Sitting of 11 March 1983

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

Health and Safety at Work
9.35 am
Sir Victor Goodhew: I beg to move,
That this House, noting the operation of arrangements to secure the health and safety of workers, congratulates the Health and Safety Commission and Executive on the part they have played in improving standards of safety; and notes with approval the determination of the Government to maintain this improvement.
Such are the strangenesses of fate, luck and fortune that in 23½ years in this House I have drawn a usable place but once in the ballot for private Members' Bills. If my memory is correct, this is only the third time that I shall have moved a private Members' motion.
There was a great temptation on receiving this news, with joy, to pick an old hobby horse and favourite on a controversial subject, headline-catching for the press and attractive to the television boys and all the others, and to ride it around the Chamber, but I decided, as this is probably the last time in my parliamentary career that I shall be so fortunate in the ballot, that it might be better to choose a non-controversial subject which might have the support of both sides of the House. In that way I hope to leave this place with happy memories, particularly of those of my friends in the Whips Office who no doubt would have been much more worried had I chosen another subject. I chose health and safety at work because it is a matter of great importance, which has been debated insufficiently in the House in recent years.
Every member of the work force is to some extent at risk from accidents and injury at work. The extent of this risk varies greatly between occupations and between industries. In general, manual workers are more at risk than non-manual workers, and certain industries, in particular agriculture, mining and construction, have worse records than the average. In 1981 there were 447 fatal accidents in British industry and more than 400,000 injuries from all reported accidents at work. Those figures cannot be accepted with complacency, however much they may have improved.
My motion seeks to do three things. First, it notes the operation of current arrangements to secure health and safety at work. These arrangements are largely embodied in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which set up the Health and Safety Commission and Executive. Since it became law, the House has had no opportunity other than in Adjournment debates to discuss the working of these arrangements in general terms, although we have debated specific health and safety issues. I am particularly pleased, therefore, to provide the opportunity for such a debate. I am glad to see a number of hon. Members on
1056
both sides of the House and I hope that we shall hear from them if they are fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Secondly, the motion congratulates the Health and Safety Commission and Executive on the part that they have played in improving standards. Of course, others have played a part, most notably employers and employees themselves. A special mention should be made of the commission, which, consisting of three members nominated by the TUC, three members nominated by the CBI and two by local authority associations, with an independent chairman, has been an interesting and successful experiment in fostering a joint approach to the solution of workplace problems. I also wish, in the 1.50th year of the factory inspectorate, to pay tribute to the work of the Health and Safety Executive of which it is a part. The evidence of the improvement in the standards of health and safety in Britain comes clearly from statistics of declining accident rates and fatalities.
Thirdly, the motion congratulates the Government who, while sticking to their determination to reduce the size of the public sector, have protected the Health and Safety Executive and have increased in real terms the total resources available to it, even though staffing has fallen. The most recent statistics produced by the Health and Safety Executive show that in 1981 there were 447 fatal accidents to employees in British industry. Although comparisons with earlier years are problematical, the executive concluded that this was a welcome reduction on the 488 fatalities in the previous year.
In the 1960s, it was usual to find over 1,000 fatal accidents every year. It was concern over this loss of life that led to the establishment of the Robens committee, the report on the subject in 1970 and thus the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. The report is very much based on the Robens report. One aspect of this philosophy, clearly stated in the report and in the Act, is that the responsibility for health and safety at work should primarily be that of employers and employees, or, as the Robens report says,
"those who create the risks and those who work with them".
This is well explained in paragraph 452 of the report:
"We need a more self-regulating system of provision for safety and health at work. The traditional approach based on ever increasing detailed statutory regulation is outdated, over-complex and inadequate. Reform should be aimed at creating the conditions for more effective self-regulation by employers and workpeople jointly."
It is important to note that the primary responsibility rests with the employers and workpeople themselves, not with the Government or anyone else. Employers rightly look to the Health and Safely Commission and Executive for advice on standards. The public looks to the executive for enforcement action to ensure that employers are meeting their obligations. It should not be the job of those enforcing health and safety legislation to intervene themselves in every aspect of the way work is organised, but it should be their job to ensure that the employer meets his obligations.
When some Opposition Members have complained in the past of reductions in the staffing of the various inspectorates—although I understand that, in terms of expenditure, there has been no cut—they should reflect on the fact that inspectors are there to monitor a system of self-regulation and not to take on responsibilities that rest with employers. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act was introduced under a Conservative Government and

1057
eventually passed by a Labour Government, which I hope shows bipartisan support for it and also for what I have to say today. The establishment of the commission created a forum for unions and employers to consider jointly safety matters while various diverse enforcement bodies were merged into the executive.
It is worth noting that our membership of the European Community has been beneficial in the sphere of health and safety. We have been able to take forward action on many subjects, confident in the knowledge that our trading partners in Europe are taking similar action and that no unfair trading advantage is secured by letting standards of health and safety slip. We must continue to try to ensure, through our membership of international bodies, that this situation is worldwide.
One beneficial aspect of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act has been the encouragement of safety committees. I know that there has been a revival of joint consultation in British industry in recent years. Having safety committees where management and employees discuss safety matters and try to resolve them jointly has helped in the objective of developing employee participation at work.
I have emphasised the responsibilities of employers and the role of safety committees because many improvements can be secured by developing voluntary arrangements and consultation at local level. I should like to say a special word about noise. This will please the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) who has a later motion on the Order Paper. It occurs to me that he may not know whether he should speak in this debate on my motion or wait in the hope that his will be reached. I hope that, in any event, the House will hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say because his motion is concerned with many of the issues contained in mine.
I believe, like the right hon. Member for Doncaster, that occupational deafness is a potentially serious problem and that it could be avoided if people took it more seriously. Many factories that one visits have a high level of noise, yet people do not always wear the hearing protectors provided. About 500,000 people are exposed to potentially damaging levels of noise at work. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will feel able to comment on this aspect of the subject.
I wrote last year to the Minister on the subject of escalator safety, following an accident to a child of one of my constituents. I recognise that accidents on escalators are rare when one considers the millions of people who use them. However, small children are particularly vulnerable and such accidents can be horrific. This is a subject of great importance and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to say what action is being taken.
The whole subject is most important but it is one on which Britain has a good record. Indeed, the available statistics suggest that we have a better record in manufacturing industry than other European countries such as France and Germany. We have a sensible system for the organisation of health and safety. I hope that my hon. Friend can firmly reassure the House that the stories run from time to time in the health and safety press and elsewhere suggesting that the Government plan to change the present arrangements are without foundation.
I have spoken briefly because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. This does not mean that I do not
1058
think that the subject is most important. It is because the subject is important that I have chosen this debate today. I hope to have the support of both sides of the House for the motion.
9.46 am
Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir V. Goodhew) on his selection of this subject for debate today. I am, however, a little critical of the terms of the motion. It seems to me to be complacent, in the sense that while the Health and Safety Commission, the factory inspectorate and others are to be congratulated on their work, there seems to be a big gap between the problem itself and the achievements that have been made. It is extraordinary when one considers the information that is available. The 1982 report of the Health and Safety Commission is based on figures from 1980. In these days of computers and mass communication of information we should be able to do better than that. It should be possible to have more up-to-date figures.
I accept the ethos of the view of the hon. Member for St. Albans that we should encourage employers, employees and all those concerned with an enterprise to carry out their own monitoring. I wish to address my remarks to two industries which might be called notorious for their dangers. They are the furniture and construction industries. As the House knows, I have had a specific interest in the furniture industry. I was much involved in updating the woodcutting machinery regulations, in an attempt to improve the standard of safety in the workplace.
One part of the regulations that caused me great concern at the time, and still does, relates to dust extraction. The extraction of wood dust and chips has always been a major problem, principally because of the difficulty of providing adequate equipment that can be fitted to the machine without creating operational problems at the point where the dust is emitted. The rate of extraction has to be high to make sure that dust does not go all over the place. As a result, problems are caused for operators. Air is drawn from the atmosphere, past the back of the operator and into the extract plant. This can cause back troubles for the operator, who finds that he suffers from lumbago because of the draught passing his body.
It is not an easy problem. I never thought that it was. On the other hand, insufficient work, in my view, is being done to combat the danger of dust in woodworking shops. Over the past year I have tried to focus attention on this problem. As the House knows, nasal cancer is now scheduled as an industrial disease. The right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) did a great deal during his time in office to try to ensure Government help, and I know that the present Government are also doing their best to make sure that this disease is combated.
Over the past few months I have been trying to get an idea of how much the Health and Safety Commission has addressed itself to this issue. It is sad that it does not seem to be particularly dynamic about it. I have questioned the figures and tried to find out what improvements there have been. I raised the matter in the House a long time ago. As a result, Mrs. Castle, who was the then Secretary of State, grasped the problem in a first-class way and decided to schedule nasal cancer as an industrial disease. I pay great tribute to her and to the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), who was the then Minister of State. They brought about the inquiry by Oxford doctors, which

1059
was based at High Wycombe. As a result, evidence was obtained that for woodworkers there was a greater risk of nasal cancer than for any other workers and therefore the disease was scheduled.
In the past few months I have been trying to ascertain how much we have moved forward since those days. I pay tribute to Mr. Simpson, the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission. However, I am disappointed with the complacent answers that I have received, which have culminated in my being told that there will be another study based on the same five factories in High Wycombe so that there can be a comparison with the first inquiry.
Why do we have to wait so long? It was possible to monitor before. I was told before that everything was all right and that I had no reason to be worried. I asked why I had no reason to be worried and I was told that the problem was not so great now. Therefore, I asked what available evidence there was. I was told that there was no real evidence, but that the conclusions were based on the fact that much work had been done and that the risks must be less. I said that that did not follow. I was told how experienced the inspector was and that he knows about these things. I said, "But that is not quantifiable. I want some basic data." Finally, I was told about a week ago that a new study was being set up, so we shall be better able to judge whether there has been an improvement.
I am thankful that the study will be carried out, but it will take two years. In the meanwhile, nothing is being done to obtain evidence of whether there has been any advance. Therefore, there will be 14 or 15 years between the time when we scheduled the disease, having proved that it was necessary to do so, and the time when we make the first assessment of whether our decision was right and what advance has been made in the meantime. My complaint is that we should not have taken that long.
Nasal cancer is a dreadful disease. The tragedy is that it does not come out for some years. Therefore, someone who may think that he is well finds that he is in difficulties only later in life, often when he has left the industry. He might have been made redundant and had to find another job. I hope that the commission will show a much more dynamic attitude than before. Nasal cancer is still a scourge. It will always be as long as workers are breathing in that fine dust.
The hon. Member for St. Albans said that this was a matter for the employees. I have heard that so often. It is partly true. Each and every one of us has his responsibility to help in this problem. I refer to the furniture industry. The hon. Gentleman referred to ear muffs. One of the skills of furniture workers working on woodcutting machines is to hear the machine. The worker has a sixth sense and can tell when things are going right and when things are wrong. He can immediately take effective action if there is a change in the noise of the machine. He knows exactly what to do. He is a skilled worker. However, if one puts ear muffs on the worker, or plugs in his ears, he cannot hear the noise of the machine. Therefore, one has taken away a major part of his safety because he cannot hear the change of noise to warn him that something is going wrong.
It is simple to say that we should put ear muffs on the worker, but it is not as easy as that. We had much discussion with the inspector at the inquiry about that point. His argument was that part (a) of the relevant clause in the regulations says that machines shall be noiseless. However, as always in legislation, there is a part (b) of the
1060
clause which says that until that happens we shall have ear muffs. My criticism of the commission is that little or nothing has been done to implement part (a) and get the machines put right. We have relied almost entirely on part (b).
It is not right to criticise employees who feel that they cannot wear ear muffs. It is not comfortable either to work all day and every day in a confined space wearing a face mask. Cabinet makers have to bend down and put their heads in confined spaces when they are working. One's mouth is covered up the whole time. It is not a happy situation. One may say to people that they should wear face-masks, but if one spends eight hours a day in that environment that is not easy. Therefore, we should not say that they are not contributing much towards their safety. There are difficulties.
The argument that I have put to the commission from time to time is that very little investigatory work is being done. However, every reply that I receive tells me that it is a matter of resources. The commission says that ! cannot expect it to do all that work if it has an insufficient inspectorate. It is all very well to say that all Governments have provided resources, but they have been insufficient. It is a matter of judgment whether the problems in industry of deaths, injuries and all that flows from them are of a sufficient priority to have an advantage in resources.
The hon. Gentleman is partly right when he says that the inspectors are not there to do anything more than monitor. However, they have a bigger role. They are there to make sure that people abide by the law and to encourage employers and employees to do so. They are there to take effective action if they see something wrong that is not covered by the law. Therefore, they have a bigger role than just monitoring. It is a dynamic role. They cannot do that if they are not given all the necessary resources, particularly for manpower.
I do not accept the implication of the motion that all is well, although a little more needs to be done, but we are fairly happy. I am not happy. I am also not happy with the Government's response. I am not being pernickety. I simply wish to make that point. I have made it over many years.
The construction industry is a dangerous industry too. I tried to obtain the latest statistics. The Health and Safety Executive figures for 1980 were published in December 1982. According to them, there were 165 fatal accidents in 1980. In 1979 there were 149 fatalities, and in 1978, 153. The figure went up and down, but we cannot placent about so many deaths. Although we are trying to solve that problem, we do not seem to be successful. In 1971 there were 201 deaths. Therefore, from 1971 to 1980 the number of deaths has been reduced from 201 to 165. That is hardly a dynamic reduction. We should examine the problem much more urgently. Moreover, the industry has suffered from severe unemployment. Its activities have been reduced, so one would expect fewer deaths.
Nevertheless, I pay great tribute to the industry, as it has tried to improve site conditions to reduce the accident rate. I especially commend the Federation of Master Builders, to which I have talked recently to find out what it is doing. It is monitoring the problem all the time and is currently engaged in producing a model safety policy. It is good to see that the federation is attempting to provide the type of guide for its members which I should have hoped the Government would provide.

1061
The hon. Member for St. Albans said that such measures should not be left to the Government but should be carried out by the industry. Here is an example of an industry that is trying to produce a code of practice. The federation is approaching the problem quite aggressively. It has had the full support of the factory inspectorate. Indeed, I was interested to see that a principal factory inspector was present at one of the federation's meetings at which he discussed the problems as he saw them and suggested possible solutions. The inspector's suggestions for the model safety policy were good. That demonstrates the importance of the relationship and co-operation that can take place between the authorities and the industry. I hope that the campaign for Site Safe 1983 will be successful and that builders will play their part by accepting the federation's guidelines.
Scaffolding is related to the construction industry. In my constituency, a scaffolding firm called Grayson Scaffolding Ltd. was employed by the Greater London council to enable work on private housing to be carried out. That firm erected scaffolding on the roof of some housing. When a tenant, Mrs. Stubbs, went into her house, she had to protect herself from a falling scaffolding pole that was about to strike her head. She is only a small lady and 68 years old. She put up her arm to protect herself—if she had not she would have been killed—and her arm was seriously broken.
Mrs. Stubbs has had a dreadful time. She was in plaster for weeks and, because of her age, the bone would not knit. Now that the plaster has been taken off she has found that she has a deformed arm which has only restricted use. I knew her before the accident. She was a dynamic lady who worked as a home help and was always busy helping neighbours and nursing people before they could get home helps. She is a magnificent little lady. Now she cannot use her hand, take her dog for a walk, do the decorating or even pick up a saucepan, simply because of a scaffolding pole which ought not to have been allowed to fall.
I tell the story only because we are involved in an enormous problem. Two years have passed since that incident, but the scaffolding firm has got out from under and merely handed the case over to its insurance company. We are now dealing with the insurance company, which has just one objective—to pay as little as possible. Poor Mrs. Stubbs is now being made to go to hospitals so that they can make reports on how bad the accident was and whether the injury is as bad as she thinks it is. The implication is that because she is getting a little older we are all likely to overstate her case. It is unbelievable that a previously perfectly happy and healthy woman is now suddenly under pressure to prove that she is not trying to get more money out of the insurance company than she deserves. It is extraordinary, because the scaffolding firm is not involved at all.
I have to represent my constituent and argue with everyone. She now needs legal aid and it is a heck of a job proving that she has a case against the scaffolding firm and deserves legal aid. There is no dispute about responsibility; the dispute is about how much the poor woman should have in compensation for her accident. It is extremely difficult to understand how a firm can climb out from under while my constituent is in an appalling state. Presumably if the case is not settled out of court it will go to court. Judges are notorious for their anxiety
1062
about not awarding too substantial costs in such cases. My constituent has suffered through no fault of her own. Indeed, the scaffolding firm is entirely responsible, but my constituent is suffering and will continue to suffer for the rest of her life, as she now has arthritis which causes further problems.
Mr. John Gorst: I am most interested in the hon. Gentleman's point, because the Select Committee on Employment is considering whether to examine the safety of scaffolding. Perhaps he will go a little further. I am interested to know whether he is suggesting that the logical conclusion of what he has said is that, to avoid insurance companies, the courts and, as he puts it, the scaffolding firm getting out from underneath the problem, there should be some form of fixed compensation. How would he alter the means of settlement for such a case?
Mr. Brown: I merely want to stop the scaffolding falling in the first place. If the scaffolding firm had not allowed the scaffolding pole to fall, this case would not have arisen. I was merely pointing out how my constituent has suffered. I should like to know why the inspectorate was not involved and why it did not visit the firm on site to ascertain whether it was putting up the scaffolding properly and whether all the appropriate notices were there. In fact, they were not, but it is up to the inspectorate to find that out. The inspectorate should see whether there is any reason for it to take action. When one asks the inspectorate, it says that it does not have sufficient manpower to carry out such inspections and that it is impossible to chase round checking on all the individual cases.
I hope that the Select Committee on Employment, of which the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) is a distinguished member, will examine the safety of scaffolding. The example that I have given is by no means isolated, but it demonstrates the fact that when an accident occurs it appears that nothing else can be done.
As the hon. Gentleman said, we end up asking ourselves how we pay compensation. That is not the real issue. The real point is how we make sure that such small firms do not allow accidents to occur. As I said, Mrs. Stubbs would have been killed if she had not put up her arm. If a lady with a baby in her arms had been going into the building at that time, she would have been killed. There can be no doubt about that.
The problem is serious enough for the factory inspectorate to do something about it. The GLC must have some responsibility, because it employed the contractor. It must wish to know whether the firms on its books are satisfactory. How can it know that the same firm will not have a similar problem somewhere else, or perhaps an even more serious one because someone has been killed? Although Mrs. Stubbs has suffered badly, society, in the form of the Government, the Health and Safety Commission and the inspectorate have no knowledge of the matter. What effective steps does the Minister believe should be taken to protect us in future?
I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for St. Albans. It is all very well to be critical of some matters, as I have, but in the end safety in the workplace can be achieved only if we have harmonious relations between employer and employee. They, together with the inspectorate, must try to find solutions to these difficult

1063
problems. Each must ask, "What can we do to improve safety in the workplace?" The Minister, too, must play his part. It is no good saying, as he might, "In real terms we have maintained the inspectorate." He and I know that the inspectorate has insufficient resources and that more inspectors are needed desperately. I urge him to review the position and to come to the conclusion that his Department should provide more inspectors.
10.12 am
Mr. Jim Lester: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir V. Goodhew) on introducing this debate. Fridays are well used if we debate such a subject that is not well known but is an important strand in good industrial relations. I pay tribute to the work of the Health and Safety Commission and the inspectorate.
Few of those who have not had the opportunity to visit factories in different sectors of industry—cotton mills, coal mines, construction sites and power stations—appreciate the conditions in which people were asked to work in the past. My first visit to a cotton mill, which was quite recent, was a real shock. The noise and dust were tremendous, although I have become familiar with both because of my interest in coal mining. In the past, we have asked people to work in difficult conditions with much noise, dust and danger. It does us all good to reflect that the nice crisp cotton shirt, the good fire in the hearth, the warm house, the decent meal, the car at the end of the drive—or, from what the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) said, the house itself and the furniture in it—are often products of dangerous processes. It is a tribute to modern society that our legislation has recently come to terms with the fact.
However, as my hon. Friend's figures show, there is no room for complacency. We must move forward. Those of us who have visited industrial installations know that one is automatically provided with a helmet. In a factory that uses lathes, one is given safety spectacles and at a nuclear power station one is given all the protective clothing that one needs, and is tested when one leaves.
Mr. Greville Janner: One gets that if one is a Minister.
Mr. Lester: One receives such treatment both as a Minister and as a Member of Parliament. They are the visible signs of systemised safety, and it is good to have them.
It is sad that, matters having progressed this far, some of the provisions appear to be ignored. Sometimes workers under pressure, perhaps trying to reach productivity levels, ignore safety provisions. As one who travelled recently for 13 hours in a Hercules aircraft, noise is very much on my mind. I hope that I shall not be accused of levity if I say that selective occupational deafnesss is a hazard for all hon. Members, because occupational deafness generally is a serious disease.
I wonder whether succeeding generations have a higher tolerance of noise because of what they are accustomed to in their daily lives. Their ears may suffer as much, but their mental processes may not. At discos, which some of us still visit, there is much noise, and one wonders whether that influences attitudes at the place of work.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has tried to draw attention to the need for proper protection against occupational deafness, not in the provision of protectors
1064
but in the wearing of them. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch said that the two matters often conflict. The campaign is important because this is a matter that is often left until too late, and it is not until the damage is done and one has contracted occupational deafness that one realises that it could have been prevented.
Perhaps one reason why people do not wear the equipment provided is that they are not consulted about its design, comfort or effectiveness. As part of the campaign to get people to wear such devices, the Minister should sponsor, through his Department, participation in the design of the equipment. If it is too heavy or bulky, that can be worked out from the start. If such items of equipment are provided for by statute, employers tend to buy them by the thousand and distribute them, but they never find out why they are not worn. They may believe it to be sheer bloody-mindedness, but the real answer might be different.
However, the main thrust of my speech is about the mining industry, because I represent a mining area and I come from Nottinghamshire. I am always conscious of the importance of safety in mines. The price of safety is eternal vigilance, and many lessons have been learnt from the disastrous consequences when that vigilance falters. Some years ago I examined the total of deaths in the mining industry since records were kept. At more than 300,000 it was a figure the size of the population of a small town. That is a salutary thought. However, it is encouraging that, because of modern standards, 1981 provided the lowest recorded total of coal mining fatalities since records have been kept. I know that 35 is still far too high, but it shows that the trend is in the right direction.
The problem becomes more difficult as mining continues in some of the older Victorian pits. Maintenance and safety are harder to achieve the further the face moves from the bottom of the shaft. Recent experience has shown that some of the equipment needed cannot handle some of the worst seams. It is easier when starting afresh at the new pits in Selby or Belvoir to introduce the necessary standards. The mines and quarries inspectorate is the key to safety in the mines. It is a small but important body of men.
I declare an interest because a member of my family has been a mines inspector since the 1950s. I have followed him around the country from Nottinghamshire to Lancashire, to south Wales and to Leicestershire, and he is now in the London inspectorate. Through his eyes and through his career I have seen different pits in different areas. The inspectorate has been going through a critical period recently by losing manpower and not being able to recruit people of the necessary ability to handle the job.
I welcome the fact that the Government have recognised the difficulty and responded with a special pay increase that should help to maintain the existing level of mines inspectors and improve recruitment. Inspectors are the key factor to safety in the mines. They must be men with wide industrial experience within the coal industry. They must possess the special quality of holding the trust and confidence of both the miners and the management in the desire for constant vigilance. When a disaster such as that at Creswell colliery occurs, it is too late. The House must ensure that standards are maintained in this important industry.
Those of us who have lived in mining communities appreciate what an insidious killer pneumoconiosis is.

1065
Communities that have no experience of the disease can have no feelings for a man wheezing up a hill, unable to get out of his house until he has got through part of the day to get his lungs working sufficiently, unable to go down the garden or climb the stairs in his home. Pneumoconiosis is a relic of the past. Improved conditions may prevent people catching that disease. There is a history of pneumoconiotics having to claim benefits and retire early because of the disease.
The Government carried forward an extension of the pneumoconiosis legislation to the slate industry. Although the extension was welcomed, difficulties were revealed in that type of chest complaint. The Government should now work in the direction of dealing with asbestosis and related diseases. The Select Committee on Employment is considering examining asbestosis. Perhaps it has already taken on that responsibility. If that is so, I welcome it.
People have only relatively recently become conscious of asbestosis. Related deaths through the years 1968 to 1980 showed a gradual increase in numbers. In 1980 more than 600 deaths were related to asbestosis and mesothelioma. When I deal with constituency cases, I find that the responsibility is divided between Government Departments. The Health and Safety Executive has recently tightened its standards. I welcome that. The Department of the Environment handles standards in the environment, and the Department of Health and Social Security deals with the medical panels and the way in which injury is assessed and benefits paid.
Following the report by the Select Committee on Employment, will the Department of Employment act as the sponsoring Department to pull together all the threads and cover the whole ground in a meaningful way? I am disappointed and concerned when I examine constituency cases of claims and see the hoop through which people are put who are suffering from this dreadful disease. I find it unbelievable when men are told, "I am sorry but we cannot diagnose your disease accurately now, but when you are dead we shall be able to establish whether you were suffering from the disease and then your family might be compensated."
The growing awareness of asbestosis means that the issue must be taken by the horns when we consider the pain that it causes people. In my constituency a unique survey was carried out by Mr. Stephen Jones, a pathologist at the city hospital. He traced all the 330 employees of a factory in the constituency that used asbestos to make gas masks during the war. It was a controlled experiment. As a pathologist, he was able to examine all their health records and produce figures to show conclusively that they all have suffered as a result of asbestos.
The employer was not at fault. He did everything required by law and by the health and safety requirements. That proved beyond doubt that working with asbestos caused this industrial disease. The Government must examine this area following the work carried out with pneumoconiosis in the slate mines.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the hon. Member for St. Albans. Friday gives hon. Members a good opportunity to discuss these issues in a more tranquil and less partisan way that is possible on Mondays to Thursdays. Hon. Members can bring to the attention of the House and to the respective Departments those areas of health and safety that are of concern.
10.26 am
Mr. Bob Cryer: I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir V. Goodhew) on introducing the debate. It is important to debate health and safety. It is lamentable that the Government have not provided time. I am grateful to him for using this opportunity to do so. Between 1974 and 1979 the Government did not provide any time to debate the issue, apart from our debates on the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. I was a member of the Standing Committee on that legislation.
Health and safety at work was previously discussed on 29 July in a Consolidated Fund debate which I initiated. As with these debates, Consolidated Fund debates are not well attended. They tend not to be well reported, although health and safety at work is an important topic.
The Government introduced the Employment Acts 1980 and 1982 because of their obsessive concern with the trade union movement. The trade union movement is the main forum whereby concern and agitation can be expressed for improvements in standards of safety at work.
The hon. Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) spoke about asbestos. The Transport and General Workers Union and the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union have been doing a great deal of work on the effects of asbestos. The legislation that the Government introduced in 1982 was designed to bankrupt the trade unions under certain conditions through claims for damages. Health and safety at work is not the cosy consensus subject that some people might imagine.
Another extraordinary factor of the Government's legislation is their obsession with attacking the trade union movement while overlooking the fact that in most years—1979 was an exceptional year—the country loses more days through industrial injury than through industrial disputes. The figures are not complete. However, in 1976, 3 million days were lost through industrial disputes, but 15 million were lost through industrial injury. In 1977, the respective figures were 10 million and 15·7 million. In 1979, the position was different, when the massive number of 29 million days were lost through industrial disputes, with only 13 million through industrial injury.
However, in succeeding years—assuming that the level of working days lost through industrial injury is fairly constant, which it appears to be—in 1980, 11 million days were lost through dispute and in 1981 4 million days. Many more days have been lost through industrial injury than through strike action. Why have not the Government introduced tighter legislation to deal with the number of days lost through industrial injury? They have been slow to introduce legislation in certain areas.
If health and safety at work is so important, why does the legislation not apply to royal places, including the Palace of Westminster? When we debate the Civil List, those who resent any scrutiny or criticism of it claim that a great deal of that money is paid to employees. I agree. Therefore, a great number of employees in the palaces should be covered by the legislation.
Everything in the House appears straightforward on the surface, but open the oak panels and we find a huge network of pipes, boilers and central heating systems. Thousands of people are employed in the House who are not covered by the health and safety legislation. It would be simple to ensure that they were. In general, I am sure that the standards laid down by the health and safety legislation are applied. I am not claiming that there are

1067
great gaps. But if legislation is applied generally and, so say its supporters, is satisfactory, there should be no exemptions.
Mr. Gorst: I seek information on the hon. Gentleman's point, which is of domestic interest. Even if the health and safety legislation does not apply to the Palace of Westminster, do we not have the protection of the Serjeant at Arms' Department as a constant factory inspectorate?
Mr. Cryer: That may be the case, but standards vary. I will not relate my personal experiences, but I believe it to be right and reasonable for the factory inspectorate to have the same duties in the Palace that it has elsewhere. I am sure that the Serjeant at Arms' Department carries out its duties—it may even turn to the factory inspectorate for advice—but, for example, the imposition of prohibition and improvement notices by the factory inspectorate could keep people on their toes.
I want to talk about the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety' Executive, which have received fulsome praise. I have always regarded the system as unnecessarily bureaucratic and cumbersome. The commission is equally balanced between employers and employees. No doubt everyone taking a consensus view will say that that is marvellous. In fact, it means that, because both sides have differing interests, many of the proposals being considered are stopped because a meaningful compromise cannot be achieved.
Legislation is urgently' needed in a number of areas. The first should cover the lifting of heavy weights. Existing legislation is absurd. It is ridiculous and untenable that an agricultural worker is allowed to lift up to 170 lbs, while a textile worker can lift up to only 120 lbs. There is nothing in the development of the human species to suggest that agricultural workers have an inbuilt ability to lift heavier weights than workers in other areas.
There has been delay in producing the necessary legislation because of the structure of the Health and Safety Commission. The executive has not pushed it hard enough. I have constantly raised the matter during the past seven years, and introduced two ten-minute Bills. In 1976 the chairman of the commission promised me that rules to guide inspectors would be introduced by December of that year. Consultation followed consultation, and year followed year—and we still do not have legislation more accurately to control the lifting of heavy weights. Existing legislation makes no differentiation between human beings because of age. Yet, by and large, as people become older their ability to lift heavy weights becomes less.
A good consultative document has been issued which points to the need for legislation. The position has been known for many years. The introduction to the document states:
"The number of accidents associated with manual lifting and handling has been a matter of concern to responsible bodies for a period of many years. There has been a dramatic increase in the past twenty' years of reported injuries from manual handling in premises subject to the Factories Act 1961 from 40,000 to more than 70,000 per year. Hence the necessity for a new approach to manual handling."
The document also contains draft regulations. Action should have been taken before now.
The Back Pain Association has produced figures to show that several million people suffer from back injury each year. Because they do not take time off work, theirs is not a notifiable injury.
1068
I promoted my two ten-minute Bills four years apart, but nothing was done during that time. I suggested that there should be an overall maximum limit of 112 lbs. It was a simple suggestion in anticipation of a more sophisticated approach, but nothing was done. It is all very well taking the cosy consensus view that everyone is getting on terribly well and that it is a decent area to occupy our time and attention. But people are going home with back injuries and, because of existing legislation, they cannot claim compensation. If they apply to a court, the judge will say that there has been no breach of statutory duty. Opportunities to obtain compensation are limited. Year after year hon. Members have said that something should be done.
In 1976, the Labour Government set up the Simpson committee, which spent three years examining the problems of working with asbestos. The committee's report landed on the desk of the new Conservative Government. They set to work to produce draconian legislation attacking the trade unions. They did not do anything about the 41 recommendations on asbestos. Yet people talk of health and safety at work being a consensus view.
People are suffering from the effects of asbestos. Had the Government been concerned, they would have taken action earlier. The Health and Safety Commission and Executive suddenly became frantic because Yorkshire Television producers showed a documentary called "Alice, Fight for Life". If that television documentary had been put on last week the House and the Press Gallery would have been full because, all of a sudden, health and safety at work became a matter of national importance.
The programme demonstrated the suffering caused to ordinary men and women as a consequence of going to work and doing a job. Alice made the point, "I just 'went to work. I did not expect this." She said that during her last dying days. Did the company which employed her pay her money as a result of her injury from asbestos? Not at all. It forced her to drag her weary and, as it turned out, dying body to court to get decent compensation of about £29,000 after it had offered her £13,000. We do not have the cosy arrangements that people sometimes imagine.
The documentary of course showed the worst aspects of such cases. However, we must always bear in mind the worst aspects. They are the penalties that are inflicted upon people who simply go to work and are injured because existing standards of health and safety are not good enough.
People talk about the cost of improvement. I believe that if health and safety at work standards are improved, the cost advantages are enormous. There are no injuries, so there are no disputes. The firm does not lose any time briefing lawyers or having people going round taking photographs. The standard of industrial relations is improved because workers see that care is being taken. The cost advantages in pure economic terms are enormous. The advantages in human terms are equally enormous because mutual trust is built between employer and employee.
The Government have been singularly lax in not doing anything about the 41 recommendations of the Simpson committee. They have not even put all the information about asbestos in one document, which was one of the recommendations, quite apart from the more sophisticated

1069
and complicated recommendations about sampling, one or two of which, it is true, the Government have been considering introducing.
I put down a question in December which asked
"the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the monitoring and evaluation carried out by the Advisory Committee on Toxic Substances of the Health and Safety Commission on research into establishing and monitoring control on asbestos."
The answer was given on 14 December. It said:
"Research into substitutes monitoring methods and exposure to asbestos in the non-occupational environment has been commissioned and will be evaluated as results become available.
The commission has asked Sir Richard Doll, an internationally recognised expert in epidemiology, to undertake a detailed review of all the medical evidence to date on the health effects of asbestos. In addition, it has asked the deputy director general of the Health and Safety Executive, Dr. Duncan, to bring together a group of medical experts to consider whether there have been any substantial changes to medical knowledge since the final report of the Advisory Committee on Asbestos. The results of these reviews will assist the commission in determining whether any new controls are necessary."—[Official Report, 14 December 1982; Vol. 34, c. 89.]
There has been a great deal of reviewing, reexamination and setting up of working parties as a result of the Yorkshire Television documentary. That is good. However, the Government should have taken more rapid action to carry out the 41 recommendations. Those recommendations are not regarded by the General and Municipal Workers Union as radical enough. It is not as if they are enormously sweeping. The recommendations are subject to criticism.
When that question was answered I received a letter pointing out that, in a book by Alan Dalton, Sir Richard Doll has been criticised because he produced some work which suggested that the occupational hazard of bronchial cancer had largely been eliminated from working with asbestos. The work was produced in 1968. The asbestos industry has made a great deal of use of that conclusion, but further evidence was produced that established a much higher incidence of asbestos disease at the factory upon which the evidence was based.
In 1977 The Sunday Times released the results of an updated study by Julian Peto of the 1968 work done in Professor Doll's laboratory. In brief, Peto's studies showed that the safe level, based on information from Turner Brothers' Rochdale factory, which claimed that only one in every 100 workers contracted asbestos-related diseases after a lifetime's exposure to two fibres per cc of air, may permit one in every 14 to get asbestos-related diseases.
Professor Doll replied at once in the Oxford Times of 4 February 1977:
"I do not think we have any justification for doubting the safe levels."
Once again, the asbestos industry quoted that comment to its advantage.
I hope that Professor Doll has developed a somewhat more critical faculty towards the effects of asbestos, in view of that history.
I want to deal with standards. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 requires that regulations must be designed to maintain or improve standards. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) and I had some interesting discussions in Committee. He introduced that requirement. I should like to think that it was as a
1070
result of my recommendations in Committee. The requirement is now enshrined in the legisaltion, but it is not contained in some of the statutory instruments that the Health and Safety Commission has recommended to the Government and the Government have introduced.
The requirements for the notification of accidents have been watered down. The requirement to notify an accident that has caused a person to lose three days work has been extended to a loss of five days. Now, apparently, a period of seven days loss of work is necessary before notification is required. The result of the new notification requirements will mean that about 300,000 accidents will disappear from the records. Accidents are notified so that remedial action can be taken if there is a particular incidence of some form of accident which could point to defective equipment or process. If the requirement to notify is reduced remedial action is less likely to be taken. The statutory requirement now permits a person to return to work. It no longer requires that a person should be excluded from working. Notification is no longer required if a person returns to work and is put on a lighter job. The incidence of accidents will not longer be noticed and information and action may be reduced.
The Government have increased the fees for medical examinations, not by a modest sum, but by 800 per cent. The regulations introduced by the Government were notified to the House in the 17th report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. It pointed out that there was an absolute obligation to maintain an employment medical advisory service, but by increasing the fees and allowing appointed doctors, not in the employment medical advisory service, to carry out examinations, there was a danger that the statutory obligation to maintain an employment medical advisory service would be eroded. Plainly, if private doctors could perform an examination at a lower fee than the massively increased fees provided for by the Government, it would swing examination away from the service.
The service has an obligation to advise the Minister of the trends in health and safety at work, but if it does not examine people it is hardly in a good position to do so. Indeed, the Government have currently introduced an instrument to impose fees for the inspection of equipment. Fees can be charged, but have not been charged so far. The Government now intend to impose them, thus placing health and safety at work on an increasingly commercial and self-financing basis, whereas we believe that people should be encouraged to use services such as the employment medical advisory service.
The Health and Safety Executive, the Government and the Health and Safety Commission have produced first aid recommendations but, as the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments pointed out, they were confusing because they blurred the distinction between statutory obligations and codes of practice. The whole purpose of the Robens report was to clarify and simplify the procedures, but the first aid regulations do the opposite and thus undermine the very purpose of the regulations. The Joint Committee took the view that the first aid regulations, like the highway code, should be debated by the House. The Government should have provided time for that. We should not have to depend on a private Member's motion, grateful though we are for the opportunity. The codes of practice and regulations should be debated because they affect so many people.
Finally, there should be a substantial increase in the number of inspectors who actually knock on the factory

1071
doors to check on safety. Those inspections are the basic means of enforcing the legislation and we need the maximum number of inspectors. An article in The Guardian on 14 February 1980 stated:
"Under the Health and Safety Executive systematic attempts have been made to transform the specialist inspectorates into a common inspectorate mould. This is regarded as utterly inappropriate by the experienced members of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate who see their effectiveness being destroyed through the enforced introduction of time-consuming non-specialist duties. Such losses now amount to almost 20 per cent."
Those staff losses have never been completely made up.
That is worrying, as I know that the Health and Safety Executive, through reorganisation and the production of general warrants for inspectors, has tried to make the inspectorate a generalised body and to erode the specialist areas. The Government should assure the House that they are not just maintaining but increasing the body of specialist inspectors such as the nuclear installations inspectors as well as the general body of inspectors who visit premises and represent the basic means of maintaining standards of health and safety at work.
Time does not allow me to include all the information I wish, but I have taken a great interest in this and I greatly appreciate the opportunity to debate these matters. I emphasise yet again that the legislative areas that need to be covered in this matter should have greater Government priority than attacks on the trade union movement.
10.54 am
Mr. Michael Grylls: My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Sir V. Goodhew) began by expressing the worthy objective of introducing a non-controversial debate. I am not sure that that hope has been realised, especially in view of the contribution of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). Nevertheless, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. This should be a subject of great interest to Members in all parts of the House and it is important that we should debate it today.
Sometimes we are inclined to view the health and safety scene purely through the eyes of Members of Parliament. We consider the need for a framework, and certainly the 1974 Act was a great advance in improving health and safety in industry generally. I think that everyone welcomed that legislation, and the progress that followed has been very important. Seen from the other side of the fence by certain sectors of industry, however, the matter presents a somewhat different aspect and some of the measures carried out in the name of health and safety may seem oppressive, to put it mildly. Nevertheless, I endorse my hon. Friend's view that the work of the Health and Safety Commission, of the Health and Safety Executive and of the inspectors generally has greatly improved health and safety at work, and Parliament as a whole should welcome that.
From the point of view of the small business man, however, things are not quite so simple. The method of operating the Act often causes some confusion, especially for those setting up new businesses. The person wishing to set up a business becomes confused and worried and, all too often, is put off starting a business at all by the sheer variety of inspectors entitled to visit his premises.
The other day I received details of a man in Somerset who started a business in a small rural workshop, repairing the bodies of cars damaged in accidents. The business developed well and after a short time he decided that he
1072
could take on his first employee. He therefore made inquiries about the possibility of taking on a young person under the youth employment scheme. After quite a long delay he was eventually visited by an inspector who said that that would be a very good development but that he would have to install another lavatory, another basin and all manner of other things as well as providing supervision for the youth employed. The list of things that the employer would have to do would have cost £600. He did not have £600 to spend in that way, so in the end he did not take on an employee and one more person was left on the unemployment register. We must therefore consider carefully the danger of imposing excessive burdens on those starting up in business.
I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend that there should be more self-regulation. The difference of emphasis between the two sides today was starkly drawn by the hon. Member for Keighley. The Opposition want more compulsory Government regulation while our preference is for more voluntary self-regulation. The hon. Member for Keighley hoped that there would be a more dynamic role for inspectors. He did not explain what he meant by that, but if it means their being more oppressive and more interfering in the businesses that they visit we should view that with alarm. We must guard against overzealousness by inspectors of all kinds—not just factory inspectors, but those dealing with fire regulations, shops and offices regulations and so on—to ensure that they do not restrict employment opportunities.
In contrast with the view of the hon. Member for Keighley, I believe that there is a case for bringing the various inspectors together so that employers do not have visits from one inspector one day and another the next, with the result that a business man who should be running his business and, one hopes, expanding it and providing more jobs spends too much lime dealing with bureaucracy.
There is an argument for sensible European harmonisation so that one country does not have an unfair advantage over another in the operation of a free market within the EC. However, there is a danger that some of the Brussels regulations will lead to a bidding up of standards throughout Europe. No doubt that concept will appeal to some Opposition Members, but if that bidding up takes place there will be fewer job opportunities throughout Western Europe. That would be a tragedy at a time of much unemployment.
A two-tier system of regulation has been quite common in the United States for some time. There is a need for tight inspection and tight regulations for large firms that are enaged in complicated processes of manufacture and employ many people, but that sort of regulation and inspection should not apply to smaller firms. Surely there should be a greater degree of exemption for smaller firms. We made some progress about three years ago when some of the unfair dismissal provisions of the Employment Protection Act 1975 were changed to help smaller firms. We have made a small start and we should further exempt smaller businesses from as many of these regulations as we can.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will say whether he thinks that there is a chance that the idea that I am putting forward will become part of the Government's policy. We have made a start by changing some of the unfair dismissal provisions in the 1975 Act and I believe that this approach should be extended to health and safety provisions.

1073
I know that this approach will lead to emotional cries. There will be those who will say, "Are you really suggesting a less safe atmosphere for smaller firms to operate in when compared with that in which larger firms operate?" That is not my suggestion. I am merely saying that smaller firms should be subjected to rather less bureaucracy and fewer regulations. They will be just as safe as the larger firms if that is done.
Many of the inspectors' visits to smaller firms are not to investigate the real dangers of asbestosis and pneumoconiosis, for example, to which reference has been made. By and large, these dangers do not apply to smaller businesses. The inspections that are carried out of the premises of smaller firms are generally fiddling, bureaucratic and unnecessary. I have received letters from firms throughout the country in which complaints have been made about the petty nature of the inspections. Everyone realises that there is a need to guard machine tools, for example, but so often the owners of smaller businesses find that the petty regulations amount to an onerous burden.
Mr. Harold Walker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that exactly the same sort of criticism and complaint was voiced after the passing of Lord Shaftesbury's Act in 1813?
Mr. Grylls: That comment was unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman. If he has no better contribution to make than that, I am sorry that I gave way. I am trying genuinely to help smaller firms. The hon. Member for Keighley will know from his ministerial experience in the Department of Industry that it is the smaller firms that will provide the employment that is needed. If we do not act to remove some of the burdens that they face, they will not provide the jobs that we desire.
Mr. Cryer: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not saying that smaller firms should have a standard of safety that is inferior to that maintained in larger firms. I hope that he will accept that smaller firms want to have a decent standard of safety comparable with that of any other firm.
Mr. Grylls: I was not arguing that there should be different standards of safety. I am suggesting that exemptions could be made for smaller firms and that bureaucracy could be reduced. Such an approach is accepted in the United States. Similarly, it has been accepted by some of our European neighbours. As I have said, Parliament accepted this approach three years ago in respect of the unfair dismissal provisions in the 1975 Act.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will tell us whether he has any intention of appointing a smaller firm representative to the Health and Safety Commission. Generally, the TUC and CBI representatives come from larger firms. It would be a good step forward to ensure that representatives of smaller firms are involved more closely in the work of the commission and the executive. Those representatives would be familiar with the problems that smaller firms have to face. I suggest that my hon. Friend with ministerial responsibility for small businesses in the Department of Industry should undertake an urgent review of all the health and safety regulations to ascertain which ones could be exempted for smaller
1074
businesses. Obviously there are many that must be retained, but exemptions could be made and many of the visits of inspectors could be stopped.
Mr. Ronald W. Brown rose—
Mr. Grylls: No, I shall not give way. This will be a comparatively short debate and I know that others wish to contribute to it.
We should adopt a different approach to the smaller firms and free them of some of the burdens and obstacles that they now face. If we mean what we say about our desire to solve unemployment and to create new jobs, we must remove some of the obstacles that face smaller firms and allow them to create jobs.
11.7 am
Mr. Greville Janner: I thank the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir V. Goodhew) for giving the House the opportunity to debate health and safety at work. I thought that the debate would be largely noncontroversial. Perhaps it was until the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) made his contribution. The hon. Gentleman took the debate into the realms of fantasy.
The idea that a small firm should be freer than a large one to create hazards for its own employees or for anyone else is extraordinary, wrong, and disgraceful. It is an idea that was, I think, never suggested even in the days when the Health and Safety at Work etc. Bill of 1974 was being discussed in the House.
I have never understood why it should be more right for a small firm to create dangers than for a large firm to do so. I cannot understand why the courts should regard it as less heinous to kill at work than to kill on the roads. I do not understand why magistrates and judges see fit to impose comparatively minor penalties for those who kill at work while sending to prison some of those who recklessly or drunkenly kill on the roads.
Someone who kills another human being or who maims him, or who causes disaster to his family through causing a hazard on the roads, is treated by the courts with severity. But when someone does the same on industrial premises the magistrates and the courts, far too frequently, pass the incident off with a lightness of sentencing that is shocking. If that were to change we would do far more to tighten industrial safety rules than by introducing further legislation or regulations.
When Lord Elwyn-Jones was Lord Chancellor he took the opportunity of addressing the Magistrates' Association at its annual dinner and deplored the ridiculously low penalties that were too often imposed on those in breach of industrial safety statute and regulations. I am sorry that the magistrates have apparently been struck by a form of occupational deafness on this issue. The hon. Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) referred to the occupational deafness that strikes some in political life. There seems to be a similar deafness in the courts when they deal with health and safety issues. Occupational malnutrition is not one of the maladies from which we suffer in politics. We are trying constantly to bring attention to the need for effort in large and small firms throughout this tremendously important area of health and safety.
I shall highlight one or two areas of concern which I thought were universally accepted. A number of us have the privilege of being members of the Select Committee

1075
on Employment and of the all-party industrial safety group. We are trying all the time to direct attention to the need for greater safety.
Our efforts are not always helped by the Health and Safety Commission or Executive. I pay tribute to the individual officers and members of the commission and the executive for their work, and I should like them to treat any criticisms as constructive. On the Select Committee on Employment we have listened to evidence on what is happening concerning health and safety 10 years after the Robens report. I think that all of us, irrespective of party, were depressed by the apparent lack of flair in the efforts of the commission to draw attention to the need for greater safety in industry. The Select Committee's report during the last Session showed that with supreme clarity.
That campaigning cavalier of the safety world, James Tye, was recently ejected in the most extraordinary way from the Albert hall, from a meeting of the Institute of Directors, as an undesirable person, because he had been drawing attention with his usual great impact and flair to the inherent fire dangers in that building. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) may care to note that, according to a letter to me from the Home Secretary, the Albert hall is exempt from many of the provisions that usually apply to places of public entertainment.
Whether it is a place of public entertainment or of public debate, or a place where we or other people work, safety standards must be applied. They must be applied in times of recession as in times of prosperity, and they must apply to small as well as large firms.
The Select Committee has heard evidence in public in the subject of asbestosis. The attack has been made not only on large companies and local authorities, but especially on the small-time fly-by-night cowboys who carry out at low prices works which are inherently dangerous and who then disappear into the limbo of insolvency or into the darkness which is imposed upon them when the authorities catch up with them.
Too many small firms have lower safety standards than larger ones. Those of us who spend time moving around in industry cannot exempt the small firms in any way from their duties. Safety responsibilties must apply to all.
In the large firms it is the unions which have been pressing for the legislation and for regulations. It was the trade union movement which pressed and almost forced the Conservative Government in 1974, 1975 and 1976 to introduce regulations concerning safety representatives. In many areas those regulations have proved very successful.
The hon. Member for Beeston mentioned the coal mining industry. I was waiting for him to pay tribute to the National Union of Mineworkers, which is frequently attacked on many issues, but has an especially fine record in safety matters. It acts not only in the interests of its members but on behalf of all those who go into the pits. It is to no small extent due to that union's pressure that the record of safety in United Kingdom mines is as good as it is. The safety record in our industry would be very much better if we could get all unions to apply the same safety standards as are applied by the NUM. I deplore the constant attacks upon the mineworkers. Credit is never given to the union where it is due, and it is especially due in the area of safety.
We have to convince people everywhere that safety is in their interests. The hon. Member for Beeston said that when he visits a workplace he is given a safety hat to wear and that it was not like that in the old days. Of course it
1076
was. A Minister or a Member of Parliament is always given a safety hat. The firms concerned know when we are coming and most of them dress up accordingly. It is when we are not there that the safety problems usually arise. I was told recently on one building site, "Our boys put on their safety hats only when it starts raining." People have to be convinced that it is in their own interests to wear safety hats.
The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Selwyn Gummer): Is the hon. and learned Gentleman really suggesting that there has been no improvement in the wearing of safety hats and that they are worn only when Ministers or Members of Parliament are present? Surely he will recognise that there is a need to acknowledge that major improvements have taken place and that it does not help to make lighthearted attacks of this sort on industry. Those who are concerned with health and safety should be given encouragement for what they have already done, and in this area a great deal has been done.
Mr. Janner: The Minister, in his usual fashion, has either not listened to my speech or chosen to ignore selected parts of it. If he had listened to my speech, he would have known that I had praised the mineworkers and others in that industry for what has been done. I am not at all lighthearted about safety.
I regard the absence of safety protection as a matter for which the Minister himself bears a very great responsibility, for in this time of recession he has not provided the money that the inspectorate needs. He has not provided the inspectorate with the people it needs Nor has he provided me with some answers for which I have frequently asked. He has said, for instance, that it Is too expensive to tell me how many individuals have been prosecuted under the Act. He has told me that the cost of doing so would be disproportionate. It was this Minister who declined to reply to that question. It is his responsibility and it is not for him to make that kind of criticism. It shows his ignorance as well as his indifference.
Has the Minister ever been on a building site? If he were to go on to a site without informing anyone of his identity he would be unlikely to find anyone other than the safety officers wearing safety hats. I wish that people would wear them, but they do not because on the whole they are not satisfied that it is necessary to do so.
In the United States, steel erectors are required to wear and do wear safety harnesses. I should be extremely surprised if the Minister were to find steel erectors wearing safety harness in Britain, unless the Minister's visit had been announced in advance, in which case the red carpet would be rolled out.
If the Minister were to go into a factory where there was a sign about the wearing of ear muffs, he would be very unlikely to find all the workers wearing them. If no sign was displayed, the firm would then be criticised for not even trying to comply with the regulations.
Safety is a very complicated and complex subject and the Minister's attack on those of us who have heen dealing with the subject for a long time is most unjustified. Safety is one of the most crucial matters at a time of recession. People are now saying within their factories, works and firms, large and small, "These are times of survival. We have to lower our sights from the high levels of safety that we should like to apply, because we have to keep our

1077
business going." There is an element of truth in what they say. On the other hand, if a person is killed or maimed, it is no excuse to contend, however honestly, that the business had to be kept going. The inspectors are working very hard to maintain a sensible balance and they need the support of the Government and the courts.
When I asked the Minister for particulars of the number of prosecutions, his reply was:
"Prosecutions of companies cannot be distinguished from those of individuals without disproportionate cost."—[Official Report, 7 March 1983; Vol. 38, c. 324.]
In other words, the Government are not prepared to spend the money to break down the figures to find out how many individuals are being prosecuted under the Act.
It is for each manager, each director and each company secretary to bear personal responsibilty for hazards caused with his consent or connivance, or as a result of his neglect. We do not know what is happening in that area, because the Government consider that it is too expensive to try to find out.
Some of us know that there are occasional prosecutions of individuals, but not many. It is easier to go for the company, whereas many prosecutions should be against the individual directors who are or should be responsible for avoiding hazards in their firms, large or small. It is they who are responsible for the expenditure of money and for ensuring that the employees have sufficient safety appliances. When there is a culpable death in industry, the case should be brought against those who are directly responsible, however junior or senior. It is just as serious as a death on the road. It is just as serious in a small firm as in a large one.
The statistics provided by the Department show that there is a massive conviction rate, ranging from 86 to 88 per cent. Quite rightly, the burden of proof is placed on the defendant to show that he took such steps as were reasonably practicable to avoid the accident. Perhaps the Minister does not know that the inspectorate rarely has not the time to prosecute because it is such a long process. In any case, who will take much notice of prosecutions? Fines tend to be petty, and too few magistrates listened to Lord Elwyn-Jones. Safety infringements are treated as of minor importance and it is now even suggested that "petty regulations" should be removed from smaller businesses.
Health and safety prosecutions are crucial. Prohibition and improvement notices, and prosecutions have their part to play. And we should be doing all in our power to stress the need for the House and all those concerned with industry to spotlight the dreadful toll of unnecessary suffering caused by hazards at work.
I thank the hon. Member for St. Albans and I am glad that we are on largely common ground.
Mr. Grylls: We all share the hon. and learned Gentleman's view that workers on building sites should wear safety hats, but does he favour the United States practice, whereby workers in hazardous industries who do not wear safety equipment can be sacked?
Mr. Janner: That applies here. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not know that a person who is dismissed for refusing to comply with safty standards may, if he never wants another job—because that will be a likely consequence of his taking action—bring a claim for unfair dismissal. There have been many such claims, but I can
1078
recall none in which dismissal on genuine safety grounds has been held to be unfair. We have that United States provision, albeit by an indirect route.
Of course, small firms do not have to worry about unfair dismissal claims for the first two years in which someone works for them, because they can unfairly dismiss anyone in that time. That is another example of the selective lunacy introduced into employment legislation by the Government.
Section 7 of the Act places a criminal liability on the individual employee. The individual employee is as liable to prosecution as is the individual director. We have a responsibility for each other.
Health and safety are the only areas of industrial relations where the interests of managers and men, of employers and employees and union members and nonunion workers are the same. I am sorry that notes of dissension have been introduced into what I had hoped would be a united effort by the House to lean on industry to do what is right in hard times.
11.22 am
Mr. John Gorst: I shall not take up the more controversial parts of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), because there is much common ground between us.
I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir V. Goodhew), to the evident success of the co-operation between management and unions on the HSC and to the skill and authority of the reports of the HSE.
I also pay tribute to the sincerity and devotion of Bill Simpson, the chairman of the commission, who finishes his term of office this year. We ought to pay tribute to the concern and responsibility that he has shown during the years that he has held that office. I shall offer a word of criticism later, but I pay that tribute sincerely.
The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West said that we needed vigilance and the straitjacket of severe penalties to get proper performance in health and safety matters. The hon. Members for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) insisted that more inspectors were necessary.
Without diminishing the importance of the courts or the effectiveness of inspectors, I suggest that there is a third element. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West touched on the importance of public vigilance. If the HSC and the HSE showed more flair in promoting the cause of health and safety, the public would be much more aware of the dangers and, through public opinion, would impose a discipline on employers, which I think would please my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls), because the nitpicking of which he complained would not be necessary. The public would do the job.
I agree with the motion, but I regret that it relates only to health and safety at work. I wish that it dealt with health and safety at work, at home and everywhere else. It is part of the tradition of reforms in this country that we do things step by step, rather than making wholesale changes. Perhaps we should start pressing for the legislation that was passed only for those at work to be extended to the home and to leisure activities.
The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch told us about a constituent who was hit by a piece of falling

1079
scaffolding. She was not at work, but she is as entitled to protection as are those who were at work and were creating the danger.
Some speeches have been slightly controversial and I follow that lead by saying that there is an obligation on those who are not at work because they have withdrawn their labour to be concerned about the health and safety of the public. That applies particularly to workers in essential services. I see a need to extend legislation for those who need to be protected at work, but I also see a need to protect those of us who might be put at risk because people are irresponsibly, selfishly or greedily holding the community to ransom. That is the main point of my speech.
The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West did not refer to all the recommendations of the Select Committee, which stressed the need for more work to be done on occupational diseases. My hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) and the hon. Member for Keighley took up that call. The Select Committee is still examining the dangers of asbestos, so I shall make no comment on that, but other substances also present dangers.
The Health and Safety Executive told the Select Committee in reply to our recommendations that it was examining the matter. Far more urgency is required than the executive's answer implies.
The Select Committee was also interested in section 6 of the Act which imposes general duties on manufacturers, designers, importers and suppliers of articles and substances for use at work to ensure that such articles or substances are safe and without risk to health. We have recently been examining the position of people who work at home. I believe that the time has come for more urgent steps to be taken to ensure that at least the substances and machinery which are supplied to people who work at home should conform to the strictest standards of safety. Whether this is done through the health and safety at work legislation or whether it is done under the legislation which I hope will be enacted, which will take no account of where people are because they are entitled to the same protection in terms of safety, is immaterial to me. What matters is that action should be taken without delay. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment will also have something to say about that when he comes to reply.
I should like to make one last suggestion for improvement to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. When in due course a successor to Mr. Bill Simpson is sought, I hope that two considerations will be taken into account—first, that he will not simply be chosen on the basis of Buggins' turn and, secondly, as a trade unionist has occupied the chair until now, that he is an industrialist.
Mr. Greville Janner: Mr. MacGregor.
Mr. Gorst: I leave aside the flippancy of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) who suggests that a man who is destined for the coal industry should now be redirected. I hope that the qualities rather than the background of the individual will be the decisive factor.
The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West and I will be at one when I suggest that Mr. Simpson's successor should have a flair for communicating with ordinary men and women and not just be able to write
1080
highly authoritative docu Tie'nts and advice to selected groups, which appears to be the main fault in terms of communication of the present Health and Safety Commission. Whether the man chosen has great experience in communication and information, perhaps from within the Government machine, or whether he comes from industry or from a trade union background does not matter. What matters is that he should have a flair for alerting the public through whatever means are necessary to the importance of health and safety.
11.34 am
Mr. Norman Miscampbell: I join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir V. Goodhew) on allowing us an opportunity to debate this important matter. It is perhaps more important than many issues which cause excitement and interest both inside and outside the House. After all, between today and this day next year, hundreds of thousands of people at work will be injured or in some cases killed.
One of the most interesting aspects of the subject is the different perceptions people have about the risks they run. There seems to be an almost popular selection of the variety of risks which occur in life. If 100 people die in an air crash, it justifies headlines in every newspaper in the country. That number is fewer than the carnage which occurs in any week on our roads. People also appear to make a judgment about the quality of risk. Perhaps the clearest example was Ronan Point, a tower block which was found to be unsafe. Following that disaster, the regulations for building tower blocks were completely changed. It has been roughly calculated that that has cost, in terms of savings in life in future, about £20 million a life. It had to be done but all of us could think of more cost-effective ways to save life.
We should also remember that no activity in industry is free from risk. When 28 people were killed at Flixborough there were startling reports in the press. Vivid reports by the BBC described it as catastrophic—as indeed it was—and went on to say that that was the price of nylon. One has only to think of what the price of cotton or the price of wool has been in the past to realise how exaggerated certain reporting can be.
The importance of the debate has already been highlighted by the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans. About 500 people will die over the next year and 300,000 people or more will in some way be affected or injured at work. It is true that since the introduction of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 there has been a steady improvement but there is a long way to go. In certain instances we do not compare favourably with the best of practices in America or on the continent. We have a long way to go down a long road. The House recognises that steps must be taken to ensure that we make steady improvements. At the end of the clay this is a matter not only of cost to the Treasury, although that may run into hundreds of millions of pounds, but of the tragic loss and suffering which come into people's lives.
What should we do? There is good news coming from those who take active steps to try to implement the safety regulations. Matthew Hall Engineering, which has had some publicity, has made a special point of ensuring that safety regulations are implemented. It has ensured that in times of financial difficulty there was no squeeze on

1081
expenditure in that direction. Although the firm kept up its expenditure and efforts, it found on the whole that this policy proved no drain on resources. Indeed, it led to extra profitability. Because this positive approach is taking place in an area where there is great scope for savings if safety regulations are properly applied, no direct calculation can be made of the cost of industrial injuries. It is undoubtedly true that it is greatly in excess of those caused by industrial disputes.
The best calculation that can be made is that between 0·5; and 0·9 per cent. of gross national product—a substantial sum—is in jeopardy every year. When a positive approach is taken Matthew Hall Engineering and others who follow the same route find immediate and direct savings. There will be savings because of confidence among insurers; there are savings because fire or destruction by accident does not require re-scheduling or working overtime; there are savings on administrative costs; and above all such a firm gets good publicity because it is known to be taking such a course.
I wish to make two positive points, one of which arises directly out of the matter touched upon by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). The good work being done by the executive is known. Nonetheless, there is the whole problem of Crown immunity. The Crown may not sue the Crown. It is not as though this is a negligible matter. Direct prosecutions cannot be taken against employers of up to 1·5 million workers. They are missing the full protection that prosecution acutally gives simply because of the hallowed principle that the Crown cannot sue the Crown. It is really a kind of monarchical anachronism. We should find ways of getting over this legal difficulty.
Although the Health and Safety Executive has strong powers to enforce its will on private companies, on nationalised industries, on local authorities and elsewhere, it cannot do so—this is a matter on which the hon. Member for Keighley touched—in many areas in which the Government are the employer. An example is area health authorities. While the executive can bring a matter to the notice of those authorities, investigate them and make recommendations, it has no powers of compulsion. It cannot enforce. It can only advise.
I have already remarked that the numbers involved are not negligible. There are nearly 1 million people employed in the health services. Another 700,000 are employed as civil servants in Whitehall, in prisons or in Customs and Excise. Porton Down, military workshops and ship repair yards are all examples of places where there can be recommendations and encouragement but where there cannot be enforcement by the executive. Steps should be taken to change that position.
It is difficult to give clear examples, but one which has been reported shows the depth of the problem. I take the example of hospitals and give round figures for 1980. In that year the executive issued about 1,500 notices against private industry, but only 40 against Crown premises. It issued only 40 because it was unable to enforce its will. It could only try to persuade.
I should like to show, on the basis of available figures, how easy it is for the Crown to slip through the net. Of the 1,660 hospitals visited in 1980, 67 per cent. were found to have food handling areas which were below the standard set out in the food and hygiene general regulations. That
1082
is bad enough. However, 13 per cent. warranted prosecution but were not prosecuted because of Crown privilege. If that 13 per cent. had been prosecuted, it would have meant the issue of nearly 200 notices against the Crown in that sphere alone, as compared with 40 actually issued over the whole area.
It is time to examine the whole question of Crown privilege. I see no reason why we cannot find some way around this anachronistic difficulty. It may be necessary to allow prosecutions only with certification by certain authorities. One can think of many ways of getting round the problem. If the will exists, there is no difficulty in getting round what is after all a legalistic anachronism. The Government should take positive steps to introduce legislation to allow the nominal Crown to stand in exactly the same position as the private employer.
I should like to raise one point that follows upon some of the matters already mentioned. It does not immediately arise out of the regulations governing health and safety but it does follow their breach. There has been discussion about settling compensation for industrial injuries. It has been argued that there is a variety of ways, through insurance or through the existing methods, which have met some criticism today. I do not wish to enter into that controversy. I shall say no more than that the present system is arguably no worse than any other system. That is a view held right across the political spectrum. Trade union leaders would agree. Some others would not. Whatever system is used, some finality has to be reached in court cases after which a lump sum is paid. That may be all—even though large sums are involved—that can be done. If the recipient is foolish enough to spend all the money immediately, that is his look-out. There is not much that can be done about it.
There is, however, a small group—for instance, the paraplegics—who attract the highest compensation and who will require constant nursing for the rest of their lives. With modern medicine, that life may be prolonged. Looking back over what has happened in those cases over the last 10 or 15 years, one cannot help having a queasy feeling that we have not done very well by those people. It is not that the compansation at the time did not seem adequate. When, 10, 12 or 13 years ago, awards of £40,000 and £50,000 were made, it enabled people to do up their bungalows. Unless, however, they have been lucky—the stock exchange has not been a happy hunting ground for beating inflation over the last 20 years—they will now be extremely lucky if they still have £35,000, with constant nursing care still required.
Of course, the courts now recognise inflation. In the early 1970s what was going to happen was not foreseen. The figures today for that kind of injury would be £250,000 to £300,000. What faith can exist, even with the best advice available to people, who are prepared to take it, that, over coming years, they will be able to use money to provide themselves with the protection that I believe should be theirs? I hope that some consideration can be given, in the limited number of cases where vast damages are given and where there will be a nursing requirement for the rest of the injured person's life, to the incorporation in the lump sum of periodical, perhaps monthly, payments thereafter that reflect the inflation that is likely to obtain for the foreseeable future.
It would require us, as a nation, to make a positive attempt to help people in that position. This could be done in two ways. It could be open to the court to allocate a

1083
certain amount—not all, but perhaps a substantial proportion—of the compensation awarded to a fund that might have the tax advantages of the self-employed and pension funds. It could be used for investment in equities. It could be used so that there were no capital gains implications. Insurance companies could be allowed to do something to mitigate the growing danger of inflation. It should not be difficult, in my view, to add a tiny fraction to the insurance stamp to enable the State, on occasion, to top up such a fund, so ensuring that those few who are terribly injured at work receive at least minimum protection, even though inflation may continue.
After all, even inflation in single figures means that only between seven and 10 years pass before the value of the pound halves. I do not think many of us can hope that we can manage to drive inflation so far out of the economy that it takes 10, 12 or 13 years to halve its value. In those circumstances there are two areas that we can look at. One is the severely handicapped people who need constant attention. We must see whether there is anything that the courts can be given to help them to solve the problem that we all have to face and which we find almost insoluble. Secondly, and more important because it affects 1½ million people, the sooner we set about getting rid of Crown privilege and the argument that the Crown cannot sue the Crown the better for the 1½ million people employed by the Crown.
11.51 am
Sir Peter Mills: I welcome the oppportunity to support my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir V. Goodhew) on this important subject of health and safety at work. I like the point that he makes in his motion about the need to maintain the improvements. There is no question but that there has been real improvement in many areas over the past 10 years. However, it is necessary to maintain that improvement. It is no good resting on our achievements. It is easy to be complacent. Much has been done, but I think that much has still to be done.
I also like the point that my hon. Friend made about home safety. Damage to people's capability to work can take place at home as much as in the factory. I understand that there are a considerable number of accidents in homes, in fact, probably more than in most other places. Therefore, that has to be watched by the Health and Safety Commission as well.
My interest is in agriculture and farm safety. There are still great risks in British agriculture. We have the problem of weather. A factory is usually able to cope with weather, but if one is out on a tractor, trying to do one's work on the land and the ground is slippery when there has been heavy rain overnight or frost, there are considerable dangers. Today we have large open fields. A man may be literally miles from anywhere, so that it is difficult for him to alert someone to the fact that he is trapped in the cab or part of the machinery. That means that there is great delay before something can be done to help him.
When I was actively farming some years ago I went through a narrow gateway on a tractor when the path was icy. I was taking out hay on a trailer to the stock that was outwintered. I started to slide. Once one starts to slide sideways on a tractor there is little that one can do about it. However, fortunately, the good Lord looked after me. When I slid I was caught on another gate post. I was overhanging a ditch, with the front wheel and the back
1084
wheel on one side. It look me a considerable time delicately to get off the tractor without the whole thing turning over. Had it done so I might not have been here. Just think of that. That shows how quickly in agriculture the scene can change from one of complete safety to real danger. Therefore, there is a big difference between a factory and working indoors and farmworkers and farmers working outside. The risks are great.
Much has been done in the past to improve safety in agriculture and food production. I am always proud that I took part in bringing to the House the subject of tractor safety cabs and roll-over bars. Awful accidents happened with a tractor, particularly before there was a safety cab or roll-over bars.
Many years ago I went back to a little place called Daccombe where I started farming and watched a man coming down a steep hill in an old Fordson tractor that was completely out of control. He had no hope of saving himself. If he had tried to jump off he would have been trapped. He was killed. Ever since that day about 30 years ago I have been determined to ensure that there are rollover bars or a safety cab and, fortunately, they have now been introduced.
Terrible accidents happened through power take-off shafts. I do not know whether the House knows what am talking about. Many modem implements are worked from the tractor with a lethal power take-off shaft which whirls round at tremendous speed. If it is not protected, as it should be, one's jacket and hair are caught up in it and one is wound round and round until one is battered to death. That has happened many times. Fortunately, we have made big advances, in that there must be protection around the shaft, but the problem is that farmers and farm workers can be complacent and do not ensure that the safety equipment is there. That is illegal. If something happens, and it can be proved, they are prosecuted.
Much has been done, but much more needs to be done. We have complicated machinery. It has to be handled with great care. One cannot take a chance if one is driving a powerful combine or tractor. Fortunately, the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers and the National Farmers Union co-operate well with each other on those matters, and with the Health and Safety Commission. That is right and proper. However, we must be constantly on our guard to see that there is no complacency. We should ensure that safety measures are brought in with the new machinery that is developing all the time in British agriculture.
I have a long list of the new dangers in food production and agriculture. One of the most harrowing problems at present is to deal with what we call slurry pits. A slurry pit is an essential part of any modern dairy set-up. From a cow one obtains enormous amounts of manure every day. It is called slurry, because when it is mixed with water it becomes slurry. One usually squeezes it with a great big brush into a slurry pit. There it collects until it dries out and one can take it into the fields.
The problem is that while a man is careful and ensures that he does not fall into the slurry pit, a child does not see the danger. We have had the most terrible instances in the south-west of England recently when children have fallen into a slurry pit. It is not like falling into a swimming pool. It is difficult to get out. There must be far better fencing and warnings around slurry pits to ensure that children do not fall in.

1085
I shall tell a farmer's joke about a slurry pit. It is the story of the farmer who was cross with his farm worker because he was wasting time trying to fish his jacket out of the slurry pit. My hon. Friends the Whips might like to listen to this joke, as it might cheer them up. The farmer ticked the farm worker off for wasting time, who said, "Master, I am worried, not about the jacket, but about the pastie for my lunch that is in the pocket." That is enough about slurry pits.
There is also a need for care with regard to the health of farm workers. Many problems still exist. For example, there is dust from hay which leads to a rather unpleasant disease called farmer's lung. I understand that it is similar to the problems that mineworkers suffer when coal dust gets into their lungs. Farmer's lung can do a great deal of damage. It is helpful to wear some form of mask, but it is not easy to get farmworkers to wear them. Nevertheless, it is important to have some form of protection when dealing with dusty and musty hay.
There is also the dreaded brucellosis. Fortunately, its incidence has receded as the number of infected cows is now much lower than it used to be. I am brucellosis positive because, unfortunately, when I was farming we had an outbreak of the disease. People who handle cows can catch that rather unpleasant disease. Although I do not suffer from it now, I know that it is a distressing disease which causes a rapidly rising temperature and a great deal of discomfort. Brucellosis should be watched closely.
There is also a problem with sprays. The farming world uses more and more of them and they are sophisticated and dangerous. One must be careful to ensure that farmers and farm workers protect themselves against such sprays, as they can cause a great deal of damage. Moreover, there is a problem with left-over chemicals and sprays. Whenever one uses sprays or chemicals on a farm, there is always some left over. Some of them are highly toxic and dangerous. One of the most dangerous is paraquat, which looks like lemonade. Unfortunately, the left-over spray is sometimes put into lemonade or ginger beer bottles and put on a shelf so that it can be used later either on the farm or for killing weeds in the garden. The danger is that children think that the contents of the lemonade, ginger beer or coca-cola bottles can be drunk. Paraquat is fatal and there is no cure for it. The victim's lungs seize up solid. That problem must be taken seriously. It is important that left-over sprays should not be kept in small bottles and stocked away. It is right that I should warn the House of that danger. I am sure that the commission is always on the alert for it
Another problem is that of driving tractors on steep and dry ground. One can be in trouble before one knows it. That is why it is important to encourage the use of four-wheel drive tractors with large tyres which grip the ground much better. I am looking for improvements in design in agricultural machinery, especially tractors, to ensure that they can grip the ground even in the adverse conditions that I have mentioned. I hope that the commission will also examine that.
It is important to take care with children. I started to drive tractors when I was about 10. The only way in which to learn on a farm is to do the job when one is quite young, but that creates major problems with the children of farmers and farm workers. They want to drive tractors and help out. On most farms there are spare tractors, and if one
1086
is pushed at hay making or harvest time there is a strong tendency to let the lad get in a tractor and do some of the work. We must be careful about that. While it is all right for a fully-trained man to operate some of the complicated tractors and machinery, they can be lethal for a child.
Moving trailers is also a problem. A considerable number of children are killed when a tractor or trailer with a big load is reversed and the driver does not know that the little one is in the yard or road. I hope that the farming world will not be complacent about that.
Dangerous litter must also be watched carefully. I have already mentioned the problem of spraying, but there are such things as old cars with petrol in them, tins and drums. I confess that, as a boy, I found them great fun. One put a little petrol in a 40 gallon drum, put a bung in it and set light to it. After a few minutes the whole thing went up in an enormous explosion. There is always a danger when children play with such litter, so much so that a few years ago I introduced a Bill which became an Act which made it illegal to leave dangerous litter around, especially cars and refrigerators, into which children tend to lock themselves when they are playing.
It may be thought that my long recital of problems is an exaggeration, but time after time and year after year people die from the causes that I have mentioned.
I hope that the commission will emphasise that care must be taken with the modern high loaders. When one is looking at the load that one is trying to lift, it is easy to forget that there are electric cables overhead. In the southwest, people have been electrocuted because a high load has touched overhead cables.
There is also a danger on roads in rural areas and moorland roads. Many people drive along such roads on their way to work. I wonder whether the House is aware of the quantity of stock, especially cattle, that is killed on moorland roads each year. It is not only the animals who are killed. Recently in my constituency a person was killed—strangely, his father died in exactly the same way—because a bullock or cow ran out into the road and hit his car. Roads must be fenced off because of the great danger not only to stock but to drivers.
I am very keen on rough shooting. However, the commission, the NFU and all concerned must turn their attention to the dangers of such shooting. I am a great believer in training young people to respect the sporting gun. They should be taught at an early age to obey the rules, such as breaking the gun while climbing over a fence. Adults as well as children must be careful, because when people become complacent accidents happen.
In agriculture today there are many modern drugs such as growth promoters and inhibitors, and there is a danger of young people getting hold of such drugs. I welcome the Ministry's decision to continue its campaign for farm medicines and drugs to be kept under lock and key. It applies also to the merchants who supply such drugs, and nothing but good can come from it. It may be upsetting for a farmer to lock up his drugs, or it may be difficult for him to visit a merchant who stores the drugs correctly, but in the long run it is essential.
The Forestry Commission and private foresters do a first-class job, but the forest can be a dangerous place. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) agrees with me. He has an interest in forestry, because he often takes children riding in forests. Children

1087
must always wear proper riding hats, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will comment on this later as he knows more about it.
Forests are also dangerous for workers. The most lethal weapon in forestry is the chain saw. Anyone who handles a chain saw knows how quickly it can inflict serious damage. Whenever I handle a chain saw, which is fairly frequently, I always say to myself "Only one mistake, Mills, and you have had it." One could lose a finger or even a foot. However, there have been great improvements in safety and we must continue to ensure that chain saws are in first-class order and have all the necessary protective equipment.
There are also dangers in getting timber out of forests, usually in difficult circumstances such as steep, wet slopes. Forestry workers should take no chances and must be on their guard at all times so that accidents do not happen, because a bulk of timber is very heavy and can kill.
I have been round the farming scene to talk about health and safety at work. The House should discuss such important matters, and the commission must always examine new ways of protecting farm workers and farmers. We should never be complacent, because, although the rural scene may appear pleasant, it can be a death trap, especially those modern, huge, smelly slurry pits.
12.15 pm
Mr. Harry Greenway: The House has enjoyed, as it always does, the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Sir P. Mills). He spoke of the hazards faced by farmers and farm workers. I recognise the danger of falling into a slurry pit because I saw it happen to a child. It is not only impossible for the child to get out, but rescue is unbelievably difficult—sometimes almost impossible—especially if the level of slurry is low. The child's hands become greasy and he cannot grasp the poles proffered by rescuers.
My hon. Friend spoke about the dangers of the forest, which have increased greatly in recent years. Forestry Commission workers cut trees in many different areas. Sometimes they must move quickly to another area, perhaps because they have been alerted to deal with a sudden danger there, and they cannot always erect notices at their new location saying that men are at work.
I had a ghastly experience a few months ago when I took some disabled children riding through a forest on Exmoor. We turned a corner and came upon a group of forestry workers felling trees. As we rounded the corner, one worker's saw was almost completely through a large tree and, as we reached the tree, it fell to the ground with a great crashing, crackling and banging—a cacophonic noise that was redoubled in the silence of the wood. The noise had a terrible effect on the ponies, who turned round three times and ran in all directions. I do not know how we avoided a serious accident. The experience was very frightening, and I urge the Forestry Commission to provide better warning notices, although it may not always be easy. On that occasion we were lucky that no one was hurt, but many children were frightened, which is unacceptable. Nor would it be a fair way out to ban riding on Forestry Commission land as a means of avoiding such incidents.
I agree with my hon. Friend about tractors being driven on steep ground. I have spent many years in country areas,
1088
although I have lived in London for many years, represent a London constituency, and have an affinity with London, and I know about the hazards of such tractors.
May I return to riders and their headgear. There have been some lethal accidents in recent weeks and months involving riders who have not worn headgear.
A distinguished soldier, Colonel Hartigan of the Life Guards, who was a fine horseman was killed in an accident a few months ago. When he fell from his horse, his hat came away from his head, his head impacted the ground and he died instantly.
Sir Peter Mills: Will my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) explain why horsemen continue to wear top hats which are not safety hats? The problem is that they quickly fall off and do not protect the skull. I think that that is what happened in the incident with Colonel Hartigan.
Mr. Greenway: I accept that point. Some horsemen wear top hats because of tradition and style. The House must recognise that we live in an age when people's safety is the most important factor. Style and appearance are important, but safety is more important. If Colonel Hartigan had been wearing the type of hard helmet that I was required to wear by the Army when I recently rode across a cross country course on an Army horse for charity—it was a most challenging course—perhaps his accident would not have been so serious. The Army now requires its troopers to wear hard helmets.
Lord Oaksey has said that in his racing days he saw headgear move from the soft to the helmet. He emerged from his career feeling that it was of great importance to protect the head of the rider because damage in that area is frequently lethal. I see riders wearing cloth caps, top hats and, sometimes, no hats at all. On many occasions, I have seen children and adult riders not wearing headgear and even riding without saddles along arterial roads while also leading skittish ponies or horses in head collars and not bridles. It places riders., motorists, and others at absurd risk.
I hold each member of the horse world in the highest esteem, but a more responsible attitude must be taken. It would be sad if this House made the wearing of hard hats compulsory, but if people do not take a more sensible attitude it could come to that. We are entitled to expect all riders to wear hard hats that properly protect the head. At the same time, riders are entitled to say that the hard hats presently available may not be satisfactory. More work needs to be done. One type of hard hat has been approved by the British Standards Institution that required, as part of its safety inspection, to have a 10 lb weight dropped upon it from a height of 15 or 20 ft. Visualise the effect of a 10 lb weight dropping from 15 or 20 ft on to a hat and compare it to the impact that occurs when a rider wearing such a hat falls on to a hard road, as can happen at full gallop. The two do not run together. Hon. Members must encourage those responsible to make available to riders more sensible recommendations for hats. Riders, especially children, will then be more willing to wear them.
The health and safety at work legislation applies also to schools. I remember the man who said he would never take a chance, stayed in bed and died of starvation. There is no doubt that school safety was often slack before the Act came into force, but it was not designed with schools

1089
in mind. Will the Minister ask his colleagues at the Department of Education and Science to look at that area? It is their responsibility.
In every school there are hazards to children, be it apparatus improperly hanging about or strewn about in a gymnasium, or badly hanging curtains in a laboratory, which prevent pupils from noticing vital points when conducting chemical experiments that may lead to explosions or other hazards. Wobbly steps in a playground are another hazard to children in schools about which people might not think. I know of many children who suffered appalling accidents through improperly constructed steps, steps that had not been properly maintained, or were muddy or had pieces of concrete missing in the middle and had become slippery. Those incidents were overlooked before the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 was applied to schools.
Schools are required to be aware of the need to examine every such hazard. Senior staff in schools must spend a lot of time dealing with that responsibility. I left the teaching profession in 1979, but while a member of it I found that health and safety took one day a week of my time. That time should have been spent teaching pupils to university examination standard or remedial standard—whichever I was required to do. I did it effectively. Teachers are losing the time that they need to do their important job. Some of the responsibility for health and safety should be taken away from them and placed elsewhere. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider that suggestion.
Most teachers feel open to all sorts of hazard. I foresaw teachers saying that they could not work in a certain room because of an obnoxious smell. Even had the window been opened, it might not have disappeared completely. Under the Act other accommodation must be found. If that is not possible, the children may be deprived of their lessons. However, the good sense of teachers has prevailed and the Act is operated sensibly. However, it costs a great deal in time.
My time in the debate is limited, as I know that the Front Bench spokesmen wish to speak. My final plea is on behalf of the industrialists in my constituency. There is more industry in the London borough of Ealing than in any other London borough. I constantly see safety measures being contemplated, required or enacted, but industrialists sometimes claim that local authorities are too demanding and too fussy. I tell them that they have to be so because people's lives are at stake. A compromise must be reached. People are not always as reasonable as they should be, and the House should be aware of that.
12.30 pm
Mr. Barry Jones: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), but I cannot gallop as ingeniously as he did through the issues.
I praise the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir V. Goodhew) for initiating this important debate. His speech used felicitous phrasing, was low key and good-humoured. I do not agree with all that he said, but the House is grateful to him.
This is my first opportunity to congratulate the Under-Secretary on his promotion to an important post in the Department of Employment. He has already brought a vigorous and honest advocacy to his work.
1090
The debate has lasted for some hours. The hon. Member for Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) brought a genuine whiff of the farmyard to our proceedings with his remarks about slurry. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) spoke about the furniture and construction industries. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) made a trenchant intervention about the Health and Safety Executive. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) spoke from considerable insight as a member of the Select Committee. I was interested in the speech by the hon. Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester). He brought ministerial insight to the debate and spoke with considerable sympathy about the mining industry. The speech by the hon. and learned Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) was thoughtful. He referred to Crown immunity, which caused the House to think hard about the issue. He used the interesting phrase "a monarchial anachronism", and any speech using such a phrase is worth consideration.
I wish to begin the main part of my speech with a reference to hazardous substances. Last autumn the Government introduced regulations for operation in the United Kingdom. They were fashioned in the wake of the horrendous explosion at Flixborough, when total demolition and the major loss of 28 lives stemmed from a chemical explosion of great magnitude. The hon. and learned Member for Blackpool, North touched on that point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), in Committee last year, mentioned the Chemstar factory explosion in Stalybridge in 1981, when one of his constituents was killed.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) described chillingly the terrifying consequences of a series of explosions that took place in September last year in his densely-populated constituency. As I said in Committee, the series of explosions at a haulage contractors' premises wrecked a number of flats in a high-rise block in the heart of Salford. A fine white powder was scattered down wind for five miles and approximately £1·5 million worth of damage was done. It seems that a 2,000-tonne cocktail of nasty chemicals caught fire. Sodium chlorate seems to have been the villain of the piece. Unsuspecting citizens were terrified out of their wits. That is an important example of what the debate is about.
The Health and Safety Commission directed its executive to investigate the fire and the explosions at the Salford haulier's warehouse. Has the investigation been completed? Has the executive reported to the commission? When will the commission publish the report? Are there criminal proceedings ahead? My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East is entitled to know what happened. He is an able advocate for his constituents. The Department owes it to him to reveal the latest position.
The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) has consistently voiced his fears in the House for the safety of constituents on Canvey Island. Some people say that the whole island is a chemical time bomb. Early last year, there was an inquiry into the British Gas methane terminal on the island. The inspector's critical report has been with the Government for some time. Many thousands of Canvey islanders are worried about their safety. Will the Minister tell the House the reasons for the delay in publishing the report?

1091
My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch), in the Committee to which I have referred, mentioned the fertiliser fire at Cliff quay. All these incidents took place within a matter of months.
My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) has expressed anxiety about the warehouse chemical fire that led to the contamination of the countryside around his constituency for many miles. The Government have now introduced the regulations on hazardous substances. We debated them in Committee last year. The main thrust of criticism levelled at the regulations is that, following Flixborough, the main anxiety has been directed towards major hazardous plants. The new regulations focus on preventing the large-scale catastrophies that could occur at major installations handling dangerous substances. However, there appear to be greater risks with smaller fires, explosions and other chemical incidents at small and medium-sized establishments, where the expertise to control the risks is often nonexistent. The new regulations may haul a catch of approximately 3,000 notifiable sites. In Committee, hon. Members claimed that the notifiable levels were too high and would not touch small and medium-sized chemical stores which, nevertheless, pose a significant public risk. That is what happened at Salford. The new regulations would not have caught the chemicals stored in the warehouse that created such havoc.
The Opposition's arguments go beyond reasoned criticism of the regulations. We say that public expenditure cuts imposed on the Department of Employment in general, and the Health and Safety Commission in particular, raise doubts about the inspections made to see whether the regulations are complied with. We all know that the factory inspectorate is under severe pressure and it may be unable effectively to police the 3,000 sites of potentially dangerous chemical stores, many of which are adjacent to public housing estates and public highways.
The Government have contrived substantial, injurious, fundamental and unjustifiable cuts in the budget and manpower of the Health and Safety Executive. Safety magazine reported last month:
"The chairman of the Health and Safety Commission, faced with acute staff shortages and a savagely cut budget, last month launched what virtually amounts to a rearguard action to preserve the organisation.
In one of the most overtly defiant reports yet produced by the HSC, chairman Bill Simpson warns that a decade of advances in health and safety could be put at risk because of the attitudes of government and industry during the economic recession."
Furthermore, I am informed by the Department of the Environment that in 1982 there were only 886 factory inspectors in post compared with 952 on 1 April 1979. We are entitled to conclude that the Government are complacently taking the view that as there is less industrial activity due to the recession fewer inspections are needed. The Health and Safety Executive employment medical advisory service employed 68 doctors on 1 April 1978, but the figure had slipped to 56 by 1 April last year.
There is new legislation on asbestos, new regulations about hazardous substances and new legislation about the transport of dangerous substances. Yet since 1979 the staff in post in the Health and Safety Commission has been cut by 13 per cent. to just over 3,700. Moreover, it seems that the Secretary of State for Employment has now asked the commission what would be the effect on staffing of cuts of 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. in 1984–85 and 1988–89.
1092
We are entitled to conclude that the commission faces a crisis. We fear that the factory inspectorate will be significantly and severely hampered in its work if the Government insist on further cuts. Inspection visits would have to be curtailed and it is likely that current inspection levels as well as implementation of new legislation would be impossible. The situation would be grave indeed. The major advance of the 1974 Act is being undermined and parts of the system are already creaking and crumbling at the edges.
The 1974 Act is one of the greatest social and economic advances for ordinary working people this century. That legislation was one of the prime achievements of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and especially of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) who piloted the detail of it through all its legislative stages in this House. The Act enshrined the importance of workers' participation. It instanced the state's intervention to protect workers and it ushered in, in a clear fashion, ministerial accountability in the area of health and safety. These three significant factors appeared in a great legislative measure. I am glad that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster who was able to pilot the Bill through its various stages.
The cuts that the Government are demanding across the board are impossible to accept. If risks are to he kept to acceptable limits, how can we, at the behest of Ministers, make percentage cuts in standards of safety in the nuclear energy industry and in other undertakings that present major hazards?
If the Health and Safety Commission fails adequately to honour its functions as outlined in the 1974 Act, would it not be vulnerable to legal suits from individuals who are injured through the commission's default? In 1974 my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster planned to boost the factory inspectorate to 1,144 members by April 1983. It has come to a pretty pass if the current Secretary of State is asking the commission for further cuts across the board. This is extremely serious.
The less visible aspects of the commission's work will be speedily affected if the cuts take place. The Health and Safety Executive is being forced to eat its seed corn. The new inspectors, who in future years would become chief inspectors, are not being recruited. The training programme is being disbanded and vital expertise is being lost. The frequency and effectiveness of executive visits to work places will be curtailed. New projects, such as those dealing with new regulations and codes of practice, will have to be achieved with much reduced staffing ratios. The 8 million or so new entrants under the Health and Safety at Work etc. 1974 will receive scant attention. Meanwhile, the demands coming from international commitments—for example, the Common Market and the International Labour Organisation—and the problems of new technology such as new toxic substances, nuclear power and genetic engineering have all to be coped with, not to mention the real problems in traditionally hazardous industries such as coal mining, agriculture, shipbuilding and construction.
The Opposition say that by cutting back on health and safety expenditure the Government are obstructing effective prevention. In 1980, 578 people died as a result of accidents at work and tens of thousands suffered ill health as a result of their occupation. It is estimated that industrial injury costs the nation about £2 billion annually. That is an estimate that I trust; its origin is the TUC.

1093
Compensation paid to accident victims nearly equals that £2 billion. The cost to the victims of accidents or loss of health can never be measured in currency terms.
The Opposition say that savings of a few million pounds in the staffing and research costs of the Health and Safety Executive would be shortsighted and wasteful in the context of industrial health and safety. This brings me to the issue of asbestos, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and by the hon. Member for Beeston in his informed speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley referred to the contribution of the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union and of the Transport and General Workers Union.
Few would now dispute that asbestos is the silent killer. It is a magic but tragic mineral. It is arguable that health hazards at work claim more deaths, suffering and disability than are claimed by safety hazards.
In October 1981, in a debate on the Floor of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster and I spoke in support of an amendment, on the subject of asbestos, which sought to ban imports of blue asbestos and to seek to move to a position where asbestos could be dispensed with. We were attacked and denounced for tabling such an amendment. Indeed, my speech, which I thought restrained and informed, was described as irresponsible by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith)—
Mr. Harold Walker: Who voted against it, with the Government.
Mr. Jones: I think that the stance we took on that occasion has been proved correct, for no one now, inside or outside the House, would argue against the awful, awesome and humilating details of "Alice, a Fight for Life", Yorkshire Television's block busting exposé of the terrible story of this magic, tragic mineral. That programme has clearly proved to be a watershed in the attitude throughout the country and, I hope, in the Department to this complex and terrifying substance.
David Gee, the health and safety research officer of the GMBATU, together with his national officer, Frank Earl, has campaigned vigorously for the men and women trapped into working with asbestos. In an article Mr. Gee asks:
"What do I say to our insulation workers who have suffered and died at a rate of up to 1 in 2 whilst putting asbestos into our community? That nobody really cares unless they manage to die all at once in a Flixborough-type holocaust?
It seems that the cruel lesson of history is that taming the silent occupational health killers is much more difficult than getting action on safety hazards.
The Minister might like to deal in his reply with a matter raised in the February issue of Safety magazine, which has the large headline
"The hatchet job HSE bosses did on asbestos law".
The gist of the story is:
"Top government safety officials have deliberately watered down draft regulations aimed at tightening controls over the highly dangerous asbestos removal industry against the advice of their own departmental specialists."
There is the rub. Have top Government safety officials gone against the advice of their own departmental specialists? According to this sober story in Safety magazine of February 1983, the proposals were watered down
1094
"in the face of strong opposition from both unions and employers in the asbestos insulation industry who supported the original tougher proposals."
I should like to hear from the Minister a rebuttal or confirmation of that rather worrying report from Safety.
It is sobering for those of us who are worried about the ill effects of asbestos to realise that if the substance were banned tomorrow society would still be left with the task of safely removing millions of tonnes of it from various buildings, including schools and perhaps even hospitals. That work would probably cost more than £1 billion and if it were not done safely more deaths would occur.
Mr. Ronald W. Brown: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about asbestos in schools. Four years ago, at Daneford school, which my children attend, a teacher who lives in my constituency said that she was suffering ill effects from asbestos. It was all denied and the poor girl had to take early retirement. The HSE now confirms that there was a danger, and it has done something about it.
Mr. Jones: I do not know the details of that case, but clearly the hon. Gentleman has followed it passionately and compassionately. I remember that some years ago the hon. Gentleman mentioned the dangers involved in removing some asbestos panels from the Palace of Westminster. He showed me some of the correspondence involved in that case, and another hon. Member pressed for the relevant legislation to be extended to cover this building.
I call in aid in my assertions about asbestos the CBI, which is not a political ally of the Opposition. The confederation recently issued an EC-wide press release on asbestos. It is urging the Government to press Brussels for early legislation on the use of asbestos. The press release says:
"The mood of workers, employers and the public is one of anger and dismay at the continued delay."
The general idea of the press release is to exert pressure on the Council of Ministers, and the CBI has also written to the Secretary of State for Employment. The CBI was dissatisfied with the Council of Ministers' meeting, because Ministers referred the matter back to their officials. The CBI wanted positive action to be taken and I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us about new moves by the Government. Urgent action is necessary.
A detailed review of the medical evidence relating to asbestos is to be undertaken by Sir Richard Doll of Green college, Oxford. What news can the Minister give us about the progress of that review? It would be helpful if the House could be told when the review will be completed.
I understand that the HSC is making urgent inquiries into the most recent developments in medical knowledge and the means of controlling exposure to asbestos, and that further action will be taken if the results of the inquiry show that to be necessary. As the commission launched its "urgent" inquiry in the autumn of last year, surely the Minister can give the House a report on it today.
The new employers' statutory sick pay responsibilities are having a serious and detrimental impact on the health and safety scene. After 6 April, industrial injury benefit will be abolished and replaced by an employers' statutory sick pay scheme. One consequence of the change will be that details of the vast majority of notifiable workplace accidents will no longer be able to be passed to the HSE by the DHSS, following a claim for benefit by an injured worker.

1095
As a result, the Health and Safety Executive expects to lose about 95 per cent. of the information on accidents that it currently uses to help it to identify problems, take enforcement action and compile statistics. It will also mean the curtailment of the Health and Safety Executive's new computerised system for the collection and analysis of accident data generated by the Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1980. From April, this issue will assume great proportions. From then, no comprehensive annual accident statistics will be available for the immediate future. After 6 April only a rump of legal obligations under those regulations will remain.
I am glad to say that the TUC is continuing to press for a return to a system of direct reporting of all accidents resulting in more than three days' absence from work. The Opposition support the TUC in that aim. There will be no comprehensive annual accident statistics in the foreseeable future. I emphasise the word "comprehensive". That is a worrying position. For the foreseeable future, the Health and Safety Executive will be flying blind on statistics and limping along because of the insufficient number of factory inspectors.
I wish briefly to touch on the growing concern about young people involved in the youth opportunity programmes, and on the new training scheme which is soon to begin. Young people working in factories are vulnerable to accidents if only because in the initial weeks and months they are unused to the procedures. I wish to instance the tragic case of Derek Cain of Sheffield which my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) raised indirectly through a parliamentary question about statistics.
On 20 December 1982 a Sheffield youth opportunity programme worker, Derek Cain, aged 17, was found dead after being injured on a paper baling machine at the firm of C. P. Plumb Ltd. Derek's father said that Derek was put on the machine after being at the firm for only a few days. The paper baler was complicated and, according to the factory inspector, should have been operated by at least two adults. Derek was left alone and unsupervised.
Between April 1981 and March 1982 3,251 accidents on the youth opportunity programme were notified, of which six were fatal. One person lost a hand and there were 42 accidents involving loss of fingers or toes. The accident rate for the year—admittedly there were tens of thousands of young men and women on the programme—was 5·8 per thousand. That is disturbing information. It is regrettable that the Government have taken such an ideological approach to industrial training boards. By abolishing so many of the boards, some of which are orientated to safety work, they have dispensed with much training expertise.
Mr. Greville Janner: Is my hon. Friend aware of the extraordinary fact that the employment appeal tribunal has held that trainees under the various training schemes are not employees? They are not protected against unlawful discrimination. If they are not employees, they do not come under section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Too many employers, however, forget that they are protected by section 3 and that they owe the same duty to trainees as they do to other employees. Will my hon. Friend invite the Minister to comment on this matter and perhaps to emphasise the point and also to say whether the Government are proposing to give the trainees the same
1096
protection as that enjoyed by others in this area—the absence of which is so deplorable? I have been pressing such action on the Government for months, but I have been unable to get a satisfactory reply.
Mr. Jones: I am grateful for the apposite intervention of my hon. and learned Friend. The Minister no doubt heard my hon. and learned Friend. I press him to give a full reply on the matter.
I was saying that many who are familiar with training maintain that, as a result, the Health and Safety Commission's task will be harder in future years. Consequently, it will be even more difficult to assure the safety of youngsters who, in their tens of thousands, will flood into the new youth training scheme from Easter this year.
A Labour Government—there will assuredly in the near future be such a Government—will aim from their first day to promote improved health and safety at work. We are fully committed to the work of the Health and Safety Commission. We intend that its role should be enhanced to deal with current and potential dangers to workers from new production processes. It is our intention to reverse the Conservative Government's cuts in the commission's budget and to expand the Health and Safety Executive so that the 1974 Act can be effectively implemented and the current unwise and foolish inroads into manpower reversed.
1.7 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Selwyn Gummer): It is a great pleasure to begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir V. Goodhew) for choosing this subject for what I might say, in the style of a particular television programme, is a felicitous farewell for a Friday. During the few minutes that my hon. Friend spoke we heard a clear statement of the importance of this subject. Without delving into matters for which other people might have responsibility, the House should be grateful to my hon. Friend for giving us the opportunity of this debate on a subject that must be near to the hearts of all working people throughout the country. His remarks set the debate off to a good start.
One of the few fortunate things that happened at the change of Government in 1974 is that we can prove that the health and safety legislation is an all-party set of rules. The legislation was introduced by the Conservative party, but it was passed by the Labour party. This means that whenever these debates are held—I agree that these matters should be discussed more often—we start from a basis of clear all-party support. It is true that there have been a number of sharp and, indeed, waspish remarks across the Floor today, but that does not do us any harm. It ensures that we do not become complacent. I may wish to refer to one of those exchanges, but I hope that we can start by accepting that on this issue we are on the same side, although the precise procedures by which we seek to reach our aim may differ.
Our aim is constantly to improve the record in British industry of safety at work. The first place to start must be where one of my hon. Friends started. My hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester) was helpful in reminding us of the long story of safety at work and of the scandalous story of lack of safety at work.
One of the curious things about people's attitudes is how easily they forget the cost at which the normal

1097
amenities of life are produced. I shall give a personal constituency example. I do not find it difficult to keep my temper, but I lost it recently at a meeting. One of the more vociferous campaigners—in a cause with which I do not agree, but which is reasonable—against nuclear power stated that there was a difference in kind between the danger from nuclear radiation which she thought might occur from a nuclear power station and deaths in the mining industry. It takes a lot to make me angry, but I was angry at the idea that there is some way in which the death of people at work can be excused because it is at work, whereas, if this good lady's presumptions are slightly true—which seems to me to be largely fallacious—she might be at some tiny risk. That underlies in an extreme way what is in the minds of many who talk about safety at work. They seem to think that one opts out of the normal considerations because one goes down a mine or into a factory.
The debate has shown that on both sides of the House there is a determination to see that safety at work has a high priority. That subject causes great difficulty, because there are never enough resources. Both sides of the House will have to admit that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) was fair in the way in which he made his points. He has strong views and has put particularly strongly the case of the furniture workers. When we are dealing with something as obviously important as health and safety, all of us can do nothing but demand more resources, and inspectors, and more of everything, because there never will be enough in terms of the absolute. The problem facing Governments of all parties is to try to make a judgment at any time of what resources can be made available and, just as important, how best to use them.
I shall refer to resources later. We must be careful in what we propose neither to be too complacent nor to be so concerned to highlight what is wrong that we discourage those who are seeking to make improvements. I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) will forgive me for my intervention if he felt that it in any way cast doubt on his sincerity. It did not. Since I have been in my job for a short number of months I have taken a particular interest in health and safety. I am deeply aware of the dedication of those who seek to make improvements all over the country and in every industry.
If we talk about the wearing of hard hats in the construction industry, we need to say always, particularly this year with Site Safe 1983, which has been so admirably supported throughout the industry, that a considerable improvement has been made since the old days when one saw hardly a hard hat anywhere. One has only to walk down a high street where construction work is taking place to see that it is different from what it would have been even five years ago. I know that even that is not good enough, and that is why I am campaigning as hard as I can for Site Safe 1983. Nevertheless, we must always be prepared, even when we are making our strongest criticisms, to give as much credit as can be given to those who work, often voluntarily, in great difficulty to ensure that the best standards of safety are found.
I pay tribute to many of the trade unions and employers for what they have done. It is their work to which I wish to draw attention in the context of the Site Safe scheme. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West has
1098
kindly told me that he has to leave. That is why I want to explain now why I feel strongly that we should be supportive as well as critical. Whatever we do, and however many inspectors there are, what matters in the end is that people at the place of work care enough to ensure that the regulations are carried out in the spirit as well as the letter.
If one examines the history of the subject, one discovers that the inspectorate was established almost 150 years ago. I should like to take this opportunity to say how much we respect the factory inspectorate's work. When it was established, there were four inspectors for the whole country. No doubt hon. Members at the time suggested that there should be more than four, just as there must have been others who suggested that they could make do with three. Both arguments are always present, and even if the number is only four it is a compromise between those who want widespread and increasing activity and those who believe that they can get by with rather less.
We should consider the inspectorate in the context of the proposals of the Robens committee. I know that the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) will agree that the most important element of that report was its insistence that, whatever legislation was passed, the clear and fundamental responsibility of the employer must not be removed. However detailed the legislation, and however comprehensive the inspectorate, responsibility ultimately lies with the employer. Moreover, responsibility for sensible practices must be shared, but not excused, by the activities of employees. That is vital, otherwise the system can never work.
Nevertheless, we can look back over a period during which standards have improved considerably. That is not to be complacent; it is merely to say that those who have brought about the improvements should be congratulated. Fatal accident rates per 100,000 have fallen between 1970 and 1974 and between 1975 and 1979 by 21 and 24 per cent. respectively. Those figures are important, as they show that a significant number of people who are now alive would have been dead if it had not been for the health and safety legislation and the increased awareness of the need for safe work.
Although it is difficult to make a comparison with other countries, it appears that we are high, if not very high, in the league of industrialised nations. However, we should not sink into our tents and say "All is well." I am anxious to make the self-regulation by industry a more effective means of reducing accidents. Such action is not a substitute, but an important part of the panoply. That is why the commission's decision to place greater emphasis on the development of standards by the industry is an important part of the armoury that we must have.
I believe that the most important problem is industrial noise. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch mentioned it, and the right hon. Member for Doncaster has a motion on the subject, which we may reach later. When I first became Under-Secretary of State I took a special interest in the matter for many reasons with which I shall not bore the House now.
Mr. Harold Walker: The Minister attaches importance to industry producing and working to its own standards. I do not dissent from that, but does he agree that by "industry" we mean not only employers but employees, the trade unions and their representatives?
Mr. Gummer: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman understands that my remarks were not meant to be divisive. "Industry" means all those concerned, either collectively or individually. I do not detract from the essential responsibility of the employer, but all the elements must work together to ensure that self-regulation operates effectively.
Industrial noise is often not taken seriously. I direct the attention of the House to the danger of what I call legislation-led safety. There is a tendency to suggest that if the Government make a series of regulations they have solved the problem, but that may well be the last stage in solving the problem. First, we must establish that a problem exists and that it is worth taking trouble with. I have begun a personal campaign on noise, because most people do not believe that it matters. I have found throughout my working life that most people find deafness amusing, but anyone who has deaf friends or relations knows the devastating division between the individual and the rest of society.
Personal experience leads me to say that deafness is the major hazard of industry. No one who knows my background would accuse me of not taking pneumoconiosis seriously, but those who are partially disabled from that disease, after the initial great difficulty, which was graphically described by my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston of reaching the miners' club, still have the opportunity to participate by both talking and listening. The man who becomes deaf for industrial reasons may face many years of lonely old age that would be devastating to anyone's mental health, let alone to his physical health. I am glad that my hon. Friend placed such emphasis on industrial deafness.
People now live much longer than they used to, and health has improved to such an extent that most people can look forward to many years of retirement. Our hearing abilities decline with old age and we can do nothing about it. One explanation of why hon. Members lie so negligently upon the Benches in the Chamber is that they are trying to listen to the debate through the rose-shaped microphones behind them. Hon. Members who appear to lie most nonchalantly are usually those at the upper end of the age bracket. By nature they become deafer as they grow older.
The danger is that deafness can be made absolute, or nearly absolute, by damage done to young people's ears without their noticing it. Their hearing is sufficiently acute at that stage for them to suffer significant damage without realising that that will lead to serious deafness in later years. The first duty of the House is to dramatise deafness. The young must learn how damaging prolonged—or sometimes even quite short—exposure to loud noise can be. The popular image of deafness must be broken. I am asking representatives of those who work with the deaf to discuss that image. Hon. Members must try to overcome the way in which people regard deafness as unimportant or as something to be ridiculed.
As a result of the use of headphones—one sees people on television conducting discussions with a little implement in their ears—the concept of wearing an implement over the ears becomes less extraordinary and less connected with old age. I trust that there will be a breakthrough with young people because of the change in habits. Many people walk around, sometimes rather dangerously, listening to transistor radios and cassette recorders while wearing earphones. Many use their hi-fi
1100
earphones so as not to disturb their neighbours or the rest of the family. Young people no longer have a horror or fear of wearing a protector over the ears.
Many years ago I went to a drop-forging plant and was amazed to find that people were refusing to wear the protection provided. Among those who were not wearing protection were young people, to whom the most damage would be caused. I appreciate that great improvements have been made in the intervening years but the House cannot readily put aside the problems.
The consciousness of youngsters must be raised to the dangers of deafness. We must break through the wall that stops people understanding how to prevent deafness. The consciousness of industry must be raised.
Last week I visited a power station in my constituency. I discussed some of the problems with the staff in the turbine room. The turbines were of the type that might be found in other nuclear power stations. The CEGB is conducting exciting and important work into deafness and noise prevention throughout the country. The nuclear power station that I visited is one of the triumphs of British engineering and has been operating for 17 or 18 years.
When the turbines were installed, the problem of noise was not considered. It had to build acoustic booths later so that people could work safely. That major public corporation, a leader in dealing with industrial deafness, had to build suitable housing, separate from the existing design, for people to work safely. That is an example of how far we have moved, and how far we must still move, in dealing with industrial noise.
I have written to the chairman of the commission saying that we must take further action well in advance of the European directive. Awareness is the key to the issue. I want the commission to examine ways to raise public consciousness of its seriousness. If we could make people do what they should be doing under the Act, that would make a major difference in the number of people whose lives are less happy—and sometimes thoroughly unhappy—because of that appalling affliction. Deafness is the second most common industrial disease, the first being back pain, the incidence of which is more widely spread.
Mr. Ronald W. Brown: When a company is tendering for machinery for a power station, if it includes the cost of such special requirements as acoustic booths, the overall cost of the project becomes too great. Tragically, companies are prepared to buy cheaper quality goods. But, because of the dangers, they eventually have to spend that money so that their people can work in safety.
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is right. Because people do not treat the matter seriously enough, they make decisions that are later proved wrong. They find not only that their working practices have caused harm but that they must eventually spend money on safety measures.
It is important that we take seriously the European dimension. We must try to reach sensible, not loony, agreements. People must realise the seriousness of the issue when making their decisions. We must consider producing machinery at a cost suitable not only for Britain, but for wider sale. The European dimension is vital.
There is considerable benefit to be gained from working with our partners in Europe to deal not only with deafness, but with other matters such as asbestosis. I think it bad when European workers die of asbestosis or live out their lives suffering from it. I find it difficult to take the narrow view that the issue affects only Britain.

1101
The standards that the Community is seeking for Europe as a whole will mean that competition will be avoided. Many sensible safety changes have not been implemented because people feared that they could not compete if they had to carry the additional costs involved. Therefore, the bringing together of the countries of western Europe is vital. In our generalised arguments about the Community we fail to realise how much we have done, and how much there is still to do. The countries of Europe should come together to protect the safety of the people of Europe. As the largest trading group in the world, if the European Community lays down standards for itself it can force them upon others. They will not be able to sell us machinery unless it meets our standards. We can use the European Community as its founding fathers wanted, for the improvement of all nations, and not just take the narrow view.
Sometimes we cannot do some of the more general things that we should like to do as quickly as we should like. That is true of many things. It is much easier to introduce safety arrangements in Suffolk than if they are spread throughout East Anglia. It is much easier to introduce them in East Anglia than in the whole of England. It is easier to do it in England if one does not have to consider Scottish law. We do not say that, as we cannot introduce arrangements for the United Kingdom quickly enough, we shall introduce them piecemeal throughout the country. We take the matter seriously. We say that it will take longer, but we want something that will cover the United Kingdom. I believe that we must now go further and, wherever we can, see that arrangements cover the European Community. We must accept that occasionally some things we would like to do will take longer because we want to ensure that they apply to all the countries and people of Western Europe.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr Cryer) referred to asbestos as a complex and dangerous substance. Both words are important. I believe that it is right to press for standards of safety relating to asbestos to cover Europe. There is considerable opposition from some countries to the standards that we want to see introduced.
This country started with a great advantage which was given to us by a former Labour Government. I do not want to detract from the advantages gained from the Asbestos Regulations 1969. Sometimes those who talk about asbestos and what must be done about it talk as if we have no regulations. In fact, they are some of the best in the world. I am pleased that we can build on the regulations introduced by Labour Ministers.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Keighley did not say that he would not be here. He put forward some combative and extreme views. However, I shall have to comment in his absence upon what he said. It is not fair to attack people about this subject inaccurately and with a lack of respect for the facts. That is behaviour he would normally attack in others.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the 41 recommendations of the Simpson committee and complained that they had not been implemented. The central and most important recommendations, which dealt with controlling the conditions under which asbestos can be used, were implemented in January this year. The hon. Gentleman's silly attack has missed the target. There are some targets, and I am prepared to admit that there are many things that
1102
we should have done but have not. The hon. Gentleman does his case no good by waxing eloquently and angrily about so many things that it is difficult to decide which of them to take seriously.
We have done a great deal. We should like to have done a great deal more and we hope to do a great deal more in Europe. We believe that there should be a reduction of control limits for exposure to asbestos and that the licensing of work for installation and coating is important. We believe that there should be a prohibition on the use of asbestos in installation and spraying and a prohibition on the import, marketing and use of crocidolites and products containing it. These things are vital, but even now we cannot say that we have achieved all that we wished.
The new control limits are central to the ACA recommendations. We now enforce an upper limit—I stress that it is an upper limit, because one seeks always to achieve levels below the maximum—which the inspectorate and the advisers already ensured was observed by almost everyone in the industry by the time the new limit came into operation on 1 January. The regulations thus generally confirmed what was already a fact. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans was right to say that we should be cautious about regarding legislation as the only answer. Often legislation simply confirms that which we have sought to achieve through action within the industry. I hope that we may now bring the actual limits generally below the maximum that we have set.
Mr. Harold Walker: The Minister spoke with some vigour in support of licensing asbestos contractors. The latest issue of Safety & Fire News—a publication that is read with respect and interest by all who are concerned about these matters—states:
"The Chief Inspector of Factories, Jim Hammer, has strongly criticised regulations to clamp down on asbestos removal that his own inspectors will have to enforce when they become law."
It reports that in a letter to the national officer of the GMBATU Mr. Hammer revealed his
"grave doubts about a scheme for licensing contractors.
He spells out that such a scheme will have severe limitations, that it could give a seal of approval to incompetent contractors and that he personally favoured an alternative plan involving registration."
He then explained at length why he took that view. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that as the view of the chief inspector of factories is somewhat at variance with that which the Minister expressed on behalf of the Department today.
Mr. Gummer: The right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment on something that he has only just read to me, especially as the situation is clear. The commission has produced a consultative document on revised proposals for regulating and licensing the work of asbestos contractors. The document has aroused much interest and is now being discussed. All manner of views will be received—including, no doubt, the reported views, real or otherwise, of the chief inspector of factories. The commission will then make proposals to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the action that should be taken.
Again, we are dealing with highly complex matters. To get these things right means taking time to consult, and it is essential to get them right. I agree that there are problems. The commission places such importance on the

1103
question of licensing that it has produced a consultative document and will in due course produce proposals. I am pleased that it has taken the matter so seriously. When we receive the proposals we can argue about whether they are right.
The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) referred to nasal carcinoma in the woodworking industry. I should like to discuss with him at length some of the results that may come from the monitoring procedures and the comparisons now being undertaken. As always, the hon. Gentleman campaigns well for the matters about which he is concerned. I hope that he agrees that we shall now be able to see what is widely felt to be true—that there have been major advances—and whether further steps can be taken to improve the position. All of us who have suffered from asthma know that the effect of dust on the chest is very serious and needs to be properly controlled. Whatever may be said about the past, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is convinced that we intend to bring about the improvements for which he has fought.
I thought that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch was less than fair—if I may say so, uncharacteristically—about the figures. Almost all the figures in the HSC annual report refer either to the financial year 1981–82 or the calender year 1981. As the report was produced before the end of 1982, it would be difficult for the commission to take in the whole of 1982. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that there are other figures that are relevant, I shall be happy to make inquiries and to talk to the HSC about them.
The problem of sick pay is concerning us considerably. I hope that the opportunity will be taken to consider the use to which the HSE puts the figures that it gets and the sort of figures that it should have. I am sure that it knows about the discussions that are taking place between the various interests. I hope that we shall arrive at an answer that will be satisfactory to all concerned. We must have the right figures and then we must ensure that they are used properly. One of the curses of modern life is that many figures are produced but little use is made of some of them. Sometimes we insist upon collecting information and then fail to use it effectively. It is my duty and intention to ensure that any figures that are collected are used effectively. That will be the judgment on which I shall base the proposals that will be submitted to the House.
Many hon. Members are concerned about fees and the cost of the various health and safety at work provisions. The Government have raised the fees for medical examinations. They had not been increased for eight years. The size of the increase was perhaps more than it would have been if increases had been made year by year. I must say, in the absence of the hon. Member for Keighley, that it is odd to suggest that there is a threat that EMAS will be closed. Less than 5 per cent. of the work load of EMAS doctors comes within this ambit. The idea that 5 per cent. of their work load is hypothetically affected suggests inattention to the facts and over-attention to the spleen that characterises the hon. Gentleman.
I assure the House that I take seriously all that has been said about safety on escalators. I have three small children under the age of five years and so I am especially concerned. It is an issue that comes within the scope of health and safety at work because shop assistants, for example, use escalators as much as shoppers. Some clear advances have been made in recent months and years. New
1104
escalators have a number of safety features which old ones lack. There is now knowledge of the dangers posed by escalators, especially to the feet of small children, which get into places that nobody but their parents would ever believe possible.
I do not wish to say very much about the Salford explosion. Criminal proceedings are involved and the report cannot properly be published until those proceedings have been completed. I assure the House that when that stage is reached the report will be made known to all. That is the view that we have always had and it will be maintained.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-. East (Sir B. Braine), whose constituency covers Canvey Island—he has apologised for his absence and explained that he is otherwise engaged—that he will have the report on that. I am sure that it will meet the real fears that he has had about his constituency.
The problems associated with manual handling are difficult because of their universality. I understand the argument of those who say that lifting heavy weights in industry is no different from lifting heavy weights in agriculture and that we should have rules and regulations covering all areas of activity. The Health and Safety Commission has been involved in dealing with the matter and some major changes are now taking place.
It has to be realised that all our legislation is piecemeal. It grew up as people recognised particular problems, which were then answered in a particular way. It is not always easy to bring all the answers together. Sometimes there are anomalies. I hope it will not be thought that we should lessen the protection that we give in agriculture merely because we have not finished the process of dealing with the wider range of protection that there needs to be.
I shall deal quickly with the question of Crown immunity—[Interruption.] I say "quickly" because of the short time remaining. Both Conservative and Labour Governments have faced the difficulties arising from Crown immunity. There is no easy answer to them. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) dealt clearly with the issues and the problems. As so often, although the issues and the problems may be clear, the solutions are not. I shall look most carefully not only at what he has said but at the present position to see whether there is any way in which we can proceed. The issues that he raised are real and the problems are important. Although I can promise him no solution, I shall see whether there is any way in which we can change the position for the better.
As I represent an agricultural constituency, I should not like to miss the opportunity of dealing with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Sir P. Mills). Althouh I dislike the word "obscenity" in a campaigning sense, I would use it in regard to the practice of carelessly putting a dangerous chemical such as paraquat into lemonade bottles. It is an example of the sort of damage that can so easily arise not only on farms but in other establishments. I underline the absolute necessity to protect third parties, and especially those who are too young to know about the danger of drinking paraquat. There are also problems arising from dangerous litter, and in relation to forestry and in other areas.
Above all, problems arise through the use of guns. I enjoy shooting. Most of the shooting fraternity treat guns with the healthy respect with which they ought to be treated, but there are still too many accidents. There are

1105
still too many people who think that they know better than the rules. There are still too many people whose habits are wrong. If I may inject a piece of Victorian morality into the debate, I suggest that good habits at the work place, out shooting, on the farm, or wherever it may be, do more good than almost anything else. If people are in the habit of acting in a safe way, that is the best protection for the community.
Between 1976 and 1981 there was a significant decrease in the number of fatal accidents in agriculture, from 108 to 71. That is still 71 too many, but it is a significant improvement and one that we should bear in mind when we talk so much about diminishing resources.
With regard to the problems in construction, I know that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch would wish me to emphasise the need to support the Site Safe campaign. Had the campaign been successful, the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred would not have occurred. We are doing as much as we can to ensure that the construction industry becomes much safer. It is a serious campaign and we must not let it slide.
If I were to answer all the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston I should delay the House for too long, but it was valuable for my hon. Friend to put the case of the mining industry. It is significant that not many mining Members felt it necessary to take part in the debate. I do not attack them for that, but it is a comment on the increased safety in the mines. I am determined that the improvement in safety statistics should continue. Nothing should cause us to become complacent.
I shall talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about safety in schools, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). I thank my hon. Friend for what he said about the safety of horse riders. Perhaps his speech did not have much to do with safety at work, but it had much to do with general safety issues. He avoided strictures from the Chair, while pointing out that serious and sensible people still managed to kill themselves while doing something that they had no business to be doing and setting an example that they had no business to be setting.
I appeal to those who think that, for fashionable reasons, it is worth cutting a dash rather than concentrating on safety to remember that those who watch them are often much younger, less experienced and less able to realise the seriousness of what they are doing.
Much has been said about the resources devoted to health and safety. The figures show that we are becoming much healthier and much more safety conscious. The resources provided for health and safety have been greater in each year of this Government than in the last year of the previous Government. I am not making a party political point; I am merely stating a fact.
Criticisms are made about the number of factory inspectors and other inspectors, but the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston said, we have gone to so much trouble to get more mining inspectors, even though they are difficult to recruit because of the nature of the people required in that job, and that the Health and Safety Commission has reorganised its programme and priorities to make much better use of available resources should lead us to conclude that it is not right to make the sorts of complaints about resources that have been made by some of the more extreme commentators.
1106
I assure the House that the Government are determined to ensure that we have an effective health and safety system. There is no truth in the scare stories that the Government intend to destroy what has been set up. The existing system has an all-party basis and we intend to keep it that way.
Mr. Albert McQuarrie: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Gummer: No. I cannot give way, because I wish to leave time for the next debate.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) that it is important that the problems of small firms should be borne in mind and that many problems are connected not with health and safety, but with filling in forms. However, safety is as important in small firms as in large firms. I shall think about whether the voice of small firms is properly heard and do my best to ensure that it is, but I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that it is our duty to ensure that workers in all firms are properly protected.
I hope that those who are worried about the interpretation and enforcement of health and safety legislation will remember that it is not the duty of the HSE alone. Much work is done by local authority representatives. It is important that zeal should always be shown, but it is equally important that that zeal should not become officiousness. Dangers arise if people begin to think that ensuring health and safety is all a nuisance and a bore and cease to give their enthusiastic support to it. In the sense that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West meant that, I agree with him. I hear too many examples of people who, because of an argument with an inspector about somewhere to wash their hands when the tea is made, say that health and safety is nonsense. Such issues can cause a great deal of damage throughout the whole system.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans for moving the motion. He has benefited the House greatly by enabling us to discuss the issue today. If we can make health and safety something worth campaigning about, something that is worth making important in the industrial life of this country and, above all, something that people can see not only as the other man's responsibility, or the Government's responsibility, but as their individual responsibility, the progress that both parties have achieved so far will continue. We will then be able to say that this country leads the world, not only in what it does at home, but in what it seeks to influence others to do within the community of Europe.
2.1 pm
Sir Victor Goodhew: With the permission of the House, I shall be brief, because the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) has been patiently waiting to move a motion that is germane to what has been discussed already and is of great importance to all concerned.
It is clear that the message that will go out from the House today is one of satisfaction, not only with the way in which the Health and Safety Commission and Executive work, but with the way in which employers and the trade unions co-operate to see that that work is carried out. That being so, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Industrial Noise and Industrial Deafness
2.2 pm
Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move,
That this House, mindful that noise is probably the most widespread and underestimated of industrial hazards, and aware that much more needs to be done not only to protect the hearing of workers but also to make more extensive, fair and equitable arrangements adequately to compensate those already injured by industrial noise, calls on Her Majesty's Government to adopt more rigorous standards to regulate and reduce industrial noise levels, including further statutory requirements to control noise at source, together with requirements that appropriate standards be incorporated in the design and development of industrial premises, machinery and equipment; further calls on the Government immediately to implement the recommendations of the Report of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, Cmnd. 8749, published in November 1982, and in particular the recommendations:—(i) that occupational deafness should be prescribed in relation to any occupation involving work wholly or mainly in the immediate vicinity of prescribed processes; (ii) that the time a claimant is required to have worked in a prescribed occupation should be reduced from twenty years to ten years; (iii) that the period since leaving a prescribed occupation within which a claim must be made should be increased from twelve months to five years; (iv) that the Department of Health and Social Security should ensure that audiological testing should be carried out only by fully qualified people; (v) that the word `permanent' should no longer appear in the statutory definition of PD48 (occupational deafness); and (vi) that a standing working group of the Council should be set up which would collect evidence on noisy occupations not covered by the occupational deafness scheme; and notwithstanding the important role of such a group, further calls upon the Government immediately to recognise that the present categories of occupational deafness contained in Schedule 1 of the Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Regulations 1980 are anomalous and inadequate, leaving out of their scope many cases of industrial deafness clearly attributable to occupational causes, and forthwith to amend the Regulations accordingly, taking into account in so doing the very large number of successful common law claims in which damages are conceded by employers and their insurers but which do not at present qualify for any benefit or compensation under the existing statutory arrangements, thus bringing British practice and law nearer to that of some other industrial countries which have more beneficial arrangements; and calls upon the Government to press vigorously for the international adoption of these higher standards so that no country may gain an unfair advantage in world markets from the exploitation of the health and well-being of its workers.
We have had an agreeable debate today, and I do not wish to say anything that might make the day any less agreeable. I wish to express my appreciation of the fact that the House has conducted its business today in such a way that I am able to speak on my motion. I have no complaint about the fact that, in the previous debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Employment to some extent anticipated my remarks. I do not think that he intended to pre-empt anything that I or anyone else might say. Indeed, I very much welcomed some of his remarks about noise and occupational deafness. I assure him that if he pursues, as doubtless he will, the interest he has already shown in this matter, he will be able to rely on a great deal of support not only from me but from the House in general, and certainly from my hon. Friends who have shown a consistent interest in this subject over a long period.
My motion inevitably straddles different Government Departments. I would not expect the Under-Secretary of State for Employment to respond to those issues which are quite properly the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Security. While I would have been glad
1108
had a Minister from that Department attended, I would not expect on a Friday, when there is always some doubt about whether we will reach other motions, a Minister from the Department of Health and Social Security to be present, although I hope that at the conclusion of the debate the Under-Secretary of State for Employment will ensure that not only the motion but the remarks that I shall address to the House are drawn to the attention of his right hon. Friends.
I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Welsh) in his place. He has returned from Doncaster, where he had an important constituency engagement, to take part in the debate, if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am particularly grateful to him not only for the consistent interest he has shown in this subject but for his invaluable advice and help in drafting the lengthy motion before the House. I confess to having some direct and personal interest in the subject. I do not know whether I am of the upper age scale to which the Under-Secretary of State referred. I am, however, one of those who has to pin his ear to the amplifier as I am partially deaf in at least one ear. I attribute this not to advancing years, but to my former industrial experience in the engineering industry.
More important than my personal experience is that of many of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley and myself who suffer partial deafness and hearing difficulties incurred in their occupations. I think in my constituency of the number of cases that arise in the engineering industry, particularly the railway workshops at Doncaster, the coal mining industry and the glass manufacturing industry. In many cases such people have inadequate scope for securing a remedy. The motion before the House draws attention to some of the anomalies and inadequacies of present statutory arrangements under which people can seek compensation.
I understand that little can be done in many cases to restore the hearing of those who have been injured. Most cases of industrial deafness, I am informed, are irreversible. I share the Minister's view that many people seem to think that all that is needed is the passing of an Act of Parliament. Notwithstanding what the Minister has stated about the expectations that people attach to legislation, it lies within the power of the Government and the House to take some action. It is our duty to try to ensure that people who incur industrial deafness have adequate opportunities to seek compensation. More important, it is our duty to try to ensure that far fewer people in future are disabled, with all the misery and unhappiness that is consequential upon that disability, by industrial noise.
The principal target that we should seek to achieve is to cut down industrial deafness and therefore the cost of compensating deafness. Many hon. Members know that this can be done and also know why it is not done—the cost, and our competitiveness in world markets. I hope that I am not unfairly representing the Minister's remarks. There was, however, an implication that desirable things should be done but cannot be done because they would affect adversely the competitiveness of British industry in world markets. I understand that view. I hope, however, that the hon. Gentleman is not arguing that we should stand still until we have persuaded all our competitors that they should accept the standards that we think appropriate or that we should be prepared to sacrifice the well-being and health of our workers by accepting lower standards.

1109
I recall the couplet of Oliver Goldsmith:
"How small, of all that human hearts endure,
That part which laws or Kings can cause or cure."
That reflects part of my attitude.
I wonder whether adequate research has been done into the cost to industry and to the economy of failing to take action that has long been advocated but which we are told would adversely affect the competitive edge of British industry. I refer to the cost of compensating needless disability—a matter pursued by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) earlier today. I recall, as will the hon. Gentleman, my return as junior Minister to the Department of Employment in 1974, when the Woodworking Machines Regulations 1974 were in gestation. The hon. Gentleman came to see me on behalf of the furniture workers' trade union to insist that we should include in regulations what is now implemented as a consequence of his representations—that is, the statutory requirement of a noise limit of 90 decibels.
We were bitterly opposed by the officials of the Department. The Health and Safety Executive had not been set up. Its predecessor, the factory inspectorate, and its officials, supported the Department and bitterly opposed us. Despite their opposition, we went ahead. Their line was that it was much more desirable, instead of proceeding in a piecemeal fashion, to have across-the-board noise limits. They said that they were on the threshold of doing that and that if the hon. Gentleman and I would only have patience there would be across-the board limits.
That was in 1974. We are nine years on and still waiting for those limits. If I could have looked ahead and had an almanac to tell me that we would have this debate today, I would not only have proceeded with more vigour to ensure that we got that requirement in the Woodworking Machines Regulations 1974 but I would have been keen to ensure that it applied to other appropriate regulations rather than having to wait for across-the-board provisions that never come.
We still have the same voluntary code that was introduced in 1972, which years ago the industrial health advisory committee of the Department of Employment said should have statutory backing. As long ago as June 1980 the Under-Secretary of State for Employment said that the Health and Safety Commission was considering proposals for legislation within the framework of the 1974 Act. That was nearly three years ago. We are entitled to ask what has happened. Where is that legislation?
I say to the Minister, if I may be presumptuous enough to give him some advice, that he does not want to let those people get away with this "Yes Minister" stuff about setting up committees. Those people say to each other that they will con the Minister and wait until he has moved on to the Home Office or somewhere else and then they can do the same to the next one. There are some good people in the Minister's Department, but he should watch out. There are many Sir Humphreys in Whitehall and there are one or two at Caxton house.
I understand the arguments about cost, but I hope that the Government will not continue to use that as a pretext for inaction. Those arguments can be overplayed. I understand what the Minister said about the need to try to
1110
get other countries to march in harmony with us, but I hope that he will not allow that to be an excuse for inaction. I am as concerned about the health and safety of workers in France, Belgium, Australia and Canada or anywhere else as about workers here. I hope that the Government will press for the adoption of international standards. I hope that, despite the Government's manifest contempt for the International Labour Office, they will continue to press it for vigorous action on the adoption of international standards.
The other leg of my motion deals with compensation for deafness. Recently The Observer carried a report with the headline:
"Severe rules on work-deaf to be relaxed".
There was no question mark at the end of that heading. It was a categorical assertion. I was disappointed to read that that report, by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, has not yet received the endorsement of the Government. One of the purposes of drafting and tabling my motion was to press the Government for an immediate response to the report in the most positive way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Welsh) must have drawn considerable satisfaction from the report, as its principal recommendations are what he pressed the Government for in the debate on 14 December 1981—the relaxation of the 20-year and 12-month rules. The then Minister commented that when the council's recommendations were available they
"will be looked at with care and sympathy by the Government."—[Official Report, 14 December 1981; Vol. 15, c. 136.]
That report has now been with the Government since November. I hope that we shall soon see some care and sympathy in response to its recommendations, as was promised my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley. I hope that the Secretary of State for Social Services will write to me when the report of today's debate has been published and let me know how quickly we will see that sympathy and care.
There are other anomalies in the existing regulations which are not adequately or properly responded to by the national advisory council. There are, for example, the types of problems that I have encountered—no doubt other hon. Members have too—in my constituency. The Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Regulations 1980 give a narrow list of the occupations in which people may suffer deafness and those who, if they pass the 20-year test and the 12-month rule, may qualify for some form of statutory compensation.
The first is the case of someone who has been employed for 20 years in
"The use, or supervision of, or the asssistance in the use, of pneumatic percussive tools".
Provided that those people have worked with such tools for 12 months before the application for statutory compensation, they may have a case. That means that someone who has worked with, for example, a pneumatic hammer or a riveter and suffers deafness may have a claim. The regulations refer to
"The use, or supervision of or assistance in the use".
Therefore, the person helping him, whom we call a dolly in the engineering industry, who goes deaf, may also have a claim. So does the foreman in his office 400 yards up the shop because he is a supervisor, but the poor chap who has been pusing the brush around that area for 20 years has no claim at all.
The regulations refer to

1111
"the use of high-speed grinding tools, in the cleaning, dressing or finishing of cast metal or of ingots, billets or blooms".
Anyone who has been employed in a boiler shop will know that the most agonising noise that anyone can endure is the sound of a grindstone being operated inside a welded cylinder.
My final point, which is also referred to in the motion, relates to the number of claims that succeed at common law but which are barred from compensation under this scheme. There are many such cases in my constituency, including those of people who have worked in glass manufacturing, railway workshops and coal mining. It is inexplicable to them that they suffer crippling injuries, incurred in the course of employment, as the jargon has it, yet they cannot qualify for any state benefit or compensation as they would be able to do if they suffered from other industrial injuries. That seems to me and to them to be contrary to the principles on which the industrial injuries scheme was founded.
I hope to leave time for my hon. Friends to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope, as he suggested by a nod of his head, that the Minister will pass on what I have said to the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Secretary of State for Employment so that we can have their comments on what has been said today and, which is more important, they can show by their actions that we have persuaded them of the need to do more not merely to reduce industrial noise but to help those people who have suffered industrial deafness.
2.19 pm
Mr. Michael Welsh: I support the motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) on industrial noise and industrial deafness. I must be brief because of shortage of time, but the matter should be given more time for debate. The last time that it was debated was when I introduced an Adjournment debate in December 1981. I was surprised that it was so long ago, because to me it seemed as though it was only three months ago.
Mr. Harold Walker: Time flies.
Mr. Welsh: The reason is probably that after the age of 35 there are only six months in a year.
I am grateful for the Minister's comments about deafness during the previous debate. Deafness is not accepted as the evil that it is. I am reminded of the story of the gentleman who took a blind lad to the circus. Afterwards he was asked whether he had enjoyed it and he said "Yes, but I felt sorry for those who are deaf and who could not hear the beautiful noises of the animals." It shows that the incapacitated think seriously about others, but generally deafness is not accepted or talked about as much as it should be.
My right hon. Friend quoted the words of the Minister of State for Health and Social Security during that Adjournment debate. He said:
"I assure the hon. Gentleman that the recommendations that the council makes when its review is completed will be looked at with care and sympathy by the Government."—[Official Report, 14 December 1981; Vol. 15, c. 136.]
I am sure that that is true. I have every sympathy with the Minister of State, and I am sure that the Government think the same way. The report has now been out for four months, and I am grateful for its recommendations. It still leaves much to be desired, but, as the Secretary of State said earlier, one cannot move the world overnight. Its
1112
recommendations are welcome, and I hope that the Government will accept new recommendations that will improve the lives of those who suffer from industrial deafness.
An important recommendation in the report is the extension to the "immediate vicinity". It has been extended to any occupation involving work wholly or mainly in the immediate vicinity of the prescribed process. The recommendation will bring many individuals into the scope of the regulations. Another recommendation is that the additional audiological examinations should not overburden the National Health Service, but the Health Service has given an assurance that it will not be so overburdened. It is strange that justice has not been done to those who suffer from industrial deafness because audiological examinations could not take place. They were considered to be too heavy a burden on the NHS. This recommendation goes some way to alleviating the problem. Hon. Members on both sides of the House should support the recommendation.
The fourth recommendation is that a claimant should be required to have worked for 10 years in the prescribed occupation. That is still not good enough, but it is a step in the right direction. Canada, the United States of America and European countries have no time limit. In those countries, if one becomes deaf in the first six months of employment, one will receive the industrial deafness benefit. Britain is the only country in the free world that has such a long time limit. If the Government accept the recommendation, 20 years will be reduced to 10. I trust that the Minister will pass those comments on to the DHSS, and to the Minister responsible for implementing these recommendations. A total of 10,500 claims have been made for industrial deafness benefits in the 25 months to 29 September 1981, but only 1,850 were accepted. That was due to the application of the infamous 20-year rule. When the period is reduced to 10 years, many more people will come into the net. I want to see justice done. That is one of the main features of the recommendations. Britain should get nearer to Europe in the way in which it treats its workers.
The fifth recommendation is vitally important because the period from leaving a prescribed occupation within which a claim must be made should be increased from 12months to five years. That was explained by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster. That is good. This provision will allow claims to increase by 10 per cent. Justice will be done to those claims. The nation should be pleased and the Government proud to accept a recommendation of that description.
The sixth recommendation (vi) provides that the DHSS should ensure that audiological testing is carried out by fully qualified people. An arrangement has been reached with the DHSS on the standard of audiological technicians and consultants. Hon. Members can be assured that examinations will be carried out by fully qualified people. It is wrong for examinations to be carried out by those who are not fully qualified. I hope that that recommendation is accepted. The 12th recommendation states that the word "permanent" should no longer appear in the statutory definitions of occupational deafness. I welcome that as it allows the well-tried practices that are employed in other prescribed diseases to continue. Doctors can re-examine the matter.
I recommend that the standing working group of the council, recommended in the 17th paragraph, should be

1113
set up. I trust that the Government will accept this recommendation. New industries and new technologies are beginning to become involved. If a council is set up, it will help to prevent deafness.
Hon. Members have waited a long time for the report by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council in accordance with section 141 of the Social Security Act 1975 on the operation of the provisions for occupational deafness and on whether these should be extended. The report has arrived. I hope that the Minister will take cognisance and implement these findings as soon as possible.
2.27 pm
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I do not wish to concentrate on the recompense aspect which has been so admirably put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Welsh) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker). I declare not a financial interest but two special interests. I have one in each ear. I am profoundly deaf. I am principally concerned with prevention. I wish to underline some of the points made by my right hon. Friend. Deafness is a disability that receives little sympathy. People do not understand it because they cannot see it.
There are many things that can be done to deal with industrial deafness. First, I urge a lowering of the permitted level of decibels. Secondly, there should be a six-month check in occupational health services. That will not necessarily fall on the NHS; it could be done by a company medical officer. For example, Heinz, which makes excellent baked beans, operates a six-monthly check on all noise departments in its factories.
Thirdly, we think about mufflers, yet our knowledge of technology and acoustic ability means that we can reduce the acoustic level—
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

TRAVEL CONCESSIONS FOR THE UNEMPLOYED (No. 2) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Second Reading what day? No day named.

BRITISH NATIONALITY (FALKLAND ISLANDS) BILL [Lords]
Considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

LICENSING (OCCASIONAL PERMISSIONS) BILL
Order for Committee read.
Hon. Members: Object. Committee upon Friday next.
SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS (INQUIRY INTO
DISCRETION) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

ELECTORAL LAW REFORM BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Miss Pauline Walker
Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Cope.]
2.32 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter concerning my constituent Miss Pauline Walker and her unfortunate superannuation position. She works as a National Health Service superintendent physiotherapist at the Mount Vernon hospital, Northwood, and at Harefield hospital.
Miss Walker's case, and the exactly analogous case of Miss Betty Froud—a senior nursing officer who also works for the Hillingdon district health authority—have been referred to no fewer than four Members of Parliament. They were my predecessor Mr. Petre Crowder; the late Sir Ronald Bell, the former Member for Beaconsfield; my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith); and me. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield sends his apologies for being unable to attend the debate because of a constituency engagement. However, he supports my case.
All four Members of Parliament took up the two cases with Ministers of the Department of Health and Social Security—my hon. Friend on behalf of Miss Froud and Petre Crowder and I on behalf of Miss Walker. During the lifetime of this Parliament I have twice referred Miss Walker's case to the former Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). I have also discussed the matter with him privately. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield took up with him the case of Miss Froud. The present Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), wrote to my hon. Friend in mid-February. There has been no lack of official interest in these two cases, which have also been referred, in the case of Miss Pauline Walker, to the former Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration Sir Idwal Pugh at the behest of Petre Crowder, and to the Health Service Commissioner, Sir Cecil Clothier, in the case of Miss Froud.
Sir Cecil Clothier, to his credit, took immense pains and replied in sympathetic terms in his personal capacity as recently as 30 November 1982. The Acts of Parliament which govern his work do not allow him to deal with superannuation matters. Nevertheless, he lists no fewer than seven reasons why he believes it worth while for Miss Froud to try to get her Member of Parliament to persuade the Secretary of State to exercise his discretion in her favour.
Sir Cecil Clothier said in his letter:
"I know, from inquiries I have had made, that there is considerable sympathy within your Authority for your position; and indeed, representations have been made by two Chairmen to Ministers, though unfortunately, without success.
On 13 December 1982 the present district administrator of the Hillingdon health authority, Mr. Blythe, wrote to Miss Walker after studying Sir Cecil Clothier's letter. He said;
"The authority would be prepared to look again at the position in the light of any directions from the Secretary of State … I wish you well in your efforts to have this matter re-examined."
Miss Walker has served in the National Health Service since its inception in 1948—almost 35 years. Before that she had a period of war service with the Massage Corps and was employed as a physiotherapist at Mount Vernon
1116
hospital, Northwood before the start of the NHS. In 1946 she became superannuable through the Federated Superannuation Scheme for Nurses, an insurance-based scheme.
As I explained in my letter dated 20 March 1980 to my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton,
"When the NHS started Miss Walker had the option of transferring to the NHS Pension Scheme but because she was already contributing to the Federated Superannuation Scheme for Nurses (FSSN) she kept her contributions going to the FSSN as there was no apparent reason to change.
However, by the mid-1970s, with the effects of index-linking, it became quite clear that it would be advantageous to her to transfer to the NHS Pension Scheme.
Indeed, she was advised to do so by the Treasurer's, Office of Mount Vernon Hospital where she worked."
The letter dated 12 June 1975 which I enclosed proved that.
"This was confirmed in a further letter from her employing authority, the Hillingdon Area Health Authority, written by Mr. V. Middlemiss, Assistant Hospital Services Administrator on 18.6.75."
I also enclosed that letter.
The system suggested involved transferring from full-time employment to part-time employment of 35 hours a week for a month and a day and then to return to full-time duty on 2 August 1975. This she did. Miss Walker was assured that her terms of service would continue to apply during her period of part-time service. Miss Walker's FSSN policies became paid up and frozen with the eventual payment of benefit on retirement. She became a contributing member of the NHS scheme.
It subsequently became apparent that the advice, given in good faith by the Hillingdon area health authority assistant hospital services administrator according to the regulations pertaining at the time, was most disadvantageous to Miss Walker and to Miss Froud. The reason given by the Under-Secretary in his letter to me of 23 April 1980 was that
"with the introduction of the State pension scheme in April 1978 special arrangements were made whereby existing policy scheme members within the public services could transfer on actuarially equivalent terms to the relevant main schemes in order to enable them to be contracted out of the State scheme. Policy scheme optants in post in the N.H.S. scheme on 31st March 1977 were given the opportunity to cancel their option for F.S.S.N. in the return for back service credit in the N.H.S. scheme. This facility was later extended to optants who had joined the Health Service scheme on compulsory transfer on 1st April 1974 under the N.H.S. reorganisation arrangements."
This meant that all those former FSSN scheme members were able to enjoy the considerable benefits of the inflation-proofing inherent in the NHS scheme for the whole of the period in which they had made FSSN contributions. Not so my constituents Miss Walker and Miss Froud, however, who stand to lose thousands of pounds. Indeed, Miss Walker was due to retire at the beginning of this year but is now not retiring until the spring of next year—partly no doubt because she enjoys her work and is very good at it, but partly also to improve her pension.
Let us examine what Miss Walker's pension position is. The estimates provided by the Hillingdon area health authority would have to be confirmed by the superannuation branch and audit of the DHSS, but if Miss Walker had retired at the end of last year she would have received a lump sum of £2,928 for her NHS scheme contributions since August 1975, plus an annual pension of £3,194, being her NHS pension of £968 plus an annuity

1117
on her FSSN scheme of £2,226 at today's rate. Had she been allowed, like all the others, to commute her FSSN scheme contributions in full to index-linked membership of the NHS scheme for the 29 years to August 1975, she would have received a lump sum of £13,197 and an annual pension of £4,347. In other words, through no fault of her own, she stands to lose no less than £10,269 in lump sum and £1,153 in annual pension.
It is no wonder that the late Sir Ronald Bell wrote to Miss Froud, following the negative response of the Labour Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins), to his representations on her behalf, that it was just "a constipated official answer" and that
"it comes very hard that your forethought"—
in transferring to the NHS scheme as advised—
"should prove to be actually disadvantageous".
That is why my predecessor, Petre Crowder, following the legalistic but unhelpful reply of the Ombudsman Sir Idwal Pugh on 11 October 1978 and the bureacratic answer of the Labour Under-Secretary of State on 10 November 1978 very reasonably commented in his letter to Miss Walker:
"I feel confident that at the Election we shall see the return of a Conservative Government, and with a change of administration and a new Secretary of State it might be possible for some action to be taken".
We now have not just a new Secretary of State but a new Ombudsman and Civil Service Commissioner, Sir Cecil Clothier, who takes a more enlightened view of his responsibilities and is not afraid to expose what he believes to be an injustice. I quote in full the seven reasons given in Sir Cecil's letter to Miss Froud of 30 November 1982 which led him to say in conclusion:
"I wish you every success in trying to persuade the Secretary of State to put you back into the position you would have been in had you not the foresight to seek the advice of your employing authority. After all, what you are seeking is not something extra, as a gift, but what you would properly have been entitled to within the Regulations. I sincerely hope that this most unfortunate situation can be rectified."
The seven reasons are the following:

"(1) Your decision in 1974 to transfer (in 1975) from the FSSN to the NHS scheme was made on the wrong advice of the health authority (although it seemed at the time to be the correct advice and was given in good faith);

(2) your technical 'break in service' to make you eligible for the transfer was again wrongly advised and effected by the health authority;

(3) that 'break in service' was contrived by the authority as a book transaction but you continued, in fact, to work whole time hours;

(4) that being so, the actual break in service specified in Regulation 45 of the 1961 Regulations (referred to by the regional personnel officer in his letter of 31 December 1981) was not correctly effected and so (as Mr. Brown has argued) your membership of the FSSN scheme should not have been discontinued;

(5) the authority recognises that your present adverse position is the result of the wrong advice they gave and the 'arrangement' they contrived to transfer you;

(6) accordingly, if the Secretary of State agreed, they may be prepared to correct retrospectively the error they made in 1974 by adjusting the records and payments in respect of the month during which you were paid for only 3½ hours;

(7) your present prospective pension will cause you substantial hardship and, having regard to your 40 years' loyal nursing service"—

equivalent loyal service applies to my constituent, Miss Walker, and her physiotherapy work—
"may be regarded as injustice."
1118
I regard it as an injustice. Often in cases of this sort Ministers are chary of taking a generous view because they are fearful of setting a precedent. Surely the right precedent is to correct a wrong and to redress an injustice.
2.47 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) has raised the subject of the statutory regulations governing the National Health Service superannuation scheme as they affect his constituent, Miss Pauline Walker. In his recent approach on this matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, he has again demonstrated the close and genuine concern with his constituent's interests that he showed in pursuing it with my predecessor. I am glad to have this opportunity of joining him in paying tribute to Miss Walker and her record of over 35 years' service with the Mount Vernon hospital, and I can understand her concern about her superannuation position.
As these matters of superannuation are complex, particularly in relation to those who, like Miss Walker, chose to remain members of insurance policy-based pension schemes on joining the National Health Service, it might be helpful to an understanding of the position in which Miss Walker now finds herself if I set out some of the background.
The Federated Superannuation Scheme for Nurses and other hospital officers—the FSSN—was established in the 1920s. It was a pioneer scheme in providing "decent" pension arrangements in a field where these had been markedly lacking and was still held in high respect at the time that the National Health Service was set up. Unlike the modern public service schemes, the FSSN did not offer benefits based on length of service and final pay. Instead, the employee and employer contributions were used to purchase for each individual insurance policies maturing on his or her death or retirement.
On the individual's retirement, the proceeds of these policies could either be paid to him as a lump sum or used to purchase an annuity. At the time the National Health Service was established in 1948, there were strong pressures on Ministers to allow people who were already members of pension schemes such as the FSSN to remain in them if they wished as an alternative to joining the new NHS superannuation scheme, and they were given free choice.
When Miss Walker joined the NHS on the "appointed day"—5 July 1948—she opted to remain subject to the FSSN. The choice was entirely hers, and she was doubtless influenced by certain specific attractions of her existing scheme. For example, the employee contribution rate in the FSSN was only 5 per cent., compared with 6 per cent. in the NHS scheme, and the benefits on premature withdrawal were more favourable than in the NHS scheme. For some individuals, the attractions of membership of the FSSN persisted even into the 1970s, but by at least the mid-1960s the effects of inflation had taken their toll on the FSSN and other similar policy schemes elsewhere in the public service, and the benefits available through the NHS superannuation scheme began to appear increasingly advantageous.
Clearly Miss Walker could see this and rightly on numerous occasions she sought a means of transferring from the FSSN into the NHS scheme. In 1975 a device to

1119
enable her to do so was recognised. This involved her changing to part-time hours of work for a month and a day. This change had the effect of creating a break in her service which, under the regulations, caused her option to remain in the FSSN to lapse, and allowed her to join the NHS scheme on her return to full-time duty on 2 August 1975. There is documentation in the Department's files to show that the terms of the change were clearly and specifically set out. Since that date, Miss Walker has been a contributing member of the NHS scheme, and, as my hon. Friend said, her FSSN insurance policies in force in 1975 have remained "frozen".
About two years after Miss Walker transferred to the NHS superannuation scheme, those people who still remained in the FSSN and other insurance policy-based schemes, as she had been until 1975, were, exceptionally, given an opportunity of joining the NHS scheme. The basis of the offer made to them was that, in return for surrendering their policies to the managers of the main NHS scheme, they would receive service credit in the main scheme on terms recommended by the Government Actuary's department.
The standard basis for conversion set by the Government Actuary was nine years' NHS scheme credit for every 10 years' employment during which FSSN policies had been fully maintained. This offer came about because, during the planning of the new state scheme, it was recognised that its provisions, and other related regulations, would present new problems for those who were still in policy schemes. They would not be able to be contracted out of the state scheme and they would also lose full tax relief on their superannuation contributions. So, in 1977, they were given the chance of coming into the NHS scheme, and the same facility was offered to those who had been compulsorily transferred from local government to the NHS following the restructuring of the NHS in 1974.
Those were the reasons for the 1977 offer, and I must stress that it was not part of its purpose to enable people who had previously made decisions in what they conceived to be their own best interests to change those decisions in order to improve further their superannuation expectations.
Having ceased to be a member of the FSSN in 1975, Miss Walker found that she was unable to take advantage of the 1977 offer, and therein, understandably, lies the crux of her concern. I can certainly understand her desire to maximise her eventual benefits. It is not in any way unusual in the pensions field for circumstances to arise which cause people to wish, with the benefit of hindsight, that they had made different decisions, and to want retrospectively to change decisions they have already taken. Sadly, it is simply not possible to run a superannuation scheme on that basis. The binding nature of earlier decisions, freely taken by individual members of the scheme in what they conceived to be their own best interests at the time, has to be recognised.
Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend's interpretation of the facts coincides with mine, but does he concede that both categories—those who, like Miss Froud and Miss Walker, took advice to improve their position, and those who did not, but subsequently were put in a better position because of the Government-induced changes in 1977—have worked for the NHS for the same time and that it is, therefore, unfair and unjust that one group should be so much worse off in retirement?
Mr. Finsberg: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not comment on the case of Miss Froud. I have looked at the papers and I am not certain that the cases are identical.
Everybody who has pored over the papers—I cannot speak for all my predecessors, though I am sure that my immediate predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), was as conscientious as anyone — has great sympathy for Miss Walker. However, I cannot accept my hon. Friend's argument, because, with the benefit of the available advice, a free choice was made.
Mr. Wilkinson: It would have been better if my constituent and Miss Froud had ignored the official advice given by their employers, because they would be £10,000 better off in retirement. Surely that cannot be just.
Mr. Finsberg: I cannot answer on the figures, but I think that there is much less difference than my hon. Friend has been led to believe. When advice is given and people weigh it up, the decision is theirs. My hon. Friend recognises that advice was given in the best possible faith.
Any consideration of Miss Walker's case ought to satisfy the test of fairness, not only to her, but to other members of the scheme, some of whom would like to have the opportunity of changing earlier decisions, but recognise the binding nature of them and fairness to the Exchequer, which has to meet the cost of any extra benefits thereby awarded. The opportunity to convert FSSN service into NHS main scheme service which was given in 1977 was limited to those who were still members of the policy scheme at that time, and had fully maintained their policies up to then.
Miss Walker satisfies neither of those conditions. As I have already explained, the purpose of the offer in 1977 was to allow such people to be contracted out of the state scheme from April 1978 and not to improve their superannuation expectations.
The relevant regulations are tightly drawn and I have no discretion, despite what Sir Cecil has said, [n his personal capacity though not in his official capacity. I regret that there is no way in which Miss Walker can be allowed retrospectively to change the decision that she made in 1975 to leave the FSSN and join the NHS main scheme.
It has also been suggested that the device used to allow Miss Walker to free herself from her option to remain in the FSSN and, in consequence, to join the NHS scheme may not have been legal. I am advised that that is not the case, and that the evidence shows that she was, indeed, employed in a part-time capacity from 1 July to 2 August 1975. There was thus a break in her superannuable status of more than a month, and, accordingly, her option to remain a member of the FSSN lapsed.
There is no suggestion that any advice given to Miss Walker by her employing authority in this context was wrong, in the sense of being improper, misleading or incompetent; on the contrary, it was honest, genuine, and thought to be in her own best interests. It offered her a way of getting precisely what she wanted at the time, and there was no way in which Miss Walker's employing authority could have expected in 1975 that the later offer in 1977 would be made.
Having said all that, I think that when my hon. Friend and his constituent see the final figures for the total

1121
benefits due to Miss Walker they will realise that they are nothing like as unfavourable as they may have thought. I will write to my hon. Friend to set them out in detail. I have a series of complicated computations, all of which indicate to me as a layman that the gap between what Miss Walker thinks she will get and what she might have got had she been able to take advantage of the transfer is much narrower than has been made out.
It is true that Miss Walker will receive less by way of both pension and lump sum under the NHS scheme than she would have done had she been given the opportunity to convert her FSSN service to NHS scheme service. But she will receive a not insubstantial supplement by way of pensions increase on her FSSN service which will increase both her pension and her lump sum. And, of course, under present arrangements, she will receive a substantial lump sum—I understand just over £13,000—from FSSN policies which, if she had taken the nine years for 10 offer in 1977, she would have had to surrender to the Department.
1122
The calculations are complex—I shall write to my hon. Friend about them—but I think he will find when he has had a chance to study them—I shall be delighted to offer one of my experts in superannuation to go through them with him if, after he has read them, he is still unhappy—that they show—they do to me as a layman and someone who has gone deeply into the case—that under the current arrangements Miss Walker does not seem, overall, to have been significantly disadvantaged by being deprived of the opportunity to transfer her FSSN service to the NHS scheme.
My hon. Friend has put firmly on the record his worries about his constituent's case. I hope I have shown him that the case has not been considered in a faceless, heartless, bureaucratic manner and that, once he receives my letter, he will feel that Miss Walker's position is somewhat rosier than has perhaps appeared on the surface.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Three o' clock.

WALES
  M4 (Cost)
  M4 (Cost)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  University Places
  University Places
  Mature Students
  Mature Students
ENVIRONMENT
  Expenditure (Administration)
  Expenditure (Administration)
  Sizewell Inquiry
  Sizewell Inquiry
TRANSPORT
  Road Freight
  Road Freight
  Nuclear Waste Transportation
  Nuclear Waste Transportation
  Consultation Arrangements
  Consultation Arrangements
DEFENCE
  Retired Officers
  Retired Officers
  Lieutenant Alan Gingles
  Lieutenant Alan Gingles
  Recruiting Offices
  Recruiting Offices
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Mr. Tom Duffey (Trial)
  Mr. Tom Duffey (Trial)
SCOTLAND
  National Health Service Staff
  National Health Service Staff
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Refugees
  Refugees
  Remanded Male Prisoners
  Remanded Male Prisoners
  Animals (Laboratory Experiments)
  Animals (Laboratory Experiments)
  Police Raids (Oxford)
  Police Raids (Oxford)
EMPLOYMENT
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Cancer
  Cancer
TRADE
  Merchant Fleet
  Merchant Fleet
  Video Tape Recorders
  Video Tape Recorders
  Car Imports
  Car Imports
  Semi-manufactures
  Semi-manufactures
  Monopolies and Mergers Commission
  Monopolies and Mergers Commission
  Marine Pilots (Compensation)
  Marine Pilots (Compensation)
  British Airlines (United States)
  British Airlines (United States)
  British Trading Interests (United States)
  British Trading Interests (United States)
  Argentina
  Argentina
  Germany and Japan
  Germany and Japan
  Nitrate (Imports)
  Nitrate (Imports)
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  European Commission (Staff)
  European Commission (Staff)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Hong Kong (Homosexuality)
  Hong Kong (Homosexuality)
  Royal Hong Kong Police Force (Special Investigation Unit)
  Royal Hong Kong Police Force (Special Investigation Unit)
  Sir Richard Posnett
  Sir Richard Posnett
  Strategic Arms Reduction Talks
  Strategic Arms Reduction Talks
  European Award for Non-violence
  European Award for Non-violence
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Crown Agents
  Crown Agents
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Corporate Savings
  Corporate Savings
  Air Freight
  Air Freight
  Spastics Society (Representations)
  Spastics Society (Representations)
  Family Spending Power
  Family Spending Power
ENERGY
  Nuclear Programme
  Nuclear Programme
  European Community Refund
  European Community Refund
  Petroleum Production
  Petroleum Production
  Nationalised Industries (Finance)
  Nationalised Industries (Finance)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Hospitals (Coventry)
  Hospitals (Coventry)
  Departmental Archives (Nelson)
  Departmental Archives (Nelson)
  NHS (Reorganisation)
  NHS (Reorganisation)
  Unclaimed Benefits
  Unclaimed Benefits
  Hospitals (Efficiency)
  Hospitals (Efficiency)
  Pensions
  Pensions
  NHS (Resources)
  NHS (Resources)
  Depo-Provera
  Depo-Provera
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Children (Allowances)
  Children (Allowances)
  Benefits (Cost)
  Benefits (Cost)
  Female Circumcision
  Female Circumcision
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Hospitals (Treatment)
  Hospitals (Treatment)
  NHS (Expenditure)
  NHS (Expenditure)
  Heating (Costs)
  Heating (Costs)
  Patient Option Forms
  Patient Option Forms
  Disabled Persons (Spending)
  Disabled Persons (Spending)
  Rural Pharmacies
  Rural Pharmacies

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

Teacher Training
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they have taken to improve the quality of training provided for potential teachers.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, this Government have shown considerable concern about the quality of training provided for potential teachers. In England and Wales they have received advice from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of schools and from the Advisory Committee on the Supply and Education of Teachers on ways in which such training might be improved, and a consultative document has also been issued on the question of qualified teacher status. The current reorganisation of the training system in England and Wales is being implemented in such a way as to provide a sound institutional base for the system. The Government are now considering what changes, if any, might be proposed which would affect the selection and assessment of potential teachers, and the content of the courses provided for them. In Northern Ireland, similar initiatives have been undertaken. For Scotland, an announcement was made recently about major changes in primary teacher training.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that very full Answer. Has he any information as to how potential teachers are advised to deal with violent hooliganism in schools?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, in recent years there has been a welcome increase in the time given to the practical aspects of teaching during initial teacher training courses. Additionally, it is the Government's intention that experienced practising teachers should be encouraged to take a more active part in training students, and that more of the students' training should be classroom-based. I believe that these developments will help with the problems which my noble friend has mentioned. However, I am sure that my noble friend will agree that in these matters, as in many others, there is no substitute for experience.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, is the noble Earl the Minister aware of the great satisfaction which has been felt throughout the Church through the saving of Bishop Grosse Teste College of Education in Lincoln which covers a wide area of East Anglia, and does this not speak well for the continuing happy relationships of Church and State in education?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I was not in fact aware of the feelings that the right reverend Prelate has just enunciated and I am very grateful to him for his remarks.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I should like to ask whether my noble friend the Minister has the figures for the number of student teachers from the ethnic minorities who are in training at present?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the answer to that question is, no, he has not, but he will certainly write to his noble friend with them.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl can comment on the fact that there appears to be some need for better dress and tidiness among teachers? When one sees the number of strange creatures who appear on teacher demonstrations at times, one wonders why any of their pupils bother to obey them at all.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I do not think that there are any courses dealing with that matter that are run in any institutions that I know. I have also noticed in your Lordships' House that there are some strange forms of dress which creep in from time to time, but they do not seem to lower the standard of debate.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, has the noble Earl any figures concerning the population of training colleges? Is it the Government's policy to reduce the number of teacher trainees in view of the fact, I believe, that there are 38,000 unemployed teachers in the country at present? Or is it the Government's policy to decrease the teacher/student ratio?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I do not have any figures available on that, but in May 1982 advice from the Advisory Committee on the Supply and Education of Teachers pointed to a considerable reduction in the overall need for newly trained teachers following a sharp fall in the school population. The primary and secondary intakes now proposed for England and Wales for the years 1983 and 1985 will produce a total number of places in 1985 which will be about 20 per cent. less than was intended when the present system was designed. It is not acceptable that the reductions should be absorbed by leaving the same number of institutions to provide the same number of courses but with smaller groups of students. Even in 1981 there were several course options followed by only one or two students and that cannot make educational or economic sense. We believe that it was right to create larger teaching groups in some institutions even though that meant that others would lose courses or cease to provide initial training altogether. So the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is quite right; it is the Government's intention to cut down as, indeed, the school population falls.

Local Authority Manpower Reductions
11.14 a.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what has been the total value of the economies made in local government by manpower savings.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, since May 1979 local authority manpower in Great Britain has decreased by some 112,000 full time equivalents of 4.7 per cent. The value of the economies made by manpower reductions cannot be separately calculated.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much for that reply. I know how very difficult it is to reduce the staff in many local authorities, but I would congratulate him on the fact that this trend, anyway, is going in the right direction and possibly will go further as time goes on.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that praise of the Government, but I should point out that there is currently a hiccup in the reductions and we, like my noble friend, are trying extremely hard to continue with these.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, before the hiccups extend too far and the praise gets out of hand, will the Minister say what economies have been made in the higher reaches of the manpower services in local government? Can he say to what extent the savings are offset by the costs of unemployment and other benefits concerned? Have the Government assessed the social consequences of not spending money on some very essential services?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is not the Government's intention, and never has been, to reduce the local authorities' manpower to unpalatable levels. As we heard just now, the manpower reductions have occurred in education as regards lecturers, teachers and administrators because of the falling school population; as regards refuse collection, through contracting out, and also in construction and miscellaneous services affecting mainly the town hall staff. I am advised that manpower is not homogeneous; it ranges from the low-paid manuals through to chief executives, although, to the best of my knowledge and belief, no chief executives have been made redundant.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, could the Minister say what is meant by the word "palatable"?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, not unpalatable.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, has the unpalatable produced the hiccups?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, not at this early hour.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, when the noble Lord talks about the falling school population because of the drop in the birth rate, do the Government have any plans in mind to remedy this situation?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I rather think that we went through that subject on the previous Question.

Accommodation for Single Homeless People
11.14 a.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what amount was paid in the last financial year to local authorities in respect of expenditure on provision for single homeless people; on what basis the sums were calculated; and what future provision is proposed.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as I told the House last week, it is for authorities themselves to decide within the total resources available to them, how much to spend on accommodation for the single homeless. Housing Investment Programme resources are distributed in a single block and housing subsidy is not related to specific projects. Broadly, 75 per cent. of the annual loan charges on the cost of projects will be reckonable expenditure and count towards authorities' subsidy entitlement. In addition, as part of its hostels initiatives, the Government have, since 1981–82, given an allocation to the Housing Corporation specifically for hostel provision.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, does the noble Lord not recall that he also told the House, at column 1140 of the Official Report for 2nd March, that the grant goes in large proportion to those areas which are seen to need it? At that time my question was: how is that "being seen to need it" assessed? does the noble Lord also recall saying in the same column that in the event of disaster affecting hostels, there would be no question but that residents would be rehoused? My question is: by whom, and, in particular, how is a borough like Camden, and the ratepayers of Camden, supposed to deal with 1,000 homeless men who are to be turned out of Rowton House in Arlington Road, which this private firm has put up for sale?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, to take the noble Baroness's last point first, as I told the House last week, negotiations on the future of the Rowton hostels are still in progress. Another meeting is to take place within the purlieus of my department today. I understand, of course, the continuing concern of noble Lords on this subject, but I am afraid that I am not in a position to say anything further at the moment in view of current discussions. On the question of rehousing, if the worst comes to the worst it would be a matter for each local authority to decide into which particular category the inhabitants fall—whether they are vulnerable or not vulnerable. If they are vulnerable, there would be a duty on the local authority to find them accommodation. If not, they would receive advice and assistance to help find that accommodation.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I am sorry to follow this up again, but that is a totally unrealistic reply. Does the noble Lord not agree that every inhabitant of Rowton House is vulnerable—otherwise he would not

427
be there? How can a borough like Camden, with all the stresses on its housing list, suddenly deal with 1,000 people?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not agree that current inhabitants of hostels are necessarily in the vulnerable category. They were almost certainly in the vulnerable category when they were originally housed there, which is rather a different matter. As regards whether Camden can afford this exercise, as I said last week—and I am quite happy to repeat it now—obviously, the grant goes more to those areas which require it than those areas, such as the shire counties, which very often do not.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Lord did not answer the question I put to him last week at column 1140; that is to say, whether the local authorities concerned have the power to make a control order enabling them to assume responsibility for the management of these hostels if it should come to the point of the owners selling them off to private enterprise and thus rendering all the inhabitants homeless. Could they do that pending the making of a compulsory purchase order by the Department of the Environment, and is that a matter which has been discussed between the boroughs and the right honourable gentleman, Sir George Young, from the Department of the Environment? Could the noble Lord also say a little more about his statement that his right honourable friend would shortly be producing a statement on the future of the units that currently exist—23 in Great Britain and 35 grant-aided ones throughout the country—and on what will happen overall to those?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no, I cannot add anything further to what I said last week. I do not think that I referred to a statement. I said that my right honourable friend was considering the position and would report, which is slightly different from a statement in your Lordships' House or in another place. As regards control orders, yes, the councils have the statutory power to use them if they so require. I should not like to be drawn any further on discussions of this particular matter.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the need arises in large urban areas which attract homeless people from other areas, and do any powers exist to return homeless people to whence they came?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I cannot give a definitive answer on that, but I should think that it is extremely unlikely. I am the last person to want to pressurise people into doing what they do not want to do.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, as the chairman of a large centre for the homeless in Camden, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that, except for the answer he gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, the answers he has given have caused enormous disquiet? The other answers will have
428
caused widespread disquiet in Camden and also where the homeless are a matter of great concern.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government, as again I said last week, share the deep concern felt in all parts of your Lordships' House and indeed up and down the country. As to whether the answers I have given will have caused great distress and great concern in Camden particularly, no, my Lords, I was not aware of that.

Paternity: Mr. Garry Jackson's Application
11.21 a.m.
Lord Sudeley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, in the light of the recent recommendations of the Law Commission regarding the position of illegitimate children, whether the circumstances relating to the paternity of a child disclosed in the application for a Personal Bill by Mr. Garry Jackson dealt with by the Personal Bills Committee of this House on the 16th February 1982 require further consideration.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, the Law Commission's recommendations on illegitimacy would not assist Mr. Jackson in the circumstances disclosed in his Petition. The Law Commission propose a procedure for obtaining a declaration of paternity as to the applicant's parentage. Mr. Jackson's claim was for a declaration in his own favour that he was entitled to a declaration of his own paternity in respect of a child, in a case where the issue had been determined against him in a court of first instance and the Court of Appeal had dismissed his appeal on the ground of want of jurisdiction.
Lord Sudeley: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. Taking into account the original proposals to the Law Commission in this connection, may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he might review his decision if I submit certain papers to him on such a matter, on the basis that if a Bill were tabled before the House the matter, as such, reviewed by the Law Commission would be fully debated in this House with a view to certain and general legislation on the issues involved?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if a Bill is tabled before this House and I am still Lord Chancellor, I suppose I shall be called upon to answer it.

Public Records (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
11.22 a.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Teviot.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE in the Chair.]
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No.1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause: Transfer to Public Record Office of records relating to births, deaths and marriages.
(" .—(1) After section 8 of the Public Records Act 1958 (court records) there shall be inserted the following section—
"Transfer to Public Record Office of records relating to births, deaths and marriages.
8A.—(1) This section applies to the following records, namely registers and certified copies of entries in registers, being registers or certified copies kept or deposited in the General Register Office under or in pursuance of any enactment (whether past or future) which provides for the registration of births, deaths or marriages, but excluding so much of any such record as relates to a still-birth.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Registrar General, not less than three months before the expiration of the period of one hundred years beginning with the 1st January next after the date of the registration under or in pursuance of any such enactment of any birth, death or marriage, to transfer to the Public Record Office any record to which this section applies relating to that birth, death or marriage (including any correction or addition made to that record after that date).
(3) Records transferred to the Public Record Office under this section shall not be available for public inspection until the expiration in relation to those records of the period of one hundred years mentioned in subsection (2) above; but (subject to that) it shall be the duty of the Keeper of Public Records to arrange that reasonable facilities are available to the public for inspecting and obtaining copies of the records so transferred.
(4) Records transferred to the Public Record Office under this section shall be in the custody of the Keeper of Public Records (instead of that of the Registrar General); and, where under or in pursuance of any enactment any duty is imposed on the Registrar General—

(a) to keep records to which this section applies, or

(b) to include references to records to which this section applies in indexes kept by him, or

(c) to provide persons with certified copies of records to which this section applies,

that duty shall cease to apply in relation to any records which have been do transferred, in the case of a duty falling within paragraph (a) above, on the transfer and, in any other case, on the records being made available for public inspection.
(5) The Registrar General shall not be under any duty under section 33 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 (short certificate of birth) to provide any person with a short certificate of the birth of any person if the records relating to that birth have been transferred to the Public Record Office under this section and are availabe for public inspection.
(6) The Lord Chancellor may, if it appears to him in the interests of the proper administration of the Public Record Office, direct that the transfer of any class of records under this section shall be suspended until arrangements for their reception have been completed.
(7) Records transferred to the Public Record Office under this section shall be temporarily returned to the General Register Office at the request of the Registrar General; but the return of any records under this subsection shall not revive any duty referred to in subsection (4) or (5) above.
(8) A copy of or extract from a record transferred to the Public Record Office under this section and purporting to be examined and certified as true and authentic by the proper officer and to be sealed or stamped with the seal of the Public Record Office shall be received in evidence, and be of like force and effect, as if it had been so certified under the seal of the General Register Office.
(9) Her Majesty may, in relation to any class of records to which this section applies or to all such records, by Order in Council substitute references to a period of less than one hundred years for the references in subsections (2), (3) and (10) of this section to one hundred years or to any other period for the time being having effect by virtue of this subsection; but no recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order under this subsection unless a draft of the Order has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
(10) Where for administrative purposes any records to which this section applies are kept together in one file or other assembly with other such records and the period of one hundred years mentioned in subsection (2) above would (apart from this subsection) expire in relation to the records so kept at different times, then the period shall be deemed to expire in relation to each record kept in that file or other assembly at the latest of those times.
(11) For the purposes of this section—

(a) where a birth has been both registered and re-registered, or a death has been registered more than once, the records relating to each registration or re-registration shall be treated as if they related to the registration of a different birth or death; and

(b) 'still birth' has the same meaning as in the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953.".

(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, the new section inserted by subsection (1) above shall have effect in relation to any records relating to a birth, death or marriage which was registered one hundred years or more before 1st January next after the coming into force of this section as if the obligations imposed by subsections (2) and (3) of the new section to transfer the records to the Public Record Office and to make them available for public inspection fell to be performed as soon after the coming into force of this section as it is practicable for the records, respectively, to be so transferred and to be made so available.
(3) Nothing in subsection (2) above shall require any records to be transferred to the Public Record Office or made available for public inspection at any time earlier than the time at which by virtue of any of the provisions of the said new section those records would (apart from that subsection) fall to be so transferred or made so available.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, and wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, which are consequential on it. The Bill, as it stands, modifies the exclusion of registers, et cetera, held at the General Register Office from the definition in Schedule 1 to the Public Records Act 1958 of "public records". It makes exclusion apply only to those registers, et cetera, which are 100 years old or less. Registers or certified copies of entries would thus became "public records" for the purposes of the 1958 Act once they were 100 years old or more, and thereby became open to public inspection. Unfortunately this approach does not quite fit in with other parts of the 1958 Act which, for example, assume that a public record is such from its creation. Similarly, it does not

431
fit in with Sections 3 and 5 of the 1958 Act, which make provision for selection and transfer of records within 30 years.
These amendments would form a new clause to be inserted into the Public Records Act 1958 as a new Section 8A. The effect of the amendments is to provide that one-hundred-year old records of births, deaths and marriages which are kept at the General Registry Office, together with the related indexes, shall be transferred to the Public Record Office and made available for public inspection. The Registrar General will be relieved of his statutory duties in relation to these records. Records of still births and adoptions are excluded from the provisions of the Bill, but events recorded abroad are included.
Now it is for me to explain briefly the meaning of some of the subsections of this new clause. If it is not clear I hope that your Lordships will ask me questions, and if I cannot answer them I shall write. Subsection (1) is plainly the definition. Subsection (2) ensures that transfer of records from the Registrar General to the Public Record Office takes place three months before the date of opening to the public when they become 100 years old.
Subsection (3) provides for the opening, and date of public access. Subsection (4) relieves the Registrar General of his existing duties in respect of these records. Subsection (5) provides that the Registrar General will not be able to provide a short birth certificate for public inspection, nor will the Public Record Office be able to do so. However, if members of the public wish to get one they can do so from either a local or a superintending registrar.
Subsection (6) is a safeguard to allow the Lord Chancellor to direct that the transfer of any class of record be suspended until arrangements for their reception have been completed. Subsection (7) allows for the records to be temporarily transferred back to the Registrar General in case they wish to display them for exhibition purposes, or the like. Subsection (8) permits the Public Record Office to issue certified copies. Subsection (9) provides that an order in council be approved by both Houses of Parliament in case it is thought prudent at any time to reduce the closure period of 100 years. Subsection (10) repeats Clause 10(2) of the existing Public Records Act.
Subsection 11 ensures that
"where a birth has been both registered and re-registered, or a death has been registered more than once, the records relating to each registration or re-registration shall be treated as if they related to the registration of a different birth or death."
Section (2) deals with the transition provisions and with arrangements which are being made for this Bill to be enacted. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I think I said on Second Reading that the Government support the objectives of this Bill. The amendments proposed by my noble friend are necessary drafting changes. They have the same purpose and effect as his general draft, but are rendered necessary for technical reasons. In supporting them I should like to thank my noble friend for both his patience and his skill in dealing with this highly complex and technical matter in conjunction with the
432
parliamentary draftsmen and officials of my department. I am grateful to him.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I, too, should like to give a meed of support to this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has been very wisely persistent in this matter. I am afraid he was less successful with me than with the present incumbent of the office of Lord Chancellor, but that was not through lack of sympathy on my part. He identified in the debate on Second Reading—and I was sorry I could not be here—the problem created at the moment by those who seek their roots, which has now become a popular pastime apparently; namely, the problem of, as we say in Wales, the paucity of patronymics in the Principality. We Joneses suffer a good deal from that.
I remember doing a case at Caernarvon Assizes (if the Committee will forgive me a moment's frivolity) when everyone in the case was Jones. The plaintiff and the defendant were Jones. I was led by my namesake, William Elwyn-Jones. Mars-Jones was leading Lloyd-Jones, and the judge was Austin Jones. My first witness was John Methuselah Jones, and I regret to say that I could not resist the temptation, having got his name and address, to ask him how old he was, which I fear did not amuse Mr. Justice Austin Jones. However, that is all by the way.
This seems a useful measure. There is nothing very revolutionary about it. One hundred years must pass before identification of the particulars and before they can be made available, and it obviously serves a useful and historic purpose.
Lord Teviot: I thank my noble and learned friend for his kind comments. I thank him very much for dealing with the matter and particularly I thank the officials who have been most patient in producing these highly technical amendments. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, for his amusing comments; I suffer from time to time looking for the name of Jones. I am sure the Joneses of Wales will find it very much easier to find their Joneses by looking directly at the registers.
I would only add that, as I propose to delete the following two clauses, if your Lordships say "Not-Content" instead of "Content", that will avoid confusion.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 1 and 2 disagreed to.
Clause 3 [Short title, citation and commencement]:
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 12, leave out from ("1982") to end of line 13.
The noble Lord said: This is consequential on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 17, leave out subsection (3).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

Travel Concessions for the Unemployed Bill [H.L.]
11.34 a.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. As I am sure your Lordships are aware, the purpose of this little Bill is to recognise the exhortation of the Secretary of State for Employment in another place that the unemployed should make every endeavour to find, and should travel to look for, work; he used the expression that, like their fathers, they should "get on their bikes". I believe he made that exhortation because of research that has been done, and I do not think he said it frivolously. If he did, this Bill would deserve to be treated in a frivolous manner. I think he knows the problems facing the unemployed—our fellow countrymen, robbed of the ability to earn a living—as their numbers have grown by tens of thousands month in and month out.
For the first time since the war, a Government face a situation of there being less jobs towards the end of their period in office than there were when they came in. The result is that the unemployed really have to search for jobs. The purpose of the Bill is to make a contribution to those who are endeavouring to seek gainful employment so as to keep themselves and their families in a reasonable and dignified way, and to escape that awful and frightful feeling of having to say, "I am on the dole". Whatever Parliament can do to assist to remove that anguish from the breasts of over 3 million unemployed, it should do.
There is a particularly gruesome situation about what is happening to the unemployed; unemployment is running through generations in the same family. For many of those who are now unemployed, the first time it happened to them was when they were young men, like myself, in the mid-'thirties. In 1936 there was massive unemployment, particularly among the 16 and 17 year-olds. Three or four years later—I ask the House to acknowledge this—many of them were to contribute to a magnificent endeavour when the British Expeditionary Force was driven out of Europe at Dunkirk.
We now have the situation that quite a number of them who were at Dunkirk as young men and who had known no gainful employment until they were called, and responded, in the defence of their country, are now back on the dole. No Member of this or the other Chamber can feel in any way happy at that situation, and it behoves us to make any contribution we can to try to reduce the numbers unemployed.
Men aged, say, 62 to 64 who have lost their jobs are, as I say, back in the situation they faced in the mid and late 'thirties. There is the even more agonising situation that in some instances, so are there sons and daughters. Therefore, when we use the phrase "the unemployed", while the nation I hope understands the agony and frustration they and their families face as a result of that unemployment, we must realise that it is not merely a question of what we are losing economically—because many of them are skilled and professional men, in addition to the vital labourers—but of what is happening within their families. I can remember the times when we used our
434
bikes in Wales—at least where I lived. We used our bikes to go downhill, but we had to push them back uphill, if we did not get the job, or even if we got it.
Today many unemployed people, in particular in the large urban areas, are prepared urgently and earnestly to seek work. Consider the unemployed man who, in looking for work, has to undertake a journey in, say, the greater Glasgow area, or Birmingham, or the Greater Manchester area, or London. He might be a former docker, living in Greenford. I know all about this kind of thing. I have seen the rows in my family when my father went to the docks and did not get a job. When he got home my mother said, "You were a fool. Why didn't you go to the so-and-so pit? They started half a dozen men there". Then there was a row, with all of us children sitting silently. All of this was happening to us, in the heart of the British Empire, because of a useless, inefficient Government. Yet, three or four years later, we responded to the call. I sincerely hope that the young men on the dole today will not have to do that, but they should not be neglected simply because they have not had to respond to the call.
As I have already stated, under a DHSS scheme the disabled unemployed receive assistance. But I believe that the able-bodied unemployed need assistance, too. I was giving your Lordships an example involving a docker. I do not mean it in any cruel way, but there are some people whose standard of living is such that they are so naïve about the realities of life that they cannot understand that at the moment when a man loses his job he looks again at the rate demand and the rent book, and he wonders whether he can keep the TV. I am becoming sick and tired of all the talk about unemployed Britions coasting all over the country in their posh cars. Why insult the unemployed?—because that is what that kind of argument does, and it has been deprecated.
Consider a man living on £30 a week in, say, Greenford, Hayes, or Southall. He is a docker, an extraordinarily skilled man. Each day he hears that there might be a start somewhere in one of our great London docks, or perhaps in Southampton, Cardiff, Swansea, or Glasgow. Off he goes, and the journey there and back makes a hole in £6 or £7; and that £6 or £7 is vital to the unemployed man who has a family. Such a situation brings about a new despair. Has he the right to spend the money to go to look for work, or should he keep it to help bring up his family?
The Bill was born out of an idea by the Greater Manchester City Council, which undertook massive research into the problem. To gain the views of the unemployed the council used the national opinion polls, and I shall tell your Lordships why it used those polls. Notwithstanding all the things that the political parties argue about nowadays, month in and month out, the national opinion polls show that the question that concerns our nation above all else is unemployment. So we must treat seriously this little Bill this morning in your Lordships' House.
In examining its researches, the Greater Manchester City Council discovered the frustration experienced by a man or woman, young or middle aged, biting his or her nails, wondering whether it is worth spending a fiver because there is a possibility of a job; and then

435
perhaps deciding that it is not worth the risk. For them the cost of living is too tight, every halfpenny must be looked at; and that surely must be a bad thing.
Manchester City Council then decided that further examination of the situation was required. The council did not rush into it. The council realised that, human nature being what it is, it had to take full cognisance of the possibility, even among the unemployed, of a tiny minority cheating and committing fraud. So the council wanted to see how to deal with this problem, too. It found the answer quite easily. Under the Manchester City Council scheme, the unemployed person does not receive the full fare, but a percentage of it—and only after the pro forma has been filled in by the employer who has interviewed the applicant. The employer must sign the form, which must be returned to the council offices, and there is a part refund of the money that the unemployed man expended in his endeavour to seek gainful employment.
Time will not allow me to go through all the detail, but for a few moments I should like to adumbrate what has been done. The Manchester Council has asked the Greater Manchester Transport Executive to devise a scheme to provide reduced fares for the unemployed on public transport. So though initially there is bound to be a subsidy from the rates, the money is paid back, and part of the cost is paid by the unemployed man himself. If only a third of them become gainfully employed, consider the relief that that will provide for the individuals, as well as the fact that they will no longer be drawing dole. In one exercise it was shown that such a situation could almost improve the financial position, rather than detract from it. I beg your Lordships to bear that point in mind.
So as to make sure that it had covered every possible eventuality, the Greater Manchester City Council undertook interviews, asking general questions about job seeking. Incidentally, the council interviewed 971 people. The council wanted to know how far did an applicant live from where a particular job was advertised as being available, and it was found that the distances ranged from four miles to 24 miles. People who volunteered to give the information were asked, "How did you get here today?" and 36 per cent. of them said, "We walked"; 38 per cent. had gone by bus; 13 had had lifts; 4 per cent. had travelled by bicycle, and 1 per cent. by train. Those people were prepared to go and help by giving the information. I think that that is marvellous; I really do. It shows the guts of the British that 900 unemployed Mancunians were quite prepared to put their hands in their pockets in order to go to their city hall to co-operate in an inquiry into how the rest of their colleagues might receive a few shillings to help them to go to look for jobs. We must take cognisance of that.
I hope that we shall dismiss feeble arguments that we have already discussed this question—for six minutes. Are we to tell the unemployed, "Your case was examined in this great Chamber for half a dozen minutes"? I fear that the unemployed would not be at all enamoured of this Chamber if they were to be told that.
I should like to point out that the scheme to which
436
I have referred was completely supported by all the political parties on that great council. There was total unanimity, and it is my hope that there will be total unanimity in this House as well. That I believe is a fundamental point. The council inquired of the same number of people how long they had been unemployed, and then, how many jobs they had applied for in that time. People gave various replies according to the number of jobs that they had sought in a year. Some of them had gone after as many as 40 or 50 jobs. I repeat, my Lords, unemployed men had gone after 40 or 50 jobs, and the average cost would have been about £4 or £5 a time. These are the realities of the situation.
Then they asked more questions, and ultimately they devised a scheme. Because of what happened at Bromley and what happened with the Law Lords of this House, the Manchester City Council, in their all-party endeavour, decided that they must act responsibly and see to it that counsel was engaged to make certain that they were acting within the law. I believe that the Greater Manchester City Council is to be complimented on its thoroughness. All the members of all the parties of that council are to be complimented on their thoroughness and are to be complimented on the sincerity of their endeavour.
While the law specifically allows local authorities to grant travel concessions to the elderly, blind and other disabled people, no such power is conferred to help the unemployed. I want to concede straight away that if we passed this Bill the scheme would not be mandatory. I have enough confidence in my fellow Britons who sit on similar councils in Scotland and South Wales as well as those of Manchester to believe that when they see how this scheme works they will want to know something about it and they will start implementing it.
When one weighs it up, what an admirable way to start a piece of legislation! What the Greater Manchester City Council have done is this. They have said "Let us not only be pioneers but let us have a pilot scheme. Let us find out the things which are wrong initially and then improve on it". That is an admirable way of working. All this work and endeavour, the moral and economic issues involved, cannot be indulged in unless Parliament give Greater Manchester City Council the right to act in this way.
I have said that there are in that area of Manchester alone 170,000 unemployed men and women. That is a very large number. It is a good pilot scheme. It is vital for us to know that it had absolute all-party support. It was a genuine response to the Secretary of State, Mr. Tebbit, and his advice for the unemployed to get out and look for work. He will agree that, rather than simply paying out the dole for doing nothing, we should give the unemployed another couple of bob to go searching around to find the work which he believed at the time was available. It will not solve the problem of unemployment. But people have been deterred—and quite rightly the Secretary of State wondered about this—by the cost of the quest. This scheme does away with that argument, and I think that the Secretary of State will agree with it.
Employers in the Greater Manchester area also agree. Not one employer has raised an objection against this idea. Not one of those employers has said

437
that this is a bad scheme. They can see the wisdom and the goodness that is in it. I believe that this House ought to do the same thing. The Greater Manchester City Council have an admirable pilot plan. I know that one can argue and say that it is only the people in Manchester who are going to get a help in the first place. That is perfectly true. But when they have been running the scheme a while, and if it is a success—as I am sure it will, be although they may want to make changes—they will be able to help all the other local authorities that may wish to join in. If we pass this little Bill it in no way makes the scheme mandatory. It is a challenge and it is such a good thing that others who examine it who are not coerced and told, "You have to do it", will say, "For the unemployed among us we shall want to do it". And what is wrong with that unless you have a built-in complete disregard for Great Britain's unemployed?
What this little Bill does is not merely, so to speak, putting our hands on our hearts; we are all concerned about the problems of the unemployed. This Bill makes a little contribution to show that concern in a practical way. I commend this Bill in the interests of our fellow countrymen—and we are talking about our fellow countrymen who are in the most unfortunate situation of all. These are the unemployed Britons who have had their pursuit of happiness nullified by the ogre of unemployment. I am of the firm belief that this Bill will make a small but essential contribution to making a reality of those wonderful words for the unemployed man or woman, "I have found a job!"
That can transform a family. It is remarkable that when a man gets back to work he is not merely earning his living but it raises his own morale and the morale of his family and relatives. Therefore I believe that this Bill is good for them and for their families. Also, it is good for Great Britain that we in this House should show such concern. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Molloy.)
11.57 a.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out "now" and at the end to insert "this day six months".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. We all recognise the merits of the Bill which has been moved with such deep feeling for the unemployed by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. We all recognise wherever we sit that the present scale of unemployment is the major problem in our country today. Much more difficult is to find the best way of curing this huge problem with all its individual tragedies. Let me leave no one in any doubt that my personal feelings—and I am sure everybody's feelings—are entirely with the noble Lord in his objective.
My objections to the Bill are entirely procedural. The Bill is virtually the same as Amendment No. 67 to the Transport Bill which we debated last Thursday. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, moved the amendment and explained its purposes although not
438
at the same length, detail and scale as the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has just done. But after the debate, in which several noble Lords took part—incidentally, not the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, but he could have done so had he wished—my noble friend Lord Bellwin replied for the Government, explaining the various existing measures by which the DHSS and the MSC assist travel for this purpose. The assistance is fairly comprehensive. It is mainly in connection with seeking jobs, with taking training and with the initial phase of travelling to it when a man or a woman has been fortunate enough to get a new job. The assistance also goes beyond that in some categories. I am sure that from the Front Bench my noble friend Lord Lucas will explain these provisions in detail, and therefore I shall not take the time of the House in doing so. At the end of the debate, although the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, had not secured all of his objectives, he recognised that he had achieved a good deal, and he said so. Accordingly, he withdrew his amendment to consider further whether he wished to return to the attack on Report stage.
So this matter is still currently under consideration within the ambit of the Transport Bill. This means that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, in moving his Private Member's Bill today is asking the House to consider exactly the same point as the House considered on the Committee stage of the Transport Bill last week. Whatever the subject—even one which is felt about as deeply as this and is as cogently deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, even in these circumstances—repetition of business is really a misuse of the time of the House.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. I have to point out to the House that I could have had this Second Reading debate before the Transport Bill got here. I was asked to delay it by the Government Whips' Office and I co-operated. For co-operation, should I receive punishment? What sort of behaviour is that in your Lordships' House?
Lord Denham: My Lords, if my noble friend will forgive me, I must say that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is right and that the Government Whips' Office was most grateful for his co-operation on this matter. But I think the fact remains that the issue was discussed and at the moment has been withdrawn for consideration by the Government; so that what my noble friend says also is right.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I think it would be useful if one pointed out at this stage that the Transport Bill was brought forward from the Commons on 2nd February and the Bill of my noble friend Lord Molloy was ordered to be printed on 10th November. It has been available for Second Reading as from a fortnight after 10th November. I think one should also say that one knows that the Government are determined to get the Transport Bill through without amendment. Therefore, for my noble friend Lord Molloy to proceed with his Bill at this stage is the only way that this matter can be properly considered.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, after that interesting interlude between the "usual channels" who do not usually fire off at each other in the House, I would only add that we are all well aware of what happens to Private Members' Bills. Many of us have moved them from time to time. We get the best consideration from whichever side forms the Government, but one has to accept at the end of the day that Private Members' business, however important it is, has to take second place to Government business. This means that from time to time one must give way and have one's business postponed. I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, in this particular case has had to put up with this two or three times. I have a great deal of sympathy for him. I have had some experience of Private Members' Bills myself. But the fact is that two wrongs do not make a right. If he has been unlucky in being asked to postpone business, it still does not justify his asking the House to repeat business which has been debated already, in which he could have taken part but in which he did not; and which is still to be debated on the Report stage. It really does not make sense to conduct business like that.
The fact is that while each of us has a responsibility to protect the rights of individual Peers to express their opinion and to use the machinery of the House to do so, equally we have a responsibility to protect the reputation and business of the House, and that responsibility rests upon the shoulders of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, as much as on the rest of us. Our business procedures here are very flexible but we do have some responsibility to see that the general flow of business is maintained. It is on this account that I feel great sympathy with the noble Lord for having these postponements of his Bill—and nobody could but feel sympathy for him with his deep feeling about the purpose of the Bill—nevertheless, this is repetition of existing business and therefore it ought not to go forward. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it; because if he refuses to do that I feel that, in the interests of the business of the House, I shall have no alternative but to press my amendment at the end of the debate.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, in view of the noble Lord's remarks about his sympathy with my noble friend, Lord Molloy, and his implication of seeming support of the principle of the Bill, will he be prepared to give his support to an amendment to the Transport Bill, an amendment which will achieve the results sought by my noble friend Lord Molloy?
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, when the noble Lord has heard the Government's reply, he will be informed as to what now is the measure of aid. It does, in fact, go a very long way to meet the point which Lord Molloy has been putting before us. In my own judgment, it probably substantially satisfies it; but perhaps I should myself wish to reserve my opinion on this point until I hear the further debate which will take place on the Report stage of the Transport Bill—a debate in which no doubt Lord Sefton will wish to take part—to see whether there is a substantial area not covered when the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, have given further consideration to it.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Lord please give me a small answer to one small question? He is the author of a wrecking amendment. I have never realised that he was privy to what a Minister of the Crown was going to say. I am not so; but he said so. He asked us to listen to what the Minister says. He must know what the Minister is going to say. I do not think that that is fair.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, that is a point which has absolutely no relevance whatever. I have no idea of what he is going to say—well, I do have a pretty good idea because I have seen what my noble friend Lord Bellwin said in answer to the amendment—which is the same as this Bill—which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, moved. If the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has not read Hansard of Thursday of last week, then he would not know; but, if he has read it, he will know the substance of what my noble friend Lord Lucas is going to say. That is what I know and what I suppose everybody else knows. There is no secret about it.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out "now" and at the end to insert "this day six months".—(Lord Nugent of Guildford.)
12.7 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I rise warmly to support the Bill and simply to deplore the fact that an amendment of this kind has been brought in at this stage in regard to this Bill. I use the word "deplore" and therefore I must justify it. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, for whom I have the greatest respect—I know of his great works in Surrey for the water boards—himself said that he would not be giving his reasons for that amendment until he had heard the Minister. He based his reasons upon a speech made last Thursday by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. With the greatest of respect, speaking without that speech before me, I do not think, prima facie, that the time of this House has been wasted by proceeding with this Bill, and there is no duplication of business. That is my theme at this stage because I am uninstructed about, I do not know, what the Minister will say on behalf of the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, gave me the impression (as he has given the noble Lord, Lord Molloy) that he knew what the Minister was going to say.
My Lords, we shall now proceed on the basis of this notable Bill put forward on the initiative of Lord Molloy, for which he is to be congratulated. I say that it is a notable Bill because it is going to help those caught in the hideous trap of unemployment who find it expensive and difficult financially genuinely to seek work. The adoption of this Bill in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has described, would in many instances give an incentive for many now unemployed and in despair to look for work. I use the word "hideous" in relation to unemployment and I feel I must justify using that word. The position of many men and women is hideous because they are forced, owing to their inability to travel to seek work because of the financial stress on their families due to lack of funds, to join a subsection of society where they are apparently useless and unwanted.

441
May I give your Lordships an instance of a one-parent family in my experience? There are young children and one adult who has gone around seeking work. He has run up bills and his mother is in despair about the cost of this situation. The moral effect upon this young man—and this scenario is duplicated in many places—is that he feels he cannot go seeking work now. He spends his time lolling about the house or in bed, wasting his life, because he feels that by going out to seek work and spending money on travel he will be depriving the rest of the family of their bread and their livelihood. I shall not take up your Lordships' time by giving instances of that kind but there are many, particularly of men, in the longer term of unemployment who, because of the cost of travelling, in rural areas or in city areas, give up.
This Bill would be an incentive to those who are genuinely going to seek work. It is not a costly Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, indicated, its costs would be set off by contributions to the transport organisations; and I am not going to involve myself in the details of administration. The Manchester Corporation—and I am aware of the part played by Liberal colleagues of mine in this research—consider that it is a project worth pursuing. Therefore, I speak strongly in favour of this Second Reading and I do hope that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, will not press his amendment today.
I heard the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, earlier this week talk about the benefits being given to the unemployed and to the disabled. Here we are dealing with people who are able-bodied and could do with a little bit of support when genuinely seeking employment. The amendment would seem to be counter to the expressed views, certainly of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who was sincerely putting forward the views that he did in winding up that great debate. I believe the Government would be very wrong to rely on this technical matter in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has suggested: that we are duplicating work on this very serious social question that is before the House.
12.13 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I too hope that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, will not press his amendment, for two reasons: first, because of the time factor to which my noble friend Lord Ponsonby referred; and, secondly, because I have been misquoted as to what I said at the end of the debate on the amendment which I moved during the Committee stage of the Transport Bill. I will read what I said on 3rd March at cols. 1281 and 1282:
"I will consider the points which the noble Lord has made, but we may want to come back to the general principle of assistance as regards social needs and as regards the needs to which reference has been made. My noble friend Lord Molloy will be coming back to this matter because he has a Private Member's Bill dealing with this very point. We may look at that and also at what has been said tonight and consider whether we shall have a suitable amendment on Report".
With those words, I withdrew the amendment. Naturally, if your Lordships support this Second Reading, as I hope you will, I will have to consider what to do on Report stage. We may still decide to put down an amendment on Report stage, bearing in mind that the Government may not find time for this Bill to
442
be debated anywhere else. Therefore, our options are still open; but my statement did not mean that we should not support this Bill today: in fact it said the contrary.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, whom I am pleased is speaking today, questioned whether or not the Transport Bill—and I quote him from col. 1279—
"is an active vehicle to carry such a clause, irrespective of its merits".
Incidentally, I hope we are going to consider my noble friend's Bill on its merits and on nothing else. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, likewise questioned whether the amendment to the Transport Bill was the appropriate means to achieve the objective. Therefore, if the Transport Bill was not the proper place for my amendment, the Bill of my noble friend Lord Molloy is the proper place for it, and so we have to consider that aspect.
It appeared in that debate—and I re-read it carefully last night—that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, to a great extent misunderstood all the objectives of the amendment which I moved; and we may also be in danger of misunderstanding the objectives of my noble friend's Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, was very sympathetic and he outlined all the provisions available for assisting travel for those seeking work and attending interviews. But on reading very carefully what the noble Lord said I find that he mentioned that these provisions are for claimants coming from the DHSS and they must be unemployed and receiving supplementary benefit. So any person who is unemployed and not receiving supplementary benefit cannot get this assistance from the DHSS to attend interviews or to travel to seek work.
The noble Lord the Minister also referred to possible help from the Manpower Services Commission. All these matters may be dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas; but they are irrelevant to the point of this Bill because for persons to be assisted under the MSC they must be unemployed or threatened with redundancy. They must be attending a definite job interview; so it is no good suggesting that someone may be paid for simply going somewhere to seek work. I am now quoting from the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, in cols. 1280 and 1281, where he said:
"The prospective employer must confirm a reasonable chance of success in the job application".
That is a very, very limited form of assistance. Therefore, over and above the points made by the Minister in reply to me, there are obviously big gaps even in assisting persons who want to seek work and travel for interviews.
In my reply to the noble Lord the Minister, I stressed that I was not only dealing with help to seek work or attend interviews but I was dealing with the other social needs of the unemployed, to assist them to visit relatives and friends. This morning I did not travel by car but travelled by Tube and the cost was £1·80 for a single fare for a journey of 15 miles to Westminster. What unemployed person could afford that to visit relatives with his wife? As I have mentioned before to your Lordships, I happen to support a football team which does not attract a very great attendance. The unemployed are admitted at specially reduced prices to watch my team, Leyton Orient—a good, friendly

443
club—but it costs them money to get there and I can assure your Lordships that within our catchment area the fare will be prohibitive for an unemployed man.
We are talking not only about assistance where the unemployed are not covered by the MSC or by the DHSS when seeking work and attending interviews, hut also about the social needs of the unemployed so that they will not be made to live like hermits because they cannot afford to travel. That is the basic justification for my noble friend's Bill.
In the light of what else was said in our previous debate at the Committee stage of the Transport Bill, I make it quite clear—if the Minister does not say it I will—that Section 138 of the Transport Act 1968 states that these concessionary fares can be only in the area of the authority or the transport executive which is making the decision—and, as my noble friend said, the power is a permissive one and is not mandatory—or in areas adjacent to it. Therefore, someone travelling down from Manchester to London to get a job is not covered. Such a case will have to be covered by one of the other schemes, if it can be covered at all. Only travel in the area of the local authority, or in places adjacent to it, is covered.
Therefore for all those reasons, I hope that noble Lords will put aside procedural points. If I may say so, it is for me to decide whether I will come back at Report stage, in the light of the discussion today and in the light of whatever timetable the Government promise this Bill, if it gets a Second Reading today—which I hope it will. Because the Bill is permissive, because it will affect not only the schemes which I am certain the Minister will tell us about today—the DHSS and the MSC schemes, which are very limited—and because of the need to ensure that the unemployed can live like the rest of us, and travel in their areas on a social needs basis, I hope that your Lordships will give support to my noble friend's Bill and will reject the amendment.
12.22 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has a worthy dream, but I fear that it is a dream of Utopia. There are so many groups who, in an ideal world, we should all like to help—and in the context of the noble Lord's Bill I am speaking of financial help. But, in the hard world of reality, where should the line be drawn? With only so much public money available, what criteria should be used to decide who might have the best claim for assistance by way of free travel? Well, my Lords, so far so good, from the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, and, from one aspect, it is a view which I share. Obviously, unemployed people in search of jobs have to travel in order to be intervieved. Equally obviously they cannot, in many cases, afford the price of the bus or train fare.
From earlier speeches in this debate, it seems that I may well be robbing my noble friend the Minister of his speech—because I do not know what he is going to say. But, if I may have the temerity to take up your Lordships' time by recalling what my noble friend Lord Bellwin said on 3rd March, about the circumstances in which assistance with travel costs is
444
available to the unemployed from the DHSS, I shall now do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has picked bits out of the speech of my noble friend Lord Bellwin. Perhaps I may return to what he said. It is true that claimants must be unemployed and receiving supplementary benefit. Assistance is given to attend interviews more than 10 miles from home if the person in question is not receiving help from any other source. If the DHSS arranges an interview within 10 miles of home, help can be obtained. Travel help will be extended up to a maximum of 14 days, if the person gets the job but has to wait for his or her first pay cheque. Unemployed people who are doing very worthwhile voluntary jobs under Government schemes can have their fares paid. This is not part of what the Minister said. Lastly—to return to what he said—interview expenses covering travel can be obtained from the MSC's job search scheme.
I am convinced that the Government already appreciate that people may, and do, have to travel to find suitable jobs. Provision already exists to provide not only assistance with travel expenses but, sometimes, subsistence allowances for all that is involved in seeking work, and, if the applicant is successful, assistance is also available for moving home to another area. It is possible that, when the Report stage of the Transport Bill is discussed, more discretionary help may be found to be available. But I believe that the Government's attitude is sensible and caring.
I admire the spirit and deep feelings which the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has displayed in presenting his Bill. I share those feelings. But in this case, and for the reasons I have given, I must part company with the noble Lord and I shall support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Nugent if he presses it to a Division.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, and to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, is it not a misconception to suggest that this Bill as drafted is appropriate to implement the "Get on your bike" exhortation of my right hounourable friend? With your Lordships' leave, perhaps I may put aside procedural questions, because I should be out of my depth on them, and, in no way challenging any assertion of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, as to what was said, or not said, on a previous occasion, accept the noble Lord's challenge to try to deal with this matter on the merits?
Why is this Bill not appropriate to implement that exhortation? At the outset, I wish to associate myself with the concept that registered unemployed persons who travel in search of employment should receive reimbursement of all travel expenses incurred by them, irrespective of whether or not they are in receipt of supplementary benefit. In that context, from my personal point of view, the present state of the law is not wholly satisfactory, because the MSC grant is limited to those in receipt of supplementary benefit and not the ordinary benefit.
But, having said that and coming to the merits of the Bill as regards the unemployed, your Lordships will no doubt observe on objective examination that it fails to

445
limit concessionary travel to the purpose of seeking employment under such schemes as the Manchester scheme, to which reference has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. This is important, because, if your Lordships will be good enough to bear with me and to follow the Bill, bearing in mind that you will have read the master Act onto which it is to be tacked, what has happened is as follows.
The principle of this Bill is really objectionable, in that it seeks to equate the status of the elderly, the blind and the disabled, who are in the master Act, and who, rightly, by virtue of that status qualify for concessionary travel irrespective of the purpose of the travel, with the status of the unemployed and those employed on youth opportunities schemes, without limitation as to purpose. This is a crucial defect in the tacking-on process, which confuses status with purpose and wholly fails to implement my right honourable friend's concept of the "Get on your bike" principle.
If your Lordships will allow me just one or two more minutes—Friday is not a day on which to bore your Lordships—there is one matter which on objective examination I feel I ought to draw to your Lordships' attention, if you have, at least, followed the approach to the proposed statute so far. This has rightly been said by other noble Lords to be permissive. That breeds disparity of treatment, because it may be implemented here but may not be implemented there. And it may be implemented here in a way in which it is not implemented there. If it is implemented, there is no control whatsoever under the Bill to prevent abuse at the expense of the ratepayer. Furthermore, if widely implemented, the system of control under the Transport Bill could, with some 3 million unemployed, be detrimentally affected. It is not appropriate to repeat what was said last week about the Transport Bill. I seek respectfully to draw only that aspect of the matter to your Lordships' attention.
If this process of reasoning should commend itself to your Lordships as a fair and objective examination of the proposed statute, would it not follow that one should reject the concept of the Bill but support the concept of the amendment? Should we not all agree on the principle at stake?—that, subject to reasonable control, the unemployed who are seeking work should be reimbursed for their expenses and that to that end further consideration should be given by the Government to the point which I sought to raise about the bar—unless one is receiving supplementary benefit, perhaps. Having made that suggestion, I most earnestly suggest to your Lordships that this Bill is not a fair or an appropriate means of implementing "Get on your bike".
12.32 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for not having put down my name to speak in this debate. I should not have intervened but for the fact that we have now heard three speeches from the other side, all of which have expressed sympathy for the contents and the principle of the Bill. Indeed, in one particular case the speaker went much further. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said quite clearly that he agreed with the principle that the unemployed should be assisted in travelling to look for work, regardless of their status in other ways—for
446
instance, that they are receiving supplementary benefit. That I find to be very refreshing. It underlines what I have been told over many years is the hallmark of this Chamber: the ability of both sides to talk about principles and to say whether or not they agree with them, regardless of party standing. I welcome with great sincerity what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway.
However, at the end of his speech the noble Lord said that this Bill is not an appropriate way in which to achieve that aim. But this is not the be-all-and-end-all of the matter. If this Bill receives its Second Reading, I have been well advised that there is nothing at all to prevent noble Lords from putting into the Bill during the Committee stage all the kinds of control that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, wants. That would apply to what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, and by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, who moved the amendment. Nobody has so far disagreed with the principle of the Bill, though I have no doubt that somebody will do so later. As I understand the procedure of this House—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The principle with which we are in agreement is, I submit, incapable of fair reflection in this Bill. When, therefore, the noble Lord said that I am in agreement with the principle of the Bill, that is, alas!, just what I am not. I am in agreement with the principle with which I said I was in agreement.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, the noble Lord seems to be moving back from his previous statement, but I shall read with interest in Hansard what the noble Lord has said and see whether I can reconcile his statements. But even taking the noble Lord's last statement, that he does not necessarily agree with the principle of the Bill, because even then it would not be possible to achieve the method of control which he believes should be achieved by it, what on earth is wrong about giving a Second Reading to the Bill and then trying to achieve that objective at the Committee stage? I cannot, for the life of me, understand what procedure would prevent those on the other side who have spoken from achieving that objective at the Committee stage. What, therefore, is quite clear is that a refusal to give a Second Reading to this Bill by any noble Lords in this House means that they do not care about the principle of assisting the unemployed.
12.36 p.m.
Lord Kinnaird: My Lords, I had not intended to join in the debate, but I feel compelled to do so. I quite agree with my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford that on the whole Private Members' Bills should give way to Government business. I quite agree, too, that at certain times and in certain circumstances, particularly in this House, the head should bend a little toward the heart. My head usually tends to go with the Government. Today my heart goes with the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. Unless certain things are said during the next five or 10 minutes which manage to change my heart, I shall vote for the Bill.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I, too, should like to say that I shall be voting for the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, unless the speaker who is to wind up can persuade me otherwise. I shall do so on the principle that we must do all we can to prevent men or women from feeling that they are not human. If that means sacrifice for the rest of us, we must be prepared for it. As another speaker has already pointed out, any defects which there may be in this short Bill could be ironed out and put right at Committee stage. Let us give some hope to the unemployed. Those of us who live in rural areas know how costly travelling can be if we are lucky enough to be in a job, and for those in rural areas who are out of a job travelling can be very costly indeed. Let us therefore try not only to reason with the head but also to have a little warmth, heart and spirit. Surely it would not mean any doubling up with anything which will be in the Transport Bill.
12.40 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on the procedural point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. If we follow purely matters of procedure, the type of Second Reading speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, and others in the course of this morning's proceedings would have been ruled out of order at Committee stage of the Transport Bill. Furthermore, the multiple speeches that have been made and the cut and thrust across the Floor of this House would equally have been out of order at Report stage. In a sense, the introduction of this Bill has by-passed our normal procedures so far as the Transport Bill is concerned. As such, I do not believe that it is a wise use of the time of this House. I am spending a Friday morning that I could have spent in other ways in discharging my duties by listening to this point. I believe that we should support the point of principle made by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford; not because the head is ruling the heart but because we must learn to be economical with parliamentary time so far as we can.
The noble Lord's Private Bill has not a chance of survival in the Commons, introduced as late as this in the Lords without Government support. If it is not to receive Government support in this House, then it will not get it in the other place and it will not get on to the statute book this year. Surely a better course of action for the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is to wait and see what emerges from successive stages of the Transport Bill, and then he will be free to introduce his Private Bill at the next Session, to smooth out whatever deficiencies there may be in the Transport Bill as it leaves both Houses. This is purely an intervention on the subject of procedure and I hope that your Lordships will accept it as such.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, before the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, sits down, I hope he will recall that this Bill was introduced on 10th November last, a few days after this Session began.
The Earl of Halsbury: With respect, my Lords, that has nothing to do with it, because if this Bill now goes to another place it will not get through Committee
448
stage in time to get on to the statute book without Government assistance, which it does not look like getting.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I believe that the procedural point has been completely dealt with by my noble friend Lord Sefton of Garston and I do not propose going any further into that matter, except to say that procedural points should not be allowed to undermine principles. We are on the Second Reading of a Bill, and Second Reading is, by convention, dealing with the principles of the Bill. I should like to make it absolutely clear to everyone in this House that anybody who votes against this Bill or who abstains from voting is casting a vote against the principle of subsidising the travel fares of the unemployed. As has been said, any details can be discussed at Committee stage, and will certainly be discussed in another place.
I welcome very warmly the cross-House and cross-party expressions of support for this principle. However, there are one or two points which have not been made in this debate so far. At one time the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, appeared to give the impression that this Bill was the personal possession of my noble friend Lord Molloy and all we were really discussing was whether we should be kind to my noble friend or not. That is not the case, and my noble friend Lord Molloy would be the last person to wish it to be the case.
In my view, this Bill should have come from the Government. It should have come from the Government on the basis of the Government's policy. Is it recognised that, on the one hand, from the Government's own figures, there are more than 3 million unemployed; but that, on the other hand, there are 300,000 advertised jobs vacant? We know that normally the number of advertised jobs vacant represents only one-third of the total number of jobs vacant, which would produce a figure of something like 900,000 jobs vacant. Surely it is common sense for the Government to want to get these two together.
How can they do so? We have been hearing about the provision under the DHSS for the assistance of travel for the disabled. The unemployed are disabled; they are disabled from working. They are disabled from earning a sufficient wage to keep their families in ordinary decency. A family of a couple with two children who receive £41·05 unemployment pay a week is disabled. If the Government are sincere in their desire to reduce unemployment and to give the unemployed the opportunity of taking the jobs which are available—the numbers of which may be disputed but the advertised number is 300,000, so the total number is certainly more than that—then surely it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that people who are unemployed today are given every opportunity and encouragement, without having to sacrifice the interests of their families in seeking those jobs. That is the principle we are discussing in this Bill, irrespective of what happens at Report stage of the Transport Bill.
I have one final point. This issue is really one of principle—and one that will be of concern to the whole of this country for the rest of this century. It is virtually a platitude today to point out that if we are to restore the industrial power of this country, then workers

449
must be prepared to seek other jobs, to receive further training, and to move their homes and their families; and that it is imperative that there should be a great deal more mobility of labour than has been traditional in this country. That will be possible only if the workers themselves are assisted in their search for those jobs.
As one who comes from the North of England, I would ask Ministers who are responsible for this policy to go anywhere north of the Trent and just to talk with and listen to the people there, to learn just how many people are so desperate today that they are taking any form of transport they can find in looking for jobs which they hear are available. Jobs are available, and if your Lordships have seen on television each week the maps of lay-offs on the one hand and new jobs being created on the other hand, you will appreciate that people are trying to get to those areas where new jobs are being created. But it is the responsibility of the Government to give them every assistance to do so.
12.48 p.m.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: My Lords, I apologise for not being here for the start of this debate, but from the five speeches I have heard it seems that the sympathy of this House, from all sides, is very largely for those who want free transport when they are genuinely seeking jobs. I am sure that the vast majority of your Lordships would support that. But as I read this Bill—unless the lawyers can tell me that I am completely wrong—it will mean creating virtually a universal pass enabling people to go anywhere at any time provided that they are unemployed, and will put the bill at the door of British Rail or Her Majesty's Government, who will probably have to pay the subsidy. Are we really to find that if people want to go from Glasgow to Wembley for the Cup Final we are going to pay their fares?
Noble Lords: No, no!
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: Are we going to find that we pay because somebody in Middlesbrough might have an opportunity of staying with a relative in Devon when he has been divorced from the area where he might be seeking employment? I would agree that the unemployed should get their voucher for anywhere where they want to go to seek a job. I would one hundred per cent. support that. But I do not agree that we should lay ourselves wide open to abuse for people to ride all over the country wherever they like at the taxpayers' expense.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I correct the position? I made quite clear in my remarks that Section 138 of the 1968 Act, which this Bill proposes to amend, applies only to journeys within the area of the local authority giving the concessions or adjacent areas. If a county decided to give the concession it would be in the area of that county. If a PTE decided to give assistance it would be in the area of the PTE or adjoining areas. The Bill would enable the unemployed to have concessionary fares of whatever kind the local authority wished, it does not necessarily mean free travel. They would get a concession up to the level decided by the local
450
authority. But we would wish—I think the amendment we propose would involve this—that it would not just cover travel to work but enable the unemployed person to visit friends and take part in social life.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: My Lords, if this is confined to the area for seeking work that would be less than I would wish. If somebody was living in Middlesbrough and had an opportunity of a job in London, I would rather support him having the right to a free fare to London to be interviewed for that job, than the freedom to go anywhere. The division between us is not that the unemployed should not be given every opportunity to seek work, anywhere in the country, with a free voucher; but I do think we are laying ourselves wide open to abuse when it is suggested that, even confined to the area—the noble Lord has corrected me and I apologise for my error—the concession should include other purposes. That still lays us open to abuse. Let them have a wider area, provided they are job seeking.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, may I intervene with three sentences. In the first place, I have no interest to declare. It is 71 years since I entered full-time employment; I was never unemployed. This Bill is to help people to get work. That is surely a very worthy cause and deserves to be supported. When we talk about paying some of the expenses which people incur in trying to get work, we have to bear in mind that we get our own fares paid by the State when we come to work here.
12.53 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, noble Lords from both sides of the House this morning have drawn attention to the difficulties facing the unemployed and some have argued the case for assistance through the kind of concessionary fare scheme envisaged in the Bill. My colleagues in Government have no difficulty in recognising the conviction with which those views are held. Neither are my colleagues less concerned at the plight of the unemployed than any other noble Lord in your Lordships' House. It is a matter of concern. But we have to ask ourselves: is subsidy for travel the best way of helping those who are out of work? Can the very considerable demands which such subsidies would make on national resources be justified, in terms either of transport policies or indeed of social welfare?
Certainly in so far as transport policies are concerned, I suggest we have to look most closely at any case which argues that what we need are more subsidies for transport. It is no secret—we went over this last week—that the Government have been deeply concerned about escalating costs of revenue support for public passenger transport and the subsidy that applies to that transport. That is why in the Bill now before Parliament we seek to ensure that the case for subsidy is properly presented and thoroughly scrutinised before any decisions are taken as to the level of support. In one respect, of course, there is no doubt that the unemployed do have this particular problem of meeting expenses incurred when travelling in search of a job.

451
I had not intended to repeat what my noble friend Lord Bellwin said a week ago, but since there appears to be some confusion among some speakers this morning I regret that I think I ought again to spell out exactly what he said. Those seeking help for travelling expenses can be and are assisted under two schemes: first, from the DHSS, and certainly the eligibility is that the claimant must be unemployed and receiving supplementary benefit. This was a point that was made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, and indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, who agreed with him. I take close note of what noble Lords said in that regard.
The benefit offered is assistance towards travelling expenses; first, to seek work in another area of Great Britain if there is a reasonable prospect of finding a job there; and, secondly, if the claimant is successful and would have to move house; thirdly, if he or she is not eligible for assistance from the MSC. Additionally, through the DHSS, there is assistance to attend interviews more than 10 miles from home, and when seeking a job within 10 miles of home if interview arrangements have been made by the DHSS; and when starting a new job, until the first wages are received, to a maximum of 14 days' benefit. In addition, any person receiving supplementary benefit is eligible for assistance with fares for hospital visiting, journeys arising from domestic issues—children in hospital, children in the custody of another parent, and so on.
Then from the MSC under the job search scheme interview expenses are paid. There the eligibility is that claimants must be unemployed or threatened with redundancy; they must be attending a definite job interview; the prospective employer must confirm a good chance of success in the job application; there must be no expenses contribution available from the employer; and there must be no reasonable job prospect in the home area, and no suitable unemployed person in the area where the job is available. The benefits offered there are fares and subsistence for pre-arranged interviews. At that time my noble friend Lord Bellwin omitted to tell your Lordships that the MSC also assists Youth Opportunity Programme trainees by meeting any costs of travel to a place of employment in excess of £4 a week.
It was the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who quoted cols. 1280–81 in our debate last week, and he will, I am quite sure, agree with me that my noble friend at that time did say he would take note of what was said and would consider it. So in no way, notwithstanding anything that I might have to say, have the Government closed the door on any of these matters. The Government have made provision in the way that I have just described, through the DHSS and the MSC, for expenses incurred when one is actually looking for work.
The Bill now before your Lordships seeks to go very much beyond this and it includes unemployed persons and those working under the opportunities programme among those for whom local authorities have the power to provide concessionary fares under the 1960 Act. The position at present is that all county
452
and district councils, including the metropolitan counties and the GLC, have specific powers under that section to provide concessionary fares for the elderly and the disabled. The principal objection to this Bill is that it would have very considerable consequences for public expenditure. Free bus travel across the board for the unemployed in metropolitan areas alone would cost about £90 million. It must also be remembered that the other groups, such as single parent families, the lower paid, and a great many groups of people might then be able to make similar claims for special consideration.
The 1968 Act gives local authorities the power to provide concessions for three groups: those over pensionable age—65 for men and 60 for women—the blind and those suffering from disabilities or injuries. These groups are clearly and closely defined and it would be generally accepted that local authorities should have the power to provide those groups with concessions.
But not all local authorities have made use of the power, which illustrates the fact that some authorities feel that their powers under the Act to give assistance to the aged, the blind and the disabled are better served in other areas. So, because Section 138 of the 1960 Act applies, it does not necessarily follow that all authorities feel that that is the best way to give assistance. The particular instances that come to mind are those authorities who provide assistance through meals-on-wheels or home helps, and it is particularly true in areas where public transport is limited and the concessionary fare benefit would not generally apply because of the lack of transport.
The Government have no doubt that authorities should have the power to provide fares for these groups, and they believe that that is the best way of helping them. This was made quite clear when doubts were cast on the powers of the GLC to provide such fares, and the response was shown in the Travel Concessions (London) Act 1982. However, the Government believe that it is possible to draw a valid distinction between those who are unemployed and those who are eligible for concessions under the Act. If we extend those categories under the 1968 Act we immediately come up against the wider questions of social welfare and the priorities to which I referred earlier. We are then faced with the great difficulty of finding criteria for deciding between all the different groups which might have claims, I have referred to some of those.
We have spent, and are spending, over £700 million a year on subsidies in public transport to help keep fares at an acceptable level. We have said during the course of the Transport Bill that a control has to be exercised on the level of subsidy. Acceptance of the noble Lord's Bill would release certain elements of that control because that would make it possible for local authorities to make use of the Bill to provide some concessionary fares on public transport, but only in their own areas and only on transport services for which they have some responsibility.
In response to the point raised by some noble Lords—particularly, I recall, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill—of travelling longer distances outside local authority and PTE areas, the Bill would not, in fact, make it possible for assistance to be given. It might be

453
helpful to remind your Lordships that there are a number of bus operators who have found that it actually pays to provide reduced fares for the unemployed. They have found that it pays on purely commercial grounds. The increase in ridership cancels out the cost of fare reductions. The Government welcome such schemes wholeheartedly and encourage the hope that others may be inspired to follow that example. I suppose that in those areas of very high unemployment where the necessity to move across the area in seeking work is greatest there may very well be a good case to persuade the PTEs that there is a commercial advantage to be gained by giving such assistance. The Government's view is that such schemes are justified, but certainly only if they cover their costs.
I should perhaps return to the main point. The fact is quite simply that the Government do not believe that concessionary fare schemes of the kind envisaged in the Bill and outlined by some noble Lords are the best way of helping the unemployed. On the contrary, and in the long run, the Government believe that this can only serve to push up rates and taxes, thus putting even more jobs at risk, and that is not the way to the kind of recovery that the unemployed really need. Nor does it represent a sensible priority for the use of the resources that are available for the full and proper development of public transport. Were it not for the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford I would have advised the House to reject the Bill. As it is, I suggest that our total interests would be better served if we support the amendment.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he explain something to me? Perhaps I am simple minded, but he seemed to be contradicting himself. On the one hand he was saying that the scheme in my noble friend's Bill would cost £90 million in the metropolitan area and, on the other hand, he said that he is in favour of concessionary schemes where they cover themselves. What does he mean in saying that the scheme will cost £90 million? If the unemployed are able to travel on a bus where there are seats vacant, what is it costing?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am very surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, can stand there and ask me that question. He did not have the courtesy to put his name down, which is quite customary in your Lordships' House for Second Reading debates, and then he asks me that question. I am happy to answer the noble Lord, but I merely draw the attention of the House to that practice. There is no contradiction. Concessionary fares that are worked out by PTEs with their local authorities and that are self-financing are to be commended. Were we not to have that kind of arrangement—in other words, if we have an additional subsidy—we estimate that a further £90 million might be required in subsidy.
1.9 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I deeply and most sincerely regret that because of the cheating and the chicanery of the Government Front Bench and the Government's Whips' Office a bitterness has crept into this debate. Let me say to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury—he has
454
left the Chamber, so perhaps someone will tell him—that his real charge against me was this: "You fool, you co-operated with the Government in the Government's Whips' Office. You put back your Bill week after week at the Tories' request. Of course they will cheat you and therefore we have no patience with you." That is my crime.
Lord Kinnaird: My Lords—
Lord Molloy: No, my Lords, I have too much to say. It is my turn now.
Lord Kinnaird: My Lords, I just wanted to say to the noble Lord opposite that we have discussed this matter before and we have spent a lot of time on it. The noble Lord has made a very good case and a very good point, pray do not spoil it.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord for that contribution. But when you have lived a tough life and have never lost faith in your nation, despite the temptations of other hideous philosophies which you have fought, and you come to a House like this and think that you can be subjected to the type of behaviour to which I am being subjected, then I find it distasteful. Surely everyone knows full well that the Government lacked the guts to get up and say that they were against the Bill. They got the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, to do it and he slipped up because he told us almost what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was going to say. Is that the behaviour of the gentlemen of England? I am glad I do not belong to your club because that is highly distasteful.
Then there was the mix-up between the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, quite honestly said—and I have never known him to speak any other way; I want to put that on record—that he disagreed that this was merely a procedural Bill. He dismissed that view. So he cannot support the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, can he?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his courtesy. But to get the record straight, I just confessed frankly to the House that I did not understand the procedure and, therefore, I would not deal with it. I accepted the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for whom I have unbounded respect, that I should try to deal with it on the merits. I am very grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am most grateful indeed to the noble Lord for that explanation, which I accept fully without any question.
I now turn to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, made fairly and justly. Where was I when the amendment was put down? I think that that is a fair question and I believe that your Lordships are entitled to an answer. I do not know quite how I would have dealt with it but I would have found a way. However, it behoves me to give your Lordships a reason.
As your Lordships know, my Bill was put down many months ago and was delayed and delayed. That is my responsibility for agreeing. But what

455
happened—and I am quite sure that it has happened to all of us—was that other engagements came along. I had an engagement which I never dreamt would clash with that particular part of the Committee stage of the Transport Bill. Even now, when I come to give an explanation it will not do me any good. However, I will give an explanation. I was invited, as I have been for very many years, to go to the 155th annual dinner of University College London Union Debating Society. At that dinner they had the standard debate which they have been debating for 155 years and I was quite privileged to go along and participate. Incidentally, the subject for debate is always: That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government. I went along and they announced the result of the election of an honorary president. That college is known to be a college right of centre, but to their credit and to my great joy, I was elected the honorary president of that London college union debating society. Then they crowned it at the end of the day by voting for me and supporting the proposition: That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government. That is what I meant when I said that when I tell the truth it still will not do me any good. I really think that it would have been better if the Government had come straight and said that they were again the Bill, and not used the idea of delaying it for six months by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent.
The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, said that I had a dream. I have had dreams all my life. The dreams of my life have been to eradicate from mankind, and certainly from my nation, all things evil and distasteful. So the noble Baroness puts me in the same category as a dreamer as Martin Luther King—all I hope is that I do not get bumped off too soon. The noble Baroness also mentioned the cost. Let me say to the noble Baroness very gently that people talk and they will say, "What sort of folk are they? They argue and they talk about giving us a few pounds to go and look for a job and then they offer Mr. MacGregor another £1 million to come and take on a job elsewhere which they gave him in the first place". I do not want to bring this matter into the argument, but I am trying to appeal to your Lordships to listen to what goes on outside, which does none of us in this Chamber any good. Therefore, I believe that we must look very seriously at all these matters.
As I have explained, the issue of fraud has been covered as much as is humanly possible by the Greater Manchester City Council. The Conservative councillors worked as hard as any of the other councillors in pushing this forward. They have telephoned me and spoken to me and urged me. There was no feeling of partisan politics until the matter came to this House. That hurts me much more than any regret can because I feel that we could have taken their example. Those councillors belong to the party opposite, to my party, to the party of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and to the SDP. They are the people so near the scene and they found a unity. I hope that we can too.
If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, this issue is not about measures and constitutional issues;
456
it is about men, our countrymen. Therefore, I believe that that is a reason for supporting it. I could understand to a degree the submission of the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith. But if this Bill went into Committee I could show her the complicated plan which I have—reams and reams of it—which gives almost a guarantee that the limits of the areas to which every local authority would have to adhere would be acceptable to all parties in both Houses of this Parliament, as much as it was totally acceptable to all parties in the Greater Manchester City Council. I would just say to the noble Baroness that I am still one of those who were brought up as a Welsh Baptist/Methodist who still happens to believe that compassion will cure more sins than condemnation. It is a lovely little pilot scheme in which they are going to indulge and from which the whole nation can learn. Despite all that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said, I at least implore your Lordships not to go with him all the way.
This is a poignant issue against people who at this moment, at almost 1.20 p.m. on a Friday afternoon, have their heads in their hands or have just come back from not being able to get a job. They are fighting the arguments that we fought when we were told in the mid-thirties that this country was finished. We said, "No way". There was no Parliament in those days to assist us. I would never have believed that I would be saying this, but I am going to say it. Perhaps the best friend that the unemployed could have could be this Chamber, this House of Lords. That is good for Britain, good for this Chamber, good for the unemployed and good for the principles of good standards of life and acknowledgment of our parliamentary procedure. I make my pleas as humbly as I can. Whatever little doubts your Lordships may have, we will have an opportunity to clear them up in Committee. But I ask your Lordships to unite this Friday afternoon on behalf of our less fortunate Britons and give this Bill a Second Reading.
1.20 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, we have all listened with interest and sympathy to the noble Lord's moving speech. He regretted that a note of bitterness should have come into the debate; so do I, but it did not come from this side. There is just one point on that which I should like to make. It was a charge made in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that any opponent of the Bill was an opponent of the travel concessions for the unemployed. That, of course, is totally wrong. If the noble Lord has listened to my noble friend the Minister, Lord Lucas, he will know—and all noble Lords who heard it will know—that there is quite a range of assistance. It is possible—it may even be probable—that something more needs to be done in that particular field. But one thing which is absolutely clear is that this is not the right Bill in which to do it, because this Bill will be tacked on to Section 138 of the 1968 Act, where it does not fit particularly well because that section is particularly for the assistance of the elderly and disabled. Therefore, technically, the use of this Bill is not necessarily the right way in which to achieve the excellent ends for which the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has so eloquently pleaded.

457
I would ask him to accept that because we do not entirely agree with him on this side, it does not mean that we are not equally interested in and equally devoted to the cause with which he is concerned, which is to relieve the nation of this major problem of a very large number of unemployed. We all are. I shall not go on any longer, we have debated too long on this already. I wish to press my amendment.
1.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 35.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Mancroft, L.

Ampthill, L.

Marley, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Merrivale, L.

Belstead, L.

Molson, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L. [Teller.]

Coleraine, L.

Craigavon, V.

Portland, D.

Davidson, V.

Rankeillour, L.

De Freyne, L.

Renton, L.

Denham, L.

St. Davids, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Selkirk, E.

Faithfull, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Glanusk, L.

Shannon, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Somers, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Swinfen, L.

Halsbury, E.

Swinton, E.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Terrington, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Teviot, L.

Killearn, L.

Trumpington, B. [Teller.]

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Long, V.

Vivian, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Amherst, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Ardwick, L.

Lawrence, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Bishopston, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Briginshaw, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mais, L.

Collison, L.

Milverton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Molloy, L.[Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gainford, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Segal, L.

Hampton, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hanworth, V.

Spens, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Pet Animals Act 1951 (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
1.30 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This
458
Bill has already twice passed your Lordships' House through all stages; last year and the year before. I am now submitting this Bill for the favourable consideration of the House for the third time. The father of this Bill was the originator and sponsor of the principal Act 1951, the late Sir Ronald Russell, who was Conservative Member of Parliament for Wembley, South. After a struggle of years he managed to get the 1951 Act on the statute book. That Act has remained unamended for 32 years. It is the law at present and it requires those who carry on the business of selling pet animals to do so under licence granted by the local authority. The selling of pet animals is permissible under the Act only when conducted in a shop, or from a barrow or stall set up in an authorised street market. The Act prohibits the sale of animals as pets from any other place, with certain exceptions made in the case of recognised breeders of pedigree animals.
Sixteen years after the principal Act became law Sir Ronald Russell, watching it in operation, came to the conclusion that it needed strengthening. He introduced an amending Bill, and that is the Bill before your Lordships' House now. Although the minimum conditions for the health and welfare of animals exposed for sale in open markets were prescribed in the Act the problems of enforcement were formidable and almost insuperable. Although the conditions looked pretty good on paper, in practice, in all weathers, under all conditions, they simply did not apply. By 1969 Sir Ronald Russell made his first attempt to introduce this Bill. He tried three times to do so but his health broke down, he had to leave the House of Commons, and he died shortly after he left in 1974. I revived this Bill, his Bill, three years ago.
Nine years after he finally gave up I hope to crown his efforts and bring about this change, which is long overdue. I realise that this is a Private Member's Bill. I realise too that even though it may pass all stages in your Lordships' House it may not find a place, or the time, to complete its passage through Parliament. I can only turn my attention for the moment then to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, who I see on the Bench opposite, and who had the experience of piloting a Private Member's Bill on animals through this House, which I envied at the time and I envy still. His Bill went through this House and the other place on the wings of a dove, and I hope to borrow those wings this afternoon. The Government can do things even through the machinery of the Private Member's Bill when they set their minds to it. It is only when their minds are not engaged in the matter that the procedures of obstruction and frustration operate to disappoint any achievement.
The noble Lord is in a position this afternoon to lend a helping hand, and I think that a fellow feeling should make him wondrous kind. I am not by nature a persistent person. I hate to become either a nuisance or a bore, and one cannot go on trying to get this kind of reform year after year without making any progress. It is this kind of frustration which leads to so many militant attitudes among those who are heavily engaged in this work of animal care outside. However, I am in the happy position of reporting two things which help me this afternoon. One is that the open market in London known as Club Row, which was the centre of a great deal of criticism and a great deal of

459
attention in previous debates, is on the way out. The Tower Hamlets borough council, stimulated by an influx of Liberal councillors, have now grasped this nettle of Club Row, and they have already decided that they will grant no fresh licences and not renew any licences after July of this year. Unless the stallholders, or others, seek to get an inquiry set up by the Secretary of State for the Envirnment, then the council's decision will become effective.
That is good news. It means that the Tower Hamlets borough council have done what Parliament has not done for them. They took the view earlier that if it came to dealing with the closing of a market and there was a general feeling that markets of this kind should be closed, it is better that Parliament should decide and not leave it to local authorities to deal individually with their own problems. However, we are now in a position to follow the example of Tower Hamlets borough council and decide that other markets shall be closed. There are about 20 others up and down the country, and I shall say something about them in a moment.
The second development which is encouraging is the measure of public opinion on this subject, among others, which was studied on behalf of the RSPCA last year. This was a deeper study than is usually obtained through Gallup polls and public opinion polls. It was an inquiry into the attitudes of the public on different matters affecting animals. An attempt was made to relate one cause with another so that people could express some kind of priority as to what they thought needed to be done first. The outcome of this survey showed that 73 per cent. of those interviewed approved of the elimination of the sale of pets in street markets. That compares with very high percentages also for other problems affecting animals, and a very high percentage in favour of raising the dog licence fee to £5, for example, in order to enable dog warden schemes to be introduced to facilitate much better control of the stray dog problem, which still remains for attention.
There are strong feelings about fox hunting and hare coursing too, but what it shows is that when public opinion is consulted on matters affecting animals there is a strong feeling running throughout the country over a wide area, which is probably different from that which one finds within the precincts of Parliament. Parliament is the only place where these things will be done, although I have great difficulty in convincing many activists in the animal welfare and protection movement that they should give their attention to Parliament. I am bound to report that some scornful things are said about Parliament among young people today, who feel that it is not responsive to them and that it is ineffectual and slow moving.
After all, look how many years it has taken for me to be where I am this afternoon, pleading, in 1983, for something to be done that Ronald Russell asked to be done in 1969—exactly the same thing in exactly the same conditions. That is what is so frustrating. However, people will have the opportunity of bringing their views on animals before parliamentary candidates at the next election, and I fully believe that that will be done on an effective and rather surprising scale.
460
On this particular problem, public opinion is appalled at the number of stray dogs and feral cats, and pets in the households of the great mass of the public that are becoming waifs and strays on the urban scene, with the great deal of hardship and cruelty that is bound to ensue. It leads to the conclusion that we need to discourage, by all the means we have, thoughtless pet ownership—impulsive buying, indulging children too lightly and that sort of thing—because there is far too much irresponsible acquisition of animals and irresponsible ownership.
Markets are a temptation we want to remove. Those who are going to buy animals should deliberate about it, undertake it in a deliberate manner, understanding what they are doing and taking guidance. The market stall is not the place for that. Very often it is the place where a trader persuades a passer-by to buy an animal he or she is not seeking and does not really want. Other countries have banned the selling of pet animals in open markets and the time has come for us to do the same. There are about 20 of these markets left. They are to be found, for example, in Cardiff, Doncaster, Newcastle, South Shields, St. Albans, Watford, Nottingham and Chelmsford.
I have with me some lengthy reports on conditions in the cattle market in Nottingham, where pets are on sale, and in Chelmsford. They have been given close attention by Society officers, but I will not try the patience of the House by quoting from them. These conditions are typical of what we found at Club Row, and they are very similar everywhere—animals out in the open, stalls of, in many cases, doubtful quality and protection against weather conditions and that kind of thing. I have seen it for myself. On bitterly cold days one feels extremely sorry for animals, especially young animals, that are pulled around, put on view and put back in baskets to protect them from the weather. And the health of animals bought under those conditions can be very uncertain indeed.
The great volume of opinion now is in favour of doing something decisive about it. Since the Act was originally passed—indeed, since Ronald Russel dealt with it in 1969—the growth of pet shops has surely rendered open market sales unnecessary. Many of the proprietors of pet shops have stalls in markets; they are just using what retail outlets they can get and feel that they must be there if others are there. Looking at the people who had licences in Club Row, one found they were pet shop owners. They were, as it were, in a network; many of them were related and quite a number of family concerns were involved. Therefore we are not dealing with the casual trader; he is a licensed person with an interest which enables him to prosper. So we need not feel we are robbing people of their livelihood. I am sure that will not be the case anywhere; they will have and do have other opportunities of selling the animals they have.
I sincerely hope your Lordships will feel able to give the Bill a Second Reading, for the third time, but I hope for more than that. I sincerely hope that the Bill can this time be taken seriously by the Minister on behalf of the Government so that we may see whether we can make some progress after all this time. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
1.46 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, if I understood my noble friend aright, this is the fourth time that a measure of this kind has been introduced in Parliament. The third time was during the last Session, about a year ago, when it was introduced by my noble friend in this House. We must admire his persistence and tenacity, although he was modest enough to disclaim this. I am glad to say that I strongly support the Bill and agree with everything he said.
As my noble friend reminded us, since the last occasion on which this subject was debated there has been a significant development, and we are glad to note that the London Borough of Tower Hamlets has acted, on a recommendation from its health and consumer services committee, and has announced that it will not renew licences for street trading in pet animals by stallholders in the street which is familiarly known as Club Row. The council, I also understand, has already suspended the issue of new licences to fresh traders in pet animals from stalls and barrows in that market, so the future of Club Row now appears to be restricted, and this activity is likely to close unless any appeal against the council's decision is lodged. If the Minister has any news, perhaps he will tell the House about the present position with regard to an appeal.
While Club Row is the major example of street trading in pets, it is by no means the sole market of its kind. I understand from the RSPCA that they have been concerned for many years past about its character and location, and indeed the Society has over a period taken a number of successful convictions for causing unnecessary suffering to animals. The RSPCA's local inspectors in London, who do such good work, patrol the market regularly each Sunday when it is held and they work in close co-operation with the local authority's enforcement officers. Action under the Pet Animals Act 1951 for breaches of that statute is a matter for the authority, although the RSPCA's remit is, of course, the prevention of suffering and cruelty. However, as my noble friend said, there are about 20 cities and towns in which animals are sold in the same way from market stalls or barrows.
The argument was advanced by Government spokesmen the last time the Bill was debated that legisaltion to prevent street trading in pets generally is a cumbersome and unnecessary method of putting locations such as Club Row out of business. This implies, especially in view of the recent decision by the local authority, that the problem will solve itself in the near future. While the situation in Bethnal Green may be settled—we hope it will be—legislation will still surely be needed to prevent the setting up of new pet trading stalls in other markets, both in London and elsewhere. I should like the Minister to say whether the present law covers that. I understand it does not, and that if one local authority closes down a particular location, nothing can prevent other street trading of this kind from starting up in other areas in London and in other cities and towns.
As my noble friend has said, these markets are undesirable in this particular connection, since they permit the sales of pets of uncertain health record, age and condition, or even breed. There is a disregard for preventitive measures against the spread of diseases. There is also the possibility of stolen pets being resold
462
and perhaps purchased by agents selling to research premises using live animals. Also, trading can take place in circumstances which occasionally seem to breach the Act's requirements in respect of fire precautions, accommodation and other necessary conditions.
Since my noble friend's first introduction of a Bill against the street trading in pets, the number of market traders licensed to sell animals in Club Row has, I understand, fallen sharply from a peak of over 30 pitches trading at that time. It could be suggested that the arbitrary closure of this traditional market—which is only one part of a busy East End traditional Sunday market—would cause great hardship to those licensed to trade. In fact, as my noble friend has already explained when presenting his previous Bills, and again today, in most instances traders already hold petshop licences in the Tower Hamlets or other London boroughs. Some have other businesses related to the sale of pets, or they deal in accessories and supplies for animals and birds. So this is not their only means of trading.
It has been stated by the Government in previous debates that local authorities of other areas where there are street markets have not reported any cause for concern. Perhaps some of the problems which apply at Club Row do not manifest themselves to the same degree elsewhere. But we welcome the constructive approach of the London borough; and there is always the possibility that similar problems could arise.
Surely genuine purchasers of companion animals have numerous opportunities to acquire the pet of their choice by visiting not only licensed pet shops, but preferably the breeder, or supplier, of the species, who can provide evidence of pedigree, fitness and age, and, of course, advice. They need not chance the possibility of purchasing an animal that is probably substandard, unfit or under age for normal sale from a trader who is unable to confirm the quality of the pet.
I should like to say a few words about tortoises—those charming, friendly, and inoffensive little creatures—and to ask the Government for some information about the present situation concerning their importation, since I believe that this is causing concern. Despite repeated complaints during the years from 1965 to 1980 from the RSPCA and conservation bodies, no Government action was taken at that time to restrict imports of tortoises from the Mediterranean and Eastern European countries for sale as pets in this country. The Government of which I had the privilege to be a member were equally to blame; so I am not making any party political point here. The RSPCA based its appeal for prohibition of imports on the conditions of transport from the country of export, the problems of acclimatisation on arrival, the ignorance by some owners of the tortoise's diet and habit—a minority, I hasten to add—and the obvious unsuitability of the tortoise, because of hibernation and other factors, as a companion animal. There is evidence that many tortoises failed to survive longer than one or two years in this country. A survey in Germany, which has a similar climate, showed that 83 per cent. died during their first year. So they are being brought across from Southern Europe and the Mediterranean to a fairly early death.

463
In 1982 however the Department of the Environment, recognising the possibility that tortoises were becoming vulnerable as a result of this situation, took steps to issue a "direction" under the existing legislation on endangered species. I understand that every purchaser, from importer to retail purchaser, was required to complete an "undertaking" for the department. Perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply will say what kind of an undertaking it is, because of course the tortoise is not in a position to see that its interests are being looked after. It has been suggested that the trade will become sensitive to this move and probably reduce imports this year, with a possibility of the whole shipment of tortoises to this country being phased out in 1984.
I submit that few people would regret the passing of a trade which could hardly be beneficial to the creatures concerned, whether they are sold in open markets—and many are—or through other channels of supply. The continued restriction of importation of tortoises could surely go some way to help rescue the species in their native countries, where they are already under pressure to survive for reasons other than the so-called "harvest", amounting to many hundreds of thousands, collected for export. In conclusion, I hope that the House will give my noble friend's Bill a Second Reading.
1.56 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, it is not my intention to make a Second Reading speech at this moment, because I do not believe there is anyone left to convince. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has several times previously produced a Bill such as this, and certainly my noble friend Lord Airedale and myself have spoken in support on previous occasions. This seems to be one of those minor but important reforms which is long overdue. The longer I remain on my feet, the longer it will be before we hear whether the Government have any comfort to give us in speeding along this reform and giving what is undoubtedly the will of your Lordships' House some real effect.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has I believe much on which to congratulate himself, or on which we should congratulate him, in regard to the pertinacity that he has applied to the pursuit of the Bill. It is due partly to his work and to the way in which he has kept the issue before the public that the reform in Club Row has taken place, and I was delighted to hear that councillors from my party have been helping with this matter. Both the Liberals, and our noble allies, the Social Democrats, are wholeheartedly behind the Bill, and I hope that at last it will reach the statute book.
1.58 p.m.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I, too, most certainly hope that the House will accept the Bill and give it a Second Reading. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, on his persistence in trying to get the Bill through the House. I doubt whether I should myself have had quite so much, but he has certainly shown great persistence, which I hope will reap its due reward this afternoon.
464
In his speech the noble Lord spoke about the irresponsible ownership of pets. The Bill does not actually deal with the ownership of them, but merely with obtaining them. However, I should like to point out that the method of obtaining a pet does much to influence the way in which it is to be owned and kept. Imagine, my Lords, a barrow in some market, with perhaps a young puppy in a basket. A mother and her child pass, and the child is fascinated by the sight of the young puppy; so fascinated in fact that the mother decides that she must buy it. But the barrow owner is no expert on dogs. He cannot give any directions as to proper feeding, he has no knowledge of what should be the correct vaccinations for various diseases; he just lets the puppy go. The result is that that puppy may have a very unhappy home.
I recognise that this is not always the case but I think it is probably more often the case than not. Pet shops are qualified to give all the proper advice as to feeding, vaccinations and so on. And there is another point. A dog bought from a stall of the kind I have referred to is much more likely to be a disease-carrier, as has already been mentioned, than one which is properly kept and sold in a pet shop. Disease carrying, obviously, is the thing we want to avoid.
So, looking at the dreadful toll on the road of dogs, and, I regret to say, of cats as well, and at the frequent cases of dogs unfortunately causing very bad accidents as drivers swerve to avoid them, one realises that it is most important that we do something to make for a more responsible ownership of pets. Although plenty remains to be done, this Bill is one step on the way. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
Before I sit down, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for mentioning the subject of tortoises. These little creatures are not very often thought of as sentient or as having any feelings or preference for one dwelling or another. But that is quite false; they have all those feelings. It is most important that we do not bring them here (as the noble Lord said) to conditions which are totally unsuitable for them. Therefore, I sincerely hope that the Bill will get through; although I must say that I quite realise that a Private Member's Bill does not stand a great deal of chance of getting on to the statue book. I once tried sponsoring one myself and it got no farther than your Lordships' House. One can but go on hoping and it is possible that the other House may at some time see the light.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I should like to support this Bill. I am speaking from the Liberal Benches on this occasion; I think it is a good thing that on occasions one should show that we are an alliance. I should like simply to say that I think that one of the nice things about Britain is our care and concern for animals. That we may be way in advance, possibly, of some continental countries is a good thing. We can show the way. I believe that this care is even more important because it represents, perhaps, a care of other things and of people as well. I very much hope that this Bill will succeed.
2.4 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with characteristic determination the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has reintroduced this Bill to amend the Pet Animals Act 1951. As he has said, he has introduced a similar Bill in each of the last two Sessions and on both occasions it passed through all its stages in your Lordships' House. It is a measure of his tireless efforts to improve the lot of animals that the noble Lord has not been discouraged from reintroducing this particular Bill. When he spoke, he was good enough to refer to a Private Member's Bill which I had to do with a year ago and which dealt with red deer in Scotland. I must confess that when I had taken that Bill through all its stages here, I vowed to myself that I would never get drawn into a debate on animals in your Lordships' House again. But I find myself here in a different guise this afternoon. When that Bill was introduced, my noble friend Lord Mansfield, speaking from the Front Bench, referred to Bills such as that as being "tender plants". The noble Lord and others this afternoon have pointed out that this is still the case, that they are tender plants when it comes to their treatment in another place. So perhaps I ought to say now, so as to remove any element of suspense, that the Government do not propose to stand in the way of the Bill, for reasons which I shall explain.
Those of your Lordships who were present at the Second Reading of the Bill in this House in January 1982 may recall that my noble friend Lord Belstead expressed sympathy with the objectives of the Bill, but said that the Government had to think of its wider implications. The Bill, he said, would not just affect Club Row. It might jeopardise the livelihoods of traders at other markets throughout the country about whom to the Government's knowledge there had been few if any complaints that could be substantiated. Animals sold in these markets were already protected by a battery of legislation, including the Protection of Animals Act 1911, the Abandonment of Animals Act 1960, the Theft Act 1968 and the Pet Animals Act 1951 itself. All the evidence was that this legislation was being properly enforced in markets where pet animals were sold. And so my noble friend concluded that the case for national legislation had not been made out, although your Lordships will recall that he did not oppose the Bill.
Since then, however, as your Lordships know, things have changed. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has described, Tower Hamlets Borough Council, which controls street trading within that borough, has passed a resolution under Section 16(1)(b) of the London County Council (General Powers) Act 1947 to the effect that, as from 2nd January 1983, the council will no longer include animals in the description, in any street trading licence issued by them, of commodities which may be sold from a stall; although existing traders are to be permitted to trade for the first six months of' 1983. However, 12 appeals against this resolution have been received by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. In this connection, I think the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment as being the person to whom appeals would come. In fact, it is the Secretary of State for the Home Office.
466
My Lords, I think I ought to say nothing today which can be taken in any way as prejudging the results of these appeals, which are sub judice. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will accept that. My remarks are solely concerned with Lord Houghton's Bill to amend current legislation, which aims to improve the present standards of animal welfare.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, asked whether under existing legislation there is anything to stop new street markets springing up. The answer to that is, no, if the local authority is willing to license the setting up of new markets. I think that the noble Lord will agree that it does not seem likely that Tower Hamlets will license another market.
My noble friend Lord Belstead said in effect last year that the subject matter of this Bill arose from a local problem which should be dealt with on a local basis. That is now being done, and I imagine therefore that many of your Lordships will now be expecting me to say that the case for the Bill this year is less than it was last. But I am not going to do so. We have kept closely in touch with developments in Club Row and we have considered carefully the conclusions drawn by the council about the vulnerability of the animals displayed there.
We do not think—any more than the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, does, as he made plain last year—that the majority of animals sold in markets are subject to deliberate cruelty or callous neglect. Far from it. But we do think that the conditions which they have to bear are below those which sensible and compassionate public opinion in this country is prepared to tolerate. The Government will not be swayed by the views of extremists in the animal welfare lobby or in any other. But they acknowledge the force expressed in the sincere views held by hundreds of people about pet animals sold in markets. It is quite possible that no licensing system, however rigorous, and no stall-holder, however scrupulous, can guarantee the welfare of the animals on sale against such things as environmental stress and cross-infection. The Government now believe therefore that there is no way, short of prohibiting the sale of pet animals from market stalls, of reassuring the public that such animals arc not at risk.
Here I think I should deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stabolgi, on tortoises. That is not a subject on which I am an expert. My noble friend Lord Long sitting on the Front Bench with me has told me that he has two tortoises, so he is much more of an expert than I am. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me warning that he was going to raise this particular point. I can tell him that the Department of the Environment is responsible for the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976, which implements in the United Kingdom the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora and which makes the import of all tortoises subject to licence.
I understand from the Department of the Environment that a European regulation of the Council of Ministers on the implementation of this convention will ban the import of tortoises from next year. I understand that the agriculture department in this country issued in 1979, after consultation, advisory

467
notes to importers of tortoises, which presumably covers the case up to now. As I said, I should like to look at it further. I hope that that has given the noble Lord some reassurance. The question of the diet and habit of tortoises is something in which I am sure many people will have an interest. Personally, I am appalled when I see photographs of tortoises in cages which contain mostly dead tortoises. My particular problem at the moment—if it is not too wide of the point—is that I share a house not only with two human beings in London but also a rabbit. The rabbit's diet and habits are something apart. It even ate a complete azalea the other day down to the stump!
We have recognised that the Bill which the noble Lord has introduced could affect a number of traders up and down the country. However, we think the impact of the Bill upon them may not be as great as at one time we might have feared. In the first place, we believe that a number of them—and it is probably the majority—use the market trade to supplement their income from pet shops. This was a point that the noble Lord made. I think your Lordships will agree that those who really want a pet and intend to treat it properly will go to a shop to obtain it just as readily as to a street market. Secondly, there is some evidence that the force of public opinion has caused pet stallholders gradually to cease trading and that the number of active licensees is considerably less than it used to be.
This is not the time to look at the detail of the Bill, but it may be helpful to your Lordships if I say now that we have had a look at the drafting and think that it is probably satisfactory. But we shall be happy to give the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, assistance where necessary if changes are to be made.
I end as I began, by congratulating the noble Lord on his tenacity in bringing this Bill forward. That has been echoed by other speakers this afternoon. I am sure the Bill will have a speedy passage going through its later stages in your Lordships' House, and as one who, as I said before, has so recently piloted an animal Bill through, I look forward to having the noble Lord as a companion in success in due course.
2.14 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for that reply. If I may say so, it is in favourable contrast to the speeches I have received on earlier occasions. Indeed, looking further back, I am sure that Ronald Russell would have been glad to hear anything resembling what the noble Lord has just said.
There may be a point on Committee stage which, as a matter of fact, has been raised by the advisers from Tower Hamlets as to whether any further tightening up is necessary—for example, on what is a public place. We can attend to that then and I do not think it will be a very serious matter. I am therefore deeply indebted to the noble Lord for the assurance that the Bill will now see its way through your Lordships' House; and what happens after that will of course depend on what facilities may be sought or obtained in
468
another place. I may have to visit my old haunts to see what can be done there. However, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, and to the noble Lords who have supported this Bill. The atmosphere and the reception of this Bill this afternoon is a delightful change from previous occasions.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past two o'clock.

  SSSIs: LAND ON TADHAM AND TEALHAM MOOR
  SSSIs: LAND ON TADHAM AND TEALHAM MOOR
  CHELTENHAM: BY-PASS FACILITIES
  CHELTENHAM: BY-PASS FACILITIES