or inaction. Other cases could be defended on grounds of safety or on the basis of what could be regarded as reasonable expenditure.
Let us consider a letter in the Glasgow Herald a few days ago from the chairman of the Glasgow Access Panel. He complained that the design for a new hotel in Glasgow, which had just won a Civic Trust award, completely ignored the needs of disabled people. In the last sentence of his published letter he describes this as,
"apparent discrimination against the disabled".
Would the noble Earl regard that as a case in which proceedings should be brought under Clause 1 of his Bill? Presumably the Civic Trust could be in the dock, too.
The Earl of Longford:My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for not interrupting me, and I had not meant to interrupt him. He has put a question to me. I certainly do not propose to answer it offhand. But I hope that it will not interrupt his flow if I call attention to Clause 9(2) of the Bill that I am bringing before the House, in which the Secretary of State would be given power to make arrangements for the difficult situations to which the noble Lord may be referring.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for interrupting me for the very good reason that I cannot stand for very long. When I was in another place everybody knew that, in particular those Members on the other Benches. Every three or four minutes they interrupted and asked me to give way, and I was quite glad to do so, except when it came to some of the very difficult questions that they then put to me. But as I say, I am grateful to the noble Earl. I was simply putting to him a point which I thought he might have dealt with when he wound up the debate. However, I am obliged to him for dealing with it straight away. It means—he confirmed this—that there is Quite an area where discretion is left to the Secretary of State in any case. But I foresee difficulties because what will he regarded as discrimination by some people—in particular those who are affected —will not to others seem such a reasonable case.
I am not suggesting that there are no malefactors in this sphere; that is, people who deliberately will try to exclude severely handicapped people and so discriminate against them. I am afraid that such people exist. From hearsay reports there appear to be genuine grievances that certain publicans have prevented handicapped people from entering their pubs or bars. If such conduct were made known widely, it would surely bring them into disfavour with public opinion and other customers. It would also be highly unpopular with the brewing and distilling industries, which are notably interested in expanding their custom. I believe that if the legendary publican—this Rachman of licensed premises—were arraigned under the proposed
424
Clause 1, proof would be difficult to establish, and with the help of lawyers he would probably get off. That is what I fear. He could give reasons of another kind for his having excluded a handicapped person. Bearing in mind a very recent case which has had publicity only this week he could, for example, say that the person concerned was boring the other customers.
I must not make a long speech. I do not intend to do so, first because I hope that at later stages there will be opportunities to go into some of the particular points; and, secondly, because two years ago there was published a small book of mine. It was commissioned by the Nuffield Trust for the International Year, and in it I have set out an account of these matters in a way which cannot possibly be put into the confines of a parliamentary speech. In addition, as I have already pointed out, I am not very good at standing.
However, I must add a few words about Part II of the noble Earl's Bill. Subsection (1C) of Clause 12 would have the effect of requiring house-to-house surveys in each local authority area—a kind of mini-census. This proposal has a considerable history in which I have been involved. Over a period of months in 1966 and 1967 in another place I was pressing the Government for a national survey to assess numbers of severely disabled people. In reply to a question of mine in October 1967, the Government announced that a survey was to be carried out. It became known as the Amelia Harris Report. It took nearly four years to come out, and it has been regarded as the most important assessment of disability in the country. That was carried out simply by sampling methods, and it was limited to people aged 16 and over in private households. Nonetheless, it provided a real picture of the country as a whole.
It was over two years after the survey had been commissioned that the right honourable gentleman Mr. Alf Morris came first in the ballot, and Clause 1 of his Bill, at the end of 1969, required local authorities to inform themselves of numbers; they simply had to inform themselves of numbers of disabled persons. The Government of the day made it quite clear to those of us who were helping with the Bill that in those days they would not have supported anything that went further than that because of the expenditure and the obligation placed on local authorities.
Since then the controversy has continued as to whether local authorities should be required to do more. Now this Bill, and this particular Part of it, takes sides in the controversy and appears to be placing on all local authorities an obligation which could be burdensome and expensive; and I for one do not think that that is necessary. Local authorities are able to obtain information about severely disabled people in other ways—and I must emphasise the word "severely". This is not the kind of survey which should include someone who is missing a finger or a couple of toes. It should be a survey of severely handicapped people. That must be the chief concern of Parliament in these matters.
I must add a few more words, since both of these Bills would introduce a commission and therefore a quango. My view on this subject is well known. I think that I made what was the first parliamentary speech criticising quangos. That was on 11th February 1976. Your Lordships may recognise it because when

425
criticising the numbers and the functions of some of these bodies I pointed out that a number of Members of this House were being appointed to them, and I said that it appeared that the Barons were holding more power in the land than at any time since Magna Carta.
Therefore against my general principle I am suggesting a quango, and the reason for doing so is that many of the complaints about discrimination are against Government departments or Government offices—certainly a great many that come my way are. Therefore I believe that people will not be completely satisfied if the complaints are being answered from within the Government machine. I believe that to have a concealed quango is worse than having a quango at all.
Then the question arises about which department should be involved. The Home Office has been suggested. I should certainly consider any proposals for switching responsibility to other departments. But the Home Office does not deal with Scotland, which has its own home department. The Department of Health in Scotland deals with health; and, for example, the Minister for the Disabled has no writ in Scotland at all, and never has had. That is something which is not widely understood. Therefore we run into problems there. I realise that some of my noble friends and some noble Lords will be aware that to me it is almost as bad a crime to overlook Scotland as it is to overlook disabled people. So I think that a body is needed outside the Government machine.
It is not surprising that many disabled people outside Parliament—and the noble Earl was absolutely right on this—think that passing a law to proscribe discrimination must be a good thing. Surely, they feel, a Bill to help the disabled should not be criticised; it should be above criticism. I fully understand that. However, as parliamentarians and legislators, we have the duty of deciding upon measures most likely to be effective and workable. Therefore I ask the House to have that in mind when examining both the Bills.
1.28 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I hope the House will allow me to begin my few remarks by paying a tribute to my late noble friend and colleague Lord Amulree. We were saddened to learn of his death yesterday. It is particularly appropriate that we should remember him today, when we are discussing disablement, because as a doctor he specialised in dealing with the problems of the old, which often include disablement, and he always took a keen interest in the kind of debate that we are now having. He was Liberal Chief Whip in this House for 22 years, during which time he contributed much to the smooth working of the House. We on these Benches knew him as a jovial, modest and kindly man. We remember him with affection, and we know that he was widely respected in the House as a whole.
The House is indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for presenting to us these two Bills to consider today. Among other things, the occasion will allow us to hear the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Attlee, to which reference has already been made. We look forward to it.
426
It is an important question that we are discussing, directly affecting 5½ million people. We are told that 29 per cent. of families have at least one disabled person in their family circle. I suppose that the first question we have to decide is: does discrimination exist on any scale? All the organisations representing the disabled say so. Many individual complainants say so. The Committee on Restrictions against Disabled People has said so. In a recent Gallup poll, 58 per cent. of the public said so. In the debate on Charter for the 80s which we had in this House just over one year ago, on 17th November 1982, I asked whether the Government would conduct research into discrimination against disabled people. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who was speaking for the Government on that occasion said:
"This will take time and will be costly, but I am certainly willing to consider the possibility within our other research priorities".—[Official Report, 17/11/82; col. 596.]
I am wondering whether the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate today on behalf of the Government can tell us what is the outcome of that consideration. Such research would certainly help. Nevertheless, I believe there is sufficient evidence already to indicate that there undoubtedly is considerable discrimination.
My second question is: does discrimination demand legislative action? The Committee on Restrictions against Disabled People said, "Yes". It is significant that some members of that committee who doubted the need for legislation at the outset of their deliberations ended by recommending it after they had completed their investigations. It is interesting, too, that they recognised the objections and the difficulties, some of which have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. But they felt that the arguments for legislation greatly outweighed those against. Certainly we on these Benches are conscious of the danger of too much legisation. We are conscious of the danger of surrounding the individual with too many restrictions; but we also know that some people would never enjoy the freedoms or the benefits enjoyed by others were it not for legislation. So it is a question of balance. We must get the balance right, and in that connection we have supported legislation to deal with discrimination on grounds of race or sex, and we believed it to be necessary. We now believe that it is necessary in the case of disability. Such legislation, of course, would not be novel. As the noble Earl, Lord Longford, reminded us, it exists in, for example, Canada, South Australia and the United States.
I should like to see legislation dealing with discrimination administered under one general umbrella, if I can so describe it. I should like to see race discrimination, sex discrimination and discrimination against the disabled all handled by one body. Certainly I am prepared to accept that discrimination against the disabled should be made illegal. When the Bill which we are discussing, presented today by the noble Earl, was before the other place, the Liberal and Social Democrat Members in that place supported it, and we will support it today. I think it is no reply to the case for such legislation to list the benefits provided for the disabled by the Government. We all welcome these, from whichever Government they may have come; but the virtue of the Bill which the noble Earl has

427
presented to the House is that it enables disabled people to stand up for themselves. It is not just a question of other people doing things for them, important though that is.
May I now say a word about the Bill presented by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I underline, as he said, that this Bill also appoints a commission. It seems to me that this commission would have a useful role in monitoring (I think that is the appropriate word) the position of the disabled, and in suggesting to the Government what should be done. It would be rather like the Social Security Advisory Committee, and, in so far as it would be much concerned with benefits, it would cover a good deal of the same ground. It would come under the general auspices of the Department of Health and Social Security, since the Secretary of State for Social Services would appoint that commission. Under the Bill of the noble Earl. I do not think it is quite clear which Secretary of State is to do the appointing. It would seem to me that there is a case for any such commission being under the general supervision of the Home Office rather than the DHSS in view of the experience which that department already has in the field of discrimination and in view of my feeling that it would be desirable to have all the different pieces of legislation that deal with discrimination operated together.
The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, does not make discrimination illegal. It may have a greater chance than a Bill which has recently failed in the other place. Certainly I could support it as far as it goes, but it has no teeth, and I believe that teeth are now required. The Bill of the noble Earl may require much amendment in Committee—I am sure it would—but today we are concerned with the principle, and that is why, if we were making a decision here by preferential voting, a system which in an entirely different context I strongly support, I would make the Bill of the noble Earl my first preference and the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, my second.
1.36 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I also pay tribute to Lord Amulree. He was a friend and physician of elderly and disabled people. He did a great deal towards educating doctors to the problems of disability. He used to send medical students from his London teaching hospital to the spinal unit at Stoke Mandeville hospital to learn about the dangers and medical problems of paraplegia. He will be greatly missed by many of us in your Lordships' House.
I bring today apologies from my noble friend Lady D'Arcy (de Knayth). She has pneumonia and cannot be here. She very much wanted to speak in your Lordships' House today. The noble Baroness is a supporter of the move against unnecessary and unfair discrimination.
I greatly look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. We are fortunate to have the noble Earl as a supporter of disabled people.
I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for giving us the opportunity to discuss these two
428
Bills now before us. Both the noble Earl and the noble Lord are great campaigners of long standing for disabled people and other causes. Many disabled people throughout the country were disheartened by the way the Government treated the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill in another place.
I would not dispute the fact that this is a very difficult and delicate matter and that the correct balance should be found. Great diplomacy ought to be forthcoming. Many members of the public look to the House of Lords as a place of appeal. They get us muddled up with the work which the Law Lords undertake. We are nearing Christmas, which should be a time of goodwill towards each other. I hope what is said today will give hope to people who are struggling with their lives against great difficulties.
The Government in another place said that they think discrimination against disabled people is wrong. It is easy to say that. It is easy to pay lip service, but the acid test is what happens in practice. We who are disabled and are trying to live as independent lives as possible keep coming up against petty officialdom. When some people get into uniforms, such as those of the police, traffic wardens or fire officers, they become little Hitlers or tin gods and seem to enjoy making disabled people's lives even more difficult than they already are.
Severely disabled people who drive their own cars and try to shop or get themselves to places of employment cannot do so unless they can park near the place that they need to visit. They are subject to the two-hour waiting rule which does not take into account the extra time everything takes when one is disabled. Because of the difficulties some disabled people have had to give up their jobs.
I believe that what disabled people want is equal opportunities. They want to be part of the general community, but they need concessions and a more flexible approach. Rigid rules, which cannot be bent, force them into impossible positions. Far too often one hears of people who are blind being divided from their guide-dogs. That is worse than separating a young child from its mother, because they feel lost and afraid without their security.
During a debate in your Lordships' House in 1981 I brought up the matter about guide-dogs being able to accompany their blind owners in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, with his usual understanding and good sense, undertook this matter and guide-dogs can now come in so that blind persons can listen to our debates. That shows that your Lordships are more forward-looking over these matters than another place. I am pleased to say that Jill Allan, a campaigner for the blind and disabled, and her dog Brandy are here today.
Several years ago when my noble kinsman and I were planning our house we visited the Ideal Homes Exhibition to get ideas. On arrival we found a big sign saying:
"No dogs, prams or wheelchairs".
End of visit. My noble kinsman was furious. That was our first taste of discrimination.
I will try to say in a few words what I feel is needed by many people who have to live with the realities of

429
life and have to cope with disabilities. I believe that they need something to help protect them from the unthinking and uncaring members of our society. I wish that I could say that we live in a society which is always understanding, that acts of helpfulness came from the heart and that there is no need for any legislation. There are many wonderful people and societies working on behalf of disabled people, but many of those societies have spoken out on behalf of their members for legislation to stop unfair discrimination. One example of the immense damage which has been done by able-bodied people against disabled people who drive their cars with hand controls and who have to use wheelchairs without helpers, is the abuse of the orange badge. In my view, those able-bodied people who have used the badges to their own advantage have committed fraud.
We who try to parl our cars now get no help and only parking tickets. If it were not so difficult for the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, to park his car where he stays in London, I am sure that he would come more often. His frequent absence from your Lordships' House is a great loss. If he had been here today I am sure that he would have added a great deal of good advice to this debate.
I was a little worried when I read in the report of the debate in another place on the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill that the Minister for the Disabled had said that standards have been agreed for all new court houses, so that they will include full provision of access and toilet facilities for disabled people. I thought that at least they would be able to get into the courts when they had to defend themselves for parking offences. But the same access has not been forthcoming to social services departments throughout the country. In Harrogate, the police station has a beautiful ramp while the social services department has a large step.
I am sure that the Government will make it clear that they will not, or cannot, accept Part II of the noble Earl's Bill. Local authorities seem to be having a difficult time providing existing services. Belts are having to be tightened, and in the health service efficiency savings are being made. There are more and more pressures on community services. There is a move to get mentally handicapped people into the community. If that is done correctly it will cost more. Health authorities are worried that they are not providing adequate care for physically handicapped people in many districts, and social services are cutting back all the time. Now, new and frightening problems are emerging. such as the increased evils of drug addiction and increased violence, all of which cost money.
With so many pressures on, perhaps it is time we had protective legislation so that disabled people can have some focal point to help secure reasonable equal opportunities and so that there is a centre point to monitor and collect the problems which get lost between departments. One of the voluntary societies which has done a great deal of work on this matter is the Spastics Society. It has as its director a Conservative Member of Parliament. I hope that what we are discussing today will not be considered party political. People with disabilities come under nearly all Government
430
departments and embrace all colours of party politics, race and religion.
The Disabled Persons Bill, so ably explained by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, I feel has weaknesses. The commission will be appointed by the Secretary of State for Social Services. I feel that if we have anti-discrimination legislation it should either be independent or the responsibility of the Home Office, which has experience and expertise through its involvement with race and sex discrimination legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has said that there might be a problem for Scotland. However, Scotland is generally very capable of doing its own thing, very often better than England—and I say that as a Scot.
Disabled people do not want to be seen just in terms of social services and social security—that is too money orientated. Many of the problems involve other departments such as employment, transport, education, shops, entertainment and so forth. The Bill's commission has no powers to recommend further procedures if conciliation fails.
There has been criticism of the Bills that they lack a definition of "disability". Looking up "disability" in the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, it states:
"Disability—a permanent physical flaw, weakness or handicap, which prevents one from living a full normal life".
Unless disabled people have concessions to bring them into line with able-bodied people, this definition would cover most people in need of protection, giving them equal opportunities. I hope that an independent commission will be established with two branches: one for the problems of the physically handicapped, and one for the mentally handicapped. The problems are totally different and should not be mixed. For years, physically disabled people have tried to educate the public against the "Does he take sugar?" attitude. If one submerged the problems of the two groups it would confuse the public even more. In South Australia their legislation covers only the physically disabled. most likely for this reason.
After discussions with groups from all disabled organisations and disabled individuals, I would hope that the Government will bring forward their own Bill, which would be for an independent commission not linked with any Government department except the Home Office, with a clearly defined conciliation process, and, if all else fails, recourse to the courts. This would cover behaviour from all bodies.
For so long now committees have discussed disability problems. Is it not time to move on? We have been round several circuits of committees and discussions. When I receive a telephone call from a mother in tears who has taken her handicapped child to the cinema and been told, "You cannot have that thing in here", or I see the priest who redesigns the church and puts a flight of steps up without even a handrail, is it surprising that I have unchristian thoughts towards these acts of discrimination? I just say to myself:
"Forgive them, for they know not what they do"—
but legislation might educate them and make the unthinking more thoughtful.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I should like to start by thanking my noble friends for their kind remarks. It is not very easy for me to follow the noble Baroness, who knows so much, and so very personally, about this subject. My own qualifications for addressing your Lordships are tenuous in the extreme. As a child I suffered an impairment, and I also suffered then, and still suffer, a disability. Many years ago when I was a little boy I went to a junior school and suddenly started to stutter, and my stutter became progressively worse. Luckily for me, my parents worked out what was wrong, which was that I, a very much left-handed boy, was being forced—and I stress the word "forced"—to write with my right hand. As this was a fee-paying school my parents insisted that I be allowed to write with my left hand, and my stutter slowly diminished and finally disappeared.
At least, I thought it had disappeared until about three weeks ago when, at the London Press Club, I was having a quiet talk with a middle-aged, pleasant lady who suddenly said to me "Did you stutter when you were a child?" and it turned out that, in fact, she was a qualified speech therapist. Obviously, even today, I still have a trace of that childhood inability to speak properly. The fact that already I have stumbled on several words today is merely nerves, and not my stammer.
Obviously, there are many disabilities which are self-evident to third parties, but there are also other disabilities which cannot be seen. Throughout my years at school, and especially in my more formative years, my school reports were monotonous in what they said. I do not have the exact words in front of me, but the kind of thing they said was: "Lazy", "careless", "must try harder", "can do better". The inference, although never actually put to me, was that I was backward.
This built up in me a terrible feeling of frustration, because in my heart of hearts I knew that I was not backward; I was not bright or clever, but I knew that I was not backward. If any noble Lords think that what I have just said rings a bell somewhere, it is probable that they have read that moving book by Susan Hampshire called Susan Story. In that book she says very much the same kind of things as I have just said, for, like Susan Hampshire, I am dyslexic. The difference between Susan and myself is that when she went to school she was young, beautiful and talented and I, alas! could lay claim only to being young.
Dyslexia, which is sometimes called word blindness, afflicts between 3 per cent. and 15 per cent. of the population, which means that those percentages apply to noble Lords here and to the honourable Members of another place. To take my case, I was educated privately where the classes were small, consisting of, say, 10 or 12 boys, so the teachers could give more individual attention to those children who were not getting on quite as well as others. My dyslexia had a catastrophic effect on me, so one can imagine what effect dyslexia is having in our state schools today, where classes are large and are filled with unruly children, many of whom, so we are led to believe, are not at all interested in learning. Those children who have dyslexia are bound to be grouped in the teacher's mind with those who do not want to learn, and the
432
teacher therefore tends to concentrate on the brighter children. If every schoolchild was screened for dyslexia and those who were found to have it were given remedial training—and neither of these suggestions would cost very much money—many children who today are discarded to the waste-paper basket, and who never achieve their full potential, could be saved.
However, if so-called normal children suffer from dyslexia, what about those children who are disabled? Some of these children have difficulty in speaking, in writing, and in learning. The disabilities of some are so obvious that unfortunately on too few occasions does anyone look behind their difficulty in speaking and writing. As between 3 per cent, and 15 per cent, of these disabled children are also dyslexic, I should like to see every child screened for dyslexia.
As a case in point, a great friend of mine had a half-sister; my friend came to me because she knew I was dyslexic. She thought that her half-sister, who suffered from Down's Syndrome, might be dyslexic and asked me to see her. In my eyes that child was the most classic case of severe dyslexia that I had ever met, but once her parents appreciated that she had dyslexia she was given remedial training. Today, although still obviously severely brain-damaged, she is, in fact, being educated in a normal school, which must do a lot for her self-respect.
I support both these Bills—not one, and not the other. I am in favour of anti-discrimination against the disabled for the very obvious reason which I have stated. I do a little voluntary work with the disabled and I have found them to be kind, thoughtful, cheerful and very rarely sorry for themselves. If only the rest of our people would treat the disabled people as they treat themselves, I feel that this world would be a much better place. Thank you, my Lords.
2 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby:My Lords, I have, unexpectedly, the great pleasure of congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on a most remarkable and moving maiden speech. We have listened to a testament of youth; of one who underwent experiences in circumstances which we realise imposed a great test upon the character of the person concerned. We have heard of the problems of young people who are suffering from disablement. Those at school, young people, are sensitive, but probably moving among others who care little for their disabilities and can often be very cruel indeed. We have been greatly moved by hearing from the noble Earl. When he left the merchant navy he did not take the soft option. He became assistant public relations officer to British Rail, which was a great adventure undertaken, I am sure, with confidence and courage.
There can be no dissent about the purpose of these two Bills. The aims and purposes of these Bills command the unanimous support of your Lordships' House. The question is: how are we to approach this problem? We have united in one debate on two Bills. What are we to do with them? Are we to pass them both; make our choice between them; refer them to a Select Committee? What are we to do? The practical side of today's debate is of considerable importance.

433
I have no hesitation in preferring the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, to that of my noble friend Lord Longford. I believe that the second Bill has the merit of being shorter, simpler and more benign. It has by far the better approach of the two. Non-discriminatory legislation can often create in the minds of society an unwarranted sense of guilt. One has to carry the whole of society with one in imposing, by legislation, standards of behaviour and attitudes towards other people.
Moreover, the topic we are debating today contains far more problems, and infinitely more difficulties, than the two previous non-discrimination Bills. After all, the gender division and the ethnic division are both more easily identified than the varying degrees of disablement. I am sure that the noble Earl would find the problems of definition baffling, or so difficult to construe as to lead to many difficulties of a practical kind.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I should like to carry on for a little longer, if I may. The noble Earl will have an opportunity to reply at the end. I am only saying at the moment that I think he probably has underestimated the problems of construction, definition and interpretation which his Bill would create. After all, discrimination is the making of a distinction, and a distinction has to be either self-evident or readily ascertainable. It has to be defined. It is necessary then, having defined it, to say what one is going to do about it: whether one standard of nondiscrimination applies throughout, or whether there are to be refinements of choice between one person and another, which in some circumstances are reasonable and in others not. There are many problems here which have to be faced if we attempt to legislate too definitely and too quickly on this subject.
I believe that the role of study, investigation, advice and recommendation which the commission in the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, would give us would enable a good deal of educational work to be done, which is necessary, and would enable us to go forward with greater confidence in what we are doing. I am not in favour of using legislation, wholly or mainly, for educational purposes.
Legislation is to lay down the law, and the law must be clear, and the law must be enforceable. That is why it can be quite misleading to think that because Canada, Nova Scotia and the United States have done something in this field, that necessarily creates a favourable precedent for us. Their standard of legislation is entirely different from ours, and their constitutional system is different from ours. One thing about British law is that it has to be clear. You have to try to get it clear for certainty—and it can be construed in the courts—as to the reasonable interpretation of the meaning of words. In most legislation that I have studied on other subjects in the United States and elsewhere, the phraseology is so loose that it would never pass muster as good legislation in this country. Therefore, we have to beware of that, too.
However, where discrimination rests upon distinctions of varying degree, and where discrimi
434
nation rests upon the lack of, or refusal to provide, facilities, then you are in a much more difficult field than before. What is talked of as being discrimination may be failure to provide facilities, and we have heard a good deal about that already. Indeed, you might say that this problem is beset by, first of all, the definition of loss of faculty; and, secondly, the prescription of the facilities that there must be to avoid deprivation of opportunity to disabled people. The draftsmen are going to have a pretty difficult job to translate all this into statute law.
I feel that a Bill of this kind could not command the support of the House as a practical measure of legislation. We should bear in mind that when we were dealing with the issue of sex discrimination we had almost a parallel situation where a Bill introduced by a Private Member in the House of Commons made no progress; it was blocked. In your Lordships' House a Bill of a similar kind was introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The House passed the Bill and referred it to a Select Committee where evidence could be taken, where people could be identified and, if possible, reconciled.
The noble Earl did not mention that the director of the Spastics Society, who is a member of the House of Commons, criticised the Bill strongly. I suggest that one cannot ignore the opinion of the director of the Spastics Society when expressed in the House of Commons on a measure of this kind. There is obviously work to be done on the contents of the Bill.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, is the noble Lord still imposing a ban on interventions?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Please, my Lords.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord was here when I was speaking —he gives no evidence of having been here—but is he aware that the overwhelming body of those representing the disabled has come out strongly in favour of the Bill?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Yes, my Lords. I regret the reproach that the noble Earl has made. I was here sitting in this Chamber long before he came in. I do not think that that is a very courteous reference to make to a friend and colleague. I listened to his speech throughout; I heard his testimony to the united, overwhelming opinion of the voluntary bodies, but I am entitled to point out that he failed to mention one important society that expressed a dissenting point of view.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, if I said anything—
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: If I may proceed, my Lords.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, may I be allowed to proceed? The Select Committee which was appointed to consider the Sex Discrimination Bill by your Lordships provided the main body of material from which ultimately legislation was undertaken.

435
When we came to deal with the matter again in the House of Commons we found that the report of your Lordships' Select Committee was the main instrument of approaching the matter from a constructive and legislative point of view. I only mention this because I think that a similar process would be much more likely to succeed if it were undertaken in relation to this Bill because of the greater complexity of the subject which we have to consider.
If I am given the opportunity of making a choice, I would unhesitatingly support the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. But if your Lordships intend to pass both Bills for a Second Reading I sincerely hope that we shall hear from the Minister what the Government propose to do about them.
I have regretted before the unhappy position we are often in in having a long debate on a subject, when we would have liked to hear the Government view earlier in the debate rather than at the tail end. To know how the Government view this Bill would help the debate greatly. However, we shall wait for the noble Lord to give us a Government view on these proposals at the end of the debate. I warn your Lordships against the practical problems of legislating in this difficult field without a great deal of preparation and a great deal of agreement.
The goodwill for which my noble friend Lord Longford appealed will be available. It can be mustered; it can be mobilised, if only we carry people with us. But all non-discrimination legislation is admonitory and that is very often a drawback in legislating on matters concerned with emotions, with temperament, with attitudes towards civil liberty and important matters affecting the citizen. There is always a hint of reproach to society in general, all of us, that such things should be necessary, that we have to have the finger wagged at us and be told, "You must not do that any more". The greater the goodwill, the greater the benefit to those concerned with it.
Having had the Bill in the House of Commons blocked, not for the first time, a little time spent now would help if it meant that we could go forward from here with a constructive approach to legislation, amply prepared, and study all its complexity, in order to get a good Bill that is effective and generally accepted.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I apologise to him if I have said anything which he found offensive?
2.14 p.m.
Viscount Knutsford: My Lords, may I add my congratulations to those of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, on the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, which I found to be both interesting and admirable. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, explained the reasons why he had decided to introduce this Bill, and I feel that I should declare my interests in it. They are two. I have been disabled for 40 years and for the last 36 of them I have been concerned with both statutory and voluntary organisations who themselves were concerned with the rehabilitation and training of disabled people for open industry and the provision of sheltered employment
436
for those who need it en route to open industry or permanently. Different people have different definitions for the word "rehabilitation". For me, in relation to both my declared interests, it means helping disabled people to help themselves to maximise their abilities, with the aim of overcoming their disabilities and becoming integrated into society.
The noble Earl's Bill states in Part I, Clause 2(1)(a), that the objects of the proposed commission are to eliminate discrimination and promote integration. I find these two objects contradictory. Anti-discriminatory powers proposed in the Bill, by picking out disabled people and categorising them as a special and separate group, in my view would hinder and not promote integration and, indeed would militate against it.
I must accept what has been said today, and in another place last month, that there are employers who have an antipathy to employing disabled people; although I must confess that I have never come across any. But, apart from the administrative problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has already referred, and the cost if this Bill became law, are we really satisfied that there are so many disabled people who are out of work because they are being discriminated against that the patent disadvantages to effective rehabilitation and integration that these proposals would cause are outweighed? I believe that this sort of discrimination is not widespread; or, anyhow, not as widespread as has been made out. And if so, the old maxim that hard cases make had law is only too applicable. It is ignorance and not deliberate discrimination that is the major problem.
When the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 was being thought out, legislation of the sort that the noble Earl is proposing might well have been, and probably was, considered. Today, the attitude of the general public and of employers has entirely changed and especially so over the past 15 years to 20 years. You have only to be disabled yourself to know that. This is due not only, or even mainly, to legislation but because of the contributions and efforts made by all concerned with rehabilitation, not least those who are in favour of this Bill, but, above all, by the example of disabled people themselves. In view of this change, which continues, these anti-discriminatory proposals are as outdated in my view as they are misguided.
We who are disabled must sometimes take a pull and consider how far claims for special treatment and privileges are compatible with our oft-repeated demand to be treated as normal people—which we are—and to be integrated into society. We cannot always have our cakes and eat them. To have anti-discriminatory legislation is discriminatory in itself; but, above all, it is a negative approach. We need to be positive and to increase efforts to educate employers, many of whom even now have not heard of the quota nor realise the capabilities of disabled people.
The Bill of the noble Lord. Lord Campbell of Croy, if I may say so, does less harm than that of the noble Earl in that he has said that it is free from enforcement proposals. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has said, more benign; but it, too, advocates a commission and therefore emphasises once again and underlines the point that disabled people are

437
different from others in contrast to the aim of most of us to educate the public into knowing that we are not.
The whole apparatus of existing legislation, both as to employment and the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, is enough, if it worked. What needs to be done is to make it work and not add yet more to it. What is the Minister for the Disabled for but to do this? Also, why should there not be one in Scotland? We have been told that there is not one. He does not need a commission, with or without teeth to do so. He has quite enough of his own, as he has proved in the six months which have elapsed since he was appointed. I do not therefore support either of these Bills.
2.21 p.m.
Lord Rea:My Lords, I should like first of all to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on his maiden speech, which, like the utterances of his father, was modest but most effective. I should like also to add my affectionate tribute to the late Lord Amulree, who was one of my teachers as a medical student and was also a great personal friend of my late uncle, who was a colleague of his on the Liberal Front Bench.
This afternoon we are not talking about a tiny minority of the population. There are many more disabled people than, for example, black people, for whom anti-discrimination legislation has been passed and has brought great benefit. As to the total numbers of disabled, I should not like to be quoted as giving an exact figure because it is extremely difficult to decide who is and who is not disabled, but I think we can be clear that there are several million of them in the population: something like 1 in 10.
I am afraid there are no signs that the total numbers are decreasing, although some types of disability are becoming much less common as a result of improvements in preventive medicine and in obstetrics, poliomyelitis being the outstanding example of this since effective vaccination became available. But less progress in eliminating disability is being made in other areas—multiple sclerosis, for example. Paradoxically, some types are actually increasing directly as a result of improvements in medical science. Some who would have died are now surviving, spina bifida (a neural tube defect) being the biggest group.
Another result of technological progress and improvement is that disabled people are becoming more mobile, better able to contribute to the economy and better able to move out into the world and enjoy it. There are now also more survivors from severe accidents, some of whom are left disabled.
Here I should mention how useful legislation has been—and in this respect I am following the noble Earl, Lord Longford—in reducing the number of severe injuries in road traffic accidents. Education and persuasion cost a lot of money (£7.8 million: is that the figure that he gave?) and only resulted in 30 per cent. of drivers and passengers using seat belts. Since February, the majority wear them and are still wearing them, with noticeably beneficial results in accident and emergency departments throughout the country. Even I now mostly wear a seat belt, whereas before I used to rationalise that on short journeys it did not matter. That was a very faulty rationalisation as I
438
realised at the time, but the law has made me look after myself better.
Furthermore, increasing numbers of the population are now surviving into old age, where disability of some kind or other affects 25 per cent. of those over 75; so the topic is very relevant to your Lordships' House. On the horizon are increases in understanding which will eventually lead, we hope, to a decrease in the number of disabled people; but that does not alter the fact that there are millions with us now. Among handicapped people are many with able minds but impaired bodies or defective vision or hearing; others have able bodies but less able minds. Among all of them there is a very strong desire to belong to the rest of us and to overcome their handicap. Quite prodigious achievements, despite the difficulties, are sometimes attained. We have only to look around us today to see outstanding examples of this.
What is at issue has already been clearly put before us, and what we have to decide is whether we are to wait until employers, civil servants, administrators, hotel managers, licensees and all the other people who can help or hurt disabled people become enlightened. Or are we to encourage them a bit, in such a way that they will really take notice through the law? People do not like breaking the law; and, especially, if it is made by Parliament, they will respect it all the more.
I know that my disabled patients want me to back the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, whether they are suffering from multiple sclerosis, the results of polio, traumatic paraplegia, epilepsy, dwarfism, rheumatoid or osteo arthritis, acromegaly or are deaf or blind. I have on my list numerous examples of patients in nearly all those categories. I am also sure that those with mental handicap feel the same, although they cannot express it so clearly.
But I am also well aware of a number of difficulties. One problem is that of classifying the type and severity of disability. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, is raising the matter in a Question next week. Some disabled people are so extra determined to win through that they will do well in any case. Others with the same impairment or defect will give up more easily and be more functionally disabled. There is the difficult problem of deciding when a job is really too dangerous or physically demanding.
But I think that the Bill is mindful of these difficulties. Clause 5 allows the Secretary of State to draw up regulations as to whom the Act will apply, and what it is reasonable or unreasonable to regard as discrimination. The Committee stage in this House or in another place can help to iron out these problems. There are many experts to call and to consult. I commend this Bill to your Lordships. Just as ethnic minorities have gained in status and become more respected through race relations legislation, so will the disabled community be aided by the passing of this amendment Bill.
2.27 p.m.
Lord Holderness:My Lords, I should like to add my gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for his first speech to your Lordships. As one who had a very great admiration and also affection for his father, it did not surprise me to hear from him an understanding and a

439
very caring speech and I hope that we shall hear often from him in the future.
As on other occasions. I feel very diffident in entering a debate in which many of those highly expert in this field have taken part and where my own qualifications for doing so are relatively very meagre. My only boast is that I had as teacher in the years immediately following the last war none other than the late Dame Georgina Buller. I have it on very reliable authority on many occasions that both Ministers and civil servants used to quail before Dame Georgina's persistent expertise when she visited them to put them through it. She lost no time in pressing me, at the same time as my noble friend Lord Knutsford, into service with what was then called Queen Elizabeth's Training College at Leatherhead, where I have remained in one way or another ever since.
I fear that Dame Georgina Buller would have given only a lukewarm welcome to the Disabled Persons Bill of my noble friend Lord Campbell, and I feel fairly certain that she would have disapproved very strongly of the anti-discriminatory provisions in the Bill introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Longford.
There seems to me to be a very real sense in which discrimination is right, proper and unavoidable. The very word "disability" means, if it means anything, an inability, on physical or mental grounds, to do certain things which others without those physical or mental limitations do without difficulty. Therefore it seems to me again not unreasonable for one individual to discriminate against another in cases where the disability of that other person makes it impossible for him or her to perform as efficiently (I am not thinking only in terms of questions of employment) as others would perform.
If this analysis be correct, it naturally prompts the question whether any human being is entirely free of disability. The disability of the noble Earl is, we all hope, only temporary, brought on by over activity in the last few days. I hope that the effort he has made today will not increase that disability and that it will disappear in time for Christmas. But apart from the obvious handicaps which make it essential for me and a few other noble Lords to use a pair of spectacles to read our notes, and which may soon force on me some device through which I can listen more perfectly to the excellent speeches of noble Lords. most of us, whether we are young or old, possess some defect which may make us less suitable than others for various occupations and activities.
As far as those occupations and activities are concerned, it seems to me in no way unjust to be discriminated against. The only person who, it seems, could justifiably complain of discrimination is the perfect man or woman, free from all physical or mental defects, a stranger to inhibitions, prejudices and hang-ups of all kinds, and with a knowledge of and an aptitude for the whole range of enterprise with which the human race is concerned. Sadly, it is unlikely, during my remaining years on this planet, that I shall meet such a wondrous character. Therefore I think it wiser to look more positively on the other side of the matter and to try to build on the abilities, some of which will probably belong to us, if we are
440
lucky, almost to the day of our death. This positive attitude seems to me to be more soundly based than condemnation of a discrimination against disabilities, or disabled persons, which I have attempted to suggest may be perfectly fair.
I suggest that we can more properly direct our energy towards teaching employers and others—the kind of people my noble friends spoke about this morning—exactly what so-called disabled people can do. In the case of employment, instead of what I believe to be the rather sterile message, "Don't turn Smith down because he is paralysed", or blind or deaf, I would prefer to see the Government, with all their authority, continue to ram home the truth, "Have a look at Jones. He's in a wheelchair, but he's got two very good hands and a first-class brain. You may have to build him a ramp to get him into his office or his workshop but it's certainly going to pay you dividends, because Jones wants to show you what he can do. He'll want to prove to you what thousands of other disabled people have proved to hundreds of other employers: that the disabled, given a job which fits their abilities, can do it better than the so-called able-bodied".
I wish, incidentally, we could escape from the depressing adjective "disabled", which suggests a condition—particularly after the definition given by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton—without much hope and really fit only for the scrap heap. Although it has other shortcomings, I prefer "handicapped", if only because I know, from my rather slender association with the turf, that the most severely handicapped horse quite often wins the race. After some experience of it, I believe that the main stimulus of the physically handicapped is towards a recapture of the greatest degree of independence which circumstances make attainable. I do not believe that we shall be helped towards that goal by legislation which is very well meant, but which will vainly and unconvincingly try to assure us that there is no discrimination against us. But I believe the handicapped will be helped forward more effectively by an acceleration of the changes in public attitudes.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Knutsford that attitudes have changed dramatically over the past 10, 20 and 30 years. I am vastly encouraged by the growing disregard of loss of function and the much more intelligent concentration on the degree of capacity returning. I hope that neither the noble Earl nor my noble friend will consider that my criticism of their Bills is unreasonable or irrelevent. I happen to be convinced that the approach I should like to see made for the benefit of the disabled must be less anti-discriminatory and more positive, if we are to build securely on the foundation which was significantly broadened 40 years ago, to the lasting benefit of the handicapped, by the extreme hunger for labour during the last war, and by the unprecedented need of services which the disabled were and are able to provide.
2.37 p.m.
Lady Saltoun:My Lords, I too, should like to add my congratulations on his moving maiden speech to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee; to express my sorrow at the death of Lord Amulree, who was a friend of my father; and to wish the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) a speedy recovery. I must also apologise to

441
noble Lords who will be winding up the debate in case I have to leave to catch my plane before they have finished.
I am sure that all of us in this House have the greatest possible sympathy with the aims and objects of both the Bills we are discussing this afternoon—and also great sympathy for and, I hope, some understanding of the immense problems which face the disabled. But while I have enormous admiration for the courage with which they face their difficulties—and particularly, for the disabled noble Lords and Baronesses who come here to fight for those even more unfortunate than themselves—Icannot regard either of these Bills with very much enthusiasm.
I agree with every word that was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford, and with much of that said by the noble Lords, Lord Houghton of Sowerby and Lord Holderness. The Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, will in the first part create another quango similar to its older sisters—the Race Relations Board and the Equal Opportunities Commission, both of which rapidly became the laughing stock of the country.
Sensible people find totally ridiculous a situation whereby one cannot legally advertise for a Scottish housekeeper or a daily woman, but have to resort to such circumlocutions as, "Housekeeper able to make good porridge" or, "Cleaning person speaking good English". One can, of course, get around the problem, but doing so is time-consuming and annoying. So the law—which in this instance is an ass—cannot be enforced and falls into disrepute.
I can see several very awkward areas in the noble Earl's Bill. For example, in Clause 8(3), how is a court to assess the cash value of hurt feelings? Then, in respect of Clause 9(1)(c), if one employs a person to do a job, them he must be able to do that job—otherwise one cannot employ him. And when one gets into the grey area of what is or is not "reasonable" in Clauses 4 and 5, one will have endless acrimonious argument and litigation as to what is or is not "reasonable".
What may seem reasonable to a disabled person wishing to be employed in a shop or factory may not seem at all reasonable to the owner of the shop or factory who is trying to build up a business in difficult times, and who would have to make expensive alterations to his premises.
To return to the Race Relations Board, I believe it has actually exacerbated race relations problems because it has produced a situation whereby native Britons feel they are actually at a disadvantage in their own country. For example, if someone of another race gives cause for justifiable complaint, they dare not complain for fear of being accused of racial discrimination. They are understandably resentful—and this situation has done nothing for race relations.
Regarding the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, I am truly sorry not to be able to support it either. But it seems to me that it will only create another quango, perhaps a less expensive one, and we really cannot afford more quangos. Incidentally, neither Bill mentions anything about financial costs. Over the last 10 years or so we have had a good deal of legislation to help the disabled. Some is scarcely two years old and has not yet had
442
time to work through. It takes time to improve access to buildings even when it is possible to do so, and very often it is not, especially with old buildings.
I believe that the average employer, councillor, shopkeeper, restaurant proprietor or whoever, is not really a bad chap but he does not always have a lot of imagination. I am sure that if people knew and understood more of the real problems of the disabled they woulddo a great deal to help, without legislation. Surely the best way to help is to try to get the problems and difficulties of the disabled more widely understood, through existing organizations, and to spend available money on this. Perhaps the DHSS, other Government departments, local authorities, the Churches and the media could do more to help over this, because particularly now since the International Year of the Disabled there is a greatly increased awareness of their needs and concern for them.
I am sorry, but with the very greatest respect to both noble Lords whose babies these are, I am afraid that both these Bills will actually prove counterproductive. I think this is a "softly, softly, catchee monkey" situation, and not one for the bludgeon of an Act of Parliament creating yet another category of criminal offences.
2.42 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I am suffering from the same complaint as the noble Earl was suffering from in moving this Bill, but I have been furiously sucking throat lozenges over this past 10 minutes to ensure that I would be able to make some small contribution. At the outset let me say that I would want to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on what I regarded as a very moving speech which obviously must affect those in the Chamber who have been able to listen to it. I congratulate him. I have not been a Member of this House for very long but I take great pleasure in congratulating the noble Earl on his maiden speech.
I first became involved with the problems of the disabled because of the peculiar and tragic circumstances that existed in my homeland, in Belfast, in Ireland, and particularly in my own constituency. In the early 'seventies many people were murdered and many more were seriously maimed and disabled. I came to know many of those people and I saw the awful extent of their injuries. I also had letters, and people came to me and told me of the terrible injuries that had been inflicted on their loved ones. Because of the awful situation, I became involved in trying to get benefits for those people who were so badly maimed. I appeared at many local tribunals and made many representations to the Government department concerned.
Arising from that, I then began to ask myself about the other categories of disabled people, not those who had been maimed because of the murderous activities of the paramilitary organisations, but those who had been born disabled or been disabled by accident. I found that there were no great indications of how many people there were in those categories. So with the help of a researcher, whom I understand was very well known to the honourable member in another place, Mr. Alf Morris, Mr. Peter Mitcham and I put down a series of Questions to the Northern Ireland

443
Office. I had not heard of some of the disabilities and diseases, some of which have been mentioned by the noble Earl. In a series of Questions that we put down in the other place we asked the Northern Ireland Office how many people suffered from dyslexia, how many from multiple sclerosis, howmany from spina bifida, and so on—all the other diseases that I needed to be taught about. In every case the answer was, "We do not know. We do not have a clue". Arising from this, an organisation called Outset carried out an investigation in Northern Ireland. It made a door-to-door survey. When the conclusions were published, it was found that in that small region of Northern Ireland a higher proportion of people are suffering not only from disabilities brought about by the troubles but from diseases and disabilities caused by poverty and social deprivation. There is a very real problem.
I then decided to do what I could to alleviate the pain and suffering of these people. I was successful in getting the House of Commons to pass the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1978. That was done with the support of the then Labour Government. In some respects it was a great advance on the exisiting legislation. For those reasons, I give my overwhelming support to the noble Earl who has moved this Bill.
Let us consider the objections to the Bill. Clause 1 of the Bill sums up what the debate is about:
"No person shall discriminate against another person on the grounds of physical, mental or sensory disability in any activity to which this Act relates".
We are not so concerned with every detail in Part II of the Bill. I hope that the majority of noble Lords taking part in the debate have read the CORAD report. The people who compiled it had vast experience in dealing with the problems of the disabled. They have come to the unanimous conclusion that there is discrimination against the disabled, although the report mentions the debate in another place, which has also been mentioned in this debate today.
Irrespective of how complex the Bill may seem, if we accept the fact that there is discrimination, we should ask ourselves today, "Are we prepared to do something about that discrimination?". That is all this House has to decide today. We do not have to go into the complexities of one or other of the two Bills. We have to ask ourselves whether we are convinced that there is discrimination, and, if the answer is yes, can we do anything to alleviate it? I am totally convinced that there is discrimination and that we should do something about it.
One of the arguments to be adduced against the proposals will be that we do not want to set up another quango. Many quangos exist which were created by both Labour and Conservative Governments. Their purposes appear to me to be far less worthy than the purpose suggested in the Bill. There is every justification to set up a commission to inquire into the problems of the disabled.
We are told that we cannot legislate against discrimination, that we will get the backs up of people who believe that they are being unjustly charged with discriminating against the disabled. Again, I would draw the attention of your Lordships to the existence on the statute book of what is now known as the Fair
444
Employment Act, by referring to the history of Northern Ireland, where there was put forward the most serious and the most justifiable case that the minority Catholic population had been the victim of discrimination throughout the whole 60 years of the province. The last Labour Government who were in power in this country took it upon themselves to put on the statute book the Fair Employment Act. I was a member of the committee which was involved with the legislation and people said, "You cannot legislate for discrimination against Catholics". The other part of the Bill contained legislation to prevent discrimination against people for their political belief.
Upstairs in committee in another place we met with furious opposition from the Unionist Members on the committee. They said, first, that there was no discrimination, that it had always been a figment of people's imagination; then that, even if there were discrimination, we could not legislate against it. But, with great courage, the Labour Government insisted that that legislation be put on the statute book, and today in Northern Ireland people accept it. The legislation has had a great effect in preventing employers from discriminating against people on the grounds of religion or political belief.
What is equally important is that we should take the same kind of decision in relation to discrimination against disabled people. Under the fair employment legislation—and I have listened to what many noble Lords have had to say here this afternoon—employers were asked to sign a declaration that they would not discriminate against a person on the grounds of his or her religion or political belief. When the legislation was going through the House all the employers in Northern Ireland, including the Federation of Employers, said "We are not going to sign it. We are not going to be intimidated into signing a declaration because we don't discriminate, anyway". They had a guilt complex.
Now the position is that 98 or 99 per cent. of employers have signed the declaration, and the legislation has achieved a great deal. It has not been wholly successful. Given the whole history of Ireland, it would be unlikely to be wholly successful, but it has done much to create the atmosphere in which religious discrimination would be less likely to succeed.
In any democratic society there must be laws. That is what our civilisation has been founded upon. There are some laws that we do not like. Some laws that have been promulgated by Conservative Governments would be total anathema to me, and some which have been put on the statute book by Labour Governments would be totally objectionable to members of the Conservative Party. However, our society believes—and we have read about this even in the past two or three days—that where there is a law, it must be obeyed. For example, if there were not a law against shoplifting, Marks and Spencer would not be in business for very long, and neither would Fortnum and Mason—and you would be inclined to get a better class of people going in there. Law prevents people from doing things which are regarded as being injurious to society. I believe that. if it were to go on to the statute book, a Bill such as this would create the atmosphere in which it would be less likely that people would be discriminated against.

445
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, drew attention to the fact that it is now December, the season of goodwill, only a few days before Christmas. I believe that, irrespective of what happened in another place, it would do nothing but good to the reputation of this House if we agreed to the Second Reading of these Bills. I unhesitatingly support the Bill moved by my noble friend Lord Longford. I do so because his Bill states that it will be applicable to Northern Ireland. The Bill moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, specifically states that it does not apply to Northern Ireland. That is one valid reason why I am supporting the noble Earl. By the way, there is something I found amusing in the CORAD Report, chapter 5.9, under the heading of "Education". It said:
"If we can encourage children to accept their disabled peers",—
I do not quite know what that meant!—
"then future generations will be likely to regard disabled people as full members of the community".
I am not sure how many disabled Peers there are in this House, but when I first saw the Bill I thought it would he passed on the nod, and many of us, including myself, thought that many Peers should be asked to declare what interest they have in this legislation!
Seriously, I believe this is legislation to which no significant section of our community could take objection. If objection is taken, those objections are not worthy of consideration by noble Lords in this House.
2.56 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I find it hard to oppose the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in his loyal and fine efforts to improve life for disabled people. His courtesy and consideration for their problems is heartwarming, and deserves the gratitude of every one of us who comes into contact with it. Yet, despite this, I am bound to oppose him on this Bill. Even for the noble Earl I could not be enough of a hypocrite to abandon views in which I firmly believe. It would be convenient for me to go along with the Bill, as otherwise I find myself on the other side of valued colleagues in earlier campaigns on disablement causes, such as Peter Large, John Beckingham and others. We were in the Disablement Income Group together. I feel compelled to remind them that the late honorary director, Miss Mary Greaves, who was so much respected and who did so much for DIG, considered that it would be naive and unworkable to attempt to legislate against discrimination.
The strength of DIG's case has been its impeccable accuracy. I was, therefore, a little shaken to find in its latest paper a statement claiming that disabled people are united in favour of this legislation. I fear that their enthusiasm has led them to make a false claim. The number of disabled people who do not think that way, and who share my opinion, often have arrived at that view after considering the following factors. Is this the best way to spend precious funds when there are other important measures needing to be taken, such as the extension of the invalid car allowance for married women; the "partial incapacity to earn" provisions; and, above all, the national disability income, which has always been DIG's goal, based on the extent of disability and not the cause?
446
The Bill before us today would cost millions to operate, and local authorities would get involved in costly surveys and then be unable to deal with what was revealed because of resource constraints. When people think about that they consider whether this Bill really could be a magic wand to change everything when it would be dependent on other legislation. Would it not be wiser to tackle the separate problems through amending legislation in the areas affected, whether it concerns access (and how much discrimination does not really boil down to access problems?) or whether it is transport, housing, education, employment opportunities, and so on? Surely it makes more sense to act in this way than to dress the shop window with hopes and expectations raised perhaps rather too high.
These are the thoughts of most who would oppose the Bill, added to the fact that it is foolish to overlook kindness and consideration afforded to disabled people in the past, for it could well be counter productive to threaten legal action and lose supporters. No matter what other noble Lords may say about it, those are my views.
I cannot help but suspect that there is a little playing to the gallery in the essence of the Bill, for many disabled people do not realise that even if it is won, it cannot on its own deliver the goods and it would use up a large lump of their own rates and taxes. I personally, thank goodness that 50 years ago—I think that I am, perhaps, 10 years up on my noble friend Lord Knutsford—when I was first disabled, there was nobody—thank Heaven!—who said, "You are being discriminated against", for I dread to think what would have been the possible reaction. I might well have grown a chip and felt incurably sorry for myself, which would have removed the sustaining wish to circumvent the difficulties. To have a grudge just does not help anyone.
When we talk of discrimination I suppose we realise that it can work both ways. For example, the orange badge scheme and travel concessions are surely discriminations in our favour. Some who are disabled actually feel embarrassed about what is now being sought. My noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve, an ambulatory but, I am sure other noble Lords would agree with me, a gallant disabled person, cannot be here today. She has asked me to say that she and her disabled friends from all levels of life are embarrassed at the thought of seeking what is asked for here. They know, as I do, that the progress made in recent years, whether on benefits, including the mobility allowance, and general support, including aids, simply cannot be swept under the carpet and forgotten. If your Lordships wish, I could lead you through those measures, but I shall not subject you to such a list.
My aims when working for disabled people are how can we get first, the best care; secondly, the best housing; and, thirdly, the best employment and recreational opportunities. These would not be affected directly by the Bill. We all receive desperately sad letters from sadly handicapped people and to the best of our abilities we try to deal with the problems. But which of us can truthfully say that this Bill would do anything to reduce the frustrations involved?

447
Many times we have all said that access at every point needs to be improved, and now we have a national access committee funded by the DHSS with a very able disabled chairman, Mr. Arthur Goldthorpe, OBE. This is a great step forward. It is one of the many recent positive moves. These have been achieved without reducing the popularity achieved for disabled people during the IYDP. But to impose legislation against allies and potential allies seems to me to be ill-advised almost in the extreme. When I say "potential allies", I am referring to the people who do not yet understand but who should be recruited by the example of disabled people themselves. For I agree with my noble friend Lord Holderness that the example of disabled people probably does more than most things to ease the path for others. But where shall we get if we have threats of legislation and court action? Those few remarks outline many of my reasons for opposing the noble Earl's Bill.
The Bill in the name of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy is intensely interesting as an illustration of his long determination to further the interests of disabled people. My noble friend was president of the IYDP in Scotland and as the author of a book recording progress since the late 1960s he has been our champion. But although he asks for no legislation to be applied, he wants a commission—a quango—which would involve a lot of expenditure. I believe that he and I are close in our requests to help those sad disabled people who just cannot get referred to those who will help them. The difference in my case is that I should like a voluntary organization—monitored as regards performance—to receive those letters, to consider them, and to help the people concerned on their way.
It would need to be an organisation with special independence of Government departments and yet with special muscle. I am wondering about the Prince of Wales' Group on Disability, started some 18 months ago after the IYDP. Its first aim is to provide a point of inquiry to which people with any disability can look for guidance on where to go for the resolution of the problems they meet. It seems to me to fit pretty well.
Although this group started quietly, it is now getting into full swing and, as a member of it, I should like to suggest to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy that this could be the means of receiving and re-routing those inquiries, which I believe is central to my noble friend's Bill. If he could find it possible to incorporate the use of this, or some other suitably independent voluntary organisation, instead of calling for the expenditure involved in a commission. I should be delighted to support his Bill. Otherwise, I fear that I cannot do so.
3.6 p.m.
Lord Stallard:My Lords, like other speakers, I should like to begin by congratulating the main sponsors of both these Bills. First, I want to congratulate them on giving us the opportunity to discuss this important subject this morning and on the way in which both the main speakers introduced this very delicate and sensitive subject. I should also like to add
448
my congratulations to those that have already been offered to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on his very excellent and moving maiden speech. I am sure he will accept that, as a new Member not long having made my own maiden speech, I understand those difficulties. I was exceedingly interested in his personal experiences and in the way in which he related them in his maiden speech.
So far the debate has followed the almost predict able course which all debates on this subject have followed in recent months and, indeed, in recent years. It is at this stage that there is little left to say, which means, noble Lords may say, that. mercifully. I can be brief. However, the main theme running through all the speeches to which I have listened here and in the other place, and outside Parliament itself, has been: do we need anti-discrimination legislation? Has the case for anti-discrimination legislation been proven? The second theme in this debate has been: if it has been proven, is this the right vehicle by which to carry out this legislation?
Having listened to some of the contributions today, I would say that if we were embarking on a new situation, an entirely new system and a new area of legislation versus the voluntary and educative approach, and we had no experience of either, that would be fine and some of the remarks would have been relevant. But, in my experience, I do not think that that is the case in real life.
For 30 years I served as a member and chairman of a disablement advisory committee set up by the then Ministry of Labour to monitor, to assist, to advise and to guide in the implementation of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944. The committees were sustained by all Governments and for all those years their approach was educative, persuasive, cajoling and rewarding. It is an ironic sadness to me that these committees were abandoned by the present Government and reorganised during the International Year of the Disabled—1981.
However, the function of those disablement advisory committees was almost exactly the function that has been described by opponents of this Bill as being the only relevant function. It is to that that I want to address a few remarks. I have nothing but admiration for the people with whom I worked—the disablement resettlement officers, and their staff—and for the dedication of those officers and staff concerned. In all departments they worked tremendously hard—in working hours and outside them—in order to improve the lot of and facilities for disabled persons, particularly in employment. They had some successes. It would be churlish to say that the approach did not work at some stage; of course it did. There were a great number of successes. But there were far more frustrations, in my experience.
I could mention one which has already been mentioned—the 3 per cent. quota for the obligation on employers to employ disabled people. This has always been a source of frustration. There are those—and I was one of them—who have argued ever since the early 1950s that that quota was not strong enough. There was a need to strengthen the provisions of the quota in order to have it enforced. That has always been resisted by all Governments. They have resisted

449
the strengthening of the 3 per cent. quota and relied rather on personal approaches, on discussions, on consultative documents, and so on.
What has happened? Where are we today? We know that today that quota is not complied with by 68 per cent. of employers. That is 68 per cent. of employers still do not meet their obligations under the 3 per cent. quota in spite of all those years of the educative, persuasive, and cajoling approach. It has reached the stage now where there is an active campaign, and a threat to abandon the 3 per cent. quota altogether as being unworkable. Rather than submit to the examination, they will produce reasons to prove that perhaps it is not strong enough; that perhaps there ought to have been more stringent application of it. They will find reason and excuses to abandon it altogether, because it is becoming a bit of an embarrassment in many instances. Therefore, in my experience that campaign did not really succeed.
There were other campaigns. I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Holderness. He took the approach that we ought to try to persuade employers to talk to the organisations, and so on. I would remind him of a campaign in which we all participated—and I am sure he will recall this—the 1977 "Positive Policies" campaign, which did exactly that. It consisted of a whole series of seminars, meetings, discussions, and conferences aimed directly, individually, jointly and personally, at employers to get them to accept the responsibility, to educate them in the way that the noble Lord seemed to be suggesting. The campaign document was well produced. It was launched with a great deal of publicity by the department. It was sent to 55,000 employers up and down this country. There were a lot of employers who received that document.
Both the CBI and the TUC had special meetings and both tried to persuade their members to accept the policies outlined in that positive approach to their difficulties. The divisional disablement resettlement officers were brought in to make more and more visits. For 12 months there was a campaign of visits to every establishment throughout the country. But, as I said, we still have not got the implementation of the 3 per cent. quota, even with all that publicity.
There have been a few successes here and there, but nothing like what was merited, and nothing like we should have hoped for.
That had to be followed in 1979 by a much more concentrated campaign, called "Fit for Work". Again noble Lords will remember that campaign. It was an even more expensively launched campaign. It was an excellent campaign. It included broadsheets, news sheets, photographs and the usual seminars and discussions necessary, as they said, to combat the problem of lack of awareness by emphasising the abilities of disabled workers. It was a positive approach to emphasise their abilities rather than to concentrate on their disabilities. It was a necessary approach, but it was 1979 and we were still arguing that we ought to be bringing this to the awareness of people. After all those years of the educative approach and the persuasive approach, they still were not aware.
That campaign included the same general advice and notes of guidance. It was linked, too, to a national
450
award scheme which noble Lords may recall. That national award scheme was almost like a beauty queen contest, where there was great publicity for the firm which had performed the best under the notes of guidance, and so on, and they were given a national award with all the publicity, locally and nationally, that that entailed. That did not work. It did not have the results that we were entitled to expect in the field of discrimination against the disabled. We have tried financial rewards, we have tried job introduction schemes where employers were given a grant to employ disabled people for a period of time to prove that these people who had been trained under the many excellent training schemes organized by the disablement resettlement officers were capable, willing and able to do the job. Thus financial rewards were offered to employers.
Finance was offered to employers to adapt their premises. The adaptation of premises scheme, I can recall, was intended to give money towards the adaptation and to meet some of the access problems but that has been glossed over today as though it did not exist. Some people said that if we were to implement this legislation the first people to be penalised would be the churches. Of course, if the churches did not take advantage of some of the financial provisions or if they did not say that the provisions should have been available to them, then they have only themselves to blame. I do not see why they, any more than this place—which is almost as guilty of access problems—ought to be used as a lever or an excuse to pour scorn on this kind of legislation.
For all the years that I have been personally involved—and I have known thousands of people who still are—for all the advice and information that we have had and have disseminated in the way we thought was right, I felt we have really only been speaking to the converted. We have not got through to the mass area of discrimination which still exists against the disabled.
I have mentioned the quota, which is important to me, because it is one that I started with in the early days. I have watched its progress—or lack of progress—ever since. The other two main areas of discrimination against the disabled with which I have been involved are the two main areas of life: unemployment—the seeking of jobs—and housing. In both those areas we know that discrimination exists. We know that unemployment among the disabled is twice as high as among their able bodied fellows. We know that four out of five disabled people are on the dole in some areas. We know from our experience and our case work that a great deal of this is due to discrimination. Starts on provision of mobility housing fell by half between 1979 and 1980, so it is not really making a serious contribution. We do not take it seriously enough; so many people are discriminated against in housing. I have mentioned the access problems and I could go on, but I do not have time to mention many more of the problems of access which discriminate against the disabled.
If I needed more support for the need for legislation, I would quote the CORAD report that has already been mentioned. It evolved as the result of two years' hard work by many people. They studied examples not just from abroad but examples of discrimination

451
within our own shores. They came out unanimously in favour of legislation. I do not think that we can afford to ignore the opinions and views of people at that level.
The director of the Spastics Society was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I think that he implied that the director of the Spastics Society had opposed legislation. He will correct me if I am wrong. That is not my recollection at all. The retiring director of the Spastics Society, to whom my noble friend referred, said this:
"The Spastics Society has examined the issue carefully. I believe that it was the first organisation to canvass the views of disabled people throughout the country on a wide scale at conferences, to which reference has already been made. The result of that process was overwhelmingly to refute the argument that disabled people do not want legislation for this purpose.
"Therefore, 1 strongly endorse the principle of legislation to prohibit discrimination against disabled people."—[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/83; col. 1136].
That is the view of the retiring director, the Member of Parliament for Suffolk South, Mr. Tim Yeo. It is as well to get him quoted correctly in case he takes umbrage.
I know, too, that the Spastics Society set up a number of national and regional conferences through out the country when their new consumers' council was set up. All of those conferences were unanimously in favour of legislation. The National Executive Committee of the Spastics Society met in September to discuss the outcome of all those conferences, and that national executive committee endorsed, welcomed and supported the idea of legislation and we have known that the other place has supported similar legislation. The joint chairmen of the All-Party Disablement Group have lent their support to all the attempts to introduce legislation, including this one.
I feel that the case has been made; it is almost unanswerable. There have been other examples given where the same arguments have applied—the question of drink and driving, of seat belts, of crash helmets for Sikhs, the question of race and sex; and my noble friend Lord Fitt has mentioned another one, the Employment Bill, in which I, too. had the privilege to take part. So there are precedents. It can work if there is a will towards the legislation. I shall have no difficulty in deciding which Bill to support. I support the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Longford because it has the necessary bite which, after my experience, I feel is needed. It is that bite which is lacking in the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I look forward to hearing the Government's approach and their attitude to both these Bills.
3.22 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, first of all, may I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. He is not in his place at the moment—and that is quite understandable—but I once had the pleasure of being taken to the zoo by his father and spent a very pleasant afternoon. I do not suppose the noble Earl remembers now but I had the chance of meeting him as well. I think that he made a very fine speech today. I should also like to pay a tribute to the late Lord Amulree. He and I together went to Europe to rescue civilian prisoners of war. He did a magnificent job there as well as in connection with one of his voluntary
452
organisations last year. I should like, too, to say a word of praise to Peter Large because I think that he has done a splendid job, and to Mary Greaves who was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox. But I did not like the headlines that the local press put out:
"Disabled People's Hopes Dashed".
I do not think that they will be dashed at all by this debate. They will be encouraged, I think, for so many people have taken part and so many views have been put forward.
Whatever happens to these two Bills, some good will come out of it. I myself cannot support either of these Bills. I think that Lord Longford's Billis too bureaucratic and I think that the better of the two is that of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. Even if his Bill is not agreed to today, I should like to say that I admired the work that he did in the other place. On many occasions he laid wonderful stepping stones for the disabled both in England and in Scotland.
Neither of these Bills says anything about costs. I gather that the commission alone would cost about £3 million. I should much prefer that money to be spent on people instead of on bureaucratic administration. Eleven times, in the noble Earl's Bill, the Secretary of State is given powers to decide this and that by regulation—and I have always been very chary of, and very nervous about, regulations—and such powers are given five times in my noble friend's Bill. Therefore, I suggest it would be difficult to bring these Bills to fruition, as was so well put by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. He always puts his finger on the point. I think, and he did so very graphically for us today regarding the real, technical difficulties of these two Bills.
I worked for many years with the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, and in fact I was in at the beginning of the formation of DIG. Megan du Boisson, who has been mentioned already, was a personal friend of mine. She was a constituent, and she stayed with me during the day on which we had the very big rally in Trafalgar Square. She was at that moment suffering from multiple sclerosis, regrettably having had rather a bad attack. But she came. It was a marvellous occasion. People came from all over England, including, I remember, one woman who had been born with no arms and no legs. She came right down from the North. I myself, for the first and only time, spoke in Trafalgar Square—and the pigeons gave me their blessing!
Then we took a petition to Downing Street. We pushed chairs, and those who could do so walked all the way down the hill and back again. We had a very good reception. I was absolutely determined to carry out work on behalf of DIG; and just to show how easy it can be if one goes about it with a will, for years we had a coachload of very disabled people who came up here from Plymouth. We found a hotel to take them; and they went to the military tournament and to Kew Gardens. Then, on the Friday afternoon they used to come here to this building, and, by kind permission of the police, the coach was allowed into the forecourt. Everybody helped. Our people were pushed everywhere around the building, and eventually ended up eating strawberries and cream on the Terrace.

453
I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, very kindly came to one of our meetings when he was Minister, and we are very grateful to him. Also, there happens to be a ferry that goes from Plymouth to France, so what did we do? We took those disabled people over to meet the Papillons Blanches in France. They liked everything except the French food—and they did not like that at all.
I should like now to refer to Clause 14, with regard to local authority charges for services. I think this is very unfortunate, because there is not going to be very much money to spare and already in some areas—and in particular, in the area I am interested in now, there is Pewsey Hospital, North View Hospital and Purton and Burderop Hospitals—they are going to lose their teachers, because the numbers have already been cut. A great deal of good work has been done in these hospitals, particularly in the first one, and as a consequence there will be boredom and frustration among patients and hospital staff if this work has to be cut. This is one of the reasons why I much prefer to have the money spent on people rather than on Bills such as these. My greatest wish is to get the people into the community. We have very good local homes: and I started an hotel for the disabled on Dartmoor. I am sorry to say that it has now closed down: not really for lack of funds, but I am afraid that many people found getting to it rather difficult.
I should like to draw attention to what is being done in regard to travelling, which is so important for disabled people. I received a letter in October, and I understand that 55 major stations are being improved by British Railways to make them fully accessible and readily available without anxiety to the disabled travellers who may wish to use them. One of the things they have already started to do is to provide dedicated parking places, fixed and portable ramps, unisex WCs with special fitments, conversion of goods lifts for passenger operation and low-placed telephones, which I think is a wonderful idea for those in wheelchairs. There will also be the marking of stairs and platform edges to help people with sight problems.
Furthermore—and this may be of interest to your Lordships—there is to be the introduction of loops in booking offices to help those who are hard of hearing. I understand it is quite often difficult to talk through those glass screens. So people will be helped in that way. To give an example, £240,000 will be spent on Plymouth Station alone. On a different matter. I wonder whether consideration can be given to help those people who are sacked and who cannot really take their complaints to an industrial tribunal.
I should also like to draw your Lordships' attention to the Fit for Work campaign. Recently people came from all over Great Britain when awards were given to employers who had helped unemployed disabled people. More than 100 employers, both large and small, came down to London. Furthermore, a lot of them had gone a long way beyond the statutory requirements or the statutory hopes. The chairman of the Manpower Services Commission stated that 70,000 disabled people will be placed, in comparison with his estimate of 40,000. That is a great increase, about which we should all be very pleased. I think, too, that we should remember Remploy, which has not
454
been mentioned. It is a Government organisation which gives very good employment to disabled people.
So I feel that these two Bills would be much better not accepted today and that we should concentrate our minds on individual people, individual organisations and voluntary organisations. and keep DIG going. They are doing a very good job and have a good programme for the future. We should see that the money is spent on people and not on words and complicated commissions, and especially not on so many more duties for the Secretary of State.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I deeply regret the fact that I was unable to hear the maiden speech by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, though I think I heard almost the last speech of his very distinguished father. Though I did not hear him today, for which I apologise, I am sure that his contribution to this House will be very great. I want to thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for introducing this Bill which, unfortunately, was denied the opportunity of a Second Reading about three weeks ago in another place. I was abroad at the time, but I read about it in the newspapers and I was extremely saddened that the Bill was not given a Second Reading. I very much hope that disabled people will today be encouraged if this Bill is given a Second Reading. A number of those who have spoken have been against it and they include people whom I have known and respected over many years. Certainly the noble Baronesses, Lady Vickers and Lady Lane-Fox, are two people whose views on most things to do with the disabled I share, but on this Bill I profoundly disagree.
I was deeply involved in consideration of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which this amendment Bill seeks to change. I was then a Minister in the DHSS, together with Alf Morris to whom I gave every possible support. I should have hoped that the Government would give every possible support to this Bill, including changing it, because very often when Bills are put forward by private Members they give the opportunity for improvement in the course of debate. which happened with the Bill which became law in 1970.
I regret that at that time the Bill did not include references to discrimination and we have to recognise that 13 years have passed since then. Therefore, the second reason why I very much support this Bill is that it is supported, so far as one can see, by the vast majority of those major organisations which know of, and speak for, disabled people in this country. I think immediately of MENCAP and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who is their very distinguished president, will be speaking following me. There is also the Spastics Society to which reference has been made. I think that almost all the organisations which work daily with disabled people are not just aware of the degree of discrimination which exists, but believe that some legislative action is now necessary. If that were not so, why would it have been the recommendation of CORAD, which is so ably chaired, as has been said, by Mr. Peter Large? This committee was set up to examine this and a number of other questions. It reached its conclusions with clarity and with only one dissenting voice. The committee included among its

455
members those with great experience because of their own disabilities.
Certain noble Lords in this House who are disabled have put forward a particular point of view, but the Bill is not for those who have such guts and determination and such distinction and achievement as to be honoured by entry into this House. The Bill is for those people who are not going to be able to fight for themselves. It is to help the literally hundreds of thousands of disabled people who look to the voluntary organisations and to Parliament to protect their interests.
There are a number of reasons why we ought to give a Second Reading to the Bill. I shall not seek today to dot all the i's and cross all the t's, nor to say that I agree with everything the Bill contains. In fact, I do not agree with certain parts of it. However, I hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading today. If it does, I hope to take part in the Committee stage and to be involved with Members on both sides of the House in seeking to make the Bill more reasonable and workable than I believe it to be now.
Those of us who are in daily contact with disabled people and the organisations which represent them cannot doubt that they are greatly discriminated against. We all wish that the educational campaigns and the International Year of Disabled People could have swept away discrimination, but it has not done so. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said that no impact whatsoever had been made by legislation dealing with sex and racial discrimination. I disagree entirely. When the first Race Relations Act was passed (there have been two subsequent Acts) it was argued that one could not legislate against discrimination. We cannot legislate against prejudice but we can legislate against the way in which people behave. If a hotel in a particular town says that it will not allow a particular group of people to stay there because they are disabled, that, in my view, is an act of discrimination which ought to be made illegal.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, with due respect to the noble Lord, I did not mean that those Acts had done no good. I meant that they had done a certain amount of harm.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the noble Lady's intervention takes it a little further. If the noble Lady thinks that the Acts have done harm, she must believe that they have not done much good. Legislation is only one of the ways in which we can do battle against discrimination, whether racial discrimination or discrimination on the grounds of sex, but I believe that it is one of the instruments which should be used and which this House ought now to examine. We cannot legislate against prejudice but we can legislate against the actions of those who are prejudiced.
I have already mentioned that I believe that the Bill contains a number of defects. I hope we shall be able to rectify some of them. The defects have been referred to by a number of speakers. Over the years, Bills have been introduced which have been greatly improved during their various stages. Your Lordships' House has a reputation for improving Bills, a reputation
456
which perhaps exceeds that of the House of which I was a member until only a few months ago.
It has also been argued that there are other ways in which we can help disabled people. That is true. I strongly support those who say that there should he better allowances for disabled people. As Secretary of State, I introduced many of the measures which have helped to improve the lives of disabled people. I want more money to be put into this effort, but it is not a question of "either/or", any more than it is a question of "either/or" between education and legislation. This is simply another weapon at our disposal. The example has been given of seat belts, and that was a very good example. Year after year, we tried to persuade people to show good sense. They did not show good sense until it actually became illegal not to wear a seat belt. I believe it should be illegal to discriminate against disabled people.
Finally, I hope that this House will do today what the other House failed signally to do three or four weeks ago—or however long it was. I was abroad at the time and was shocked to read what had happened. I believe that the reputation of this House will be greatly enhanced—particularly among disabled people across the country—if the two Bills are given a Second Reading today and if we are then able to debate them in Committee to make all the improvements and changes which the Government may want to make—and there are many cases of changes which noble and friendly Lords want to make. I hope that this House will give a Second Reading to the Bill proposed by my noble friend Lord Longford.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, most of the speeches in your Lordships' House in this most interesting and moving debate have referred to the physically disabled. It will not surprise your Lordships if I confine myself to the ways in which these Bills will affect the mentally handicapped, who are the largest single group of disabled people, and whose problems are quite different from those of the physically disabled.
As the noble Lord. Lord Ennals, was good enough to mention, I am president of MENCAP. I shall be expressing my own views because we at MENCAP have not yet formed a definite and detailed policy on these two Bills. Therefore, for the time being at any rate, I should record that we do intensely deplore discrimination against the mentally handicapped —but then I must go on to say that, in my opinion, it would be unwise and could be unkind to raise their hopes or the hopes of the parents of the mentally handicapped that either of these Bills will necessarily be the best way to try to reduce discrimination.
The great eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was, I fear, somewhat misplaced because he seemed to assume that either of these Bills will abolish discrimination—especially the Bill of the noble Earl. Lord Longford. In fact, although the Bill of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has no teeth, all that the Bill of the noble Earl would do by way of providing a sanction against discrimination—and he himself did not seem to understand this, if I may say so with deep respect to his eminence—would be to give the people discriminated against a right to sue in a civil action for

457
damages for tort. They could only succeed if they could bring themselves within the rather vague definition in Clause 9 of the noble Earl's Bill.
The noble Earl gave us the impression—and he may have given the great world outside the impression—that his Bill is to become part of criminal law, but there is nothing in it to indicate that at all. We should be perfectly clear about that. So whereas the Bill of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has no teeth. the Bill of the noble Earl has false teeth.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Well, my Lords, this is the upper set.
Lord Renton: Earlier this year, my Lords, there were flagrant attempts to discriminate against mentally handicapped people at a Devonshire holiday resort, where a splendid hotel proprietor encouraged disabled people to stay in his hotel to such an extent that, at the time of the demonstration, 22 per cent. of the guests in that hotel were mentally handicapped. But some members of the local chamber of commerce objected to seeing them about the town and on the beaches; they said that it discouraged other visitors and was had for trade—a shocking business! Some tradesmen went so far as to suggest that they should be confined to one end of the beaches where they would not frighten the children of other people. Others suggested that they should have provided for them a remote hotel on the edge of Dartmoor.
Mr. Brian Rix, our secretary general, who has done so much, by broadcasting and in other ways, to improve the public's understanding of mental handicap, went down there, and he was shouted down by some people at a public meeting when he defended the rights of the mentally handicapped in that ugly situation. But he stuck to his guns; he showed that the outcry against the mentally handicapped was unfounded and unworthy, and the criticism faded away. The crude suggestions were withdrawn and things went back to normal, and they did so without any help from any anti-discrimination commission or indeed without any sort of legislation being invoked.
Another example of discrimination was in my personal experience. We used to live with our daughters in a block of flats in Westminster, not far away from here, where there was a clause in every lease which stipulated that no person of unsound mind should be allowed into our flats. We have a mentally handicapped daughter, severely so. She used to come and stay with us there and we ignored that clause in our lease. There was never any trouble at all. Although that clause was discriminatory, there was some justification for it, for if our daughter had had serious behaviour problems which caused her continuously to scream loudly it would have been unfair to other tenants. But the clause referring to all people of unsound mind was of course too widely drawn, and if the landlords had tried to turn us out the court would, in my opinion, have given us relief against forfeiture of our lease.
What about discrimination in employment, about which we have heard something today, so far as the mentally handicapped are concerned? Quite frankly, the 1944 and 1958 Acts, which attempted to deal with employment of disabled people and attempted to
458
impose quotas, did not fully succeed. I think it is generally accepted that they do not—even after all these years, in spite of the fairly stringent legislation in them—fully succeed. But what is the position? At present, in spite of large scale unemployment, there are thousands of mentally handicapped people in employment, employment which is suitable to their limited abilities. No two mentally handicapped people are quite the same; they all vary very much. They are employed not only in sheltered workshops under the Acts to which I referred, or employed in adult training centres. But many of them are employed in ordinary open employment in which enlightened employers have found places for them, often doing so through our MENCAP pathway scheme which, by the way, started in South Wales.
I suggest that it would be better to continue to make further progress along the lines of that already achieved in the employment of mentally handicapped people, through conciliation and persuasion, rather than by forcing unwilling employers to take on mentally handicapped people and providing a civil action for damages if they fail to do so. Suppose that we tried by legislation to force unwilling employers to take on mentally handicapped people, Would that necessarily be in the interests of the mentally handicapped? Some unwilling employers might make things difficult and unpleasant for them, without that necessarily giving rise to an action for damages. Mentally handicapped people are sensitive. I know plenty of them. That could lead to unhappiness for them. Even if an action for damages were successful, it would not necessarily correct the harm done and the unhappiness that was caused. in spite of what is said, most unusually, in the Bill about compensation for damaged feelings.
If the noble Earl's commission were to avoid the many pitfalls which might arise, especially with regard to employment, and which would often be seen too late, it would have a daunting task of definition under the regulations that it would be empowered to make.
I invite your Lordships' attention to Clause 9 as a piece of drafting. It makes a valiant attempt at definition, hut I fear that it will lead to endless wrangles in the courts and frequent and costly disappointment for those who fail to come within the definition and thereby lose the action for damages. Let us not be too general in raising people's hopes.
We must not let eloquence and our natural desire to help the mentally handicapped carry us away. The noble Earl said—and as a lawyer I accept that this is sometimes rightly said—that we should not bother about the technicalities. But I invite his attention to the fact that unless he gets the technicalities so right that they will not cause disappointment, it would be better not to legislate. In Parliament we must not flatter ourselves that legislation is a cure for all social ills. If we reflect, we know that it is not. Nobody respects more than I do the wonderful work that the noble Earl has done for oppressed people of all kinds, some of whom may deserve it less than others. But let us not be carried away.
The cost of either Bill would be considerable. The commission proposed in either Bill would have to cover the whole country. As my noble friend Lady

459
Vickers said, that would require a nationwide bureaucracy. It would cost millions of pounds. In MENCAP we could make better use of that money. We could use it to continue to get mentally handicapped people out of these vast hospitals where they are hidden away and lost to the community. That is an act of discrimination which has gone on for 100 years or more and for which al! parties are to blame.
We could use the money to continue to educate the public and to produce better understanding and more conciliation, thereby more effectively reducing discrimination. As has been said, public attitudes towards the mentally handicapped have improved vastly in the past 25 years, and they are improving all the time. Most of the mentally handicapped would like to be treated as ordinary people. But we must be careful of legislation which would single them out in a way that they and their parents would not always relish. As has been suggested by my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox, it would be much better to have an advisory council representing the voluntary bodies which live with and work so close to the problem. That might be a far better solution than is contained in either of the Bills.
3.55 p.m.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, I regret that I cannot entirely follow the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who has just spoken, much though I respect all that he has done in this field. However, I must begin by thanking the noble Earl and the noble Lord who have introduced the Bills and by congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on his maiden speech.
As disabled people we are all to some extent deprived. We do not complain about that; there is not much that can be done about it. But what we ask for is that unnecessary obstacles be removed. Today I heard of one very small unnecessary obstacle, which I am sure could be removed very quickly without the need of legislation. I refer to the fact that while apparently there is a guide in Braille to the House of Commons, there is no guide in Braille to this House. That is a very small example.
However, there are bigger obstacles that could be removed. For example, the gangways in most aircraft are not wide enough to take a wheelchair, though they need be only a few inches wider to do so. Until quite recently if travelling by air, one was unceremoniously removed from one's own wheelchair on arriving at the airport and put into a chair which might have been designed for someone either much bigger or much smaller, or with longer legs. On being placed in the chair, one was completely immobile. Once taken out of one's own chair, one found that the other chair had no rims on the hubs and so one was absolutely immobile. Fortunately, that practice is, I think, now changing, and I am delighted about that.
Another great difficulty for people in wheelchairs is presented by kerbs. A friend of mine who is in a wheelchair, and who lives in Walsall, writes as follows:
"For five years I have not been able to cross the road outside my own house, but this year when resurfacing was going on I went out to ensure that the levelling off was done properly. I would have hoped that two years on from the international year when a road
460
widening scheme was going on the council would have been aware of the need for dropped kerbs. When they altered a main road in the centre of our town however, not one was included, even though it was very near an old people's home".
Surely if the council is carrying out road works in a street where there lives someone who is in a wheelchair, it is not too much to ask that at the same time dropped kerbs are put in.
The same lady from Walsall also writes as follows about the theatre:
"When attending a ballet performance in a Birmingham theatre I had to pay four and a half times the amount I used regularly to pay when I was able to walk into the auditorium just because I was remaining in my wheelchair throughout. Previously I chose to sit at the back of the stalls, now £4 per seat, but I now find that I have no choice but to pay £18. This is because the wheelchair positions are sited in the most expensive range of seats—£9 each—and fire regulations demand that I find an escort who may or may not be interested in the production, and I am obliged to pay for him, too".
What disabled people need is an independent authority with teeth. If the teeth in the present Bill are false teeth, then I hope that, if it is given a Second Reading, some real teeth will emerge in Committee. An independent body is needed, to which disabled people can go and which can look into the matter and. hopefully, conciliate and arrive at a suitable answer.
There has been too much talk about bringing in the law. The law should only come in as a very last resort. If people who were treating disabled persons unfairly knew that at the end of the day there would be the possibility of being taken to court, many of the difficulties would be solved.
A tremendous amount has been said about the cost of the Bill. But we are talking about justice for disabled people and justice is not cheap. I imagine that the administration of all our law courts costs a great deal, but no one suggests that they should be abolished. Moreover, on the question of cost, the only guide we. have at the moment is that RADAR—the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation—has looked into 1,500 cases over the past two years at a cost of £10,000 each year. That is the only guide that we have on what this Bill might cost.
I feel that the noble Earl's Bill would change the climate. It would speed up progress. I know that my noble friend Lady D'Arcy (de Knayth), who is unfortunately unable to be here, shares my views. I very much hope that both these Bills, but especially that of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, will get a Second Reading.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I intend to be exceedingly brief but I want to say a few words, although not as an expert with special experience. I have listened to, and been moved by, as I am certain have all Members in your Lordships' House, the contributions we have had from those who have had personal experience of disability and those who have served with pride and achievement on associations responsible for those with disabilities.
I begin in the conventional way by offering my warm congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for his moving maiden speech. I am certain that we shall hear from him many times in the future.
I also want to say immediately that I rise to support the Bill in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Longford,

461
and that I very much hope it will be given a Second Reading. Reference has been made to raising false hopes. I should have thought that if a poll had been taken more disabled people would have been found to be disappointed than pleased with what happened in another place. I know that from my constituency experience as a Member of Parliament and from moving about, as I still do, in my former constituency of Edmonton. I do not talk of thousands or even hundreds but in terms of a few disabled people who have spoken to me since 18th November. Those people were not only disappointed but distressed. They may not understand the technicalities and they may not appreciate the niceties of procedure, but they did believe that it was an opportunity to make progress of some kind on what they believed was discrimination, even though—and I respect what has been said—there may not be as much discrimination as some people may feel.
I carefully noted what the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, said: that we must move on and that we have been round this course many times before. But what I wish to say as a non-expert is that surely there is nothing wrong in giving this Bill a Second Reading. I have served in the Whips' Office, in Government and in Opposition, in another place. I am well aware of the pressures of time and of the professions which have been made that there are other and better ways of dealing with this matter. I am reminded of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who said, I thought rather kindly, that we must get the technicalities right. I know of no one better in the House who could assist a Committee to get the technicalities right if we have the opportunity of a Committee stage to look at the matter. There are men and women of goodwill who I am absolutely certain will do their best to assist during a Committee stage.
I am delighted to congratulate my very good personal friend who is the honourable Member for West Derby. I commiserate with him as regards what happened to his Bill in another place, but I congratulate him on his persistence. He is a new Member of the other House and one who I know from my personal experience to be pugnacious, tenacious, well experienced and compassionate. I can imagine how distressed he was to find that the procedures of both places—meaning both Houses—led to the distress of 18th November. He must be heartened to find that there is a different atmosphere and, I would hope, a different response from the Government on this occasion.
I should also like to take the opportunity to pay a warm tribute to another honourable friend of mine, the right honourable Member for Manchester, Wythenshaw, who was the progenitor of the whole raison d'être of what we are talking about today. He speaks not only as the first Minister for the Disabled but as the person who brought in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Bill. He also speaks from personal family experience of disability. I well remember hearing the right honourable Member say more than once that one speaks not in terms of a disabled person, but in terms of a disabled family. If one member of a family is disabled then the whole family is part of the nexus which needs to grapple with it. As I see it, what we
462
have been served with in the other place is a great deal of passion, a great deal of argument, and at the end of the day we in this House will have the opportunity, I hope, to pick up the pieces and make a fresh start.
I point out to the Minister who is to reply that I am well aware of the problem of resources; I am well aware of the difficulties and the technicalities. But I ask him to take it from me, as someone without a vested interest other than as a person who is compassionate, that there are men and women of goodwill all around this House who will try to make his task as easy as possible when it comes to the question of recognising the realities. There are difficulties about money. There are difficulties about persuading local authorities to make provisions. There are difficulties about employers, neighbours, hotel keepers and so on. However, I see the Bill as providing one opportunity of taking a tiny step forward for a section of the community who, in my view, ought not to feel that yet again they have received a blow from which they cannot be sheltered. Should there be a vote, I certainly will be voting for the Second Reading of the Bill.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, although I work for the John Groom Association for the Disabled, what I wish to say is entirely my own view and has not even been discussed with other officers in the association. I know that there are a number of organisations for disabled people who welcome the Bill put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, as a hook upon which to hang the coat of informing people about the problems of disability. However, my own feeling is that legislation is not the best way in which to deal with the problem. I would prefer to see it dealt with by education. However, despite that feeling, I am quite happy to give the Bill at this stage a Second Reading to see whether it can be improved as it goes through this House and comes out a much better beast at the end of Third Reading. If it does not come out as the right kind of beast, then we can always deal with it at that stage.
Of the two Bills that we are discussing this afternoon I should prefer the Bill put forward by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. Both Bills suggest a commission, and I think that a commission of the kind that my noble friend suggests could be used for educating the public in general to assist those who are either mentally or physically handicapped, so that they can be helped to live independently. This is an aim of the association for which I work. We try to encourage to that end all the disabled people that we help. We train them, we encourage them and we teach them, so that eventually they can live on their own, totally independently.
In this particular respect, since the Year of the Disabled we have sent an exhibition round schools, the aim of which is to try to teach children in schools what it is like to be disabled. Children have been put into wheelchairs and asked to cook a meal; they have been blindfolded and asked to find their way around. We try to teach them by amusing them, and at times they have gone round an obstacle course in a wheelchair with, if the weather is warm, a bucket of water on their lap, to see whether they can succeed. If the weather is cold they have something else, because it is no use freezing them.

463
In this respect, can my noble friend the Minister tell me whether any progress has been made on the suggestions in the Warnock Report towards the integration of physically handicapped children into schools? I ask this because this is the best way of educating physically handicapped children to live a normal life with so-called normal people (though I do not believe any of us are really normal; in one way or another we all have our disabilities, even if it is only a tendency to bad temper) and of educating the ordinary child to be aware of the problems and needs of disabled people. A great many of the problems of disabled people could be overcome purely by courtesy and good manners—by holding a door open for them, or by helping them up a kerb if their wheelchair is not equipped with a climbing device or if the kerb does not have a ramp.
On the question of discrimination generally, I was impressed by the suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, that there should be one body to look after and to look into discrimination of all sorts. Most discrimination is caused by a lack of knowledge. This one body could look into all aspects of it and make certain that people in all walks of life are taught about the problems of other people.
I was encouraged by the very moving maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who demonstrated to us that, with good teaching, training and encouragement, disabilities can he overcome. Some disabilities are obviously more difficult to overcome than others, but it is essential to make certain that people are taught about disabilities and the problems of disabled people, not only while they are children but as adults. As adults, most of us need to learn a great deal more about disabilities. Although I work for an association for disabled people, I appreciate that I know very little. I am amazed at the courage, the ingenuity and the strength that many physically disabled put into their lives. Most of us who are not physically disabled give up all too easily, and most of us would be amazed at the courage and fortitude of people who are physically disabled, some of them having the most appalling disabilities.
I welcome both these Bills at this stage, and I should be grateful if my noble friend, when he sums up, could give an answer to the questions I have put to him. If he has not got the answers at this stage. perhaps he could write to me later.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, we come to the end of one of the long days before Christmas. I was sorry to learn from the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that the noble Baroness. Lady D'Arcy (de Knayth), is ill with pneumonia. Knowing how active the noble Baroness is in this House I hope that the House will seek an opportunity to pass on our good wishes for a speedy recovery. No doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, will forward our message.
I should also like with great personal pleasure to compliment the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for his very human speech. I do so for another reason. I was one of the people who served under his father and was appointed by his father to be an Assistant Whip, unpaid. Unfortunately, his estimable father did not
464
refer to us as unpaid Whips, but "unpaid lance corporals', in his rather typical terse fashion. It was a great privilege to serve under his father, who we all know was a man of absolute integrity.
We have before us two Bills combined in one debate, which is a rather unusual procedure. Both my noble friend Lord Longford and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, deserve our thanks and, may I add, in spite of differences of opinion on various Benches, deserve our support for a reason I shall give later. Discrimination exists. This fact was brought out rather strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. and by my noble friend Lord Fitt, and it certainly needs to be dealt with.
When a similar Bill to that now put forward by my noble friend was forced into defeat in another place, considerable concern and some anger was expressed by many disabled people, mainly due to headlines in the media. We now have the opportunity in this House to redress their grievances by giving a Second Reading to both Bills, or at least one of the Bills before us. I say quite definitely and advisedly that for this House, with its great reputation. to fail to give a Second Reading to these Bills is quite unthinkable to me. We must in all decency give them a Second Reading.
The Bill put forward by my noble friend goes much further than the Bill put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, although it must be noted that both noble Lords incorporate in their Bills one key factor; namely, the establishing of a disablement commission. My noble friend's Bill gives wider powers to such a commission, and introduces a measure of legal sanction.
I shall not go into great detail on my noble friend's Bill now. The Bill has been fully discussed by various Members of this House. Part II puts compulsion onto local authorities. My noble friend Lord Graham mentioned that this, under the present extreme restriction on finance placed on local authorities, raises a difficult situation. Of course it is a difficult situation that is being experienced in the social services and in many other directions.
I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that Clauses 15 and 16 ensure inclusion of disabled people on governing bodies of public organisations, council committees, et cetera. This is a desirable objective because, as at least we well know in this House, such people do, and can, bring practical experience to our debates. As we all know, what I term the wheelchair commandos—perhaps they may not like that phrase—are formidable when they are in action. I shall not name names, but one or two of them are certainly very formidable. I strongly support this move as most desirable to include handicapped people on such committees because they bring practical experience. We should perhaps get away from the word "disabled". A number of noble Lords today have spoken from practical experience.
Clauses 15 and 16 are in my view vital clauses and should he strongly supported. I have no hestitation whatever in supporting my noble friend's Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in his Bill has played somewhat safe. I can understand the reason. It is a simple, clear and straightforward measure which, after discussion, might just possibly receive support in

465
another place. We always have to bear another place in mind. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell opted only for a disablement commission with fewer powers than called for by my noble friend; but both noble Lords have opted for what might be called a "quango", as far as the commission is concerned. The term "quango", unfortunately, is used mainly as a term of derision by the majority of Government supporters and this puts the Bill in danger. It is an unfortunate word which should never have been invented and does not help when the term of derision is used.
I regret this because so many so-called quangos render useful service to the community. This Bill is good as far as it goes; it is simple and direct. It should also be supported and if my noble friend's Bill is unfortunately not given a Second Reading—which is possible but which I hope will not take place—it is a possibility that much of its contents could formulate amendments in Committee to Lord Campbell's Bill, but I hope that will not arise.
It could be fairly said that to some extent in making these remarks I am backing both horses in the same race. Both are handicap Bills so the question raised by another noble Lord about handicap does not matter. I must express the opinion that my favourite is my noble friend's Bill. My main reason is support for the idea of a disablement commission which would not only deal with discrimination against some disabled people, but would keep a close watch on all the many aspects of society which affect the disabled. It also gives support to the disabled to fight for their own rights backed by legal powers to do so.
I was much impressed by an article in the Guardian last Tuesday headed "How to put muscle into a declaration of independence". I should like to quote from the final section:
" 'There's a growth in the determination of disabled people to speak for themselves. There's so much needs changing that you can't but win if you select your issues and strategies carefully—and that will help the fence-sitters to see that the risks are worthwhile. The Government here should be afraid. When the disabled community get more and more organised, they will become a group that has to be contended with. You won't change everything in five years. But there will be a whole host of other problems if you don't plan now for change over the next 10 to 15 years.
'It's better,' says Judy Heumann cheerfully, 'to have to fight, because that will never allow disabled people again to feel that the non-disabled are going to be nice to them. You get what you work for—even in a welfare state.' "
I would strongly support those words. They are blunt and straight to the point. In essence, what she is saying is that sympathy is not enough. We have had sympathetic noises in this Chamber this afternoon during this debate. But sympathy is not enough; that is why we should support these Bills. Friday is not always a good day for Private Member's Bills in another place but in this House we are capable of decision on the merits of a case irrespective of Government policy; and what is more we have no payroll vote, or, at least, only a very minute one facing us. We have quality, indeed, because all of us, except for the tiny payroll vote on either side, are voluntary workers. That is the essence and the strength of this Chamber.
My Lords, this House now has the opportunity to redress a grievance and to extend hope to the disabled. We have had many speeches today and I welcomed them, but the speeches are now nearly at an end. After
466
that, my Lords, let us take positive action in the direction of providing better justice for those handicapped where discrimination still exists—and we cannot fail to notice it even if some advocate voluntary action.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there is no doubt, as the noble Earl himself said when he introduced this debate, that the primary issue before us is discrimination against disabled people. Understandably, it has aroused a great deal of controversy and interest over recent months. It is a very important issue and I welcome the opportunity that your Lordships have had to consider it in some depth. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the debate. It has been a very good debate, a balanced one and one that has been helped by much practical experience which has been aired by many noble Lords who have taken part. I should like particularly to pay a tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for introducing their Bills. As we have heard, they are very different in content but both have the interests of disabled people very much at heart. I am sure that all of us in this House share my very great respect for the very considerable contribution which both the noble Earl and my noble friend have made over the years towards improving the quality of life for disabled citizens in our society.
I must also congratulate most sincerely the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on what was a most moving, caring. and excellent maiden speech. He spoke movingly and from personal knowledge. Not only do I share with him the fact that some of my school reports sounded rather like his and that I, too, am left-handed but I also share the hopes of all your Lordships that he will intervene again soon and often. I should also like to associate myself with the tributes that have been paid by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and others to the late Lord Amulree. He will be very sadly missed.
My Lords, it is with some regret that I must take issue with several of the arguments put forward in favour of the Bills before us today. First, let me make it crystal clear that I am utterly opposed to discrimination against disabled people. I deplore it wherever it occurs and whatever form it takes. In saying that, I am speaking for the Government as a whole and for my party. I must say to my noble friend Lord Renton that I fully share the sentiments that he expressed about discrimination in the mental health field in the examples which he has quoted. As he knows, I have a particular responsibility towards the mentally handicapped. I deplore the sort of examples which he gave; but I think that the most appropriate way to try to change people's views is just the sort of method which is adopted in the cases he quoted.
Also, I share fully what I take to be the common aim behind both Bills; that is, breaking down the attitudinal, physical and financial barriers which often deprive disabled people of independence and the choice to lead the life they want to lead—the type of life which most of us take for granted.
Where the Government differ from those who have introduced these Bills is over the means to that desirable end. We believe that the difficulties which so many disabled people have to contend with are the

467
result of a whole variety of specific practical problems which require specific practical answers. These problems will never be removed by some sort of "catch-all" law. That was a point also made by my noble friend Lord Renton. We shall be deceiving not only ourselves but the millions of disabled people in this country if we pretend otherwise.
I will endeavour to show your Lordships that the Government have adopted a practical approach over the past years; one which has brought solid gains towards the attainment of our common goal. I think that was reflected to some extent in the remarks of my noble friend Lord Knutsford and also by my noble friend Lord Holderness. In fact, while the debate was going on. I counted up to some 69 different initiatives across all areas which have taken place between 1979 and 1983. I have to say that the measures before us today will not bring the attainment of that goal any nearer: indeed, in some respects they may make the task more difficult.
This is rather an unusual Second Reading debate, in that we have these two quite distinct Bills before us. The first, introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is extremely complex and far-reaching. The second is more modest and of quite a different character. I am sure your Lordships will understand, therefore, if I confine my remarks to what I consider to be the main principles, rather than attempting to cover the full scope of the proposals contained in these texts—although I shall try to answer particular points which have been put to me.
The noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, raised two points which do not fit neatly into any other part of my speech: namely, the question of the Braille guide to another place and the fact that there is not one available here. That point will almost certainly be borne in mind by those responsible for these things. The question of aircraft design was also raised. This is a subject which is particularly close to my heart. In my experience and I think many people would agree, the airline staff are efficient and extremely gentle in the way they look after disabled people and I do not think the right way forward is necessarily to redesign aeroplanes. However, I am sure that these points will be taken into consideration and borne in mind.
I should like to concentrate first on the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill. This has two quite distinct purposes. The first, as we have heard, contained in Part I, is to outlaw discrimination against disabled people and to establish a complex regulatory machinery—a disablement commission, with investigative, conciliatory and penal powers. Part II covers in the main the social service provision made by local authorities for disabled people and seeks broadly to strengthen the operation of Sections 1 and 2 of the existing Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.
I have several grave reservations about Part II of the Bill. Certainly I am worried by the very considerable costs it would place upon local authorities, and they are worried too. A possible £30 million has been estimated for the cost of the surveys required under Clause 21 alone, but I am particularly concerned about the sheer impossibility, in practical terms, of the
468
tasks which would be imposed upon local authorities. For example, 13(1B)(b) would require an authority to assess a person's need and decide what arrangements should be made to meet it and notify the person, all within seven days of receiving the request. Clause 14(3)(b) would virtually require an authority to interrogate a disabled person about how he had spent his mobility allowance before deciding whether it could be taken into account for charging purposes.
However, it is the contents of Part I of the Bill which lie at the heart of today's debate. I do not want to make detailed drafting points but I cannot conceal some disappointment that the noble Earl, in producing this Bill, has not attempted to overcome some of the manifest defects which were highlighted when this very text was recently debated in another place. That was a point also made by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and she gave some examples. These are not just defects caused by faulty drafting. They reflect the fundamental problem of trying to achieve by legislation objectives which simply cannot be achieved in that way. All the basic definitions upon which the Bill ought to be founded—thedefinition of disability, or the areas which the Bill is to cover, the definition of the action or inaction in those areas which may constitute discrimination; all these vital concepts—are to be left to regulations.
I can understand the noble Earl's difficulties in overcoming these problems: to my mind, they cannot fairly and satisfactorily be defined in legislative form. That is a point of principle and not of drafting, and I think it would be wrong of me to give your Lordships the impression that these are matters which could easily be sorted out in Committee.
But there is another, perhaps even more important, principle to be considered. It would be wrong, in my view, even to contemplate setting up a new bureaucracy—possibly costing £3million a year—with far-reaching investigative and penal powers, and it would be wrong to subject people to the power of the courts, unless there was good evidence, both that genuine discrimination is widespread and that legislation is the best way to deal with it. The question of genuine discrimination is a point which was well brought out by my noble friend Lord Holderness when he made his contribution.
Frankly, that evidence is not apparent. The main source remains the report of the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People, published last year. Yet CORAD's recommendation for legislation was not unanimous. I do not think any members of the committee could put their hands on their hearts and say that their survey provided conclusive proof of the need for it. And despite the strong views which I know many disability organisations hold on this issue, I believe many individual disabled people have grave fears that law would be counter-productive. This is something to which many of your Lordships who have spoken and who are disabled have alluded this afternoon—
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend will allow me to intervene before he moves on. This is most important. The only penal power for the commission is the very minor one that there is a

469
penalty imposed under Clause 6(c) for failing to supply information.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's intervention. Perhaps that is something which I can consider afresh; but I think I ought now to get on with the rest of my speech, because there is quite a lot to cover. Of course, the Government want to see what real evidence there is. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, raised the question of research into discrimination. We have looked at this, but we see considerable difficulty in designing an effective protocol. If, however, a researcher came forward with a proposal which seemed workable, we would certainly consider it. But one of the problems about research is the time it takes to get useful information from it.
My honourable friend the present Minister for the Disabled has continued the invitation by his predecessor, extended in another place in February this year, to receive notice of cases where there is evidence of discrimination. Perhaps I ought to say here that my honourable friend's remit covers the whole country. His remit, as I understand it, is not a statutory one, but if he wishes to bring about certain things in Scotland then he does so through the relevant department of the Scottish Office.
Only 21 cases have so far been received in response to the invitation, so one really cannot conclude that discrimination is widespread. But the cases have shown some very sensitive problems which are probably unique to the disability field, as opposed to the equal opportunities or race relations fields. I am thinking, for example, of differences in medical opinion over the effects of a person's disability, or the true balance to be drawn between improved access and safety in buildings. These are not problems which some grand law would easily overcome.
I have concentrated so far on what seem to be the negative provisions of this Bill as they affect discrimination: the penal and investigative aspects. I think I have made it clear that the Government do not support this approach. These negative provisions are perhaps those which distinguish it most from the second Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Campbell. Both Bills, however, also share a common, more positive, concept: that of a disablement commission acting as conciliator and educator of public attitudes towards disability.
I can see the attraction of this more positive role. Indeed, the Government have always placed great emphasis on the value of education and persuasion. We believe that a great many of the problems facing disabled people are caused not by malice or prejudice but by lack of understanding or ignorance of their needs and, above all, of their abilities. But we have a duty to consider very carefully how necessary it is to establish a new statutory body to carry forward this vital work. It is bound to be costly; it is bound to be more bureaucratic; it is bound to divert resources away from other areas where such resources are badly needed. And one has to ask whether it will achieve more than is already being achieved in a variety of ways.
A disablement commission is the centrepiece of the second Bill under consideration, the Disabled Persons Bill, but its scope is more modest than that which is
470
envisaged by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. It is to consider in general the disadvantages experienced by disabled people and to look at the issue of discrimination, but it would have the particular task of keeping benefits and pensions for disabled people under continuous review. Clause 2 is, indeed, worded in such a way as to suggest this would be the major role of the commission. This echoes a similar Bill my noble friend introduced some years ago when he was a distinguished member of another place. If I recall correctly, that measure was defeated by supporters of the then Labour Government. I think, though, that he would be the first to concede that much has changed since then in the field of benefits provision for disabled people. The introduction during the 1970s of major new benefits, such as the mobility and attendance allowance and the non-contributory invalidity pension, are cases in point.
Furthermore, the need to keep benefits provisions under review is already well recognised through the work of the Social Security Advisory Committee which we set up to replace the National Insurance Advisory Committee in 1980. That committee has the job of advising the Secretary of State for Social Services on the discharge of his functions under various enactments. Its recently published report for 1982–83 contains a special chapter on benefits for disabled people which is well worth reading.
The proposed disablement commission would unnecessarily duplicate an important part of the work already carried out by the SSAC, work which has earned great respect. I fail to see how the commission would improve existing arrangements in this respect. On the contrary, the resultant duplication and confusion of roles could be a positive disadvantage.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to other countries—in particular he mentioned Australia—which have established bodies similar to that which he seeks to establish. One can argue about how effective these measures have been in improving the quality of life for disabled people. Certainly the South Australian legislation is still too young to be able to provide any firm conclusion but, as the South Australians openly concede, influencing and changing public attitudes does not happen overnight, even with such machinery. Whatever course we adopt, it will be a gradual process and one which is bound to cause frustration to disabled people, eager for more radical change.
When looking abroad, we should also ask ourselves against what background these bodies were set up. This was a point which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, made in his speech. Was there a strong, well-organised, respected and vociferous voluntary sector? Was there legislation on the statute books such as the Disabled Person Employment Act, the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, the 1981 Disabled Persons Act and the 1981 Education Act? I think one would find that those countries were starting from a very different baseline in that respect. And it is worth asking why, of all the West European countries, which in many ways have more similar welfare and voluntary provision to our own, not a single one has opted for anti-discrimination legislation or a statutory body to look at discrimination.
As I have already indicated, the Government believe that the often severe difficulties disabled people

471
experience in participating to the full in the life of our society are the result of specific practical problems requiring specific practical solutions. To my mind, there is simply no sense in lumping together all these problems, calling them "discrimination", and then hoping that an anti-discrimination law or some new commission will solve them. Indeed, by concentrating on this very unsatisfactory, negative and ill-defined concept of "discrimination", I believe that attention would be distracted from the positive, practical approach which this Government have adopted and which I sincerely believe to be essential if we are to continue to make real advances.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships some examples of that approach in one or two areas which the wider discrimination debate has shown to be of particular concern to disabled people. I believe this will be helpful to those of your Lordships who may have gained the impression from today's debate and from elsewhere that no channels currently exist for the voice of disabled people to be effectively heard or their interests protected: and that no attempts are being made to increase awareness of their problems both in the Government and in public.
Perhaps I may first take the issue of access provision. No one denies the vital importance to disabled people of making buildings and facilities accessible. It was a central theme of the CORAD report and is the core problem in many cases of alleged discrimination. There are those of your Lordships who I am sure have bitterly frustrating personal experiences to relate, and who know how deeply frustrating and demeaning it is to be excluded from enjoying a film or play, going to a shop or participating in some other activity—even getting onto the road, in the way that the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, described—purely because they cannot gain access. Some would call this discrimination and would look to a commission, or ultimately the courts, to sort it out. But I would call it a severe practical problem, and one which is being worked on actively right across Government.
My own department recently announced its plans for an Access Committee for England, and preparations are now well in hand. It will be funded by the DHSS but will be based with a voluntary organisation, the Centre on Environment for the Handicapped, which has considerable experience in this field. I believe that this inititative will not only help bring about practical improvement over access but it will also encourage the participation of disabled people on matters which affect their lives and promote a general awareness of the problems they can face.
At the same time, the Department of the Environment is awaiting comments on its plans to amend building regulations. These plans would mean that for the first time, those who failed to make appropriate access provision in buildings to which the regulations applied would be potentially subject to the full sanctions of a breach of the building regulations.
The Department of Education and Science is also revising its design guidance on educational buildings in the light of the Department of the Environment's work. As an example of practical work on buildings for which the Government themselves are responsible, the
472
Property Services Agency has agreed standards for all new court houses to include full provision by way of access and toilet facilities for both disabled members of the public and disabled jurors. This was a point which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, has raised.
One particular frustration which disabled people face is the difficulty of gaining access to cinemas, theatres, and so on, because they are told that fire regulations do not permit it. This was another point brought out by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby. In response to one of the recommendations in the CORAD report, the Home Office is now intending to include guidance on access for disabled people in a national advisory standard on fire precautions in places of public entertainment. This is currently being prepared and will encourage fire and licensing authorities to adopt a liberal approach towards access matters. Guidance currently being revised on safety in cinemas will also refer to the relevant CORAD recommendations.
Of course, it is all very well to say that buildings and facilities must be accessible, but that is useless if people have not the mobility to reach them. To that end, the Government aim not only to make public transport more adaptable—for example, the Department of Transport's work on the design of the new London taxi in conjunction with Carbodies Limited—but to encourage development of alternative patterns of transport provision.
Perhaps this would be a suitable moment at which to refer to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, on the orange badge scheme. She expressed concern about abuse of the scheme. The Government are determined to clamp down on such abuse, but I do not see why one needs an anti discrimination law to do that. We have existing legislation under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act and under other legislation, and there will be further regulations this year. Indeed, earlier this year the Government tightened up both the criteria for the scheme and the penalties for abusing the scheme.
The Department of Transport funds a small advisory unit which gives expert advice to voluntary schemes with special emphasis on the needs of disabled people. Worth mentioning in this context is the encouraging growth of Dial-a-Ride schemes. There are now 40 around the country with a further 20 in the planning stages. The Government are working, too, on development of facilities to test and assess disabled people who wish to drive their own cars, and this is in addition to the facilities that already exist at Banstead Place Mobility Centre.
My noble friend, Lord Swinfen asked about education and the integration of disabled children in ordinary schools. He asked what progress had been made on the Warnock Report, in particular in regard to integrating physically handicapped children in ordinary schools. Of course, many of the aims of the Warnock Report were incorporated in the 1981 Education Act. In order to pursue those aims, it is important for the teaching staff in those schools to understand the special needs, and that is why the Government have made £1 million available for training teachers on this. If my noble friend made any

473
other points that I have not picked up, of course I will, as he asked, write to him.
Perhaps of most interest to the context of this debate is the fact that disabled people are more closely involved in policy formulation at national level. In June this year my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Department of Transport set up a panel of advisers on disability to guide her department on the directions and priorities of its future work. All are experts in this field, and many are themselves disabled.
We believe that we have made solid gains in breaking down the physical barriers disabled people face on access. They complement the advances we have made in chipping away at the financial barriers through steady improvements to the benefits available to disabled people, despite difficult economic circumstances. I wonder whether at this stage I ought to go into those in any detail. I will certainly look at Hansard, and, if there are any particular points which need to be elucidated, I will, of course, do so, but I think that, in the interests of brevity, I will cut out the particular remarks which I had intended to make.
One cannot talk of the financial barriers (which I have not done) brought about by disability without reference to the vital importance of employment. This is something that I think I ought to cover. It is an area, of course, where the voice of disabled people has been represented for a very long time through bodies like the National Advisory Council on the Employment of Disabled People and the network of local committees on the employment of disabled people. It is also an area where legislation has been on the statute books for almost 40 years aimed specifically at protecting the interests of disabled people in employment. There are, incidently, lessons to be learnt from that for those who place all their hopes in the power of legislation to solve all problems. As the Manpower Services Commission demonstrated in its review of the quota scheme, it is mathematically impossible to achieve the 3 per cent. quota of registered disabled people. This was something which the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, mentioned. As he will know, there are insufficient people registered as disabled to fulfil the 3 per cent. quota.
The Government are only too well aware of the particular difficulties facing disabled people in the employment field. Of course, they, too, have been affected by the general employment situation, which no anti-discrimination law can wish away. But the Government clearly have a special supportive role here, and in 1982–83 the Manpower Services Commission spent an estimated £139 million on its wide range of services for disabled people.
Again, the main thrust of the Manpower Services Commission's policy is to concentrate not on coercion but on positive aspects, improving disabled people's skills, easing job placements through adaptations at work and advice to employers, putting the message across that disability is not inability, a point brought out so well by my noble friend Lord Holderness. That is the basis of the Fit for Work Award Scheme which my noble friend Lady Vickers mentioned, and the principal aim of the disablement advisory service now being set up following the MSC's thorough review of its services for disabled people.
474
The Bills we are considering today are clearly motivated by a concern to improve the quality of life of disabled people and to develop their opportunities to lead full and independent lives as active participants in our society. I share that concern, and it is reflected, as I have tried to show, in a great deal of Government activity across a wide front. I believe the practical approach we have adopted of seeking specific solutions to specific problems is bearing fruit, and I have indicated that I do not see the need to set up yet another statutory body in the disability field which will merely duplicate so much that already exists.
In particular, I must ask your Lordships, with especial reference to the measures proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, to consider very carefully whether an anti-discrimination law, with its costly bureaucratic and penal machinery and its emphasis on investigation and coercion, is really the way to advance the interests of disabled people, or whether it will simply divert efforts and resources away from the more positive approach adopted by this Government.
In drawing my remarks to a close, I have to make it quite clear that, while I understand the sincere motives behind these Bills, they are both unacceptable to the Government. It is not, however, my intention to divide the House against them, but should one or both receive a Second Reading then I think I must make it clear that the Government will not provide sustenance for them in any way at any further stage. Our policy remains as before. We have done much already to help disabled people; and where we can we continue to devise schemes to help even more. These schemes must be given a chance to work.
4.56 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. They have spoken with a great deal of feeling and knowledge. I should like to thank the Minister for his answer. As always, he speaks most charmingly. Although his message was not in any way acceptable to me and to many others, no one could have put it more pleasantly. This is not a criticism; after all, I have been on the noble Lord's side in past years. But I hope that he will forgive me saying that he was inevitably reproducing arguments that were used by the Minister in another place. I say that for a particular reason. It gives me an excuse for not answering the arguments at length. They were in my mind when I made my introductory remarks.
I should like to join in what was said about three people—first, the late Lord Amulree, with whom I was in this House for many years. I was amazed to learn how old he was. He always seemed to me to get younger and younger. I always think of him as possessing a spirit of eternal youth. I join with my noble friend Lord Wallace of Coslany—and I am sure that all noble Lords would wish to do so—in sending a message to the noble Baroness, Lady D'Arcy (de Knayth). I understand that she was anxious to come to the House for the debate and that it needed all the guile of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, to stop her. I am glad that she did not come, although I know she will be disappointed to have missed the debate and will be glad of my good wishes. Finally, I join with all the other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Earl,

475
Lord Attlee, on his maiden speech. I cannot remember any other speech quite like that. I remember when the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, made a speech about his mongol child years ago and how much effort, and how many whiskies and soda, that required. I do not know how many whiskies and soda this speech cost the noble Earl. It was a heroic effort and will give untold comfort and encouragement far and wide.
I shall not try to comment on the speeches in any detail. Naturally those on my side of the argument seem to me the more powerful. In saying that, I shall be told, "You would, wouldn't you?", to quote the phraseology of the famous lady. I shall not try to present an objective balance sheet.
I repeat my apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, if I said anything that was in any way offensive to him. I should have had to set him right about the spastics, but that was done by my noble friend Lord Stallard. I notice that among the list of people who wrote to the The Times—which I quoted at the beginning, although I did not give the names—was to be found that of Joyce Smith, the chairman of the Spastics Society. I shall not repeat my offence by annoying the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, a second time. I merely repeat the apology.
I would just accept the thanks of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for removing any possible ambiguity in the language that I used. But I was glad to find that evil communications across the Floor seem to corrupt good manners, because I understand that the noble Lord fell into the same error by talking of penal methods. If I may put it with respect to the Minister, he and I were in danger of together earning the censure of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. It should be quite plain that the only remedy, except in the one case mentioned, is a remedy in tort.
If the noble Lord will allow me to say so, he paid a tribute—a very proper tribute—to the famous Brian Rix, secretary-general of the Royal Society for the Mentally Handicapped. I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that Brian Rix was one of the people who signed the letter, and so I do not know whether he had Brian Rix on his side of the argument.
I shall conclude in a moment or two, but I should like to refer to one important point which the Minister emphasised. Obviously he believes it very strongly, as do several noble Lords who have spoken, including some who are handicapped. In one way or another they have given the impression—and I think that it is the Minister's conviction—that this is not a very serious problem, that this discrimination does not go far and wide. My words are of no special value in this connection. So instead I shall repeat what I said at the beginning of the debate, and read a few sentences from a letter that appeared in The Times newspaper:
"We, all of whom have intimate knowledge of the prejudice and discrimination suffered by disabled people, implore Her Majesty's Government not to block the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill"
Those words are followed by a list of the names of a number of people, including those I have mentioned just now.
476
So I fear that I must say, with the greatest of respect, that neither the opinion of the Minister, nor mine, nor perhaps that of others in this House weighs very heavily on the question of facts. Is there or is there not discrimination against the disabled? Every opinion here counts for something, but in my view the opinion that matters is that of the organisations involved.
I would remind the House that, assuming I understood her correctly, the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, said that what we must do is encourage the voluntary bodies. Well, the people I have in mind are the voluntary bodies, and so we really must not regard them as idiots who know nothing of what they are talking about. They are the people who know best, and in the light of that I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Disabled Persons Bill [H.L.]
5.1 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Adjournment
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think that in moving that the House do now adjourn I should just say a word of appreciation to those who work in the House who have helped us out at this unaccustomed late hour on a Friday afternoon.
House adjourned at three minutes past five o'clock.

  PRISONER No. 065713
  PRISONER No. 065713
  DOMESTIC SERVANTS: ADMISSION TO UK
  DOMESTIC SERVANTS: ADMISSION TO UK
  CIRCULAR INSTRUCTION 5/1976: TYPING TUITION
  CIRCULAR INSTRUCTION 5/1976: TYPING TUITION
  SIGNAL CRAYFISH: FISH FARMS
  SIGNAL CRAYFISH: FISH FARMS