Sitting of 12 June 1984

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS AFTER PRAYERS
  BARCLAYS BANK BILL
  Lords amendments agreed to.

  SHREWSBURY AND ATCHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [23 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    NHS Capital Programme
    Mr. Christophepher Hawkinsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what precisely he gives to the National Health Service capital programme.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): The Government give high priority to investing capital in the NHS. Capital expenditure in 1983–84 was 23·5 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1978–79 when we took office.
    Mr. Hawkins: Is it not a fact that, despite Opposition claims that we have been cutting the Health Service, we are now including the biggest hospital building and rebuilding programme that Britain has seen since 1948? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will continue to concentrate spending on the areas of most need?
    Mr. Fowler: Certainly, I give my hon. Friend that assurance. My hon. Friend is correct, inasmuch as we are seeking to restore the cuts that were made to the capital programme by the previous Labour Government, when the capital programme was cut by one third.
    Mr. Pavitt: Does the Secretary of State regard the £30,000 invested in the training of each nurse as one of the priorites in his capital programme? If so, would it not have been more appropriate for him to have given the House the opportunity to consider the review body's report on nurses than to have the information given by the Prime Minister in a written answer on Friday?
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. First, it was on Thursday. Secondly, it is customary to announce
    744
    the review body's recommendations and the decision on them in that way. Thirdly, that matter has nothing to do with the NHS capital programme.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: What about those new buildings which have been put up but not opened because of cutbacks on current account?
    Mr. Fowler: We have been trying to achieve a better planning system in the Health Service than the one that we inherited. In the past, all too often capital projects went ahead without any thought to the revenue consequences. Fortunately, we have managed to reform that, where the previous Labour Government failed.
    Mr. Dobson: If the Minister is so proud of his efforts to increase the capital programme, when does he intend to put capital spending on the Health Service under this Government back to even the average annual level of that of the previous Labour Government?
    Mr. Fowler: Between 1976 and 1978 capital spending in real terms went down fom £735 million to £571 million. I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that we are already considerably above that.

    NHS Activity Rate
    Mr. Robert B. Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether there has been any improvement in the National Health Service activity rate.
    Mrs. Peacockasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of patients being treated in hospitals at the latest date for which figures are available.
    Mr. Fowler: Across a broad range of services the number of patients treated has risen over the last five years. Comparing 1982 with 1978, the NHS treated nearly half a million more inpatients and day cases, nearly 2 million extra outpatients and emergency cases, and nearly half a million more people were visited in their own homes by health visitors or district nurses. The average daily number of hospital inpatients in England in 1982 was 280,000.
    Mr. Jones: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his answer. Does that information not show that the reality within the NHS is very different from what is often claimed by Opposition Members? However, is it not the case that those figures disguise considerable variations between districts? Under-resourced districts within over-resourced regions, such as mine, are in particular difficulty because the growth in population is much more rapid than the shift in resources. Is it possible for my right hon. Friend to meet a delegation from the North-West Herts district to discuss this problem?
    Mr. Fowler: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health would be only too glad to do that. I give that guarantee on his behalf. I have visited Hemel Hempstead and I know of the problems to which my hon. Friend referred. He is right. The number of patients being treated has increased substantially under this Government.
    Mr. Galley: What additional resources from the productivity savings of increased activity levels have been identified for patient care, so that improvements in services are made for patients? Is it my right hon. Friend's

    745
    policy on incentive schemes for district health authorities that they can keep the proceeds of productivity savings to improve their local health services?
    Mr. Fowler: We want to do that in principle. It was one of the Griffiths recommendations that health authorities should be able to keep the savings achieved by productivity improvements, and we shall certainly work towards that end.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend take seriously the work that has been done by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) in unearthing people who do not turn up for outpatient appointments and those in hospitals——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is another question on that matter.
    Mr. Meacher: Is not the reality of the NHS performance this year seen in the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's so-called 1 per cent. growth figure has already been cut by 0·25 per cent. because of his failure to cover all the costs of the nurses' pay award last week, that it has been cut by a further 1·5 per cent. because of the need to take account of the greater numbers of elderly people and the rising costs of medical technology, and that it will be cut by a further 2 per cent. if ancillary workers receive a pay award which is merely in line with inflation? Is not a 3 per cent. cut this year in NHS spending levels a resigning matter?
    Mr. Fowler: It would be if it were remotely true, but, as always, the hon. Gentleman is extravagantly wrong. In real terms we have added 1 per cent. to the health budget. In their reports to us the health authorities have said that they can provide a further 1 per cent. We have asked the health authorities for about £36 million out of that £200 million to provide for pay.

    Legal Aid
    Ms. Harmanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, in his rewriting of his Department's legal aid instructions, the L code, he will revise the instructions about section 22 of the Legal Aid Act.
    The Minister for Social Security (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): No decision has yet been taken.
    Ms. Harman: Is it not about time the Minister admitted that the instruction to DHSS officers to breach section 22 of the Legal Aid Act is a blatant piece of law breaking by the Government? Are there not double standards, in that there appears to be no prosecution of that blatant piece of law breaking? Should not the hon. Gentleman resign over the fact that he has presided over giving an instruction which breaches the criminal law in an important respect?
    Dr. Boyson: It seems to be a heavy casualty day—like D-day plus seven today. We are awaiting legal advice from the Attorney-General, who is giving this matter his urgent attention. [Interruption.] I mention to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who is enjoying his time in the Commons, that the arrangements under this Government are the same as those that have been in operation since 1951, under three or four Labour Governments. Former Ministers in those Governments are now on the Labour Opposition Front Bench.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Is the Minister not ashamed at making funny remarks from the Dispatch Box about official secrecy being used to cover up official law breaking, when his officials are attempting in some instances to prosecute women who wish to spend a night with a friend and when the unemployed are being pressurised by snoopers?
    Dr. Boyson: The basis of the social security system is that it should give help to those who need it, not to those who do not. That has been the intention of every Government and it is this Government's intention as well.

    Coronary Heart Disease
    Mr. Coombsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the Government's response to the Canterbury report on the prevention of coronary heart disease.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten): We welcome this report wholeheartedly. It is an important source of advice on ways of reducing the risk of coronary heart disease, which is now a major cause of death in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Coombs: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree with the principle of funding the prevention of heart disease as a way of reducing the cost to the nation of funding the cure of heart disease when it becomes established in the middle-aged and the elderly? When does he expect to be able to publish the COMAC report on the medical aspects of dietary regimes?
    Mr. Patten: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his supplementary question. The Government are convinced that prevention, above all else, is of the greatest importance. We shall publish the report as soon as possible after its receipt from the chief medical officer's advisory committee, on which we depend for advice. I prefer to rely on that source of professional advice rather than on the absurd body which The Times tells me has been set up by the Greater London council today, called "The London Food Commission", which is meant to give us advice on these important matters. This is one more example of why the GLC should be shut down as soon as possible.
    Mr. Ashley: Is the Minister aware that the Health Education Council has no chance of competing with gigantic food industries in its attempt to explain the dangers of some foods which can cause cancer, strokes, or heart disease? As some foods are dangerous and cause heart disease, will the hon. Gentleman quadruple, at least, the council's budget, to assist it in its attempt to fight heart disease?
    Mr. Patten: The council does valuable work, in co-operation, for example, with the British Nutrition Foundation, on these important issues. We keep the council's budget under constant review and we must await the independent medical advice to which I have referred before we decide what action is appropriate.
    Mr. Sims: Will my hon. Friend reconsider the amount that is being spent on preventing illness and disease, as distinct from treating it, to ascertain whether we have achieved the right balance? Will he pay special attention to the recommendation in the Canterbury report that there should be far more energetic Government support for the prevention and control of smoking, which is one of the largest causes of coronary disease?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is undoubtedly aware of the recent important report of the Royal College of Physicians, which attributes 20 per cent. of the deaths from heart disease to smoking.
    Mr. Lofthouse: What arrangement has the Secretary of State made for miners who are single, who are suffering from coronary heart disease or other diseases and need constant medication? When they receive their prescriptions from their doctors, there is often no one available to take the prescription to a chemist? What arrangements have been made to deal with these single miners?
    Mr. Patten: Every case is dealt with, and no one in need of medication by prescription will be denied it.

    Outpatients (Appointments)
    Sir David Priceasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the effect upon National Health Service costs of patients failing to keep their outpatient appointments.
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further information he has received, since he last answered oral questions, on the number of National Health Service patients not keeping appointments duly made for them at National Health Service hospitals; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Patten: We do not at present collect the information which would be needed to estimate the cost of failed appointments.
    The Health Services information steering group has recommended that the number of failed appointments should in future be included in statistical returns to health authorities and to the Department, and health authorities have been asked to plan on this basis.
    If patients are to be encouraged to keep their appointments, it is important to look carefully at the way the clinics are run. This is primarily a local responsibility, but we are considering whether the Department could usefully give further guidance on the organisation of outpatient appointment systems and will be discussing this with the medical profession.
    Sir David Price: To encourage my hon. Friend and his Department to follow the line of action that he has proposed in his reply, may I ask whether he is aware that in one hospital in Hampshire, in the month of March, 1,200 patients failed to keep their outpatient appointments? Does he agree that this not is a unique experience and that it is a matter to be taken seriously at the Elephant and Castle?
    Mr. Patten: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern and of the problem in the Southampton and South-West Hampshire district health authority. Two things have to obtain. First, clinics have to be well and efficiently run. Secondly, prospective patients must recognise their moral responsibility to turn up on time for appointments in order not to waste valuable National Health Service resources.
    Mr. Adley: Is my hon. Friend aware, pursuant to my raising this question at the last DHSS Question Time, that asking patients to rely on their moral responsibility is hardly concomitant with the Government's responsibility effectively and efficiently to manage the Health Service? I am glad that one of my hon. Friends says nonsense, because that confirms the rectitude of my view. Will my
    748
    hon. Friend confirm that the Wessex area health authority is not unique in this regard and that a large sum of money and the time of many skilled doctors are wasted as a result of what is going on?
    Mr. Patten: I agree with my hon. Friend. I said as much to our hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) a moment ago. My hon. Friend is right. As at the last DHSS Question Time, I point the finger at the need for more effective management in the Health Service. That is why we rely so much on the recommendations of the Griffiths report, which my right hon. Friend has commended to the House.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Will the Minister accept that one reason for failed appointments is that the time that elapses between making the appointment and the appointment date is lengthening in many areas? Will he institute research into the link between lengthening waiting times for appointments and failed appointments?
    Mr. Patten: I can give the hon. Gentleman some good news. We are discussing with the West Midlands regional health authority the possibility of running an experiment in that area—a bed bank experiment—to look at exactly these issues.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the Minister aware that one of the reasons why people find it difficult to keep appointments is the long distances that they have to travel because small community hospitals, such as the Waterloo hospital in my constituency, which provide a worthwhile service are being closed? Many people who travel long distances cannot get financial assistance, even though they are unemployed or on low incomes. A constituent of mine will go blind if she does not get financial assistance from the Health Service to enable her to travel to London for treatment.
    Mr. Patten: It is the policy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to keep a good balance of Health Service provision in large and small hospitals. The hon. Gentleman has only to look at the figures for GP beds in such small hospitals to see that they have not gone down in the last five years.
    Mrs. Jill Knight: Will my hon. Friend accept that, although he has been unable to give the House any figures, the cost of these missed appointments must be great, as must be the effect on waiting lists? Furthermore, any patient who knows that he cannot keep an appointment can always telephone and say so. Will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of improving arrangements to encourage patients to keep appointments?
    Mr. Patten: Of course we will. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks. It may be of interest to her and to my right hon. and hon. Friends to know that the average cost of a broken appointment seems to be between £20 and £50.

    Death Grant
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when the death grant was first set at £30; and what is its present real value.
    Dr. Boyson: The death grant was increased to £30 in 1967, and would need to have been increased to about £165 in November 1983 to restore the 1967 value.
    Mr. Dubs: Is the Minister aware that many elderly people are fearful about what is to happen to them because the death grant is so inadequate, and that many would like to face death with dignity? That is being denied to them at present. When will the Minister do something to raise the level of death grant to a figure commensurate with the present high cost of funerals?
    Dr. Boyson: To increase the level of the death grant to what it was in 1967 would cost about £120 million a year if it were paid to all people. I appreciate the concern of older people in this regard. The last Labour Government, like this Government, did not find a solution to it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in April that we shall want to consider the death grant together with the whole of social security over the coming years, along with the other surveys that we are doing.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Does my hon. Friend realise that the majority of those who do not need the death grant would be happy for their contribution to be given to the minority who do need it? Do not that minority need the grant to be increased quickly?
    Dr. Boyson: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. Three schemes put out for consultation two years ago involved transferring money to those who were most in need. However, no agreement was reached. I remind my hon. Friend — [Interruption.] There are means tests, income tax and many other things in Britain.
    I agree that most people would like the money to go to those who desperately need it. I believe that that view is shared on both sides of the House. I remind the House that last year the DHSS paid £2·6 million to 13,000 people who could not afford funeral expenses. That grant covered about half of the funeral costs.
    Mr. MacKenzie: Does the Minister remember that about four years ago we were promised an answer to the whole question of the death grant? Even the most patient of us are now finding that patience wearing rather thin. Is not the cost of a modest funeral for ordinary working people between £300 and £350? Should not the Minister find some solution to the problem at the earliest possible opportunity?
    Dr. Boyson: I appreciate that the cost of a funeral can be between £300 and £600. However, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that inflation has been a cause of the drop in the real value of the grant, and that of that drop 47 per cent. occurred under a Labour Government, compared with only 35 per cent. under the Conservative Government. The last Labour Government did nothing to solve the problem—they did not even consult about it.
    Mr. Fry: I appreciate the Government's problems, but will my hon. Friend look at the assistance given by the DHSS towards funeral expenses? Do not many people often give permission or instructions for a funeral which, quite frankly, they cannot afford, and then find themselves in great difficulty trying to pay for it?
    Dr. Boyson: I take my hon. Friend's point. We shall study that matter and I shall discuss it further with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: How much does it cost to administer the issuing of the death grant, and what proportion is that of the grant paid? Do the Government
    750
    now hold the record for putting off a decision on the death grant, or is there another area of decision-making in which they have taken so long to reach a decision?
    Dr. Boyson: The cost of administering the death grant is £12 million; the cost of the death grant itself is £17 million. I know that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the speed with which the Government works and is therefore disappointed in this case.
    Mr. Dickens: Is my hon. Friend aware of the discomfort and grief not only of the bereaved but of the officers in his Department who have the embarrassment of explaining the death grant to the bereaved? Can we not either get rid of the stupid £30, which hardly covers the price of a wreath, or make new arrangements? We must do one thing or the other, because the present system is absolutely stupid.
    Dr. Boyson: I note the point that my hon. Friend puts so elegantly. No doubt we shall deeply consider his view.
    Mr. Hugh Brown: Does the Minister's earlier reply mean that he has legitimised the permanent delay in making a decision by including it in the comprehensive review?
    Dr. Boyson: That is not the Government's intention. However, as the whole of social security is being reviewed, it would be odd to deal separately with one part of the whole.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Can the Minister give the global figures more succinctly? What proportion of the cost of the death grant is applicable to administration?
    Dr. Boyson: I thought that I had replied to that question earlier. However, I shall help the hon. Gentleman, who is obviously too far away to hear. The overall cost of the death grant—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will listen, he might understand. The overall cost of the death grant is £29 million. The cost of administration is £12 million.
    Mr. Eastham: If the hon. Gentleman genuinely wishes to give assistance, particularly to old people, with the cost of funerals will he consider excluding funerals from VAT, as such people have the terrible burden of paying VAT even on the cost of burial?
    Dr. Boyson: That is a point for the Treasury, and I am sure that it will have noted with interest the hon. Gentleman's comments.

    Supplementary Benefit
    Mr. Loydenasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the number of people on supplementary benefit, office by office, in Liverpool at the present time.
    Dr. Boyson: Liverpool local offices are paying supplementary benefit to 195,600 claimants at present. With permission, I will provide the office-by-office figures in the Official Report.
    Mr. Loyden: I am over here. Is it not scandalous that the Government, instead of encouraging those who are entitled to benefits to claim them, have brought into Merseyside an army of snoopers, which is having the opposite effect on people who are entitled to benefit? Will

    751
    he support the action taken by the Merseyside county council in promoting its take-up campaign, which has produced evidence that this is the case?
    Dr. Boyson: I am sorry that I did not look at the hon. Gentleman when I was replying. I was looking at other Liverpool Members to bring them into our conversation. As about 25 per cent. of the households in Liverpool are receiving supplementary benefit, one cannot say that the DHSS there is too harsh on its administration. One in four is a fair factor. I do not know how many people from the special claims unit of the Department have been in Liverpool, but I shall look into this matter and write to the hon. Gentleman about it.
    Mr. Parry: Have not people on supplementary benefits been badly affected by the policies of this Government and in particular by the introduction of VAT on take-away meals? This affects pensioners, single-parent families and large families on supplementary benefit. In Liverpool, I know of cases where take-away shops have experienced a drop of between 20 and 25 per cent. in their takings because people cannot afford to pay for these meals.
    Dr. Boyson: The hon. Gentleman's question about VAT is one for the Treasury. On supplementary benefit, I remind him that the value of the purchasing power of supplementary benefit is 5 per cent. higher than it was when we came into office and for children under five and between five and 12 there has been a 27 per cent. increase in real terms in the value of supplementary benefit.
    Mrs. Beckett: Will the Minister answer the question put to him in the first place by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden)? The Minister said casually that the fact that one in four households can claim benefit proves that the system is generous. Whether they are getting their full entitlement is quite another matter, particularly considering the way that the Government consistently fiddle the regulations and even take illegal action. Will the Minister welcome the action taken by Merseyside county council?
    Dr. Boyson: The hon. Member for Garston (Mr. Loyden) asked me how many people were drawing supplementary benefit in Liverpool and I gave that figure —the actual figure down to single numbers was given, which shows this Government's grip on administration. Merseyside and Liverpool had a take-up of 600,000 cards, which went out last year, if my memory serves me right, and an increase in take-up came from that. Although largely single payments were made, that was at least a help.
    Following are the figures:

    Supplementary benefit claimants

    Thousands

    Belle Vale

    13·6

    Birkenhead North

    16·2

    Birkenhead South

    9·8

    Garston

    9·2

    Huyton

    14·7

    Kirby

    15·6

    Norris Green

    8·5

    St. Helens

    18·4

    Toxteth

    13·5

    Wallasey

    11·1

    Wavertree

    7·9

    West Derby

    10·0

    Bootle

    12·8

    Thousands

    Breckfield

    14·4

    City

    9·2

    Crosby

    10·7

    Acute Beds
    Mr. Freudasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations he has had from health authorities where a shortage of acute beds is further exacerbated by non-regional specialty referrals.
    Mr. John Patten: None, Sir.
    Mr. Freud: Will the Minister accept that the Cambridgeshire problem of second referrals and the financial burden of being classed as a centre of excellence are very expensive for a county and do infinite harm to other people in the county? Will he, as a matter of urgency, allocate extra resources for an in-depth analysis of what is going on?
    Mr. Patten: I will not accept that. Adequate provision is normally made for cross-boundary flows between local health authorities. Secondly, the East Anglia regional health authority is instituting a high-level review, which involves the Cambridgeshire and Huntingdon district health authorities, to look at these issues. Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman should accept some of the responsibility for the state of affairs in East Anglia., for it was in the period of the last Labour Government that East Anglia resources for the Health Service got way behind. That Government were supported by the Lib-Lab pact, and it has been this Government who since we took office, have increased expenditure on the NHS in East Anglia to a higher level than it has ever been. We shall continue to do so.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Should a patient have to travel for specialist treatment from an area where that treatment is available in the private sector from doctors who also have a contract with the National Health Service?
    Mr. Patten: It is up to consultants to decide what they do in their free time regarding work in the private sector. It is important that National Health Service waiting lists are examined so that there can be maximum flexibility and people can be switched from one waiting list to another where the waiting time is shorter.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Does my hon. Friend accept that if the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) pressed the Cambridge authority to run its district as efficiently as the Peterborough district is run—as it covers my constituency and part of his—he would not: have the basis for his question in the first place?
    Mr. Patten: While I am happy to give some praise to my hon. Friend's own district health authority, the last: thing I wish to do is to criticise the Cambridge district health authority, whose chairman is doing an admirable job tackling some of these detailed problems. The root of the problem goes back to the underfunding of East Anglia. between 1974 and 1979, which the Government are correcting.

    Child Benefit
    Mr. Yeoasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about the current year's uprating of child benefit.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): We have received representations from the Child Poverty Action Group, the Family Forum, the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children and the Trades Union Congress.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my hon. Friend agree that although increasing tax thresholds is one way of tackling the poverty trap, a more cost-effective way would be to increase child benefit? Accordingly, will he bring as much pressure to bear as possible on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that child benefit is increased this year by a percentage not less than the increase in tax thresholds?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate the uprating statement, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must make in due course. I am sure that both he and the Chancellor will take note of what my hon. Friend said. The only basis on which increases in child benefit can reduce the poverty trap is if existing means-tested benefits are comparably reduced, that is, if dependence on means-testing is reduced. There is a conflict between tackling poverty and tackling the poverty trap.
    Mrs. Beckett: Does the Minister accept that since his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) is correct in saying that raising child benefit is the most efficient and effective way of reducing poverty, if that increase is not comparable with the increase in tax allowances it will be seen as evidence that the Government are more interested in methods of change to help the wealthy than in those which give greatest help to the poor?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady made a number of points about a difficult area, which must be considered. However, she is plain wrong in saying that increases in child benefit are the most effective way of tackling poverty.
    Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that the effectiveness of child benefit is blunted by its indiscriminate nature? Does he agree that the problem is that too many people, probably including many hon. Members, are receiving child benefit when, patently, they do not need it? Will he consider that point?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Minister for Health is currently chairing a review of benefits for children and young persons. I am sure that he will note what my hon. Friend said.

    Industrial Disputes (Claims)
    Mr. Pikeasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied that his Department can deal speedily with the claims of those involved in industrial disputes and adequately meet the needs of the claimants' dependants.
    Dr. Boyson: We are satisfied that the Department can deal speedily with claims from those involved in industrial disputes and that the needs of strikers' dependants are being met up to the full extent allowed by the Acts and regulations.
    Mr. Pike: Does not the Minister think that the way in which the guidelines have been tightened harshly against the miners, as has been shown during the present industrial
    754
    dispute, is totally wrong? Does he agree that it is totally wrong to take into account gifts given by charitable organisations and other donations given to miners' families during the present dispute?
    Dr. Boyson: There has been no change in the regulations. There has been an interpretation of the S code of 1980 and other factors, but there has been no change. Regarding the question of gifts, all gifts over £4 are taken into account for anybody who receives supplementary benefit, not only for strikers.
    Mr. Couchman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Social Security Act 1980 deems that strikers will receive £15 per week in strike pay from their union, which is quite properly taken into account, and that the NUM decision not to provide any strike pay out of its enormous reserves is utterly reprehensible?
    Dr. Boyson: The NUM was perfectly aware of the position before the strike began. The provision to which my hon. Friend refers was in the 1979 Conservative manifesto and became part of the law of the land in 1983. As for the extent of the NUM's reserves, I once read in the Financial Times that they exceeded £27 million.
    Mr. Ashton: Why is it that the wife of a murderer who goes to prison does not lose £15, but the wife of a striker does? As for social security benefit, why have some people who have appealed against the Department's decisions been waiting as long as 12 weeks for their appeals to be heard, due to the Government's deliberate policy of starving strikers back to work?
    Dr. Boyson: There is no such deliberate policy. More than 800 officers are working on miners' benefits and we have given postal claim forms to the NUM to distribute.
    On the hon. Gentleman's first point, the position of a striker is totally different from that of a person in prison because a prisoner cannot come out and go to work tomorrow. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman had not realised that. We have to look after the prisoner's wife because he is no longer in a position to do so, but strikers can go back to work tomorrow and look after their wives themselves.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that miners in Nottinghamshire and elsewhere have solved the problem by continuing to work?
    Dr. Boyson: I cannot add to the delightful and accurate point made by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Meacher: Is the Minister aware that according to a secret Government document — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] entitled,
    "Guidance Additional to the S Manual — Miners' Strike 1984,"
    loans from social work departments, weekly payments to miners' families and their children, cash payments from the NCB in lieu of concessionary coal, meal vouchers for children and one-off payments by local authorities by voucher to miners' children are all, for the first time, being counted against supplementary benefit, thus robbing miners' families of that additional value to which they are entitled? Is that not the most blatant and politically motivated fiddling of the social security system to try to force the miners into submission and back to work? When will the Minister stop this vindictive and illegal campaign against the miners?
    Dr. Boyson: As it happens, I have a copy of that so-called "secret" document with me. So far as I know, there

    755
    is also a copy in the Library. If the hon. Gentleman has any other secrets, perhaps he will share them with me. If that document is not already in the Library, it will certainly be there tomorrow. [Interruption.] I said that I believed it was already there. I am not so arrogant as the hon. Gentleman, who thinks that he is always right. Even Conservatives sometimes make mistakes. Nevertheless, I believe that the document is in the Library.
    On the hon. Gentleman's second point, supplementary benefit is, by definition, supplementary to other money coming in. It has always been held that if someone is receiving £4 or more in cash or in kind that income should count against supplementary benefit. It is purely a matter of interpretation as to how that applies in the present case. There is not one iota of change in the law.

    EC (Reciprocal Arrangements)
    Sir William van Straubenzeeasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will circulate a list of the reciprocal arrangements with European Economic Community members which give British citizens access to their social services.
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): EC regulation 1408/71 determines the circumstances in which British citizens have access to social security benefits and health care in other member states.
    Sir William van Straubenzee: Does not the reference that my right hon. and learned Friend has so helpfully given emphasise that membership of the EEC brings with it, or increasingly will bring with it, among many other things, the reciprocal benefit of access to other countries' social security provisions? Is that not an additional reason for this country remaining an active member of the Community?
    Mr. Clarke: Just so. The present arrangements ensure that nationals of this country have access to the health care and social insurance systems of other countries on exactly the same basis as nationals of those countries. In all our work in the Council, the British Government work to simplify and improve the arrangements. I have not the first idea where the Labour party would take us if—should it come to power and try to carry out whatever its policy on the EEC might then be—it tried to renegotiate all those beneficial arrangements.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that, in Italy, the Mafia has devised a system of supplementing income and thus providing a social service for members of the family by means of what is known as the tinned tomato scandal? Are any reciprocal arrangements in operation on that matter?
    Mr. Clarke: No, Sir, but no doubt the Greater London council is exploring the possibilities.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. John Browneasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and
    756
    others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty The Queen.
    Mr. Browne: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider the subject of taxation and, in particular, the spurious allegations made by the Leader of the Opposition about the likelihood of the imposition of VAT on food? Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House and the nation yet again that the Government have no intention whatsoever of imposing VAT on food?
    The Prime Minister: We get this scare at every election, whether it is a general election or a Euro-election. We are used to it. It represents an attempt by the Opposition to divert attention from their total absence of policies on Europe.
    We have no intention of extending VAT to food. The Leader of the Opposition should remember that it was a Labour Chancellor who put VAT on confectionery, ice cream, soft drinks and potato crisps. He should remember that it was a Socialist group in Europe which presented a report which tried to abolish zero rating, and a Conservative group in Europe which restored zero rating.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister still say, on behalf of her Government and her party, "We are not going to intervene in the coal dispute"?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. The term "intervention" is very well understood. The right hon. Gentleman has been trying to persuade me for a very long time to get both sides along to No. 10 Downing street for beer and sandwiches so that I can be told, "Give 'e m the money, Maggie."
    Mr. Kinnock: The evidence of the Prime Minister's intervention for the mischievous purposes of deepening and embittering this dispute is now obvious and proven, and the evidence of her deceit is also proven by the way in which she has continually claimed not to be involved while in fact, for all the wrong reasons, she is directly involved. Will the Prime Minister now apologise for her deceit and use her power to encourage the negotiating parties to come to a speedy and mutually satisfactory result to the dispute?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman asks me to intervene in the way in which I refuse to intervene.
    Mr. Wareing asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wareing: Now that the Secretary of State for the Environment has been to Liverpool and seen just a little of the housing problem facing the city council, and has said that the council is right to regard it as a priority, will the Prime Minister review the housing investment programme for Liverpool? Furthermore, will she consider restoring her reputation as the Iron Maiden by having the guts to visit Liverpool to confirm the situation—and next time she visits Liverpool, will she come in broad daylight?
    The Prime Minister: I seem to remember that last time I went to Liverpool it was very broad daylight.
    Mr. Wareing: And everybody was asleep in bed.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: I hope that, for the moment, the hon. Gentleman is awake. With regard to the more serious aspect of his question, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a joint paper has been produced by officials of the Liverpool city council and officials of the Department of the Environment on options for achieving a balanced city council budget for 1984–85. It has been presented to the city councillors and the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is due to meet councillors to discuss it. In the meantime, I understand that the auditor has written strongly advising the council to set a rate by 20 June. I hope that it will do so.
    Viscount Cranborne: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the announcement in this morning's press that the Americans have managed to shoot down a warhead in space? Will she take time today to consider whether that event has any implications for the purchase of the Trident missile?
    The Prime Minister: It would be extremely unwise to rush into any conclusions on the basis of a press report or to make any statement without considering its full implications. The difference between one event and turning it into working technology is enormous, especially in this sphere.
    Dr. Owen: In view of the Prime Minister's proven involvement in British Rail's pay offer, will she spare the House the humbug of pretending that she is not involved in decisions about whether British Rail should now invoke the civil law in relation to secondary picketing by members of the National Union of Railwaymen? Will she now tell us what she thinks should be done?
    The Prime Minister: I have already said, in case the right hon. Gentleman has not noticed, that should the great nationalised industries invoke the civil law, the Government will not override their decision.
    Mr. Norman Atkinsonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Atkinson: Is the Prime Minister aware that Mr. Denktash and some other Turkish-speaking Cypriots are shortly to host a dinner at the Savoy hotel which 40 or 50 of the Prime Minister's Back Benchers will attend and which will be addressed by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), who will associate the Tory party with the Turkish annexation of Cyprus? Will she dissociate herself from that annexation and assure the House that no Government facilities will be made available for any trade negotiations during Mr. Denktash's visit to the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government have condemned the attempts to declare an independent northern Cyprus. The Government wish there to be a unitary state of Cyprus and have supported and will continue to support the efforts of the United Nations to bring both sides together to achieve the restoration of a unitary state of Cyprus. With regard to other matters, right hon. and hon. Members are free to do as they wish.
    Sir Peter Blaker: Has my right hon. Friend any comment to make on the deafening silence of the opposition parties when the Prime Minister of South Africa was received by the Pope?
    The Prime Minister: No. I sometimes prefer the deafening silence to the other thing.
    Mr. Marlowasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 12 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend agree with this summary of the European election campaign, that whereas the Labour party, quite properly for it, puts Socialism first and the Liberal and Social Democratic parties put Europe first, Conservative candidates are putting Britain first? Does she further agree that every Conservative candidate is committed to the retention of the national veto, favours increasing free trade in the Community, and is against a federal system for Europe?
    The Prime Minister: I agree broadly with my hon. Friend. With regard to the veto, our manifesto makes it clear that we wish to retain it as it is. With regard to our attitude to trade in Europe, we wish to reduce the internal barriers. Of course, I am against a federal Europe.
    Mr. Parry: Does the Prime Minister agree that the House was deliberately deceived by the Government about intervention in the miners' dispute? Does she state now whether the Secretary of State for Energy actually saw the letter from Andrew Turnbull to Henry Derwent? Will she also agree that the Secretary of State yesterday treated the House and the National Union of Mineworkers with contempt by saying that he could not remember seeing the letter because it was not important?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to the precise papers that the Secretary of State for Energy sees, I suspect he has seen a great deal more than I have, because he is the sponsoring Minister. With regard to intervenion, right hon. and hon. Members are still urging me to intervene by getting them all to No. 10. I have not done so, and will not do so. I have repeatedly said that this Government have set——[Interruption]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member wishes to call it intervention, I must tell him that this Government have provided £2 million per day for investment in the coal industry. They have seen to it that money is there for a very good deal for the mineworkers and that the best voluntary redundancy terms are available. They have seen to it that there are extra subsidies and extra prospects for manufacturers who wish to turn from oil to coal. If that is intervention, yes, I have intervened, but asking them to No. 10 and beer and sandwiches, no, never.
    Mr. Wallaceasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 12 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wallace: Is the Prime Minister aware that during the European election campaign at least one Conservative candidate has received the active support of Captain Kent Kirk, who in January of last year showed such blatant

    759
    contempt for the British fishing industry and British fishery law? Does the Prime Minister welcome the support that Conservatives have from Captain Kirk?
    The Prime Minister: If we have only one candidate taking a particular view, that is very different from the Liberal party. None of their candidates appears to take the same view.
    Mr. Richard Page: What does my right hon. Friend think about a group which campaigns against apartheid, which is violently against the visit to his country of Mr. Botha but at the same time in certain of its constituency branches is actively setting up black-only sections?
    The Prime Minister: I have noted it. I think that it is humbug and double standards.
    Mr. Straw: Since, under the Government's own chosen measures, Conservative-controlled Portsmouth has overspent to a much higher degree than Labour-controlled Sheffield, what sympathy has the Prime Minister for the problems of the Secretary of State for the Environment in trying to manufacture a list for rate-capping which ensures that Sheffield is included but that Portsmouth is excluded?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the rate-capping measure has not yet been enacted. It is still before the other House and it would be somewhat premature to devise a list before that Bill has even become an Act. Hon. Gentlemen will remember that that, of course, was the habit of the Opposition when in government, but I think that it is a little premature at the moment.
    Mr. Dobsonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Dobson: May I plainly ask the Prime Minister to intervene beneficially in a further industrial dispute, to take steps to ensure that the women, already on poverty level wages paid by Messrs Crothalls at Barking hospital in East London, benefit from a settlement that will give them decent levels of pay and working conditions? If she will not, is she not admitting that the future of the Health Service depends on the payment of wages below the poverty level to many ancillary workers on whom the Health Service depends?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The savings are going to provide more nurses and on extra patient care.
    Mr. Bellingham: Has my right hon. Friend heard the news that a well-known SDP parliamentary candidate has defected to the Tories? Does she agree that after next Thursday there will be more such defections?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that a large number of others will follow the same course, because it will be the wisest thing that they have ever done.
    Mr. Rentonasked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Renton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Comecon summit meets this week in an atmosphere of bitter division in the Communist bloc, whilst the London summit last week emphasised agreement in the free world? Is there a lesson which Moscow might learn?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct. On East-West relations the summit last week stood absolutely solid in the view that it took on defence. It also pointed out that we are always willing and, indeed, wish to enter into greater dialogue across the West-East divide. I think that that is the right course of action.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Since the Government are undeniably involved in the coal dispute, will the Prime Minister change the habit of a lifetime and say something helpful? Will she give an unequivocal commitment to the future of the Scottish coalfield and to the necessary development in Stirling, Fife and Musselburgh bay, which are essential for the future of that so-called peripheral coalfield?
    The Prime Minister: I shall gladly repeat what I said earlier, which is very helpful for the prospects of the coal industry. The Government have provided £2 million a day investment in coal — a greater investment than that provided by any other party. The Government have seen to it that the money for voluntary redundancy is better by far than that provided under any previous Government. The Government see great future prospects for the coal industry and hope that the miners will return to work to take advantage of those prospects.

Parliamentary Expressions
Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance on behalf of myself and a number of my hon. Friends about what action Back Benchers can take when Ministers of the Crown lie to the House?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a word that I can accept in the House. He must withdraw it.
Mr. Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Members: "Withdraw."
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that word and rephrase his remarks.
Mr. Dobson: Could we seek your advice, Mr. Speaker?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I withdraw the word "lie". Could we seek your advice about what action Back Benchers can take when Ministers apparently deliberately mislead the House? Is it more against our rules to call someone a liar than for them to lie in the first place?
Mr. Speaker: Order. This matter is frequently put to me. I used to have an interest in parliamentary tactics. I still have, but the hon. Gentleman will have to find his own methods.
Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that Question Time is central to the whole system of legislative control of the Executive? Is it not nonsense if the House of Commons condemns using the word "liar" but on the other hand condones the act of lying by Ministers who are supposed to be answering to the House?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) is too experienced to try that one on the House. He knows perfectly well that for good order in this place we must not attribute dishonourable motives to each other in the Chamber.
Mr. Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I can accept that entirely. It is utterly wrong to attribute dishonourable conduct to a Member who has not behaved dishonourably. The point that we now have to
762
face, which the rules do not provide for and on which we need your guidance if the situation is not to become worse, is what happens when a Member does behave dishonourably to this House. There seems to be no rule to cover that and we need your guidance for the protection of the House and of Back Benchers.
Mr. Speaker: This is a perennial question. Ever since I became a Member of the House I have heard charges of this kind. Our debates must be discussed in good order and I shall insist upon that.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When a Minister was last found guilty of misleading the House, it was a resignation issue. I seek your guidance. If a Minister is found guilty of deceiving the House, whatever language he uses, should not those who carry the title of right hon. or hon. Member do the honourable thing and resign?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. What arrangements can be made to see to it that the Prime Minister and other Ministers involved in this deception take a polygraph test, especially as they thought that was a wise thing to do to those at GCHQ?
Mr. Speaker: Order. We had better move on to the Prime Minister's statement.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: It wastes time.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is not a waste of time, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday you ruled that to say that a Minister was deliberately misleading the House was an unacceptable term. I notice today that you did not rule when a similar statement was made. Some of us felt that yesterday's ruling was very fierce, but we accepted it. Do we take it from today's reply that some flexibility has entered into your views?
Mr. Speaker: No flexibility at all. If the hon. Gentleman will read the record, he will see the adverb "apparently" before "misleading the House". That is what made the difference.

London Economic Summit
3.35 pm
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the tenth annual economic summit which was held in London from 7 to 9 June. Heads of State or Government of the seven principal industrialised countries were present, accompanied by their foreign and finance or economic Ministers, together with the President of the European Commission, who was accompanied by Monsieur Ortoli.
I have placed in the Library of the House copies of the economic declaration and of declarations issued on democratic values, East-West relations and terrorism, together with a statement about our discussions on the Iraq-Iran conflict. I shall deal first with the political issues.
The summit considered it timely to restate the values which bind the Western democracies, particularly at the end of a week when we had been remembering the very different conditions of 40 years ago. Too often we have seen the Western case go by default while Governments who deny democracy maintain an unceasing flow of propaganda.
At British initiative, we had a thorough discussion of the problems posed by terrorism. There was unanimous determination to confront and defeat international terrorism whatever forms it may take. We identified a number of detailed proposals which will be followed up in the working group of experts from the summit countries.
On East-West affairs the summit, having stressed the need for resolve and solidarity, stated our readiness for dialogue and our hope that the Soviet Union will react constructively and positively. We expressed our belief that East and West have important common interests: in preserving peace; in enhancing confidence and security; in reducing the risks of surprise attack or war by accident; in improving crisis management techniques; and in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.
We also discussed the conflict between Iraq and Iran. We expressed our regret at the breaches of international humanitarian law which this conflict has brought and called for freedom of navigation to be respected. As to oil supplies, we were satisfied that, given existing stocks of oil and the availability of other sources of energy, adequate supplies could be maintained for a substantial period of time by international co-operation and mutually supportive action.
The primary purpose of the summit was to discuss economic matters. On these we reached the following main conclusions. First, the declaration pointed out that economic recovery can now be seen to be established in the summit countries. It is more soundly based than previous recoveries, thanks to the firm policies designed to bring down inflation. But to sustain recovery, and spread its benefits further, requires unremitting efforts. We agreed, therefore, to continue and where necessary to strengthen policies to reduce inflation and interest rates, to control monetary growth and reduce budget deficits.
Secondly, as unemployment in our countries remains high, we emphasised the need for sustained growth and the creation of new jobs; the need to ensure that industrial economies adapt and develop in response to demand and
764
technological change, including in small and medium-sized businesses; and the need to encourage active job training policies and the efficient working of the labour market.
Thirdly, on international debt, the problems will be easier to resolve if world recovery is sustained and policies are followed which are conducive to lower interest rates. We reaffirmed the case-by-case approach. We agreed that with the strategy we have adopted the problems are manageable. We identified a number of matters which require further attention. Among them: that, where debtor countries have successfully made efforts to adjust their economies, we will encourage multi-yearly rescheduling of their debts; that we should like to see even closer co-operation between the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, whose role should be strengthened; and that developing countries should be encouraged to open their economies to increased direct investment from the industrialised countries and to substitute longer-term direct and portfolio investment for short-term bank lending.
Fourthly, the summit urged all countries to reduce trade barriers and liberalise and expand international trade in manufactures, commodities and services. We agreed to consult our GATT partners with a view to early decisions on the timing and objectives for a new negotiating round.
Fifthly, we agreed on a new programme of research and co-operation, the better to establish and deal with the causes of environmental pollution.
To sum up, the summit expressed the clear view that the economic strategy we have been following is right and that we should continue to pursue it. We did not leave it at that. We set out in the declaration a 10-point action programme for the next 12 months. This includes a series of specific measures for reducing obstacles to the creation of new jobs; and records our agreement to seek to maintain and wherever possible increase the flow of official aid to developing countries, particularly the poorest; and to encourage more openness towards private investment flows. The declaration as a whole sets out a global approach to the economic situation and deals comprehensively and positively with current needs and problems.
This was a workmanlike and constructive meeting which achieved a very large measure of agreement on the basic objectives of our respective policies, on both the economic and political fronts.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: The Prime Minister said that the primary purpose of the summit was to discuss economic matters, and I shall confine my questions to that. The Prime Minister and the communiqué referred to recovery in the world economy. That is good news, of course, as far as it goes. But when the Prime Minister says in her statement that
"the summit expressed the clear view that the economic strategy we have been following is right",
is the reference to America's strategy or hers? Obviously they are absolutely opposite. Does not the right hon. Lady agree that any signs of life have come largely as a result of the expansion of the United States' economy, despite her lectures to the President?
Will not the Prime Minister face the fact that capital is being pulled to the United States of America by the vigour of its economic revival, and that we shall draw capital back to Britain and Europe, without an interest rate war, only if and when our economy is stimulated into a similar expansion? Will her efforts to control monetary growth in

765
keeping with the summit declaration exclude the raising of interest rates? If that is her intention, can she explain how the squeeze on the supply of credit will bring stability or a reduction in the price of credit for industries and families in Britain?
The failure of the leaders of the strongest economies to take systematic and serious initiatives to deal with the current and growing debt crisis in an unforgivable evasion of the responsibilities that go with their immense power. Does the Prime Minister understand that her self-righteous approach to the needs of the people of the Third world is yet further evidence of her pervading lack of concern for poor people, whether they be in this country or elsewhere? Why does she refuse to comprehend that, if others in the world are denied the power to spend, our people will not get the proper opportunities to work, to produce and to earn? How did she have the gall to agree to the communiqué when her policies absolutely contradict the declarations on technological change, job training, efficient working of labour markets, flexibility in working time, official development assistance and much else? After five years of reduced investment, cuts in training, jobcentres, overseas aid and much else, that is a massive insincerity, even by the Prime Minister's standards. It is matched only by the vanity which she displayed in this empty epic over the weekend.
The Prime Minister: The comments in the communiqué on recovery and expansion were the conclusions of all seven Heads of State and Government plus Mr. Thorn. They said together:
"That recovery can now be seen to be established in our countries. It is more soundly based than previous recoveries in that it results from the firm efforts made in the Summit countries and elsewhere over recent years to reduce inflation."
All countries have made efforts to reduce inflation. I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition is so critical of the conclusions of President Mitterrand and Prime Minister Craxi.
On monetary growth and interest rates, the communiqué said that we shall pursue policies to keep down monetary growth and interest rates. Interest rates in the United States are a great deal lower now than they were three or four years ago. Indeed, they are only about half what they were. We have set out a programme to deal with the debt crisis—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman does not agree. Apparently, Mr. Larosière of the International Monetary Fund does. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is out on a limb on his own.
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman thinks it wrong that in the declaration of democratic values published by all Heads of Government and State at the summit we said:
"We are aware that economic strength places special moral responsibilities upon us."
We think that; perhaps the right hon. Gentleman does not.
We have been foremost in encouraging technological change. No other Government have acted so strongly in educating children on technological change. We have introduced computers in schools and a big computer training programme for young people. We have also helped particularly to launch new products, particularly for small businesses. The communiqué pointed out the importance of that in securing new jobs.
766
The fact is that once again the right hon. Gentleman is out of step with all the other countries.
Mr. David Steel: Will the Prime Minister accept that it is particularly difficult to take from her today the statement about the values of Western democracies the day after every hereditary backwoodsman in the land has been hauled into the other place to push through a Bill which seeks to switch the political complexion of the government of London with no democratic election whatever?
Secondly, what effort did the right hon. Lady make at the summit to obtain a common EC line against the high interest rates of the United States? Does she accept that that continues to stifle economic recovery in both the developed and the underdeveloped world?
Thirdly, how is the right hon. Lady's talk about preventing the spread of nuclear weapons consistent with the President of the United States entering into the Star Wars concept of space? How does it square with her determination to press ahead with the proliferation involved in the Trident programme and with her reluctance to put the French and British nuclear deterrents into the equation in dealing with East-West relations?
The Prime Minister: May I point out that the majority of 20 in their Lordships' House the other day was far higher than that received on Second Reading of most Bills under the previous Labour Government which the right hon. Gentleman supported? The Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill was put through with a majority of six and the Bill which set up the National Enterprise Board was put through with a much smaller majority than 20. As the right hon. Gentleman supported the previous Labour Government, he is in no position to criticise.
We are all pursuing policies which will try to reduce high interest rates. The United States is, of course, pursuing a policy which will reduce the deficit by reducing public expenditure and increasing taxation which together will amount to $150 billion.
I repeat what I said earlier on the reported experiment that has taken place. It would be a very rash person who would conclude future policies on the basis of one experiment. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, it takes an enormous time on the experimental stage to produce weapons and an enormous amount more on testing. In the meantime, wise Governments ensure that their people are defended and wise Governments deter potential aggressors.
Mr. Terence Higgins: Did those at the summit recognise that the international debt crisis is concentrated largely on a very small number of countries, especially Argentina, Brazil and Mexico, and that there is a real danger that too many additional resources are being devoted to their problems rather than the Third world countries which are the poorest and the most in need of aid?
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is the first hon. Member to note that the poorest countries are not so much those that are in debt difficulties, because, on the whole, we try to get more aid to them. Aid is far more appropriate than large loans which they could not possibly afford. I agree with my right hon. Friend that a number of other countries are facing debts. I am sure that my right hon. Friend has seen Mr. Larosiére's speech at the

767
Philadelphia conference and has noted the excellent way in which he said that the matter should be dealt with, a way that we warmly endorse.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Does the Prime Minister agree that little profit is to be obtained by nagging the United States about its budget deficit, as it is largely the United States budget deficit that has been responsible for whatever recovery we have? Would it not be better to get a number of like-minded countries to co-operate in reducing interest rates, even if that meant some increase in the money supply?
The Prime Minister: No one was taking the United States to task for its budget deficit, because the United States has said that it is making a down payment to reduce its deficit. The phrase "down payment" implies that there are other substantial instalments to come.
Our recovery started before the recovery in the United States. We are all of one mind to continue policies to reduce inflation, to restrain public expenditure and public borrowing and to hold monetary growth. That is the right strategy, and it was agreed by every head of Government.
Mr. Peter Hordern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problems of the international indebtedness of the Latin American countries and, to some extent, the developing countries are being caused not only by the United States budget deficit but by the fact that their exports have been hampered by restrictions on trade because of quotas? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the GATT negotiations to which she referred will be an adequate instrument to deal with those restraints?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the debt position is aggravated by any increase in interest rates. It is not possible to argue with that proposition. An increase in interest rates causes problems to those countries when they are already struggling with their international indebtedness. As my hon. Friend knows, countries such as Mexico and Brazil have made the adjustment process. Mexico has just received multi-schedulings, and does not have to come back on a yearly basis for rescheduling its payments of interest rates.
I agree with my hon. Friend that, if the debtor countries are to get out of their indebtedness, they must be able to export their goods more freely to industrialised countries. They must be able to trade their way out of the problems, and that matter was very much taken on board at the summit. A number of people tried to get a specific date for a decision on a new GATT round. As we are not the authority that can take the decision on GATT, we shall have to consult our colleagues with regard to that matter before we commit ourselves.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Prime Minister aware that the difficulties of developing countries, which are caused by the commercial banks, cannot be solved either by the piecemeal case-by-case approach, which the right hon. Lady embraces or by the communiqué, which she obviously espouses? The developing countries need, first, time and, secondly, lower interest rates to enable them to repay their debts. That can be done only by a joint Government approach. What is the Prime Minister doing about that?
The Prime Minister: I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. He said that those problems cannot be solved
768
on a case-by-case basis. I quote from the speech by Mr. Larosière of the International Monetary Fund made at the Philadelphia conference of bankers. He said:
"there are no magical solutions to the problems we have been facing. Proposals have been made for panaceas such as writing off part of the debts or transferring them wholly or in part to official institutions … those proposals have attracted little support. One reason for this is that each country's debt situation has its own specific features that cannot adequately be taken into account in generalized approaches."
That was the view that he took and that was the view that we took, and I believe that it is the right one. The right hon. Gentleman knows that it will help to keep interest rates down if we try to keep down public expenditure and deficits.
Mr. Peter Tapsell: Although it certainly brings its own problems with it, if we do not want to see a drastic reduction in United States expenditure on defence, on which the security of the free world depends; and if we do not want to see a sharp fall in the prices of raw materials, on which the living standards of the Third world depend; and if we do not wish to see the loss of the only great market in the world in which Britain enjoys a large surplus on her banance on trade; should we not be a little chary of joining the chorus of those who, often for their own and varied reasons, seek to blame most of the economic problems of the world on the fact that the United States is running a budgetary deficit of about 5 per cent. of its gross domestic product?
The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend reads the communiqué, he will find that we did not blame most of the problems of the world on the United States deficit. Indeed, the United States is not mentioned in it. We observed that if we are to have a sounder based and sustainable recovery we must continue to keep down inflation and restrain public expenditure, monetary growth and deficits. That applies to each and every one of us and that is the policy that we are pursuing. My hon. Friend will find that that strategy was endorsed in the communiqués issued by many previous Heads of Government summit conferences.
Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Door' Valley): Will the Prime Minister answer the question that she did not answer when she replied to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel)? How does she reconcile signing a declaration on democratic values with the abolition of elections to the Greater London Council and the metropolitan counties?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have allowed that question to be raised, but I do not think that the House should now persist with it.
Mr. Foulkes: The Prime Minister was one of those who signed the declaration on democratic values. Perhaps she will tell us how she explained the fact that London will soon be the only capital city from Washington to Tokyo and from Edinburgh to Cardiff that does not have an elected council covering the whole city.
The Prime Minister: The issue was not whether the elections should be cancelled. The issue was whether GLC councillors should continue for a further year or whether others should continue for a further year. As the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said from the Opposition Front Bench on 11 April, he could sympathise with the Government's belief that it would have been wasteful to hold elections. The question was whether we

769
should prolong the mandate of GLC councillors after that mandate had been exhausted, which would have been a wrong precendent which could have been used to prolong the mandate, for example, of the House. That would have been constitutionally wrong. It would clearly be wrong to prolong a mandate after it had been exhausted. The issue was whether we should substitute for those councillors other councillors who would take over the responsibility — [Interruption.] The hon. Member does not like hearing the right answer. However, Mr. Speaker allowed the question and therefore I must give the right answer. Councillors whose mandates have been exhausted will be replaced by councillors who still have a mandate on their district councils.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have an extension of Prime Minister's Question Time. I allowed the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) to ask the question, but perhaps I should not have done so. We must return to the subject of the economic summit.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister has just said——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order after questions on the statement.
Sir Paul Bryan (Boothferry): In the course of the proceedings my right hon. Friend had talks with the Japanese Prime Minister. Was he able to give her any assurances on the prospects of the opening up of that market?
The Prime Minister: Obviously we considered that because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Japanese have recently embarked upon a liberalisation of their capital markets which we hope will be advantageous to other countries, including our own. I think that the Japanese Prime Minister is very much for investment by Japanese firms in this country because, as my hon. Friend knows, they have a greater surplus of currency, and they would like it to be used in that way.
Mr. Bryan Gould: In her answer to my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister pointed out that American interest rates had fallen substantially at the same time as its budget deficit had risen to record levels. How does she explain that fact?
The Prime Minister: Because, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware, the price of money varies with three factors: inflation, the Government deficit, and the private sector demand for money. Each of the three must be taken into account.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many people in this country and abroad would wish to congratulate her on the constructive lead which she has taken in the economic summit meeting in London? In view of the fact that the prudence exercised by this Government may inevitably be directly affected by the economic policies pursued in the United States, can my right hon. Friend be very hopeful that the down payment which has been made this year by the American
770
Administration will be followed immediately after the forthcoming elections by a real contribution towards budget deficit reductions in the United States?
The Prime Minister: I take it that that is what the phrase "down payment" means, and that is why it was used. That down payment will be followed by further measures to reduce the budget deficit in the coming year.
Mr. Norman Atkinson: In regard to the economic declaration, does the Prime Minister recall that on two or three occasions recently she has assured the House that it is not the Government's intention to initiate any new moves on industrial training or job creation? Why then did she not propose to issue a minority statement, following the declaration, unless this new statement indicates a fundamental change in Government policy?
The Prime Minister: It is not a fundamental change of this Government's policy; it is a continuation of this Government's policy. We have one of the best schemes the world over for job training for young people.
Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with all its faults, the Bretton Woods conference of 40 years ago did much to underpin the banking system? Does she also agree that, in the current state of uncertainty, such a gathering could be of material benefit, and why does she object, or appear to object, to such a conference?
The Prime Minister: Because we now have, as a result of Bretton Woods, the very international financial institutions that we did not have before that time. It is the existence of those international financial institutions—the IMF, World Bank and the various aid agencies—and the various political summits that we have had that enable us to take action to counter the world economic difficulties. None of that could have been done before the International Monetary Fund or World Bank existed.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Does the Prime Minister accept that when she speaks about recovery, particularly in this country, it is largely based on North sea oil? Could she explain what the likelihood would be if, instead of exporting about £10 billion in terms of investment across the exchanges to the United States and elsewhere to strengthen their manufacturing base, we had more investment to strengthen the manufacturing base in the United Kingdom? Would she accept that, while we are not disappointed in her posture in relation to the deprived sections of the world, we recognise her posture in relation to the deprived section of the United Kingdom, some of whom were demonstrating in London on Thursday, and she would have been much more beneficially employed by meeting them rather than attending the summit?
The Prime Minister: The last part of the hon. Gentleman's question is nonsense, and he knows it. Does he really suggest that one should not be in charge of a summit when all those people have been asked to London? If it has come down as far as that to ask a question, I am just astounded.
The recovery depends not only on North sea oil. Much manufacturing industry is extremely efficient. The chemical industry is exporting extremely well. The car industry, when it is not on strike, has also put its own house in order, and its exports and sales here are going up. Investment in manufacturing industry over the last year

771
has increased by 10·5 per cent. We have had inquiries many times, and they have found that there is plenty of money for investment. It is not just investment itself which is good; it must be productive investment. As the hon. Gentleman will see from the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry one has to have not only the investment, but also the design, the goods and the price at which they will sell.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: On a broader question, does my right hon. Friend agree that the summit may have been useful not only in the agreements that have been struck but also in the disagreements that may have been discussed? Will she continue to press for further such summits, and for summits which embrace the Eastern bloc in order to defuse the tension in the world?
The Prime Minister: There is a paragraph in the communiqué which points out that one of the most valuable aspects of the summit is that we meet to discuss world economic problems and world political problems. I think that all who have been engaged in the 10 summits that we have had would agree that that is the most valuable aspect of them.
In the East-West communiqué, we said that we would attempt to have more dialogue between West and East. With that in mind, President Mitterrand will be going to Moscow later this month, I understand, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will be going to see Mr. Gromyko in July. Naturally we are concerned about the apparent isolation of the Soviet Union—a self-imposed isolation. We wish, for the reasons given in the communiqué, to have more discussion and to keep contact with them.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Prime Minister explain why she condemns those countries that deny democracy, yet her Government continue to support regimes in countries like Chile, El Salvador and South Africa? Could Liverpool and other hard-pressed local authorities benefit as well from multi-year rescheduling of debt in the way that Right-wing countries in central and southern America have benefited? Does the reduction in trade barriers for which the countries are aiming include a reduction in trade restrictions on cheap food coming into Common Market countries from elsewhere in the world? If the economy of these countries is recovering, will she deny that a moratorium will be announced on all local authority capital expenditure?
The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman's questions were highly artificial. We prefer democracy, and I notice that the hon. Gentleman makes good use of it, although some of the political views that he espouses do not always grant as much democracy as he receives.
With regard to Liverpool, I have already said in answer to earlier questions that a paper has been prepared by officials, and will be discussed shortly.
Mr. Julian Amery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the less developed countries, electoral pressures push towards default, and in the more developed countries towards deficit? I congratulate her and her colleagues on having successfully resisted these pressures so far. Does she agree that a substantial part of the deficit of the United States arises from its armaments programme, for which we should all be grateful?
The Prime Minister: I hope that we shall not be faced with full-scale default on the part of the debtor countries. It would have considerable consequences. Because of that, strenuous efforts are made through the IMF to encourage them to have adjustment programmes, and, when they have adjustment programmes, to have loans made available to them through the international financial institutions, backed up by commercial banks. I think that on the whole that has been a successful programme.
I am well aware of the increased amount which the United States has spent on defence, because her deficit would not be so significant if at the same time there was not a high demand from the private sector because of the recovery.
Mr. Gavin Strang: When the economic declaration refers to the creation of new jobs by encouraging flexibility in the pattern of working times, does it mean that a reduction in the working week has a contribution to make to reducing unemployment? If that is the case, is that the policy of the British Government?
The Prime Minister: It does not mean that. The reduction in the working week without a proportionate reduction in wages would have the effect of putting up unit costs, which would mean that we could not sell goods, thus adding to unemployment.
Sir Anthony Kershaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition's policy, which is to solve the world crisis by flinging money at it, is even more ridiculous in relation to the whole world than it is in relation to this country alone?
The Prime Minister: It is precisely the one way in which we cannot solve the problem. When looking through the communiqués of the other summits before I attended this summit, I noticed that almost every one of them had put in the forefront of its strategy the need to keep down inflation.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Given the case-by-case approach, and the dangerous position that we are told by Mr. Rodgers, Mr. Fleet and other serious financial commentators is developing with the IMF delegation, what constructive ideas has the Prime Minister on the specific and unique problem of the Argentine debt? Would not it be wise to follow some of the advice given by the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs?
The Prime Minister: I was not aware that that Select Committee was discussing the economy of Argentina. Indeed, I doubt very much that it was. The Argentine debt is already the subject of negotiations between the Argentine Government and the IMF. If the hon. Gentleman is talking about negotiating with Argentina the sovereignty of the Falklands, the answer is no.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her emphasis upon the contribution of direct and portfolio investment to world recovery, especially in the developing countries, will be most welcome? Did the summit consider any schemes for investment protection, which would greatly help the developed countries to increase investment in the developing countries?
The Prime Minister: I agree that some of the debtor countries could reduce their debts substantially either by

773
sale of assets or by portfolio investment. That course is available to them. It would make a great deal of difference if there was an international code of practice for investment protection. A restricted number of countries have codes, but there is no international code as yet. It is true that a new Government that took over a country by coup could flout that code, but it might help in the meantime to secure more internal investment.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the right hon. Lady aware that one reason why the majority of British people treat the summit with a great deal of cynicism is that, by and large, bland statements are issued? Only on a few occasions has there been anything specific mentioned, such as at the Venice summit attended by the Prime Minister a few years ago, when a declaration was made that there would be a doubling of coal production in European countries. Does not that fly in the face of what the Government and the Prime Miniter have recently been doing to the coal industry——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are going off track again.
Mr. Skinner: I have not finished yet.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his question to the summit.
Mr. Skinner: I am doing that. I am making the point about the cynicism of the British people towards summits. Does it not embrace what the Prime Minister once said when she was in Opposition, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) used to attend summits? She said that they were a complete waste of time. Has not this summit, which cost the taxpayer £2·5 million, been nothing more than a top people's junket to launch, among other things, Ronald Reagan's election campaign?
The Prime Minister: I use to say from the Opposition Dispatch Box that I thought that the main value of the summits was the getting together of the Heads of Government and not necessarily the communiqués. I have not departed from that view.
Britain was in considerable difficulties with oil supplies during the Venice and Tokyo summits. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that currently we can hardly have even the coal that we need because many of the miners are on strike.
Mr. Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be a wide welcome for the further progress on collaboration on manned space stations? Should not United Kingdom policy be determined urgently? Is there not an opportunity here for European collaboration or bilateral collaboration with NASA?
The Prime Minister: We have received a generous invitation from the President of the United States to participate in the new manned space station. The United States intends to put one into space in any event. We have the opportunity to consider whether we, either alone or with some of our partners, want to participate in that research. It opens great possibilities for research that would not otherwise be available to us. We shall consider the invitation carefully.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does not the statement by Mr. Donald Regan that there is no connection between high interest rates and the high budget deficit in America wholly undermine the Government's justification in introducing four years of public sector cuts? Is that not precisely what the Labour party has been saying for the past four years? There is no connection. Will the right hon. Lady learn from Mr. Regan, who appears to know more about the matter than does the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
The Prime Minister: But Mr. Regan is introducing a down payment and, later, other measures to reduce the deficit. I rather thought that the $150 billion down payment was going before Congress. Interest rates are determined partly by the deficit, partly by the inflation rate and partly by other demands from the private sector for credit. When the deficit is high and there is a high demand for credit from the private sector, the interest rate is high.
Mr. Mark Robinson: The World Bank development committee is seen in the communiqué as an appropriate forum for representative discussions on some of the issues aired during the summit. Yet The Times, in its headline yesterday, went one step further and envisaged a world monetary meeting being held in 1986. I can find no reference to that in the communiqué. Can my right hon. Friend clarify the position?
The Prime Minister: I know of no arrangement to have a world monetary meeting in 1986. We continue to survey the monetary arrangements and the inflation performance of each country, but most of us take the view that we now have the international financial institutions which we did not have before Bretton Woods, that they are being used and that they can continue to be used. They have been adapting themselves to modern conditions. Therefore, we do not need a further institution.
Mr. David Winnick: Does the right hon. Lady recognise and admit that the summit was a propaganda exercise with no worthwhile purpose? It will not offer any ray of hope to the millions of people in this country who are unemployed, especially those in the west midlands who have been devastated by the policies pursued by the Government since 1979.
Does not the statement on democratic values smack of hypocrisy? Is not the United States busy, in every way possible, helping Right-wing dictatorships and, as in Chile in 1973, taking an active role in undermining democratically elected Governments?
The Prime Minister: It is absolutely right that a summit of Western industrial countries should proclaim the values in which we believe and which we operate in Britain. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who takes such advantage of democracy, does not proclaim the values that he uses.
Viscount Cranborne: Should not this House be grateful that the summit has considered the whole question of the Iran-Iraq war? During its deliberations, did it consider the possible interest and potential influence of the Soviet Union on the course of that conflict? Did it consider the possible use of Afghanistan as a base for furthering that influence, with particular reference to Soviet activity among Iranian Baluchistan, and also the use of the base at Shindand for naval reconnaissance aeroplanes over the Indian ocean?
The Prime Minister: No, but we are very much aware that it would be easy for the Soviet Union to misread the signals. Therefore, efforts are being made to ensure that it does not do so.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her initiative in having the subject of terrorism discussed at the summit. Does she agree that it was somewhat disappointing to find that some of our allies did not seem to be supporting, other than in a lukewarm way, the original British paper on this subject? Will she continue to press for a co-ordinated international response to this problem?
The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, we got a good response in the Council of Europe, and I think we had a good response from the summit, and one from the European Economic Community Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs. The communiqué from the summit makes a great advance on anything that we have now on co-operation and information on international terrorism.
Mr. Michael Hirst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a wide welcome for the summit's restatement of its commitment to arms control negotiations? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, although the response from the Soviet Union has so far been disappointing, her Government will press on with diplomatic negotiations and so soften the ground for the meaningful negotiations that we hope will come next year?
The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend implied, the communiqué makes it clear that the United States has said that she will return to the negotiating table without preconditions. We hope that there will be a response to the United States invitation. In the meantime, we continue the dialogue in Stockholm in the conference on disarmament, in Vienna where we have been negotiating for nine years on mutual and balanced force reductions and in Geneva where we continue to negotiate on the nuclear non-proliferation agreement and also on chemical warfare. There is a good deal of dialogue across the negotiating table, but not specifically on nuclear weapons, and we should like a return to the negotiating table. It would be unwise to be too optimistic about how soon that will occur.
Mr. Harry Greenway: The communiqué talks about the creation of new jobs. Will my right hon. Friend say in which sectors she expects these new jobs to be? Was it envisaged in the discussions that there would be co-operation between seven countries? Will they be acting individually or together to create new jobs?
The Prime Minister: We spent some time on this. It would seem that in the United States and Japan most of the new jobs have come from high technology and from the service industries. In both cases, many of these jobs came from small businesses and the creation of new business.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Winterton.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I thought that I was wearing invisible clothes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is no good getting frustrated about these matters. The hon. Gentleman has the same rights as everybody else, and he has now been called.
Mr. Winterton: My right hon. Friend, quite rightly, expressed grave concern about unemployment. In her
776
statement, she stressed that the liberalisation of trade was very much part of the package that had been announced in the communiqué. Is she aware that the liberalisation of trade without adequate safeguards on unfair competition will work against the best interests of employment in this country? Will she answer that point directly, and also give an assurance to business that interest rates will not be raised here? If the package that follows the summit is to mean anything, will she assure us that there will be stimulation of the economy along the lines of the package recommended by the CBI, with modest capital public expenditure?
The Prime Minister: With regard to free trade, I agree with my hon. Friend that one cannot simply have one group of countries opening up its markets for trade without adequate safeguards for fair competition and without others similarly opening up their markets. The poorest developing countries cannot do that, but there are many newly industrialised countries that give protection to their own markets but expect to be able to export freely into others. That is the subject of a GATT working party, and I hope that the working party's conclusions will be accelerated and that there will be a report before the new round of GATT on which we are consulting our partners.
I cannot say anything more about interest rates than I have. Judging by our performance, there is no need for interest rates to rise.
Mr. Kinnock: I shall not detain the House long, but, in view of the Prime Minister's references to the declaration of democratic values, and the way in which she has perversely used those references in answers to my right hon. and hon. Friends, I wish to point out that, set against the background of her economic and constitutional policies, it is she who has made those fine values, set out as they are in the declaration, look like decorative tinsel.
The Prime Minister: Nonsense.
Mr. Allan Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the Prime Minister's answer to me she did not disagree with any of the facts that I put across or with my arguments, but she seemed to doubt my motives and to cast aspersions——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot answer such questions.
Mr. Roberts: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that you and previous Speakers have ruled on the calling in doubt of the motives of right hon and hon. Members. I submit to you that that is what the Prime Minister did in her answer to me——
Mr. Christopher Hawkins: Aah.
Mr. Roberts: It is all very well saying "Aah". I, in the spirit of 1944, have been fighting for democracy and civil liberties all my life, as did my father, who landed on the beaches of Normandy without being ordered to land there. I submit that to have my motives disputed in that way is a breach of parliamentary privilege, as you, Mr. Speaker, and other Speakers have ruled.
Mr. Robert Parry: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not disgraceful that the Prime Minister should cast aspersions on my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), who is always arguing for democracy, when there are several

777
Members of the Conservative party who are openly supporting Fascist regimes such as Chile, South Africa, Indonesia and the Philippines?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that the Prime Minister did not intend——
Mr. Winnick: She did.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the Prime Minister did not intend to impute any dishonourable motive to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts).
Mr. Roberts: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have disposed of the matter and there is nothing more to be said about it.
Mr. Peter Shore: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You addressed your remarks to the Prime Minister, hoping that she was not casting aspersions on the integrity and motives of my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts). Either the Prime Minister was or was not doing that, and we are entitled to know.
The Prime Minister: I do not think that I used any words that could bear that construction.

European Community Documents
Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the two Questions on the motions relating to European Community documents.
Ordered,
That the unnumbered European Community Document concerning beverage containers, contained in the Department of Trade and Industry's Explanatory Memorandum dated 30th March 1984, be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.
That European Community Document No. 8721/83 concerning discharges of hexachiorocyclohexane (lindane) be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

European Community Documents

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Pool Competitions Act (Continuance) Order 1984 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Garel-Jones]

Right of Reply
4.18 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give members of the public the right of reply to allegations made against them or to misreporting or misrepresentations concerning them in the press, on radio or on television; to set up a media Ombudsman; and for connected purposes.
I start by declaring an interest as a member of the National Union of Journalists, and that interest lies in better journalism and more responsible media. Neither of those interests is held at the moment, or fulfilled, by the popular press, against which this measure is directed. That is not to say that the electronic media are perfect. They have enormous powers, so when mistakes are made they have an enonnous impact. They also have an institutional inertia—an amour-propre—which makes them slow to apologise, but they are nevertheless impartial and responsible. They have a conscientious attachment to standards, but none of these things can be said of the popular press.
With the single exception of the Daily Mirror, which I regard as a cut above the rest of the popular press, we have a vicious, prostituted press, which besmirches the democracy which it should be serving and educating. It is—this is not the least of its crimes—overwhelmingly Tory, with no higher sense of duty than to act, not as the Prime Minister's lapdogs, but as her yapdogs. Its members yap and bite at whoever stands out, whoever is different, whoever is a trade unionist, whoever stands up for his rights and whoever believes in the values of liberty, equality and fraternity, or who is not 100 per cent. committed to the doubtful proposition that we have the best of Prime Ministers and a healthy economic boom and are destined for whatever cut-price greatness histrionics can bring us.
We have a press which sensationalises and trivialises and whose only deference to the great American tradition of inquiring and vigorous journalism is a prurient interest in sex and anything that is sordid and sensational and in impersonal trivia. It grovels before power, and indeed positively clamours for honours—the crumbs from the Prime Minister's table—while the Prime Minister buys support in a contemptuous fashion. At the same time, it clobbers anyone who is too weak or powerless to look after himself, and anyone who steps out of line. The measure is directed at such a press.
The ownership structure at the centre of this network is difficult to tackle. The circulation war, which debases, sensationalises and trivialises, is difficult to stop. If we cannot tackle those two problems, we cannot protect the individual against the distortions, misrepresentations, misreporting and hounding, which are becoming all too common in the popular press.
We could protect the individual by creating a legal right of reply, such as exists in statutes in France, West Germany, Austria, Sweden, Denmark and Canada. Such a statute should exist in the United Kingdom. In most of those countries the right of reply extends to individuals and organisations, which have a legal personality. I pay tribute to the previous hon. Member for Salford, East, Mr. Frank Allaun, for his work on this issue.
I have sympathy with the case for extending the Bill to trade unions and companies, but to win wider support today I have restricted the measure to those who need its
780
protections most — ordinary individuals. An ordinary individual has the greatest difficulty and diffidence in getting a right of reply. The measure will cover cases such as are often seen in popular newspapers; for example, that of Mr. and Mrs. Lipkin, who are teachers. Their house was pictured and their address given in the Daily Mail on 26 January 1984 under the headline,
"Inside the nerve centre of teacher propaganda."
It was followed by a sneaky interview, with the journalist posing as someone on the Left. It was designed to focus antagonism against them, which it did. When the expected consequences occurred they protested to the editor of the Daily Mail, who called the police.
Similarly, Frank Bronwell, a miner at Markham colliery, was pictured crossing the picket line under various headings, such as "Defying the pickets". He was not reporting for work and was later on the picket line, but he had no opportunity to correct the report.
Those are two recent examples of such cases, but there are a host of others, from the mother lampooned by the Daily Express as a council house queue jumper, to the treatment of Arthur Scargill as a Yorkshire version of Adolf Hitler. All those cases merit the right of reply.
When individuals are faced with such treatment by the press, what redress do they have? They can go to law, but that costs a fortune and the results are unpredictable. Such action usually gets nowhere, and that remedy is not available to ordinary people. They can complain to the printing unions, who in previous instances have helped to enforce a right of reply through representations to the editor concerned. However, that sort of procedure should not be necessary in a democracy.
Individuals can go to the Press Council which is much improved. Delays in cases have been cut from 10 months to six months. Since February it has had a fast-track procedure, which has dealt with half a dozen cases. Unfortunately, the Press Council has no teeth. Its recommendations can be, and are, ignored by editors and proprietors. They can go to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, but that, too, is a slow procedure.
A quick reply is needed, and the Bill provides it. The Bill provides a media ombudsperson, which is an important innovation and one for which there are important overseas precedents. In the United States, about 30 newspapers, including the Washington Post, have set up their own ombudsmen to adjudicate complaints against themselves. I wish that British newspapers would follow their example. The Guardian might need a part-time ombudsman, but The Sun and The Daily Mirror would probably need five or six full-time ombudsmen. The Bill provides for an ombudsman, as an official appointee, with a staff, and follows the Swedish precedent. That is the machinery on which to build. I should like to build a standing commission on the media on it.
The ombudsman would provide a personalised, public and prompt redress system. He would be responsible for deciding whether the complaint against a particular organ of the media was justified, and if so, what redress should be given, up to and including a right of reply, which would give equal prominence or audience to the original imputations or misrepresentations.
The measure could be criticised as a restraint on the freedom of the press. It is not. It is an incentive to use that freedom responsibly and a restriction on the licence, which the press, under the impetus of the circulation war for survival, has recently misused. The importance of the

781
measure is not how frequently it is used, but its existence. The existence of such a right will mean that journalists, editors and proprietors will become more cautious. They will think before they write the sort of thing that will lead to a right of reply. They will be careful about the attacks, misreporting, misrepresentation, personalisation, half-truth and distortions, which have become all too common, and about which we are right to complain. The very existence of the machinery will help to check the abuse with which it is designed to deal.
At present the press is mobilising power without responsibility — the prerogative of the harlot and the newspaper proprietor — often against defenceless individuals. The only way to deal with that is to give individuals the power to hit back where it hurts.
4.37 pm
Mr. Cranley Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to exercise a short right of reply to suggest that when an hon. Member takes up the time of the House with a speech that is compounded of half-truths, distortions and tendentious nonsense, there should be some way of putting that on the record without wasting further time by dividing the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. W. Benyon, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, Mr. Clement Freud and Mr. Barry Sheerman.

Right of Reply
  RIGHT OF REPLY
  Mr. Austin Mitchell accordingly presented a Bill to give members of the public the right of reply to allegations made against them or to misreporting or misrepresentations concerning them in the press, on radio or on television; to set up a media Ombudsman; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 190.]
Orders of the Day

  Parliamentary Pensions etc. Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.38 pm
  The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill is complex because in many places it amends existing statutes. I have, therefore, supplemented the guidance in the explanatory and financial memorandum by writing to all Members with a brief summary of the proposals. In addition I have arranged for the Government's notes on clauses to be available to Members on request. I hope that these arrangements have been for the benefit of the House.
  The proposals in the Bill arise from three sources. Central to the legislation are the recommendations contained in the Twentieth Report of the Review Body on Top Salaries.
  Secondly, there is the resolution of the House of 19 July 1983, which largely adopted the review body's recommendations, but increased the proposed Member's contribution.
  Thirdly, the Bill reflects a number of suggestions that were made from within the House of Commons during the consultations that preceded the preparation of the Bill. In this context I pay tribute to the trustees of the parliamentary pension fund, for whose advice and collective experience I am especially grateful. The chairman of the trustees, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), has explained to me the reasons that make it impossible for him to be present today. He and his fellow trustees have, however, been assiduous in protecting Members' interests.
  That said, it is only fair to acknowledge that the Bill is dominated by the provisions of the resolution on parliamentary pensions passed by the House on 19 July 1983.
  I now come to the Bill itself. First, the Bill seeks to secure a rate of contribution that will fund an index-linked pension. The resolution of the House of July last year agreed a contribution rate of 9 per cent. This compares with 8 per cent. paid by civil servants for a slower rate of accrual, and 11 per cent. paid by the police, whose pensions accrue more swiftly. Equally significantly, a contribution of 9 per cent. is more than double the national average for non-index-linked pension funds in the private sector. That is a point worth making, as criticism of index-linked schemes such as this often fails to take account of the substantial premium that is paid to secure the benefits.
  Secondly, the Bill aims to provide a rate of accrual which will yield benefits appropriate to the vagaries of parliamentary life. The review body in its report recognised the difficulty of this when it said:
  "MPs are not employed in the accepted sense; their career patterns are very different from those of most public servants; and they do not have the same general degree of security of employment. The need to have regard to the special nature of Parliamentary life has been raised frequently Ȇ and we have paid close attention to this point in the present review".
  With that in mind, I shall briefly run through the major provisions of the Bill in terms of contributions and benefit.

  783
  As I have said, the resolution of the House in July 1983 accepted that a contribution rate of 9 per cent. would be appropriate for a scheme based upon retirement at 65 and sufficient to fund the envisaged benefits. It has been represented to the Government that as the pay of Members of Parliament is to be increased in stages the increase in contributions should be similarly staged. The Government accept this and the rate of contribution—at present 6 per cent.—will rise by 1 per cent. per year to reach the full 9 per cent. in 1987. This is covered by clause 1.
  On the benefit side of the equation, the rate of accrual of a parliamentary pension is increased from one sixtieth of final salary per year to one fiftieth. This means that with effect from 20 July 1983 a Member will be able to earn a full pension in 33⅓ years instead of the present 40. The TSRB recommended this faster accrual rate to take account of the relatively advanced age at which Members embark upon parliamentary careers and, conversely, the relatively early age at which many are forced into a reluctant parliamentary retirement. This, too, is covered by clause 1.
  I have said that the faster accrual rate will take effect from 20 July last year, but an order will be made when the Bill is enacted to allow Members who entered the House before that date and whose pension has been accruing at the one sixtieth rate to convert their back service to the faster accrual rate at 40 per cent. of the cost, which is also the proportion of the total new entrant contribution rate which Members will pay when the new arrangements are fully in operation. I hope that this provision will be generally welcomed as allowing Members increased flexibility in planning their pension arrangements.
  An order under clause 5 will also provide that Members who have taken out contracts to buy added years at the existing sixtieths rate of accrual should be permitted to renegotiate those contracts to take advantage of the improved arrangements.
  One area of particular concern to the trustees about the operation of the existing pension scheme relates to early retirement at the time of a Dissolution of Parliament. As we are all well aware, one of the ways in which a parliamentary career differs from some other occupations is that a Dissolution can occur at a time which is personally inconvenient. The normal retirement age is 65 and this Bill does not seek to change that. Indeed, I should emphasise that a retirement age of 65 is a significant feature of the parliamentary pension scheme and is reflected in the contribution rate. The existing scheme makes provision, however, for a Member aged 62 or over and with 25 years service to retire on his full accrued pension at the time of a Dissolution.
  I think that that is a useful provision and clause 4 proposes that it be extended. In future, Members aged 60 or over with 20 years service who retire at a Dissolution will be able to take their full accrued pension. This facility will be available to those who retired at the time of the 1983 general election. This is a modest improvement, but one which in the opinion of the trustees and myself will be helpful in an area where hardship has been caused in the past.
  Mr. Michael McGuire: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I wrote to him about a man who qualified under the service provisions with 29 years service but who, because he was under the age of 62 at Prorogation, would have to surrender quite a large amount
  784
  —26 per cent.—of his pension in perpetuity or wait until he was 65. In linking the age at which one leaves the House and the number of years of service, is there not a danger of perpetuating that anomaly? Should we not consider the possibility of a person being able to pick up his pension on reaching the age of 60 if he or she has 20 years' service?
  Mr. Biffen: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. As he said, he very kindly wrote to me about this. Another difficulty, however, arises when one begins to follow that line of argument. The care with which the scheme has been constructed around a retirement age of 65 is likely to be progressively undermined. It will be argued that the qualifying factor of Dissolution is no longer to be related to the age at which the pension is drawn. The 20 years' service will then be seized upon as an arbitrarily large figure so that in one way or another we shall drift substantially away from the present arrangements, which are based upon a retirement age of 65.
  We have consciously made modest amendments to deal with the cases of hardship perceived in the past. If I sense the mood of the House correctly, however, I believe that we shall be returning to this aspect. Perhaps the House will allow me to rest my initial case there and we can debate the matter further in due course. I cannot, however, conceal from the House my concern to maintain the inherent integrity of the retirement age of 65 as being part of the scheme as I believe that otherwise we shall find ourselves bundled into reconsideration of the contribution rate.
  There will, of course, be Members unfortunate enough to fall on the wrong side of the new line. All I can say to them is that the line has to be drawn somewhere, and drawn in such a restricted way as not to undermine the basic principle of the scheme, which is a retirement age of 65. Furthermore, I think that the House will also wish to reflect upon another proposal which should lessen hardship for those whose parliamentary careers are terminated ahead of retirement age. I refer to the review body's recommendation included in clause 3 which allows for a reduction from 60 to 50 in the age at which Members may apply for an actuarially reduced pension.
  The Bill also provides for the abolition of the four-year qualifying period for benefits and for an increase in the maximum lump sums which may be obtained by commuting pensions. I intend that the revised figures for commutation limits should be incorporated in subordinate legislation.
  There are a number of other improvements with which I do not propose to detain the House. One of them has, however, received some attention in the press and may be worth mentioning.
  Clause 9 proposes the removal of the restriction whereby Members may only nominate a husband or wife to receive immediately the death benefit which is payable should they die in service. This has been referred to as a "mistresses' charter". For those who view the world from El Vino's I would point out only that the provision could be used to benefit a child or a child's guardian. Its main purpose is to enable Members to select whatever disposition best suits their circumstances.
  It is something of an historical accident that the parliamentary pensions scheme has to proceed by primary legislation, and therefore attracts considerable publicity that is not always as fair-minded as we might wish. But

  785
  there is clearly a genuine and justifiable interest in the arrangements which Members of Parliament choose to make on subjects which so closely affect their own interests. For this reason it behoves us to proceed carefully lest we arouse the suspicion that we are treating ourselves more favourably than we would countenance for others. I believe that this Bill represents just such a cautious approach. Nobody studying with an objective eye of the report of Top Salaries Review Body and the subsequent debate can doubt that a tolerably fair balance has been struck between the need to provide a scheme that caters for the uncertainties of parliamentary life and a proper concern for the public purse. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
  4.52 pm
  Mr. Peter Shore: I, too, will have something to say later about the principal clauses of the Bill, but, at the start of the Second Reading debate, it is right for me to thank the Leader of the House for his clear exposition of the measure, his offer to make available the notes on the clauses of the Bill and, finally, for his deserved but generous tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and the other trustees of the parliamentary pension fund, who have undoubtedly done their best to represent the interests of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House in the period preceding the passage of the resolutions last year and the publication of the Bill.
  I should also address myself, on Second Reading, to the main purpose and general context of the Bill. The Leader of the House referred to the antecedents of the Bill. I regret the fact that the general framework of the measure was, as it were, pre-set by the resolutions passed during the debate on the Plowden committee's report on parliamentary pay and allowances on 19 July last year. I regret that for two reasons. First, in the debate last July, which covered the whole field of parliamentary pay and allowances including allowances for secretarial and research assistance for Members, virtually no attention was paid to the complex and important subject of Member's pensions. I believe that the subject was referred to in only two speeches and that it occupied only a few minutes in a debate which lasted for several hours. I also regret the decisions made then because the Government successfully persuaded a new and inexperienced House of Commons to depart in two major respects from the recommendations of the Plowden report. First, the House of Commons accepted a much lower basic parliamentary salary—a decision which has, inevitably, a substantial and adverse affect upon pension entitlement. Secondly, there was the decision to raise pension contributions not to 8 per cent. as Plowden recommended but to no less than 9 per cent. It is against that background of smaller salaries, reduced allowances and increased contributions that we have to consider the Bill.
  One major Plowden recommendation has been retained. The pension accrual rate is to be raised from one sixtieth to one fiftieth of final salary for each year of service. In addition—I willingly pay this tribute to the right hon. Gentleman—the Leader of the House has listened to many representations not only with his usual
  786
  courtesy but with an occasional and welcome flash of sympathy which will assist hon. Members and ease the passage of the Bill.
  First, there is the central issue of the pension accrual rate. The heart of the matter was stated in paragraph 63 of the first volume of the Plowden report, which states:
  "The case for improving the accrual rate for MPs rests essentially on the unique nature of a parliamentary career, with its inherent unpredictability and the implications of this for pensions."
  No one would dispute that view. I know that the Leader of the House certainly agrees with it.
  I would not go as far as Thomas Hobbes, describing the condition of parliamentary man as:
  "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short".
  There is too much enjoyment and exhilaration in politics for that. However, uncertainty is built into the lives of hon. Members. We do not and should not complain about that, for the principal sources of that uncertainty are the working of democracy itself with the ebb and flow of party fortune, and the occasional great tides which sweep away what had been thought to be party bastions. There is also the decennial carve-up by the Boundary Commissions, changing the shape and allegiance of hundreds of constituencies in the interests, again, of maintaining a broad equality of electoral representation. We accept all these uncertainties but, while our democracy requires them, we should recognise them and their implications.
  There is another marked feature of parliamentary life to which the Leader of the House referred. We can describe it as the late entry factor. With a handful of exceptions, most hon. Members first enter the House between the ages of 35 and 45. Even if their service, once they have entered, is unbroken up to retirement age—and for the majority that will not be the case—the most that they can expect to complete by the age of 65 is either 30 or 20 years of service.
  Those two factors—the built-in uncertainty of the electoral system and the relatively late entry to the House — makes the pension accrual rate important. Most public services and professions, and many private occupational pension schemes as well, aim to provide, on retirement, benefits equal to two thirds of final salary. In most cases the assumption is that 40 years of pensionable service will have been completed by retirement age. Clearly, no such assumption can be made for Members of Parliament. Given the present one-sixtieth rate, to achieve a retirement pension of two thirds of final salary would require 40 years' membership and to achieve half pay would require no less than 30 years.
  In the Plowden report we read that:
  "A Member may derive little benefit from the parliamentary scheme if service is relatively short".
  Yes, indeed. The report also states:
  "because a change of job is involved both on entering and leaving parliament, the pension obtained from other employment may also be reduced."
  The Plowden report then lists other pension schemes that are designed to reflect a shorter than average career length. For officers in the armed forces, for example, full pension accrues over 34 years. For the police, members of the fire service and prison officers, it accrues over 30 years and for the judiciary, which we all know is recruited from people who spend many years practising at the Bar, it accrues over 15 or 20 years. The Plowden report concluded that the accrual rate for parliamentary pensions should be reduced from one sixtieth to one fiftieth. There

  787
  can he no certainty when deciding the accrual rate as there are bound to be discussions about it, but the shorter career prospects, the late entry, the in-built uncertainty and the resolution that the House passed in July 1980 lead me to conclude that one fortieth would be the best basis for calculation. However, that is not available to us because of the 1983 resolution and the Bill. One fiftieth is undoubtedly an improvement and I therefore welcome it.
  If one fiftieth is considered the right rate of accrual, it would be a considerable injustice if nothing were done for sitting members in respect of their past service. I therefore welcome the arrangements described on page 3 of the explanatory and financial memorandum in regard to orders under clause 5 and section 11 of the Parliamentary Pensions Act 1978 to enable Members of Parliament to purchase
  "sufficient added years of reckonable service as a Member to increase their pension entitlement to what it would have been if the new accrual rate had applied throughout their period of service"
  the purchase price of 40 per cent. of the total cost simply reflects, as I understand it, the share in total contributions that Members make, following the introduction of the 9 per cent. rate of contribution. As the total contribution from all sources is 22 per cent., the Member's contribution of 9 per cent is 40 per cent. of the total—hence the figure used for the purchase of added years.
  The increase in contributions from the present 6 per cent. to 9 per cent., as set out in clause 1, is in excess of what Plowden recommended. Moreover, it is 9 per cent. of a considerably lower salary than the Plowden report recommended. In those circumstances, it is only common sense to stage the increase to 9 per cent. from 1 January 1985 to 1 January 1987, as clause 1 proposes.
  Before dealing with the Bill's other major improvement, as provided by clause 4, I should like to touch on clauses 8 and 9, which have attracted some public attention. I welcome clause 8 which, for the first time, provides for pension rights to accrue to the widowers of women Members. That is overdue and is in keeping with the spirit of the times. I also welcome clause 9 which allows an hon. Member to nominate someone other than a husband or wife to receive the lump sum gratuity that is payable on death. That lump sum has been payable since the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1972. To use the Leader of the House's vivid phrase, whatever they might think in El Vino's, there are circumstances in which an unmarried Member, or a Member who is a widower or widow, might wish to bequeath that entitlement to another member of the family, or to a friend. I understand that there has been much discussion on such provision in many parts of the public sector where improvements and revisions of pension arrangements are being discussed.
  On clause 4, many right hon. and hon. Members have been worried by the operation of our present rules under which an hon. Member is entitled to draw his unabated pension rights only if he fulfils two conditions—he has served 25 years in the House and has reached the age of 62. They are both restrictions but, acting in combination, they are extremely restrictive. Cases have been cited of Members who have served 30 years and more but not reached the age of 62 and therefore had a right only to a severely abated pension. There might be other Members who conform to the age limit of 62 but have not completed 25 years of service and are therefore not entitled to a pension until they reach the age of 65. I am glad that those
  788
  conditions are now to be changed and that we can now provide an unabated pension to Members who, on Dissolution, have completed 20 years of service and reached the age of 60. It goes without saying that the possibilities of Members of that age who lose their seats finding alternative employment is negligible. I am glad that the new 60–20 formula, if I might use that shorthand, is to be made retrospective to the Dissolution of June 1933.
  I have a question to ask and a suggestion to make. The question arises from the wording in the explanatory and financial memorandum on clause 4. I shall remind the Leader of the House of it. It says:
  "Provision is also made for Members to become entitled in certain circumstances to a full pension on retirement at a dissolution … with at least 20, instead of 25, years of set-Nice and at an age of 60 or over, instead of age 62.">
  What do the words "in certain circumstances" mean? I should have thought that the circumstances were already fully spelled out in the text. I should be most grateful if the Leader of the House or the Minister of State, Treasury would say whether anything is concealed in that phrase and let us know what those circumstances are.
  My suggestion concerns an anomaly to which we shall have to return in Committee. It is close to, if not the same as, the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McGuire) in his intervention. There will be Members who qualify in terms of service, having completed at least 20 years. but who nevertheless at the time of their exclusion from the House are under the age of 60. They might be just a few months short of 60. It would seem reasonable that when such a Member reaches the age of 60, he or she should become entitled, like others, to an unabated pension. As I understand it, under our present rules no unabated pension becomes available until that Member reaches the age of 65. That cannot be right, and I strongly hope that we can persuade the Government and the House to make the necessary change.
  This is the fourth piece of Parliamentary pensions legislation that I recall the House being invited to pass since the Ministerial Salaries and Members' Pensions Act 1965. The original Act was followed by the Acts of 1972, 1978 and 1981. It is now being followed by what we hope will become the Act of 1984. We have not yet got parliamentary pensions right, but we are making progress. Some amendments on Friday might take us a step or two further forward. In that spirit, I accept the Bill receiving a Second Reading.
  5.10 pm
  Mr. Edward du Cann: The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), speaking for the Opposition, made, in effect, two points, both of which I agree with. I thought that he put them wholly admirably. His first was to give a welcome to the tabling of the measure. As the first speaker from the Back Benches, I am glad to accord with him exactly in that respect. As he said in his last few words, this is the fourth pensions measure affecting Members of Parliament with which the House has had to deal during the last 20 years. It follows from that that the previous measures fell far short of perfection. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that we have been excessively modest in our own interests in making proper pension provision for our fellows. There it is. We have advanced slowly. Perhaps, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, that is the best way. We have to hold a difficult balance and set an example.

  789
  The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney also talked about the context in which we should consider the matter. At the beginning of his speech he went out of his way, rightly, to pay a tribute to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I heartily join in that tribute. Obviously, before a measure of this kind is produced discussions must take place. A number of us have been involved in those discussions and all of us who have been involved, directly and indirectly, have appreciated the unfailing courtesy and trouble that my right hon. Friend has always taken to do his best to listen to and accommodate every point of view. It is particularly appreciated that he produced an explanatory leaflet for every Member and, by no means least, that we are having this debate in prime time. I think that this is the first occasion since I have been a Member of the House, almost 30 years, that we have debated a matter affecting Members so directly at a convenient hour.
  We have had the good fortune to have a very pleasant atmosphere in which to discuss the matter, but the factual reality is less attractive. As the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney said, we are discussing this measure at a time when Members of Parliament are in receipt of lower salaries than the Top Salaries Review Body has recommended. The measure will also involve us in contributions greater than recommended. Last, but by no means least, Members of Parliament will, as a result, be in receipt of lower pensions than they might perhaps have expected.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House used a phrase, quoted again by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, which struck us all forcefully when he referred to the carelessness with which sometimes, in an effort to court easy popularity, matters affecting the service of Members are referred to by the popular press. The reality is that Members of Parliament have been underpaid for very many years. It is worth while having a general look at the position of Members of Parliament in that respect.
  The remuneration of Members of Parliament is, comparatively speaking, a new affair. It is true, as one of the fact sheets now available points out, that Members were paid for 400 years between the 13th and the 17th centuries. But then it was only after considerable pressure and the debate of, I think, no fewer than six motions that some sort of payment was arranged in 1911, and a very modest payment it was. Certainly it bore no relation to the degree of service given by Members of Parliament, nor to the devotion that they show. Still less — this is increasingly true—it bore no relation to the work load which they experienced.
  The pay of Members of Parliament is by no means remuneration in the ordinary sense of that word. It is not recompense, nor is it a salary by comparison with what people accepting substantial responsibilities might achieve outside the House of Commons. It is simply an allowance to enable men and women to come here who otherwise might be debarred from giving service to the nation.
  Parliament has sought to open the door to all those who wish to give service to the state. This is a poor profession to practise, but it is at the same time a most honourable calling.
  Members of Parliament are certainly poorly paid by comparison with other countries, as the House allowed me
  790
  to point out in a speech some time ago. Three years ago the House magazine published a list of salaries for Members of Parliament in Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, France and the Netherlands, among others. Of the nine nations quoted, two pay less, two pay the same and four pay more. By comparison with some nations within and outside the European Community, British Members of Parliament are very badly paid.
  Perhaps it is right that there should be an element of sacrifice. Certainly on three occasions when the Top Salaries Review Body has reported it has been thought right for Members here to draw less than the amount recommended. That still applies in the case of the latest report from the Plowden committee, as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney pointed out. Therefore, this is far from any kind of exercise for Members of Parliament to feather their own nests. This is a simple adjustment in an endeavour to improve the pension position of Members beyond the unsatisfactory state in which it has been hitherto.
  The principle, then, is accepted, and we all rejoice in that. In regard to its execution, it is possible to argue that we might have gone, not merely further, but very considerably further. During the debate in July last—late at night, when my right hon. Friend was inevitably obliged to make a very short speech of introduction—a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends thought that the proposal to change the rate of accrual from one sixtieth to one fiftieth would be back-dated to include every serving Member of the House. I have read carefully the words of my right hon. Friend, and he obviously had no intention of misleading anyone. He referred specifically to Plowden and what Plowden had recommended. Plowden did not recommend back-dating. However, a substantial number of hon. Members thought that back-dating would come. I am sorry that it has not come. None the less, the proposal in lieu—an opportunity for purchase—goes a long way to alleviate any complaint that there might have been about that matter.
  The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney referred to the rate of accrual. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said, we are moving from sixtieths to fiftieths. The statistics adduced by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney about ordinary length of service and so on, with which we are all familiar, are enormously impressive. Undoubtedly the move from sixtieths to fiftieths is to be welcomed. My right hon. Friend has made the point that that is what the House voted for in July last. I remind the House that on more than one occasion we have also voted for fortieths. It is a great pity that the command of the House in votes in the past has not been followed on this occasion. We have missed an opportunity. As the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney said, it is inevitable that we shall have to return to this matter sooner or later.
  Thinking more about these matters, I must say that this is a reflection of our failure to get as permanent a settlement as possible, whether one speaks of pay or pensions. Of the 20 reports published by the Top Salaries Review Body over the years, no fewer than 11 have been concerned with the remuneration of Members of Parliament. In the last Parliament alone we had no fewer than six debates on the subject. This is the second such debate in the new Parliament. We should not need to be embarrassed by constantly having to refer to these matters.

  791
  I feel a little guilty about the debate today, because an amendment in my name raised the rate of contribution to 9 per cent. I thought it right that we should set an example in terms of contribution. I thought that hon. Members should show that they understood that pensions had to be paid for and be willing to make a comparatively high contribution. It is a great privilege to have an index-linked pension. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, is right to point out that the contribution rate in the private sector is usually about 5 per cent.
  The House agreed by a majority of about 5 per cent. of those who voted that we should accept that responsibility. It goes far beyond that which Plowden proposed. The pension fund is extremely rich in cash in the sense that it is well funded. It is unreasonable that the Treasury has been allowed to exercise so strong an influence over decisions on the fortieths principle.
  The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney was right to mention those who serve in the judiciary, the armed forces, the police and fire services and other categories. The argument against the introduction of fortieths for Members of Parliament has been that it would set an undesirable precedent. That precedent already exists. I cannot believe that anyone would be the least influenced by this extraordinary additional self-sacrifice by hon. Members.
  I regret that we have not tried to work out a permanent settlement. However, all progress is welcome. The nine detailed matters in the Bill represent a substantial move forward and, most important, will remove from the public gaze one or two unhappy cases which received publicity after the last election. The movement from sixtieths to fiftieths and the arrangements for purchase are welcome. I thank and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on his consistent helpfulness.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. Gordon Oakes: The Leader of the House was kind enough to pay tribute to the trustees of the parliamentary pension fund, of which I am one. The chairman of the trustees, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) is away with a parliamentary delegation, otherwise he would certainly have wanted to participate in the debate. I thank the Leader of the House for the sympathetic way in which he responded to the points put to him by the trustees and to which, with one minor exception, he agreed. This is the only opportunity that we shall have for many years to put right the anomalies.
  The trustees have a number of responsibilities. We have a responsibility to Government funds, a responsibility to ensure that our proposals are viable within financial limits, and thirdly, we have a responsibility to our fellow Members. We are appointed by the House to administer the fund on behalf of fellow Members. The trustees know most about the hardship cases. They have the painstaking and heartbreaking task of dealing with some of our colleagues' circumstances when they must leave the House. We must try to help them.
  When we put our proposals to the Leader of the House, he knew that we were not being irresponsible. Many hon. Members might even think that we were far too modest, but we have to exercise a high degree of responsibility when asking for something for fellow Members.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McGuire), my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal
  792
  Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) each dealt with clause 4. It contains an anomaly which the House must consider. I hope that the leader of the House will put it right at the end of the debate, so that we do not have to table amendments for consideration on Friday.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield referred to a gentleman who was an hon. Member of the House for nearly 29 years. He belonged to the Government party, but he was a personal friend of mine. He left the House because his constituency folded beneath him. He was not reselected for either of the two replacement constituencies. He was eight months short of his 62nd birthday, He had spent nearly 30 years in the House loyally serving his party, and at one time was a junior Minister. That man received not a penny in pension. It is a disgrace to the House that we should treat a former hon. Member in such a way.
  That man's plight results not from any wickedness by the Government, but from the inflexible way in which the legislation was written. The trustees were powerless because of that inflexibility. That ex-Member had to be 62 years of age at the date of the dissolution of Parliament before he could qualify for a pension. Nothing could be done to help him. I regret that in clause 4 the Government are continuing that inflexibility. It will lead to headaches for the Leader of the House, whoever he is, and it will certainly lead to headaches for the trustees, because those involved come to us first.
  Let us suppose that someone is an hon. Member of the House for 25 years, having been elected at 33 or 34 years of age. If for some reason he departs from the House at 58 or 59 years of age, he will receive not a penny in pension for six or seven years. He will have to wait until he is 65.
  Another, older person may enter the House two Parliaments later and serve for 20 years. Because by then he will have reached the magic age of 60 at the date of dissolution, he will receive his full pension. That cannot be right. The anomaly cannot be defended and is intolerable. The Bill repeats the inflexibility syndrome, which must prick the conscience of the Leader of the House and all hon. Members.
  We are discussing hon. Members with 20 years' service in the House, not parvenus who have come to the House looking for a pension. Some hon. Members get disillusioned and fed up with the House, but that happens long before 20 years are up. They get fed up at the end of their first Parliament or in the middle of their second. If an hon. Member has to leave the House before he is 60, he leaves because he has been forced out for some reason. Having served for 20 years, he would not willingly go. He would want to complete his term until he was about 65, as most of us would want to do.
  Three reasons may cause an hon. Member to leave the House prematurely. The first is ill health. Although an hon. Member is covered and receives an income if he leaves because of ill health, the scheme is far from generous and I should like to see it improved. The formula for assessing the pension that he would obtain is complicated, but the position is covered.
  The other two reasons are that he has not been reselected by his constituency party, or that he has been defeated at a general election. We faced a tide of defeats in the previous general election—this is not a party political point—and given the ebb and flow of politics

  793
  in this country, it will follow inevitably that that will happen in reverse. Conservative Members who have done no harm and have served their party and constituency loyally will suddenly find themselves out of work. They will have given the best years of their lives to serving the House and their constituents, not to serving themselves in their own professions. Indeed, many people are too old in their late fifties to return to their professions in this fast-moving world, even if the jobs were there. It is too late for them to go back and pick up the traces again.
  All that I am asking of the Leader of the House—I hope that all hon. Members will echo this in their speeches — is to be flexible on clause 4 and to allow an hon. Member who retires below the age of 60 to receive at the age of 60—not before—the pension to which he would have been entitled after serving the House for 20 years. We are asking for a minor change. I hope that we can avoid adding amendments to the Amendment Paper in Committee and that the Leader of the House—he is not a Minister, but our leader, the leader of both sides of the House — can see the justice of the case that I am deploying, and especially the hideous anomalies that could result from leaving the Bill in its present form.
  Hon. Members who leave the House in their late fifties do not go voluntarily, but leave because they must go. It would be criminal for us to repeat what we have done to an hon. Member in the past. This is the opportunity to put it right. Therefore, I plead with the Leader of the House not to leave the matter to be dealt with by later amendments tabled by the trustees or by Back Benchers. He has dealt with the trustees in an excellent way, and is so fair-minded that it would be a shame for us to differ on this very minor point. I hope that he will put the matter right when he winds up the debate.
  5.32 pm
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: I shall not detain the House for long. I welcome the Bill, which is a complex one, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said. I have one question about the provisions in clause 9 that I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to answer in Committee. Are the provisions under clause 9 such, or could they be extended to be such, as to enable an hon. Member who wished to do so to leave the lump sum payable on death to a charity rather than to an individual? Some hon. Members would prefer to do that. We should make that provision now, if it is possible.
  Apart from that, I shall make only two general points. First, if my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House were tempted to suggest that the provisions of the existing or amended Bill err on the side of generosity, it would be possible to defend that state of affairs as a justifiable compensation for any shortcomings in the terms upon which hon. Members serve.
  Parliamentary pay has much improved in the past 20 years. I do not complain about that, but, equally, I do not suggest that we are overpaid; my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) made some comparisons on that score. Nor am I suggesting that we should be overpaid or be seen to be overpaid. I have been led to argue from time to time that we should be underpaid, and be seen to be underpaid — not excessively, but perceptibly. I believe that hon. Members would be able to set for themselves the margin that perception represents.
  794
  It must be open to hon. Members to show, by our act in volunteering to come to the House, that we are not here for the money. There must be an element of perceptible service in our seeking to be elected. Inevitably, that must transfer to the terms that we undertake to accept. The same goes for Ministers. Neither their remuneration, nor the gap between their remuneration and the salary of an ordinary Back Bencher, should be allowed to reach a level at which they might be tempted to accept or retain office because they could not afford not to do so. That is another factor to bear in mind when we consider these difficult questions of parliamentary pay.
  My second point is that I hope we shall finish dealing soon with these and other financial ramifications of our terms and conditions of service. It is right that hon. Members should take decisions on these matters. It is wrong for us to shuffle our responsibility on to a third party by using an apparently anodyne formula. If we do not take decisions in the House about ourselves, we forfeit the right to take them for anybody else. If we cannot bring ourselves to answer for setting our own pay levels, it is difficult to see how we can take to ourselves the right to set the pay of other servants of the state.
  It is wrong that we should, albeit inadvertently, appear to be obsessed with such matters. It did Parliament no good when, last summer, we spent so much time and energy as a newly-elected Parliament on debating our salaries. Perhaps I carry my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton with me in saying that it does no good to his office as chairman of the 1922 Committee, or to that of the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, of Liberal Chief Whip or even of the Leader of the House, if the holders of those offices are preoccupied with what are virtually the functions of a shop steward or trade union negotiator. There are more important, and more political, matters that should have a prior claim upon their time.
  I was, correspondingly, disappointed to hear the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) say, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton echo, the feeling that we do not have the matter right yet, and that we must return to it. I do not think that the Bill should pass its Second Reading while we are in that frame of mind.
  Just as the outgoing Parliament ought to lay down the salaries to be paid to its successors in the new Parliament and to let the answerability go with that, so our objectives should be to set up, at the fourth attempt, a system to determine the conditions of our parliamentary pensions that will stand the test of time. Having done that, we should resolve to leave the matter alone and to think about matters that are more important to the people whom we represent.
  5.38 pm
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: Liberal Members welcome the fact that changes in the pension arrangements of Members of Parliament require a Bill, fully debated at each stage of its passage through Parliament. We welcome likewise the fact that the Leader of the House initiated discussions on these matters, in good time and in an admirable spirit, not simply through the usual two party channels, but with the all-party trustees of the parliamentary pension fund. Tribute has already been paid to the value of those pre-legislative discussions. In my short period as a trustee, I have believed—and still do

  795
  —that a substantial overlap exists between the public interest and the perfectly proper interest of Members of Parliament to ensure fair play for themselves.
  The public interest has been recognised for centuries in the fairly formidable apparatus of law for protecting free speech and free votes in the House. It is important that, as far as possible, we should keep that apparatus up to date, and that includes financial considerations. There must not be any serious risk of an hon. Member feeling inhibited in his freedom of speech or vote by the fact that his family, or he himself, may suffer hardship as a result of losing his membership of the House. It is important that Members of Parliament should be provided with adequate retirement benefits so that they are not inhibited in that way. The public interest benefits by such a measure.
  The Bill takes some account—although not enough—of two current trends. I refer first to the increasing specialisation in jobs outside the House. Most hon. Members would have to seek such jobs on losing their seats. I refer, secondly, to the degree of current and rapidly advancing knowledge which most of those jobs require. It is a very lucky hon. Member who can attend to the business of the House and constituents, and at the same time keep abreast of rapid advances in the subject of his previous career. Indeed, it requires super powers to be able to do that for years on end.
  Therefore, the Top Salaries Review Body was right to point out the uniqueness of a parliamentary career and the great difficulties encountered—which most of us have sadly observed — when middle-aged colleagues who have lost their seats have to try to resume work outside the House. I am glad that the Bill takes some additional account of that. Furthermore, the House is becoming a source of increasing preoccupation for most hon. Members, because of the ever-growing work load, the extension of Committees, and so on. We do not grumble about that, but it is a fact of life that must be taken into consideration.
  I do not claim to have done any research on spouses but although the spouses of hon. Members may still manage to work, they are bound to have rather reduced opportunities of earning money for the family treasure chest because of family duties in the Member of Parliament's absence and, often, involvement with constituents. That should also be taken into account when assessing the uniqueness of the job.
  Thus, I welcome the Bill on those counts, although I agree with the comment made on both sides of the House that it is still far from adequate in all respects. The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) made the point well when it comes to the Bill providing a clear improvement for those who reach a fairly advanced age and do not wish to continue into a further Parliament, but whose pensions could be jeopardised by retiring before the age of 65. Of course the Leader of the House must be right to say that a line has to be drawn somewhere, and that wherever it is drawn some people are bound to be on the winning and some on the losing side, but that admirable and incontestable precept does not justify drawing a line at a point where the distinction between the two classes of hon. Member is most painful and unfair.
  The Leader of the House knows very well that in taxation law and many quota arrangements passed by the House there is the principle of marginal relief. The House establishes a benchmark—in this case, 60 years of age and 20 years service—but instead of making that a total
  796
  cut-of point it arranges for some flexible reduction of benefits down the scale to a further point, possibly to the age of 58, 56 or thereabouts. It is perfectly possible to establish the benchmark which the Leader of the House wants, and which is broadly justified, of 20 years' service and 60 years of age, but still to allow marginal relief down to a somewhat lower age in order to deal with the example which the right hon. Member for Halton gave, which was entirely valid. If we stick solely to the Bill's benchmark, without any flexibility or relief at the margin, we shall ultimately face some appalling anomalies. The House will then be shocked at the injustice done to some retiring hon. Member, and we shall have this whole debate all over again.
  The Leader of the House has already been asked to give thought to the issue before replying to the debate, and I hope that he will also give some thought to the possibility of flexibility along the lines of the marginal relief embodied in many Acts. Subject to that, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I wish to give the Bill a fair wind, as a measure that represents a considerable advance.
  5.47 pm
  Mr. David Crouch: I, too, thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for introducing a measure that is an advance on what we already have, and is certainly overdue. However, in a short speech I wish to refer solely to the question of the "accrual rate" or "the appropriate fraction", as it is described in the Bill, and to consider what we thought we decided on that night and early morning of 19 and 20 July.
  Pensions for Members of Parliament are a House of Commons matter. I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House misled the House then. However, I believe that the House was collectively misled by what we decided that night. We did not vote on the Question. The House was unanimous. At about 4.12 am there was no Division, as the House resolved unanimously to accept the recommendations of the Plowden report on pensions for Members of Parliament. That is what happened on 20 July, although as the debate on 19 July ran into the next day, the House calls it 19 July. It is rather a burden to have to lift up this vast Hansard in order to quote from it. Some years ago I complained, but I now appreciate what a wearisome business it is to lift it up in order to quote from it. However, I wish to refer to what we considered in the early hours of that morning.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House put before us the various resolutions that we had to consider. The last but one was No. 9 which said:
  "That this House takes note of the Twentieth Report of the Review Body on Top Salaries (C'mnd. 8881) and agrees with the recommendations contained in that Report with respect to the pensions of Members of this House, being recommendations (v) to (x) set out in paragraph 226 of Volume 1 of that Report."
  I now want to draw the attention of the House to the recommendation referred to there which the House was considering and on which it might have voted that night just under a year ago. The first paragraph, that I have referred to as sections (v) to (x) is headed "Pensions and severance pay (Chapter 3)". It says:
  "(v) The pension accrual rate for MPs should be set at one fiftieth of pensionable salary as at present defined for each year of pensionable service. (Paragraph 65)"
  That is the reference to the recommendation—not the conclusion—in the report.

  797
  Let me take the House back to the recommendation on page 20 of the report which we were considering, on which we might have voted and which we resolved that night. It said:
  "We recommend that the pension accrual rate for MPs should in future be set at one fiftieth of pensionable salary as at present defined for each year of pensionable service."
  Members of Parliament must equip themselves with as much knowledge as they can when they come into the Chamber to take part in a debate. What I have read to the House this afternoon makes it clear that we were thinking of one fiftieth as the fraction—not one fiftieth applied to just some years of our service but one fiftieth of the years to be reckoned with. I heard no one that night who thought that we would apply one fiftieth only from the date when the resolution was made in July last year.
  I do not want to mislead the House. The Plowden report did not recommend retrospection. It said that retrospection was not thought to be appropriate. But that was not in the conclusion. It was not what we were considering. The conclusion was clear to any hon. Member who might ultimately have to go into the Lobby to vote. It was exactly as I have set out—that the new fraction would be one fiftieth. That was what we eventually decided upon that morning.
  Let me take the House back again to something that the Lord Privy Seal said in guiding us through those complicated debates on a series of resolutions that night. In his speech covering a variety of resolutions, my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal said:
  "Turning to pensions, the review body recommends, and the Government accept, that the pension accrual rate for Members should in future be set at one fiftieth rather than one sixtieth of pensionable salary. This is a long sought change. Members cannot normally be expected to have had a full working parliamentary life of 40 years. The review body also recommends that the pension contribution for Members should be increased."
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) has touched on how we dealt with that.
  On the one hand we were prepared to raise the contribution from 6 per cent. of salary to 9 per cent., and we voted on it. A majority of the House agreed to accept the amendent put forward by my right hon. Friend that that figure should be increased to 9 per cent. We agreed to make that extra contribution. We never thought that we would not get the contribution. We thought that the Government were saying to us through the words of the Lord Privy Seal that night that the Government accepted that the new fraction in future should be one fiftieth rather than one sixtieth.
  The House started voting that morning at 2.47 am. Shortly after 4 am the main question, as amended, was put and agreed to. Let me make it quite clear what we decided. The Official Report says:
  "Question accordingly agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
  The House did not divide.
  "Resolved,
  That this House takes note of the Twentieth Report of the Review Body on Top Salaries (Cmnd. 8881) and agrees with the recommendations contained in that Report with respect to the pensions of Members of this House, being recommendations (v)"—
  which I have already quoted—
  798
  "to (x) set out in paragraph 226 of Volume 1 of that Report, except that, in recommendation (ix), the appropriate pension contribution rate should be 9 per cent. of salary.'"—[Official Report, 19 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 270–351]
  There is a little reference there to the change of contribution—the money that we would have to pay being increased from 6 per cent. to 9 per cent. There is no reference to the fact that the fiftieth was to apply only from that month onwards and not to the previous reckonable number of years.
  I do not think that we were misled. We all understood clearly that in future we could calculate the pension on one fiftieth and on no other figure. At no stage in any recommendation, in any part of the Plowden report or in what was said in the debates on pensions did a dispute arise about whether it might be one fiftieth from now on rather than one fiftieth for all the years of one's service.
  This is not a court of law. It is the high court of Parliament. If it were a court of law and if I were a lawyer, which I am not, I would say that I rest my case there. I am confident that no jury could find other than for me.
  5.56 pm
  Mr. Hugh Brown: There is a lot in what has just been said by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) with which I would agree. The debate on 19 July 1983 on our terms and conditions, was not one of the best debates in the House. On reflection, it would be wholly unreasonable to think that the Government ever had anything in their minds so generous as to back date one fiftieth to all the years of reckonable service. Nevertheless, the hon. Member is right. Many of us did think that it was one fiftieth for every year. However, that is not the burden of my remarks.
  This is one of those unusual subjects when no one needs to declare an interest because we all have an interest. Therefore, we have to appreciate that all Back Benchers are equal. I am a capable, competent Back Bencher but I do not pretend to match what I imagine is the influence of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) as the chairman of the 1922 Committee. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) seemed to cast doubt on whether the chairman of an important Back-Bench Committee should be a shop steward—I hope that that is not a vulgar expression in the House. Nevertheless, it means that the rest of us who are arguing some of the points do not have the same optimism about persuading the Government to make further improvements.
  I am always encouraged, having been a member of the Select Committee on Members' Salaries three years ago under the Chairmanship of the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas), by one sentence of that Committee's report which to me summed it all up. It said:
  "The work of a Member of Parliament is unique."
  Perhaps some people outside the House believe that we think that we are unique just because we have rather an unusual job. My point is that it is unique in many respects, but it is unique in one fundamental respect in that there are no two constituencies alike and no two Members of Parliament alike. There is no greater contrast between constituencies than between my constituency, in which almost 100 per cent. of houses are council owned, albeit 100 or 200 have been sold, and the more salubrious constituencies, such as Taunton, Woking or Shropshire, North. I do not say that enviously. It is merely a way of

  799
  emphasising that the workloads in constituencies may be heavy or light. I am grateful for my constituents, because they tend not to write to me about protests on the culling of seals or other esoteric subjects.
  We should remind ourselves early in this debate that the Top Salaries Review Body recommended a year ago that our salary should be £19,000 a year. We cannot divorce salaries from pensions, because pensions are calculated on the salary rate. We are now a long way from that £19,000 a year. I hope that the press and others who follow our proceedings will note that Members of Parliament do not receive anything like the salary recommended by that outside review body, although the Government accepted some of its recommendations in other respects.
  We should always remind ourselves of certain aspects of the problem. We recognise the general unwillingness of all Governments to go anywhere near accepting certain recommendations. This is not a party political point. I confess that the Labour party has not been as good in many respects as the Government, and I believe that everyone accepts that point. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) drew attention to the fact that it is no wonder that we need to keep returning to subjects such as this, because we never seem to make a satisfactory decision in the first place. That stems from our reluctance to do the right thing, or from fear or apprehension about what the public may think.
  I am delighted that at least on this occasion the Government have accepted some of the review body's principles, such as that on the accrual rate of one fiftieth of final salary per year of reckonable service, although I believe that we could go further. The principles of a full pension on retirement after 20 years' service and at the age of 60 are big advances, despite the anomaly to which reference has been made, and the Government should be given due credit. I hope that it is not embarrassing to give credit to the Leader of the House. I doubt that authority has been given to accept any amendment that will require more money, but that is the right hon. Gentleman's problem. I believe that we all recognise the limitations under which the right hon. Gentleman is working, however generous he may wish to be.
  It is less than 20 years since Members of Parliament received a pension as of right. As a former civil servant, I can never understand why for all these years we have allowed ourselves—both parties are to blame—to accept advice from civil servants who have well-established rights to a pension at 60, as a rule on half pay, as well as a lump sum of a year and a half's salary. I do not say that enviously; I am happy to have had the opportunity to be a Member of Parliament. I can never accept the argument that I should be willing to agree to a pension that is less favourable in its conditions than the pension applying to those who advise the Government. I hope that I have not sounded uncharitable in the way that I have put that point.
  Clause 4—this may be one of the touches of humour of the Leader of the House—is one of the main clauses that all hon. Members support. I believe that the principles of a full pension at 60 years and after 20 years' service are an improvement, and we should accept them.
  We need to look at the machinery that the House has for examining these problems. As the Leader of the House knows, some right hon. and hon. Members are experts in this matter. Some are trustees or have been chairmen of the 1922 Committee or of the parliamentary Labour party. A host of hon. Members have had to acquire a certain
  800
  expertise because of their position. We do not need to appoint a welfare rights officer, but, if we go further down this road, we shall expect too much of the staff in the Fees Office in explaining some of the measures that we have passed. Complications will arise, especially with pensions.
  Is there any reason why there should not be synchronisation of the dates for allowances and salaries with the taxation year? For the life of me, I cannot understand—I speak as a former civil servant seeking to get everything into a nice tidy package—why we should not ultimately aim to make life easier for everyone by synchronising the tax year with the dates for salaries and allowances.
  I must declare an interest in the following matter, although it is probably too late. I cannot understand why we should accept a so-called severance grant, yet cannot accept a lump sum on retirement, which sounds as though it is an offence of affluence. That matter needs examination, because an age bar has been imposed. I do not agree with the Leader of the House that 65 is the accepted age of retirement. Society has moved on, and I see no reason why we should not aim for a pension at 60, even with a lump sum on retirement. I have referred to the comparison with Civil Service conditions, and I believe that it is not unreasonable that hon. Members should move towards a 60 years age pension. I do not say that because it will provide a way of looking after ourselves. I believe that the idea would be acceptable, even though we might have to pay more.
  Hon. Members have referred to the vexed question of Members of Parliament discussing their affairs. In the 20 years since I became a Member of Parliament, Governments have grappled with a variety of incomes policies. Some Governments denied that they had an incomes policy, but everyone knows that there is such a policy, however unofficially or informally Governments have implemented it.
  No matter what so-called sacrifices the House of Commons makes—this point sticks out a mile—if we were prepared to accept a salary increase of 5 per cent., not a body outside would take a bit of notice of that example. We must have the courage to do what we think is right and fair in all circumstances. I like to think that hon. Members can do so. I support the Bill. As other hon. Members have said, it is an improvement, but further improvements can be made. I hope that the Leader of the House will accept the desire of hon. Members to make those improvements as quickly as possible.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Roger Freeman: When I listened to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), I found myself in the unusual position of agreeing with his arguments and admiring the clarity with which he advanced them. He spoke of his preference for moving from fiftieths to fortieths but he did not discuss the cost implications of that move. Would he accept that the contribution rate for Members should rise from 9 per cent. to perhaps 15 per cent? I think that 15 per cent. would be implied if we moved to a much more generous scheme that was based on fortieths. When we talk about pension benefits, it is important always to remember the costs that are borne both by Members and by the Government.
  I welcome the Bill, but I believe that a slightly greater justification is required for moving to what in my

  801
  judgment is almost a gold-plated pension scheme. It is an extremely generous scheme. It is indexed for pensions in payment and for deferred pensions for those Members who leave the House and who have not reached the age of 60 years and for those who do not opt to take an actuarialy reduced pension between the ages of 50 and 60. The deferred pension is linked to the retail price index and that is an extremely generous benefit.
  The generosity of the scheme is justified by the fact that parliamentary pay is not entirely in line with what has been recommended. We have funked that issue and, almost by sleight of hand, we have introduced a generous pension scheme. Perhaps this has been done on the assumption that the outside world will not understand fully the nature of the benefits. Perhaps we have also been slightly generous in respect of parliamentay allowances. As a new Member, I am disappointed that the House has funked the central issue of parliamentary pay and I hope that it will return to it at a later stage.
  I shall seek clarification on four issues and I believe that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be able better to justify the scheme by responding to them. The new proposed scheme is indexed and is linked to the retail price index for pensions in payment and deferred pensions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services announced yesterday that he would introduce a Bill to index deferred pensions up to a maximum of 5 per cent. per annum. That measure will not be as generous as the pension scheme that Members already enjoy.
  It is difficult to calculate the true cost of a fully indexed pension scheme but my right hon. Friend talked about a cost of 22 per cent. per annum with 40 per cent. of the cost being borne by Members and 60 per cent. by the Exchequer. The costing of a pension scheme depends entirely upon the rate of inflation that is assumed. In my opinion, 22 per cent. of a pensionable salary is probably an underestimate of the true cost of the benefit of a fully indexed pension scheme.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred to the police force when talking about fiftieths for each year of pensionable service. Is the proportion that is paid by police officers for their pension scheme broadly equivalent to the 40 per cent. of total cost that Members are being asked to pay in this scheme?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) talked about the ability of Members to buy extra pension rights for themselves. It is fair for a new Member to ask a much more senior Member who will pay for the retrospective rights. The concession that new Members are making for more senior Members is considerable. We are being asked to accept 40 per cent. with full tax relief as the cost of buying prior years. That means that new Members and taxpayers generally will pay the other 60 per cent. That is an extraordinarily generous provision which was not envisaged in the Plowden report.
  In the second volume of the Plowden report at page 278 the consultants recommended that in addition each Member should be given the opportunity to negotiate an individual additional voluntary contribution contract with an insurance company. The Bill is silent on that issue. It is important that my right hon. Friend takes on board that those who join this place and who have had prior employment outside and prior pensionable service would find it easier to participate in an AVC scheme in which
  802
  they could contribute up to 15 per cent. of their parliamentary pay, which would be the 9 per cent. already paid compulsorily and an additional 6 per cent. if they wished to pay it. If they have only 15 or 20 years in which to provide themselves with a retirement pension, they may have to make additional voluntary contributions to acquire a satisfactory pension.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) asked whether 65 should be considered a normal retirement age and discussed an age limit of 60 for taking the full pension earned after 20 years of service and the age of 50 for taking an actuarially reduced pension. All those specific ages are much in line with the best of private practice and they are entirely acceptable. Hon. Members will be aware that an individual is not allowed to have a pension that is greater than two-thirds of his final pensionable salary and that that fraction is reduced if he retires before the normal retirement date. That is an Inland Revenue rule and it has nothing to do with the Plowden report. The Inland Revenue rules can and do bite, and that is an issue that I shall raise at a more appropriate time.
  I shall quote a paragraph from a letter which I received from a company of leading pension consultants. Having read the Bill, the group pensions executive wrote:
  "Could you imagine any company in the private sector at this time increasing the accrual rate from 1/60ths to 1/50ths, allowing past service to be purchased at a 60 per cent discount by the member and allowing added years to be purchased without reference to future inflation? The saving grace is that the country does not reward its MPs at a satisfactory level".
  This may be a generous scheme, but I shall vote for it. I shall do so almost in sorrow because we have not solved properly the problem of parliamentary pay.
  6.18 pm
  Mr. Michael McGuire: The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) was right when he said that when we concluded our debate on this issue on 20 July and left the House in the early hours of the morning we had the feeling that we would make a considerable contribution to our pension scheme—9 per cent. on a reduced salary—and that the scheme would be based on fiftieths. When I alerted one or two Members by explaining that that was not the position, they said, "You are wrong, Michael. We have passed it." I do not want to accuse the Leader of the House of sharp practice because I want his sympathy and attention, which I know I shall get. He was not guilty of sharp practice, but we were guilty of negligence. We made an assumption and we did not want to focus attention on fiftieths. We kept quiet, but the general feeling was, "Lads we have done it but we shall pay a bob or two extra." If there was any negligence, we were at fault for not probing the proposals.
  The hon. Member for Canterbury has told us that he is not a lawyer—nor am I—but having read the report of the debate that took place on 20 July he would not think, if he were a lawyer, that it would take much to persuade a jury that the fiftieths proposal had been accepted and that it was to take effect retrospectively. Lawyers would have a field day in determining this issue and it is possible that at the end of the day their determination would not be as conclusive as the right hon. Gentleman and I would wish. That is water under the bridge.
  The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) mentioned shop stewards, and seemed not to like the idea of the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party and the chairman of the 1922 Committee acting, as we say,

  803
  through the usual channels and being shop stewards. We have made considerable improvements because we have the usual channels and shop stewards. I remember well the day when the late Charlie Pannell, who later became Lord Pannell, and whom we all remember as an effective shop steward, said how daft we were as Members of Parliament. The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) may be interested to know that, when I came into the House, one lost about a month's salary at election time, and, if one lost one's seat, one went out on one's ear. Charlie Pannell was able to persuade the House that there should be a three-month redundancy scheme when a Member lost his seat, and the House has built on that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) observed that we take advice from civil servants—the Government seem to take the advice that suits them, to which I will come later—who have much better conditions of service, and that we should do away with that. As my hon. Friend said, we take advice from people who are well fixed.
  I was disappointed—and this was touched on by the hon. Member for Canterbury—that there seems to be some picking and choosing. The case for not making the fiftieths retrospective rested on the fact that Plowden did not recommend it. I accept that. But Plowden recommended a salary of £19,000. It seems unfair to pick and choose in this way.
  I deal next with the main point that I wish to raise. The Leader of the House will know that I wrote to him about an ex-parliamentary colleague of his who, like most Members, had done his service, as he saw it, to his party in the House and elsewhere. My right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes), in what I thought was a marvellous speech, outlined and highlighted this case and what could happen in future. This ex-parliamentary colleague of Conservative Members, after 29 years' service in the House, because of the inflexibility of the age at which one leaves the House at dissolution or on prorogation, did not qualify to receive his accrued pension as he was eight months' short. He had a choice of waiting until he was 65 and picking it up then, or surrendering in perpetuity 26·5 per cent.
  As most hon. Members know, as well as being a Member of Parliament, I am a member of the Council of Europe where one has a chance to meet one's colleagues in other Parliaments. When one relates the story of an ex-Member of Parliament who has done 29 years' service but cannot qualify for a pension, they simply do not believe it.
  I have written to the Leader of the House about this matter. I believe that we are in danger of perpetuating that inflexibility. The same system will exist with the substitution of 25 years' service linked to the age of 62, at which time a Member leaves the House.
  I ask the Leader to look at this seriously and sympathetically. It will not cost any more money. If a Member aged 60 with 20 years' service leaves the House, he is entitled to his fully accrued pension. If he is aged 58 with 25 years' service, he will not be paid a greater amount. We do not ask that he be given a pension when he is aged 58, or that he takes retirement earlier than any other Member of Parliament. We say merely that it is wrong to penalise him, and to put him in the position of the ex-parliamentary colleague of Conservative Members whose case has been outlined. If the Bill goes through, a
  804
  Member in this position will have to wait longer so that the position will be made worse rather than being improved.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Halton said that this is not a matter in which it would be appropriate to table amendments. I urge the Leader of the House to look at this again. We ask not that a Member who leaves at 55 years of age be given the pension then, but merely that he be given the same benefits that a Member who leaves the House aged 60 is lucky enough to enjoy. He will have to wait until he is 60, which could be four, five or more years. It is a choice between a Member living in reasonable comfort and drawing a pension when he is 60 years of age, or a Member living in penury in some cases until he is 65. I do not believe that it is the wish of the House to make that kind of cackhanded change which will only make matters worse.
  I hope that the Leader of the House or the Financial Secretary will be able to respond to my modest request.
  6.25 pm
  Sir Anthony Kershaw: As a trustee of the pension fund, I wish to say a few words. They will indeed be a few words, because my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) has made it clear that, if the House does not complete Second Reading by seven o'clock, we will have no pensions.
  In some walks of life, retirement is a matter of nice calculation, but in our profession it is not. Even if a Member decides to go at the end of a Parliament, he does not know when that will be, and he is very much at the mercy of events outside the House. I agree with the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), who said that as the salary goes up there is a certain pressure on Members of Parliament not to lose their seats. They cannot afford to do so because most of them are unemployable after they have been in the House for a certain time. Therefore, we must do more or less as we are told. This position can be mitigated considerably by a decent pension. If we have confidence, in that respect it will be to the good of all hon. Members.
  The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) drew attention to the rigidity of the age of 60, and 20 years' service. I believe that one's age is not as important as one's service to the House. It must be borne in mind that the average length of service in the House is only 14 years, and most hon. Members never attain 20 years' service. Cases such as the one to which reference has been made—and all hon. Members know to whom that refers—are heart-rending and are a disgrace to the House.
  I have two questions to ask the Minister. Clause 5 to some extent appears to override the conventions of the Revenue about the amounts that one may have on pension. Does that also underwrite the rule that, after one has reached the retirement age, one may not purchase any extra years? I declare an interest here in that I am more than 65 years of age, and I have been forbidden to buy any extra years. Is it the intention that that will continue after the orders under clause 5 and section 11 of the Parliamentary Pensions Act 1978 have been made?
  On the question of hardship awards, parliamentary trustees have a right under section 4 of the Members' Fund Act 1948 to make special hardship awards. As I understand it, we are allowed to meet hardship awards of only £3,700 per year. That figure was fixed in 1948. I do not know what the equivalent value of £3,700 is today, but

  805
  it must be a considerable sum. I believe that the amount should be increased so that we may grant commensurate awards to our colleagues who fall on hard times.
  6.29 Pm
  Mr. Allen McKay: There is an anomaly in the Bill. As has been said, we ask that this proposal be accepted, because it will not cost any money. I hate talking about our own pensions and salaries. The position is eased because we will be paying 9 per cent. Because of that, we should also draw what is due. I seek to insert the word "reckonable" before the word "service".
  A person entering the House at the age of 40 may spend 20 years here and make 20 years' contributions to the pension scheme. He could draw his full pension without any deductions. In addition, he could draw maximum severance pay. However, a person entering the House at 51, who spends nine years here may bring with him 20 to 30 years pension from his previous scheme. That person leaving the House at 60 will receive only half severance pay and must wait until he is 65 before he can draw his full pension. It is wrong that a person should bring in his contributions and not receive the same benefit as others.
  The scheme would not cost anything because those involved would have already paid their contributions before entering the House. Rather than feeling obliged to table an amendment, I hope that the Leader of the House will recognise the wisdom of such a scheme and will insert the word "reckonable" before the word "service."
  6.31 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I wish to declare an interest, even though we were told earlier that it was not necessary to do so as we are all interested parties.
  I associate myself with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) in the cases that he outlined. I hope that they will be sympathetically considered. I do not know whether the trustees have discussed the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay), but if they are prepared to accept transferred contributions from other superannuation schemes, surely they should allow the years of service during which an individual has contributed to count as service for the benefits of our pension scheme. If a person had not transferred those assets they would have been frozen and he might have been entitled to retire at 60. It is not fair that someone should bring in perhaps 14, 15 or 20 years contributions from another scheme and the trustees accept them, but then say that he will not be allowed the full benefits of our scheme. Under clause 4, someone could find himself with less than 20 years service in the House, but with many more years of contributions from a previous scheme.
  I hope that it will not be necessary to table an amendment and that the Leader of the House will seriously consider the point. It would not be necessary to have any further income for the scheme, and I understand that only a few people would be involved. Surely the House, the right hon. Gentleman and the trustees believe that it would be fair that the transferred contributions should entitle a person to the benefits of the parliamentary scheme.
  6.34 pm
  Mr. Alan Williams: I thank the Leader of the House for making available a small number of copies of the 1972 Act because without them it would be difficult to table amendments by Friday. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's positive attitude during recent months in our discussions on the difficult problems implicit in the Bill. I welcome the modifications that have been made.
  I think that perhaps there has been an oversight, in that we have not taken the opportunity to ensure that our widows receive the same treatment as the widows of judges, whose capital sum and pension are based not on the actual salary but on the recommended salary. They, like us, do not receive the recommended salaries, but at least their widows are not penalised.
  We especially welcome the decision on fiftieths. Obviously, we would have preferred fortieths. We are buying back and paying for that additional facility, which meets the objections raised by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), although I appreciate that it was a legitimate objection. We are paying back in the same proportion as we pay for our pensions generally. That is defensible and unchallengeable. It is made more unchallengeable by the fact that we are also paying 9 per cent. rather than 8 per cent., which was the figure recommended by Plowden. Although I do not think that we should pay 9 per cent., it means that, even before our additional contributions for the fiftieths, we are putting 12·5 per cent. a year more income into the fund than Plowden regarded as necessary. We are paying in several ways for the additional benefit, so we do not feel that we are in any way begging for the additional pension.
  On Friday we shall seek clarification of one or two points and will table a couple of amendments. I shall try to leave the Minister as much time as possible to deal with the points raised in today's debate. If he can clarify some of the points, that will ease the position on Friday.
  My colleagues want to be clear whether the 60–20 provision includes years that have been brought in, or whether it means only years actually served in the House. Does an hon. Member have to serve 20 years, or will someone who has brought in five years and served 15 qualify? We have drafted a provisional amendment to cover that point, but if we have misunderstood the position, clarification would avoid an unnecessary debate on Friday.
  It is wrong to perpetuate the system whereby the facility—the 60–20 replacing the 62–25—is available only to hon. Members who have not been defeated at the election at which they qualify. An hon. Member who, on dissolution, decides not to stand again and has fulfilled the required 60–20 provision will qualify, but under the 1972 legislation an hon. Member with the 60–20 qualification, who stands and is defeated, for some inexplicable reason will not have the same pension as his colleague who left Parliament at the same time. That is indefensible and I shall seek to amend that in Committee.
  Another problem has been highlighted by hon. Members on both sides of the House. If the Leader of the House is not careful, he will perpetuate what we all know as the Mawby anomaly by insisting that the 60–20 provision applies at the dissolution of Parliament. That really does not stand up to examination. It will create

  807
  injustices rather that solve them. It will mean that an hon. Member aged 59½, who does not return to the House, has two alternatives.
  If he draws no penson until he is 65, compared with a colleague a day or two over 60, he will lose five years, which at the minumum will be equivalent to two years' full salary. For someone who has served 30 years it will mean a loss of three years' full salary. The alternative is that he has to accept an abated pension, although he is only a matter of months adrift in terms of his birthday. He will have the necessary age, and will have served the necessary 20 years, but his misfortune is that he will have gone out of the House a couple of months too early. He will then have to accept an abatement, which will mean that instead of his full entitlement of, say, 20-years—if that was his service—he will receive less than 69 per cent. of that figure, not just until he is 65, but for the rest of his life. That is a massive and unjustifiable loss.
  We have a few days in which to consider the representations made from both sides of the House. I do not expect the Treasury Minister to welcome all the amendments and to promise wholehearted support for them by Friday. Although we have moved the requirement back a couple of years, the anomaly is still there, and, if anything, the new provision will create even greater differences between one hon. Member and another. Therefore, I urge the Leader of the House and his hon. Friend to look at this before Friday.
  I recognise that I am no great parliamentary draftsman and that whatever amendments I table may be suspect. I hope that by Friday, if the Government are willing to co-operate with us, they will also be willing to co-operate on the availability of the parliamentary draftsmen to ensure that whatever amendments are moved reach the statute book in the correct form.
  6.41 pm
  The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): This has been a constructive and useful debate. The two main themes that have flowed through it are the welcome for the Bill from both sides of the House and well-deserved tributes to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who has taken an infinite amount of trouble to discuss this in all parts of the House and to seek the greatest possible consensus. Speaking as a Treasury Minister, I can say that his arguments were persuasive for the Treasury and this is reflected in the provisions of the Bill, which, as has been acknowledged, meet many of the points that have arisen during informal discussions. I shall try to reply to some of the points that have been made, and I or my right hon. Friend will answer in writing questions that remain unanswered at the end of my speech.
  The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) asked particularly about the phraseology of clause 4 and the words, "in certain circumstances." This refers to the 60–20 provision applying only if the Member of Parliament concerned applies for his unabated pension to take advantage of the 60–20 provision before the close of the poll on election day, which means that he must make a fine judgment if he is not sure how he will fare. He is not allowed to wait to see whether he is elected and he must satisfy the trustees of the fund that he will not be standing again.
  The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) wondered whether the precondition of making application before the result of the election was known is
  808
  reasonable and fair. It is the provision that now applies arid no change is being made by the Bill, except the change to 60–20 from 62–25. These preconditions are the same as they have been. However, I shall reflect on that point, and that will apply to all the points made in the debate.
  The most important point that has been raised, first by the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes), who was supported by powerful speeches from both sides of the House, is about the rigidity of the 60–20 provision. It was acknowledged that the example that was highlighted at the last general election has been dealt with by the Bill. As we all know, the individual with 29 years' service who missed out by some eight months is covered by the Bill. That should be clearly established.
  Mr. McGuire: There is nothing to stop a man with 29 years' service being missed out again.
  Mr. Hayhoe: I understand that, and I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech and to others. I am fully apprised of the arguments. I repeat what my right hon. Friend said. The whole of the parliamentary pensions provision is based on a normal retiring age of 65. My right hon. Friend underlined that and made it clear, as it is important that we should not forget that when talking about these special provisions that should apply for those approaching retirement age when a dissolution is called. A reduction from age of 62 to 60 and from 25 to 20 years of service will be welcomed in the House. The suggestion that we should reduce the age below 60 in certain circumstances——
  Mr. McGuire: No.
  Mr. Hayhoe: As I understand it, the suggestion is that there should be flexibility about that so that someone with many years of service who has not yet reached the age of 60 at dissolution should not suffer in the same way as if we had not been making these provisions.
  I think that I understand the point and we shall be examining what has been said in detail. In choosing the age of 60 we have to bear in mind that the normal retiring age is 65 and the probability is that a Parliament will last five years. The three figures of the normal retirement age of 65, a minimum age of 60, for which we are legislating, and the maximum life of a Parliament of five years make at least a logical framework.
  I understand the points that have been made, and I make it clear that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has been listening carefully to the arguments. He is prepared to meet the trustees of the fund to discuss this matter urgently before Friday to see whether it will be possible to introduce some flexibility. The point made by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) and the comparison with tax laws and whether it is marginal relief or transitional provisions is one of the points that should be taken into account.
  Mr. Williams: Will the Minister appreciate that the three points do not run together? Two of them do—the 60–20 and the retirement age of 65—but the dissolution point is an irrelevancy. If the lion. Gentleman thinks that it is not, will he explain what it is that automatically makes the needs of a Member who has served 20 years but who is two months over 60 at the time of the dissolution more self-evident than those of a Member who happens to be two months under that age?
  Mr. Hayhoe: As has been acknowledged in the debate, any line that has been drawn will produce anomalies on either side.
  Mr. Williams: No.
  Mr. Hayhoe: We may disagree about that, but in such pension provisions it is almost certain that, wherever a line is drawn — it was 62 and 25, which produced the anomalies that we are seeking to remedy — new anomalies can be thrown up. I have said that my right hon. Friend is prepared to discuss this with the trustees of the fund. I am sure that the House, understanding the way in which these matters work, will feel that that is a reasonable response to the points made in the debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) referred to the question of nomination under clause 9. I am advised that the change of the word "person" to "individual" excludes the nomination of the nominator from being other than an individual. Under the Interpretation Act 1973 "a person" includes a corporate and a main unincorporate body. We shall consider that point because we appreciate the possibility of a nomination being made not to an individual but perhaps to a charity.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) adduced a detailed argument about what the House had or had not done in the early hours of the morning. He will recognise that the clauses towards the end of the report, from paragraph 226(v) onwards, from which he quoted are prefaced by the comment that they are a summary of the main recommendations. The words "in future" occur in the main recommendations, but not in the summary.
  A more significant point about retrospection is in paragraph 66. The matter was considered carefully by Lord Plowden and his colleagues. Paragraph 66 of their report makes it clear that they do not believe that retrospection is justified. I am glad that the House gave a general welcome to the provisions which make it possible for those with previous service in the House which would otherwise be counted at the accrual rate of one sixtieth to change that to an accrual rate of one fiftieth by paying 40 per cent. of the cost, which is the proportion of the cost of the pension scheme implied by a 9 per cent. contribution. That seems to be a fair arrangement, and I am glad that it was welcomed and accepted as fair, by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney.
  Comments were made about the possibility of an accrual rate of one fortieth. In a well-considered, fair and authoritative speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) said that if the accrual rate was changed there would be consequential changes in the contribution rate. That must be considered.
  Mr. Shore: I would not confirm the Minister's arithmetic. Quite frankly, it is extraordinarily extravagant.
  Mr. Hayhoe: I am happy to try to find an authoritative figure if it would be useful. However I believe that that moment has passed. We are now considering the provision, which has been generally accepted and which is in accordance with the resolution of the House, for the accrual rate to be one fiftieth.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) asked whether the over-65s would be able to buy added years. The answer is that they cannot in the normal
  810
  course of events, but that under the Bill they can make that transition for the years of past service from sixtieths accrual to fiftieths accrual by purchase.
  Clause 5 does not override the Inland Revenue rules. It is important that in our own pension scheme we should seek to stay in harmony and in line with the Inland Revenue rules that apply to all other pension schemes for other people. Hon. Members will agree that it would be wrong for us to seek a privileged position for our pension scheme, which would not be available to other people.
  The purpose of these changes is to get a balanced contribution, which takes into account the extra cost of indexation. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud asked whether we were satisfied that the costing was realistic. I assure him that it is according to the best information available. He asked whether the proportion of 40 per cent. was in line with the police scheme. It is broadly in line with the police scheme, but I hope that he would not hold me to one or two percentage points. I can find the precise figure for him if he wishes it. He also drew attention to the fact that as a result of the provisions new hon. Members would gain nothing like as much as older hon. Members with past service.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud also asked about hardship cases. The trustees of the fund have been worried about such cases. In some circumstances they have been worried about the limit of £3,750. The provisions in the Bill will multiply that figure by a factor of 10. The trustees will have the authority—they must act properly, as I am sure that they will—to increase the sum up to £37,500.
  Many other points were raised during the debate. It would be best for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and me to consider those points carefully. We shall discuss urgently with the trustees of the fund the most significant point that has emerged from the debate, which is the operation of the 60–20 provision. Having given the House those assurances, and having undertaken to reply in detail to other points, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
  Committee tomorrow.

  Parliamentary Pensions etc. Bill

    PARLIAMENTARY PENSIONS ETC. BILL [MONEY]
    Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Parliamentary Pensions etc. Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorise—

    (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act;

    (b) the payment into or out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable into or out of that Fund under section 30 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972 or section 7(1)(b) of the European Assembly (Pay and Pensions) Act 1979; and

    (c) the payment out of money provided by Parliament or out of the Consolidated Fund of grants under the Act to persons who have ceased to hold certain Ministerial or other offices.—[Mr.Douglas Hogg.]

  Greater London Council (Money) (No. 2) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment for an instruction in the name of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Sir A. Berry) and the amendment thereto in the name of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). I believe that it will be for the convenience of the House to debate the Instruction and the amendment jointly with the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. Dobson: This is the second time that I have had the privilege to introduce a GLC money Bill. On the last occasion, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) described my performance as one of my less provocative speeches. It was deliberately less provocative as I was trying to walk the tightrope between adequately making the case for the expenditure proposed by the GLC and ILEA and putting the case in such a way as to cause the least possible offence to the Conservative majority in the House. On this occasion, the instruction proposed by various Tory Back Benchers, which in fact seems to have been stimulated and provoked by the Government themselves, so undermines the purpose of the Bill that I should be hard put to provoke the Tories into doing anything more damaging than that which they already intend. I am thus relieved of one possible constraint on my remarks today.
  Like my predecessors, the last time I introduced a similar Bill I spent a good deal of time describing the intricacies of capital financing in the capital city. On this occasion, however, I think that I can sum up my comments on the technicalities by saying that although in one way or another about £600 million is at stake, the bulk of that money is not in dispute because it is already committed in contracts that have been let and very little can be done about it. In many ways, therefore, that aspect is a mere technicality.
  The matters that are much in dispute concern funding for new projects this year. The GLC wishes to spend £80 million on new projects to improve services for Londoners. The Government wish to cut that to £39 million. ILEA, elected by the people of inner London, wishes to spend £20 million on improving the schools and other education services in the centre of our capital city. The Government want to cut that to £16 million. In anticipating possible comments from the supporters of the wrecking instruction, I am led to suppose from their comments to the press that they will claim that they are simply trying to take a substantial part of the discretion in spending that money away from the GLC and ILEA and to make each individual project subject to Treasury scrutiny. There are two objections to that.
  First, such a proposal covering such a large proportion of the GLC's and ILEA's projects for this year defeats the whole purpose of the annual money Bill because the general idea has been that there is a trade-off — the disbenefit of parliamentary scrutiny being, as it were,
  812
  countervailed by the benefit that the Treasury would not scrutinise the details of individual projects. The proposed instruction thus undermines the whole basis on which GLC money Bills have been prepared, presented and debated in the past.
  The second objection is that, whatever the hon. Member for Southgate (Sir A. Berry) may say, it is clear that in practice the Treasury will permit very little indeed of the spending that the hon. Gentleman wishes it to decide. I say that with some confidence. In this case, it was not necessary for a letter to be leaked and to appear on the front page of the Daily Mirror to show the truth about what Ministers are doing behinds our backs. On this occasion we have a plain, straightforward letter from a Mr. Fletcher at the Department of the Environment to a Mr. Laidlow of the GLC, dated 4 May, stating that in advocating that the GLC should do as the hon. Member for Southgate wishes to make it do,
  "Ministers did not intend to create an expectation that the Treasury consent in whole or in part will necessarily be forthcoming. It would be released only if there were good cause for Ministers to change their view about the appropriate level of spending (for example, if an additional allocation were agreed for the Thames Barrier or if it became possible to offer extra resources to local authorities generally) or if the Council actually wished to on-lend to another local authority."
  One is tempted to add the words:
  "or I will eat my hat",
  because it is in the nature of the present Government that the chance of any of those eventualities being accepted is very small indeed. About the only thing that can be said for the present Government is that they pride themselves on their resolution and their unwillingness to change their mind, and, according to that letter, any Treasury commitment would involve Ministers changing their minds.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman said that he wished to anticipate some possible comments. If called, I intend to raise a point covered by GLC capital spending but not, I believe, by the Bill—the Lambeth sports centre. Will he tell us, on behalf of the GLC, what is the rationale behind that proposal?
  Mr. Dobson: If the House gives me leave to reply to the debate, I shall try to deal with any individual matters that are raised. For the time being, I shall continue with the speech that I intended to make without prompting from Conservative Members.
  In reality, we are talking about cuts. Londoners want to know why the Government wish to halve the GLC's capital expenditure this year 'when they apparently found expenditure of about £80 million on new capital projects last year perfectly acceptable. The Government did not try to block last year's Bill, and that did not bring economic ruin to the country, so why do they object to a similar provision for this year, given that the GLC and ILEA have not changed their priorities and that their spending programmes are on the same lines as those accepted by the Government last year?
  Which services will suffer if the cuts are made? The building of new homes and the renovation of existing homes will certainly suffer. There will be no money for the borough councils to improve the rundown ex-GLC estates which in 1981 the then Secretary of State for the Environment, now Secretary of State for Defence, insisted that the GLC should hand over to the boroughs, although the boroughs had no wish to take them. When those

  813
  properties were handed over in June 1981 the then Secretary of State insisted on a 10-year programme to carry out all the necessary rehabilitation according to a 10-point standard of improvement, that the boroughs should start the improvement work at once and that money should be provided by the GLC to pay for the work.
  It may be said that displays of hindsight are always nauseating, but Tory Members may be even more sickened to discover that, for once, I showed considerable foresight when I said of tenants on a rundown GLC estate in my area:
  "Those tenants want better transfer arrangements … They do not believe that the GLC will have the money to complete the work, and they are not sure that the money available will be spent on this estate. They are not sure that the necessary funds will be passed to Camden, and there is no protection for them during this transfer period."—[Official Report, 30 June 1981; Vol. 7, c. 738.]
  That all turns out to be true, and it will be reinforced if the Conservatives get their way and the money is not made available by the GLC to the boroughs. Many boroughs are much worse off in that respect than is the borough of Camden, part of which I have the honour to represent.
  There has been a massive increase in homelessness in London, but the cuts proposed by the Government will mean that new hostels for the homeless, which are desperately needed in London, will not be provided this year. Other projects, such as new community and neighbourhood centres, will also not go ahead, and capital projects for ethnic groups will not be helped.
  Among other projects that may suffer are new job training schemes designed to improve the level of skill of Londoners who are at present, because of the Government's house-bound economic policies, out of work. I could give examples from all parts of our capital city.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Could the hon. Gentleman speed up?
  Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) waits until the end of my speech, he will find that I refer to him.
  I will take my examples from central London, which is the area with which I am most familiar. No doubt my hon. Friends from other parts of London will provide examples from their areas.
  Among the schemes that will be at risk if the Government proposals are accepted is a £215,000 scheme for building new homes in Matthews yard in the constituency of City of London and Westminster, South. There is a £1,250,000 scheme for the replacement of Rowton hostels. There is £600,000 for the purchase of Gordon house road for the Heathview housing association in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), who cares so much about his constituents that he has not bothered to attend the debate. The Westminster Society for the Mentally Handicapped is seeking funding to replace urban programme funding cut off by the Government in the constituency of Westminster, North. That alternative funding is at risk. The purchase of a farm by the Paddington Farm Trust to give deprived children from that area access to the countryside is also at risk. The hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) is not here. Perhaps he is embarrassed, as I know that he supports that project.
  Sir Anthony Berry: My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) is with a Select Committee in Hong Kong, with two hon. Members from the Opposition side. He is carrying out a parliamentary duty.
  Mr. Dobson: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is in Hong Kong. When he gets back—if his hon. Friends get their way—he will find that the valuable farm trust project is unlikely to be financed by the GLC. I hope that he will not blame the GLC for that. Let us consider the consequences of a cut of £4 million in the Inner London education authority's budget for improvements this year. The programme to provide additional nursery classes in many parts of inner London will suffer desperately. Other straightforward improvements, such as the provision of new indoor lavatories for primary schools in place of the rotten, awful outdoor lavatories still to be found in many primary schools, will be lost if £4 million is cut. Plans to provide more play space for some schools which at present have very cramped playgrounds may also have to be abandoned.
  ILEA's programme for introducing yet more computers in schools is also at risk. As other authorities and the Department of Education and Science have always acknowledged, ILEA has led the way in this field. The Department of Education and Science is demanding a greater emphasis on computing in schools, but the school computer programme will be at risk if the Conservatives succeed in cutting the funding.
  Similarly, the cut may affect the provision of new science facilities intended by ILEA, in particular, to make it easier for girls to take up science. The Government claim to support that trend. They will provide every assistance short of help and money. Indeed, Government policy will be to hold up the provision of those facilities.
  I do not want to detain the House by listing all the projects at risk in central London. I shall confine myself to the area with which I am most familiar. In Fulham, a nursery class at Queens Manor primary school is at risk. At Munster primary school, which I visited this morning, the provision of internal toilets is at risk. At St. Thomas Roman Catholic primary school, improved sanitation facilities are at risk. In Kensington, improved play space at St. Mary's Roman Catholic school and computers for Cardinal Vaughan and Sion Manning schools are at risk.
  In Chelsea, the list is even longer. A new heating system for Ashburnham primary school is at risk. The Westway sports centre, which would provide an all-weather running track, is at risk. More play space for Christchurch Church of England primary school and computers for St. Thomas More Roman Catholic primary school are at risk.
  Then there is the constituency of Westminster, North. North Westminster school, which is recognised all over London for its efforts to provide decent education for children from all ethnic minorities, may not now benefit from improvements costing £250,000. Improvements to Paddington rec—for Conservative Members who do not understand what that is, I should explain that I am referring to Paddington recreation ground — are at risk. The project technology area at Quinton Kynaston secondary school is at risk.

  815
  In the constituency of City of London and Westminster, South the additional toilets at the Pimlico music annexe may well not he built, and the energy conservation scheme in Pimlico school will probably not go forward.
  The constituency of Hampstead and Highgate forms part of the borough that I have the honour to represent. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate—knighted if not benighted — may well have to explain to his constituents why he does not support the provision of funds for the provision of nursery classes at Fitzjohns, Kingsgate, and New End schools, and improved facilities for staff at Fleet primary school.
  No doubt my hon. Friends will give other examples of what is at risk in their areas of London.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I know that the hon. Gentleman said that he would not try not to be offensive——
  Mr. Dobson: Provocative.
  Mr. Bottomley: All right, provocative. Will the hon. Gentleman now answer my question? The project of which I referred appeared to involve £25 million of discretionary spending by the GLC. Scrapping that project would have accounted for two thirds of the amount of money dealt with in the instruction, albeit under another budget head.
  I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has prepared his speech and is not speaking off the cuff. Will he tell us which of the projects he personally regards as less important than the GLC's present policy of spending £3 million on propaganda campaigns in the national newspapers?
  Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) does not understand by now the difference between revenue and capital spending, one can understand why the Tory party has brought his wife into the House to supplement the Bottomley contribution.
  Londoners will ask why the cut is being proposed. There seems to be no rational explanation. The proposed spending levels are no higher than those of last year, and the Government made no objection to them.
  The explanation is that the Government, led by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) are carrying on a vendetta against the GLC and ILEA. Not content with abolishing the GLC, they are now involved in the dubious process of abolishing the GLC elections in advance of the abolition of that body. If the protectors of the British constitution at the other end of the building cannot turn out to vote against the abolition of democratic elections, their excuse for existence has expired and they are living proof of their inadequacy.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that, bearing in mind the turnout achieved in another place last night, it is clear that the Government Whips in the other place had been grave robbing?
  Mr. Dobson: Grave robbing is one stage further than what was suggested to me—that many Tory peers had been taken out of their glass cases and suits of armour. My source observed the decayed proceedings.
  The Government seem to be adopting Henry Ford's idea of any colour as long as it is black with regard to local authority elections. They are telling us that we can have any political colour as long as it is blue and Tory, even if elections have to be done away with to achieve that result. Abolition of elections anticipates the abolition of the GLC.
  816
  What we are discussing also anticipates the abolition of the GLC. The Government are getting their nasty little hands on the GLC's money which the council uses to provide services that are vital to Londoners. The programme of spending that we are discussing is not frippery. Conservative Members obviously agree with that, as none of them are laughing. There are items of spending to which I would not give the highest priority, just as Conservative Members do not wholeheartedly endorse what the Government are doing. There are, however, one or two Conservative Members——
  Mr. Tony Banks: They are toadies.
  Mr. Dobson: The senior ones—the more advanced toadies—do not seem to be here this evening but some of them would probably justify every item of the Government's expenditure. The overall effort of the GLC and of the ILEA has been to protect and improve the living standards of the worst-off people in the GLC area or, for the ILEA, in inner London. I do not expect Tory Members to support those ideas because they believe in protecting and improving the living standards of the better-off at the expense of the worst-off. That is why their party exists. However, I have always believed in a responsible system of Government. I believe that elected representatives should be responsible and held to account for their actions. I therefore remind Tory Members who represent London constituencies, although I notice that their number has been augmented by hon. Members with no connection with London——
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: They work here.
  Mr. Dobson: Some of them do not work here tonight, or so it would appear. Tory Members from London are supposed to represent the people of London. Representation is a serious duty and function. If Conservative Members use their majority tonight. they will be cutting the money that will make possible vital improvements in the living standards of many of their constituents. The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who seems to continue to wish to intervene, appears to have called upon his wife to join him in proposing measures that will ensure that the nursery class in St. Mary's Roman Catholic school in Eltham, the internal toilet improvements at Henwick primary school and that improved sanitation facilities at Wyborne primary school will not be provided. Presumably he is here tonight because he believes that it is right that such damage should be done to his constituents.
  In view of the Government's majority, the Opposition. expect to lose tonight, but we intend to show the electors of London that Conservative Members had a choice. Their choice is between being vindictive to please the right hon. Member for Finchley and being sensible and being responsible to their electors. They will have the explaining to do. I might have some explaining to do at the end of the debate, should I be given the opportunity to reply to detailed points that have been raised.
  Although I have been provocative, I should like Conservative Members to consider the history of our capital city and remember that the bulk of the improvements in living standards have sprung not from the interplay of market forces but from public provision of vital services. The interplay of market forces was not responsible for providing a decent and clean water supply,

  817
  a decent sewerage system, decent housing for working-class people at rents that they could afford, a decent education system that was gradually developed by the London Board of Education, then the London county council and now by the ILEA, or decent hospitals and a decent Health Service. All of these improvements came from the public provision of services.
  Mr. Toby Jessel: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak later.
  We are considering a proposal to add just £80 million to the capital expenditure that has done so much in the public sector to provide a decent standard of living for ordinary Londoners. If Conservative Members want to halve the money, they will have to bear the consequences.
  Mr. Jessel: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for having to raise a point of order. I seldom do so. Is it relevant and within the rules of procedure for an hon. Member, in a debate on the GLC, to refer to five functions of local government, none of which has anything to do with the role of the GLC? The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) mentioned water, which was handed over to the Thames water authority——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have got the hon. Gentleman's point. I do not think that I have heard anything that is out of order. Mr. Dobson.
  Mr. Dobson: I have completed my speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  7.27 pm
  Sir Anthony Berry: It has for many years been a custom of the House to table a blocking motion on GLC Bills. It has been done by both parties, regardless of which has been in Government or in control at county hall. All parties have welcomed such a motion as an opportunity to discuss London matters and to exchange views. The usual channels have also welcomed it, as it relieves pressure for London debates in Government or Opposition time. Colleagues who represent other parts of the country welcome it for other reasons.
  This year, the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill went through on the nod. That is unusual and it is therefore not altogether surprising that the Bill has been treated what I might call normally. The procedure by which the GLC receives approval for its capital expenditure and lending though the money Bill is not just curious, but unique, and has been so for many years. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have welcomed that.
  Four years ago the House considered a new system for controlling the capital expenditure of local authorities. The GLC made special pleas to keep the money Bill procedure, which were heeded. The money Bill was therefore reinstated in the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980, although in a somewhat modified form. At that time the GLC was Conservative-controlled, and I well understand why Sir Horace Cutler wished to retain the
  818
  existing system. The following year the Labour group, under Mr. Andrew McIntosh, about who we do not hear quite so much these days, won control.
  Mr. Tony Banks: He has gone to the Lords.
  Sir Anthony Berry: Of course he has; I wonder why.
  So far as I know, no requests have been made by the GLC under its present control to change that system. So we come to this year's Bill. It will not, of course, be the last such Bill, but I accept that we are considering it under rather unusual circumstances. Therefore, it is right that we should inspect it in a special way and consider what is in it. That is why my hon. Friends and I have put down the instruction on which we shall be voting later.
  Before I discuss the Bill I must carry out another tradition that we have in the House, namely, that the first Member to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, after the Second Reading motion has been moved, pays tribute to the hon. Member who has moved it. This I do willingly and happily. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) did not take us through the different clauses, as I expected. Possibly he did not want to do it. He preferred to make the more political points rather than to explain the details of the Bill. Nevertheless, I thank him for doing so. He has played a leading part in London debates over the last few years and we have enjoyed his interventions. We particularly enjoy his special way of indicating what Hansard reporters frequently describe as indicating dissent. We all do it in our various ways by making noises. The hon. Gentleman does it with a rather delightful chuckle which we have all come to know. We know that if he does that he does not agree with what we say. I shall be disappointed if I do not hear the odd chuckle during my speech.
  I come now to the basic problem that concerns my hon. Friends and myself. We are greatly cheered at the prospect of the GLC ceasing to exist in about two years' time, but while it remains it must have power to carry out necessary capital works; I emphasise the word "necessary". Also, it has to make appropriate grants and loans and so on in discharge of its functions. It would be contrary to the interests of Londoners, at a time when the Government are doing so much for the citizens of London in making local democracy really local——
  Mr. Banks rose——
  Sir Anthony Berry: I should like to finish my sentence. I should not like the hon. Gentleman to miss the thrust of what I am saying, because no doubt it is something with which he will wish to agree. At a moment when the Government are doing so much for the citizens of London in making local democracy really local, it would be wrong for the powers of the money Bill to be totally withheld.
  Mr. Banks: If the hon. Gentleman believes that the Government are doing so much for Londoners and local democracy, how can he equate that with recent opinion polls which show that 67 per cent. of Londoners are totally opposed to the abolition of the GLC and the abolition of the GLC elections?
  Sir Anthony Berry: I think that I can answer the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I shall be criticised by him for referring to the account from which the money being spent by the GLC on propaganda is coming. I am in no doubt that that is the main reason for the swing in public opinion,

  819
  as expressed by the polls, but I have always taken the view that the ballot box is what matters, just as it did this time last year. The hon. Gentleman had a nice majority in his constituency, but he did not find many of his friends from his party coming into the House last year. I do not think that he will find someone from the Labour party coming here from Portsmouth after Thursday.
  I am not prepared to agree to whatever level of spending the GLC wishes to choose. This would be wrong at any time, and certainly it would be wrong at the moment—here I come to the hon. Gentleman's point — when it appears to be spending £6 million of ratepayers' money to finance a campaign to ensure its continued existence. I do not mind which account that comes out of, whether it is capital or interest or whatever. What I am concerned about is the fact that our fellow London ratepayers, without permission from them, are having to pay for that propaganda campaign. I do not believe that that was ever envisaged when the legislation under which that is allowed was passed by Parliament. It is disgraceful that it is used in that way.
  Mr. Banks: So the Government are changing the rules.
  Sir Anthony Berry: We are not changing the rules.
  Mr. Banks: They want to.
  Sir Anthony Berry: I am sure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could have brought in a Bill to change the rules. We have not done so. We fight on the facts of the argument and we are prepared to go on doing so.
  My next note was in regard to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), but we have got to him already. The hon. Gentleman accepted a figure of £1·5 million across the Floor of the House some months ago for the propaganda campaign. I think that the GLC has allowed £3 million in the financial year. I suspect that the figure is nearer £6 million, but if the hon. Gentleman can give us facts and figures I am sure that they will enrich the debate and allow us to discuss the whole problem with much more interest, and we might yet find out why the opinion polls have changed.
  Mr. Banks: As the hon. Gentleman asked me a direct question, perhaps I may reply to him. Does he not understand that the Bill is about capital? It has nothing to do with the use of section 137 or the revenue account. He must understand that difference. If he wants to know the figure, it is probably about £2·5 million. Of course, all this money is being properly and legally spent and it is open to any London ratepayer, including the hon. Gentleman, to challenge it via the district auditor if he so wishes.
  Sir Anthony Berry: Of course the hon. Gentleman is right. We can challenge it. I am not suggesting that it is against the law. It was the hon. Gentleman who asked me why I thought that the opinion polls were showing support for keeping the GLC. I say that it is because of the mass expenditure, from whatever account, of ratepayers' money in this respect. Therefore, I think that it is relevant.
  Sir Hugh Rossi: Does my hon. Friend agree that section 137 money could be used on capital expenditure? Would it not be far better spent on doing things from the list of items to which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) referred than on propaganda?
  Sir Anthony Berry: Yes. My hon. Friend has great knowledge of these problems. I am most grateful to him and I hope that Opposition Members will heed what he has said.
  I believe that Opposition Members are also concerned about the timing of the exchanges on the Bill. I should like to put this on the record to defuse in advance any points that they may make. The GLC finance and general purposes committee approved the capital programme on 2 February. GLC officers wrote to the Department of the Environment on 9 February with proposals for the Bill. These had to be considered carefully, and the reply was sent on 3 April. I accept that this was only two days before the final finance and general purposes committee meeting before the date of deposit o f Bills. I am sure the GLC would not have expected the Government to reply without its proposals being given the consideration they deserve.
  It would have been helpful if the GLC had sent draft proposals before final adoption by the council, If it had done that, as had been done in the past, whichever party was in control at county hall, even with later amendments the Government would have been in a position to give their views earlier. The GLC claims that its intentions had been known since the publication of a consultation document in October. That is not the same as having a document which shows how the expenditure plans will be translated into money Bill terms. The refusal of the GLC to allow the Department to see the proposals in advance is typical——
  Mr. Ron Leighton: Can the hon. Gentleman explain whether he is speaking for the Government or as a simple Back Bencher?
  Sir Anthony Berry: I appreciate the compliment the hon. Gentleman has paid me. I think he knows the answer. It was kind of him to draw attention to my position in the House, which is not that of a member of the Government.
  The GLC's refusal to allow the Department to see the proposals in advance is typical of its attitude and in keeping with its refusal to allow officials from the Department of the Environment to look at the books to see where real savings can be found. I wonder what it has to hide.
  I hope that I have explained why we believe that it is right to examine the figures in this year's money Bill with particular care to discover whether the proposed expenditure should be reduced. We are not prepared to sign for whatever level of spending the GLC chooses to ask. The GLC has notoriously exaggerated ideas of what constitutes appropriate spending. I speak not so much of capital expenditure as of the whole range of its total spending, for whatever purpose, at a time when control of public expenditure is one of the Government's top priorities.
  We must bear in mind the wider question of the prospects for local authority capital expenditure in England as a whole this year. That expenditure is controlled by cash limits. In the first two years of the capital control system—1981–82 and 1982–83—the cash limit was not under threat. Indeed, in 1982–83 the Government were able to offer authorities additional capital expenditure allocations to use up the emergent underspend. In 1983–84 the pattern changed. The Government now say that capital spending that year will probably turn out, when fully analysed, to have been close to the cash limit.

  821
  There are various possible reasons for the change. It is common sense to attribute much of it to authorities' increasing familiarity with the new system and their increasing readiness to commit spending justified by capital receipts now that they have a couple of years of receipts in the bag. The extra spending in 1983–84 will not just disappear as we move into 1984–85.
  I do not speak as a member of the Government, but I understand that the Government have suggested to local authority associations that the arrangements for monitoring capital expenditure should be revamped to give the earliest possible indications of the likely spend this year.
  If the cash limits are to be adhered to this year, the level of authorities' net capital expenditure must not exceed £2·75 billion of new capital receipts. If spending looks like exceeding that level Treasury rules will require that the Government consider taking corrective action mid-year. Whatever form such action took, it would clearly benefit neither local government nor the construction industry.
  My colleagues and I do not wish the GLC to contribute unduly to the likelihood of such action. The Bill reflects a total capital programme involving about £500 million. For one local authority out of 400, even if it is much the largest authority that is a very filling slice of the cake.
  Certain resources which authorities are allowed to spend — such as capital receipts accumulated from earlier years and the 10 per cent. year-to-year tolerance on allocations—are not allowed for specifically in the cash limit. The assumption is that the use of such resources by some authorities will be cancelled out by underspending elsewhere.
  Provision in the Bill relies upon £66 million of such resources, plus a further £10 million based on allocations which the GLC hoped to receive from the Government, but did not secure. In all, the Bill puts an extra £76 million of pressure on the cash limit. It brings local government as a whole that much closer to some sort of corrective action. That figure alone represents almost 3 per cent. of the national cash limit—and we are still talking about just one authority out of 400.
  The Government asked the GLC to reduce the provision in the Bill so that the £76 million was reduced to £30 million, but the GLC did not agree to that request. The first and main purpose of my motion is to achieve a reduction equal to that which the Government requested, because I believe that that is in the interests of local government as a whole.
  I have accounted for £46 million of the £123 million mentioned in the motion. The reason for including the remaining £77 million is quite different. The £77 million represents amounts which the GLC has included in the Bill even though it says—I do not doubt its word—that it does not intend to spend them.
  First, there is the provision of £50 million in part II of the schedule for lending to London boroughs. The GLC has no plans for such lending. The other £27 million is that part of the part III reserve which is not included in the GLC's plans. It has put the figure of £35 million in part III because it represents a full 10 per cent. year-to-year tolerance on allocations and is thus equal to the facility available to other authorities.
  Such amounts have been included in previous year's Bills. The GLC said that it would not use them, and, it has
  822
  not done so, but lending to boroughs would not count against the cash limit in any case. I question whether it is sensible to put surplus provision in the Bill at this time.
  If the GLC has to come to Parliament for authorisation for capital spending, let it ask for the spending that it really wants and not some other higher figure which it produces out of the sky. I propose the removal of the spare £77 million.
  I have explained the reasons for my motion and I shall try to explain the intended effect. The first part of the instruction proposed to be given to the Committee on the Bill simply provides for £123 million to be taken away from the amount specified in the schedule as available to be spent at the GLC's sole discretion. That £123 million is equal to £46 million of real reduction, plus the surplus £77 million to which I have referred.
  The second part of the instruction provides that the same sum of £123 million may be added to that part of the provision in the Bill which is subject to Treasury consent as to its use. I understand that the GLC is unlikely to ask for the addition and, speaking from the Back Benches, I see no objection to that. As a reasonable person, I should like to think that the Treasury would give consent to extra capital spending if it were satisfied that that was appropriate. If such a situation arose, having the extra resources available in part IV would make the consent feasible. [Interruption.] I hear a chuckle from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. Similarly, if for some reason the GLC, after all, wants to lend money to a London borough — which does not count against the cash limit—the Treasury could consent. It is reasonable to have a margin in part IV, but the main provision unequivocally available to the GLC should be based upon its real capital programme.
  The third part of the instruction deals in more detail with where the reductions and additions should fall. The Committee needs clear guidance, but my motive this evening is not to attack particular items of GLC expenditure.
  As the motion is in my name, I have deliberately refrained from naming individual areas where cuts can be found. That they can be found I am in no doubt, and I am sure that my hon. Friends will give examples from their own areas and experience. I also hope that the GLC, if the instruction is carried, as I believe it will be, will tell the Committee how it would like the changes made. The instruction allows it to do just that.
  In case, for any reason, the GLC did not make such proposals, I had to propose something to cover that situation. I have assumed that with the spending of accumulated receipts cut below the maximum feasible the GLC will no longer wish to have recourse to the tolerance provision. I therefore suggest leaving only a token provision both for lending to the boroughs and for the use of tolerance, and distributing the rest of the reduction across the remaining items in parts I and II exactly pro rata to the GLC's own proposed split of provision in the Bill as it stands. Similarly, I propose that the split of provision of any addition to part IV between the GLC's own services and ILEA should be pro rata to the size of the programmes planned for each in the Bill as it stands—except that the whole of the amount for lending to boroughs would go under the GLC heading.
  The final part of the instruction simply provides for the Committee to make any necessary consequential arrangements.

  823
  If the Bill were passed it would represent a further attempt by the Opposition to frustrate the clearly defined wishes of the electorate as expressed last June. There is a limit to the level of capital spending by the GLC which the nation as a whole can afford. In the Bill the GLC has shown that it has no realisation of the need to restrict its expenditure to that which is needed.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras tried to make out that if we carried the instruction all sorts of worthwhile projects would be lost. The money will be there under the Bill and under the instruction for all the worthwhile projects. He is misleading the House and Londoners if he makes out this evening that our action in passing the instruction will in any way inhibit the welcome improvements in schools, especially in the ILEA area. Money will still be there. It is up to those in charge of programmes to use the money as they think fit. If they choose not to carry out the improvements mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, that is up to them. We have allowed the money for them to be carried out. The nation can no longer afford the GLC. The instruction is a modest step in curtailing this unnecessary and extravagant waste of the money of our city's ratepayers.
  7.50 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I must disagree with the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Sir A. Berry), although I agree with the first part of his speech in which he outlined the history of the Bill. I join him in saying that the system has worked reasonably well, at least until now. It is unique—but London is unique, although the Prime Minister does not always seem to appreciate that fact.
  My hon. Friends and I have tabled an amendment to the instruction. I am obliged that that has been made possible through the procedures of the House. As I understand it, the instruction will be moved formally if the Bill is given a Second reading, and I shall be able to move the amendment formally.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Southgate that the arrangements have usually worked well, but he said that necessary capital works will go ahead, although works regarded as unnecessary by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends would come within the £46 million that is in dispute so that the instruction would curtail the operations of the GLC if it was extravagant.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) mentioned discretionary expenditure. As I understand it, the GLC's discretionary expenditure will be cut by about 52 per cent. As the hon. Gentleman has not served in local government, I shall put on the record what that means. The GLC has entered into commitments that it must discharge, although they may not be of the first priority. The balance between what is remaining after they have been discharged and the money that is left in the kitty for projects was that referred to by my hon. Friend.
  The hon. Gentleman may also agree that his reduction of £46 million may be split roughly as between £41 million or £42 million for the GLC and £4 million to £5 million for ILEA. The distinction between committed and discretionary expenditure shows why many of the projects mentioned may be at risk. We hope that the Minister will tell us why they are not at risk, if that is so.
  The hon. Member for Southgate explained what the instruction does. He has split the £123 million into two
  824
  sums—£46 million of unnecessary expenditure and £77 million for lending. We must make clear that an instruction to a Committee does not have the power to lock away that money. The Bill's promoters have set down certain sums of money. The instruction to the Committee is to transfer those moneys to part IV of the schedule as moneys that the GLC cannot spend unless the Treasury says that it can do so. The hon. Gentleman claims that he GLC will not be spending the £77 million as it could not spend it anyway, or so he says. However, it might have spent the £46 million.
  I approve of what the hon. Gentleman said about the Treasury letting the GLC spend some of that £46 million. I should put it on the record—this is in accordance with clause 6, which gives the GLC power to apply to the Treasury for all the sums that are left in part IV of the schedule — that if the Treasury agreed to payments, whether they are from the £77 million or the £46 million, the GLC could go ahead and use that money. Perhaps some of the projects referred to by my hon. Friend will come within that £46 million because of the discretion allowed in the Bill.
  As a technicality, it is up to the GLC or the Bill's promoters to apply to the Committee for that transfer of funds. As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, it is up to the GLC, if it so chooses, to decide during the Committee hearings whether the money should come out of parts I, II or III. As everyone knows, the members of a Committee considering a private Bill are not debating the merits of the Bill on party lines in the ordinary way as they would do if they were members of a Standing Committee. They are present in a judicial capacity, irrespective of party. They adjudicate between the merits of promoters and petitioners or those who feel that their right are being interrupted by the Bill.
  Hon. Members would not usually make much fuss about the Bill, as it is unique in terms of private Bills. That is to everybody's advantage. But if the instruction is passed the position will be rather different. Members of the Committee will act almost in your role as chairman, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They will be concerned, under the Standing Orders on a private Bill, to protect the interests of the promoters and those who think that the Bill prejudices their private rights as citizens.
  The reductions in moneys for the GLC are relevant at that point. There is a clear difference of opinion between my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras and the GLC as to the effect of the instruction. I shall add to the points already made by my hon. Friend, as they were rather telling.
  In the constituencies of Croydon, Central and Croydon, North-East—that is of some interest to an occupant of the Chair—rehabilitation of homes might be at risk with a loss of $178,000. I see that the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), who usually contributes to London debates, is not in the Chamber. He may be concerned that major repairs to windows and roofs on the Harold Hill estate may be at risk to the tune of £925,000.
  Mr. John Fraser: The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Sir A. Berry) has a history of interfering in the affairs of Croydon, having written to the Prime Minister urging her to prevent housing development for the poorly housed in Lambeth from taking place in

  825
  Croydon. The hon. Member for Southgate suggested that the development might have altered the political complexion of one of the Croydon constituencies.
  Mr. Spearing: The hon. Member for Southgate had better watch out, because his instruction may have the same effect. We shall have to see. It may have some effect in Erith and Crayford. There, the GLC is planning to spend over £1 million on the reconstruction of Queens Kent road canal bridge, with the object of relieving heavy traffic congestion. That is something that everyone believes in. I remember the motorway box proposals when Conservative Members were hell bent on vast public expenditure and on the destruction of homes. They were defeated only by the ballot box. I remember The Guardian showing that caterpillar of a motorway being killed by someone puffing a ballot box at it.
  The hon. Member for Southgate talks about local democracy. There are many ways in which the former Southgate borough council, the former corporation of West Ham, Paddington borough council and the metropolitan borough of Fulham are not really suitable for the task. We need an all-London government for all-London matters. The citizens of London need a vote in the ballot box on all-London matters, such as public expenditure being wasted on unnecessary motorways. Indeed, that is what the public did. However, the Prime Minister apparantly does not approve of that principle. Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), voted in favour of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill, and apparently want to expunge the right of Londoners to vote on such London-wide issues.
  As I have said, the Queens Kent road canal bridge may be at risk. Users of that bridge will say that this instruction may well jeopardise their rights as motorists. After all, motorists are very important to the Conservative party. Parents of children who attend schools where the lavatories will still be outside will say that the Bill, as changed in Committee, will jeopardise their rights as ratepayers and citizens, not because of the GLC or the Government per se, but because of the hon. Member for Southgate and his colleagues. Under the private Bill procedures, they will have rights. All sorts of petitions can be made against the Bill. However, I shall not go into that.
  The opportunity then arises for the GLC to apply to the Treasury. Let us suppose that there is an uprising in Upminster, that there are objections and petitions from Erith and Crayford, or that the people of Croydon complain because they want their houses repaired, and that the GLC—being a democratically responsive organisation—decides to go to the Treasury to see whether it will allow the GLC to spend the money. That money, of course, will be locked away in part IV of the schedule, under Treasury control.
  In his optimism or, I hope, knowledge, the hon. Member for Southgate said that the Treasury might well decide to agree to that money being spent. However, I think that he may have forgotten mentioning much earlier in his speech that there was a bit of disagreement with the Government, and that the Bill and its changes represented what the Government said that the GLC should be spending. So if the normal and quite good negotiations broke down at an earlier stage, why does the hon.
  826
  Gentleman think that the Government will change their mind if the GLC has a second bite at the cherry? I was very surprised by what he said. I was pleased to hear it, but I think that his speech was contradictory to that extent. We shall have to assume that the answer is no.
  Sir Anthony Berry: I was most anxious to establish my position following the question which I was asked as to whether I was speaking for the Government or as a Back Bencher. I hope that I have made it clear that I was speaking as a Back Bencher. I am sure that the Government will come to the right decision when the occasion arises.
  Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman has given his view of the right decision, which is minus £46 million. He is really saying that the right decision is no. But is that the right decision from the point of view of the rights of the public? The present members of the GLC were elected in 1972 — [HON. MEMBERS: "1981."] I should have said that they were elected in 1981, on a mandate to carry out the policies that they are pursuing. I was confused for a moment about the dates, just as the Prime Minister was confused this afternoon. She said that councillors in London boroughs had a mandate to go to the GLC. But the mandate that we are talking about was given by the London electorate in 1981 for the GLC to carry out its programmes.
  This is where the effect of an amendment to the instruction comes into play. Given what I have said and certain inconsistencies in the remarks of the hon. Member for Southgate, I hope that he will agree to accept the amendment even though, for obvious reasons, I would not necessarily agree with the total instruction, as amended. I think that the hon. Gentleman will understand that. I shall explain what I hope will happen if my amendment is accepted.
  Earlier I said that the role of a private Bill Committee was to adjudicate between the rights of the promoters, and the rights of petitioners and of those who feel that their rights have been infringed. Across the Floor of the House, we can disagree about the £46 million, and we can talk about lavatories, houses and canal bridges, wherever they may be. We shall not come to a proper judicial conclusion tonight. However, my amendment would instruct the Committee to take evidence and to determine the criteria on which the Treasury should assent to or dissent from any further application from the GLC. That is a clear and proper instruction for the House to give. It allows the four or five hon. Members set aside for the purpose to take evidence on the sort of criteria that the Government or Treasury should apply when saying yes or no to an application. I have explained to Conservative Members that the Treasury is not told to pay the money but is given guidance on whether it should say yea or nay. That is a logical, fair and appropriate procedure.
  If the hon. Member for Southgate accepts the amendment, the Committee will no doubt hear evidence from the promoters, and perhaps from ratepayers who do not think that the money should be spent, as to the criteria that the Treasury should apply when ILEA or the GLC wants to put more lavatories inside schools, when the rotting window frames in Upminster have to be repaired, or the canal bridge at Erith is built. The Treasury would then apply proper public expenditure value-for-money

  827
  criteria, or something of the sort — which we would instruct the Committee to prepare—and, guided by that, would say yes or no.
  In the interests of good parliamentary procedure and of taking an objective look at the real needs, that is the right way to proceed. The GLC would not necessarily get as much as it wanted. It might not get back anything like the £46 million. If it does not have that, there is not much likelihood of it getting anything. It is not the GLC but the citizens of London who would be estopped from getting items of capital equipment which they voted for in the 1981 election and which they have a right to expect.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: I am in favour of the amendment and against the instruction. It is worthwhile just re-emphasizing the point made by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Sir A. Berry). It is unique that the GLC has to come to the House each year to have its capital expenditure approved. That is a point that I am tempted to make when Conservative Members go on about GLC spending. The House has within its power the right of control over the GLC's capital expenditure, not in terms of specific projects, but in terms of the overall amount that is due to be spent.
  It could well be that among other things we are witnessing tonight the future for the affairs of London. I hope that most hon. Members realise just how unsatisfactory it would be if the misconceived proposal to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan county councils went through. As hon. Members know, there has been general talk about having a debate once a year about the affairs of London as they relate to the administration of local government. It could be that that is the future for the running of London. It is clearly unsatisfactory. It has always been rather strange that the GLC is subjected to such an investigation. It is unsatisfactory because hon. Members are at least one stage removed from local accountability and the understanding of the needs of the people of London. Moreover, it is open to non-London Members to be present to put in their four pennyworth.
  In the past, negotiations between the GLC and the Government have been between honourable people. Therefore, the system, despite its defects, has tended to work. But today's Tory Government cannot be considered honourable. I believe them to be dishonourable and not to be trusted as a Government. The GLC has always in the past complied with the law and never broken an undertaking that has been given verbally by its officers during negotiations with the Government. This year Labour Members believe that the Government have treated the GLC abominably. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) put his finger on it when he said that the attack upon the Bill — it is undoubtedly Government-inspired — anticipates the proposal to abolish the GLC. Therefore, it is a back-door method of pursuing a political campaign that the Government have been waging against 'the GLC for the past 12 months and more.
  In setting the rate for 1984–85 the GLC anticipated capital expenditure as set out in the Bill. The hon. Member for Southgate was misleading himself, or he was being misled by whoever wrote his brief—someone, I suspect in the Department of the Environment — when he suggested that the Government were not aware of the GLC's capital spending programme. The GLC made it
  828
  quite clear in the consultative document issued last October exactly what it wants to spend in capital terms. Accusations that are bandied around by Conservative Members that the GLC is unaccountable for its spending take no account of the fact that for the past three years the GLC has had a major public exercise over its budget. It has given borough councils, individuals, trade associations and employers generally the opportunity to make representations about the level of spending. For the hon. Gentleman to say that the Government were not aware of the GLC's capital spending is to mislead the House. I believe that he has been misled by whoever wrote his brief.
  The GLC has raised much of its money in the form of its rate precept and its capital receipts. That money belongs to the London ratepayers as Conservative Members have said. It is up to the ratepayers of London's elected accountable council—the GLC—to spend that money on behalf of the ratepayers. There is no fear of the ballot box at County Hall. Indeed, the only fear of the ballot box exists on the Conservative Benches and particularly in the mind of the Prime Minister. She is frightened of the ballot box, which is why she will not have elections in 1985. We have said this before. If Conservative Members want to test it let us have the election in May 1985. That is the way to test who has really got it right.
  The hon. Member for Horrisey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) —who has suddenly left our proceedings——
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: How sad.
  Mr. Banks: It is sad only in so far as I am not able to correct him in his hearing. He mentioned the fact that the council can use section 137 for capital expenditure. Of course it can. That is well known. But that capital expenditure must come within the limits of proscribed expenditure. What is paid by the one hand has to be deducted by the other.
  The Bill has nothing to do with the council's revenue grants but has to do with the council's capital programme. The effect of the transfer of £123 million to part IV will mean real cuts, since capital money is likely to be authorised only by the Treasury where the Government are willing to release additional resources to the authorities generally. The GLC will be unable to go along with the Treasury, even if the amendment is accepted, and ask it to treat the applications on an individual basis. If I am wrong, I hope that the Minister will correct me. The GLC will only obtain capital authorisation if it is part of a wider policy that the Government are pursuing at that particular time to make greater resources available to local government generally. If one holds one's breath waiting for that to happen there will be a lot of dead bodies around. It will not happen. The Government will not authorise additional expenditure for local authorities.
  The effect of paragraph (c)(ii) of the instruction to the Committee—a reduction of 7·49 per cent. of each line — will cut new projects from £80 million to £39 million, a reduction of 52 per cent. That is what we are talking about. Certain other levels of spending could be given up by the council, particularly the borrowings to the local boroughs, as not damaging the council's capital projects. Paragraph (c)(ii) would result in a reduction of 52 per cent. on the GLC's new capital projects. That comes about because most capital spending rolls forward from previously signed contracts. All the cuts will have to

  829
  fall on new starts. If the Bill becomes law we shall see a 52 per cent. cut in areas of expenditure where the council has any real discretion. That is yet another example of the way in which Whitehall is now interfering in the affairs of local authorities, and specifically in the affairs of the GLC.
  I ask Conservative Members to reflect for a while. Lists have been read out to them of the capital projects that could be in danger if the instruction goes through. It is not just improvements in social amenities that will be lost to Londoners. Conservative Members should realise the effects within the construction industry in London generally. Capital projects mean work for contractors, most of whom will be private. About £85 in every £100 spent by local authorities works its way into the private sector. By restricting the GLC's new capital expenditure programme Conservatives are inflicting more unemployment on the construction and supply industries which are already suffering badly from public expenditure cuts generally. That is something that the Prime Minister has never yet understood.
  Mr. Dobson: Does my hon. Friend accept that, from the selfish point of view of the Conservative party, it would be unwise to obstruct those capital projects because considerable amounts of money move from those contractors into the funds of the Tory party? The list of the major civil engineering contractors of the GLC reads like a list of major contributors to Tory party funds.
  Mr. Banks: I have never understood why those contractors do that, because, over the past few years, the high level of bankruptcies shows that, whoever else benefits from the Government's economic policies — frankly, I have yet to find any large category, other than the small circle of the Government's friends—it cannot be the construction industry. That industry, and certainly its small and medium-sized firms, has suffered heavily from the Government's economic policies in terms of reductions in public spending. The instruction will exacerbate an already appalling position. Once again, this action amounts to gross interference by central Government in the affairs of a local authority. One must return to the fact that this is all part of the Government's vindictive campaign against the Labour-controlled GLC.
  Mr. Martin Stevens: Whoever is interfering it is not central Government, but half a dozen Back Benchers.
  Mr. Banks: I was not born yesterday, and nor was the hon. Gentleman. I always accept him as an honourable person. It looks to Labour Members as though this measure is Government-inspired, and the hon. Member for Southgate was given a brief written by the Department of the Environment. The brief was certainly up to the generally low standards of briefs supplied these days by the Department of the Environment to the Government Front Bench. It cannot be said that this is a matter that involves just Back Benchers. I should be interested to know what the Under-Secretary of State thinks about the matter.
  I have been shuffling my papers to ascertain what projects will be in jeopardy in the constituency of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens). I shall cite some of them:the new King's road footway, housing rehabilitation
  830
  and an Elizabethan school project for the Castle youth club. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that projects in his constituency could be at risk if he supports the instruction. Opposition Members have read out the various projects that will be in jeopardy if the instruction is carried.
  I speak as a member of the GLC, and I know of the feeling on this matter. I know what projects will be hit if this instruction is carried. I shall use what small influence I have at county hall to ensure that we hit the constituencies of those Conservative Members who vote in favour of the instruction. There will be a certain degree of "selective vindictiveness" — I use a phrase that has been mentioned before. There is no way that Conservative members should think that they can escape from the consequences of their actions. I shall do my best as an individual member of the GLC to ensure that retribution is visited on the heads of Conservative Members. I hope that the GLC will ensure that the constituents of Conservative Members know exactly who is responsible for cutting projects in their areas.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: How would the hon. Gentleman deal with a constituency that has, say, a Conservative Member of Parliament and a Labour member of the GLC?
  Mr. Banks: With extreme difficulty; but I am sure that it will not be beyond the intelligence and wit of Labour GLC members to ensure that the chickens come home to roost. Conservative Members will not be allowed to get away with quietly passing this measure. No one is reporting this debate, so it will not get a great deal of publicity. They must not believe that they will get away with this action, without some retribution being visited upon them. I shall certainly use whatever influence I have at county hall to ensure that they pay the price.
  8.24 pm
  Mrs. Angela Rumbold: It will come as no surprise to Opposition Members for me to say that it gives me much pleasure to support the instruction to the Committee. I can see no earthly reason why the GLC should not be subjected to the constraints and disciplines to which every other London local council and local authority throughout the country are subjected when they make their budgets.
  I shall be a trifle tedious and explain how a budget is put together by a local authority. There is a clear distinction between two elements—capital expenditure and revenue expenditure.
  Mr. Dobson: In the first place, there is need.
  Mrs. Rumbold: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's point. I remind hon. Members that the capital expenditure is taxpayers' money. It is not money given by the Government, the Treasury or the chap in the friendly local bank. It is the permission to borrow money that is given to local authorities to carry out a reasoned capital programme. The GLC had a reasoned capital programme.
  When putting a budget together, the first item that must be considered for revenue expenditure is the interest on the borrowed capital. One begins to see, therefore, how revenue and capital expenditure must interlink. It is exceedingly important, when beginning to put a budget together, to look at the capital programme to ascertain the likely consequential revenue expenditure for future years. Given the constraint of cash limiting for capital

  831
  expenditure, many local authorities have had to exercise a certain amount of discretion, choice and settling of priorities when selecting capital projects. The proposal is to look at £123 million which is being put in to the discretionary part of the GLC's capital expenditure. I believe that it would be right in that connection to undertake a certain amount of exercising of priorities.
  I have met the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) before. Numbers of local authorities have to deal with chairmen of committees such as those on education, housing, transportation and social services. Those chairmen all have special feelings. They all list the various schools, housing projects and social service projects that are high on their list of priorities, and they all want those projects in their capital programme for the coming year.
  The hon. Gentleman listed the programmes and projects for London. Undoubtedly some of those projects are worth while, but others must, by their nature, be not as worth while. The task of responsible local government is to examine and to put into order of priority not only revenue expenditure but capital expenditure for capital programmes. I suggest that that task needs to be done. If it is not possible for the present GLC to do that responsibly, the Treasury and Parliament have a right and reason to look at those priorities.
  When examining the capital programme, other elements must be considered. Besides putting into some order of priority the projects for expenditure, one must consider the fact that one is looking to future years for revenue consequences and is borrowing taxpayers' money, on which one must, therefore, pay interest.
  Local government programmes nearly always suffer every financial year from what is known as slippage. In other words, a certain sum is put aside for a capital programme in the knowledge that not all of the money will be spent by the end of the financial year. I suggest that that will be the outcome of money that is allocated under part IV of capital expenditure for the GLC. It is more than likely that the sum that is to be withheld would not be spent in total even if some of it were granted at any time by the Treasury on the ground that it was a special project.
  An important element is the contingency arrangement that will be built in automatically to any capital expenditure programme. Contingency arrangements are made for good reasons. It is not unusual for unforeseen events to take place during the course of a capital programme. However, it is unlikely that all the money that is put into the contingency funds will necessarily be spent. Therefore, I suggest that there are good reasons for putting aside into part IV the discretion for the Treasury and for a Committee to examine carefully each and every project and to satisfy itself in as judicial a way as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) suggested it would be necessary to do.
  I agree that we must be exceedingly careful not to prejudge issues. Nevertheless, for all the reasons that I have outlined, I contend that there is every possible justification for ensuring that the proposed capital programme is reviewed exceedingly carefully to ascertain whether there are elements of expenditure which will never be expended or, if they are, will not be expended in the best interests of the people of London. It is important to recognise that the people of London pay rates to the GLC and to their own borough council, and at the same time are taxpayers.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Is the hon. Lady seriously suggesting that the Treasury knows better than elected councillors of the GLC about the local needs of Londoners in terms of capital projects?
  Mrs. Rumbold: I venture tentatively to suggest that it is possible that those who are not elected members of the GLC would be able to come to a proper judgment. I make that suggestion in the light of the hon. Gentleman's speech, in which he revealed that his motivation for allocating capital expenditure is not reached on an impartial or justifiable basis. It seems that he does not consider individual projects to determine which are worth while and which are not. He said that he would make certain that some boroughs had less money spent on them, for vindictive reasons. That does not seem to be rational. That is a good reason why the Treasury or a Committee should make an effort to examine proposed capital expenditure.
  Ms. Harriet Harman: As the hon. Lady said, Londoners are taxpayers and ratepayers. Does she accept that those of my constituents who live on the Gloucester Grove estate are taxpayers and ratepayers and also pay rent to live in an estate which was formally owned by the GLC? Does she accept, too, that they are entitled to ask that capital moneys be spent to rectify appalling design faults which make it almost impossible to live on that expensive estate? They are entitled to some of the moneys in the form of capital projects.
  Mrs. Rumbold: There may be enormous defects and great need for rectification on council estates in the hon. Lady's constituency, as there are in many London constituencies. With the benefit of hindsight, one realises that many of the large estates which were built immediately after the war were not built as well as they might have been and a certain amount of capital expenditure is required to deal with problems. However, there are other ways in which those estates might be viewed and one might not necessarily be thinking in the long term that the best policy is to pour money down the same drain as that into which the original money went when the estates were constructed.
  Mr. Dobson rose——
  Mrs. Rumbold: No, I shall not give way. That is an excellent reason for the local authorities which are to take over the responsibility of examining capital programmes in future to have an opportunity to set their own priorities and to make their own decisions on how they wish to expend capital in future. The proposition before the House is reasonable, and one which I wholeheartedly support.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Toby Jessel: I entered the Chamber already determined to vote for the instruction. My determination to do so has been reinforced by the speech of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), which contained a threat. We heard him say that any hon. Member who voted for the instruction would suffer in his constituency from a withdrawal of capital expenditure by the GLC. The hon. Gentleman said that he would use all the influence within his power to bring that about.
  I do not know the extent of the influence which the hon. Gentleman retains in the GLC, but I can tell him that British people do not yield to threats or blackmail. The

  833
  hon. Gentleman has attempted to make a threat or to blackmail Conservative Members. It is a good rule in life never to give in to threats or blackmail and I do not have any intention of doing so. As far as I am aware, no GLC scheme is intended in my constituency. If there is, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my constituents, in Twickenham, Teddington, the Hamptons and Whitton would not wish me to give in to his threat. I repeat that I have not the slightest intention of doing so.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) spoke somewhat more impressively than the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. In his peroration he referred with great passion to five areas of expenditure. These were water, sewerage, housing, education and hospitals. He used these areas of expenditure as examples of what we should have in mind in supporting the continuation of the GLC. He talked about not spending enough or severely reducing expenditure within these areas. That is what the argument about the abolition of the GLC is all about.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke about capital expenditure on water; but water is controlled by the Thames water authority. He spoke about capital expenditure on sewerage; but sewerage is controlled by the Thames water authority. Responsibility for sewerage was removed from the GLC about 10 years ago. He spoke about capital expenditure on housing; but the great bulk of the vast heritage of council housing which the GLC inherited from the former London county council 19 years ago, which housed 1·25 million people—equivalent to the entire population of Birmingham — was transferred almost entirely to the 32 London boroughs. That happened five or six years ago and the then Labour Government gave their consent.
  Education in inner London is run by the Inner London education authority, and there is no intention of abolishing that authority. On the contrary, it will be directly elected. In outer London, education is run by the boroughs. Finally, the hon. Gentleman referred to hospitals, which have never been run by the GLC. The hon. Gentleman's remarks in that GLC context were irrelevant.
  I am not convinced that the GLC makes correct use of all the capital resources that are placed at its disposal. I shall give two illustrations that have been presented to me by constituents. First, a constituent who is a pensioner and who was employed as an officer at county hall has complained to me of a report that the GLC has offered to use GLC pension fund moneys to buy the Liverpool town hall. This constituent lives at Hampton Wick.
  It was reported earlier this year that the Greater London pension fund money was to be used to buy Liverpool town hall, and to lease it back to the GLC at a peppercorn rent. The object would have been a financial one to enable the Liverpool city council to continue paying its bills, including the wages of its staff. I suggest to the House that that is an improper use of capital resources under the control of the GLC. It is wrong to use the pension fund in that way. Not content with abusing the ratepayers' money, the GLC now wishes to abuse its pensioners' money. That the pensions of GLC officials should be jeopardised in this way by Greater London councillors wanting to involve themselves in the extremist policies of Liverpool is utterly wrong. I hope that Opposition Members will give me a
  834
  clear and definite assurance that this wicked proposal has been dropped, and that the GLC has no intention of doing anything of the kind.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Indeed, that proposal was never made. The suggestion that the GLC should buy the Liverpool city hall, and then lease it back at a peppercorn rent, and pay all the staff, is arrant nonsense. The GLC could have bought certain parts of Liverpool as a form of investment for the future, but pension funds are known often to buy large amounts of property, and they do not lease them back at peppercorn rents.
  Mr. Jessel: I am glad to hear that there is no intention of doing this, but there has never been any official denial by Mr. Livingstone or other leading councillors of the GLC. They have kept remarkably quiet about it since a great deal was reported on it in March. I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's assurance, which has hitherto been lacking.
  I deal next with another aspect of abuse of capital resources by the GLC which concerns its failure to make efficient use of one main road in west London on which a large sum of GLC capital expenditure was incurred, as it has been on London Transport buses in the area. Capital resources of the GLC put into that road — the main radial road into west London, Cromwell road, leading into Talgarth road, leading into the A4, the M4 and the M3 into Heathrow airport—have been constrained by a foolish traffic scheme which was instigated by the GLC in a decision to reduce the lanes from three to two lanes, although later that was slightly modified. There is still serious congestion, as there has been over the last three or four weeks.
  This is arguably the most important road in Greater London. The road was built by the GLC with funds on capital account as voted in a previous GLC money Bill. It has caused colossal traffic jams which have spread to other places, because, as the traffic could not easily get through, it has attempted to go through other routes, and so has jammed up places like Hammersmith, Shepherds Bush and Putney. Thousands of my constituents are held up each day, and public transport buses in those areas are being delayed.
  Mr. Corbyn: I realise that the hon. Gentleman has not had much experience of driving recently, but could he tell the House whether he is certain that the expenditure on the Talgarth road right-turn about which he complains is capital expenditure, and not revenue expenditure?
  Mr. Jessel: It was certainly capital expenditure that was incurred in the construction of Cromwell road which was intended to be used at full capacity. I happened to be a member of the GLC at the time that the Talgarth road-Cromwell road extension was constructed. I am complaining that the resources of the GLC put into that road, and on which GLC ratepayers to this day are paying interest, are being improperly and inefficiently used.
  Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman and I were on the same Committee when that capital investment was made. Will he tell the House whether he thinks that such traffic management schemes should be decided by locally elected people at county hall, as they are at the GLC, or by central Government?
  Mr. Jessel: I very much hope that Cromwell road will shortly—by which I mean April 1986—become a trunk

  835
  road under the control of the Minister for Transport when it will be much better run, and will not be subject to unwise traffic management decisions by the councillors of the GLC who have shown themselves to be guilty of sheer administrative incompetence and unwise decisions taken against the clear advice of their officials and of the Metropolitan police, who strongly advised against the scheme, and said that serious traffic congestion would result from it, as it has.
  Several of my constituents have written to me, including one doctor who said:
  "There would seem to be no logical reason why the traffic flow into London should have been reduced to absolute chaos for the advantage of what must be a handful of drivers wishing to turn right. The resulting tail-back was monumental in the morning rush hour; but even in the evening when I was called back to my hospital for an emergency, I still found the traffic leading up to this junction at a standstill."
  It is appalling that the scheme should have been allowed to go ahead. The GLC councillors have flouted the professional advice that they received. The experiment is a failure, and it should be called off forthwith.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I wish to deal first with points made by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), because she appears to think two things that surprise me, although they surprise me less every time that I hear London Members of the Conservative party speaking on matters relating to London government. She said first that, in accord with the normal practice, it was normal for the London budget to be submitted even more substantially for approval, vetting and authorisation by the Government in comparison with other local authorities. As I understand it, the provisions covering the financing of London are unique, and have always been different. They alone provide the specific mechanism by which in the past the Treasury has been given a part of the budget for its approval.
  Mrs. Rumbold: I made my comment about this being normal in the context of local government as a whole. Local government, when considering its budgets, automatically sets priorities, and puts the programmes side by side to decide which it should choose. That applies to the GLC, and has always done so.
  Mr. Hughes: Of course I accept that. Priorities have to be made. We say that it is wrong in principle to extend the opportunities for central Government—in this case, the Treasury — to determine what local government is providing for in the capital planning of its resources. The hon. Member said that there ought to be some control "by the Treasury", or by some other body. Other bodies already exist throughout the country that are empowered by various pieces of legislation to send in local government auditors to examine the books. This does not apply in the same way to budget provision as it does to spending by local authorities. The argument of Conservative Members that matters of local government budgeting and financial planning should be overridden by the employees of central Government, if the Government feel so minded, is wrong in our view, and particularly so because the figures show that in recent years, it is central Government spending that has risen in relation to local government spending, and the fault has been not with local authorities, but with local government.
  Mrs. Rumbold: In the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980, there is a specific provision for central Government to cash limit capital expenditure. It is to that that I referred, and that is how it happens at present.
  Mr. Hughes: That is correct, but the Bill proposes to take a sector of the planned budget out of the list of items which can automatically go through into the list which requires prior authorisation. That will increase the amount of central Government power to look at, interfere with and negative decisions made by local government. Because of our procedures, the GLC must have a Bill introduced in House by promoters. The principle is the same. We object to the further extension of the power of central Government. Once the legislative framework is in place, that should be sufficient.
  There is a procedural objection to what are clearly Government proposals wrapped up in private Members' motions. It must be clear to everyone—it would be helpful if it were admitted rather than denied—that the Government are asking Conservative London Back Bench members to put forward what the Government want. They have involved the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Sir A. Berry) and others. It is an objectionable method; it is objectionable when Whips interfere in the business of private Bills; it is objectionable when Back Benchers pretend that they are acting for themselves in the full knowledge that they act for the Government.
  The Minister will no doubt shortly stand up and say that the Government support the proposals. He could say that the Government will reserve their position and consider what they should do. But the reality is that he will not oppose what is proposed by Conservative Back Benchers, including the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) to whom I give way.
  Mr. Richard Tracey: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my categorical assurance that no Minister or Whip has asked me to be one of the signatories.
  Mr. Hughes: I certainly accept the hon. Gentleman's assurance. However, without the assurance of the other Conservative Members that there has been no contact between the Government, the Department of the Environment and themselves, we cannot believe that it has not happened.
  I echo the view expressed earlier that the speech of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate sounded, in the second part, mightily like the speeches that we have heared before, written by the gentlemen who sit in the Officials Box, and who spend more of their time in Marsham street than they do as research assistants to hon. Members.
  Mr. Martin Stevens: I can confirm that we have not been suborned by the Government but are acting in our proper capacities as private Members. I am happy to add my name to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) as one upon whom no pressure of any kind has been put. This debate is a private Members' debate, and, although it involves the disclosure of secrets, I must say that there has been no whipping by the Government's business managers. That is a clear sign that the Government are treating the matter as private business.
  Mr. Hughes: Although I have not been here for long, I was not born yesterday. I would be surprised to find that, when we vote, the producing of hon. Members will be

  837
  carried out by those who are not members of the Government. If Government members are sitting in their places and not moving, I shall be interested to see the turn out of hon. Members. However, I accept the assurance of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens). It is noticeable that his name and that of the hon. Member for Surbiton are last on the list, and not included in the first four names.
  I wish to raise a matter of substance about which local government makes valid complaints. The GLC produced its budget last year, but at the last moment the Government decided to say, "We do not like it. We want you to knock off money." It is the bane of the lives of those planning local government finance to have central Government intervene regularly and always belatedly. They cannot get on with their jobs, just as health authorities cannot get on with their jobs when, half way through the financial year, there are cuts. The Government, having had the documents on the table for some time, belatedly said that they were not satisfied.
  We either decide as a country and as a Parliament to allow local government to get on with its job, and trust the people involved to do their jobs, or we say that we will not allow them to do so. It is unhealthy to intervene belatedly and it is not in the interests of those who try to carry out their jobs in local government.
  I wish to reaffirm a matter of precedent. I understand that there has been not similar intervention in the past. It is not as though this has always been the way in which the Government have proceeded. They have not always gone back to the GLC and said "We do not like your proposals" — even since the present GLC took over in 1981. I am intrigued as to why, last year, there was not such an intervention, yet this year — when the Government anticipate being able to cap local government rate spending through another Bill, presently in another place — they suddenly need to intervene, especially as it is true that it is not local government but central Government whose expenditure is out of control.
  Those are the matters of principle and I shall be brief about the specifics. It is clear that the effect of the proposal on the areas of budget to be transferred will mean that the Government will be likely to say that they will not authorise the money. There may be some duplication of expenditure, but that is a matter for assessment in each case. The substantial areas that could be affected are those such as housing in London. Former GLC housing stock, having been transferred, needs phenomenal amounts of capital expenditure to improve it to a decent condition that will make the estates ones in which people will want to live.
  Much of London's housing was built at the same time, after the war. It is in need of substantial maintenance. When the property was handed over in 1981—although it was not handed over in Tower Hamlets and in a few other places — money was required for improvement work. Those former GLC estates—now the responsibility of the boroughs — have a continuing GLC commitment, and are liable to be most at risk.
  One substantial estate on the edge of my constituency that borders Lewisham—the Silwood estate—is in an appalling state. It needs money so that it can become a place into which people wish to move rather than a place that people want to leave. The Dicken's estate could be a
  838
  nice estate, as it was originally. In general terms, people make efforts to keep it in a good state, but it needs substantial moneys spending on it. There are estates at the Southwark end of the constituency as well. I shall not trouble the House with many examples, but those are the places where money is needed for capital works that have been budgeted for and that the GLC should be allowed to budget for as the local authority, for the time being, of London.
  To continue to cut back on a budgeted amount and to say that the central Government will decide that housing stocks particularly, but other projects as well, in London will suffer substantially when all hon. Members know that, of all parts of public spending, housing has been the most harmfully affected by the Government and that the housing conditions in London are getting worse day by day, is a particularly unjustified interference in the basic and most obvious need of most Londoners—to have a decent home.
  We oppose the instruction to the Committee for that reason, and I hope that the promise of no intervention and no bringing Members here to vote will mean that we can defeat that instruction later on.
  9 pm
  Mr. Neil Thorne: The Government have an overall responsibility for total expenditure in the public sector and they must retain that control if they are to retain the power to govern. Therefore, it is essential that local government behaves responsibly if requested by central Government to take certain action. I believe that this has been the case for many years and that, until recently, the wishes of central Government have been adhered to by local government without question. It is a relatively new phenomenon, and the Government have had to introduce legislation to ensure that what by convention has happened in the past continues in the future. It is a retrograde step, particularly in a country with an unwritten constitution, that we should be forced into this situation by irresponsibility. This I am afraid may be a sign of the times, but it is not something that I can support.
  If the Government do not take the necessary action that they are called upon to take now, undoubtedly that will mean that certain parts of the country will have to suffer a loss of resources, which will be taken from them to make up for profligate spending elsewhere, to ensure that the Government can retain overall control of the economy. This is an unfortunate state of affairs, and one that has been brought about directly by certain local authorities. Until 1979 it was my experience that, regardless of which Government were in power, if they sent messages to local authorities asking them to trim their budgets in certain ways and by certain amounts there would be negotiations, but at the end of the day the Government would have their way because it is an essential part of our constitution that Parliament is supreme. If we do not have that supremacy in Parliament the Government cannot govern, and to enable them to do so the Government will always have to take the necessary action to introduce the laws that will give them the power to do so.
  The present GLC has earned for itself a reputation of profligacy. It has made it clear time and again that it intends to take every opportunity to sabotage the efforts of the Government in every possible way. This was made plain by the present leader of the GLC when his predecessor, Mr. McIntosh, now Lord McIntosh, was

  839
  pushed from office in the first few days after the present GLC administration came to power. The present leader then said that he was intending to take on the Government in every possible sphere. We have noticed that this extends as far as Northern Ireland, international affairs, defence, anything — name it, and the GLC has an irresistible desire to interfere. That is not what the GLC was set up to do, and it is only right and proper that it is checked to make sure that it behaves in a more responsible way.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will answer a question. How is this measure an interference by the GLC in the Government, as opposed to an interference by the Government in the GLC?
  Mr. Thorne: This, as has already been explained to the hon. Gentleman, is an interference by Back Benchers, not by the Government. I have not been approached by any member of the Government to support such a measure. It is my intention to do so, because I believe that the GLC needs to be brought to account. Therefore, I propose to support my colleagues who have tabled the instruction, and I hope that large numbers of my colleagues will follow them into the Lobby.
  The GLC is a profligate spender. Some people say that it has plans to spend as much as £6 million on advertising its own personal merits.
  Mr. Corbyn: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that all previous GLC money Bills were presented to the House after agreement between the GLC and the Government of the day? The hon. Gentleman will destroy what in the past has been a good working relationship because of his hatred of the GLC, which he has clearly portrayed tonight.
  Mr. Thorne: The hon. Gentleman was not present at the beginning of the debate. If he had been, he would have heard that the GLC intentionally did not come to an agreement with the Government on the matter, which is why it is now running into difficulties.
  Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman speaks as a former member of the GLC. He knows that discussions take place between GLC officers and the Treasury regarding the money Bill. It was not the GLC that withheld information from the Government about capital projects, upon which it wishes to spend money, but the Government who suddenly announced in May that they would seek cuts, after their discussions with the GLC since October.
  Mr. Thorne: The GLC was given every opportunity to trim its budget in accordance with the Government's requests, but it failed to do so. If it behaves in that way, Conservative Members will take a serious view of that behaviour. That conduct would not be entirely surprising. It measures up to what we have come to expect of the GLC during the past three years.
  That is also illustrated by the way in which the GLC has refused to co-operate with Government Departments in providing information on resources. That shows clearly that it intends to take on the Government in every possible sphere and that it believes itself to be above and beyond Parliament. That must be checked, which is why I support this instruction.
  The GLC had an opportunity to put the matter right, but failed to do so. Therefore it has little reason to complain when the current proposals are blocked. As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Sir A. Berry) said, the GLC should come to Parliament for its
  840
  expenditure. It should tell Parliament what it needs, and Parliament should decide whether to approve the GLC money Bill.
  I was one of the hon. Members who was approached by the GLC in 1980 and 1981 for support for the proposal that the GLC should have a separate money Bill. After considerable persuasion that the GLC should be treated as a special case, I supported the issue and spoke in its favour. I am glad to say that although the Minister was not too happy about giving way on that point, he was persuaded by his hon. Friends that it was right and proper to give the GLC its own money Bill, which is what it has. However, to expect the Bill to be endorsed year by year with a rubber stamp is to expect too much of this House.
  Undeniably, some perfectly good schemes are covered by the figures before us today, but I suspect that some of them have been included so that Opposition Members can claim that those projects will be lost if the GLC does not get its way in all respects. That claim is entirely false, as I believe that a number of those worthwhile schemes will proceed in any case.
  However, I take great offence at the comments of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who showed his pure vindictive self when he told the House what would happen to those hon. Members who voted against the Bill. If ever a speech showed how irresponsible GLC members can be, that was it. It shows how right the Government are in saying that the GLC no longer has a role.
  Mr. Corbyn: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Government's attitude in constantly cutting the resources of predominantly Labour-controlled inner city areas through an iniquitous system of penalty clauses on grant-related expenditure formulae and through the rate support grant is itself a vicious act of political spite against the poorest people of this country and the poorest working-class districts in London?
  Mr. Thorne: No, I do not accept that because it is not true.
  Mr. Corbyn: Come and tell that to the people of Islington.
  Mr. Thorne: I have been challenged before to come and say things in hon. Members' constituencies, and I have done so. As I have said, the Government must retain control of the economy and will continue to do so with the support of Conservative Members.
  None of this, however, detracts from my comment about the vindictiveness of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West in describing what would happen to the constituencies of hon. Members who voted against the Bill. It is disgraceful to behave in that way in the House. I believe that is is an affront to Parliament and a challenge to the authority of the House. Indeed, I believe it could be claimed to be a matter of privilege, because hon. Members must be able to speak and vote without fear of vindictive behaviour from those with some petty control elsewhere. Such behaviour is utterly irresponsible. It brings the GLC into disrepute and it brings the behaviour of the friends of such an hon. Member into disrepute. I certainly shall not bow to such behaviour from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West or frorn any other hon. Member.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I do not apologise for one word that I said, but I want the hon. Gentleman to know that I spoke

  841
  as an individual Member of this House and as an individual member of the Greater London Council. I do not apologise. I shall use my influence in just the way that I described.
  Mr. Thorne: We have it again. The House has heard what the hon. Gentleman has to say. He is a man with a certain influence in the GLC and he is determined to behave in the way that he has described. That sums him and his colleagues up very well. We shall see whether his colleagues follow his example. If they do, we shall see how right and proper it was for the Government to seek to get rid of the GLC as soon as possible.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Guy Barnett: I detect a certain air of unreality in this debate. We have listened to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Sir A. Berry) making a Front Bench speech from the Back Benches. The House is supposed to be considering private legislation, but the instruction is clearly a Government instruction. We await with interest the speech of the Under-Secretary of State, because only he can answer many of the questions asked by Opposition Members. We have heard honeyed words from the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate. He tells us that we do not need to worry too much, because the Treasury will use its discretion. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) quoted from a letter from Mr. Fletcher of the Department of the Environment, dated 4 May, which made it clear that only in exceptional cases will money under part IV be made available.
  We are therefore deeply disturbed because we all know — as Conservative Members no doubt also know—of important projects in our constituencies which are likely to be damaged as a consequence of the instruction.
  It is odd that the Government—this is a Government instruction—should think that it is necessary for the Treasury to crawl over projects which the GLC wants to set up. As all hon. Members know, capital projects suggested by local authorities have to be approved, by and large, by the relevant Government Department, whether the Department of Transport or the Department of the Environment, which will approve those projects presumably in terms of priority and various other considerations. I cannot therefore believe that the purpose of the instruction is anything more than to cut expenditure.
  Some speeches from Conservative Members make it clear that they do not like the present leadership of the GLC. Many Opposition Members did not like the leadership of the GLC when it was under Conservative control. However, the Conservatives are reacting in a different way. They wish to limit the GLC's powers to operate as a democratic body, to abolish it, and to interfere with the money Bill that has been presented, or to refuse to negotiate on it in any sensible fashion.
  Many hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall be brief. I want to bring the debate down to the level of the ordinary London electors and the effect that the Government's action is likely to have.
  There is an estate in my constituency which I believe will suffer particularly badly as a consequence of the instruction. It is called the Ferrier estate. The GLC is under a legal obligation to finance major repair and improvement
  842
  works required on dwelling stock which has been transferred from the GLC to the boroughs. Ferrier estate is in precisely that position. It was built by the GLC. The first tenants were moving on to the estate when I was first elected as hon. Member for Greenwich in 1971. Ever since then, that estate has been the subject of complaint and dissatisfaction from its 5,000 residents. People do not want to live there. Because of the serious problems arising from design and technical faults, they long to get away. All the sewers have had to be replaced and all the house drains must be replaced too. Major roof work is needed. There is no play provision. The third floor walkways are a nightmare which give no privacy or security to tenants. The underground garages are a design folly in that there is no protection from theft or vandalism of vehicles. The residents have had to put up with those problems for 13 or 14 years, but I am glad to say that in the past 18 months Greenwich borough council and the GLC have been working together to try to identify some of the major problems which have made the estate a disaster for so many years. The scale of the problem is well known to the Government, and has been for some time. One of the chief objectives of the GLC and Greenwich council is to give tenants on that estate an opportunity to decide what they regard as the priorities. One of the awful facts about large housing schemes that have been adopted in the past is that the people who move to an estate have had no say in how it is designed or what facilities are provided.
  Ms. Harman: My hon. Friend will have heard the speech of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), who said that it is no good throwing money at such estates which suffer from chronic design faults. Does he agree that there is no chance of solving the massive problems on those estates and putting right the terrible design faults that make them uninhabitable without large sums of money—perhaps millions of pounds?
  Mr. Barnett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as she has reminded me of the incredible remarks made by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), who is no longer here. There is no means of improving the environment for people on the Ferrier estate except by spending money. It is easy for Conservative Members to talk about throwing money at the problem, but that is the last thing that Greenwich council or the GLC is doing. We have had long consultations with the tenants and are now ready to make major improvements on the estate.
  I want to make one thing clear to the Minister, as it is a factor that has not been mentioned. At the beginning of the consultation exercise, tenants were completely uninterested and resigned to having to accept their lot for ever. They had been promised improvements before but had not got them, so they asked why should they believe that, this time, anything would be done or anything that they said would be listened to. The officers and elected representatives persisted in trying to persuade them that, at long last, because of the commitment of the Government, the GLC and the borough council, they were being given a chance radically to change their environment and to get some of the facilities that they badly need.
  The only person that can tell me whether the estate is at risk is the Minister. If it is at risk, the result could be devastating social damage. Such hopes as have been raised on the estate and the expectations of its inhabitants because of constant assurances will be destroyed. I can envisage

  843
  the atmosphere there declining weekly as a result of these proposals if, as I believe, they imply a serious risk that commitments that have been made on behalf of the tenants are likely not to be honoured. I, Greenwich council and the GLC believe that the proposals have such an implication.
  I could name other estates in my constituency or in the rest of the borough of Greenwich that are similarly affected. I know that the same is true for the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), and there must be dozens of other cases in the GLC area. If the moral and legal commitment entered into between the GLC and borough councils to recondition, upgrade and correct design faults in estates is not honoured, there will be a tragic loss of confidence in the ability of the Government and local government to do anything to improve the environment, reduce vandalism and enable people to live reasonably comfortable lives.
  Whatever else I might say about the Ferrier estate, the interiors of many homes there are extremely pleasant. A great effort has been made by the tenants in many cases to make nice homes for themselves, but the environment and the design faults mean that it is often impossible for the elderly to live there; facilities are lacking for youngsters and families, and there is a very low state of morale. The letter which I quoted earlier implies that the money is at risk and will be spent only in the most exceptional circumstances. If that is the case, the greatest possible social damage will be done in London, damage that the Government and the Conservative party will rue. Whatever happens when the instruction is passed, I hope that we shall be able to return to this matter after the committee has met.
  I have been handed this evening a petition signed by 718 people who live on the Ferrier estate. This petition was taken round only in the last three days, but there was no difficulty in obtaining signatures. It says that the residents
  "petition all Members of Parliament to ensure that the GLC has adequate resources in this financial year, 1984–85, to guarantee the spending of £2 million needed to carry out essential improvement works on this estate."
  9.26 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): It may be convenient if I intervene at this stage to outline the Government's attitude to the Bill and to the instruction. I begin by echoing what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield. Southgate (Sir A. Berry) in commending the speech of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). How the hon. Member for Holborn and St. pancras manages to reconcile his tribute to county hall today with the view he expressed a few years ago that it was the slowest bureaucracy this side of the Kremlin is a matter between him and his conscience.
  Mr. Dobson: If the Minister were to consider that that remark was passed at the time I was trying to get Sir Horace Cutler's lousy, slow and awful GLC to start doing improvements on the Ossulston estate in my constituency, which it had failed to do for years, he would understand why I am doubtful whether there is a bureaucracy even the other side of the Kremlin as bad as that run by Sir Horace Cutler.
  Sir George Young: The House understands the hon. Member's sensitivity on that quotation which we enjoy
  844
  using in the context of the debates on abolition. The view that he put forward this evening is understandable. He outlined a range of worthwhile social schemes, mainly, it appears, in Conservative constituencies. He made the case that if the instruction was carried those schemes would be abandoned.
  Mr. Dobson: No.
  Sir George Young: He implied as much. He was reinforced by his hon. Friends. The case he made was that where there is an identified need, and where the local authority wishes to meet it by capital expenditure, the Government should not intervene. That was the nub of the case.
  I am not unsympathetic to the problems that we have heard about concerning the tenants on the Ferrier estate and other estates that have been mentioned. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is a generous man and that he would extend to other local authorities the same regime that he apparently proposes for the GLC. No Government, Conservative or Labour, could forgo the control of local authority capital expenditure and subsequently be held responsible for the conduct of the national economy. The capital expenditure of local authorities affects the use of resources, interest rates and personal taxation. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Government should simply accept whatever figure the GLC puts forward, while he may be a staunch supporter of local democracy, that philosophy has grave implications for parliamentary democracy.
  The Government must reserve the right to control local authority capital expenditure. I hope that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras will deal with the remarks made in an intervention by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) who asked why the £25 million which the GLC has earmarked to purchase a leisure centre from Lambeth council could not be used to pay for some other schemes. If the hon. Member has the answer, we shall look forward to hearing it. I think that the sum involved would pay for many of the schemes at risk. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to explain satisfactorily why so many worthwhile schemes are to take second place to the purchase of a recreation centre.
  Mr. Dobson: The council paid not £25 million, but £10 million. The sum was paid last year, so the money is spent.
  Sir George Young: That is not a satisfactory reply because the council has an ability to carry forward unused capital expenditure from one year to the next. The hon. Gentleman must find a better answer if his remarks are to have any credibility.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southgate made an excellent speech. It was more closely related to the matters before the House than that by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. He explained in detail why the convention which has worked up until now has broken down. I shall explain the Government's views on the instruction later.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) said that there was no reason to exempt the GLC from the disciplines imposed on other local authorities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr Jessel) rightly exposed the blackmail by the hon. Member

  845
  for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who took the view that, far from trying to meet need, the GLC should abandon schemes planned for constituencies represented by Conservatives. It would be equally logical, and unfair, for the Government to say that taxpayers in Newham should not have the benefit of tax reductions made possible by the Government's economic strategy because their Members of Parliament opposed the economic strategy. That would be totally unfair and wrong. We have no intention of doing that, but the hon. Member's views are equally illogical and unfair.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir George Young: The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) will be able to make his speech in a moment.
  The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) tabled an amendment to the instruction. It would be odd for the House to instruct the Committee to determine the criteria to be used by the Treasury when considering applications by the GLC without giving the Committee guidance on the criteria that it might use.
  My Department has already told the GLC the criteria that any Government would be bound to have in mind. The letter which has been quoted warned that Treasury consent to the use of part IV, in whole or in part, would not necessarily be forthcoming. The instruction of my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate sets out the level of spending which the Government believe to be appropriate. My Department's letter explained that the Government would be likely to change their view about the appropriate level of spending only if, for example, an additional allocation were agreed for the Thames barrier or if it were possible to obtain extra resources for local authorities generally. In view of that, it would be inappropriate to ask the Committee to draw up criteria.
  The Treasury will consider applications carefully, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate said, but it must pay close attention to the level of local spending generally.
  It has been alleged that the Department had adequate notice of the proposed capital expenditure level because of the GLC's announcement of its spending plans in November last year. The plans published last autumn were provisional capital spending plans, subject to consultation. I welcome such public consultation, but, by definition, the proposals were not final. It would have been wrong for the Department to act upon them as if they were. Indeed, the proposals for housing and transport expenditure were substantially lower when submitted to my Department responding to allocations submitted in December. It would have been a waste of time for us to consider proposals before they were firmed up—that is, until the GLC considered that the proposals were ready to send to my Department. The proposals were put to us in February and are before us in the Bill.
  It is unprecedented in recent years for the GLC to come to the House without taking account of the Government's view of the appropriate level of spending, and I very much regret that the convention has not been maintained.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) expressed some surprise that there is a Whip on the Treasury Bench. There is always a Whip on the
  846
  Treasury Bench. They are part of the furniture. The Whips spend far more time in the House than members of the SDP-Liberal alliance.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I asked not why there was a Whip on the Treasury Bench but for an assurance that the debate was not the subject of intervention by Government Whips. I suspect that Whips will be present even on the Opposition Benches, although sometimes recently it has seemed as if the Whips do not exist.
  Sir George Young: My hon. Friends have already answered the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question about whether a Whip was on tonight. The hon. Gentleman will have heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) said earlier. My hon. Friend, who is a former member of the GLC, outlined the convention that has worked well until now. As I have said, the convention broke down because the Bill was tabled on 25 April in a form that was known to be totally unacceptable to the Government. Indeed, the correspondence relating to it has already been referred to.
  There is much about the GLC that the Government cannot support. We do not support its behaviour or attitudes or the profligacy of its current spending. We see no reason for the continued existence of a body that fails to justify the costs that it imposes upon our ratepayers. As hon. Members well know, we are proposing to bring a Bill before the House shortly to abolish the GLC, along with the metropolitan county councils, from 1986. Those are not, however, the issues before the House this evening.
  We are concerned with providing for the GLC's capital expenditure during the present financial year and, to a lesser extent, in the first six months of the ensuing financial year, which, on our present plans would be the last year of the council's existence. The issue tonight is not whether the GLC is needed to carry out its limited remaining functions, but rather the need to provide for the level of capital spending that is appropriate for those functions still falling to the council.
  The Government believe that the provision that the GLC seeks in the Bill is more than what is appropriate. My hon. Friend the Member for Southgate has already spoken about his instruction, on which we shall vote later this evening, and which asks the Committee to reduce the provision. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing forward proposals with which I find myself in complete sympathy. [Interruption.] It is a convention, honoured by all parties, that the Government do not table amendments to a private Bill. However, I am delighted that the figure that commended itself to my hon. Friend when he tabled his instruction bears a close resemblance to some of the figures in correspondence between my Department and the GLC.
  In past years when the Government have made representations to the GLC about the level of its proposed capital expenditure it has reduced it, recognising that the Government have a role in fixing overall capital expenditure. This year, however, the GLC has not responded.
  Mr. Spearing: Can the Minister refute the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) that the levels of spending requested by the GLC were not remarkably greater this year than in

  847
  previous years? Will the Minister also deal with the point about the 52 per cent. discretionary expenditure before he completes his reply?
  Sir George Young: The 52 per cent. figure was produced by the GLC. The reduction that we sought was £46 million, which is 9 per cent. of the £510 million proposed capital expenditure that was sought in the Bill. The 52 per cent. is the GLC's own figure. Whether the next year's figure is committed or discretionary, it is still money and makes claims on the resources of the economy. The Government must consider the totality of expenditure in any one year.
  The GLC drew up its own plans internally, subsequent to the negotiations that I have referred to, as to how it might cope with such a reduction if necessary, and then came to the Government with a list of all the projects that would be unable to proceed. Indeed, we have heard about some of them tonight. But it is for the council itself to decide which projects it will proceed with and which not, within the provision that is available. The Government's chief interest is in the overall provision and we simply do not believe that the spending proposed by the GLC is affordable within the available national resources.
  As to the surplus provision, I readily acknowledge that the undertakings that the GLC has given in previous years have held good. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate has said, it is not really logical or sensible to have a Bill that purports to say how much the GLC may spend on certain things but which actually contains figures that are quite different. Frankly, that is an unnecessary idiosyncrasy in a rather complicated system, and we should have removed it before now.
  I welcome the instruction that my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate proposes should be given to the Committee, but opposition to the particular figures included in the schedule to the Bill should not mean opposition to the passage of the Bill as a whole. It would, in fact, create considerable difficulty if the Bill, whether in its present form or some amended form, did not pass.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has emphasised that, under the unique procedure that governs the Bill, the GLC is dependent on the approval of Parliament for all its capital expenditure and lending — including undeniably desirable schemes as well as some of the more dubious indulgences that we have heard about from my hon. Friends tonight. Therefore, it is important that the Bill should proceed, and I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading. But thereafter I invite hon. Members to look very closely at the levels of spending that are proposed in the Bill. I commend to the House the instruction to the Committee and invite hon. Members to send the Bill to the Committee with a clear expression of the wish of the whole House as to the way in which it should be amended.
  Mr. John Fraser: Before the Minister sits down, will he say what the Treasury's attitude will be towards any requests for approvals under part IV of the Bill?
  Sir George Young: With respect, I explained at some length the position on part IV of the Bill. It was outlined in some detail in the letter that has been quoted, and I assume that the hon. Gentleman has it. The position is as set out in that letter, and in what I have just said, and I have nothing to add to those statements.
  9.43 pm
  Mr. John Fraser: The Prime Minister has had many nicknames, such as the Iron Maiden and She Who Must Be Obeyed. She could be given one other nickname—Knight Nurse. On the Order Paper, an instruction stands in the name of a knight, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Sir A. Berry), supported by a knight from Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), supported by another knight from Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), all of whom are of recent creation by the right hon. Lady. Indeed, she gives away knighthoods like some people give away valium tablets, in order to deal with problems of anxiety and stress on her Benches. Tonight, that has clearly paid off. Those three knights will be supported by other recent creations in the form of the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins), the hon. Members for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), and for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark), the former hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Sir A. Grant) and so on.
  Sir Anthony Berry: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House just how many peers, who were once leaders of the GLC, voted with the Labour party last night in the other place?
  Mr. Fraser: I cannot give the exact number, but the Prime Minister's recent creations make Harold Wilson look rather parsimonious in his patronage. The right hon. Lady's policy is clearly paying off.
  There have been protestations about the fact that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate apparently produces stuff from the Treasury arid the Department of the Environment by means of extrasensory perception. I did not know that he could count up to £123 million before. It seems quite clear that there has been a shabby compromise between the hon. Gentleman and some of It s colleagues—although others have been left in ignorance — in order to put a case to the House that the Government did not dare to put themselves.
  As I said in an intervention, the hon. Gentleman's record on such matters goes back some way. Perhaps he will tell the House in an intervention about an episode when he wrote to the Prime Minister, when Lambeth borough council wanted to develop a large area of land that had once been a children's home at Shirley Oaks in Croydon. That land would have provided many homes that were badly needed by Londoners particularly in the inner city. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will confirm that he wrote a letter to the Prime Minister in about 1981 urging her Government not to give any approval for that kind of housing development in Croydon in case it disturbed the political balance on the borders of Lambeth. That is one example of the kind of shabby arrangements which the hon. Gentleman is willing to enter into. The instruction to the Committee is a similar shabby conspiracy between stooge Back Benchers who are sort of sub-contracted hit boys tonight for the people who normally engage in the assassination of the independence of local government.
  Sir Anthony Berry: I would never use the phrase "stooge Back Bencher" about any colleague in the House. I have been a Member of the House for 19 years, and I object strongly to that phrase. I ask the hon. Gentleman, as a decent honourable Member with whom I have had relations for many years, to withdraw that charge.
  Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman has not had relations with me for many years, but if what I have said gives offence, I withdraw it. However, the hon. Gentleman is carrying a case from the Back Benches which ought to have been put in the first place from the Front Bench. Indeed, although I withdraw the word "stooge" if the hon. Gentleman finds it objectionable, the vocabulary of his speech was not that of a Back Bencher but of a Department of the Environment brief. It worried me because it confirmed some of the things tht I have been asking the Department of the Environment about for some time. He used words such as "the need for careful monitoring of local authorities' capital programmes during the coming year." That is the vocabulary of the Front Bench. He was using Department of the Environment words which are precursors of a possible moratorium on capital expenditure which is likely to be announced by the Government in the forthcoming year.
  Outer London Conservative Members have put up this operation because of the open disagreement between the Government who want to abolish the GLC and the GLC because that way it is less embarrassing. The instruction means that less money will be available for the disadvantaged, the disturbed, ethnic minorities and those who are poorly housed.
  Let me give some examples. A housing association scheme in a road which I share with the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) is to lose £800,000. It is hardly a militant, immoderate scheme to give £800,000 to the Hyde housing association for a development in Croxted road on the borders of the Norwood and Dulwich constituencies. That is not immoderacy, mindless militancy or irresponsibility; it is worthwhile for the people whom we both represent. But it could be put at risk by the instruction which is being put forward by the hon. Member for Southgate.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I hope that at some stage during the course of his speech the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us information about the Lambeth recreation and sports centre in the borough which he represents. Can he give us the increase in the costs, details of the deal with the GLC, and whether there is a sale-back arrangement in prospect and if so when it is to take place?
  Mr. Fraser: I like doing this during every GLC debate. There are two former Lambeth borough councillors in the House who are partly responsible for that. One is the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and the other is the Under-Secretary of State who were Lambeth borough councillors in 1968. They were party to what turned out to be a scheme which makes Versailles look like a workhouse in cost terms. The Conservative council of Lambeth represented by two hon. Members here tonight, was sold a booby by a large construction firm which went to Conservative councillors in Lambeth and said, "We will build you a sports centre. Don't worry boys, we shall build it without any profit at all. It will just be a cost-plus contract." The Tories fell for it. Admittedly, the Labour council had to take the scheme over because it was unable to get out of it. The cost escalated. I agree that if Louis XIV had found himself in Lambeth instead of Paris and had wanted to spend a lot of money, he would have gone for the Lambeth sports centre. That expenditure occurred because of the profligacy, extravagance and bad judgment of people such as the Under-Secretary of State and the Government Whip.
  Mr. Bottomley: The House knows all that. The questions that I put to the hon. Gentleman were: what was the cost of completing that centre? What has the GLC paid or agreed to pay for it? Does the GLC intend to sell it back to the Lambeth borough council? When will that deal occur?
  Mr. Fraser: I do not know about the completion, because it has become almost a tradition that the centre is never completed. I believe that, at the last count, the capital cost was £12 million or £15 million, and the accumulated interest payable is high. In financial terms, the centre has proved to be a disaster, but the facility is likely to be used more widely than by the people from Lambeth. In the same way as the Crystal Palace sports centre is assisted by the GLC, assistance for the Lambeth sports centre will be provided by the GLC. Frankly, I do not know whether the GLC bought the centre, but it has turned out to be far more expensive than anyone anticipated. As the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) knows, we are both Lambeth ratepayers, and Ken Livingstone has done us both a favour by bailing us out of the misjudgments originally made by people such as the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. I am sorry to have been interrupted on those matters.
  The effect of the instruction will be to put at risk housing association schemes shared by the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) and myself. It will put at risk £53,000 for a day nursery in Knight's hill in my constituency, where it is badly needed. The instruction will put at risk £105,000 for the Brixton neighbourhood community association for a scheme that would involve advice and training facilities and other welfare matters. That £105,000 was to go to a body operating at the heart of where the riots broke out in 1981. I can give many other examples in my constituency and others.
  I shall concentrate on some wider matters. The cuts that will flow from the instruction amount, as many hon. Members have said, to 52 per cent. of all new capital start. That is bad news for London and for the construction industry. That is why the instruction should be withdrawn.
  Another plan to be put at risk involves my constituency and those of many other hon. Members in which housing estates were compulsorily handed by the GLC to the London boroughs because of Government orders in 1982. The Tulse hill estate in my constituency could be affected. In the lead-up to the handover to those authorities, the GLC was forced to hand the estates to the boroughs, but the boroughs organised so as to get a commitment from the GLC and the central Government that there would be a 10-year improvement programme for the housing they were taking over. Otherwise, the position would be like the Brixton recreation centre in reverse — the GLC would be handing over an increasing financial burden to many hard-pressed and deprived London boroughs.
  The GLC and the central Government made a commitment that the cost of improvements to the estates would be funded over 10 years by the GLC. The GLC willingly agreed to that plan. It is estimated that the cost of those renovations will be about £1,000 million. The only way in which that provision can be made in the proper time is by capital that has been raised by the GLC. If one looks only at the way in which the Government control housing expenditure in London, there is no way that those commitments can ever be met.

  851
  In 1984–85, the GLC sought the modest housing investment programme of £250 million, of which it budgeted to spend £152 million on the renovation of former GLC estates. Although it applied for £250 million, the Government allowed it £85 million on an HIP for all its housing needs, that being part of £1,000 million to be spread over 10 years for the renovation of its estates. With capital receipts, the GLC was able to put aside £91 million for estate renovation but the paucity of the money that it has been able to provide as a result of its capital programme and HIP allocations means that many thousands of Londoners living in former GLC estates will be under sentence to live in dull, damp and insanitary conditions, conditions that need to be improved. Some people are condemned to live on estates which have turned out to be like Dante's inferno.
  The result of the instruction is to impose that sentence on many thousands of Londoners. The result of the instruction is to break a convention that was long established in the House. The effect of the instruction will be to break faith with many thousands who are poorly housed in London and who rely upon a commitment which was given by the GLC and the Government jointly. If the hon. Member for Southgate feels proud of that, he can feel proud of anything.
  9.57 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) spoke about the Ferrier estate. I hope that I shall be allowed to spend a short time talking about the estate, because for a time part of it was in my previous consituency of Woolwich, West. The hon. Gentleman and I, with the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), attended a meeting held by the Greenwich council and the GLC on the possible impact of tonight's business on improvements to housing stock transferred from the GLC to Greenwich.
  I became the Member for Woolwich, West in 1975. I found that part of my constituency was part of the Ferrier estate, which contained 5,000 people and had for five years no post office, no pub, no church or chapel and no recreation facilities. There was nowhere within three quarters of a mile in which anyone could set up the smallest business. It was a sterile area which was lived in by many decent people who kept the inside of their homes in perfect order but who were condemned to live in a ghastly environment outside their own front door. Who condemned them to live in those conditions? It was the GLC.
  The GLC was taking decisions on building programmes which were condemning Londoners to a miserable life. I have no doubt that we all take some blame for that. The idea of large-scale redevelopment was perhaps a bipartisan policy which was encouraged by successive Governments and implemented by successive GLC administrations. However, the lessons were obvious in 1975 and the present GLC administration came into County hall in 1981. We are talking about a programme which starts at least three years after that. If the programmes were of the highest priority, which I was arguing they were at the time when I was responsible, the GLC could have acted substantially more quickly.
  One example of a possible GLC capital cut which was left out of the litany of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is the Rochester way relief road. The GLC and its friend, the Greenwich council, are now
  852
  saying, "If the instruction is passed, the Rochester way relief road"—it will bring great relief to my constituents in Eltham—"might not be completed as planned."
  If the GLC had had the chance, it would have cancelled the Rochester way relief road, but it is now putting at forward as one of the highest priorities in its programme which is under threat by the instruction. The GLC's ability to swing round on a turntable within months if not years is amply demonstrated by that example.
  We have heard, perhaps ad nauseam, about the democratic accountability of the GLC. Two issues followed from that. The first issue is the Lambeth sports centre. Throughout most of the debate there has been about 30 per cent. of the London Parliamentary Labour party in the Chamber. Not one of those Labour Members has given any substantial details of the proposed or past deal between the GLC and the London borough of Lambeth over the Brixton recreation centre.
  If the GLC was democratically accountable, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who heard my original intervention, would have stood up and said those were the facts. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) who is promoting the Bill on behalf of the GLC, would have given the information straightaway. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) would also have been able to give the information. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) would have been able to give the advice to the hon. Gentleman who now seeks it. However, he will not get it from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, because he did not have the full information.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,

  Greater London Council (Money) (No. 2) Bill
    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    That the Greater London Council (Money) (No. 2) Bill and any Motion for an Instruction relating to the Bill and proceedings arising from the Lords Message [11th May] relating to the Housing and Building Control Bill may continue until any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

  Greater London Council (Money) (No. 2) Bill (By Order)
  Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Mr. Bottomley: This is a deal which may amount to £10 million, or perhaps a gross £25 million, which may have taken place last year, or it may take place in future—a large deal whether it is £10 million or a greater sum—regarding which the London Parliamentary Labour party has not a clue as to what has happened. If the hon. Member for Newham, North-West can give the information to the House now, I shall willingly give way to him, but if he does not have the details I suggest that he stays where he is and sends me the information later.
  Mr. Tony Banks:: I was out of the Chamber when my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) was speaking. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the matter he now raises relates to last year's capital expenditure, not to this year's. It is irrelevant to the consideration of the Bill.
  Mr. Bottomley: So it turns out that the 10 members of the London Parliamentary Labour party did not know that a £10 million deal had been done last year.
  Ms. Harman: My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said it.
  Mr. Bottomley: It is no use the hon. Lady claiming from a sedentary position that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said it all along, because Hansard will show that he did not, and in the first 20 minutes of his speech he was unable to given any information about it. The claims to democratic accountability have been shown not to stand up to examination. This £10 million deal was hidden from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, and appears not to have been known to most people in London. [Interruption.] The shouts and cries from the Opposition Benches are a demonstration of trying to cover up their ignorance with noise.
  I deal next with whether the GLC could use discretionary money for the high priority projects for which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West has promised to use his endeavours, as a Member of the House and as a member of the GLC, to penalise those voters who, after the last GLC election, elected Conservative members. I think that I summarise his diatribe fairly accurately.
  If any Member of Parliament, or any member of the GLC, believes that he can go in for this kind of hybrid procedure, and say, "If you do not vote for us we shall not treat London-wide issues on a priority basis determined by need, but will do it according to the way in which you chose to vote in other elections," that demonstrates that the people of London have rumbled the Parliamentary Labour party in London and the GLC Labour party in London, and that is why last year they turned overwhelmingly to elect Conservative Members. That is why I suspect that the results which the Labour party gets in elections in London will get worse.
  The more the hon. Member for Newham, North-West smiles when he finds that some of his remarks are picked up, the more he will discover that in matters concerning London he would do better to devote himself to the interests of London as a whole as a Member of Parliament, rather than to the interests of Londoners, partly determined by which way they voted. He offers the kind of threat to Londoners which I believe should be condemned by his Front Bench and by all who hear his words tonight or in the future.
  I am willing to say to the people of Greenwich, who will suffer from living on the Ferrier estate and such places, that I shall make representations to the Department of the Environment and to the Treasury about the sort of schemes that are clearly of benefit, whichever way people vote, so that those schemes are approved.
  It is reasonable for the Government to require the GLC to stop spending discretionary money and capital money on what might be called political jobs for the boys. The hon. Member for Norwood made fun of a letter about Lambeth building homes in Croydon. I do not know whether he has read the biography of Herbert Morrison, which showed that the whole plan of the London Labour party was to build Labour majorities into constituency after constituency. If that is all right for Morrison, it is all right for Lambeth and Croydon. We must have some balance in the way in which we deal with these matters.
  We have heard about the £10 million for the Lambeth sports centre. We know about the £3 million to £6 million spent on Labour party propaganda on the future of the GLC. If it is high priority to spend money on capital
  854
  projects, the GLC should decide immediately to stop paying the political campaigns and to begin using that money — which it legally and legitimately can — on worthwhile projects within the London area. If it will not stop its paid campaign, we can only draw the conclusion that it believes that that is a higher priority than spending money on the practical schemes that it puts forward on a night like this when we are discussing London's needs and the way to meet some of the capital programmes.
  I want to refer to two ILEA issues. The reason why ILEA spends more on heat and light per pupil than other authorities is that not one head teacher to whom I have spoken knows what his fuel bill is. They have no control over it. If we want to build inside lavatories at Henwick primary school, it is possible for ILEA to economise to pay for that.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras used the example of St. Mary's Roman Catholic primary school in my constituency. If he came to my constituency and read the local press, he would realise that that school is proposing to move to an old convent. The planning issue about the site of the school is not whether the children's lavatories should be indoors or outdoors, but whether the Co-op or Sainsburys should have permission to build on the site. If that is the best example that the GLC can use when briefing the hon. Gentleman, it should start again.
  The GLC has the ability to spend about £500 million on its capital programme this year. If it cannot carry through some parts of that programme, it has a reasonable case either to adjust its priorities or to put a case to the Government. It could have had the money Bill passed without controversy if it had done a deal with the Treasury. But that required open discussion with the Treasury, which, clearly, the GLC would not have.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends would be right to support the instruction and to continue to try to persuade the GLC to meet the needs of Londoners rather than the needs of the Labour party in London.
  10.8 pm
  Mr. Laurie Pavitt: The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), like so many other Conservative Members, has displayed the political bias that animates the instruction put forward by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Sir A. Berry). I wish that the Prime Minister had the same confidence as the hon. Member for Eltham when he spoke about the way that Londoners might react and said that there would be many Tory victories. If the Prime Minister had that confidence, the election for the GLC would be held and Londoners could make their choice.
  The instruction is part of the Government's determination that more and more power should move into central Government hands. The disciplines that have been called for by Conservative Members are available. We should go ahead with the elections when they are due rather than having a paving Bill that prevents them from taking place and this would provide the discipline.
  My concern about the instruction follows a number of other aspects of this Government taking power into their own hands and interfering with sensible planning at local government level. I take the typical example of another sphere where action similar to this instruction took place, the National Health Service. After only three months of last year, when estimates had been approved by the regional health authorities, the Government intervened

  855
  and cut budgets. Not only did they make cuts in my region of about £8 million to £9 million, but at the same time they decided the level of employment and how many redundancies should take place. It is because the instruction causes so much uncertainty that I hope that the House will not accept it.
  I have a regard for the hon. Member for Southgate because of the time when he was the Friday Whip. I know something of the problems of a Friday Whip, having been one myself for some years. However, we are suspicious. Anybody who has been in the House for any length of time can recognise a brief being read. The hon. Gentleman read it admirably, although much too quickly, but the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northwood (Mr. Fraser) was correct. We recognised the brief and it would have been more honest if it had been read on behalf of the Government by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who is the Minister.
  Like many other hon. Members, I shall express my concern on a constituency basis. The fact that £43 million will be subject to far more direct control without the opportunity of discussion means that there are a number of things in my inner city area that will be at risk. The GLC makes its decisions, whether they are approved of by hon. Members or not. There are people sitting on the GLC who represent my constituency and know what is going on. The dead hand of the Treasury knows nothing about my constituency—its members have computer-like brains. I remember a phrase used by the late Nye Bevin, who talked about desiccated calculating machines. I sometimes think that the Treassury is manned by desiccated calculating machines.
  The real problems concern ethnic areas such as mine. As the House knows, 46 per cent. of the families in the London borough of Brent are black. That means that in areas such as Brixton, Toxteth and Harlesden we have big problems. The GLC has a continuing programme of one of the finest efforts to prevent the flaring up that is so possible to avoid racial tension. A few years ago the black community was able to start a project, which was supported by the Government to the extent of £600,000, by the GLC to the extent of £700,000, and by the local borough. There are now 19 co-operatives, small businesses being established at a disused London Transport bus depot, and all kinds of community projects are now initiated in a high rise blcok area which has been called a concrete jungle. It is such capital expenditure that the instruction is putting at risk. One cannot suddenly stop proceeding on schemes that have 10 years' growth rate by threatening that the capital that is necessary to keep it going will not be there.
  I can give examples of the amount of capital expenditure that we received from the GLC last year. For example, we have the Vale Farm recreation centre, which received £240,000 and the Willesden sports centre, which received £282,000. In my area, when we get to July, some 80 per cent. of the school leavers will be black and, because of the high incidence of unemployment, these youngsters will be on the street and on the dole. Those two projects alone provide a social service. If they are put at risk, it more than puts at risk the building or facility. It will break into the heart of active community participation, especially when the economic position is serious. The sum
  856
  for the Harlesden People's Community Council — the heart of the Caribbean area—was £75,000. There is also the Stonebridge Community Nursery, which is necessary for young mothers going to work.
  There are peripheral things in the capital expenditure provision, for example, the need in the transport division to stop the mugging of bus conductors in what is called the Kilburn triangle. The GLC requires cash for such a project, but nobody knows where that project will rank when Treasury officials decide to examine the £43 million, or which projects will no longer be available.
  Since the Government came to power in 1979, they have made great play of the importance of voluntary work alongside the statutory obligations of local government and central Government. All hon. Members seek to promote the maximum amount of voluntary organisation, whether for the disabled or another sector of the community in need. Last year the GLC were able to give £867,000 from their capital funds to 44 separate organisations for capital buildings, which might be needed. As a result we received £2·4 million. For an inner-city area built up during the reign of Queen Victoria with many educational and housing problems, if any help, which the GLC in co-operation with the London boroughs can give, is put at risk, it wilt result in a calamity.
  Hon. Members mentioned how this instruction could affect the rehabilitation and refurbishing of housing. In my constituency we are spending £30,000 a week for bed and breakfast for the homeless. The waiting list for council housing is 15,000. We have bodies such as the Paddington Churches Housing Association and the Brent People's Housing Association. The Paddington Churches Housing Association has a programme for 12 renovations, which will house some of those families, which costs £320,000 providing the GLC comes up with the cash. If the instruction is passed, will Kensal Rise not get its refurbished housing?
  Kilburn also has inner-city problems. The Kilburn Central Improvement Area will require a considerable sum, which the London borough of Brent and the GLC are combining to provide. The housing lists cannot cope with more people, and if further inroads are made, it would be disastrous for the housing position.
  Decisions should be taken at local level with local understanding and yielding to local pressures. That is where the money Bill of the GLC should be dealt with. The hon. Member for Enfield, South (Sir A. Berry) seeks to take into Whitehall and Government offices power from local hands, where it should be. Most of us are constituency Members and do our surgeries on Saturday mornings. We have to withstand many pressures. I thank God for the help of the GLC with my housing cases and the attempt to establish an integrated multiracial community. Without the capital building and other capital expenditure involved there would be riots instead of a harmonious community in my area.
  Therefore, despite the assurances that we have heard, as an ex-Whip I have no doubt that the vote tonight on the instruction will no more be a free vote than the instruction was a sudden inspiration on the part of Conservative Back Benchers without any collusion or collaboration by the Department of the Environment or the Government. It is a squalid trick and I hope that it will be rejected.
  10.20 pm
  Mr. Richard Tracey: It is an honour to fulfil my responsibilities as a Back-Bench Member by assisting in devising and tabling an instruction which I hope will receive wide support from my hon. Friends and perhaps from some Opposition Members.
  I do not know whether I am supposed to follow the practice of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Sir A. Berry) in congratulating the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on moving the Bill, but I am afraid that I cannot do so. Despite his constant reference to projects which "could" or "might" be at risk, the hon. Gentleman's speech was blatant scaremongering and the kind of gross overstatement that we have come to expect from him at times. Furthermore, it is arrogant to suggest to any hon. Member that we are here merely to rubber stamp proposals sponsored by the Greater London Council.
  Ms. Harman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tracey: No. The hon. Lady will have her chance in due course and no doubt she will take it.
  I was elected by my constituents in Surbiton to exercise such reasonable control as I could over expenditure. The Instruction tabled by Conservative Back Benchers attempts to exercise such reasonable control We do not intend to be parties to the kind of trade-off referred to by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras with the Department of the Environment, the Treasury and the GLC. We regard this as a very serious matter. That is why we put down the Instruction.
  We have had a useful and lengthy debate on London matters. I am sure that the Opposition welcome that.
  Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tracey: Having listened to a very long speech from the hon. Gentleman, I intend to put my views as briefly as possible and to allow some of his hon. Friends to have their say.
  The Opposition have suggested many times that when the GLC has been abolished London matters will not be fully and properly discussed in the House, as we believe that they will. Today's debate provided a good opportunity to discuss various matters of capital expenditure in a full, meaningful and informed way. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), however, that we have still failed to extract information on the deal done in Lambeth about the sports centre and I am dissatisfied about that. Indeed, I should be prepared to continue for many hours attempting to extract that information if I thought that we would actually obtain the facts that we seek. It is indeed possible to debate London matters in some depth and in a meaningful way, although we were requested at the beginning of the debate simply to follow the old practice — to do a trade-off and to rubber-stamp the Bill. My hon. Friends have no intention of doing that. We are simply following a line which, as I understand from a letter that I received yesterday from an officer of the GLC, is perfectly reasonable. He wrote on behalf of the director-general of the GLC and said:
  "Part IV of the schedule is a general contingency provision to meet, but only with Treasury consent, any further expenditure over and above the sum total of Parts I, II and III of the schedule".
  858
  There we are. This is a general contingency provision which requires Treasury consent. I welcome the fact that the Treasury will be able to exercise a view over part IV.
  However, it is clear that the GLC will be able to put its arguments for the various capital requirements to the Treasury. If it makes a full-scale, perfect case, it will get the money. None of my hon. Friends would deny that the GLC will have a full chance to make a case. The GLC does not like to have to make a case. It would prefer people to accept bland statements and half-promises without challenge. The GLC will find that requests of that sort will not be granted by my hon. Friends tonight.
  Ms. Harman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tracey: The hon. Lady will have her chance in a moment. We will listen to her as attentively as we always do.
  The GLC will simply have to make a rather better case than it has in the past.
  I have been in consultation with the leading Conservative members in County Hall, with whom we always work closely. I understand from them that there is plenty of scope for savings in what the GLC has included in the Bill. I will detail one or two of the suggestions. They may give Opposition Members, who may not have had the privilege of consulting my colleagues on the Conservative benches on the other side of the river, food for thought.
  The GLC wants £10 million for the industry and employment policy. I understand that over £2 million of that is for training centres for the unemployed which will duplicate or even challenge the work of the Manpower Services Commission. There is no need to provide money to duplicate what the MSC is already doing.
  Further capital is wanted for industrial developments which ought to be privatised. I know that privatisation is not entirely accepted by Opposition Members, but it is a real possibility for projects such as the Battlebridge Basin near King's Cross and, of course, the Wandsworth gasworks site which has become a fairly well-known landmark.
  Mr. Alfred Dubs: What is the hon. Gentleman talking about?
  Mr. Tracey: The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) is very vocal about such matters in the local papers. Although he has not been in the Chamber for long and may not have given the matter much thought, I look forward to hearing his views in the normal way rather than from a sedentary position.
  Funding for community projects most of which are for bodies of which there has been much criticism or which are not genuine London bodies could be reduced by £400,000. One is the Ethiopian World Federation—very relevant to the citizens and ratepayers of London. The Greenwich Women's Centre is another. It is perfectly reasonable that Greenwich council might like to support that centre, but I fail to see why such capital expenditure should be provided by Greater London ratepayers.
  The next item concerns grants to community area groups and docklands. I realise that this matter might be sensitive and touch the nerves of hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). It is becoming well known that such groups are becoming what might be described as surrogate Labour party supporting groups that do not fulfil the purpose that

  859
  they ought to fulfil. I had a useful letter this morning from a body that calls itself the Campaign for Homes in Central London—CHICL—which sets out some of the groups that might suffer from the instruction. One, from Hammersmith, is called People Before Profit. It does not sound as though it supports the objectives of the Conservative party. No doubt the hon. Member for Battersea will have something to say about the Battersea Redevelopment Action Group. Anyone who drives through Battersea will know that one of the most active operations of that action group—BRAG for short—is to spoil the scenery by flyposting every building and fence in Battersea. Apparently it might suffer from our proposals. Anoher is the Joint Docklands Action Group. I know of business men who are trying to redevelop docklands to bring wealth and enterprise to them. Apparently that action group does all that it can to frustrate, criticise and prevent such work.
  Mr. Terry Dicks: Will my hon. Friend add to that list the community newspaper in my constituency, which has been arranged by the deputy leader of the GLC, so that an extreme left-wing case is advanced to ensure that he is selected as the parliamentary candidate in Hayes and Harlington at the next general election? That is a blatant misuse of ratepayers' money for his personal political ambitions.
  Mr. Tracey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is perceptive on these matters. He seems to have stirred up a little private grief on the other side of the House.
  The GLC's request mentions proposed new-build worth nearly £1 million. I am told by my Conservative friends on the other side of the river that that is unnecessary as the new-build programme should be with the boroughs or the private sector. I understood that housing responsibilities had been passed from the GLC to the boroughs, and rightly so. Another item is housing association acquisitions worth £1·5 million. I am told that that is also unnecessary as the housing Corporation is responsible for such matters. The South Bank development is unnecessary, pending a review of the operation of the South Bank and its proposed transfer to the Arts Council. I could give many more examples. They are solid reasons for Conservative Members believing that there is much irrelevant capital request in the Bill. It is the type of thing that the Treasury should examine as the Treasury has overall responsibility for the economy.
  It is quite clear that, by tabling the instruction, Conservative Back Benchers have hit a raw nerve among Opposition Members. If they seriously thought that they would get a rubber stamp from us, they were much mistaken. I hope that my hon. Friends will join me in the Lobby to pass this instruction to the Committee.
  10.35 pm
  Mr. Ron Leighton: Although one might not have thought it from the speech of the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), this Bill is about capital expenditure. The GLC has to come to Parliament to get authorisation for its capital expenditure. It is the only local authority that has to do so
  It has been the practice since 1963 for talks and negotiations to take place between officers of the council and officials of the Department of the Environment. When agreement has been reached, the Government have assured
  860
  the passage of the Bill through the House. Of course, some Back Benchers have formally opposed the Bill to get a debate on London. That we all understand, but what is happening today is completely different. There was no agreement and the Government, by a completely transparent device of putting down a so-called instruction to the Committee, are opposing the Bill. They have succeeded in dragooning some of their Back Benchers to do their work for them. When I asked the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Sir A. Berry) whether he was speaking for the Government or as a Back Bencher, he said that I would understand what he was doing. Of course, I understand completely. There is no precedent for what has happened. This is not what usually happens.
  We have to ask why the Government are taking this step. It is because they are carrying out what I can only describe as a vendetta against London. They are giving full rein to their spite and malice. They have taken away over recent years many hundreds of thousands of pounds of rate support grant to London. This is the reason for the rate increases we have had. The enmity is now reaching hysterical proportions. This authoritarian Government cannot tolerate dissent. If the people of London have the temerity to vote Labour, then, in an act of petulance, the Government will abolish the GLC. If the public are likely at the next elections to vote against abolition, then the Government will abolish the elections.
  The malice is being taken to further extremes. Effectively the Government are taking over the running of the GLC by taking control of the GLC's finances. They are acting as though they were already in charge and had already put their commissioners into county hall. The Government are making a pre-emptive strike. It is a form of pre-emptive abolition of the GLC. In effect the Government are imposing direct rule on the GLC's capital expenditure 12 months before the GLC is abolished. I find this behaviour appalling. There is not a scrap of justification for it. There is no claim of irresponsibility on the part of the GLC. In fact, the reverse is true.
  I know it is not the custom in this House to quote speeches in the other place, but if Conservative Members would like to read the speech made by Lord Bellwin yesterday they will find that he almost thought of it as a dirty trick on the part of the GLC that it was not increasing rates but reducing them this year by 7·5 per cent. The Government are tearing up the rule book that has governed the conventions in these matters. They are saying that the GLC must break the commitments it gave when it handed housing over to the boroughs.
  It is in regard to housing that the Government's policy has been most malign. Since 1979 public expenditure on housing has decreased by 50 per cent. Everyone, including even the Confederation of British Industry, is calling for an increase in capital expenditure as a way out of the recession. If we inject extra demand into the building and construction industry, we do not suck in imports. It is a labour-intensive industry. We make the materials, bricks and mortar at home and therefore capital expenditure on building and construction means more jobs and more employment. That aspect concerns my constituency which has been turned into a disaster area for jobs by the Government.
  Mass unemployment in Newham is darkening the lives, blotting out the future and destroying the hopes of my constituents. Unless that is altered, it will cause the most terrible social problems.

  861
  In the East Ham jobcentre area in June 1979 male unemployment was 1,062. By February 1984 it had increased to 4,202, an increase of 400 per cent. For women the figures are worse. In June 1979 female unemployment was 328. By February this year it was 1,932, an increase of 600 per cent. In addition, there is a growing core of chronic unemployment. In October 1979 336 people were registered as unemployed for over a year. In January this year that figure was 2,052—an increase of over 600 per cent. In the borough as a whole 18,152 people are registered as unemployed. People are being permanently damaged. Something must be done if we are to avert a social breakdown.
  Newham and many parts of London have appalling housing. It cannot be beyond the wit and intelligence of the Government to put the two problems together and to balance the unmet needs with the unused and wasted labour.
  Instead of cutting capital expenditure on the building and construction industry, we should be doing the opposite. We should be encouraging the GLC to increase its capital expenditure on the building and construction industry. That would be good not only for London, but for the country and the economy. If the Government persist in this spiteful and malicious effort, one further nail will be put in their coffin.
  10.42 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: This Thursday the people of London will have an opportunity to vote. I do not think that anyone in London will rush to the polls out of concern for what is happening in European institutions, but will do so because of what is happening to their city. Government Members who claim that the Labour party is weak and has dwindling support will rue what happens on Thursday. The people of London will demonstrate that they do not want the right to vote for a city-wide authority taken away from them and that they do not want the powers that have brought such good things destroyed. That is what this squalid little move tonight is all about.
  In the past the GLC has presented a money Bill to Parliament with Government agreement. Traditionally, that money Bill is agreed. Tonight we are not experiencing some odd-ball revolt by Conservative Back Benchers, but the opposite. We are experiencing a clearly orchestrated pre-emptive strike. The Government have not yet abolished the GLC, but they are trying to abolish the elections. Now they are trying to prevent many of the GLC's programmes from being carried out. I hope that the House will recognise that this nasty little move is an attempt to deny Londoners the things that they need. That is what a city-wide authority is all about. It provides for the needs of people in London.
  A list of projects are at stake because of the threat to the GLC money Bill tonight. All of the projects are necessary. The majority involve housing schemes which are desperately needed. Housing causes the greatest problem for Londoners and it is also one of the prime regenerative moves possible in the economy. Housing schemes quickly put people back to work and create jobs in the construction and back-up industries. They are a crucial part of the regeneration of London's economy, and Conservative Members should remember that groups from
  862
  the construction industry are queueing up to take contracts from the GLC. They are queueing to get work from the GLC and borough councils and will be prevented from doing so only by the Bill.
  Conservative Members should think carefully about who they are hitting when having a go at the Bill. The Government might not like the administration at county hall. We know that the Prime Minister does not like it. Not many Conservative Members are here to talk about it tonight. Perhaps they have all gone home. We can only pray and hope so. They are hitting the worst off, who are in desperate housing need.
  The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) made a fundamental mistake in her speech. She did not seem to realise that the GLC did not borrow money for its programme last year for non-housing capital spending. Conservatives do not seem to understand what is behind the way in which the GLC operates or what the GLC is trying to do in promoting the money Bill. We have been shown an example of the spite that Conservative Members feel towards the people of London. Those hon. Members will suffer badly from such an attitude.
  I have the privilege to represent Islington, North in the House. We have many serious housing problems. If public money is not spent on meeting the housing needs of people in my constituency, and in the neighbouring constituencies of Hackney and Islington, South, those who are not housed by the councils will not be housed at all. They do not have the freedom of choice to buy a flat or house, because they cannot afford to do so. The only way in which they can get decent housing is through public spending in the borough.
  If a great deal of money is not put forward for housing capital spending in my constituency, and in neighbouring constituencies, the housing will get worse, families will continue to be broken up, bed-and-breakfast accommodation will return and many families will be forced to move out of the borough. Working-class communities will be split up, while wealthy gentrification appears in those parts of London. Perhaps that is what Conservative Members really want. If so, they should say so. Many people will take careful note of what is said in this debate and of what the Bill will achieve if it is passed.
  The capital spending which the GLC proposes for my constituency amounts to well over £1 million, and falls within the Bill. If the instruction is passed tonight, much of that expenditure will be at serious risk and many people will continue to live in poor housing. I shall give three examples, one of which involves a relatively small amount of money — the expenditure of £90,000 on the rehabilitation of 52–55 Newington Green. It might seem irrevalant to Conservative Members, but that happens to be in a working-class inner-city area. It also happens to be the oldest block of terraced houses in London and might provide very good housing for people in desperate need. The redevelopment is very much wanted by local people and by the borough council.
  We have two estates which have suffered from major technical problems since they were built. They were put up by a previous GLC administration, within the cost yardsticks imposed by the Government. Tenants have suffered major problems for many years on those estates, not untypical of the serious problems faced by many in London, where there has been rapid building, often of substandard accommodation by those who seem not to care very much about the conditions in which they are

  863
  forcing other people to live. The housing is inadequate in many ways. Often, too many people are put into those estates.
  We need to consider whether it is the right way to build major housing schemes. Be that as it may, the Andover estate in my constituency has been plagued with problems of heating schemes and water penetration, as well as difficulties with the roofing and guttering, since the day that it was constructed. At the moment we are trying to get the whole heating scheme redesigned and rebuilt so that every house has heating and hot water. Conservative Members may not find this interesting, but presumably they live in very comfortable accommodation and are not concerned about the way in which others live.
  We are concerned, and we feel that if the Bill is carried, with the instruction attached to it, the possibility of improving that estate will be swept away and the hopes of many of those on that estate will be destroyed. Conservative Members will have done that to people on the Andover estate, purely because the people of London had the temerity to elect a Labour GLC in 1981. That is what all this is about.
  Another large housing estate, the Elthorne estate, was also built by the GLC. It is near the Archway junction, close to the Upper Holloway road. Again, major improvements are urgently needed and earmarked. Indeed, £200,000 is due to be spent on that estate. It is crucial that that money is made available so that the work can be done and those tenants can have somewhere decent to live. If that work on improving windows and joinery on that estate is not carried out it will form part of a cycle of decline, which can be arrested only by a lot of public expenditure on that housing scheme. That story can be repeated throughout London.
  There are other schemes that will be at serious risk if the instruction is carried and the House is then forced to consider reducing the amount of money available to the GLC. One of those schemes is in the neighbouring constituency of Hornsey and Wood Green. I mention it because the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) does not appear to be here this evening.
  Sir Hugh Rossi: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon.
  Mr. Corbyn: I see that the hon. Gentleman is here, and he is welcome. I refer to the expenditure of £55,000 on the Asian centre in Hornsey and Wood Green. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will consider his commitments to the Asian community in his constituency and oppose the instruction. I am sure that he would not want to see the GLC unable to spend the money on that community.
  Sir Hugh Rossi: I understood that we were discussing capital expenditure. I happen to know a little about the hon. Gentleman's constituency as well. The Elthorne estate has been constructed within the past few years. He talks about trouble to the windows and frames, but he must look to the GLC to understand why there was such shoddy construction in the first place. In any case, he is talking about maintenance and repairs, which do not form part of capital expenditure.
  Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman has much experience of local government, ministerial office and membership of the House, and he should, by now, know the difference between revenue and capital spending. If he
  864
  does not, there is little hope le ft for him. As he clearly does not know, I shall have to explain once again, since he has now joined us.
  The construction work that has to be done on the Elthorne estate is capital spending, and involves the replacement of windows and joinery work. The building work was inadequately done by a private enterprise construction company. Indeed, I am told that Laings was involved. The work was clone inadequately by that company. I accept that the estate was constructed by the GLC, but the attitude displayed by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green merely demonstrates his contempt for the people who live on that estate, and his failure to appreciate that if public money is not spent there and on hundreds of other estates throughout London the quality of housing stock will deteriorate, the housing conditions of thousands of people will decline, and he will be responsible for that. That is what is going on tonight. Conservative Members are merely showing their contempt for council tenants.
  Sir Hugh Rossi: Rubbish.
  Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman may well say that, and I am glad that he is in the Chamber so that he can hear what is said. Hon. Members will be closely watched, and I hope that those in the hon. Gentleman's constituency will understand what his attitude is towards housing needs in London. The case that has been presented to us by Conservative Members represents a disgraceful attempt to prevent Londoners from achieving a modicum of decent housing, improved community facilities and an improvement in community relations as a whole. The Government are showing what is in store for London if they get their way and the GLC is abolished. This kind of squalid little move by Conservative Members to prevent people in London enjoying decent housing is exactly what will happen to every other service throughout London if the GLC is abolished.
  I trust that the Government will recognise that in the past there has always been agreement before the Greater London Council (Money) Bill is presented to the House and that when it has been presented it has been carried. As the Government have tried at the last minute to change the rules of the game and prevent the Greater London Council (Money) (No. 2) Bill going through, I hope that they will advise their Members to withdraw the instruction and allow the Bill to go through unamended.
  10.55 pm
  Mr. Chris Smith: The crucial point, which I fear the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Sir A. Berry) was rather disingenuous about in the way in which he presented it to the House, is that the instruction which he wishes the House to pass does a simple thing — it transfers a large quantity of capital expenditure into part IV, thereby bringing it under Treasury supervision. When he said that the money would still be in the Bill, he was being disingenuous. Of course we know from the discussions which the Treasury has already had with the GLC in preparing the Bill that it has made it plain that expenditure under the heading of part IV will be examined extremely thoroughly, rigorously and moreover is unlikely to be approved. Any items of expenditure which are transferred by this instruction which the Conservative Back-Bench Members supposedly wish us to accept will be at risk.

  865
  This is the same Government who only 18 months ago were pleading with local authorities to expand their capital expenditure programmes. They were desperately urging every local authority, including the GLC, to come up with extra schemes for expenditure which could be put into their capital programmes. They were encouraging the spending which now they are saying should not be incurred. That is clearly a crazy way of running the desperately needed capital programmes for our capital city.
  My second point has been made by many hon. Members, but it is of great and particular concern to me and my constituents. Many valuable and needed schemes will be at risk and under threat because of the instruction which the House is being asked to pass. I note three in my constituency. The first is a scheme of new build housing by the Metropolitan housing association just off Essex road. It is a special needs housing scheme which is being proposed through GLC finance and the acquisition of the land is under threat if the Bill does not go through as it stands.
  The second scheme is a programme of environmental improvement on the Barnsbury estate, an estate of some 800 dwellings which is in a shoddy run down condition. It desperately needs the improvements which have been proposed, which have been thoroughly discussed with tenants on that estate and which have been agreed and welcomed by them and for them on which they are now waiting for work to start.
  The third and most important scheme because it represents £900,000 of capital expenditure is on the Percival estate, another ex-GLC estate transferred to the borough. A scheme of improvement work for one of the blocks on that estate has been petitioned for by the tenants for many years. They are desperately anxious to see it come into being, and now it is under threat after it has finally been agreed by the GLC, the tenants and the borough.
  Because of the action of Conservative Back Benchers, who know nothing of the Percival estate, the needs of its tenants and the conditions under which they are living, the improvement is at risk and under threat. I shall know simply and clearly where to put the blame when the tenants of that estate come to me to complain about the conditions in which they are living and homeless people complain about the lack of adequate accommodation into which to move. The blame will lie strongly with those hon. Members who support the instruction and who want to send millions of pounds of capital spending away from the people of London, including my constituents, who desperately need it. That is precisely were I intend to put the blame loudly and clearly.
  11 pm
  Mr. Alfred Dubs: I apologise for the fact that I was unable to be present for the earlier part of the debate, but there were some urgent matters in my constituency. I came into the Chamber, however, in time to hear the Under-Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey). The hon. Member for Surbiton must be one of those Conservative Back Benchers who were dragged out of the woodwork to do the bidding of the Department of the Environment, to sign this instruction and to make a speech that was compounded of error and
  866
  misunderstanding. I would not normally waste the time of the House in refuting his points, but they were so erroneous that I should do so. The hon. Gentleman can wave his arms as much as he likes.
  The hon. Gentleman got hold of a press release for the Campaign for Homes in Central London. He proceeded to attack a number of organisations as though they were recipients of money under the terms of the Bill. In fact, he was reading a list of press contacts of organisations that were involved in preparing the handout. He did not even have the grace to admit that that was what he was doing. The hon. Gentleman was prepared to attack some of those organisations. He accused one organisation in Battersea of sticking labels on various lamp posts, or whatever, without realising that the document was purely a list of press contacts and that the rest of the release was concerned with the capital expenditure in the Bill.
  I wondered how anyone could be so mistaken in making a speech. On looking at "Dod's Parliamentary Companion" I saw that the hon. Gentleman has a claim to fame, because, among a long list of accomplishments, his entry states:
  "Presenter Mrs. Thatcher's Election Rallies April and June 1979."
  Everything became clear. The truth had gone out the window then as it did in his speech. I shall return to some of his specific points about particular projects.
  The Government are so embarrassed at the popularity and success of the GLC and the ILEA that in two short years they have converted the GLC from a moderately popular authority into the most popular and well-known local authority. Conservative Members are in such a sulk about the matter because they cannot take it. They do not realise that what they have done is the direct consequence of the Government's policies. They are, therefore, seeking a back-door method of undermining the GLC and of anticipating the measures of the next Sesson to abolish it — if they get that far — by undermining the capital budget that the GLC is putting forward.
  Conservative Members know perfectly well that, in past years, that capital programme has been the result of negotiations between the GLC and the Government, and every year until this year those negotiations have worked their way to a sensible and balanced conclusion. This year the Government wanted to have a further go at the GLC, and no such agreement was possible because of their attitudes. The result is that we have an impasse with the GLC putting forward a series of sensible proposals for the benefit of the people of London and the Government deliberately seeking to undermine those proposals. I shall mention briefly one or two schemes which have not been referred to so far. I am genuinely fearful of the consequences of the major cuts that will take place in the plans for services in my constituency and many others if the instruction from the Tory Back Benchers is agreed to.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene——
  Mr. Dubs: I hope that it is not the Lambeth issue again.
  Mr. Bottomley: No it is not. I am sorry that the Lambeth example is such an embarrassment to the Parliamentary Labour party. Is there one item which the GLC has dropped from its original proposals, or does the money Bill contain everything that it thought of without exception? The hon. Gentleman has referred to the normal

  867
  give and take with the Treasury and I should like to know whether there has been any give in the GLC's capital programme.
  Mr. Dubs: I am not sure whether that is a meaningful question. We are not concerned with the long and detailed processes by which the GLC goes through its budget proposals and its internal thinking. If the hon. Gentleman had been interested in the issue that is the background to his question, the GLC officers would have answered his questions. The services of those officers have been at his disposal for many months. Either he asked the questions and he knew the answers or he did not bother to ask them.
  Mr. Bottomley: I knew the answers.
  Mr. Dubs: If that is so, why did the hon. Gentleman ask a question instead of telling the House of his information? He is wasting the time of the House.
  We are concerned about a series of proposals that are sensible and in the interests of the people of London. It is a sad reflection of what is going on that many proposals were lost in the course of the GLC's thinking. I cannot give a list because I have been interested in what has been before us and not in what might have been before us. I am anxious to discuss the Bill as it has been presented to the House. The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) is playing party political games in his antics and has been doing so for most of the time that I have been in the Chamber.
  In my constituency there will be cuts in the plans for various schools. There will be a series of unfortunate cuts in proposals by various housing associations that serve my constituency. That will happen in a borough in which there is virtually no local authority housebuilding taking place and where there is a massive sale of council housing that is not confined to sitting tenants. The sale extends to empty council houses that are being sold to those who are not on the waiting list and who are from other boroughs. There is a major housing crisis in Wandsworth which some of the associations' schemes might do something to alleviate. Those are the sort of schemes that will go out of the window.
  The hon. Member for Surbiton muttered something about the Wandsworth gasworks site and the proposal to have a solid waste transfer station. That is part of the GLC's proposal to dispose of refuse from a large part of the adjoining areas north and south of the Thames. Part of the proposal is the expenditure of £6·3 million on providing proper access to the solid waste transfer station. Whatever local arguments took place over the location of the station, a decision has been made. The proposal is before us but we cannot make the station operate without providing sensible access to it.
  Mr. Ernie Roberts: In addition to the schemes that my hon. Friend will mention and others which have been mentioned which will be affected by the cuts, there are the cuts that will take place in Hackney, an area which suffers from numerous problems and where many schools will be affected, such as William Patten, Stoke Newington, Harrington hill, Craven park and Clissold road, which are only a few examples. The schools will be affected and the children will suffer as a result.
  Mr. Dubs: I shall be brief and draw my remarks to a close. However, I shall mention two or three schemes in
  868
  constituencies that are represented by Conservative Members and who will have to be answerable for the consequences if they vote to kill, in effect, the schemes.
  In the adjoining constituency of Putney—I am sorry that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, is not in his place — there are various schemes to improve the Alton estate and to provide support for the Threshold housing association which will have go by the board. There are schemes of work for three nursery classes at Sheringdale, Riversdale and Huntingfield schools, and proposals dealing with Southfields school. In the wider area, there is a number of schemes of major concern, I think, even to Members who do not represent that constituency. In Kensington, there is a scheme under the heading of industry and employment for 35 units that will provide 150 jobs in the Ladbroke area. There are schemes to provide training centres in north and west London to assist in the training of some 360,000 unemployed in the Greater London area. In Harrow east, there is a proposal to provide for the purchase and renovation of a building for a battered women's refuge for the Pakistan welfare association. Finally, there are proposals in Ilford for the purchase of a Hindu centre.
  Sir Anthony Berry: When I moved the motion, I said that there is money available for all those schemes, if those responsible in the GLC are prepared to spend money on them. The money is there. Why do they not spend it on the schemes?
  Mr. Dubs: That is not so. If the GLC is obliged to cut its spending on capital by more than £40 million, some schemes will have to go. If they are not the schemes which my hon. Friends and I have been quoting, other schemes will have to go. If the hon. Gentleman would care to put in bids for other capital projects that will have to go, instead of the ones that we have mentioned, it is up to him to put forward his alternative proposals. I am describing the schemes that are the most likely to suffer as a result of the instruction that he and his hon. Friends have put forward. [Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Gentleman continuing to shout from a sedentary position. I am prepared to give way, although the hour is late.
  Sir Anthony Berry: The hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that those would be the schemes. That is a different argument.
  Mr. Dubs: I am not sure that the difference regarding the ones that are most likely to be chopped is all that significant. The House is discussing a proposal by Conservative Members to force major cuts in the GLC's intended capital programme. Those cuts have to come from somewhere. My hon. Friends and I have put forward the various schemes which are most likely to go for the chop. If the hon. Gentleman has an alternative set, he ought to put it forward.
  We have acted in good faith, we have discussed with the GLC elected members and officers how they would react to this instruction, if it were to go through, and they have come forward with the schemes that we have mentioned. Whatever the cuts are, whether they are those that the GLC fears it would have to make, or the ones that Conservative Members would like to make for it, it is the people of London who will suffer. It is up to us to make it clear to the people of London that it is Conservative

  869
  Members who are intending to punish the people of London, who do not like the people of London and who do not care for schemes which are to the well-being of the people of London. We have made that point crystal clear to Conservative Members and to the people of London tonight.
  11.13 pm
  Mr. Dobson: I shall try to reply to the limited number of specific points that have been made by Conservative Members.
  Although the House has been told by some Conservative Back Benchers that this is in some way a spontaneous uprising, it seems about as spontaneous as the crowd that turns up in Red square on May day, because it has been contrived by those in charge of the party.
  The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) said that he came to the debate not to be a rubber stamp. He was a rubber stamp this time last year. Faced with spending proposals by the GLC and the ILEA, at almost exactly the same level he never said a word, and he did not vote against the proposals, because no hon. Member did. All that has changed is that this nasty and vindictive Government have encouraged him and his hon. Friends, fondly so-called, to start putting the boot into the GLC and into the ILEA.
  The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) raised one or two specific matters. He said that the future location of St. Mary's Roman Catholic school in his constituency was in doubt and that it did not, therefore, need outside toilets. I did not refer to outside toilets—I said that the school was proposing a nursery class. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the nursery class is not necessary, there are many schemes on which the ILEA could happily spend that money. He has not consulted locally, but is spontaneously offering that sacrifice to the Prime Minister to make himself a little more popular. He will have to answer to the electors of Eltham for that
  The hon. Gentleman repeatedly spoke about the future of the Brixton recreation centre. Following the information supplied by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), I gained the impression that the Minister wished that his hon. Friend had not raised that matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood said, Tory Members were responsible for initiating that scheme, thus lumbering the ratepayers with a cost of about £25 million. I explained that the money spent on the Brixton recreation centre could not be spent on any of the schemes this year because that money had been spent last year. That was not sufficient for the Minister. He must be suffering from brain damage from having to explain these matters to the Secretary of State. If he cannot understand that, when discussing future capital project, money spent last year is of no relevance, his grasp of matters is disappearing.
  The hon. Member for Eltham, who persistently raised the issue, went to the GLC officials who have been present all night to find out the facts. Any hon. Member is entitled to do that. They told the hon. Gentleman that the centre cost £10 million and that that had already been spent. Yet he suggested that we did not know what we were doing. He suggested that I was remiss in not identifying instantly, during a debate on future GLC expenditure, any scheme from the £600 million expenditure already gone and give
  870
  him an answer. He must know that the tradition has always been that an hon. Member introducing a measure tries to reply to the points raised. I hope that I have now replied to the hon. Gentleman's point satisfactorily.
  The hon. Member for Surbiton, whose charm matches his ignorance, said that he was prepared to stay here all night until he had an answer about the cost of the Brixton recreation centre. He said that he had spoken to his friends at County Hall about other matters. It is a pity that he did not talk to them about the Brixton recreation centre. Far from the figures being secret, they were in a committee document in March this year. There was nothing to hide. Even the hon. Member for Eltham, who is obsessed with the centre, and the Minister could have looked up the figures. They did not do so because they wanted to make misleading cheap-jack points rather than addressing themselves to the matters before us.
  The GLC was proposing to spend the same amount on capital expenditure this year as it spent last year. The Government had no objections last year. The ILEA is also proposing to spend about the same amount as last year on exactly the same sort of projects. They were acceptable to the Government last year. If we suggested to the government that the economy is in ruins and we need restraint on capital expenditure, they would say that we were raising all sorts of untrue harum-scarum scandals. If the Government are saying that there is nothing wrong with the economy and that that there is nothing different about the schemes that are before us tonight, all that they are saying is that the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) is pursuing her vendetta against the GLC and ILEA. That is a disgraceful vendetta, for which she will pay at the ballot box, and I do not mean just generally in the country or just generally in London, I mean at the ballot box in Finchley. With that happy thought, we leave her.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that they should—

  (a) provide for a reduction of £123,000,000 in the aggregate amounts in column 2 of Parts I, II and III of the Schedule;

  (b) provide, if the Promoters so request, for an increase not exceeding £123,000,000 in the amount specified in column 2 of Part IV;

  (c) have regard to any proposals which may be made by the Promoters for the apportionment of the reduction among the several items in Parts and for the apportionment of the increase, if any, between the items in Part IV, or, if such proposals are not put forward by the Promoters—

  (i) reduce the amounts in column 2 of item 5 in Part II and of item 10 in Part III to £25,000 each;

  (ii) reduce the remaining amounts in column 2 of Parts I and II by 7·49 per cent., rounded to the nearest £1,000 above; and

  (iii) apply 2·63 per cent. of any increase to be made in column 2 of Part IV, rounded to the nearest £1,000 above, to item 11(a) and the remainder to item 11(b); and

  (d) make such consequential amendments as are necessary.—[Sir Anthony Berry.]

  Amendment proposed thereto, in paragraph (c) (iii), after 11(b) insert,
  '(d) take evidence and determine the criteria that should be applied by Her Majesty's Treasury when consenting to or dissenting from any application made by the

  871
  Promoters under section 6 of the Bill in respect of any additional sums transferred to Part IV of the Schedule under paragraph (b) above.'.—[Mr. Spearing.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 75, Noes 153.

  Division No. 360]

  [11.20 pm

  AYES

  Alton, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Lamond, James

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Litherland, Robert

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Loyden, Edward

  Barnett, Guy

  McCartney, Hugh

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Beith, A. J.

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Bell, Stuart

  McKelvey, William

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

  McTaggart, Robert

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Marek, Dr John

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

  Maxton, John

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Meacher, Michael

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Mikardo, Ian

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Parry, Robert

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Pike, Peter

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Prescott, John

  Cowans, Harry

  Randall, Stuart

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Craigen, J. M.

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

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

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Deakins, Eric

  Rooker, J. W.

  Dixon, Donald

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Dobson, Frank

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Dubs, Alfred

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Eastham, Ken

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Fisher, Mark

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

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Strang, Gavin

  Garrett, W. E.

  Wallace, James

  Gould, Bryan

  Winnick, David

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Haynes, Frank

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Mr. Harry Cohen and Mr. Ron Leighton.

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Howells, Geraint

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Amess, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Arnold, Tom

  Chope, Christopher

  Ashby, David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Conway, Derek

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Coombs, Simon

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Cope, John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Couchman, James

  Benyon, William

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Berry, Sir Anthony

  Dicks, Terry

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dover, Den

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Dunn, Robert

  Bottomley, Peter

  Durant, Tony

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Evennett, David

  Bright, Graham

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Brinton, Tim

  Fallon, Michael

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Farr, John

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Favell, Anthony

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Burt, Alistair

  Forman, Nigel

  Butcher, John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Cash, William

  Goodlad, Alastair

  872

  Gow, Ian

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Greenway, Harry

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Harris, David

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Heddle, John

  Sims, Roger

  Henderson, Barry

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Howard, Michael

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Spencer, Derek

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Jessel, Toby

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Key, Robert

  Squire, Robin

  Lang, Ian

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Lester, Jim

  Steen, Anthony

  Lightbown, David

  Stern, Michael

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Sumberg, David

  Maclean, David John

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Major, John

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Malins, Humfrey

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Maples, John

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Mather, Carol

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mellor, David

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Tracey, Richard

  Moate, Roger

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Waddington, David

  Murphy, Christopher

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Needham, Richard

  Walden, George

  Neubert, Michael

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Newton, Tony

  Waller, Gary

  Norris, Steven

  Watts, John

  Onslow, Cranley

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Page, John (Harrow W)

  Whitfield, John

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Parris, Matthew

  Wood, Timothy

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Yeo, Tim

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Powley, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Raffan, Keith

  Mr. Martin Stevens and Dr. Ian Twinn.

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 74.

  Division No. 361]

  [11.32 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Amess, David

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Arnold, Tom

  Burt, Alistair

  Ashby, David

  Butcher, John

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Cash, William

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Chope, Christopher

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Berry, Sir Anthony

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Conway, Derek

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Coombs, Simon

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Cope, John

  Bottomley, Peter

  Couchman, James

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Dicks, Terry

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bright, Graham

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J,

  Brinton, Tim

  Dover, Den

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Dunn, Robert

  873

  Durant, Tony

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Evennett, David

  Powley, John

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Raffan, Keith

  Fallon, Michael

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Farr, John

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Favell, Anthony

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Forman, Nigel

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Gow, Ian

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Greenway, Harry

  Sims, Roger

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Harris, David

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Spencer, Derek

  Heddle, John

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Henderson, Barry

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Hirst, Michael

  Squire, Robin

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Howard, Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Stern, Michael

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Jessel, Toby

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Key, Robert

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Lang, Ian

  Sumberg, David

  Lester, Jim

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Lightbown, David

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Maclean, David John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Major, John

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Maples, John

  Tracey, Richard

  Mather, Carol

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Waddington, David

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Mellor, David

  Walden, George

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Waller, Gary

  Moate, Roger

  Watts, John

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Needham, Richard

  Whitfield, John

  Neubert, Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  Newton, Tony

  Wood, Timothy

  Norris, Steven

  Yeo, Tim

  Onslow, Cranley

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Page, John (Harrow W)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Mr. Martin Stevens and Dr. Ian Twinn.

  Parris, Matthew

  NOES

  Alton, David

  Barnett, Guy

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Beith, A. J.

  Banks, Tony (Newharn NW)

  Bell, Stuart

  874

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Loyden, Edward

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  McKelvey, William

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  McTaggart, Robert

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Marek, Dr John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Maxton, John

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Meacher, Michael

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Cowans, Harry

  Mikardo, Ian

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Craigen, J. M.

  Parry, Robert

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

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Deakins, Eric

  Pike, Peter

  Dixon, Donald

  Prescott, John

  Dobson, Frank

  Randall, Stuart

  Dubs, Alfred

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Eastham, Ken

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Fisher, Mark

  Rooker, J. W.

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Garrett, W. E.

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Gould, Bryan

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Skinner, Dennis

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

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

  Haynes, Frank

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Strang, Gavin

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Wallace, James

  Howells, Geraint

  Winnick, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lamond, James

  Mr. Ron Leighton and Mr. Harry Cohen.

  Litherland, Robert

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that they should—

  (a) provide for a reduction of £123,000,000 in the aggregate amounts in column 2 of Parts I, II and III of the Schedule;

  (b) provide, if the Promoters so request, for an increase not exceeding £123,000,000 in the amount specified in column 2 of Part IV;

  (c) have regard to any proposals which may be made by the Promoters for the apportionment of the reduction among the several items in Parts I-III and for the apportionment of the increase, if any, between the items in Part IV, or, if such proposals are not put forward by the Promoters—

  (i) reduce the amounts in column 2 of item 5 in Part II and of item 10 in Part III to £25,000 each;

  (ii) reduce the remaining amounts in column 2 of Parts I and II by 7·49 per cent., rounded to the nearest £1,000 above; and

  (iii) apply 2·63 per cent. of any increase to be made in column 2 of Part IV, rounded to the nearest £1,000 above, to item 11(a) and the remainder to item 11(b); and

  (d) make such consequential amendments as are necessary.

  Housing and Building Control Bill
  Lords Amendment to one of the Amendments made by the Commons in lieu of a Lords Amendment; a Lords Reason for insisting on a Lords Amendment and disagreeing to the Commons Amendments proposed in lieu; and a Lords Reason for disagreeing to certain other Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments, considered.
  Housing and Building Control Bill
    Clause 1

      EXTENSION TO CERTAIN CASES WHERE LANDLORD DOES NOT OWN FREEHOLD
      The Lords do not insist on their amendment in page 2, line 5, to which the Commons have disagreed, and they agree to the following amendment proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof:
      In page 83, line 20, at end insert—
      "(4) Where. in the case of a tenancy to which this subparagraph applies, the tenant or the tenant under a sub-tenancy directly or indirectly derived out of the tenancy exercises his right to acquire the freehold under Part I of the said Act of 1967, the price payable for the dwelling-house shall be determined in accordance with section 9(1A) of that Act notwithstanding that the rateable value of the dwelling-house does not exceed £1,000 in Greater London or £500 elsewhere.
      (5) Sub-paragraph (4) above applies to—

      (a) a tenancy of a dwelling-house which is a house which is created by a grant of a lease in pursuance of chapter I of Part I of the 1980 Act or Part I of this Act;

      (b) a tenancy which is granted in substitution for a tenancy falling within paragraph (a) above in pursuance of Part I of the said Act of 1967; and

      (c) where in any case that Part applies as if there had been a single tenancy granted for a term beginning at the same time as the term under a tenancy falling within paragraph (a) above and expiring at the same time as the term under a later tenancy, that later tenancy."

      but propose the following amendment thereto:
      In line 1, at end insert—
      "(3A) The provisions of Part I of the said Act of 1967 shall not apply to a tenancy of a dwelling-house which is a house which is created by the grant of a lease in pursuance of Chapter I of Part I of the 1980 Act or Part I of this Act, nor to a sub-tenancy derived (whether directly or indirectly) from that tenancy, in any case where the landlord is a registered Housing Association and the freeholder is a body of persons or Trust established for charitable purposes only."
      11.43 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments (a) and (b) and Nos. 1 to 7.
      Sir George Young: We have decided to accept the substance of the amendment to clause 1 which was passed against the Government in another place. These further amendments are to correct technical deficiences in the Lords amendment.
      Clause 1 will extend the right to buy to property where the landlord's own interest is leasehold. It will give secure tenants the right to purchase a long sub-lease of their homes, assuming they meet the normal qualifying conditions. Under the terms of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, long leaseholders of houses would normally be able
      876
      to go on and enfranchise their leases and acquire the freehold. That was the position under clause 1 when the Bill first left this House.
      Clause 1 was, however, amended in the other place to provide that, where the freehold interest in the property is held by a charitable body, tenants should be excluded not only from enfranchisement but also from the right-to-buy. The Government found that totally unacceptable, and the Lords amendment was reversed when the Bill returned to this House for further consideration on 12 April. We did, however, accept that there should be a high basis of compensation for freeholders in the case of enfranchisement of a right-to-buy lease; and the House approved that proposal. The Bill then returned to the other place for consideration of what the Government believed to be a reasonable compromise.
      Although their Lordships accepted the main thrust of the Government's case, they did not accept it in its entirety; the result is the amendment which is no. 1 on today's Paper. The effect of that amendment would be to allow all eligible tenants to purchase a long sub-lease of their homes under the right-to-buy provisions of clause 1, but to deny rights of enfranchisement to tenants of housing associations in cases where the freeholder is a charitable body.
      That certainly represents an improvement on the previous position. It narrows down the scope of the exclusion very considerable. It means that tenants of local authority leasehold property—such as the many tenants of such property in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden), whose interests he has championed so formidably — will not find their rights restricted in any way.
      Nevertheless, I do not think the distinction being made in the present amendment is wholly logical. It is not clear why the leasing of land to non-charitable housing associations should be singled out as a ground for special exemption for the freeholder — especially when the freeholders which appear to have been particularly in the minds of the promoters of this amendment, acedemic institutions such as the Oxford and Cambridge Colleges, aleady enjoy special protection under the Leasehold Reform Act.
      I recognise that fears have been expressed that colleges and other charities will in future be less ready to make land available to housing associations if they know that lettings could give rise to rights of enfranchisement as a result of the right to buy being exercised. I do not myself believe, in view of the special protection enjoyed by our ancient universities and their unique right to safeguard their interests, that there is good reason for their attitude to making land available to change. However, I recognise the existence of the concern and the support it has received in another place.
      The Government have, therefore, accepted that tenants of leasehold houses who acquire sub-leases under the right to buy from housing associations should be excluded from enfranchisement where the freehold belongs to a charity. The number of tenants likely to be affected is small. The information available to us suggests that, in total, there are only between 300 and 600 housing association dwellings on land leased from charitable freeholders. Very few of these are likely to be houses, where rights of enfranchisement would arise. In the case of houses, the length of lease which tenants will have the right to buy

      877
      —up to 125 years where the landlord's own lease allows—will often be such as to make the tenant's interest little different in practical terms from a freehold interest.
      While I am not happy that tenants' rights should be restricted even to this extent, I must have regard to the views expressed in another place, and I believe this is the most satisfactory conculsion we can come to after long argument.
      11.48 pm
      Sir Hugh Rossi: There is one point that puzzles me. In the amendment there is a reference to two rateable values. It is stated that
      "the rateable value of the dwelling-house does not exceed £1,000 in Greater London or £500 elsewhere".
      These are historic. They are rateable values that were referred to in earlier leasehold reform legislation. I believe they have been amended in more recent legislation. We now refer to £1,500 in greater London and £750 elsewhere, I believe.
      Can my hon. Friend tell me why we are accepting those outdated figures from their Lordships and are not amending this to bring it into line with current legislation?
      Sir George Young: I think it best if I write to my hon. Friend on that point rather than try to deal with it now.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.
      Amendments made to the Bill in lieu of Lords amendment No. 1:
      In page 82, line 46, at beginning insert—
      `Part I of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (enfranchisement and extension of long leaseholds) shall not apply where, in the case of a tenancy or sub-tenancy to which this sub-paragraph applies, the landlord is a housing association and the freehold is owned by a body of persons or trust established for charitable purposes only.
      (1A)'.
      In page 83, line 2, leave out from 'the' to 'as' in line 3 and insert 'said Act of 1967'.—[Mr. Gow.]
      Amendments made to Commons amendment in lieu of Lords amendment No. 1
      In line 2, after 'tenancy', insert 'or sub-tenancy'.
      In line 3, leave out
      `or the tenant under a sub-tenancy directly or indirectly derived out of the tenancy'.
      In line 10, leave out 'Sub-paragraph (4) above applies' and insert
      `Sub-paragraphs (1) and (4) above apply'.
      In line 13, at end insert
      `and any sub-tenancy directly or indirectly derived out of such a tenancy'.
      In line 14, leave out paragraph (b)
      In line 17, leave out `that Part' and insert
      `Part I of the said Act of 1967'.
      In line 21, at end insert
      `and any sub-tenancy directly or indirectly derived out of that later tenancy;
      and sub-paragraph (4) above also applies to a tenancy which is granted in substitution for a tenancy or sub-tenancy falling within paragraph (a) or (c) above in pursuance of Part I of the said Act of 1967. —[Mr.Gow.]

    Clause 2

      VARIATION OF CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH RIGHT DOES NOT ARISE
      Lords amendment: In page 3, line 13, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
      ("(3) For paragraph 5 of Part I of Schedule Ito the 1980 Act (circumstances in which the right to buy does not arise) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
      "5. The dwelling-house is designed or specially adapted to make it suitable for occupation by persons of pensionable age, and it has always been the practice of the landlord to let the dwelling-house for occupation by persons of pensionable age; and in this paragraph "designed or specially adapted" means accommodation built or adapted in accordance with the principles of advice and guidance on the design of elderly persons' accommodation issued by the Secretary of State and available to landlords at the time of construction or adaptation.".").
      Lords insist on their amendment to page 3, line 13, and disagree to the amendments proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof and to the amendment proposed by the Commons to the words so restored to the Bill,a for the following reason:
      Because the said Commons amendments fail to provide adequate safeguards for the stock of local authority rented accommodation specially suitable for people of pensionable age.
      The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Ian Gow): I beg to move,
      That this House doth not insist on its disagreement to the Lords Amendment in page 3, line 13, or on the Amendments proposed by it in lieu thereof.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following Government amendment (a), thereto.
      Government amendments Nos. 1 to 8.
      The Motion relating to Lords reason No. 3 tabled by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel)—
      That this House doth not insist on its Amendments in lines 11, 12 and 14 of the Amendment proposed by the Lords in page 84, line 1, or on its Amendments to the Amendment proposed by the Lords in page 90, line 58.
      Government motions and amendments relating to Lords reason No. 3.
      Mr. Gow: I should first like to apologise to the House for the fact that amendment (a) appeared on the order paper only today. When our original amendment appeared on the order paper on Friday, representations were made to my noble Friend Lord Bellwin by, Lady Birk and to me by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) that its wording did not meet some of their anxieties. The amendment was revised to take account of those representations. It may be helpful to the House if I give a brief background to these amendments. To understand that background fully we need to go back to debates in this House which took place during the passage of what is now the Housing Act 1980.
      When introduced, and when it left this House, the Bill provided only for the exclusion from the right-to-buy of "sheltered" housing for the elderly. On 21 July 1980, an amendment moved by the noble Baroness in another place was carried against the Government's advice. That amendment provided that a dwelling
      "designed or specially adapted to make it suitable for occupation by persons of pensionable age and which it is the practice of the landlord to let for occupation by persons of pensionable age" should be excluded from the right-to-buy.
      On 6 August 1980, the amendment made in another place was considered by this House, which then agreed a

      879
      further amendment in the terms now set out in paragraph 5 of schedule 1 to the 1980 Act. It did so by 264 votes to 109. On the following day another place accepted that amendment and the Bill received the Royal Assent on 8 August 1980.
      Paragraph 5 of schedule 1 provides that, where a tenant of an elderly person's dwelling applies to buy, the landlord can within six weeks apply to my right hon. Friend for a determination that the right-to-buy is
      "not to be capable of being exercised"
      The Secretary of State must make such a determination if he is satisfied that the dwelling is designed or specially adapted for occupation by persons of pensionable age and that it is the landlord's practice to let it only for occupation by such persons.
      However, the application of the two tests in paragraph 5 has proved a source of difficulty. The distinction between "ordinary" dwellings and those provided for the elderly has proved in practice difficult to draw in a consistent and logical way; nor is it easy to decide what lettings and declarations of policy go to make a letting practice. The difficulties go further than that. It became clear that a large number of authorities were making little or no use of the paragraph 5 exemption procedure. In fact, about one-third of authorities in England and Wales have made no one single application to my right hon. Friend. Where authorities are known to be hostile to the right-to-buy, and not selling willingly, the only explanation can be either that they have misled their tenants into believing that they have no right to buy, or that they are turning down applications unlawfully. Direct evidence has emerged that this was indeed happening in a number of authorities.
      That is a very serious matter. It was against that background that we had to consider how to improve the 1980 Act. There were two options—to retain paragraph 5 with improvements, but to pursue individually those authorities apparently defying the law, or to go for more radical change. We chose the latter course. We proposed that elderly tenants should have the right to buy on the same basis as other tenants but that landlords should have rights of pre-emption where dwellings were re-sold within 21 years of the original sale. As the House knows, these proposals, though accepted in this place, were rejected by the House of Lords.
      Misgivings were expressed about the special problems of meeting the Housing needs of the elderly in rural areas, and about the practical value of the pre-emption provision. On two occasions another place has accepted an Opposition amendment which would have allowed landlords to exclude elderly persons' dwellings from the right to buy. Given the record of some authorities under the present provisions, the House will understand that that approach was unacceptable to the Government.
      Because of the strong views expressed in another place, and bearing in mind the fact that an Opposition amendment was passed twice, against the advice of my noble Friend Lord Bellwin, albeit by one vote on the second occasion, we have decided that an approach based on the first option is the only one likely to win sufficient general acceptance. We shall retain the procedure basically in its present form but make what improvements we can. That is the effect of the Government amendments.
      The most important is amendment (a), which provides a new paragraph 5 of schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1980. The amendment reverts to the 1980 position in that all authorities may apply to my right hon. Friend to have
      880
      elderly persons' dwellings exempted from the right to buy. At the same time, we propose to remove some of the difficulties that have arisen under the present system by clarifying the criteria to be applied. These criteria are set out at present in clause 7.
      Subparagraph (ii) introduces new time limits within which the landlord must apply to my right hon. Friend for a determination. The present rule is that an application must be made within six weeks of the tenant's application to buy. However, section 5 of the 1980 Act provides that the landlord must respond to the tenant's right to buy application, admitting or denying it within four or eight weeks, depending on whether the landlord has to consult other landlords before he can respond.
      The two actions—the response to the tenant and the application to my right hon. Friend—should be closely related. For that reason, we propose that the same time limits should apply to both.
      The other amendments in the group are technical or consequential. The only one to which I want to refer is amendment No. 2. That deletes the provision at present in the Bill that would give landlords a right of pre-emption in respect of elderly persons.' dwellings. That provision was introduced in substitution for the exemption procedure, but if that exemption procedure is retained, as we propose, there is no case for pre-emption as well.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: My right hon. Friend the leader of ihe Liberal party and Liberal Members here tabled, together with members of the Social Democratic party, the original objection to changing what the other place has twice told the House was unacceptable.
      The arguments have been canvassed ever since, in 1980, the Government were forced to accept opposition to their then Housing Bill, and that their provisions for the old were not acceptable. At a very late stage in the Report stage debates in the House, the Government came up with a proposal to introduce the right to buy for those in that very precious and limited sector of accommodation, namely property especially built, designed or adapted for old people. That is not sheltered accommodation. It is in a separate category and has always been exempted from the right to buy provisions.
      The Minister described the law as it was between the 1980 Act coming into force and last December when the Bill was considered in the House, as
      "a wholly undesirable position…I can assure the House that we do not operate provisions that can give rise to accusations of inconsistency without a feeling of considerable unease."
      Further on he said,
      "That in itself represents a formidable case for reforming the present paragraph 5 arrangements and replacing them by something simpler."
      A paragraph later, he said:
      "I am forced to conclude that the practice of denying claims to buy by elderly tenants without using the paragraph 5 procedure is quite widespread." —[Official Report, 21 December 1983; Vol. 51, c. 455.]
      Here and in the other place, the Minister was pressed. to explain the Government's proposals and to give facts and figures as to how they would affect the old. The Government have consistently failed to explain the: implications for the old. As a result, my party has insisted that they should accept what the other place is trying to do. As the amendment now tabled in the name of the Secretary of State for the Environment does not do that, and returns us to the unsatisfactory position of 1980, we shall divide the House if the Government persist with it.

      881
      We shall press the matter for three reasons. First, in constitutional terms, the Government know that, unless they contrive this route through, there is no possibility of the Bill getting on to the statute book this session. On this subject, it has been rejected twice by the other place. The Parliament Act would come into force if we tried to send it to the other place again in this form. The Government are therefore trying to amend the Lords amendment, but in fact they are rejecting it out of hand, and replacing it with the unsatisfactory original procedure.
      12 midnight
      Secondly, the Secretary of State is reinserting a provision that allows him to determine what local authorities should be determining for themselves. It should not be central Government's job to decide on an arbitrary basis, which might affect different sorts of property in various parts of the country differently, which properties can be sold to those living in them and which cannot. We reject that method of determining which properties should be sold. Only six months ago the Minister said that it was highly unsatisfactory and expensive in terms of time and money, and caused delay.
      Thirdly, it would have been possible for the Government to come forward with provisions that could properly have defined the position, and allowed tenants to be informed of it. The principle which the Government have failed to apply is that the elderly should be able to continue to live in low-level or bungalow accommodation that is most suited to them and that is built at cost. Once that housing stock is no longer needed, it should be retained in the public sector — as it is in such short supply — for the tens of thousands of those on the waiting lists. The Government's proposals will not achieve that, and we are returning to an unsatisfactory system.
      Therefore, we reject the compromise, because it does not go far enough in dealing with the real problem. It conceals the Government's failure to propose policies for housing the old, who represent one of the most substantial and vulnerable groups in our society, in a way that any Government with a conscience should do. We await an answer, and until we receive it, we shall press the Government in every way possible, and hope that they will eventually see the folly of their ways.
      Mr. John Fraser: The Government have twice been defeated in the other place, and the preservation of homes for the elderly has been saved. Indeed, great tribute should be paid to Baroness Birk and her noble friends—Liberal, Conservative and alliance—for their persistence, determination and advocacy of the case for homes for the elderly during the Bill's passage in the other place.
      The amendments that stand in the Government's name represent a victory for the opposition to the Government's original proposals, for compassion for the elderly and for common sense as against the Government's original obsessive desire to proceed with sales at any cost even where the property is particularly suited to an elderly person. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has said, we are not talking about sheltered accommodation for the elderly. That has always been exempt from the right to buy. However, we are talking about housing that is particularly suitable for the elderly. Nobody knows quite how many such houses
      882
      and flats there are, but out of the total local authority stock in England and Wales of about 4·5 million homes probably at least 250,000 are particularly suitable for the elderly. But nobody quite knows because there has never been a complete count and we are not talking about sheltered accommodation which is more easily counted.
      We also know that of the 1·5 million people on housing waiting lists in England and Wales, probably between about 100,000 and 200,000 people are elderly. Therefore, one has a special responsibility to those who are fragile and in the evening of their lives to try to make provision for good housing for them.
      We know that sales of houses which are particularly suitable for the elderly are proceeding at the rate of around 3,000 to 4,000 a year and that the sale of homes suitable for letting to the elderly is about equal to the construction of new homes which are non-sheltered. As fast as new homes are being provided which are suitable to people of pensionable age the same number of homes is being sold under the Housing Act 1980.
      The Government have accepted the argument—they have done it reluctantly but I shall not try to rob them of the credit for doing so—that housing that is particularly suitable for the elderly ought now to be preserved. The argument that we have put forward, as have Cross Benchers and others in the other place, is a recognition that there need to be homes for rent as well as for sale and that there is no golden or absolute rule. People ought to have choice.
      The evidence is that the elderly are much more likely to need somewhere to rent, particularly when their incomes shrink, and there is probably a large market in Britain, so far untapped, for the elderly of pensionable age who want to sell their dwellings and release capital which they need in their old age. There is probably a much wider need for housing for rent for the elderly than any other income and age group.
      Sales would be a disaster, not just in rural areas. The sale of one or two homes in a sparsely populated area would rob an area of the entire stock of homes suitable for elderly people. But it is no less of a tragedy and disaster to urban areas where older people often feel themselves unsafe and threatened in areas which have changed their character in the past few years. There is no distinction at all to be drawn between homes in rural and urban areas. The turnover of homes which are suitable for people of pensionable age is likely to be much greater in that section than it is in others simply because of the fact of people's age. The loss of homes for renting in that sector is likely to be even greater.
      At the end of the day, if I have to make a choice between the Lords amendment which has been persisted in twice in the other place against the Government's advice, and the Government's amendment (a) on the Order Paper in starred form — altered because of representations that I and my noble Friends have made to the Government—I will choose the Government's amendment for four reasons.
      First, I have consulted local authorities, particularly the Association of Metropolitan Authorities; and its view is that the Government amendment would in the long run be preferable to the way in which the present Lords amendment works. Secondly, and this goes to the root of the matter, the Government's amendment does not tie the exemption to the original design. If one looks at the Lords amendment it says that the property has to be designed or

      883
      specifically adapted. It talks about advice available to landlords at the time of construction or adaptation. It may well be that houses which were not originally designed for people of pensionable age later on turn out to be adapted for their purpose, and therefore it is best to make it clear that over the passage of time housing which was not originally designed for the elderly can be used for that purpose. In my constituency, a tower block, which was very unpopular with families with young children, was later used for warden accommodation. That change has proved to be extremely successful. It is preferable to look at the current state of the use of premises, rather than the original adaptation and design.
      The third reason why I prefer the Government amendment is that the measure does not now tie the exemption to continuous letting to a person of pensionable age. The Government amendment says that the property must be let to a tenant or to a predecessor in title of pensionable age. Under the Government amendment one is not tied to absolute continuity of use by a person of pensionable age. The Lords amendment says that it must always be the practice of the landlord to let the dwelling house for the occupation of persons of pensionable age.
      The fourth reason why I support the Government amendment is that there is much greater flexibility for local authorities in relation to when the property was designed and adapted and the continuity of letting. That is an improvement over the wording contained in paragraph 5 of schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1980. Under that Act, it always had to be the practice for the landlord to let only for occupations by persons of pensionable age. The protection of the 1980 Act was lost if there was letting to a person of pensionable age, then letting to a person who was disabled and then a reversion of letting to a person of pensionable age.
      If I had total charge of these matters and were able to command a majority in the House and in the other place, I would choose a measure that was even more far-reaching. One must make a choice, and on the advice that I received and on my consideration of the matters, I find that the Government amendment is preferable. Those who advised me on these matters, especially the local authorities, take the same view. For that reason, I prefer Government amendment (a) to the amendment from the other place.
      I hope that, at the end of this long debate—I mean "long" in terms of the past months, rather than tonight—there has been a growing recognition of the necessity to have the right to rent as well as the right to buy and that what matters above all, especially to the elderly people, is the right to have a choice. A choice, especially for those of pensionable age, would have been reduced if the Government had persisted in their original intentions. I believe that out of this legislation a victory for common sense and, above all, for the elderly has emerged, and I therefore welcome the change of heart that has been evinced by the Minister's statement.
      12.15 am
      Mr. John Farr: I welcome Government amendment (a). I congratulate the Government on the compromise that they have reached. Many Conservative Members would have preferred the Lords amendment to have been accepted in toto, but, nevertheless, the
      884
      Government amendment is acceptable and meets the fears of many people who are concerned about purpose-built local authority homes in rural areas.
      A good deal of feeling has been generated on this matter. It is a fact that elderly people do not necessarily want to buy their house. All the recent national surveys have shown that a much higher proportion of elderly people than of younger age groups wish to rent accommodation. The main reason is that the elderly are too old and too frail to cope with the problems of organising matters such as household insurance. In addition, all the statistics show that a high and growing proportion of elderly people are likely to have the same requirements. In many largely rural authority districts, enterprising schemes have been established to make life easier for elderly people living in groups.
      The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) said that he thought there might be the same difficulty for the urban elderly dweller as for the rural elderly dweller, but there is a specific difficulty. In my district of Harborough, which is a fairly rural district, there are 26 different communities of purpose-built housing for the elderly. The council is in the process of linking these units by radio and by a warden who can be reached by radio. The linkage will cover quite a large distance between many of the units. The same system has already been introduced by the Fylde borough council. The Harborough council is emphatic that it would be wrong to give the elderly the right to buy the houses in these circumstances.
      In many villages there are only a handful of bungalows that have been built for the elderly. It is important to keep these pools of special accommodation available for the elderly.
      I welcome the compromise solution which the Government have reached. I think that it will meet the bill for my council and I have great pleasure in supporting it.
      Mr. Gow: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply to the speech made by the official spokesman for the Liberal party, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). It was clear that the hon. Gentleman had not understood the consequence of the Government's amendment.
      We had a characteristically thoughtful speech from the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). As he rightly said, the Government's amendment does not go back to the 1980 position, which I described on 12 December as "very unsatisfactory". We have made significant improvements on the position in the 1980 Act, which I readily concede was not satisfactory.
      One of the main problems with the 1980 Act was that the criteria there set out involved detailed research into the intentions of authorities, to which the hon. Member for Norwood rightly referred, when dwellings were built, and to the history of previous lettings, not infrequently involving inquiries about the practice of authorities prior to local government reorganisation. The new tests, which are spelt out clearly in the Government's amendment, avoid those difficulties. The test of physical characteristics, by referring to suitability, will focus on the present state of the dwelling rather than on its history. The letting test will involve only the present letting, except in the case of a succession.
      If the Liberal party should divide the House, it will show that the party's official spokesman on housing has failed to understand the debate
      Question put and agreed to.
      Amendment (a) proposed to the Lords Amendment: In line 2, leave out from first 'of to end of Amendment and insert 'that Part of that Schedule there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
      "5. — (1) The Secretary of State has determined, on the application of the landlord, that the right to buy is not to be capable of being exercised with respect to the dwelling-house; and he shall so determine if, and only if, he is satisfied that the dwelling-house—

      (a) is particularly suitable, having regard to its location, size, design, heating system and other features, for occupation by persons of pensionable age; and

      (b) was let to the tenant or to a predecessor in title of his for occupation by a person of pensionable age or a physically disabled person (whether the tenant or predecessor or any other person).

      (2) An application for a determination under this paragraph shall be made within four weeks or, in a case falling within section 5(2) of this Act, eight weeks of the service of the notice claiming to exercise the right to buy.".'. — [Sir George Young.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made to the Lords amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 6.

      Division No. 362]

      [12.16 am

      AYES

      Alexander, Richard

      Gow, Ian

      Amess, David

      Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

      Arnold, Tom

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Ashby, David

      Harris, David

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Heddle, John

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Henderson, Barry

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hirst, Michael

      Berry, Sir Anthony

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Jessel, Toby

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Lang, Ian

      Bottomley, Peter

      Lester, Jim

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Lightbown, David

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      McCurley, Mrs Anna

      Bright, Graham

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Brinton, Tim

      MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Maclean, David John

      Bruinvels, Peter

      Malins, Humfrey

      Burt, Alistair

      Maples, John

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Marlow, Antony

      Cash, William

      Mather, Carol

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Chapman, Sydney

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Chope, Christopher

      Mellor, David

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Moate, Roger

      Conway, Derek

      Moynihan, Hon C.

      Coombs, Simon

      Murphy, Christopher

      Cope, John

      Needham, Richard

      Couchman, James

      Neubert, Michael

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Newton, Tony

      Dicks, Terry

      Norris, Steven

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Onslow, Cranley

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Ottaway, Richard

      Dover, Den

      Page, Richard (Herts SW)

      Dunn, Robert

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Evennett, David

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Eyre, Sir Reginald

      Powley, John

      Fallon, Michael

      Raffan, Keith

      Farr, John

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Favell, Anthony

      Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      886

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Thome, Neil (Ilford S)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Sims, Roger

      Tracey, Richard

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Waddington, David

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Spencer, Derek

      Walden, George

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Waller, Gary

      Squire, Robin

      Watts, John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

      Steen, Anthony

      Whitfield, John

      Stern, Michael

      Wolfson, Mark

      Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

      Wood, Timothy

      Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

      Yeo, Tim

      Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Sumberg, David

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Terlezki, Stefan

      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and Mr. John Major.

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

      NOES

      Alton, David

      Wallace, James

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Howells, Geraint

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Mr. A. J. Beith and Mr. Michael Meadowcroft.

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Consequential amendments made to the Bill:
      No. 1, in page 3, line 16, leave out
      'subsection (1) above and the provision made by subsection'
      and insert 'subsections (1) and'.
      No. 2, in page 8, line 18, leave out clause 7.
      No. 3, in page 22, line 11, leave out '18A(2) or' (inserted by a Lords amendment agreed to by this House).
      No. 4, in page 63, line 32, leave out `18A(1) or'.
      No. 5, in page 68, line 27, leave out '18A(1) or'.
      No. 6, in page 85, line 10, leave out paragraph 10.
      No. 7, in page 88, line 29, leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 32 and insert
      'Part IV of Schedule 2 to that Act (charges and other matters)'.
      No. 8, in page 90, column 3, leave out lines 48 and 49. —[Sir George Young.]

    Schedule 10

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Lords amendment: In page 84, line 1, at end insert—
      (".Subsections (4) and (4A) of section 3 of the Housing Act 1980 (meaning of "house", "flat", "dwelling-house" etc.) shall have effect as if any reference to the right to buy included a reference to the right to be granted a shared ownership lease.
      .Section 4(3) of that Act (joint tenants and members of family occupying dwelling-house otherwise than as joint tenants) shall have effect as if the reference to Chapter I of Part I of that Act included a reference to Part I of this Act.
      . — (1) In section 5(2) of that Act (notice claiming to exercise the right to buy) for the words "three years" there shall be substituted the words "two years".
      (2) The amendment made by sub-paragraph (1) above shall not apply where the landlord's notice under section 5(1) of the 1980 Act was served before the commencement of Part I of this Act.
      . At the end of section 6 of that Act (purchase price) there shall be added the following subsection—
      "(6) Where the secure tenant's tenancy has at any time been assigned by virtue of section 37A of this Act, the persons specified in subsection (5) above shall not include any person who under that tenancy was a secure tenant before the assignment " ").
      The Lords disagree to the amendments proposed by the Commons in lines 11, 12 and 14 of their amendment in

      887
      page 84, line 1, and to the two amendments proposed by the Commons to their amendment in page 90, line 58, for the following reason:
      Because it would be inconsistent with their insistence and disagreement to agree to the Commons amendments.
      Question, That this House doth insist on the amendment proposed by it in line 11 of the Lords amendment in page 84, line 1, put and agreed to.
      Question, That this House doth not insist on the amendment proposed by it in line 12 of the said Lords amendment, put and agreed to.
      Amendment (a) made to the said Lords amendment in lieu thereof, in line 12, after 'buy)' insert
      'there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(1A) A landlord's notice under subsection (1) above shall inform the tenant of any application for a determination under paragraph 5 of Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act and, in the case of a notice admitting the tenant's right, shall be without prejudice to any determination made on such an application."
      (1A) In subsection (2) of that section.'. — [Sir George Young.]
      Question, That this House doth not insist on the amendment proposed by it in line 14 of the said Lords amendment, put and agreed to.
      Amendments made to the said Lords amendment in lieu thereof:
      (a) in line 14, after 'above', insert
      `shall not apply where the tenant's claim to exercise the right to buy was made before the coming into force of Part I of this Act; and the amendment made by sub-paragraph (1A) above.'.
      (b) in line 16, leave out 'commencement' and insert `coming into force'.—[Sir George Young.]
      Question, That this House doth not insist on the two amendments proposed by it to the Lords amendment in page 90, line 58, put and agreed to.
      Ordered,
      That a Committee be appointed to draw up a reason to be assigned to the Lords for insisting on an amendment proposed by the Commons to a Lords amendment, to which the Lords have disagreed.—[Mr. Gow.]
      Ordered,
      That Mr. John Fraser, Mr. Ian Gow, Mr. Allen McKay, Mr. John Major and Sir George Young be members of the Committee.—[Mr. Gow.]
      Ordered,
      That Three be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Gow.]
      Ordered,
      That the Committee do withdraw immediately. — [Mr. Gow.]

    ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION BILL [LORDS]
    Ordered,
    That, in respect of the Road Traffic Regulation Bill [Lords], Notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

  National Health Service
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
  12.32 am
  Dr. Brian Mawhinney: This Adjournment debate had its origins last December. when our son David went into the Royal Free hospital to have his tonsils out. He was to be one of a surgical list of 14, and, to our surprise, he turned out to be the only one of those 14 patients who actually showed up. I asked the hospital whether it had any figures on non-attendance, and it told me that it did not. My hon. Friend the Minister will remember that I put down a parliamentary question on this, and he told me that the Government did not have any information on non-attendance. I then wrote to each of the 14 regional health authorities, asking them whether they could give me the numbers and percentages of non-attendance for out-patients and in-patients over the past five years. Some 12 of the 14 regions wrote back and told me that they did not have any figures, and nor did any of the districts.
  Two regions did have some information, and it might be useful if I were to put the information that I have on the record. East Anglian, Trent, Northern region, Oxford, Wessex, North West Thames, South East Thames and South West Thames had no information whatsoever. The South Western region, Yorkshire and Mersey each had one hospital, or one short-term study that produced some figures. In the South Western region, the non-attendance of out-patients was 14·8 per cent., in Yorkshire, it was 23·2 per cent. and 1·9 per cent. for in-patients, and in Mersey it was 14 per cent. for in-patients. In North East Thames, there was one hospital that, in 1982, had an out-patient absentee rate of 11 per cent., with an in-patient rate for the Newham district in 1983 of about 18 per cent.
  I was also given figures from one of the regional administrators which might pertain to London. He sent me details of abortive London ambulance trips. Almost 1,800 trips a week by the London ambulance service are non-viable. They go to collect a patient but return without him. As they go to bring patients to appointments at clinics or at in-patients, it is a measure of what happens in London.
  Two regions had statistics. The north-west region had figures from about 20 districts, which showed an average out-patients absentee figure of 12·6 per cent. The in-patients figure for 1977 was 13·6 per cent. The west midlands gave me figures from nine districts, which showed an out-patients absentee figure of 11·2 per cent, and two figures for in-patients of 12·3 per cent. and of 3·1 per cent.
  The figures vary widely according to the hospital and specialty. They range from about 2 per cent. to 30 per cent. The figures are, however, sketchy and few and far between. What we discovered was that no proper statistics were being kept. That reflects a huge waste of manpower and resources. In the case of our son, a full operating theatre team was in attendance for a day in a theatre in a London teaching hospital, which had been booked for the day. After the team of specialists operated on David in the morning, they had nothing to do for the rest of the day and the theatre was not used for any other purpose.
  I wonder whether the figures make sense because the average national non-attendance for out-patients must be between 12 per cent. and 15 per cent., and for in-patients

  889
  between 10 per cent. and 12 per cent. The latest figures from the Minister and his Department showed that there were about 35·5 million out-patients appointments in 1982—the last year for which figures are available. That means the between 4·25 million and 5·33 million outpatients clinic appointments were not kept. On the figures, which the Minister gave during questions today when he said that a wasted out-patients appointment might be worth anything between £20 and £50, the waste to the National Health Service of out-patients appointments alone is between £85 million and £266 million a year. The Minister will be as disturbed by those figures as I am.
  The in-patients estimate seems to be reasonable. In 1982 there were approximately 348,000 beds, of which approximately 278,000 were occupied—that is an 80 per cent. occupancy rate. I suggest that the non-attendance figures are about 10 per cent. It does not seem unreasonable that about half of the empty beds were due to non-attendance and half to keeping them free for emergencies.
  No hon. Member has been more supportive of the Government's health policy than I have. The Government have initiated many reviews, all of which were designed to produce information, which would enable managers in the NHS to run the service more efficiently and cost effectively.
  The Rayner scrutiny of non-ambulance transport showed that we had more vehicles than drivers and that the average district could save up to £70,000 per year. The Rayner scrutiny of recruitment advertising showed that the Health Service was spending £8 million per year advertising to its own staff. The study on central stores showed that 20 per cent. was being added to the cost of goods compared with best commercial practice of between 4 per cent. and 12 per cent. Presumably, at one time nobody knew those figures, but it was suspected that there was waste so a review was undertaken which identified the waste so that better value for money could be achieved and directed towards care of the patient.
  That is the essence of my case to my hon. Friend the Minister today. He and his colleagues have an enviable record of commitment to cost effectiveness and value for money in the Health Service—for the sake of the patients, not for the sake of the Government's reputation—and I see this debate very much in that context. If thousands of beds are standing empty thousands of people on the waiting lists must be suffering because they cannot get into those beds which are being blocked by people who do not show up.
  My hon. Friend the Minister, quite properly, is ahead of me on this. He and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health set up the Körner committee to examine statistics in the Health Service. We have both read its first three reports and my hon. Friend has already committed the Government not just to accepting but to implementing those recommendations, which include the subject of today's debate.
  I refer my hon. Friend the Minister to some words which he will recognise not just for their wisdom but for the tone in which they are given. In a written answer on 12 April my hon. Friend the Minister said to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King):
  890
  "Health authority managers need information about the services for which they are responsible and about the resources of money and manpower which go into providing those services. It has long been recognised that the information currently available to NHS management is inadequate. It is too often incomplete, inaccurate and out of date. The result is that district and unit managers are not as well equipped as they should be to plan, budget and review their performance in the ways we are asking of them." —[Official Report, 12 April 1984; Vol. 58, c. 381–2.]
  My hon. Friend states better than I can exactly what I wish to put to him today. There is no point in a commitment to cost effectiveness if we do not give the new Griffiths managers the technology to enable them to do the job.
  It has been agreed that the regions and districts should be computerised as quickly as possible. The regions which wrote to me made it clear that they could not begin to tackle the problems of non-attendance until they had information on computer which would allow them easily to resolve the problems uncovered. Those statistics are needed urgently. We shall not know why people do not show up for clinic and in-patient appointments until we are able to analyse the statistics.
  I do not know why so mant people do not show up, but I think that my hon. Friend will accept that if it is because they do not need medical treatment we could knock 100,000 of the national waiting list today and bring the total down from about 720,000 to about 625,000. Some may not show up because they are already dead, some because they are already better, and some because the consultant put them on the waiting list in order to get them out of his clinic or surgery and had no real intention of ever giving them any treatment. That may sound harsh, but general practitioners use prescription forms in that way, day in and day out, throughout the NHS.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten): There is sometimes a comparison with letters to Ministers.
  Dr. Mawhinney: Just so. There is also a suspicion that many do not show up because the clinics are badly organised, and that consultants are not very keen to improve their techniques to make it possible for people to attend.
  Some people may, of course, be really unable to attend at the given time and may have problems as a result.
  There would be one other advantage, which I know that my hon. Friend will acknowledge, in having the statistics computerised. It would enable regions and districts to determine where the shortest waiting lists are within any region.
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle). It is a delight to see him in his place at this late hour. My hon. Friend initiated an Adjournment debate on orthopaedic surgery waiting lists on 15 May 1981, and has been assiduous in following the matter up. He will be encouraged to know that some of us have been pressing our own regional health authorities on the matter for months and years. The answer has been that they can do nothing until they are computerised.
  My time has run out. My message to my hon. Friend is simple. First, there is a huge gap in our knowledge of what is going on in the health service in terms of non-attendance by patients both at out-patient clinics and for in-patient appointments. It is very worrying to discover that 12 out of 14 regions had no information from their districts to channel through to my hon. Friend.
  Secondly, we must give priority to computerising the districts and the regions, because we cannot tackle the

  891
  problems until that is done. Even if—dare I say this to my hon. Friend? —we have to spend a little more money in the short term, the long-term savings will make the short-term front-loading more than worthwhile.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree with me about those two points. The third point is the one that I hope he will respond to this evening. The point is that the need is urgent. It should not just be given priority by the regions. The Government should make it clear to the regions that the matter is given high and urgent priority by the Government. If my hon. Friend would throw his weight and that of his Department behind my request, computerisation would arrive much more quickly than might otherwise be the case. The consequences of that for the better management of the Health Service and the alleviation of suffering would be out of all proportion to the cost and effort of computerisation.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the courteous attention that he has paid to my comments.
  12.49 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten): My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) has addressed this problem with his characteristic fairness and clarity of reasoning. He has hit several nails on the head, and I must hit one or two as well. Each of us is as exasperated as the other that we do not have the information. It must be wrong, for example, that until two years ago we had no clear information about the number of people whom we employed at any one time in the National Health Service. We have a long way to go before information will be as refined as my hon. Friend, I, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health would like. There is no point in deceiving ourselves about that.
  My hon. Friend drew our attention to just one area in which we suffer from a lack of information in the NHS—operation waiting times, outpatient waiting times and the failure of patients to turn up for appointments for a variety of reasons. We must set the problem against the background of the enormous size of the business that the NHS runs. Each year there are about 36 million outpatient attendances, more than 5 million regular day-patient attendances and nearly 6 million inpatient discharges. Problems occur. At present, information about the rate of non-attendance for inpatient and outpatient appointments is not collected rountinely throughout the country, although some health authorities collect some information.
  Important work is done by the Steering Group on Health Services Information, which we know as the Körner committee. I pay warm tribute to Mrs. Körner for the four and a half years of sterling service that she has given to the NHS in an attempt to sort out this complex problem. I am glad to see my hon. Friend nodding assent to that tribute, which I also pay on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The steering group made detailed recommendations in its first report, which are designed to rectify the problems to which my hon. Friend referred.
  For outpatients, the report recommends that all districts collect information showing the number of patients with an appointment who did not attend. For inpatients who were to be admitted from waiting lists, the report recommends that all districts collect information showing the number of patients for whom arrangements to admit
  892
  were made, but who were not admitted, distinguishing those who were not admitted because they failed to attend. My hon. Friend and others could be excused for asking why that information has not been collected routinely since 1948.
  We have asked health authorities to plan to implement the committee's first report throughout the country by April 1987. That might seem a long time away, but the implementation of this and the other Körner reports represent a substantial programme and we do not believe that it would be feasible to ask the service to proceed more quickly on this as against all other management tasks that we have set in the post-Griffiths era. It is open to individual districts and regions to progress at their own pace in the meantime. If I were appointed general manager to a district health authority under the post-Griffiths arrangements, I should want to make pretty rapid progress to demonstrate to my authority that money was being spent in a controlled way and not being wasted when it could have been spenton patient care.
  By 1987 we expect at least one third of all districts to have a computerised patient administration system. Most will have the facility to monitor waiting lists and to provide consultants and family doctors with information about non-attenders. However, I think we must be careful not to pin our hopes too high and think that these systems can solve the real problem, because I do not think they can. Knowing what happened in the past is not of itself particularly helpful in overcoming the problem of filling gaps in theatre and clinical lists which appear without warning. There perhaps we need—and doubtless the Health Service will be directing its attention towards the need—attitude surveys which pick up exactly why people who have a good reason for not attending, such as further illness, bereavement, a recent move or whatever, do not show up and why they waste so much money which should be spent correctly on patient care.
  Having a reserve list of patients on standby may sound attractive, but even if patients were willing to co-operate and come in at extremely short notice to fill in gaps, for example, in theatre time, it would be extremely difficult at such short notice to find patients sufficiently similar in nature that they could be slotted in without causing major disruption to theatre usage or clinic time. I am not saying that one should not move towards this system, but there are a lot of problems. One of the problems is cost.
  My hon. Friend correctly raised the urgent need for computerisation in the National Health Service to provide us with better information for better planning or, to use his phraseology, more expenditure up front to produce longer-term benefits for patients. A computer-based system which can sort through those patients still on the waiting list and identify candidates on the basis of some predetermined classification is theoretically possible, but complex and certainly expensive. The systems available or under development at present will cost a district between £0·1 million and £0·5 million to install. That is an investment nationally of about £50 million or more and that money would have to come out of money already available to health authorities. No doubt all sorts of lessons can be learnt as local systems are developed. It is right that as more health authorities set up and use computerised systems, they also develop them to meet local situations. The needs of urban areas may be different from the needs of rural areas.
  Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend mentioned the cost to individual districts of putting in computers. Is he willing to consider the possibility that the main frame computer should be put in at regional level and that districts could then each have a terminal feeding in, which would probably be cheaper than each district putting in its own computer?
  Mr. Patten: This is the sort of issue which has already been addressed by my Department's computer policy committee. It is probably clear that the sort of work carried out by Mrs. Körner's committee on information and the work of the computer policy committee on the purchase of main frame computers and associated software will have to come much closer together. They will be addressing themselves to the strategic points to which my hon. Friend has just referred. The sums to be spent are huge.
  In the four minutes left to me I must turn to the other side of the coin from the development by the NHS, albeit belatedly, of a system which enables us to collect information, even though at considerable cost. The other side of the coin is the patient's individual responsibility to keep the appointment made for him as in any form of contract, both the Health Service and the patient have a responsibility. The patient's responsibility is, if possible, to keep the appointment made for him, or at the very least, to let the hospital know in good time if he cannot or no longer wishes to attend.
  This afternoon during Question Time I said that patients had a moral responsibility, if they could not use hospital time or clinic time, to let the hospital or clinic know. I hope that, thanks to the publicity which will doubtless flow from this issue being raised on the Adjournment by my hon. Friend, more and more people will be given cause for thought if they are tempted to misuse the National Health Service. The NHS is based on the informal contract
  894
  between what we promise to supply and what people want. However sophisticated a system is developed to ensure efficient call-up of in and outpatients, the Health Service must know that the majority of those called will attend. To achieve that we need the co-operation of the public.
  Interest has been shown in the idea of a bed bank for inpatients using a computer system to make information about the length of waiting lists in hospitals readily available to GPs. That is a sophisticated method of bringing information technology to the aid of an approach which the Department has advocated since the mid-1970s. It will not reduce waiting lists overall, but it might be a useful method by which the more extreme differences between hospitals and districts can be ironed out. That is why the Department and the West Midlands health authority have been discussing a pilot project. I welcome the great interest in the topic by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle).
  Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): I think that we have three minutes to spare. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) for his courteous remarks and my hon. Friend the Minister for his welcome announcement. May we debate the findings of the pilot scheme in due course?
  Mr. Patten: We shall have to wait to see, when the pilot scheme is set up, how long it takes and what it produces. With his characteristic interest in such matters, I know that my hon. Friend will press us further. I thank him and my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough for raising this important issue.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at one minute past One o'clock.

TRANSPORT
  Air Services (South Africa)
  Air Services (South Africa)
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  President Mitterrand
  President Mitterrand
  Cenotaph (Remembrance Day)
  Cenotaph (Remembrance Day)
  Bradford
  Bradford
  Public Service Employees (Conditions of Service)
  Public Service Employees (Conditions of Service)
  Asset Acquisitions (Compensation)
  Asset Acquisitions (Compensation)
  Economic Summit
  Economic Summit
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Customs and Excise (Computer)
  Customs and Excise (Computer)
  Government Accountancy Service
  Government Accountancy Service
  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Share Option Scheme
  Share Option Scheme
  International Debt
  International Debt
  Charities
  Charities
  Scottish-Based Charities (Registration)
  Scottish-Based Charities (Registration)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Youth Custody
  Youth Custody
  Prostitution (Police Decoys)
  Prostitution (Police Decoys)
  Police Arrests (Documentation)
  Police Arrests (Documentation)
  British Broadcasting Corporation
  British Broadcasting Corporation
  Repatriation (Travel Assistance)
  Repatriation (Travel Assistance)
ENERGY
  Radiation Leaks
  Radiation Leaks
  EC (Coal Capacity)
  EC (Coal Capacity)
WALES
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Dairy Farmers
  Dairy Farmers
  Acid Rain
  Acid Rain
  Milk Quotas
  Milk Quotas
  Psychiatric Social Workers
  Psychiatric Social Workers
  Community Psychiatric Nursing
  Community Psychiatric Nursing
  Fluoridation (Anglesey)
  Fluoridation (Anglesey)
DEFENCE
  Armaments Exports
  Armaments Exports
  Departmental Staff (Overtime)
  Departmental Staff (Overtime)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Development Divisions
  Development Divisions
  Development Projects
  Development Projects
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  International Planned Parenthood Federation
  International Planned Parenthood Federation
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Management Consultancy and Accounting
  Management Consultancy and Accounting
  EC (Trade Barriers)
  EC (Trade Barriers)
  Whale Oil
  Whale Oil
  Telephone Sales (Code of Practice)
  Telephone Sales (Code of Practice)
  EC (Research Projects)
  EC (Research Projects)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Nursery Places (Costs)
  Nursery Places (Costs)
  Open University
  Open University
  Further Education
  Further Education
  Education Courses (Efficiency)
  Education Courses (Efficiency)
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Departmental Staff (Overtime)
  Departmental Staff (Overtime)
  Education Support Grants
  Education Support Grants
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Housing and Building Control Bill
  Housing and Building Control Bill
  Local Authority Rates and Precepts
  Local Authority Rates and Precepts
  Government Buildings (Public Use)
  Government Buildings (Public Use)
  Housing (London Docklands)
  Housing (London Docklands)
  London Docklands (Age Concern Report)
  London Docklands (Age Concern Report)
  Fire Precautions
  Fire Precautions
  Multi-occupied Houses
  Multi-occupied Houses
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Departmental Staff (House of Commons)
  Departmental Staff (House of Commons)
  Palace of Westminster
  Palace of Westminster
  Rates Bill
  Rates Bill
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  London Docklands Development Corporation
EMPLOYMENT
  Clothing Manufacturing and Retailing
  Clothing Manufacturing and Retailing
  Departmental Staff (Overtime)
  Departmental Staff (Overtime)
  Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee
  Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee
  Manpower Services Commission
  Manpower Services Commission
  Careers Officers
  Careers Officers
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Dairy Farmers
  Dairy Farmers
  Farming Community
  Farming Community
  Cheese and Butter
  Cheese and Butter
  Milk Marketing Board
  Milk Marketing Board
  Winter Wheat and Milk (Profits)
  Winter Wheat and Milk (Profits)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
SCOTLAND
  Tenants' Rights to Repair Scheme
  Tenants' Rights to Repair Scheme
  Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Amendment Act 1984
  Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Amendment Act 1984
  Housing Corporation
  Housing Corporation
  Housing (Standards)
  Housing (Standards)
  Housing Associations
  Housing Associations
  Private Roads
  Private Roads
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Skillcentres (Women Trainees)
  Skillcentres (Women Trainees)
  Housing Associations
  Housing Associations
  Registers of Electors
  Registers of Electors
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Local Authorities (Rate Penalties)
  Local Authorities (Rate Penalties)
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Electricity Disconnections
  Electricity Disconnections
  Organ Donor Cards
  Organ Donor Cards
  NHS (Privatisation)
  NHS (Privatisation)
  Administrators
  Administrators
  Elderly Persons (Residential Homes)
  Elderly Persons (Residential Homes)
  Occupational Pensions
  Occupational Pensions
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Dentists Act 1955
  Dentists Act 1955
  Drug Abuse (Report)
  Drug Abuse (Report)
  Wrightington Hospital (Children's Ward)
  Wrightington Hospital (Children's Ward)
  Pensions (Canada)
  Pensions (Canada)
  Benefit (Gifts in Kind)
  Benefit (Gifts in Kind)
  Womb Leasing and Human Embryos
  Womb Leasing and Human Embryos
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Cervical Cancer
  Cervical Cancer
  Benefits (Uprating)
  Benefits (Uprating)
  Joint Planning
  Joint Planning
  Hospital Patients (Admissions)
  Hospital Patients (Admissions)
  Social Security Reviews
  Social Security Reviews
  Poland (Assistance)
  Poland (Assistance)
  NHS Expenditure
  NHS Expenditure
  Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn
  Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn
  Pensions Payments
  Pensions Payments
  Benefit Payments (Miners' Families)
  Benefit Payments (Miners' Families)
  Nurses (Pay)
  Nurses (Pay)
  Disabled People
  Disabled People
  Heating Additions
  Heating Additions
  Mental Health Act Commission
  Mental Health Act Commission
  Drugs (Licensing)
  Drugs (Licensing)
  Social Services Inspectorate
  Social Services Inspectorate
  Residential Care Homes
  Residential Care Homes
  NHS (Superannuation Scheme)
  NHS (Superannuation Scheme)
  Retired Doctors
  Retired Doctors
  Pregnancy Advisory Organisations
  Pregnancy Advisory Organisations
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Registration of Births (Welsh Language)
  Registration of Births (Welsh Language)
  Bolton (Ministerial Visit)
  Bolton (Ministerial Visit)
  Community Psychiatric Nursing
  Community Psychiatric Nursing
  Psychiatric Social Work
  Psychiatric Social Work
  Generic Prescribing
  Generic Prescribing
  Supplementary Benefit (Coal Industry Dispute)
  Supplementary Benefit (Coal Industry Dispute)
  Departmental Staff (Overtime)
  Departmental Staff (Overtime)
  Sterilisation
  Sterilisation
  In Vitro Fertilisation
  In Vitro Fertilisation
  Hospices
  Hospices
  Voluntary Unemployment Deductions
  Voluntary Unemployment Deductions
  Chiropodists
  Chiropodists
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Benefits (Computerisation)
  Benefits (Computerisation)
  Special Case Officers
  Special Case Officers
  Althesin
  Althesin
  Drugs (Trials)
  Drugs (Trials)

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

Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill: Division
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I have been asked to inform the House that the figure for those voting Not-Content in the Division last night on the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill was wrongly announced to the House as 238. It should have been 237. I think that I owe it to myself to say that I read out the figure which was actually given to me.

The Combat High Boot
2.38 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why they are considering equipping British infantry with the combat high boot.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the combat high boot has been in service for some two years. Its principal advantage is that it extends further up the leg of the wearer than its predecessor, the ankle-length directly moulded sole boot. This feature is a major contribution to keeping water out; but additionally, it has a "bellows" type tongue, employs high quality chrome-tanned leather and is especially constructed to prevent water ingress via the welts, the seams and the lace holes.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very full reply, but I must confess that I am not at all in agreement with it. Is my noble friend acquainted with what I would describe as the ultimate boot, which is the Cairngorm boot surmounted by the Arctic gaiter? Is my noble friend aware that I have done extensive tests on those boots in the bogs of County Kerry over perhaps 120 miles, never once getting wet? I seriously question why the Army keep persisting in different types of boot when, in my book at least, the ultimate boot is the Cairngorm boot with the Arctic gaiter.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that we take steps to ensure that all the commercially available products are properly evaluated. But the combat high hoot, to which my noble friend's Question refers, has been tested not least in the Falkland Islands in 1982 and has been found to be very satisfactory.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, despite the hilarity, would the Minister accept that, while wanting to keep him on his toes in this Question, we do not intend that he shall get too much of a kick out of it? Can the Minister say how the production costs of this new boot compare with the production costs of the old one? Can the noble Lord also throw some light on the following matter? The noble Lord has already confirmed to the House that one of the advantages of the new boot is that it is more waterproof than the old one. But some of us have been mystified by what appears to be the drainage system in the new boot and the claim that, should water get in, it lets it out more easily. We are wondering whether there is any connection perhaps with tap-dancing?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think that I shall need to study that question rather carefully. But the fact of the matter is that it is almost impossible, and in fact it is undesirable, to make a totally waterproof boot, because I am told that it is necessary for the feet to breathe. That means that it is not possible to construct the boot of rubber, for example, or of some other totally waterproof material. As I have said, this boot has been tried extensively and has proved to be very successful. As far as costs are concerned, I believe that the combat high boot costs us about £16 a pair.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can my noble friend inform me whether any attention has been given to the comfort internally of these boots or whether, like ladies' shoes, they are more for appearance than for anything else?
Lord Trefgarne: No, my Lords; comfort is a matter of paramount importance and it is, of course, represented to us very strongly by those who have to wear the boots.

Degree Courses: Costs
2.43 p.m.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the latest average annual costs of providing first degree arts courses and first degree science courses in universities and polytechnics respectively.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, it is not possible to identify the costs of undergraduates separately, but the net institutional average annual cost per student in the financial year 1982–83, the latest year for which firm figures are available, was, for universities in Great Britain, about £3,600 for classroom-based students and £5,300 for laboratory-based students, while, for polytechnics in England, classroom-based students cost an average of £2,600 and laboratory-based students an average of £3,800. These figures are gross of tuition fees but exclude the cost of student maintenance awards.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, how do the Government justify the enormous disparity in the funding of the universities and the public sector of higher education revealed by the figures which the noble Earl has just given us?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, direct comparisons between university and polytechnic funding are notoriously difficult because of the different allocative mechanisms used for the two sectors. Such factors as the range of subjects and levels of courses in polytechnics and universities, and the latter's greater commitment of resources to research, go some way towards explaining the cost differential. However, given the difficulties inherent in such comparisons, the Government are more concerned with providing absolute levels of funding which are appropriate to each sector's effective and efficient operation.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister give the reasons for the difference in the level of resources? Is it because of the staff-student ratio? Is it because of the salary levels? Is it that the universities have more lecturers at higher grades? What are the reasons?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I should have thought that I had probably answered that question, but a number of factors underlie the differential in unit costs, all of which make legitimate comparison of unit costs harder. whether at an institutional or sectoral level. First, it is estimated in the July 1983 inter-sectoral comparisons paper that on average some 25 per cent. of total university resources are devoted directly or indirectly to research.
Secondly, certain very high cost subjects, such as medicine and veterinary science, are taught only in universities. Thirdly, unit costs will also be affected by differences in the mix of levels and modes within the total provision. For instance, there is an observed tendency for higher level courses to be more costly to provide.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I am not at all sure what he said in his two replies, but I shall read them very carefully? Can be answer one specific point? When will the Government start to fund research in the polytechnics?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, at the moment there is a working party of the NAB and the UGC looking into the level of funding for research in polytechnics, and that working party will report before long.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, as regards the comparison between the universities and the polytechnics, do not the figures show, as one would expect, that it is very much cheaper to educate art students, and. that being so, why it is very necessary to increase the number of science students? If it is finance that is worrying the Government about university expenditure, will they give an assurance that they will not cut down the number of art students, which potentially is very great indeed, purely on grounds of economy?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I can probably give that undertaking. It is a question of there being only a certain amount of money available, which will be used in the best possible way.

Doctors' Wives: Payment for Practice Duties
2.45 p.m.
Lord Winstanleys: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the result of the discussions in early March (announced on 14th February (cols. 125–6)) between themselves and the General Medical Services Committee on the reimbursement to general practitioners of the salaries of their wives, where the wife is employed full-time in her husband's practice on duties which qualify for such reimbursement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, the Department of Health and Social Security and the General Medical Services Committee have agreed that the related ancillary staff scheme should continue for a further year, until 31st March 1985.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the frankness of that Answer, which makes it clear that the Government intend to continue with this longstanding discriminatory practice. Will the noble Lord do what he can to persuade his right honourable friends the Secretary of State and the Minister for Health to meet some of these ladies, who I understand have formed themselves into an organisation? Will he also advise his right honourable friends that when they meet these ladies they will find that they are true professionals, highly trained and totally dedicated to the service of their husbands' patients? Is it not time that we did something to end this anomaly as to reimbursement for their duties?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am sure that what the noble Lord says about the dedication of these people is perfectly correct. I understand that the profession's representatives—and no doubt they could include the people to whom the noble Lord particularly refers—will be raising the matter shortly with officials. I cannot say whether it will be possible to make any improvement in the current arrangements, but at this stage I must say that I think it is fairly unlikely that, given the resources available and the competing demands upon them, that will be possible. However, I should not like the noble Lord to go away with the impression that the matter is entirely closed.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place on the London Economic Summit.

993
It may also be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Health and Social Security Bill will be adjourned for dinner at approximately 7.30 for a short period this evening, and that during this adjournment the consideration of Commons amendments to the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Bill will be taken.

Dangerous Vessels Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time.
Clause 2 [Application of Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Act 1900]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved the following amendment:
Page 2, line 37, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name. This is purely a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Walston.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

London Regional Transport Bill
2.50 p.m.
Further considered on Report.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 45:
After Clause 50 insert the following new clause:
("Travel concessions.
It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that arrangements made for travel concessions under this Act as respects all areas within and in the vicinity of Greater London enable persons eligible to receive them in accordance with section 49(7) of this Act to travel for, as a minimum standard, the identical hours of the day as any similar arrangements made under any enactment prior to the appointed day.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is to insert a new clause dealing with travel concessions. It deals with only one point. The purpose of the amendment is that any arrangements made for travel concessions under this Bill shall, as a minimum standard, allow travel during hours identical to those in any scheme being operated prior to the appointed day. Noble Lords will recall that in Committee an amendment was agreed which changed the off-peak hours provided in the Bill. That amendment, which was carried, will in effect ensure that the reserve scheme will have the same travelling hours as the existing scheme in Greater London.
I am certain that noble Lords will agree that it would be regrettable and nonsensical if any scheme to be operated by the boroughs was below that standard. In other words, it would be wrong if that scheme had a lower standard than noble Lords have agreed shall operate should a reserve scheme become necessary. I hope that, as your Lordships' Committee has declared its view on the hours for the reserve scheme, the Government will give their full support to this particular amendment.
It must be kept in mind that Clause 49 will permit any single authority, or any two or more authorities, to enter into arrangements with LRT for a concessionary scheme. But the reserve scheme will come into operation only if any scheme of the boroughs does not meet the requirements for scope and uniformity. This amendment would ensure that one of the points of uniformity must be that as a minimum standard the hours allowed for travelling on concession shall be the hours operating under the present scheme, or as may he operating at the appointed day.
I do not think I need go into all the arguments which were so well advanced by my noble friend Lord Pitt at the Committee stage, when the Committee saw fit to approve his amendment for the reserve scheme. All we are saying in this amendment is that what is to be laid down as a definite requirement for the reserve scheme should be laid down for any scheme which may be operated by the boroughs in the form of uniformity that I am suggesting. I hope that it will be kept in mind that one million older persons use concessionary schemes in Greater London, and that in its recent report London Transport say that there are 250 million journeys a year under the scheme. It is a well-used, very popular scheme, and I hope not only that the House will agree with the amendment but that the Government will give it support.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said, the Government have accepted this type of amendment into the reserve scheme, and I am glad to say that we are going to stick to what the Committee wanted on this particular point. I do not cavil at all at what the noble Lord wants, but I should like to explain the difference that we have with him and why we do not want to put this into the Bill as he has stated it. As the House is aware, we have had quite a debate on this topic, and of necessity I shall therefore have to cover some of the same ground again.
Noble Lords opposite would doubtless agree that the essential feature of this amendment is that it seeks to impose on local authorities by statute the existing GLC concession travel scheme. The Government's policy is of course to adopt a more flexible approach. On the one hand, it preserves the discretion of local authorities to make their own decisions as to what travel concessions to provide; on the other hand, it provides a basic fall-back scheme which will come into operation only if the boroughs fail to agree on a uniform scheme. It is of course to this basic fall-back scheme that we have agreed the amendment.
I hope that on reflection your Lordships will agree that this is the best policy. As I have mentioned before in these debates, it has been the policy of successive

995
Governments that local authorities must have discretion over the provision of discretionary fares schemes. That is why Clause 49 basically re-enacts the existing law, enabling local authorities in and around Greater London to make their own voluntary arrangements with LRT, British Rail and other operators in their area. In these circumstances we do not think it right to impose on local authorities the most generous possible scheme. I believe that what the noble Lord is proposing is unnecessarily rigid. Also, of course, we do not know what new ideas might spring up. As the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, said, it is a flexible situation, and I would suggest that it is better for the local authorities to remain flexible.
The Government believe that the best approach is to maintain so far as possible the right of local authorities to decide the scope of the travel concessions they provide. They are obliged under the Bill to agree a uniform scheme, and if they do not the statutory scheme will come into effect. But even if that happens, it will still be possible for local authorities to provide benefits on top of the statutory scheme. In this way a reasonable balance will be maintained between the various interests involved.
What we have to bear in mind in our debates on these clauses is that the Government are embodying in statute, for the first time, a specific concessionary fares scheme which the local authorities in London will be obliged to finance; that is, if conditions are such that the scheme automatically comes into operation. I really think that that is going far enough.
The amendment states:
"the identical hours of the day as any similar arrangements made under any enactment prior to the appointed day".
That really is a flexible situation. Who can tell whether, on the appointed day, we shall have the best system? I suggest to the House that what the Government have suggested in this Bill on this topic is the right way forward, and I would ask the House to support it.
Lord Somers: My Lords, surely flexibility is not what is wanted here. It is not the various local authorities upon which this is being imposed: it is upon the regional transport authority itself. For instance, I hardly think that the noble Lord would think it appropriate, when one takes a journey from London to Cornwall, to have different fares for each county through which the line passes. The same applies in a smaller way here. It is the single fare charged by the transport organisation.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I should like to speak in two respects regarding this amendment. The first is to take up the point that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has made, as I do not think that he has quite understood the significance of this amendment. It is not a question of a variation in the fares. Each borough, as I understand it, will meet the cost of the concessionary pass for the person entitled to have that pass. In that way it will not matter what the fares are anywhere. Although, as I understand it, London Regional Transport would have their own fare structure, the concessionary pass cost would surely be met by the boroughs as it used to be in past days. I stand open to correction on that if I am wrong, but do not think that Lord Somers' point is exactly relevant.
996
The other point that concerns me is the exact wording of this amendment. The words are:
"the identical hours of the day as any similar arrangements made under any enactment prior to the appointed day".
At the present moment we have this experimental scheme of an additional half hour early in the morning on the buses. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, and I both agreed that that particular half hour is quite dangerous and is causing congestion, and that it is not necessary to have that very early morning concessionary fare.
Even at the moment it is not likely to be beneficial to London Transport as a whole to he tied to what is in operation today. If the authority wished to be particularly obstructive, between now and the day of enactment they could provide that the free concessionary pass could be used from 7 o'clock in the morning, and if we passed this amendment with its present wording we could find that the task of getting people to their work in London would be quite impossible. Although I agree with Lord Underhill's point that we require a minimum standard—and I definitely support the hours that have already been passed under Lord Pitt's scheme—the wording of this amendment could be quite dangerous and harmful to London Transport in the way it is set out here.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I have listened with interest to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. I can understand the points they are making but, frankly, I cannot understand the attitude adopted by the Government. If the House has decided that we should have, as a reserve scheme, certain hours, it seems not only ridiculous but unfair that should there be a uniform scheme, or a scheme by some of the boroughs, we shall have different hours from those on which the Government will insist being in their own reserve scheme. As I said in my opening remarks, that frankly is absolutely nonsensical and I cannot understand it.
In the light of the point made about the 30 minutes at 9 o'clock on the buses. I can see that the amendment is deficient and I shall consult with a view to bringing forward an amendment at the Third Reading which will be identical with that which the House says it wants for the reserve scheme. I hope that then the Government will accept it but I give notice that we shall be doing that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 46:
After Clause 50, insert the following new clause:
("Provisions for the operation of travel concessions by independent transport operators.
.—(I) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State —

(a) subject to subsection (2) below to consider any request received from a London authority in relation to the provision of travel concessions by an independent transport operator as defined in section 48(8) of this Act and, if he considers it appropriate, to direct such an operator to provide travel concessions to persons eligible to receive them in accordance with section 48(7) of this Act similar to those concessions which are from time to time available on services provided by London Regional Transport and the Railways Board;

(b) in relation to paragraph (a) above, if he considers it appropriate, to give directions as to the maximum payments which may be made by a local authority to an independent transport service operator for the provision of travel concessions under this section.

(2) No direction under subsection (1)(a) above shall be made by the Secretary of State for the provision of travel concessions by any independent transport operator unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that financial provision for them will be made pursuant to subsections (1) and (3) of section 49 of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Bill as drafted places no obligation on independent operators to participate in a concessionary scheme. It is to be optional whether an independent operator joins in an agreement with a local authority. Most independent operators—as I think noble Lords will agree—will require satisfactory remuneration if they are to get involved in such a scheme. Obviously they will be there in order to derive a profit from their operations.
The amendment provides that there shall be a new clause. It gives the Secretary of State power to direct an independent operator to provide concessionary travel, but this will only take effect at the request of a local authority. Noble Lords will recall that a similar amendment was brought forward at Committee stage. It is being brought forward again today in the light of the arguments which were used against the amendment at the Committee stage.
The noble Earl, Lord Avon, said—and I quote now from col. 183 of Hansard on 22nd May:
"If the local authority are prepared to pay for them, there seems to be no reason why such operators should not provide them."
I think we can agree there should be no reason; but if an operator does not want to provide them, yet the local authority says it wishes it and wishes to pay for it, we are saying that that independent operator should be directed by the Secretary of State so to do. Therefore the Government have no disagreement on the principle. They just do not feel it should be in the Bill. We believe it should be in the Bill because one could find an area where an independent operator is the only operator on that particular route. Then if the local authority wanted a scheme, and was prepared to pay for it, the Secretary of State should be in a position to direct the operator to provide it, bearing in mind that the operator is going to be paid for it.
The noble Earl also thought it should be possible for two such parties to reach agreement on charges for a scheme rather than to lay down in statute that that should he done. But the amendment will ensure that should there be a failure to agree, a scheme will still go ahead, in the same way that the Bill provides that should there be failure to agree on a uniform scheme for the whole of Greater London the reserve scheme will come into operation. What we are saying is, should there be failure to agree, the Secretary of State will have the power to give direction.
The Secretary of State under the amendment will also fix a maximum payment that will be made by the local authority if he considers it appropriate. The reference to the local authority which the noble Earl advanced at the Committee stage does not apply because the amendment provides that the Secretary of State shall direct an independent operator to provide travel concessions only on a request from the local authority; and the local authority shall pay the figure to the operator that the Secretary of State shall determine. This seems common sense and fair to people living in areas which may be covered only by operators that I hope the Government will accept this amendment.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, I do not think there is much to this amendment but I was listening with some interest to his example and could not help thinking—when he said that if what is on offer is turned down we should need a statutory power in order to enforce it—why could they not go somewhere else in order to get it? I do not see what keeps them on that particular track. The House may like to bear in mind that when an operator applies for a road service licence—whether for the first time or seeking a renewal—it will be open to local authorities, the Passengers' Committee, and individuals, to make objections or other representations to the Traffic Commissioners under subsection (3) (c) of Section 31 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act. I believe we should put that on record.
It seems that the only justification for the new clause might be that it would provide a mechanism for limiting the charge made by independent operators to an amount which the Secretary of State considers reasonable. The Government consider that setting limits as to a reasonable level of reimbursement to cover the fare income forgone in operating a concession would involve an unnecessary level of interference in a private operator's fare structure. We can surely expect the operators and the local authorities to settle such a question among themselves.
The Government do not consider it necessary to compel private operators to provide concessions. It will be in both the operators' and the local authorities' interest to ensure that London's travel concessions can apply on the services of private operators with the minimum of fuss. If, as the noble Lord seems to fear, there is a large increase in the number of independent operators the extension of concessionary travel onto their services will he a natural and sensible development.
The position of the operator providing independent services is different. He has chosen to back his commercial judgment in the market place. He is not answerable to the Secretary of State, or to local authorities as the noble Lord said. If the public do not like his services they will not use them. As I said earlier, they can go somewhere else. If he was the only person providing a service on a particular route at a particular time, and his service was unsatisfactory, it would always be open to LRT, in performing their duty to have due regard to transport needs, to introduce a service of their own. Bus operators are in business to carry passengers and we cannot see that there is any reason for them to refuse income in the way that this amendment would seem to envisage. I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied with my explanation. I have tried to put our point of view over.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the noble Earl always puts his replies in a very persuasive way; but, when one analyses it, the noble Earl is not really seeing the points that are being made in this particular amendment. If ever there was a case for talking about integration this is it; but we must not use the word "integration" in this House because it is only understood apparently by non-governmental persons. Of course we should like to see agreement; but a Bill must provide that failure to agree a desired concession will be taken up and dealt with appropriately. The noble Earl said that if the

999
public do not like it, they can go somewhere else. We are talking about concessions for aged persons. The independent operators may be the only service on that particular route. That is the real point of the amendment.
I do not propose to divide the House now, but there is still one further stage. I do not want to have a lot of amendments at the Third reading stage; but, frankly, on reading the noble Earl's reply very carefully, if there seems to be a possibility that parts of Greater London could be without concessionary fares because the only person operating is an independent operator, then I believe we have to be fair to the passengers, the aged people, who may be compelled to use that particular service. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.10 p.m.
Clause 51 [Supplementary provisions with respect to the free travel scheme]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 51, line 5, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) Each issuing authority shall be obliged

(a) to issue permits to all persons eligible to receive them under subsection 49(7) of this Act without charge, terms, limitations or conditions;

(b) to make arrangements with the Post Offices for permits to be issued from each Post Office or sub Post Office in the area of that authority.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the last amendment I shall put forward dealing with concessionary fares. This proposes the deletion of the existing subsection (5) and replacing it with the new wording as set out in the amendment. I should read what is in the existing subsection (5):
"The issue of such a permit by any issuing authority shall be subject to such terms, limitations or conditions as the authority may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, from time to time determine as respects any category of eligible London residents."
This means that there could be changes from the existing arrangements. While one agrees that there could be flexibility, it has already been stated that boroughs may be permitted to make charges. This amendment seeks to lay down that there shall be no variations from existing arrangements, either in the reserve scheme or in any other scheme, which may be put together by London boroughs. The Government have already intimated that there could be charges for permits. That does not apply at present. Should schemes be proposed by the boroughs which the Secretary of State may find acceptable, it would be most unfortunate if, dependent on where a person lived, there could be a charge for the issue of a permit or a permit be issued on varying or different conditions. We should remember that there are 33 London boroughs. It must be remembered, too, that journeys by bus or Underground do not stop at borough boundaries. Most persons have journeys which traverse a number of the borough areas.
Paragraph (b) of the amendment will make it obligatory on each issuing authority concerned to make arrangements for permits to be issued from each post office within the area of that authority. This, as noble Lords will be aware, is what happens under the
1000
present scheme. It works well and is well appreciated by pensioners and other persons. Older people find the arrangements most convenient, particularly as most of them use the post offices to collect their pension payments. Further, post office staff are well used to the system and in many cases they are even on personal terms with the applicants.
I hope that the Government will say that this is a sensible amendment. We do not want to have varying schemes. We do not want to find one borough charging for a permit and another borough not and we do not want to see the facilities of the post offices not used in any future scheme. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am sorry that I am not able to support this amendment. I have a number of reasons for saying that. When I was chairman of the social services committee of Westminster City Council, we issued these concessionary fare permits from the local boroughs. That was before the scheme went over to the Greater London Council. We issued the permits without charge and I always thought that that was a mistake we made. We should have made some purely nominal charge, such as 50p, as I believe some other boroughs did, charging 50p or £1 in those days. The reason I say that is because it came very clearly to my knowledge that a great many people took up those concessionary passes although they were quite unable to travel and never did travel. Indeed, I remember clearly one case of a woman who said that she had taken it in case her chauffeur ever became ill and it would be convenient to have it. A number of bedridden people applied for passes and got them. We issued them and also in those days it will be remembered that there were no photographs on the passes so a pass issued to one person could have been used by anyone else. However, I shall not go into that aspect of it.
We issued permits by post. We first sent a written request to ask someone whether they would like it. They then wrote back and we sent them a free sticker. I know that, by the time we had paid three lots of postage on each of these passes, the cost in postage of issuing them in those days—I am speaking of some time ago—was over £6,000.
Councils certainly are not able to issue them for nothing. It is not appreciated that these passes cost money. People think, "I am getting it for free", but they do not appreciate that that means their council will be paying London Transport whatever the value of the pass is. I do not know what the current value of a pass is, but I suppose it must represent £100 or maybe more per year, because a travel card for an ordinary person to travel in London represents £190 per year for a two-section pass. It could be a major expense, and councils do not want to be buying passes for people who have no intention of using them. Therefore there must be some way of controlling who they are being issued to and ensuring that the people receiving them intend to use them. If people do intend to use them, it is the most marvellous thing in the world. It is far better than any amount of social services, it keeps them mobile and active. I am all for them, but I do not want to see the local authorities issuing passes to people who cannot ever get on a bus.

1001
I think that the second aspect regarding the Post Office is the ideal way of issuing permits. It is extremely practical, but again it is not free. At present, the Post Office has an arrangement with the Greater London Council and I am sure that, when the scheme goes over to boroughs, they will be expected to meet the Post Office charges. It is possible that boroughs would prefer to issue their own passes and feel they could do it more efficiently through their own social services schemes. It should be appreciated that because someone has a free pass it is no hardship to go to collect the next one from the council. The idea is to keep people moving around. I think that both paragraphs (a) and (b) of this amendment have disadvantages and, although I think the idea is interesting and things will probably go on in exactly the way that is suggested here, I should not like to see that made compulsory on the boroughs.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, made clear, the purpose of this amendment is twofold. In the first place, it seeks to remove the discretion of local authorities in Greater London to place any terms, limitations or conditions on the issue of certain concessionary travel permits. Secondly, it seeks to make it obligatory for local authorities to make arrangements with the Post Office for the issue of the permits.
On the first point I should make it clear that the ability of local authorities to impose any terms, limitations or conditions on the issue of concessionary travel permits as provided for in Clause 51(5) is not a new provision applying only to the reserve scheme. Your Lordships will notice that Clause 49(9) makes it clear that the term "travel concession" means the reduction or waiver of a fare or charge either absolutely or subject to terms, limitations or conditions. That subsection merely re-enacts in relation to LRT the powers which all authorities have under existing legislation.
I return the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, made about me, because his own persuasive powers led me to think that perhaps something was different. It is not: the provision merely re-enacts the powers which all authorities have under existing legislation. It would apply to any voluntary scheme as it does to the reserve scheme. I made clear throughout the debates on this subject at Committee stage that the Government believe it is important that as far as possible local authorities should have a discretion about travel concessions. It is, after all, they who have to pay for them and I believe it is only right that they should retain the power to impose any terms, conditions or limitations if they so wish. My noble friend Baroness Gardner of Parkes illustrated this forcefully to the House.
There is, however an important safeguard in Clause 51(5). The Government do not want the operation of the reserve scheme, if it is brought into effect, to be frustrated by boroughs making exorbitant charges. So the Secretary of State will be taking unique powers to make the imposition of any terms, limitations or conditions subject to his approval.
On the second point, I can appreciate, as did my noble friend Baroness Gardner of Parkes, the administrative convenience of travel permits being issued by
1002
the Post Office and I understand that the London Boroughs' Association have this possibility very much in mind in devising a uniform voluntary scheme. But I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that it would be very difficult for all the permits to be issued by the Post Office if the boroughs decided to impose different terms and conditions on their issue. In the circumstances, my Lords, I do not believe that it would be sensible to impose upon boroughs a view on how the permits should be issued: it should be left to them to devise their own arrangements.
I have gone into some detail on this amendment and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will appreciate what I have been saying.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I appreciate the point that the noble Earl makes about existing legislation. Before coming to the point about the different schemes, may I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, that I live outside London but we have London Transport service facilities. Permits for aged persons are issued from the various council offices. There is a post office 100 yards from me but people have to get on to a bus and go to the nearest council sub-office to get their passes. That seems utterly ridiculous and unfair to pensioners. In the case of post offices, it is not just the Crown post offices which are concerned but also the sub-post offices, which is what we suggest in this amendment. They are all over the place, and most convenient, and we think we should use the offices of a public institution when they are available. The very arguments which the noble Earl used are the sort of arguments that we used against the whole idea of London Regional Transport taking over from London Transport—we are going to have multifarious different schemes of some kind where there ought to be one general scheme.
I can appreciate the point on existing legislation but will have a careful look at what the noble Earl has said about post offices. Is it sufficient merely that he hopes that the authorities will use the post offices, or is it not common sense that where we have a wide network of post offices, a public institution, they ought to be used for this sort of purpose? It may be that we shall come back at Third Reading with amendments of that kind only. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.22 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 48:
After Clause 52, insert the following new clause:
("Penalty fares.
.—(1) This section and the three next following sections have effect in relation to—

(a) travel on a bus service to which this section applies; and

(b) travel on a train service to which this section applies; if an order under section (Operation of the penalty fares provisions) of this Act is for the time being in force with respect to the service in question.

(2) Subject to subsection (4) below, if at any time during his journey on any bus service to which this section applies on which fare tickets are issued in return for fares paid by persons travelling on that service a person so travelling fails, on being required to do so by an authorised person, to produce any necessary fare ticket for his journey on that service, he shall be liable to pay a penalty fare in respect of that journey.
(3) Subject to subsection (4) below, if a person travels on any such bus service on which fare tickets are not so issued without paying the fare (if any) properly payable for his journey on that service, or for any part of his journey on that service, he shall be liable to pay a penalty fare in respect of that journey.
(4) A person shall not be liable to pay a penalty fare —

(a) in a case within subsection (2) above, if he had no reasonable opportunity to obtain any necessary fare ticket before the time when he was required to produce such a ticket;

(b) in a case within subsection (3) above, if he had no reasonable opportunity to pay the fare in question before the time when he was found to have failed to pay it.

(5) Subject to subsection (6) below, if at any time during his journey on any train service to which this section applies a person travelling on that service fails, on being required to do so by an authorised person, to produce any necessary fare ticket for his journey on that service, he shall be liable to pay a penalty fare in respect of that journey.
(6) A person shall not be liable to pay a penalty fare by virtue of subsection (5) above if he had no reasonable opportunity to obtain any necessary fare ticket, or a deferred fare authority applicable to his journey or to any relevant part of his journey, at the time when he started to travel.
(7) A penalty fare payable by any person under this section in respect of any journey shall be an amount equal to—

(a) the minimum penalty; or

(b) the default fare for the journey multiplied by the multiplier; whichever is the greater; and any such penalty fare shall be payable to the person providing the service in question within the period of twenty-one days beginning with the day following the date on which the journey was completed.

(8) In subsection (7) above —

(a) "the minimum penalty" means £5 or such other (lower or higher) sum as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe; and

(b) "the multiplier" means ten or such other (lower or higher) figure as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe.

(9) In any case within subsection (2) or (5) above the default fare for the journey mentioned in subsection (7)(b) above is

(a) where the whole of the distance travelled on that journey was not covered by any fare ticket produced by the person in question or by any deferred fare authority or other valid authority to travel, an amount equal to the full fare for the whole of that distance;

(b) where any part (but not the whole) of the distance so travelled was not so covered, an amount equal to the full fare for that part of that distance;

(c) where the whole or any part of the distance so travelled was covered by a fare ticket so produced showing payment of a fare lower than the fare properly payable for that journey or for the relevant part of that journey, an amount equal to the difference between the fare shown on the ticket and the full fare for that distance or (as the case may be) for that part of that distance; and

(d) where both paragraphs (b) and (c) above apply, the aggregate of the amounts applicable under each of those paragraphs.

(10) In any case within subsection (3) above the default fare for the journey mentioned in subsection (7)(b) above is an amount determined by applying subsection (9) above, taking references (however expressed) to a fare ticket produced by the person in question and the fare shown on any such ticket as references to a fare paid by that person.
(11) In this section "full fare" means, in relation to the whole or any part of the distance travelled by any person on a journey on any bus or train service to which this section applies, the single ordinary fare payable by an adult for travelling on that service for that distance or (as the case may be) for that part of that distance on a journey corresponding to the one actually taken (but treated, where it covers part only of the distance travelled on that journey, and also where the whole of the distance so travelled formed part of a journey made partly by way of another service, as a separate journey).
(12) The liability of any person under this section to pay a penalty fare in respect of any journey is subject to section (Exclusion of double liability) of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 48. In doing so, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 49, 50, 51, 52 and 53.
Amendment No. 49: As an amendment to Amendment No. 48, in subsection (8), paragraph (a), leave out (15") and insert ("£ 10").
Amendment No. 50: After Clause 52, insert the following new clause:
("Interpretation of the penalty fares provisions.
—(1) Section (Penalty fares) of this Act applies to any bus or train service provided by London Regional Transport or any subsidiary of theirs or by any other person in pursuance of any agreement entered into by London Regional Transport by virtue of section 3(2) of this Act which provides that that section is to apply to services provided in pursuance of that agreement.
(2) In this section and the three next following sections "the penalty fares provisions" means section (Penalty fares), this section and the two next following sections.
(3) In the penalty fares provisions —
"authorised person" means a person authorised by the person providing the service in question:
"authority to travel" means any ticket (other than a fare ticket), permit, voucher or other document authorising the person to whom it is issued to travel on any bus or train service to which section (Penalty fares) applies, whether or not subject to any terms, limitations or conditions as to its use;
"bus journey" means a journey on a bus service to which that section applies;
"bus service" has the meaning given by section 43(6) of this Act;
"deferred fare authority" means an authority to travel subject to a condition requiring payment of the fare applicable in the case of the person using that authority for the whole or any part of any journey on which it is used at the conclusion of that journey or otherwise as provided by any terms applicable to its use (whether or not it is also subject to any other terms. limitations or conditions);
"deferred fare" means the fare payable for a journey authorised by a deferred fare authority;
"fare ticket" means a ticket showing payment of a fare for travelling on a bus or train journey and authorising the person to whom it is issued to travel on any such journey for the distance covered by that fare, whether or not subject to any terms, limitations or conditions as to its use;
"train journey" means a journey on a train service to which section (Penalty fares) of this Act applies: and
"train service" means a service for the carriage of passengers by rail.
(4) References in the penalty fares provisions to the fare properly payable for a person's journey on any bus or train service to which section (Penalty fares) applies are references to the fare so payable excluding any deferred fare for the journey: that is to say, the fare payable by a person of the category to which he belongs for travelling on that service for the whole of the distance travelled on that journey, or for such part of the distance so travelled as is not covered by any deferred fare authority or other valid authority to travel that applies to his journey on the occasion in question.
This subsection applies in relation to references in those provisions to the fare properly payable for part of a person's journey as it applies to references to the fare properly payable for a person's journey.
(5) References in those provisions to any necessary fare ticket for a person's journey on any such bus or train service are references to a fare ticket required for his journey on the occasion in question which—

(a) applies to his journey on that occasion; and

(b) shows payment of the fare properly payable for that journey.

(6) For the purposes of those provisions, no fare is properly payable for a bus journey and no fare ticket is required for a bus or train journey if the person travelling on that journey has a deferred fare authority or other valid authority to travel that applies to the whole of his journey on the occasion in question.").
Amendment No. 51: After Clause 52, insert the following new clause:
("Supplementary provisions with respect to penalty fares.
.—(1) Section 25(2) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (arrest of bus passenger without warrant) shall apply where a constable suspects with reasonable cause that a person has become liable to pay a penalty fare in respect of any bus journey as it applies where a constable so suspects that a person has contravened or failed to comply with a provision of any

1005
regulations having effect by virtue of that section (regulation of conduct of passengers).
(2) Section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 shall apply in the case of any person who has become liable to pay a penalty fare under section (Penalty fares) of this Act as if —

(a)the reference in subsection (1) (offence of failing either to produce the correct ticket, pay the correct fare or give name and address to an officer or servant of a railway company) to his fare from the place whence he started (but not the earlier reference to his fare) were a reference to his fare from that place and the penalty fare; and

(b) the second reference to his fare in subsection (2) (power to detain person failing to give name and address) and the reference to his fare in subsection (3)(c) (offence of giving a false name and address) were each a reference to his fare and the penalty fare.

(3) If in any action for the recovery of a penalty fare payable under section (Penalty fares) it is established that the circumstances fall within subsection (2), (3) or (5) of that section, it shall he for the defence to show that any exception provided by subsection (4) or (6) of that section applies.
(4) It shall be the duty of London Regional Transport to secure that the requirements of the following provisions of this section with respect to warning notices are met in the case of every bus or train service to which section (Penalty fares) applies.
(5) In the case of a bus service, a warning notice meeting the requirements of subsection (6) below shall be posted in every vehicle used in providing that service or, where any such vehicle has more than one deck, on each deck of that vehicle, in such a position as to be readily visible to persons travelling on the vehicle.
(6) A warning notice posted in pursuance of subsection (5) above shall state—

(a) in the case of a bus service within section (Penalty fares) (2) of this Act, that persons travelling on that service who cannot produce a ticket showing payment of the correct fare for their journey, or for any part of their journey not otherwise authorised, may be liable to a penalty fare; and

(b) in the case of a bus service within subsection (3) of that section, that persons who travel on that service without paying the correct fare for their journey, or for any part of their journey not otherwise authorised, may be liable to a penalty fare.

(7) In the case of a train service, a warning notice meeting the requirements of subsection (8) below shall be posted—

(a) in every station at which persons may start to travel on that service, in such a position as to be readily visible to prospective passengers; and

(b) in every carriage of every train used in providing that service.

(8) A warning notice posted in pursuance of subsection (7) above shall state that persons travelling on that service who cannot produce a ticket showing payment of the correct fare for their journey, or for any part of their journey not otherwise authorised, may be liable to a penalty fare.
(9) Every warning notice posted in pursuance of this section shall state the amount of the current minimum penalty (within the meaning of section (Penalty fares) (7) of this Act) and indicate that a penalty fare may be higher.
(10) Any order under subsection (8) of that section shall he subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
Amendment No. 52: After Clause 52, insert the following new clause:
("Exclusion of double liability.
.—(I) Where a person has become liable under section (Penalty fares) of this Act to pay a penalty fare in respect of any bus or train journey ("the relevant journey"), no proceedings may be brought against him for any of the offences specified in subsection (2) below before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (7) of that section; and no such proceedings may be brought after the end of that period if either —

(a) he has paid that fare to the person providing the service before the end of that period; or

(b) an action has been brought against him for the recovery of that fare.

(2) The offences mentioned in subsection (1) above are —

(a) any offence under section 5(3)(a) or (b) of the Regulation of
Railways Act 1889 (travelling without paying the correct fare with intent to avoid payment) arising from the relevant journey;

1006

(b) any offence under byelaws made under section 67 of the 1962 Act (byelaws for railways, etc.) involving a failure to obtain or produce a fare ticket or authority to travel for the relevant journey; and

(c) any offence under section 25(3) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 of contravening or failing to comply with any provision of regulations for the time being having effect by virtue of that section by failing to pay the fare properly payable for the relevant journey or any part of it.

(3) If proceedings are brought against any such person for any such offence he shall cease to be liable to pay the penalty fare and, if he has paid it, the person to whom it was paid shall be liable to repay to him an amount equal to the amount of that fare.").
Amendment No. 53: After Clause 52, insert the following new clause:
("Operation of the penalty fares provisions.
.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide that the penalty fares provisions shall have effect, as from such day as may be specified in the order, with respect to—

(a) bus services to which section (Penalty fares) applies; and

(b) train services to which that section applies; and different days may be specified under this section with respect to bus services and train services.

(2) Any such order is referred to below in this section as an order activating the penalty fares provisions.
(3) The revocation by the Secretary of State of an order activating the penalty fares provisions shall be without prejudice to the power of the Secretary of State to make further orders under this section activating those provisions.
(4) An order activating the penalty fares provisions may provide that any provision of a local Act specified in the order (being a provision which appears to the Secretary of State to be unnecessary having regard to the penalty fares provisions so far as they have effect by virtue of the order) shall be suspended while that order has effect; and any such provision shall accordingly be treated, so long as that order has effect, as if it had been repealed.
(5) Without prejudice to subsection (4) above, any order activating the penalty fares provisions, and any order revoking any such order, may contain such supplementary, incidental and consequential provisions (including transitional provisions) as may appear to the Secretary of State to be neccessary or expedient.
(6) No order activating the penalty fares provisions may be made except at the request of London Regional Transport.").
We come now to a very important topic which we raised during our earlier consideration of the Bill and on which, following a number of representations from your Lordships—notably the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, my noble friend Lord Teviot and my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes—I then gave an undertaking to introduce Government amendments. I apologise for the number of clauses involved here. There are certainly very many more than I envisaged at that time, but the complexity of the different arrangements for paying fares, as well as the inherent differences in travel on buses and the Underground, has made this unavoidable.
The Government agree wholeheartedly with those noble Lords who have drawn attention to the magnitude of fare dodging on London Transport services and to the need to take this opportunity to put matters right. In 1982 fares evasion cost London Transport as much as £40 million. As a result of lower fares and simplified ticketing arrangements, as well as a publicity campaign, London Transport succeeded in reducing this figure to an estimated £25 million in 1983. Nevertheless, this is still a very large sum, representing almost a 5 per cent. loss on revenue received. And this loss, caused by relatively few defaulters, has to be met by the majority of honest travellers. It effectively adds 6 per cent. to the fares which they would otherwise have to pay. Clearly, this points to the need for steps to eradicate the enormous losses which currently take place.
As your Lordships are aware, it is the Government's aim to ensure that LRT reduce costs, improve efficiency and generally provide better value for money. London Transport are already planning for the introduction of automated fares collection and ticket issue. In the longer term, when the proposed new Underground ticketing system is fully operational, there will be automatic gates at central stations and open-barrier suburban stations. In these circumstances the opportunity for increased fares evasion is obvious. Indeed, I will go further and say that unless steps are taken to place a clear obligation on travellers to pay the proper fare for their journeys with an appropriate penalty if they do not, it will be impossible to achieve the savings which we want to see.
Before describing how the penalty fares system will work, perhaps I could take the opportunity to set the record straight on one or two matters which may be of concern. In preparing these measures, the Government have given very careful thought to the need to protect the civil liberties of the individual. It is for this reason that the measures include a number of safeguards for travellers.
In the first place, I would like to make it clear that the proposal before your Lordships is not, as was erroneously reported in some newspapers, for an on-the-spot fine. What the proposal amounts to is that, as part of the conditions of travelling on LRT services, travellers will be liable to a surcharge (or a penalty) if they do not pay the proper fare. What is involved, therefore, is not the creation of a new criminal offence with a fine being exacted other than in accordance with the due process of law; it is simply the creation of a new civil liability. Although it will be possible for the traveller to pay this surcharge on the spot, he will have 21 days in which to pay. If he chooses not to pay, then LRT's redress for the recovery of the penalty fare lies only in a civil action in the county courts. These new conditions will be prominently displayed at stations, on trains and on buses to ensure that travellers are fully aware of their liabilities. The new measures do not disturb the existing criminal law, under which it is an offence to travel with intent to avoid payment. I will return to this in a moment.
The second point I wish to make is that the proposals ensure that travellers will not be liable to pay a penalty fare if they had no reasonable opportunity to pay the proper fare or to obtain a ticket. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has authorised me to give an undertaking that the measures will not be introduced on the Underground until he is satisfied that appropriate equipment is in place to ensure that a reasonable opportunity exists for obtaining an appropriate ticket or authority to travel. The measures in these new clauses can only be brought into effect by order of the Secretary of State, at the request of London Regional Transport; and the measures can be revoked by the Secretary of State if unforeseen difficulties occur. There is no question that these provisions will come into operation on the appointed day for the Bill itself.
Perhaps I could now describe, quite briefly, the purpose of the five clauses under consideration. The
1008
first new clause (Amendment No. 48) provides that if a person does not pay the proper fare for the whole or any part of his journey, he will be liable to a penalty fare of either £5 or ten times the amount of the unpaid fare, whichever is the greater. There will be no liability to a penalty fare if the travellers had no reasonable opportunity to pay the proper fare or to obtain a fare ticket for the journey in question. The clause also defines the terms and method of calculation for a penalty fare. The second new clause (Amendment No. 50) provides that the penalty fare system will apply on all LRT bus and train services, on services of any subsidiary of LRT, and on services of any person operating under an agreement with LRT where that agreement states that the penalty fares provisions are to apply. This clause also sets out definitions of terms used concerning fares, tickets, journey and so on.
The third new clause (Amendment No. 51) contains supplementary provisions to enable the name and address of a traveller to be obtained if he is liable to a penalty fare and to extend the current powers of arrest, on failure to give a name and address, to the penalty fares provisions. This clause also places a duty on LRT to ensure that warning notices about liability for penalty fares, and about the minimum amount, are displayed at every station, in every train and on every deck of every bus. Any order varying the penalty fare will be subject to the negative resolution procedure in Parliament.
The fourth new clause (Amendment No. 52) provides that a traveller will not have a double liability for an offence relating to fares. If he is liable for a penalty fare no proceedings can be brought within a period of 21 days. Any liability to prosecution will be discharged by payment of the penalty fare within that period of time. On the other hand, if proceedings are brought after the 21-day period against a person for offences relating to non-payment of fares he will not be liable to pay the penalty fare.
The final new clause (Amendment No. 53) provides for the Secretary of State to bring the penalty fares provisions into effect by order, at the request of LRT, for bus services and train services separately. The clause also sets out provisions relating to revocation of the orders and the suspension of similar provisions in local Acts which appear to the Secretary of State to be unnecessary when the new provisions are brought into effect.
I have explained that these measures create a new civil liability for non-payment of the proper fare. This will apply equally to those who, for example, innocently override with every intention of paying, and those who travel with intent to avoid payment and who will remain liable, even if they do not pay the penalty fare, to prosecution.
The Government are well aware that extending sanctions in this way into new areas almost inevitably restricts the freedoms of some innocent people; and that the measures may be perceived as an extension of criminal sanctions. The Government have considered this aspect very carefully. We have been able to see no alternative to the approach embodied in these clauses if the provisions are to be effective in their purpose; namely, to help to eradicate the high level of fraudulent travel on London's public transport. At the

1009
same time, I and my right honourable friend will be taking careful note of the points made today in your Lordships' House. If these clauses can be improved I give your Lordships a firm assurance of my determination that this will be done and that the necessary refinements will be brought forward at Third Reading. I go further than that. If on maturer consideration further improvements are identified before these provisions come into effect, we shall seek to implement them in amending legislation. I hope, with these undertakings, we can now debate these important new measures with the seriousness they deserve. I beg to move Amendment No. 48.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Airedale): My Lords, I now have to call, as an amendment to Amendment No. 48, Amendment No. 49 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes had given notice of her intention to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 48, Amendment No. 49:
[Printed above: col. 1004.]
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am not clear whether, in terms of the procedures of this House, if I speak on this amendment to the amendment I can then speak on the amendment itself. I will speak just to the amendment to the amendment at this moment, as I would prefer to reserve my other comments.
Lord Denham: My Lords, perhaps I can help the noble Baroness. My noble friend can of course speak on both if she wants. Her amendment has been called and the debate is on that, but she can of course speak to the parent amendment as well.?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, do I have the alternative of speaking separately to both amendments?
Noble Lords: No.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I have to speak on both simultaneously. Thank you very much for that clarification. In that case, I shall deal with the amendment to the amendment first. I have suggested a penalty fare of £ 10 rather than £5 for several reasons. One was to bring it more into line with the penalty paid as a fixed penalty charge for car parking in the wrong spot. I thought that £10 was not an unreasonable sum. I also thought that it was more of a deterrent than the proposed minimum £5. But since putting this amendment down I have had consultations with London Transport and I think I am persuaded by them that £5 is a more practical figure at this initial stage. Their research has shown that people are much more likely to have £5 on them and the real intention is to enable people to settle this matter then and there, rather than to choose the 21-day deferred system for payment. So I think, as there is provision in my noble friend's original clause for a variation of this amount should £5 become completely out of date as time goes by, I would not press my amendment to the amendment.
1010
I should like now to go on to speak to Amendment No. 48. I welcome it and I am very glad that the Government have brought the amendment forward, particularly when I see how very complicated it is. Although I asked for this and thought it a fairly simple thing at the early stages of the Bill, it is quite apparent from the detail that has gone into it that it is far from simple. I can see that most of the complexity arises from the need to protect people and to introduce the essential safeguards. I welcome those.
The London Regional Passengers' Committee would also support the introduction of a penalty fares system provided these safeguards were introduced. The safeguard of the gravest importance is the ability in some way to obtain a ticket at the beginning of your journey, either a ticket or an authority to travel, which is what it is proposed to introduce in the areas where it will not be possible to get a ticket, so there will be at least a machine issuing one with an authority to travel and never a need to get on the Tube without this authority. I understand that it is possible for this scheme to be introduced on the buses very soon but that it might well be five years before the Tube scheme could come into being. Nevertheless, this is the time to produce the law in relation to this.
I welcome the fact that this will be a civil matter and that passengers will therefore have the choice of paying a standard fare or a penalty fare. The penalty fare will be for failure to produce the correct ticket and not just for failure to have one. At the present time LT can prosecute but in order to win the case they have to prove an intent to defraud. Under this civil matter it will not be necessary to prove any intent because it will not be a question of fraud; it will simply be a choice of civil contract to choose a standard ticket or a penalty rate ticket.
The present prosecutions are brought under the Theft or Forgery Acts, and this will continue. Where it is believed that there is a serious attempt to avoid payment of the fare, or a repeated habit of someone trying to do this, or a forgery such as altering a ticket, which is apparently quite a common occurrence nowadays where people will try to alter the date on a ticket to make it appropriate, it is prosecuted under the Forgery Act. This right will remain. Many people are afraid that this penalty fare will take away a degree of their liberty. I do not think they appreciate that at present it is an offence to travel without a ticket but that the means of prosecuting and bringing the person without a ticket to any point where he makes recompense for it is much more complicated and difficult.
A very important point is the one made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that notices will be displayed at all the stations and in the buses. I have asked London Transport to take up the matter with the International Public Transport Body, which has its home in Brussels, and to try to devise some type of international symbol. After all, these "on-the-spot fines", as they are called in other countries, or "penalty fares" as they would be in this country, are in operation now in so many places. In this country they are already in operation in Tyne and Wear on the Metro, where the minimum is £3, and in Manchester, where the penalty is five times the fare due. I could go through a great list—and perhaps other speakers may

1011
do so—of France, Brussels, Denmark, Norway, Holland and Germany. There is a great list of places where this type of structure is already in operation; and I think there is a need for an international sign, for example, in the same way as we have road signs, so that anyone getting on transport in any country operating this system will know that they must have a ticket for the journey; otherwise, they will be liable.
I would not wish to continue for too long, but I should like to mention that I have had a most extraordinary letter from one transport users' group who say, among other things, that when you are travelling on a bus—and they underline this comment—ignorance of the correct fare is the norm. I find that hard to believe. I find it even harder to believe that lost and even illegitimate passenger miles will be detrimental to London Transport. I find that the fear, as expressed in the letter, that a penalty fare will force people to change to car, bike or foot is rather unbelievable. I think that if London Transport really has so many passengers travelling illegitimate miles who will feel obliged to give up London Transport because they are going to have to pay a fare, we would be well off without those people right from the start. So although that letter has come, I really pay little regard to it.
There are people who are concerned as to what will happen to someone who is ticketless and perhaps has just been forgetful. In such cases that person will still have the right to defend themselves at the end of the 21 days. They can refuse to pay. They can go and present in a court the same defence as they have now. This will not rule out that alternative procedure. So I have no hesitation in supporting this amendment. I hope that it will be carried.

London Economic Summit
3.42 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister about the Tenth Annual Economic Summit which was held in London from 7th to 9th June. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the Tenth Annual Economic Summit which was held in London from 7th to 9th June. Heads of State or Government of the seven principal industrialised countries were present, accompanied by their Foreign and Finance or Economic Ministers, together with the President of the European Commission, who was accompanied by Monsieur Ortoli
"I have placed in the Library of the House copies of the Economic Declaration and of declarations issued on democratic values, East-West relations and terrorism, together with a statement about our discussions on the Iraq-Iran conflict.
"I shall deal first with the political issues. The Summit considered it timely to restate the values which bind the Western democracies, particularly at the end of a week when we had been remembering
1012
the very different conditions of forty years ago. Too often, we have seen the Western case go by default while governments which deny democracy maintain an unceasing flow of propaganda.
"At British initiative, we had a thorough discussion of the problems posed by terrorism. There was unanimous determination to confront and defeat international terrorism whatever forms it may take. We identified a number of detailed proposals which will be followed up in the working group of experts from the Summit countries.
"On East-West affairs the Summit, having stressed the need for resolve and solidarity, stated our readiness for dialogue and our hope that the Soviet Union will react constructively and positively. We expressed our belief that East and West have important common interests: in preserving peace; in enhancing confidence and security; in reducing the risks of surprise attack or war by accident; in improving crisis management techniques; and in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.
"We also discussed the conflict between Iraq and Iran. We expressed our regret at the breaches of international humanitarian law which this conflict has brought, and called for freedom of navigation to be respected. As to oil supplies, we were satisfied that, given existing stocks of oil and the availability of other sources of energy, adequate supplies could be maintained for a substantial period of time by international co-operation and mutually supportive action.
"The primary purpose of the Summit was to discuss economic matters. On these we reached the following main conclusions. First: The declaration pointed out that economic recovery can now be seen to be established in the Summit countries. It is more soundly based than previous recoveries, thanks to the firm policies designed to bring down inflation. But to sustain recovery, and spread its benefits further, requires unremitting efforts. We agreed therefore to continue and where necessary strengthen policies to reduce inflation and interest rates, to control monetary growth and reduce budget deficits.
"Second: As unemployment in our countries remains high, we emphasised the need for sustained growth and the creation of new jobs; the need to ensure that industrial economies adapt and develop in response to demand and technological change, including in small and medium-sized businesses; and the need to encourage active job training policies and the efficient working of the labour market.
"Third: On international debt the problems will be easier to resolve if world recovery is sustained and policies are followed which are conducive to lower interest rates. We reaffirmed the case-by-case approach. We agreed that with the strategy we have adopted the problems are manageable. We identified a number of matters which require further attention. Among them: that where debtor countries have successfully made efforts to adjust their economies, we will encourage longer-term rescheduling of their debts; that we should like to see

1013
even closer co-operation between the Fund and the World Bank, whose role should be strengthened; that developing countries should be encouraged to open their economies to increased direct investment from the industrialised countries and to substitute longer-term direct and portfolio investment for short-term bank lending.
"Fourth: The Summit urged all countries to reduce trade barriers and to liberalise and expand international trade in manufactures, commodities and services. We agreed to consult GATT partners with a view to early decisions on the timing and objectives for a new negotiating round.
"And fifth: We agreed on a new programme of research and co-operation, the better to establish and deal with the causes of environmental pollution.
"To sum up, the Summit expressed the clear view that the economic strategy we have been following is right and that we should continue to pursue it. We did not leave it at that. We set out in the declaration a ten-point action programme for the next twelve months. This includes a series of specific measures for reducing obstacles to the creation of new jobs; and records our agreement to seek to maintain and wherever possible increase the flow of official aid to developing countries, particularly the poorest, and to encourage more openness towards private investment flows. The declaration as a whole sets out a global approach to the economic situation and deals comprehensively and positively with current needs and problems.
"Mr. Speaker, this was a workmanlike and constructive meeting which achieved a very large measure of agreement on the basic objectives of our respective policies, on both the economic and political fronts".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement. It is a long one, and the communiqué, or economic declaration, is even longer. It contains many respectable aspirations and long-term objectives, such as a call for early and positive results in East-West arms control negotiations, encouragement of the new GATT talks, a new world study on acid rain, a declaration on international terrorism, a plea to Iran and Iraq to stop attacking each other, and so on. These aims are unexceptionable.
It was stated that there is a readiness for dialogue with the USSR, but can the noble Viscount say precisely what action is proposed? For example, is the USSR to be approached to return to the Geneva talks on nuclear arms limitation? Again, is anything further proposed, apart from a general appeal to Iran and Iraq? Will this conflict be discussed with the USSR? I regret to say that there is a lack of clarity and objective in the Statement and in the communiqué.
Is it not also the case—and this is the most serious defect in the communiqué—that the major economic problems facing the world were shunted on to a sideline with vague words and feeble half-measures? Is it not the case that the very acute problems facing the world are unemployment, the US budget deficit and
1014
high interest rates, and that in spite of all the high-flown words the summit's positive reaction to these is deeply disappointing?
For example, does not the case by case approach to the debt crisis—although we welcome the help to Mexico—leave a large number of poor countries in a parlous condition, with no hope whatsoever of assistance? The Statement says that the problems may not be unmanageable. Is not that a pious hope against the background of the case by case approach? I noted that point 8 of the economic plan stated the need for "adequate funds for world financial institutions", and the work of the World Bank was praised. Can the noble Viscount say whether the funding of the IDA, and especially the attitude of the US to the IDA, was discussed?
Finally, can the noble Viscount tell the House how the conclusions of the summit conference will in fact help to reduce the appalling unemployment problem in Western Europe in a practical way? For example, what was the reaction of President Reagan to the fervent pleas which we understand were made for some action by the USA on interest rates? There is a reference in the Statement to a 10-point programme, but the 10-point programme was not explained. Will the noble Viscount be good enough to tell the House at least what were the two most important points of the 10 points?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches also wish to thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. Of course, there are in the Statement many things with which we certainly agree, such as the desire to reduce interest rates, the attitude towards Iraq and Iran and the desire to reduce war. With all these we would go along. But I am bound to say after listening to the Statement that, in the face of the acute and terrifying problems which are facing the world at the present time, it seems a remarkably complacent Statement to come from a summit of the leading countries of the world.
The two overwhelming problems, leaving aside the need to get back to the negotiating table with the USSR, to which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, referred, are surely unemployment spreading throughout the world and the debtor or low standard of living countries. We are living on a powder keg, so far as the debtor countries are concerned. A step by step, or case by case, approach sounds very fine; but surely what is needed is a recognition of the extreme urgency of this problem and of the need to find ways in which we can do something far more constructive and far more quickly. As the world surely knows, it needs only one or two of these countries to default and the whole economic situation would be in very considerable peril.
We also find the Statement singularly complacent to dwell so much on the strength of the recovery, while the level of unemployment remains what it is. The fact of the matter is that this Statement reflects a satisfaction with the monetarist approach to world economic problems which is very difficult to support. Surely it is clear that some sensible intervention is needed on the part of governments; for example, in our own country a determination at last to do

1015
something about capital investment in infrastructure, which would begin the creation of jobs.
The Statement talks about job creation. Surely it was realised at the summit and lower down, as regards job creation and job training, that job training without the realisation of a job at the end of it will not convince anybody and will not get any support. Unless there is Government intervention for job creation following job training, then job training, highly desirable though it is, will fail. We can only regret the complacency of the Statement.
3.56 p.m.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their questions on this Statement following the economic summit. I am also grateful to both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for accepting what they both described as the respectable aspirations of those who attended the economic summit. I am sure that is right. No one imagines that a short conference of a few days between economic leaders will solve the many problems of the world in detail. I do not think anybody expects that, and of course they did not do so.
On the particular points that the noble Lord raised with me, the first of which was the dialogue with the USSR, the willingness for further dialogue is surely very important. Of course, it is fair in this context to remember the Foreign Secretary's coming visit to Moscow, which was recognised by the summit and which indeed will give an opportunity to raise with the Soviet Union some of the matters which the noble Lord mentioned. There will be other opportunities with other leaders as well.
On the Iran and Iraq conflict, the countries did of course express to both sides their great concern at the continuance of the conflict. I do not think there is much more that they can do, except to urge both sides to realise the danger and to hope to get a wider acclaim in the world—and indeed in the Soviet Union—that this particular war is of the gravest danger to the world and to our supplies, and that it should come to a halt. I do not believe that the summit conference could do more than that; but that it most certainly did.
On the economic matters, and first the question of unemployment, it has to be said, both to the noble Lord and to the noble Baroness, that I think it is accepted in this country—and certainly in most others—that governments cannot by themselves deliberately reduce unemployment. It is the policies that they follow which will in the long run bring the markets which will provide the jobs. If they co-operate to that end, which they have designed and are determined to do, that is the best way to reduce unemployment. That, I believe, is the important contribution which the leaders made: that they are determined to work to that end, as they are on the question of high interest rates, and as indeed they are—I believe that this is also very important and I say it in answer to both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness —on the question of aid for the underdeveloped countries and the way in which that can be helped.
1016
As I said at the start, in a short time it cannot be possible to gain a great deal of detailed advance, but I believe that very solid ground work for future action and future work was laid down. I believe, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said, that it was a workmanlike and constructive conference and it should be welcomed on that account.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, can the noble Viscount explain why, among all these superb aspirations, so far as one can gather there was absolutely no mention of the advisability of having fine weather and of being kind to one's mother-in-law?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, the noble Lord can have his little joke, but there were some very important discussions and I think that the House would wish to recognise that.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, we understand from the press—though we may be wrong—that President Reagan was reproached by some of his colleagues —though not, apparently, by the Prime Minister—about the maintenance of the enormous US deficit of some 200 billion dollars, and the consequent maintenance of high interest rates which, according to some, are destroying us all. Was he reproached by any, including the Prime Minister, for the principal reason for this deficit, which is his vast expenditure on nuclear armaments, such as MX, the new Trident programme, thousands of cruise missiles, "Star Wars", "stealth" bombers and everything else, which, unless for "first use", are useless from the long-term political point of view, and at the same time are economically disastrous?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, as I was not there I cannot say what discussions took place on the matters to which the noble Lord referred, but he has gone rather wide of the communiqué.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Viscount not aware that he is being less than fair in suggesting that this was just a one-off conference which lasted for a short period and that therefore it cannot be judged? This is the fifth conference which has taken place since the Government came into office and presumably it is the latest climax of the Government's policy. Is not the noble Viscount further aware that we have heard these pious hopes and platitudinous phrases five times since the Government came into office and that nothing has happened, except that unemployment has got worse and there have been a record number of bankruptcies?
May I ask the noble Viscount two practical questions arising from the Statement. He spoke about the international monetary crisis and the part to be played by the World Bank, and according to the communiqué by the IMF, too. May I ask the noble Viscount whether there were any discussions at the summit about the structure and policy of the IMF, which appears to be simultaneously impoverishing those nations that it is supposed to help and reducing employment in the industrialised countries because of the reduced purchasing power of those same developing nations? Secondly, the noble Viscount spoke about increasing official aid. How can he justify

1017
that when the official aid figure of Her Majesty's Government is now 0.35 per cent. of GDP whereas, when they took over, it was 0.52 per cent.? Is anything going to happen, or will there be the same story of pious hopes expressed in words but actions in the opposite direction?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, since the noble Lord has suggested that I have been somewhat less than fair, may I say to him that he is perhaps being somewhat less than fair in his suggestion that an economic summit attended by many different nations should be particularly concerned with the economic problems of this country. The noble Lord seeks to use the Statement on the economic summit as a criticism of this Government's economic policies. That he is perfectly entitled to do, though not necessarily on this occasion, because I am dealing with a Statement relating to the consideration by the governments of the western nations of these particular problems. We played our part in those considerations. I have shown how we sought to gain the co-operation of the other countries at the summit in order to achieve the economic progress which the noble Lord wants to take place.
The noble Lord then dealt with aid, which is a different matter. I personally believe that the aid given by this country, both direct Government aid and industrial aid, which is so often forgotten, is of a very considerable order and does not deserve the criticism which the noble Lord and many other people are inclined to level at it.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, as the existing simple economic policy for bringing down the rate of inflation has had the disastrous effect of rapidly and massively increasing unemployment, could the noble Viscount give us one good reason why the continuation of that policy will now bring down the rate of unemployment?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I would not wish to cross economic swords with the noble Lord, who in the past had considerable responsibility for many policies which were exactly the same as those which are being followed at present, a matter about which he will be very well aware. I do not have with me the details of many of the statements which he made, so I cannot quote them to him at the moment; but perhaps the noble Lord will accept from me that in the past he said that if inflation is allowed to rise again and that if costs are allowed to rise again, unemployment will not be reduced. In fact, jobs will be destroyed and the situation will be made worse. That is what the noble Lord said in the past. I believe that he still believes this to be true today.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Viscount does not wish to be deliberately unfair, but I would suggest that he is again being unfair to me in his answer to my question. The Statement referred to the objective of increasing official Government aid, whenever possible. I am drawing the noble Viscount's attention to the fact that this objective has been repeated six times and that each time it has been followed by cuts in aid. Can the noble Viscount give us any assurance that the words of the Statement which he has read out will be followed this time by appropriate action rather than by further cuts in official aid?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, if I have been in any way unfair to the noble Lord I regret it, because I have no desire to be unfair to him. Nor do I have any desire to cross swords with him about official Government aid. These, I admit freely, are aspirations in the communiqué. Despite the criticisms which are frequently levelled at this Government, as they have been levelled at the aid programmes of previous Governments, I believe that if one looks at both the Government's aid programme and at the aid given by industry all over the world, Britain has a very considerable record. I regret that instead of accepting that this is the position, we continue to run down what I believe to be a considerable contribution by our country.

London Regional Transport Bill
4.7 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I thought that we were discussing Amendment No. 48, and I understood that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, was not moving her Amendment No. 49 to it. If I am wrong about that, I hope that the noble Baroness will tell me.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, that is correct. I thank the noble and learned Lord.
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for outlining the provisions of these five amendments which in effect are five new clauses. I am also grateful for the issue of Notes on Clauses, which give a better understanding of the important points which are contained in the new clauses.
In general, both I and my noble friends welcome the scheme set out in the five amendments. As the Minister has explained, steps have already been taken by London Transport which have greatly reduced fraud during the past twelve months. The penalty system now proposed is, in effect, an extension of the activities which London Transport have been pursuing. I understand that the Greater London Council fully accept the principle contained in these five clauses which are the subject of the five amendments. I was pleased that the Minister made it clear that before the scheme is brought into operation on the Underground these machines will be installed to enable passengers to obtain a free deferred fare authority. This is very important, and I am glad that this point has been stressed.
The system must operate in such a way as to ensure that there are no abuses of power by those I have described as the authorised persons. In the interpretation clause, the first new clause, I find that an authorised person is "a person authorised by the person providing the service," which does not tell me a great deal. What type of rank is envisaged for this person? Will all ticket collectors be authorised persons, or will a special group or special squad of persons be appointed for this purpose?

1019
The Minister said that the provisions would apply to any operators acting under agreements as agents of LRT. Can the Minister say whether or not London Regional Transport, when it is formed, will take special steps in those directions? It could be that their overall control will not be so strict in those areas as it will be on their own network.
There are a number of points which need clarification. I hope that the Minister can deal with them. Some are technical points, but, as these five new clauses have only been introduced on Report, our only chance of taking any action in this House will be in a few days' time, on Third Reading. I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to deal with some of these points now.
First, what will happen to someone who boards the system without the correct ticket and arrives at the destination without incurring a penalty fare? Will he simply pay the excess or will he pay the penalty? What will he the position in respect of season ticket holders? Will they be covered by the term "authority to travel"? If not, what will be the position of a season ticket holder who begins a journey in the area covered by his ticket but ends that journey outside the area? Will not some provision need to be made for that kind of situation?
Also, will someone who pays the penalty fare within 21 days have a criminal record? Will any long-term record be kept of the names and addresses of those who incur a penalty under this scheme? What will be the position in respect of persons who genuinely lose their tickets? The authorised persons should be given sufficient powers of discretion to deal with such a situation. At present, if a travel card is lost, up to one duplicate is issued free of charge—but that provision does not apply to single or return tickets. Also, has consideration been given to what might be the position of the safety of LRT staff collecting the penalties? Will they work in pairs? Has there been discussion of the whole scheme (and in particular of that aspect) with the trade unions concerned? If not, will there be such consultation before any conditions, guidelines or rules are prepared?
If fares should rise, there must surely be some provision for reviewing the multiplier. At present, the maximum single fare on the Underground within Greater London is £1.30, which would give a maximum fine of £13. But the maximum single ticket on London Transport network as a whole is £2.60, and that would produce a maximum fine of £26. It will be recognised that these fines represent a substantial amount of money—and they could rise considerably should fares increase. Where a fine is not paid within 21 days, will the court have any powers to alter the amount of the penalty in the light of the points I have just made?
Finally, I presume that the system will apply also to British Rail if the rail network should come within London Regional Transport control. Is that aspect under consideration, or is it something for the future? A great deal of work would be required before this system could be supplemented or complemented by British Rail. These are technical questions, but they are put forward with a view to assessing whether or not
1020
amendments to the scheme are required. However, in general, we welcome the proposals—including these five amendments.
Lord Denning: My Lords, perhaps I may add a word on these new clauses. When I was very young at the Bar, I prosecuted many people who were charged with travelling on the railways without having previously paid their fare and with intent to avoid payment thereof. All the contest was on the word "intent". Often, an offender would have to be watched for two or three journeys to see whether it was just a mistake that he had not paid his fare. Or he might be watched to see whether he boarded several stations before the station for which he produced a ticket. The amount of investigation and observation undertaken by inspectors and by the railway police was enormous. There was also the cost or prosecuting the individual before the magistrates.
I welcome this clause, which is designed to meet a new system of issuing tickets and the like. I welcome it because instead of there being a criminal case to answer coming before the magistrates, there simply has to be evidence that the individual did not pay his fare as he ought when he could have done so. There are exceptions where the individual could not have paid the fare. The question of intent does not come into it. The individual can pay up straight away if he likes. If he does not pay, then he is not taken before the magistrates but he will receive a summons to go before the county court judge to pay the penalty. It is called a penalty but there is no punishment attached to it: it is just for the individual to pay the minimum amount—either £5 or I 0 times the amount of the fare, whichever is the greater.
If I may say so, this is a well-conceived clause. Perhaps there are certain details which remain to be made clear, as my noble friend has mentioned, but on the whole this new system of ensuring that people pay their fares is excellent and a great improvement on anything we have seen before.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I knew that if we waited long enough there was bound to be in this Bill something that we liked and could recommend. There has been much in this Bill that has been awful but, in our opinion, this is an excellent amendment and we are all for it. The noble Lord the Minister mentioned a figure of £25 million as being the sum being fiddled or stolen from London Transport. Personally, I believe the figure is very much higher than that.
The free deferred fare scheme is a wonderful idea because it will do away with that awful excuse: "I am sorry, but I could not buy a ticket because the ticket office was closed". The authorities then have to respond by saying, "We did a check on your station and found that the ticket office was open".
One point that worries me concerns season tickets, which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. It is a fairly well-known practice for a husband to borrow his wife's season ticket or for the wife to borrow her husband's season ticket, and to use it when the other partner does not need it. I have read through the briefing and the Bill but I can find nothing specific about the illegal use of season tickets. I should like to see some provision made in this respect because

1021
I consider that not only should the person who uses a season illegally be "done" but also the person who allows another to do so should be "done". I would ask the noble Lord the Minister to take this point into account.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I should first like to thank through my noble friend the Minister the parliamentary draftsman for having drafted all the clauses so clearly. I would advise anyone who is studying these clauses to start by reading Clause 5, then Clauses 3 and 4, and then Clauses 1 and 2. They will all then fit into place. I have received such a good briefing that, if I was terribly "bossy", I could answer all the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill—but that is my noble friend's job rather than mine.
This provision comes not before time. We had the benefit of the wisdom of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who spoke of a former age when an inspector carefully watched an offender. Looking back on those days, I do not think that time and money can have mattered quite so much. I should like to take up the point made by my noble friend Lady Gardner. The sum of £10 is a little excessive and £5 is about the right quotient. It is an amount of money that one might hope people would have on them but it is still enough of a deterrent; £10 would be a little extreme. If one considers other places in Europe, one finds that the fine in Copenhagen is £11 and in Brussels it is £9. In Munich, Hamburg and Berlin, the fine is £11. In Athens, the fine is four times the fare due. In Tokyo, curously enough, the penalty is only twice the fare due. We are being tougher than that, but I believe that £5 is about the right figure.
I know that bus fares are by far the easier to deal with at the moment. There are not all that many people who do not pay their fares on buses. With one-man operation, passengers have to pass by the driver, and it is only if they make themselves very inconspicuous that they can avoid paying the conductor—hut it is the "over-rider" who is the one who will have to pay, and that is a very important point.
It is on the trains where massive fraud takes place. We all have to be put on our mettle. It will be tough for us all. I know that I often leave here with 15 minutes in which to catch a train at Victoria Station. I can do so in 15 minutes and sometimes in 10. But one must take the trouble to have the right change in one's pocket for the ticket machines because at this time of year at Westminster Underground station there could be 30, 40 or 50 people buying tickets with only one window open or the other window dealing with someone buying a season ticket. One then decides to pay at the other end. However, that will not be possible any more; and that is absolutely right. It will be unpleasant for many of us, but we must all grow up.
The point was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, concerning husbands and wives. London Transport passes have photographs on them. I do not think people can disguise themselves as their spouses. It is to be hoped that sort of fraud will not be possible—thank goodness! In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, referred to identity cards. London Transport have photographs on passes so that aspect should be fairly well looked after.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I was referring to season tickets and thinking specifically of the Underground.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, unless I am absolutely wrong, I believe that any form of season ticket from London Transport must have one's photograph on it.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, it is a new requirement.
Lord Teviot: Yes, my Lords, it is fairly new, as my noble friend has pointed out.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I had a season ticket for a short time and I certainly did not have a photograph on it.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, the noble Earl is quite correct. If he had a season ticket which is partly for British Rail, and initiated by British Rail, it would not have a photograph on it. But if it was only for London Transport he would have to go into, say, Woolworth's, or wherever, to have his photograph taken and then stick it on the season ticket. There is not much more to say except that this is very much a new area. It is a new concept for all, although I was very surprised to see that Tyne and Wear and Manchester are already ahead of London. It is high time we followed. It will be tough but well worth it.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, this particular group of new clauses has received a welcome from all parts of the House but there is one aspect which worries me. As the noble Minister and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, have made plain, we are moving from a situation in which criminal intent has to be proved, to a situation of strict liability. Therefore, as the Minister told us, the person who may became liable to pay a penalty fare includes the innocent "over-rider"—the person who intends to pay the correct fare but by mistake has not paid sufficient for the length of journey he undertakes. It also applies to the person who has lost his ticket.
What may happen to that person is made plain by Amendment No. 51. He can he approached by a constable who can ask him to disclose his address. If he gives his name and address to the constable but does not answer to the satisfaction of the constable questions put to him for the purpose of ascertaining whether the name and address are correct, the constable may then arrest him without a warrant. Under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, which is now awaiting discussion in Committee, I believe he may be detained for 24 hours. Therefore, it is perfectly possible that a person who boards a bus and buys what he believes is a correct ticket, but fails to get it correct, or buys the correct ticket and loses it, or simply falls asleep and wakes up beyond the stop at which he intended to get off, may be found liable to pay a penalty fare. That might be prefectly all right; but he can then be arrested by a constable even if he gives his correct name and address because the constable is not reasonably satisfied that it has been given. He can then be detained for perhaps 24 hours without immediate access to a solicitor.
It may be that that is what the Government intend, but do we really mean, for this purpose, to

1023
contemplate creating that kind of situation? It appears to me to be far too draconian and I wonder whether the Government will address themselves to that, if not at this stage then on Third Reading, and see whether they want to extend the complete powers contained in Section 25 (2) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 to this situation, which is not criminal but civil.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, having briefly raised the subject of fraudulent travel on Second Reading, I should like to congratulate the Government on introducing these five new clauses and thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for his lucid exposition of them. I should also like to thank everyone who has spoken prior to me on these clauses because everyone has added a little to the collective store of knowledge in what is something of a grey area.
Taken as a whole the clauses go a long way to defining what I have just referred to as a grey area and I very warmly welcome them. I have one general reservation which relates in fact to their very great detail which will not be easy to convey to the public at large. London Transport has for many years enjoyed a world-wide reputation for the quality of its publicity; but I do not envy those members of its staff who have to set out to précis these clauses into a message which can be readily understood by the public at large. Explaining the new situation to Londoners will he an onerous task: as will be that of explaining it to foreign visitors—one of my own concerns—who contribute no less than £70 million per annum to London Transport's income, which is much more than the sum we are talking about in the context of fraud, almost entirely by using the spare capacity already provided in meeting the needs of Londoners. However, Londoners and foreigners will I think welcome the initiative described and taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, in this context.
As I have said, we have very detailed and specific legislation before us. It is legislation which, nevertheless, raises a number of questions. The new Clause 1(5) defines liability, in certain circumstances, to pay a penalty fare in respect of an Underground journey. I should like to ask the Minister whether this subsection applies to a traveller who surrenders his ticket at a barrier at the end of his journey with a view to paying the difference between the fare he has already paid, probably at a machine where he started his journey, and the fare due; both as defined elsewhere in these clauses. It seems to me wrong that he should be trapped in the penalty fare net and I would welcome a reassurance that he or she will not he trapped. Perhaps that is already covered by the "deferred fare authority" provisions in new Clause 1(3).
My next question relates to new Clause 1(7) and the definition of the penalty payable. This shall be "the greater" of the minimum penalty defined as £5 or a multiplier (say, 10 times) of the fare payable (say, 50 pence) for the journey. I have some faith and some doubt in lawyers. Both faith and doubt leave me to wonder whether someone will not go to the courts on the basis that the minimum penalty of, say, £5 and the multiplier option, in this case £5, are the same. Neither is the greater so neither shall be payable. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to confirm that this loophole
1024
does not exist in the subsection as drafted. To me it seems that perhaps it does.
My third question concerns travel card holders who, through human fallibility, forget their cards and thus cannot, when asked, provide evidence of an authority to travel. It seems to me to be wrong that they should fall into the penalty fares net. In this context, I believe that British Rail charge the applicable single fare for the journey concerned. The person who has lost his or her travel card is not seeking to defraud; he is simply a victim of his own forgetfulness. Will he be offered an opportunity, similar to that provided by holders of driving licences, to prove his authority by producing it within a specific period? If so, should that be written into the Bill?
Next I turn to the manpower implications of these clauses. A recent report in several London local papers quoted London Transport as having evidence that Londoners were becoming increasingly hostile to fraudulent travellers—a welcome development. Less welcome is the London Transport statement that it is recruiting more inspectors to cope with fraudulent travel. My hope is that the powers we are discussing will, by making spot checks and penalties more practical, lead to a reduction in manpower. Once the new system becomes established, it seems to me that London Transport could dispense with barriers at the commencement of one's journey.
On my last point, I come back to the welcome which I gave at the outset to these comprehensive new clauses. It seems to me that after due consideration other public transport undertakings may wish to enjoy the powers we are discussing this afternoon. If that happens, do the Government envisage a series of Private Bills to enable such other undertakings to take up the powers, or will they encourage such a development by bringing forward their own public proposals? These questions seek only amplification of the clauses before us. I feel that the new legislation is to a great extent overdue and should be speedily brought into action. I wish the Bill well and look forward to seeing its effects in practice.?
4.31 p.m.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I shall not take up much more of your Lordships' time, but I should like to ask the noble Lord one point about enforcement. I wholeheartedly welcome the clause as a whole. Especially with one-man buses becoming more and more usual, on bus journeys the driver can see that you do not get on the bus without paying something at least, but how on earth is he to check that you do not go further than the distance you have paid for? A single man cannot possibly be expected to keep a check on the distance that all his passengers go.
Baroness Denington: My Lords, I first of all apologise for the fact that I had to leave the Chamber for the past quarter of an hour. I had to attend the meeting of the Statutory Instruments Committee upstairs, which was the fastest ever and finished in record time. I returned to the Chamber to find the House still on the same clause, and I should like to say a few words about it. I welcome the fact that some action is being taken on this matter, but I think that perhaps I am alone among noble Lords here in feeling that the action is much too gentle, soft and tentative.

1025
I think I have mentioned in this Chamber before, perhaps on the same point, how very impressed I was with the system in the city of Hamburg. They do not spend any money at all on gates in order to check you as you go onto the platform. You can walk on and off freely; there is no apparatus. All those gates are exceedingly expensive. I wish we could move to such a system, where we do not have to put our money into that kind of thing.
I use the station at Clapham Common. I travel by the Underground unless I know that I can park my car, as I can when I come to the House. Young and athletic people come along, put their hand on the barrier and vault straight over it. The poor ticket collector yells after them, but they have gone and he cannot possibly catch them. They do that repeatedly, all the time. Why put our money into apparatus if we can possibly find a system that does not need such things?
With the Hamburg system you walk on and you walk off. When I was chairman of transport on the GLC I investigated it with a delegation of officers. We were trying to see the way forward in those days, when I was in County Hall. We tried every way possible to get the Hamburg people into a corner here or there, to talk to them, to break them down and to make them admit that their system was not very successful. None of us could do that. They all swore that they were certain that the number who escaped was absolutely infinitesimal. I forget the percentage, but it was point something or other—not to be bothered with.
They have a system of inspectors. It is true that their Underground system is not as extensive as ours, but it is extremely good and was being increased. They have a band of inspectors—comparatively few—and they have different tactics. On one day they will spread out with one on each station. On another day they will descend in a body on a platform of waiting people so that they can go through the lot. On other days there will he perhaps a single inspector or more inspectors on a train. There are all kinds of different tactics. Nobody knows what the drill will be on any one day.
The inspectors demand to see a ticket, because there are tickets. There are ticket machines, but no barriers to vault over, even if you feel inclined to vault early in the morning. If the person does not have the proper ticket, or is over-riding, he is invited to pay double the fare on the spot. If he does that, that is the end of it. If he does not, he has three days, and my memory is that within three days he can go to the local police station and pay the double fare. After that the amount increases. If you have not paid within the three days, you are in for a very heavy fine.
I think I have said this in the House before. All this procedure depends on having, as they have abroad but as we do not have in this country, an identity card with one's photograph on it. I should really like to know how this scheme would work in this country, and whether it would be worth its cost. How many people will not have paid within three weeks? Surely, if they have not paid, part of the system must be that they are followed up. They really must be followed up. However much will it cost London Transport to follow them up and to try to get them to court to recover the money? I should have thought it would be very costly. All kinds of investigations will be needed if we really
1026
mean business with this clause—and to very little effect. This is what worries me about it, particularly as the fine is so very small.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, did not maintain her £10, at least. She has given in and dropped the figure to £5. I just do not see how this would work. I really wonder. Are we expecting people to be so very honest that they will give their true name and address? I am sorry, but I do not have that faith in human nature today.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, if the noble Baroness would permit me to interrupt her, another reason why I dropped the £10 fine is that, if the penalty fare is not paid within the 21 days and the present system is followed where the person is prosecuted—it is rather a parallel to a car-parking fine, where, if you do not pay the fixed penalty, you can be prosecuted—the fine in court could be very much greater, as it could be now. I think the present maximum fine is £200. There could be a much heavier penalty if someone did not pay. This is really a lessening of the offence, reducing it to a civil status; but if they deliberately do not pay, of course, it will be a different matter.
Baroness Denington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation. I now understand. Really, what I am saying is that I am glad that we are trying to do something, but I personally think, if we really mean business, that after a period of time there will have to be a revision of the scheme to make it much tougher. I wish that were not so, but, society being what it is today, that is how I feel.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will realise that, although this scheme has been welcomed by everyone on all sides of the House, including myself, there are nevertheless a number of very important points that have been raised for which I am sure he will also be grateful and which he will take away. I think that practically everyone was trying to be helpful with those points.
My noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey raised something of which not being a lawyer, was not aware, but which obviously opens up an enormously wide possibility of people being quite wrongfully treated. It may be that there is a simple explanation but I think it is a question which we should all be grateful to him for having raised.
I should like to make one or two points. I accept that ticket and fare collection is one of the most expensive single areas of transport. We have played about with it in relaton to the Underground, particularly in London, for many years now. I would certainly agree with my noble friend Lady Denington about the complexity of the machinery that is used. I, too, have been to Hamburg. I saw the open platform system and was assured that there was very little fare dodging in Hamburg. On the other hand, if I may just divert for a second, they have a great deal more flexibility —something that attracts me. For instance, if I were going on the Northern line up to Hampstead or a place such as that with a single ticket, I could break my journey and get back on again. I could get off and do

1027
some shopping in the Tottenham Court Road, for example and then get back on again, which of course you cannot do in London. So everyone has different ways of operating things and perhaps a new system of ticket issuing would enable such things as that to happen.
A question that worries me greatly, thinking particularly of the Underground, is, where will the ticket checking be done? Obviously, if Lady Denington's scheme of open stations were adopted, the checking, or a certain amount of it, almost certainly would be done on the trains themselves. But does the Minister envisage that most of the checking will be done on the trains or, if we still retain them, will be done at the barrier?
Lord Teviot made a point which was one I had thought of frequently. He spoke of the 15-minute journey from here to Victoria. I am sometimes involved in this on Monday morning. One flies down from Glasgow in an hour and 10 minutes and one gets to the ticket windows on the Underground station. There is no criticism of London Transport: they have plenty of windows open, but at certain times, particularly on a Monday morning, there are enormous queues, and one realises that part of London's charm is that people are queueing up at the windows with yen, dollars, kroner and all sorts of money. One looks at the queue. One has come down from Glasgow in an hour and 10 minutes and one has had to wait a fairly long time to reach the window. I must say that on occasions I have put 50 pence in the machine and got through on that. I must also say that with great nervousness I was upholding my £1 all the time to assure the ticket collectors that I was not trying to dodge the fare as I got out here at Westminster. I do not know whether you can ever overcome this anxiety of people, but it could raise very serious problems for those, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. "whose intent was to pay".
Will there be any consideration given for people in this 21-day period, since it is a civil case, who can say, "I can prove, or assure, or convince London Transport that there was full intent to pay"? I know that that could run into all sorts of difficulties and problems of delay, and that skilful people would perhaps carry it to a great length. However, as I say, practically everyone in the Chamber has accepted the necessity for this.
The other little point—and perhaps the Minister will think it slightly frivolous—is the question of where the inspection will be made. When many years ago I came down to London to the other place, I lived for a short period with a family. There were two very bright young pre-teenage boys in the family. They and their friends during one summer tried to travel over all the London Transport underground system, which I think is quite a well-known game. I do not think they did it in any way at peak hours or anything like that. They just started off in the morning and took a note of every station they went through over the whole system.
Incidentally, it makes me think that I have occasionally taken wrong trains and gone rather long ways round. It is a bit easier now with the zonal system, but there could be points at which you could go out of your zone, either through lack of knowledge
1028
of the system or because you went past your station, as I think my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey said, because you just went to sleep.
I think these are questions that really should be looked at. We may be making a great deal too much out of them and using some of our own fears of perhaps quite accidentally falling foul of the system that we ourselves have introduced. I think there are certainly problems and questions that the Minister can answer in general just now, and perhaps at a later stage of the Bill he can come back with firmer answers to the slight worry that I think affects many people. However, the general acceptance of the scheme is obvious within the House today.
The only other point is that I suppose this will be the death of that marvellous, highly intellectual game we hear on the radio, "Mornington Crescent"!
4.48 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, may I thank all noble Lords and the noble Baroness who have taken part in this debate. Perhaps I may say at the beginning that, not particularly in response to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, I would certainly not think that any of the questions or comments that have been raised this afternoon could possibly fall into the frivolous category. These are very important matters. Again I have to apologise to your Lordships for having brought such a complex series of amendments to your Lordships at this particular stage. I shall try to answer as many questions as I can. Those that I miss I will certainly answer in writing in the next 24 or 36 hours.
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, first of all for not moving her amendment because, as she points out, there is provision in the amendments for the Secretary of State to alter, either by raising or lowering, both the figure of £5 and the multiplier of 10. I am grateful to her also for her suggestion that the International Passenger Traffic Office might perhaps look at the desirability and worthwhileness of producing a common, universally recognised sign that would indicate that a penalty fare system operates.
I must say that, as have a number of your Lordships. I have travelled in Hamburg and Geneva and also in Paris. It has never worried me and I have always managed to recognise that there is some kind of system. Exactly what it is I have not always been sure. So one just takes a little more care over that. I will return to that when I come to answer the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked a number of questions. I should like to say that I most grateful to him because he gave me notice some days ago of the area about which he had some cause for concern. He asked me about the authorised persons. I am not sure whether he was being specifically very serious when he quoted from page 5 of the Marshalled List:
"'Authorised person' means a person authorised by the person providing the service".
It is written in that way because an authorised person is not going to be an ordinary inspector or ticket collector. This will be a particular person. It could be a man or it could be a woman who will be specifically

1029
trained and will be authorised to undertake this kind of work by LRT, if they are poviding the service, or of course another operator who may be providing the service under a Clause 3(2) agreement. That is why we say the person providing the service in question. The authorised person—I can perhaps now for the sake of clarity call him an inspector, because we all know what that means—would have signed authorisations indicating the scope of his responsibility. He would have an indentity card to be shown to any passenger who so demands.
I was asked also about what would happen to a passenger who arrives at a destination without being caught. If someone boards the system without the correct ticket, the measures provide that if he fails to produce that proper ticket to an authorised person, he shall be liable to the penalty fare. It will perhaps make it more clear if I say that the authorised person need not necessarily be travelling on the train. He could be present at the ticket barrier or in a ticket office. Naturally, if no authorised person is available to issue a penalty fares notice, as the noble Lord suggests, the traveller will he liable to pay only the normal fare and the excess as he does now.
I was asked about season tickets being an authority to travel. I can confirm that the season ticket falls within the definition of an authority to travel. In the short term, since it will not be possible for season ticket holders to pay for the excess portion of their journey in advance, they will be able to do so on completion of their journey without incurring liability to a penalty fare. In the longer term, when the new Underground ticketing system is fully operational—it is hoped that this will take a much shorter time than the five years suggested by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes—it will be possible for season ticket holders to buy a pre-excess ticket at the start of their journey to cover the intended over-ride portion.
There is no question that the penalty fares provision involves a criminal record. As I explained, or thought that I had explained, in introducing these amendments, the measures are not criminal sanctions but a new extension of a civil liability. Naturally, each case would be dealt with on its own merits. I suppose, however, that London Regional Transport may very well maintain a record of cases in the interests of good husbandry and good administration.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, also asked about loss of tickets and cited a travel card. Frankly, I have to say that if people lose their tickets, I am afraid that they may have to bear the consequences of the loss. Naturally, the authorised persons will be able to exercise discretion where they are satisfied that this is justified. It is true that travel cards of one month's duration or more may be replaced. This is possible because individual records are maintained. That does not apply to an ordinary ticket. Again, we have to bear in mind what my noble friend Lord Teviot had to say. My noble friend suggested that we may very well have to change our travelling habits. I think that that is so.
I have dealt with the point regarding the multiplier. To try to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Denington, we felt that a multiplier of 10 was not an unreasonable starting point in relation to the fare avoided. Certainly in Paris there is a multiplicity of
1030
multipliers, if I can use that expression—12, 24 and 36 times. In Hamburg the penalty fare is 40 deutschemarks, about £10. There, the multiplier is 40 because they have a flat fare system. We are not suggesting that. Again, one takes the point that is made. I know that London Regional Transport will be interested to read and consider the suggestions that the noble Baroness has made.
The safety of London Transport staff was properly raised. I agree that one has to take this into account. I can give the assurance that London Transport has this point very much in mind. In the first place, the staff involved will be specially trained in dealing with people under these circumstances. Secondly, it must be remembered that the special team will be additional to the ordinary conductor or ticket collector. Normally, therefore, one would not anticipate their being placed in situations of having to act alone. So far as I am aware, there have not as yet been formal trade union discussions. I understand, however, that before these provisions are introduced, such discussions will take place.
I was also asked about special steps on non-London Regional Transport services. London Regional Transport will not be directly responsible for penalty fare arrangements on non-LRT services. The conditions of operation will be laid down in the Clause 3(2) agreements. I am sure that London Regional Transport will want to monitor its operation on those services.
I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for the welcome he gave to the amendments and also for reminding us that the provisions are not an extension of criminal law. This is a civil liability. It should not only make its impact on the travelling public, who will be encouraged by these provisions to pay their proper fares, but may also mean some lessening of the workload in magistrates' and other courts.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked about the £25 million, suggesting that it was perhaps a low figure. Certainly in 1982, we know that the figure was of the order of £40 million. I did say that the reduction to £25 million in 1983 was an estimate. He also asked whether a season ticket exchanged between a husband and wife would attract the penalty fare. I am sure that noble Lords appreciate that season tickets are not transferable. Therefore, it would be an offence at present for such tickets to be used by other persons. If season tickets are used in this way travellers will he liable probably to a penalty fare but, again, taking up the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, this might be construed to be an intent not to pay. Of course, London Regional Transport would then have the opportunity to proceed to the court in the normal way.
My noble friend Lord Teviot gave a general welcome and emphasised the multiplier variation. That was interesting. What one wants in this system, of course, is to keep it simple and as readily understood as possible. No doubt, in the time ahead, some refinements in ticketing and in giving notice to passengers will be adopted. I should like again to underline his point about changing habits. I know that it is frustrating to have to wait in a queue. It is equally

1031
frustrating to have to stop pedestrians on a pavement to see if they have change of a pound note to put into a parking meter. But, we have to change our habits and we have to go with something approaching the right money and realise that perhaps travelling may take a little longer. That is one of the penalties that we have to pay and it is one of the restrictions that I outlined in my opening remarks.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, raised an interesting point, and as I am not a member of the noble and learned Lord's learned profession I am sure he will appreciate that I am not absolutely qualified to answer it. But I understand that there is nothing new in the reference to the power of arrest in the third new clause since these powers currently exist under Section 25 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 in respect of non-compliance with existing regulations. The power of arrest applies when a passenger fails to give his name and address. Such provision is clearly necessary in respect of the penalty fares provisions.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, will the Minister allow me to intervene? I was suggesting to the noble Lord that under the previous law, as I understand it—I may be wrong—the police were arresting a person who was guilty or who might be guilty of a criminal offence. It is no doubt right that in certain circumstances the police have power to arrest without a warrant where a person may be guilty of a criminal offence. What this Bill does is to give the police the right to arrest without a warrant somebody who is not committing a criminal offence but somebody who, for example, has had his wallet stolen containing his ticket and who cannot therefore produce either the ticket or any other means of identification and who gives the police a funny name like "John Smith", which happens to be his name. It is possible for the police to disbelieve even the most honest people. It is well known that on one occasion when the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk of the Court of Session—and they did not look like the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk because one was small and round faced and the other one was tall and bucolic—announced to a policeman that that was who they were, in order to get past a police barrier, the policeman said "Well, I am King Kong!" That can happen to almost anyone; it can happen in the situation that I have outlined. Can the Minister not understand that?
5.2 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for explaining that to me. The short answer is that I do not know, and I might just as well say so here and now. If the noble and learned Lord will allow me, I will look into the matter and I will be in touch with him within a day or two, certainly before we return to the subject on Third Reading.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, for having given me notice of some of the points which he wanted to raise. If I understood him correctly, he asked about the position of a person who intends paying the difference at the end of a journey. The relevant provision is contained in
1032
subsection (5) of the first new clause. As I indicated in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, when he raised a similar point, the purpose of the penalty fares provision is to ensure that people do not travel without having first obtained the necessary ticket. If they do so, they may become liable to pay a penalty fare. I appreciate that there may be many honest people currently travelling with every intention of paying the excess at their destination. But the fact is that this practice also provides an easy route for those intent on defrauding the system. That is why we need to take this action. However, I did mention that the system will not be introduced on the Underground until the Secretary of State is satisfied that adequate facilities are provided.
The noble Lord asked whether there was perhaps a loophole in the provisions in the event of the minimum and the multiplied fare being equal. I can assure the noble Lord that it would not be possible for a passenger to avoid payment of a penalty fare even if both amounts produced under the formula are the same. A payment of either the minimum or the fare times the multiplier will be required. So I do not think that there is any cause for concern there.
The noble Lord also asked about the travel card holder who forgets his travel card. I think that I have given an answer to that point, but perhaps it might be helpful if I repeat it. So far as I know, under the present arrangements if a person realises that he has forgotten his card he is supposed to purchase a ticket before the beginning of his journey. The cost of the ticket can then reclaimed. The same conditions will apply under these provisions. If a traveller arrives at his destination without any ticket he may be liable to a penalty fare payable within 21 days. No doubt if within the 21 days the traveller proves to London Regional Transport that he is the possessor of a valid travel card, they will take that factor into account.
I am sorry to learn from the noble Lord that he felt that Londoners were becoming increasingly hostile towards paying their fares. I think that that was what the noble Lord meant.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I am sorry, but I meant to convey that they were becoming increasingly hostile to those who sought to avoid paying the fare.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining that. We must make sure that we do not provide as many opportunities as there are at present for people to avoid paying. London Regional Transport regard the introduction of the penalty fares provision as an important step in their overall plans. The noble Lord asked specifically: if other authorities want to introduce penalty fares what should they do? The answer is that, if they so wish, it will be up to them to seek the necessary powers.
The noble Lord, Lord Somers, asked who would enforce the penalty fare. It would be enforced by the authorised person—this special kind of inspector. Only those authorised personnel would carry the necessary forms and have the authority to make a penalty fare charge. It would not be within the province of drivers, conductors or ordinary ticket collectors so to do.
Lord somers: My Lords, Presumably there will not be one of those on every bus?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: No, my lords, there will not be one on every bus. The present system that is used on buses is that inspectors make spot checks. This is back-up by a small squad of plan clothes officials who are used, among other things, to follow passengers previously reported by staff as suspected of fare evasion. On the Underground the normal method of detecting fare evasion in through the use of traveling ticket inspectors checking passengers on trains and at barriers, and plain cloths staff are also used there.
I think that it was the noble Baroness, Lady, Denington, who said that surely on a one-man operated bus people could not get in.
Baroness Denington: No, my Lords, it was not me.
Barness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, it was the noble Lord, Lord somers.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Yes, I beg your Lordships' pardon: it was the boble Lord, Lord Somers. The noble Lord said that people could not get past the driver. It has not been unknown, in the crush of people getting out, for passengers to get in through the exit door, when it is open. So people can get on buses without going through the right door.
In answer to the noble Baroness, let me say that we expect a greater degree of honesty, particularly as London Regional Transport are going to provide the right kind of ticketing machinery and the right kind of barriers which will encourage people to behave lawfully. I have more faith than perhaps the noble Baroness.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael—and I am grateful to him for his general acceptance of these amendments—again described a number of different methods in different cities, and of course we will take note of what he had said. The noble Lord mentioned the long queues, and I think that in general terms I have probably answered his query. I do not think that he raised any other specific matter.
London Regional Transport is generally looking for a quite dramatic change in the method by which people buy tickets. There are co-ordinated ticket, different machinery and different system. At this moment in time I do not think it would be right to attempt to describe all the kinds of development that are currently undergoing evaluation and which may come about in the next few years. I very much regret having taken such a long time. This have been a very important debate in this Report state. Therefore, I hope noble Lords will forgive me for having been so long. With that, I beg to move Amendment No. 48.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Renton): My Lords, I understand that Amendments Nos. 50 to 53 have been discussed and, unless any noble Lord objects, I propose to put those amendments together.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth Moved Amendments Nos. 50 to 53:
[Printed earlier]
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 64 [Initial membership of London Regional Transport]:
[Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Constitution and proceedings of London Regional Transport]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No.56:
Page 63, line 12, at end insert ("of whom not less then one-third in proportion to the total number, shall be appointed from persons nominated by the Greater London Council and bodies appearing to the secretary of state to represent local authorities in Greater London.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords may remember that a fairly similar amendment to this one was moved at an earlier stage in the Bill. In fact, we felt so strongly about it that we insisted on going to a Division on it; a vote was taken and the amendment was defeated. Therefore, this new amendment, which is on similar lines and has a similar purpose, nevertheless reduces from two-thirds to one-third the proportion of those who we believe should be representative of the Greater London area generally. Noble Lords may remember that we suggested that the board should be composed two-thirds of those nominated by London boroughs, the GLC and boroughs outside London where Transport operates. We suggested the figure of two-thirds because that was the proportion of the cost which had to be contributed by the ratepayers of those boroughs towards any London Transport deficit.
Having listened to the Minister with care, we decided—and I said this on the last occasion—that perhaps two-thirds was rather a high figure. Two-thirds of a maximum of 12 would leave four people—one from each corner of London. But the Minister declined the figure of two-thirds, which would have meant eight out of 12. Therefore, we are suggesting that one-third of the membership of the board should not be appointed by the boroughs in London but should still be appointed by the Secretary of state from names given to the Secretary of State by those London boroughs or those areas where London Transport operates and by bodies which appear to the Secretary of state to represent Local authorities in Greater London.
I must emphasis that we are not suggesting that anyone other than the Secretary of State Should ask for a list of names from which he can appoint up to a maximum of one-third of the total membership of the board.
On the last occasion when we discussed this matter, a number of points were made. It was said, for instance, that someone who was dissatisfied with the operation of London Transport could always write to his Member of Parliament. But the Minister must be aware that in almost all cases when a Member of Parliament raises a particular point with a Minister

1035
concerning a nationalised industry, the Minister is able to say that he has no control over operational matters, and he usually declines to discuss the matter.
Therefore, we believe that it is very important in a city the size of London that there should be some people on the board, at the critical decision-making point, who have an intimate knowledge of the needs of London generally and particularly of certain areas within London. It is possible that every member of the board appointed by the Minister could live outside London. It would be unlikely but, under the terms of the Bill as it now stands, it could be possible. We believe that there is always that possibility. There should be some safeguard to the London ratepayers who will pay such a very large amount of the difference between the fares collected and the total running costs; we believe that there should be some representation of these Londoners not purely on financial grounds—although because they are paying, they should be represented, and that is not unimportant—but because an input is required from the people of London who will be using the system and who, if things do not go well, will be the victims of the London Transport system.
I hope that the Minister will look more favourably on this suggestion that one-third instead of two-thirds of members should he nominated from names submitted by London boroughs and the GLC, than he did last time. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords as, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, we had a lengthy debate on a similar amendment at the Committee stage. Of course, we have noted that the noble Lord's present amendment now provides for at least one-third of the board to comprise local authority nominees instead of at least two-thirds. In no other respect is this amendment different.
I made it clear at the Committee stage that we were not prepared to accept an amendment on these lines, whatever the figure. I said then that LRT were to be a nationalised industry and that it would be answerable to the Secretary of State and, through him, to Parliament. It will not be answerable to local authorities. The board is to comprise individuals appointed by the Secretary of State who have the relevant qualifications and experience referred to in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1. They will need to be able to manage a multi-million pound business which is one of the country's biggest employers of labour.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State must be free to appoint the person who he regards as most suitable for the job, without the sort of constraint which this amendment would impose. It would be quite inappropriate for his hands to be tied in any way, particularly by a requirement to appoint a proportion of local authority nominees.
More fundamentally, there is no reason why local authorities should have a privileged position in this respect. I would remind your Lordships that the Committee voted against this amendment, or a similar amendment, last month. It would be strange if this evening your Lordships changed course and required at least a third of the appointed board to be nominees
1036
of those authorities. As I have said on a number of occasions, we have specifically provided elsewhere in the Bill for local authorities to be consulted, or in some case informed, by LRT about matters which would affect them. The planning regime provided for LRT in the Bill is probably more elaborate and more open to public scrutiny and comment than that in any other nationalised industry. The Bill requires Parliament to approve an annual ratepayer levy order which will show clearly the level of LRT's grant and the contribution to be made by London ratepayers. It establishes a powerful new consumer body to represent the interests of users of both British Rail and LRT services.
I listened carefully to what the noble Lord. Lord Carmichael, said, but in all honesty I could not hear anything that was new to the arguments put forward last time. I think that the noble Lord will realise that we start from different viewpoints, and frankly there is no prospect of our reaching agreement on this issue. I hope your Lordships will also recognise the extent to which we have already sought in the Bill to make special provisions for local authority interests where appropriate. We acknowledge the important role which the local authorities will continue to have in influencing LRT. Where we differ is over the point where to draw the line. On the question of appointments we maintain that the Secretary of State must have complete freedom of choice.
Lord Carmichael of Kielvingrove: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will realise how disappointing his answer is. I agree that there is nothing new in the arguments I put forward, it is just the strength of feeling that we have towards this matter. It is true that we approach these things from the opposite ends of the scale. The noble Lord said that he did not see why local authorities should have more rights than other people to make these suggestions to the Minister. Our point is that the right they have as against other people is that they are paying a lot of money towards the upkeep of this transport. Therefore, it did not seem to us to be wrong, and in fact absolutely correct, that there should be some recognition of this and of the importance of their role in the whole matter.
I emphasise once more, as I tried to do last time, that there is no suggestion that local authorities should appoint people directly or in any way curb the Secretary of State's power. He is the one who invites names from local authorities under the amendment we have put down. He could invite 20 or 30 local authorities to submit names and it would give him a great deal of choice. I am disappointed. We may find at a later stage a way of raising the matter again. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 70, line 18, after ("may") insert ("manufacture and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I speak to Amendments 58 and 59 together.
Amendment No. 59: Page 70, line 20, after ("of) insert ("manufacturing or").
These two simple amendments refer to the insertion of a couple of words, but they are important. Sub—

1037
paragraph (1) of paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 provides that LRT,
"may manufacture and repair any spare parts and components or other supplementary machinery or equipment".
of theirs or their subsidiaries. Subparagraph (2) gives LRT power to repair their own vehicles and other equipment, and to do this also for other people, and for that purpose they may supply parts and components.
The purpose of the two amendments is that what LRT can manufacture for themselves and their subsidiaries they should be able to do also for other persons in addition to undertaking repairs for those other persons. In addition, it would give power to LRT to manufacture vehicles. Similar amendments were before us at Committee stage. At that time the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, expressed apprehension about these additional powers being given to LRT. I must draw attention to the fact that the following two subparagraphs in the schedule give considerable powers to the Secretary of State to approve proposals under subparagraphs (1) and (2), to modify them, or to lay down conditions, or to direct LRT to discontinue such activities.
The noble Lord made two other main points. I quote from column 1239 of 14th May when the noble Lord said:
"The present management of the London Transport Executive have accepted the restriction written into the Bill of their present manufacturing powers".
I know that the noble Lord would not wish to mislead but I am certain that he has been wrongly advised on this matter.
I have received a letter from the solicitor to the London Transport Executive. He had been asked—that is, the solicitor—by the board to send me a copy of a letter sent to the Department of Transport dated 5th June. That letter to the Department of Transport, after referring to the statement I have read and my amendment at the last stage, goes on—and this is from the solicitor of the executive of the London Transport Board to the Secretary of the Department of Transport:
"I have been asked to inform you that the London Transport Executive have never been of the view that London Regional Transport should not have power to manufacture for third parties. They believe that it is in the interests both of London Regional Transport and the third parties that such power should be available subject always to the constraints currently imposed on the Executive. That belief was discussed at a Board Meeting of the Executive this morning"—
that is 5th June this year—
"and confirmed unanimously. I have been instructed to write so to inform you".
The department was told that a copy of the letter was being sent to me. I would emphasise the words "unanimous decision".
The other argument of the Minister was that LRT's principal role is to run buses and trains and not to make them. But there was no argument advanced as to why what was proposed in the amendment should not be agreed, and from what I have just read out it is clear what not only political figures but the professional men of London Transport want to see in this Bill.
The statement made by the Minister was contradicted by a subsequent point. He said at column 1239,
"where it will be more efficient for LRT to manufacture particular items, either because they can do it more cheaply or because there are no other suppliers".
Then he advanced the case of escalator chains which, he said. "are not readily available elsewhere". The effect of the Bill as drafted is that if a market for the production of escalator chains should arise LRT would be unable to take advantage of it with a view to making its own production more profitable. That would he in direct conflict with the Government's own philosophy of increasing competition and efficiency in the public sector. LRT, with its still substantial transport engineering capacity, would be well placed to take advantage of new markets. I think it would be agreed that the line between manufacture and repair can be a fine one. The arbitrary exclusion of manufacture by the main public service operator in London will simply result in a less efficient use of engineering capacity.
At the Committee stage I referred to the fact that until 1967 London Transport found it necessary for buses to be specially made to meet London's particular conditions. It had been pointed out to me that the purchase of standard vehicles has caused a number of engineering and operational problems in the past. London Transport has a long history of undertaking manufacturing for outside bodies and of producing and adapting equipment and vehicles as required. No real argument has been advanced why the power to manufacture in the future should be ruled out.
The exclusion of the manufacture and sale of vehicles and parts to outside parties is an unjustified restriction on the ability of LRT management to use their engineering capacity in the most profitable way possible. If LRT are given this power, as suggested in the amendments, they would have to compete for outside jobs. This is something that should be written into the Bill and then left to the commonsense commercial decision of the LRT management as to whether they wish to utilise it or not at any particular time, bearing in mind all the while that the Secretary of State has power, and will retain that power, to refuse any particular approval of any proposal the board may wish to make. I beg to move.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I must confess that I was slightly in sympathy with this amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has put forward. I think that, before one goes too far, I should like to ask my noble friend when he replies to explain absolutely what manufactures are permissible by London Transport, because I gather the number is fairly small. One in particular is a cream which will wipe off graffiti. They patented and market, and I think distribute, that themselves. That seems entirely permissible and absolutely sensible, and should be allowed to continue.
I also agree with him that their purpose is really to transport people, and not particularly to make vehicles, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, there is a thin line between manufacture and repair. I shall be grateful, when my noble friend speaks, if he will outline all these points in some detail.
Baroness Denington: My Lords, I too should like to support this amendment as strongly as I can and to endorse every word that Lord Underhill has spoken. I remember going round and meeting the men of London Transport; the drivers in particular and the people in the works. They were always emphasising how much better were the old buses that they themselves had made than any other buses they had to use. They had to use them; they were not allowed to go on manufacturing. There was always a search for better buses. In the early days when I became chairman and we had such trouble trying to get more buses on the roads, again the complaints came about the buses. They brought out some of the old buses that they themselves had manufactured because they were still so much better than the modern ones they could buy.
I do not know what the noble Lord's brief says he should say in answer to this, but I hope that he will not turn it down. If he is inclined to turn it down, I hope that he will take it away and have another think about it, because this is economically very important to the London Transport industry in London.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I can tell the noble Baroness exactly what my brief says. It says "resist", and that is what I shall do. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, we considered the matter quite briefly at Committee stage and I made our position quite clear. I explained then, and I repeat now, that we regard London Regional Transport's principal role as one of running buses and trains and not making them. That is why we have deliberately narrowed down in the Bill the wide powers which London Transport have at present. The powers in paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 enable London Regional Transport to engage in any necessary manufacturing or repair activities for their own purposes short of actually being able to manufacture vehicles. This will permit them to make sensible use of their resources to carry out repairs for third parties. We believe that these powers are fully sufficient for LRT and quite consistent with their main function, which, as I say, certainly is not to carry out manufacturing processes for themselves or for outsiders but is to get on with running their own services.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, drew at some length on what I said at Committee stage when I stated London Transport's position on the manufacturing proposals. I stand today by what I said on that occasion. During the preparation of the Bill, London Transport officials had discussions with the Transport Department on a number of proposals about which they were then unhappy or of which they wanted clarification. These proposals included the manufacturing powers because of the important change which was then being made. It was made clear to London Transport that the proposals represented firm ministerial policy, but the officials were asked to confirm that little use was made of the present powers, and in particular that the reduction in manufacturing powers would not put at risk significant activities which were currently being undertaken. London Transport was able to tell us then that the proposals as they appear in the Bill would not cause any serious problems.
1040
These proposals have been in the Bill ever since it was first published. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned that London Transport had written to the department on the subject. I do not quarrel with him on that. Of course I, too, have seen the letter. I note the view which has now, after this time, been expressed by the board, but I still say that my own remarks were wholly justified at that time.
My noble friend Lord Teviot asked me if I could elaborate on what kind of manufacturing LRT could undertake under the provisions of the Bill. Spare parts, largely; things which they use for its own. or perhaps its contracted companies where they are not readily available. So far as this special cream that has been developed and marketed is concerned, I imagine that that would be perfectly allowable under the manufacturing provisions.
I have listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said and to what the noble Baroness said. We obviously do not share the same views about what is appropriate for LRT. Frankly, I do not really expect to be able to convince noble Lords opposite at this stage. We believe that LRT's powers are quite adequate to enable it to carry on their operations efficiently and to give other people the benefit of repair facilities. We certainly do not want this nationalised industry, supported by public funds, setting up a manufacturing base for third parties. It is as simple as that. I can do no more than say that we see its role as running buses and trains and not making them.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am very disappointed, particularly in view of the support given to these amendments, that the Minister is not moving on this. The fact that his brief says "resist" may mean that somebody decided to resist before even hearing any arguments. I hope that the arguments may have made the Minister appreciate that there is a case to be met. Paragraph 9(1) states:
"London Regional Transport may manufacture and repair any spare pans and components or other supplementary machinery or equipment"
that is very widespread—but only for itself or its subsidiaries. Why should it not do it for somebody else and use its engineering capacity—that is what we are really saying—in a commonsense business managerial exercise by the board?
We have brought in the point about the vehicles because it is felt that there may be times when in the future it may be desirable for LRT to do this in view of the special needs for special types of vehicles to cope with London conditions. The noble Lord says that there is no need to change the view expressed at that time. He mentioned discussions with the executive. I can only quote what Mr. I. E. King, solicitor to the executive, says in this letter to the department, of which, as I said, I have a copy:
"London Transport Executive have never been of the view that London Regional Transport should not have power to manufacture for third parties."
The decision which they made recently, as of 5th June, to confirm that view was unanimous. The political members of the executive and all the professional staff of the executive want LRT to have this power. That is not to say they will use it. That will depend on their managerial capacity and decisions. We have been told

1041
that there will be a board with great business experience and capacity. Let the board take the decision, but for Heaven's sake give it the power.
I do not think that at this hour on a matter of this kind I ought to divide the House, but there is here a deep principle of commercial judgment which the Government are refusing to allow to the board of LRT. I ask the Minister to take this back and consult the London Transport Executive, in view of its letter of 5th June, and discuss its views about this. If its view is really as set out in the letter—I think it must be—and it can give sufficient justification then the Government themselves may feel that they ought to bring forward an amendment at the Third Reading stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
Schedule 3 [The London Regional Passengers' Committee]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 76, line II, at end insert—
("( ) The Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 shall apply to the proceedings of the Committee.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, again this is an amendment that was moved at the last stage of the Bill. I make no apologies for it. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said in his reply that it was merely a further discussion upon another aspect of account-ability.
I do not think we on this side of the House are at all apologetic about trying to get accountability into any publicly-funded body or organisation. Our purpose in this amendment is that the public should have a right to attend these meetings. I emphasise that these are meetings of the London Regional Passengers' Committee, not the London Regional Transport Board.
If one looks at the principal part of the Bill to which the schedule refers, one sees that copies of minutes shall be sent to a certain number of people, but there shall be no publication of the minutes. Local authorities in the London area, which will be responsible for meeting a large part of the costs of the passenger transport, will not even be given a copy of the minutes. All the public will know about the procedures of the passengers' committee (which presumably is a committee to look after the interests of and provide services for the public) is that once a year an annual report to the Secretary of State shall be laid before each House of Parliament. I feel that this is quite inadequate and that something a bit more informative for the general public and the boroughs, who will be supporting the purpose of this committee and the purpose of the existence of the committee to provide transport for London, should be given.
We ask that the proceedings of the committee should be open to the public as under the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960. The Minister must know that laying a copy of a report before each House of Parliament in practical terms is not giving quite as much information to the public as my friends and I and noble friends in other parties
1042
believe they should have. I make no apology for once again trying to have a further discussion, as the Minister described it, on another aspect of accountability. I think accountability in a field that touches so many people's daily lives is absolutely and vitally important. Therefore, I beg to move.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I should like to support what my noble friend on the Front Bench has said, particularly when one bears in mind the history of the 1960 Act. Many of us who were active in local government at that time were involved in it. Many of us were apprehensive at the beginning, but many of the merits and attributes that came from it and many of its encouragements made it permissible and possible for ordinary people to enter committees of certain councils to see what was going on. It was not merely a check up to see what councillors and officers of councils were doing. I should have thought it highly desirable that this should apply—as my noble friend has said, bearing in mind that this one amendment has been quoted in a number of places—to the London Regional Passengers' Committee. That is what the schedule is headed. When one sees a heading like that—people have spoken about it in other places both inside and outside Parliament—one realises that it is one of the great bulwarks of democracy when the passengers, the Londoners themselves, can go into a meeting to see what is going on.
Someone has gone to the trouble to remind the Government that this ought to be done, so the Government ought to be pleased. It was not the intention to debar the ordinary Londoner or anyone else concerned with London passenger transport—mostly ordinary Londoners who are not necessarily councillors—from seeing how this committee functions. To do so is naturally right and proper.
There is a further aspect that I ask your Lordships to consider. Those of us who have been active in politics for 40-odd years, in local government as well as national government, know full well that there are so many people whose first introduction to the idea of democracy in action—whether the local authority, the local council, the district council or the county council, or even Parliament itself—was in our famous public galleries. They can sit, watch and listen to what is happening. One of the proud things about our Parliament is that anyone can come into our Parliament. They do not have to be British. Nobody asks who they are, what they are or from whence they came. All that is said is that if there is room they can go upstairs, sit down, behave themselves and listen.
I have read so many autobiographies and biographies of well-known politicians who have claimed that their first introduction to the British political system was going with mother or father, uncle or aunt, to the local authority to watch the great council in action—it might have been Swansea council or some urban district council. I believe that wherever we can we should make it possible for people to see committees in action, what we are really talking about is British democracy in action. Even if the Minister cannot say yes immediately—I understand the difficulties that confront Ministers in this House—I hope he will say that he believes that the Government think this is something worth looking at and that they will do that.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove and Lord Molloy, for explaining their support for this amendment. I am not surprised that we have had another debate under the general heading of accountability. Frankly, there is little I can add to what I said at Committee stage. I explained at that time that Schedule 3(4) paragraph 9 gives the passengers' committee the power to determine its own procedure to enable it to decide whether and when to open its meetings to the public. We regard this as the best way to proceed. None of the nationalised industry consumer councils is covered, incidentally, by the 1960 Act and we do not regard it as appropriate to impose a requirement on them.
I also explained at Committee stage that one of the existing consumer bodies, the London Transport Passenger Committee, holds part of its discussions in public but that the Transport Users' Consultative Committee for London which deals with British Rail, does not hold any public discussion at all. The two organisations have developed in slightly different ways over the years and it is inevitable that when the newly-created body comes into existence it will have to consider quite afresh a large number of questions affecting the organisation of its work. Undoubtedly among those questions will be how to conduct the more formal part of its proceedings.
I recognise the force of the noble Lord's argument. It may be helpful if I rehearsed again how we envisage the operation of the passengers' committee. Certainly we would not see it as a policy forming authority. We would see it as dealing with complaints and representations, commenting on London Regional Transport's plans and proposals. It will spend much of its time in detailed discussions with LRT and British Rail, and I have no doubt that both of those bodies will continue with the valuable liaison arrangements which exist at present. If the passengers' committee find that some of their work lends itself to formal discussion in public, I am sure that they will arrange their business in that way.
I cannot see that the proposals in the Bill in any way deny people their rights. Obviously, the committee will be able to arrange their public meetings with users, and so on. I do not think that it is really necessary to impose a statutory procedure on them. I have no doubt, since we have discussed this on more than one occasion, that views have been put forcibly and that I have expressed views. I shall expect them to take due note of that, and I have little doubt that they will in fact do so. Perhaps, while on this subject for the sake of completeness, I should make the point about the public proceedings of this committee. When the committee are conducting a hearing about a rail closure proposal they will be required under Clause 41(2) to do so in public. This merely continues the existing law. Nothing, therefore, has been added, and nothing taken away. With that explanation, I would invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the answer that the Minister has given today is perhaps warmer than the answer which he gave last time, in that he suggested that the London Passenger Transport Committee would no doubt read the proceedings in
1044
this Chamber and would know that there was a certain feeling about it. I should have preferred the noble Lord to have made reference to the minutes of the meetings being made slightly more widely available, and to the fact that, unlike in the case of most of the other committees, the London boroughs are going to pay a certain amount of money towards the upkeep of public transport in London.
With the points that the Minister has made and the general reception that he gave, although far from totally satisfactory, I believe that, considering that we both look at the problem from opposite ends of the spectrum, he went a little further, at least in empathy than before, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
5.52 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 89, line 15, after ("sections") insert ("8(a), 30(1)(a),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor drafting amendment to paragraph 11(4) of Schedule 5. It provides that the references in Clause 8(a) and Clause 30(1)(a) to agreements between LRT and private operators under Clause 3(2) arrangements are not to be treated as including agreements or consents for London bus services which were made under existing powers and are continued on a transitional basis alongside the new form of agreements.
The Clause 3(2) agreements referred to in Clause 8(a) and in subsection (1)(a) of Clause 30 are agreements relating to services which are under the control of LRT. Many of the existing London bus agreements and consents under the 1969 Act relate to services which are quite separate from London Transport's own services; and those services will not in practice be under LRT's control during the transitional period. It would be confusing if the drafting of the Bill gave the impression either that LRT would control those services or that LRT should act as if they controlled them. The amendment therefore seeks to avoid any doubt on the subject. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
Earl Attlee moved Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 91, line 7, leave out ("2nd December 1983") and insert ("the passing of this Act").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment stands in the names of my noble friend Lord Tordoff and myself. It is a very simple amendment. It intends to substitute for the words "2nd December 1983" the words "the passing of this Act". It is in respect of capital expenditure. I was very nice to the noble Lord the Minister about his penalty fares: I should now like to be kind to him. I am sure that noble Lords opposite, like noble Lords on these Benches, do not like retrospective legislation. This particular clause is retrospective. If there is a very good reason, I think that it can be accepted, but I do not think that there is a good reason to do this.
We understand that up to today, the middle of June, there has been no significant capital expenditure by the GLC, and, as I understand it, the date 2nd December 1983—retrospective—was inserted in order to stop hasty, ill-considered and unwise expenditure. That has not happened to date, and I do not see why it should happen in the short time which would elapse between now and the passing of this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I shall briefly give my support to this amendment. It will be noted that I have not moved my Amendment No. 62, which was similar to that which I moved at the Committee stage. This amendment puts in the words "the passing of this Act", whereas my amendment used the words "the appointed day". The reference to the passing of the Act seems more common sense than one to the appointed day. I said at the Committee stage, in reply to the Minister, that I would get a list of all the capital schemes which may be affected. I am assured by the GLC that they have now agreed to fund a large number of British Rail schemes which otherwise could have been affected by this provision because they want to ensure their continuity in the short term, and that it will be possible for them to fund most other BR schemes through alternative powers. There is the principle of retrospection to which the House should give attention, and for that reason I support the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister to clarify whether this is a case of retrospection or whether that date was merely the date placed on the Bill at the time it was published so that people therefore knew it was as from that date?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for moving this amendment, because it gives me the opportunity to clarify the intentions of our own proposal. Paragraph 15 of Schedule 5 makes it clear that LRT are to be required to take over certain commitments entered into by the GLC for public transport investment with British Rail or operators other than London Transport. It makes equally clear that the requirement is not to apply to commitments made by the GLC after 2nd December 1983: that is, after the publication of the Bill. I would emphasise that nothing in the paragraph has been intended to prevent the GLC either from entering into new commitments after 2nd December 1983 or from making payments after that date, whether under old or new commitments. We are not in that sense constraining the GLC in anticipation of Parliament's approval to the Bill.
All that we have been saying—and I think this is what my noble friend Lady Gardner has in mind—is that, once the Government's intentions were made public, it seemed only reasonable that any further contractual commitments entered into by the GLC should remain their responsibility and should not be handed over to LRT at the appointed day. It would have been irresponsible if we had offered the GLC a blank cheque by providing for LRT to pick up any and every GLC commitment made after the publication of the Bill. I should add that legally enforceable contractual commitments to pay grants are not affected by the repeal of the GLC's powers to pay
1046
grants for public transport purposes. The obligations will remain, and expenditure by the GLC in fulfilling any such obligations will be lawful expenditure. This is because of Section 16 of the Interpretation Act 1978. At the same time, it would also have been irresponsible if we had repealed the powers which enabled the GLC to pay grant for public transport purposes, but had made no provision for commitments to pay grants which were entered into before the publication of the Bill but which might not otherwise be legally enforceable.
I hope therefore that the noble Lord will be able to accept paragraph 15 of Schedule 5 as a modest and straightforward provision setting limits to the commitments which will pass statutorily from the GLC to LRT. We do not believe that it carries the constitutional overtones that may have been implied when we discussed this matter during the earlier stages of our consideration. As I said during the Committee debate, this was designed to secure fair arrangements for the funding of sensible schemes in the run-up to the new system.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for what he said. I accept his clarification although I think he will admit that when one read the Bill it looked like restrospective legislation. I accept that it is probably not. I should like to read carefully what the Minister said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Jacques): Amendment No. 64. Here there is a correction to the page number. It should be page 97, not page 47.
Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 97, line 49, at end insert—(" . Section 35 (which relates to the grant of road service licences for certain excursions or tours) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 shall have effect subject to the following amendments—

(a) in subsection (1), at the beginning, there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsections (1A), (1B), (1C), (1D) and (1E) below"; and

(b) after subsection (I) there shall be inserted the following subsections:—

"(1A) If it relates to a service which would involve picking up or setting down passengers on any road in Greater London an application for a licence for a service of a kind described in subsection (1) above shall be treated as an application to which this subsection applies and subsection(1) above does not apply.
(1B) As regards an application to which subsection (IA) above applies the traffic commissioners shall grant the licence unless they are satisfied that to do so would be against the interests of the public on the grounds only that the use for the taking up or setting down of passengers of any place which may be so used would be prejudicial to the safety or convenience of the public.
(1C) In relation to an application to which subsection (1A) above applies and to any licence granted on it, section 33 of this Act shall not apply and sections 31 and 32 of this Act shall have effect as if section 31(2) to (4) and, in section 32(1), the works "and in particular to the matters mentioned in section 3 1(3)(a) to (c) of this Act" and paragraphs (a) and (b), were omitted.
(1D) In considering under subsection (1B) above whether the grant of a licence would be against the interests of the public or whether in accordance with section 32 of this Act it would he in the interests of the public to attach

1047
conditions to the licence, the traffic commissioners shall have regard to any objections or representations, which they consider relvant, which are made in the prescribed manner by the Greater London Council, any London Borough Council, the Common Council of the City of London and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and, where the proposed service involves any place within the City of London which may be used for the taking up and setting down of passengers, the Commissioner of Police for the City of London.
(1E) Notwithstanding subsection (4) of this section, section 50 of this Act shall apply to applications to which subsection (1A) above applies.".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at this hour, and right at the end of the Bill, I am not going to repeat what I said in Committee because it is exactly the same amendment. I hope my noble friend will confirm that he is going to do something about this on Third Reading. Briefly, the amendment amends the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, allowing bodies such as the police to object to licences being given on grounds of inconvenience or safety. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, before I speak to my noble friend's amendment, I wonder whether your Lordships will permit me, since we are in Report Stage, to correct something I said earlier in response to my noble friend Lord Teviot, when we were discussing the manufacturing clauses. I said, if my memory serves me right, that an example of LRT's manufacturing allowance was spare parts and things of that nature. I also suggested that the cream which they have manufactured for their own use would probably be allowed. However, I am advised that the type of things are certainly spare parts for buses, but also things such as escalator chains, as an example of an incidental item to the repair and service of their equipment, because these are not normally made. The narrower manufacturing powers which LRT will have will probably lead to the cessation of production of certain chemical products such as cleaning solvents, which they manufacture and sell in small quantities at present. I am afraid that I may very well have mislead my noble friend. I would envisage of course that London Regional Transport will no doubt sell the manufacturing rights or patents to an outside body. Under the provisions in paragraph 19 of the schedule, LRT will be able to complete any contracts entered into by the executive.
With regard to this amendment, I recognise my noble friend's concern which is shared by London Transport: notably that there is sufficient kerbside space for the potential operators of excursions and tours. We welcome the principle behind the amendment as I thought I had made clear when we considered it in Committee. Our discussions at that stage were mainly concerned not with the merit of the proposal but with the question whether it was necessary to anticipate Clause 44 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill, which of course as my noble friend pointed out, contains an identical proposal. I repeat that in our view there is no reason to fear that Clause 44 of that Bill will fail. However, in view of my noble friend's concern and the support that was expressed for the amendment at the earlier stage by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, we have given this matter further consideration as I promised and have decided to deal with it in the present Bill
1048
rather than leave it for the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill. If my noble friend will accept from me that we will bring forward an amendment for that purpose at Third Reading. I hope he will feel able to withdraw his own amendment this evening.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, first, I must thank my noble friend for coming back on the manufacturing amendment. I shall read all that he says very carefully before considering what to do. On this present amendment, I am very grateful to him for taking this back. All I can say is that I look forward to his amendment on Third Reading, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Health and Social Security Bill
6.6 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: 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 Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD JACQUES in the Chair.]
Clause I [Supply etc. of optical appliances.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Jacques): I must inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 1 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 2 to 11.
Lord Cullen Lord Cullen of Ashbourne moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: My noble friends on the Front Bench will no doubt regard this as a wrecking amendment. I consider it to be the reverse of that. The purpose is to prevent Her Majesty's Government from lowering or even wrecking the standards of optical services in this country. The Government's wish to increase competition and to bring down the prices of private spectacles would be achieved by subsection (2) and subsection (3) of this clause while maintaining the present high standards. With some qualifications, I support subsections 2 and 3 of the clause.
I have prepared quite a long speech enumerating the arguments against unqualified dispensing, but noble Lords who have taken part in, or listened to, these debates in the past will be well aware of the arguments and so I see no reason to repeat them today. However, I should like to remind your Lordships that it is not only opticians who are naturally against this idea: both the BMA and the National Ophthalmic Treatment Board Association are also opposed to it. The real issue before the Committee is whether or not it is in the public interest for those who need their vision corrected by spectacles to have their optical prescriptions properly dispensed by persons qualified to do the job. I am convinced that it is not only unnecessary but unwise to let unqualified persons

1049
loose on to the optical market, and it is against the public interest. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: It might help if I say at this stage, briefly, that some years ago I appeared for the prosecution in a case in which an unqualified person was convicted of obtaining money by false pretences, which consisted in his claiming to be able to test eyes and prescribe lenses for correcting vision. He had an elaborate box of filed lenses and he had books on the subject, but he had no training and no clue how to do it properly.
Therefore, two questions arise on this Bill. The first is whether unqualified people will be allowed to test eyes. I hope and assume that they will not be allowed to do so. I hope that is clear. But the next point that arises is this: will they be allowed to supply spectacles on a prescription given by a person fully qualified to test eyes? If that is so, what guarantee will there be that they were trained in the art of ensuring that the spectacles corresponded to the prescription? If the Government cannot give that guarantee, unqualified people should not be let loose on the public; it would be a retrograde step to let that happen.
Lord Ennals: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for the words he has just used. I believe this is a thoroughly retrograde step. One might assume from those noble Lords who support the case that somehow or other this is a step forward. It is a thoroughly bad step backwards. It is wrong in principle. It is absolutely clear that the British Medical Association, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, says—and I have had subsequent correspondence with the BMA—fully support the position of their optical committee, that optical dispensing requires a great deal more than the ability to read a prescription. It requires a knowledge—
Lord Orr-Ewing: May I intervene?
Lord Ennals: If the noble Lord insists
Lord Orr-Ewing: I am so grateful to the noble Lord for referring to this. I wonder whether he can give us the date on which the full committee of the BMA met to consider this current Bill, because I have not been able to find out.
Lord Ennals: I had a letter last week from the BMA in which they said that, with the many fields they cover, they delegate the responsibility to their committees and they fully support the decision that was taken and which was referred to by me during the debate on Second Reading. I thought it was better to have that matter clear, since I had been challenged on it by the noble Lord.
I believe this is going to be very bad for the people concerned and also very bad for elderly people, who are, after all, the vast majority of those who need spectacles. I do not think the British public really knows what is coming to it. A recent survey showed that a high percentage of the public was completely unaware of the changes proposed in the Bill. The survey revealed that less than half the population were aware of any Government plans to alter the
1050
regulations for the dispensing of spectacles. Even among spectacle wearers, awareness amounted to only 48 per cent., but only 3 per cent. had realised that the Government's plans meant that unqualified persons were going to be allowed to dispense spectacles. I mentioned a moment or two ago—
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene?
Lord Ennals: No, I will not give way again. The noble Lord can seek to make his own speech. This Bill has been strongly condemned in other countries. Representatives of 43 national optical and optometric organisations in countries all round the world met recently in London and discussed the United Kingdom Government's proposals to permit unqualified, unregistered and untrained persons to carry out optical dispensing. They passed a resolution which said that they viewed with considerable concern the proposals of the United Kingdom Government to amend the Opticians Act 1958. They said that this measure would put the public at considerable risk of receiving inaccurate, inadequate and inappropriate optical dispensing at a time when world standards generally in its member countries are increasing. That is absolutely true: they are improving in other parts of the world. In the EEC, all countries have laws regulating optical dispensing, with the exception of Denmark. But Denmark is already discussing doing precisely that. In the United States, all states regulate ophthalmic dispensing to some degree.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Ennals: Well, they do. Twenty-one states currently require full licensing of dispensing opticians, and more states are enacting similar legislation. The point I am making is that not only in Europe but in the United States the process is towards regulation—I repeat, "towards" it. The facts absolutely prove it to be so. Our Government are proposing action which would be retrograde; a backward step. They know it themselves, because the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne—and he was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, during the Second Reading on 21st May this year—said at col. 1035 on 27th April 1983:
"Standards of dispensing in the United Kingdom are high. If the need for statutory registration was removed and untrained people could enter the field, standards would inevitably fall".
I would ask the Minister, when he comes to reply to what I hope will be a short debate, to say why the Government have changed their view since the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, made that statement in this very Chamber.
Lord Northfield: I am sorry to cross swords with my noble friend, but I strongly disagree with what he is saying and I think it is high time that most of us put on record our view about this. Could I deal first with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton? I know that he is an assiduous student of what happens in another place, but I think he must have missed the debate on 2nd May 1984 in another place when the Minister of Health dealt with precisely the point he has raised today. The issue is: what sort of protection will be given to people in relation to the quality of

1051
dispensing? The Minister dealt with that directly on that date in columns. 417, 418 and 419. He said, quite bluntly, that a lot of stories were being put about, rather indicating, as he said, that people would be selling glasses on garage forecourts and men who yesterday were selling ice-cream would today be selling spectacles. All this is nonsense. What he went on to make quite clear was that the Government are to lay down British standards not just for the spectacles but for the process of dispensing.
I want to make it quite clear that the consumer is to be protected under the regulations by the issue of British standards. I am sure that the noble Lord on the Front Bench will want to add to that. So please do not let us get into hysteria about the consumer being unprotected in the future. It is no part of the case of those who support the broad thrust of this Bill to criticise opticians. They do a good service, and nobody is trying to deny that. But what this subsection is doing is to allow unregistered sellers simply to provide spectacles once a recent prescription is produced.
What are the advantages of that? They are clear enough in all the papers that have accumulated over the last 15 years. I must say that I look back into the debates of 1958 in the other place, in which I took part, and in one of which I actually moved an amendment at that time, among many other amendments, to try to get the General Optical Council to control prices and to issue some guidance about the pricing of private spectacle frames. It was turned down on the grounds that opticians would behave themselves and were far too trustworthy to need that sort of control. But what has occurred since then in those 26 years of experience, which I seem to have lived through in a sort of nightmare on this issue, is the continuously-accumulating evidence that it is not true that we can trust to the absence of competition to keep this matter under proper control. We need competition to be brought in and the unregistered seller will be able to do that, provided also, as I say, that with British Standards behind him he can be controlled in the standard of service that he gives to the consumer.
We have had the 1976 Price Commission report which showed extravagant profits; the 1979 Price Commission report which showed enormous profits made by Dollond and Aitchison who have 25 per cent. of the market; the Office of Fair Trading report, which I hope we have all read, a devastating document which was produced in 1982, showing that gross profitability is over 55 per cent. in the large firms and over 50 per cent. in the small firms. Is there not room for competition in all this? With figures like that, there must be room for competition—
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: May I—
Lord Northfield: I do not want to give way, because I shall be too long if I do. The noble Lord has his name to the amendment and he can reply to me at the end. What the Office of Fair Trading report also showed was that the other problem in the opticians' industry is that many are under-occupied. They are protected by high prices and so do a small number of prescriptions every year. The Office of Fair Trading went on to find
1052
that if we could get some competition into this industry of selling spectacles, and could then get a smaller number of opticians increasing their activity by one-third, 45 per cent. or something like that—instead of being so well below average, getting up to average and beyond—there could be a reduction of no less than 24 to 28 per cent. in the final price to the consumer. That is by letting competition act, letting it sort out the industry and providing the service that comes after that competition has taken effect.
I do not want to go any further, but I should just like to make three other points. First, I welcome this Bill because it will do one other thing. It will mean that the unregistered seller will have on his counter on display standard spectacle frames. Then, when he gets a prescription for somebody suffering from presbyopia—namely, beginning to get old and needing magnification—he will be able to say "I do not need to send away for special spectacles. I have all this range from plus 1.25 to plus 2.5 dioptres". That will mean that, provided that a prescription is produced, he can sell over the counter these spectacles which are standard and which should retail for £10 a pair. I was horrified to see that a man who was doing this in the West End was recently prosecuted and fined. He was doing exactly that, with no harm to anybody. It is a scandal that that prosecution took place and that our law allowed the prosecution to stand.
My second point is that it will be important to make this system work, as is pointed out in paragraph 9.64 of the Office of Fair Trading report. It will be important for the patient to be given his prescription—not just to be told, "I have carried out your eye test and what sort of spectacles would you like?" He must physically be presented with his prescription, so that he can then leave the optician if he wants and can go to these unregistered sellers' shops.
So I have to ask the Minister very bluntly: Will the regulations which the Government propose to introduce include a requirement—and they do not at the moment—that the optician shall hand the prescription to the patient? That is absolutely crucial in making the new system work. I may say that it is the law in the United States that a patient has to receive his prescription, and it works extremely well.
My final point is about the effect of all this on the health service. There is a lot of talk that all this will lead to the National Health Service frame being taken off the market. That is not true. It will be on the market for people who are to get free spectacles—namely, people with very low incomes and children—and there is no reason why the optician should not continue to sell them. I want to ask the Minister whether he will be kind enough to confirm that the National Health Service frame will still be available for those people who want it, and that the approximate price will be a maximum of about £2 above the present price, because the subsidy on a national health frame and the lenses together is about £2. If the noble Lord will confirm what I have asked, I think he will put to flight a lot of the nonsense that is being talked about the effect of this Bill.
I welcome this subsection unreservedly. It is the end of long campaigning, so far as I and other noble Lords

1053
are concerned. Goodness knows how many years I have been raising the matter in this House alone, and one gets tired of waiting. For goodness sake! let us put it through tonight and not listen to any further nonsense about it.
Lord Somers: My Lords, after what the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has said, I hope that the Government will not decide to try bringing competition into the medical profession or any other particularly specialised profession, because it will not help them. I have recently had a good deal to do with optical specialists, as not long ago I had operations on both eyes for cataract. Therefore, I have had to have fairly accurate fitting of glasses and I can tell your Lordships that extreme expertise is needed to do it properly. Even the matter of fitting a frame is not merely a matter of grinding the lenses, making sure that they are accurate, and so on. Fitting the frame and making sure that it is in exactly the right position is a very expert job, and I entirely agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I sincerely hope that the Government will not decide to bring in this irresponsible idea of competition just for its own sake.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: I hesitate to come in at this stage, but I simply cannot understand my noble friend Lord Northfield, with his passionate desire for free glasses at any old unregistered stall, though I support him on the question of a reduction in price. But the passionate declarations of faith in cheap spectacles of those like the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, and others, appal me. It is all right for cheap reading glasses, but it is a different matter altogether where impairment of sight is concerned.
When noble Lords talk about taking a prescription to an unregistered supplier, they forget one very important and vital factor which the noble Lord who has just spoken has brought out. It applies not only to people with severe impairment—and my wife is in the same position as the noble Lord, but perhaps a little worse—it applies to anybody with an impairment of eyesight, because what people overlook is that the fitting of the spectacles is vitally important.
My optician recently had a case where a young lady came in who had had her spectacles supplied, but had not gone back afterwards for the fitting which the optician had stressed. That lady's arm was covered in bruises and the optician asked "What have you been up to?" She said "I can't help falling about". The answer was quite simple. The fitting of the spectacles on that young lady had not been checked, so she had the habit of falling about. For people with worse eyesight defects, the problem can be almost fatal. Anyone with a severe impairment of eyesight, especially difficult cataract cases, knows full well that a pair of spectacles that are slightly out of true can cause a fatal fall or some other disaster.
I am not overstressing the point. I am fed-up to the teeth with the passionate declarations about free enterprise which are made by some noble Lords. They overlook vital facts about one of the most precious gifts that we have—our sight. It is sad that doctors agree that health is not normally affected. I know for
1054
a fact that a person with a severe impairment of sight whose spectacles are slightly out of true can suffer from irritability, bad temper and mental strain which leads to bouts of depression. Therefore I warn noble Lords who are so passionate about free enterprise to be very careful about what they are doing. I strongly support the amendment. Although I support the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, on price, frames are not the whole answer: lenses are also vital.
Lord Orr-Ewing: May I deal with some of the arguments which have been advanced. As my noble friend suggested in his opening speech, I consider that this is a wrecking amendment. We have waited a very long time for some form of competition. As the noble Lord who has just sat down said, we are dealing mainly with reading glasses. We wish reading glasses to be more freely available on the market. Their numbers are not negligible. It is very difficult to find accurate figures but it is estimated that probably 1 million pairs of reading glasses are sold every year in this country. The average price is between £25 and £75. The noble Lord who opened the debate was wrong when he said that the majority of states in the USA do not allow some liberty over where reading glasses may be bought. The vast majority of the states within the states do allow reading glasses to be bought over the counter. They are all very carefully marked. Several samples have been sent to me. Every time I go to the USA I buy spectacles. They are beautifully wrapped and they are carefully marked. This particular pair are plus-4 dioptres, balanced glasses. We all need reading glasses at some time in our lives. There is a range in other cases I have seen, of 18 different strengths of reading glasses.
Lord Ennals: Will not the noble Lord accept that in the United States the trend is steadily more and more towards—
Lord Orr-Ewing: No.
Lord Ennals: Oh, yes. The facts are absolutely clear. I have the figures for 1st June 1984 which show that the number of states which are now moving towards the kind of legislation we are now seeking to abolish is increasing. The noble Lord is wrong.
Lord Orr-Ewing: I must confess that I do not have the figures for 1st June 1984; my research assistant is not so good as the noble Lord's. However, I know from surveys and from having read and re-read the publications of the Office of Fair Trading that a very large majority of countries allow competition in this field. What a benefit this would be for a great number of people. I am speaking not for the opticians for whom my noble friend so gallantly speaks, as the chairman or president of the Opticians' Federation. I am speaking for the vast number of people over the age of 45 in this country. When you are over 45 years of age you may for the first time need a pair of reading glasses.
I do not like the idea that you will have to take a prescription with you. I may have to go along with this because it is built into the Government's legislation, but I hope that my noble friend who is to speak on this issue will agree that a prescription for reading glasses is

1055
not necessary because most eyes are balanced. Even if the eyes are not completely balanced, the eye is an extraordinarily adaptable organ. As I said in my Second Reading speech, it is amazing how God designed our eyes and our brains to adapt to slight imperfections in one eye or the other. It is not just the eye but the brain which is involved.
I support the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, who said that when there has been an eye test it ought to be mandatory for a prescription to be given to the person whose eyes have been tested. However, that still leaves many people out of the reckoning. Shall we all have to carry our blood group, our TV licence number and God knows how many printed cards in our wallets and. in addition, our prescription? What is to happen in the case of the I million or 2 million visitors who come to our country every year? All of us lose our glasses at some time or another. If these visitors break or mislay their spectacles, will they have to have an eye test and then wait for their spectacles to be made up?
Why do the Government not allow people to go into a shop and buy perfectly well marked and carefully tested reading glasses? Nobody can fault them. It is agreed that the eyes can be in no way harmed by having the wrong reading glasses. A headache is the first sign that the glasses are not right.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred to the British Medical Association and said that they have left it to their Optical Committee. But the Optical Committee has not met. Only a few executive members of the Optical Committee have met. They have therefore condemned a Bill which has never been considered by the members of the Optical Committee as a whole. The BMA say that they back the Optical Committee. They are perfectly entitled to do so; but it is wrong to say that the BMA have studied this matter, have met in full committee and condemn this Bill. Unless the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. can produce chapter and verse as to when they met, whether they considered the Bill and how many people were present, I have to say that they decentralised it to their Optical Committee.
Lord Ennals: Although I do not have it before me, since the Second Reading debate I have received a letter from the BMA which confirms absolutely that what I have said is right. They fully and totally support their Optical Committee in the conclusions which they have reached. They did not need to say on what date they met and how they met, but the BMA have established quite clearly their support for the Optical Committee.
Lord Orr-Ewing: I should like to see a copy of that letter. Since I made the challenge. I regret that they did not send a copy to me. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will resist this wrecking amendment, and that we shall go on with a Bill which is not so free as I should like it to be but which will be an enormous step forward and which will be of tremendous benefit for everybody who needs reading glasses.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: The amendment is based upon an emotional fallacy. I speak entirely without passion. I do not care what you pay for your glasses. I buy mine in India or New York and they are
1056
perfectly all right. That is a privilege I enjoy because I have the opportunity to travel. It is an offensive fallacy that ordinary people can damage their eyes by using magnifying glasses which do not give them the best possible vision.
About a year ago I went to my oculist and asked him whether I really needed, because it is so expensive, to change my glasses. He said that I did not need to do so if I felt comfortable. He tested my eyes and said that I ought to change one pair if I wanted to have the best vision for reading. I changed one pair, though not the other—I have two pairs of reading glasses—and I cannot tell the difference between the two. However, the change cost me quite a lot of money. This oculist, one of the best in the country and also one of the best known, told me that not a single reputable oculist, whatever the BMA may say, believes that reading with a magnifying glass which is not carefully prescribed for you can do you the slightest possible harm.
My second point, which is very important, is that the noble Lord is perfectly right about the fitting of glasses. It is similar to the difference between having a good figure and going to the Fifty Shilling Tailor, as I used to do when I was that kind of age, and having a bad figure and going to an expensive tailor. I can wear any glasses, in any frame, in complete comfort. My wife paid so much for her last frames that I shall not tell the House how much they cost. However, it was worth it in her case. They are very light; she has a very difficult nose. It is a highly technical operation—nothing to do with optics—to fit them correctly. Therefore we must not believe that to wear glasses which we have picked up in the street or anywhere else—often I use other people's glasses—can do us the slightest harm. If they are uncomfortable we do not go on with them.
Let nobody under-estimate the importance of difficult lenses and the fitting of them into first-class frames. That is worth money. I object to my wife paying quite so much, but I do not mind her paying a good deal. I have never used anything except a National Health Service frame, and I shall be in a terrible state when they are taken off the market.
A noble Lord: They are not being taken off the market.
Lord Rugby: If I may refer to what was said by the noble Lord. Lord Somers, he confused the Committee by introducing a medical question with regard to spectacles when, of course, spectacles have absolutely no relationship to medicine whatsoever—and neither do the sales of spectacles. His particular prescription is probably for a major eye defect which requires very powerful lenses. It may have no relationship whatsoever to the low-power lenses, equal for both eyes, which the presbyopic person will require at about 45 years of age due to the ageing process, simply in order to magnify the printed word.
Reading spectacles are related not so much to the eye condition as to the size of the print. If the print is small, then the wearer will require a magnification of plus-2, say, at age 45. When that person is 60 or 70 years of age, he may need a 0.5 per cent. increase in magnification just in order to read. But he does not need his spectacles all the time; the question is simply

1057
related to the job which those spectacles have to perform. There is absolutely no reason at all why the elderly should, simply because of the infirmity of old age. have to carry an enormous price tag and a totally unnecessary eye test. when there are all the other various spectacles which people might need for the kind of major eye defects which come into the realm of ophthalmology.
Lord Molloy: Having listened to both this and the previous debate, I believe that the real issue is a simple one. I acknowledge the frustration and annoyance which one might experience when finding that a pair of spectacles costs more at one optician's shop than at another. In other words, the principle of "shopping around" seems to apply. I agree that opticians within a given area should be allowed to advertise.
How should we decide on this particular amendment? I had no idea what was wrong with my eyes. When I was about 45 years of age, I suddenly discovered that it was difficult to read. I thought that I had better have my eyes tested. Then I was told, "Aren't you lucky?". Look at me: I am purblind and have been for 20 years because, before the war, I went to Woolworth's to get my glasses for "a tanner". No one examined my eyes, and no one said there was any need: just so long as one could see, that was enough. We have to take full cognisance of that argument.
The second argument is that the unregistered suppliers of these glasses will have a vast range of prescriptions. Will that be true of every one? It seems to me absurd that there will be millions of sets of glasses. It is as if someone said to me tonight, "Do not bother to go to your opticians in Fulham—pop across to India because you will save a couple of bob by buying a pair there". It is that kind of absurdity which we have to recognise.
I do not know enough about the profession of eye-testing: all I know is that when I need glasses I consider it is wise to go to an optician. Speaking parenthetically, I, too, received a letter from a very responsible officer of the BMA stating that the comments which my noble friend Lord Ennals and I had made previously in this House on behalf of the BMA were acceptable to them and were perfectly accurate.
What should we do? The choice I have is this. I must either listen to the arguments which have been put by some of my noble friends who have no qualifications or I must decide whether I should listen to the British Medical Association and the opticians' association and take their advice. My answer is quite simple: my eyes are far too precious to dabble with and for me to take the advice of amateurs. In this instance, I will accept the decision of the experts.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Ferrier: I do not propose to repeat what I said on a previous occasion, but I support this amendment and everything that my noble friends and the noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Wallace of Coslany, have said. To my mind, the trouble is that a lot of passion has entered this argument. One has only to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, or to my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, to realise that this seems to be a subject that is very worrying to people.
1058
I have looked back over the years, and I am sure I am right in saying that the position today is completely changed from what it was when the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, started his campaign.
Lord Northfield: Yes: it is worse.
Lord Ferrier: The situation is not the same as it was then. This Bill makes a muddle of our approach to the National Health Service Act. It amounts to fiddling about with it. I do not like it. I have said so before, and something similar has been said in another place.
One of the aspects that interests me is the Title of this Bill. If this amendment were not to be accepted—an I hope that it will be—then we would have to address ourselves to the Title. The Bill as it now stands does not line up with the Long Title. As for the Short Title—the Health and Social Security Bill—I feel that in terms of indexing Hansard there ought to be a reference to the fact that this Bill fiddles with the opticians' legislation. If this amendment were not to be carried, we would have to address ourselves to the problem of the Bill's Title. The reason is that the Bill cannot in every way be beneficial to health. It may be beneficial to the reduction of prices, and I think that is possible: but it can in no way result in better eye examinations or better lenses, or better dispensing.
I was interested by an experience I had the other day. When I lost my wife, I did not know what to do with a large collection of spectacles. My optician said to me, "Let me have the lot and I will label them all with the correct prescriptions and send them to Oxfam". I mention this only because it was interesting to me that one could make use of possessions that are no longer needed and that one could hand over spectacles to members of an extremely sensible, responsible and expert profession, who would then dispose of them in that way.
I myself do not go so far as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, but I feel most strongly that we must not allow our passions to be excited by this question. The agitation which arose a few years ago was in a measure necessary, and the result has been that prices have gone down and that competition is now operating as of today. We would he very unwise to think, especially when reference has been made to the report of the Office of Fair Trading, casting back in my memory, that it had the full story from both sides. I think my noble friend will be able to support that later. I support the amendment wholeheartedly and hope that the Committee will be sensible and eliminate subsection (1).
Lord Prys-Davies: I wish to support this amendment, and I will be brief. The standards of dispensing in this country are high. They are high because the dispensing optician has been well trained. Last year there were 257 students who sat the final dispensing examination of the Association of Dispensing Opticians. Of the 257, only 83 passed and 174 failed. If this Bill is passed the 174 who failed can next year dispense glasses on the open market. To allow that to happen in the case of those who have failed to equip themselves with the necessary skill and knowledge will lead inevitably to the lowering of standards, and that would be a retrograde step. That is why I support the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I strongly support the amendment for exactly the same reason as the noble Lord has said. This particular amendment will perhaps be more sweeping than one would particularly want, because I agree with the noble Lord. Lord Northfield, that competition should be encouraged. However, I am deeply concerned because I understand that this is a paving subsection for doing away with the requirement for qualified dispensers. As I said on Second Reading, I fear greatly that with unqualified dispensers the restraint on making sure that the proper prescription is presented, and that it is a recent one, will not be there because they will not be professional people.
My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, who I am sorry to see is not in his place, obviously buys spectacles by the score when he goes across the Atlantic. What he does with them I do not know, except to demonstrate to us that he can get them cheaply, but he probably pays more than he would if he obtained a simple pair here at present prices, let alone better ones. Someone like that in a hurry, or anyone of your Lordships who all carry a tremendous impression when you walk into a shop, will be able to say to the young man or woman, "Look, I want that pair". They will say, "Where is your prescription?" You will say, "Oh, I do not have it" or, "This will do".
Having a lower standard of dispensing will mean that the specs will not fit. I have a doctor friend who is very much on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, and my noble friends who support him. Not long ago he bought some specs which clearly did not fit him. I tried them on. Our heads are roughly the same size and our eyes are about the same standard. I said. "This is all very well, but they are out of focus round the corners". He said, "That does not matter". I said, "What happens if you walk round a door?" He said, "That will be all right, I will just turn my head". The point is that he was so determined to prove that he was right, having bought them from a barrow in the East End, that anything would do.
The trouble is that people who get the wrong sort of specs, or even the right specs which do not fit, will not perhaps be so much a danger to themselves—although some of them will be—as, what is worse, a danger to others. They will bump into us. They will drive their motor-cars into us. If the Government could only say with the order which this subsection gives power to the Government to raise, "We are not going to walk back on the qualifications required for dispensers", I would be very happy to live with that and hope that when we see the orders we shall be able to make sure that they are up to standard. If my noble friend cannot give the undertaking that the qualifications of dispensers are to be maintained, I very much hope that my noble friend who moved the amendment will take us into the Division Lobbies and that we shall defeat the whole subsection.
Lord Monson: What one or two noble Lords on the Conservative Benches may not realise is that acceptance of this amendment would be entirely contrary to the Government's stated principles. I am sure that the Minister will agree that since 1979 numerous senior Conservative spokesmen, including, I believe, the Prime Minister herself, have said time and again that it is the purpose of this administration
1060
to give ordinary people more scope to make decisions about matters affecting their own future without the interference of busybodies or bureaucrats. Acceptance of this amendment would totally fly in the face of that principle.
Lord Banks: It seems to me that British standards for dispensing are not really an adequate substitute for qualification. I share the misgivings expressed just now by the noble Lord. Lord Mottistone, on that point. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, reminded the Committee that during the Second Reading debate I quoted the words of the noble Lord. Lord Trefgarne, just over a year ago in this House when speaking for the Government. I want to return to those words because they put the case for this amendment so well.
Your Lordships will remember that in the few words quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, thought that if untrained people could enter the field standards would inevitably fall. That point has been echoed by many noble Lords tonight. I quoted the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who said:
"Unskilled dispensing is probably not harmful to the eye. However, unskilled dispensing could well result in less than optimal improvement to sight and could perhaps act as a contributory cause to accidents".
He made this pertinent comment:
"It may well be that this is a very small risk but I personally would not choose to be driving down the M1 behind or in front of somebody who had less than perfect eyesight."—[Official Report, 21/5/84; col. 24.]
In replying to that debate the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said that when the noble Lord. Lord Trefgarne, had made those remarks he was, in fact, opposing the total repeal of the safeguards in the Opticians Act and that because the Government were keeping the registration of opticians the remarks of the noble Lord did not apply and were no longer relevant as far as this Bill was concerned. However, if your Lordships think of the words quoted today, there is no reference to the testing of eyes and no reference to prescribing. The noble Lord was talking about unskilled or unqualified dispensing.
I feel that this amendment would prevent standards of dispensing from falling, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, feared they would. It would prevent the risk of accidents, which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, feared and it would prevent the risk—however small some people may think it is—of damage being done to eyes.
Lord Rugby: There is a very big difference between testing eyesight and dispensing spectacles. If a person has a prescription, that prescription has to be made up and it will be made up probably by an optical manufacturers prescription house which will operate within very exacting limitations according to the prescription. The dispenser is simply the person who sends the prescription off to one of these houses and receives back the lenses which have been entirely made up according to the standards which are laid down. They could be prosecuted for producing equipment which is not within those limitations. Therefore, the dispenser is simply a dispenser of glasses which are made up by someone else. He puts them in a frame and sells them.
7 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I shall be very brief, although I appreciate that the debate has gone on for some time.
Lord Ferrier: There is plenty of time.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I agree that there is plenty of time. I simply want to make the point that it appears to me that many noble Lords who have spoken against the amendment are really asking, "Why should we bother? Why do we not just leave the present situation but watered down? Why should we not leave people to look after themselves?" The noble Lord from the Cross-Benches simply said that even though that may be damaging to one's health and the nation, it should he left like that: caveat emptor—let the buyer beware. If an individual is foolish enough to manage his own affairs where his eyesight is concerned and is not prepared to show sufficient care and concern, why should we bother? I believe it is the responsibility of the Government, and certainly this House, to look very carefully at the situation.
I am no expert in these matters. I listened carefully to what was said, and I declare a small interest. Having received a journal called Insight, I see that the members of the Federation of Optical Corporate Bodies include the Guild of British Dispensing Opticians, the Society of Opticians and the Cooperative Wholesale Society. As noble Lords are aware, I declare readily my association with the Co-operative movement.
If, indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, said, we are concerned about some distress at the manner in which the cost to the consumer has been unnecessarily inflated over the past period, surely of itself advertising will substantially help to reduce the cost. We do not know the extent to which that will happen. I imagine that advertising associations and the advertising world would say that there is advantage to be gained from the increased competition that advertising will bring.
At the end of the day, we may have a situation in which the individual trusts, first of all, the doctor and the optician. He may want to make sure that his eyes, which arc precious, get the best treatment. I have read some of the literature, and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has pointed out the extent to which the profession takes great care to make sure that only those who pass the most stringent tests are qualified to have letters after their name. People may need three years' training and a range of skills to prove that they are qualified. Are we really saying that we can so lightly set aside that situation and give an opportunity, not to anyone or to any shop, but to many more shops and many more unqualified people to provide members of the public with what they believe is on their prescription, which the person dispensing it may not be qualified to interpret? Are we really satisfied that we can so easily move from a situation that protects the consumer? I say that we ought to think very carefully.
I very much hope that the Minister will tell us what in addition to what is on the face of the Bill he intends to do to make sure that the consumer is protected. I hope that he will have in mind that, no matter how
1062
much is written in legislation, very many people, who may be gullible, poor or simply feckless, will simply take the opportunity to buy what they can at the cheapest place that they can. They may do little damage to themselves, but the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, made a point which was echoed by others: they may damage themselves very little, but in having this opportunity they may run the risk of damaging others. I do not believe that we should take that risk.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I wish to add just one or two words. I was very interested in what has just been said about the impact of advertising on the cost of glasses. In this Committee there seem to he some who believe that advertising will help to reduce prices; other noble Lords say that that is a minor issue and is not important. I am very concerned with the high standard of optical dispensing that exists in this country. Why do we have to do everything in one fell swoop? Why can we not let the advertising go through, leave things for a couple of years, see how that reduces the price of glasses, and, if it does not help, think again on the other issues?
Lord Glenarthur: I fully share with the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Molloy, their views on the precious nature of sight. I am fortunate enough at the moment not to need glasses. But perhaps it would help if I reminded the Committee of the origin of the existing restrictions on sales of optical appliances in Section 21 of the Opticians Act 1958.
This section was added to the then Bill at Committee stage in another place, and was indeed a matter upon which the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, fought tooth and nail. It might help to recall what danger that Act was aimed against. The clause was introduced in Committee in another place in response to a widespread feeling that the sale of glasses to the customers' own choice without a sight test by a qualified person was a danger. In other words, the clause was designed to prevent sales of self-selected, ready-made glasses. Nowhere in the debates on the Bill then was it suggested that empty frames were a danger. Nowhere was it seriously suggested that glasses made up by non-opticians to a prescription following a sight test were dangerous. This is because they do not pose any danger to adults.
The Government have not proposed the total repeal of Section 21, although I think this was a point that was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, when he referred to what my noble friend Lord Trefgarne had said earlier and which was answered by my noble friend Lord Caithness at Second Reading. That speech made by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne referred to total repeal. But I understand, of course, there are some who would have preferred us to have gone rather further than we have done. We acknowledge the dangers of undetected eye disease, and the Bill requires glasses sold by non-opticians to accord with a recent prescription by a qualified prescriber. We have not stopped there. Glasses for those under 16 years of age also have to be supplied by a qualified optician, because the young developing eye needs to be carefully corrected or else permanent squints or damage in other ways can result. The medical view in the shape of the Faculty of Ophthalmologists and the leading

1063
optical professional body, the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians, confirm quite categorically that adult eyes cannot he damaged by inappropriate lenses. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, seemed to agree with that, and so did others.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: Before my noble friend leaves that argument, may I just get this clear, because it is of relevance to the amendments that will follow? Is he therefore saying that the reason for retaining the obligation of prescription is not to prevent harm to adult eyes, as he agrees that that cannot arise, but in order to enable a test to be made for disease of the eye? Is that the proposition that he is advancing to the House?
Lord Glenarthur: Since a pair of glasses will not be available without the prescription in the first place, the fact that the person concerned goes to a qualified person to get the prescription means that his eyes will be tested. I hope that that will answer the point that my noble friend makes. As to the frequency of those tests, that is a matter for a regulation, on which we are consulting at the moment.
The argument is then advanced that general wellbeing, or even safety, as referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Somers, and my noble friend Lord Mottistone, would be endangered by this measure, because lenses will not be properly centred. If a lens is substantially incorrectly centred, it will indeed cause problems. What is more, in the vast majority of cases this will be obvious to the wearer through blurred vision or even headaches. Even though I do not wear glasses, I know quite well that if I put on somebody else's glasses. I get blurred vision and I get a headache after a minute or two, so that seems pretty obvious to me. This is how people today know that their glasses are not right. Of course qualified opticians do sometimes make mistakes but such a mistake comes to light because the user notices it and complains about it. This is how the public in future will know if their glasses are incorrect.
The noble Lord. Lord Graham of Edmonton, just now referred to the handout circulated by the Federation of Optical Corporate Bodies and called Insight. In that, they did say that the more powerful the prescription the worse it will be, so I think what they say in that remark goes to make my point for me.
In emphasising that there are no significant dangers arising from bad optical dispensing, I should not like that to be taken as any indication of lack of concern about whether or not the public get good glasses. A vast range of consumer goods and services is produced in this country. It is exceptional, however, for there to be legal restrictions upon who can sell them. Unlike the dangers of poor optical dispensing, those of food poisoning are very real. We do not, however, require all grocers to be qualified. Even if we did, we should not protect the public from contaminated tins of meat.
For most products and services we put all the necessary safeguards on what can be sold. We prohibit adulteration of foodstuffs, for example—although I sometimes wonder, when I read the labels stating the contents of certain tins! But we have not been persuaded that there are any inherent features in a pair
1064
of glasses that require them to be treated in a quite different way from the generality of goods and services. Of course we acknowledge the high degree of professional skill involved in arriving at the correct prescription, but we are not convinced that only a trained dispensing optician is capable of making up these prescriptions.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, asked particularly whether there was any guarantee of training for those who supply glasses. There is a legal requirement in the Bill that glasses sold accord with the prescription. If anyone is to meet that requirement they will have to have the necessary expertise, otherwise they will not be complying with the law. This expertise is not particularly hard to acquire, either, I must tell the Committee. In fact I understand that one very reputable optician claims that it is possible to train someone to dispense the most common forms of prescription in a week.
It is a very scientific and almost a mathematically-based performance. For many prescriptions, only one or two simple facial measurements need to be added to the prescription in order to enable a technician in an optical prescription house to make the complete glasses. The accuracy of the finished product can be checked on a simple machine, a focimeter. The more complicated prescriptions require a higher degree of skill. However, any non-optician who tackles any sort of optical dispensing will be placed by this Bill under a legal obligation to supply glasses which accord with the prescription.
We are prepared to draft the subordinate legislation in ways which will further strengthen the consumers' hand. For example, we intend to ensure that unsafe frames and lenses are prohibited. We intend to define the tolerances within which the prescriptions must be met. We are prepared to consider whether requirements relating to centration of the lenses should be included—and I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord. Lord Somers. In fact we are willing to listen to any views on how the product—that is to say, glasses—needs to be regulated.
The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, and my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing asked particularly about a requirement that prescriptions be given to the patient after a sight test is completed. In preparation for this Bill, we have started consultations with optical bodies on changes to the terms and conditions of service of opticians providing GOS sight tests. One of these changes is to make it a positive requirement that prescriptions are given to the patient after the sight test is completed.
We believe that this is the correct way of ensuring that the public get the consumer protection they need, rather than by regulating who can sell these products. Many of the public will continue to want the different forms of reassurance that a recognised training bestows. Indeed for certain patients the additional understanding and knowledge of optical matters of the trained person will be highly desirable—for example, for many patients of hospital eye departments. We will place no barriers in the way of prescribers who, for good optical or medical reasons, wish to advise their patients of the need for a knowledgeable person to dispense their prescription. We cannot, however, continue to justify the present level of legal restrictions applied to glasses.

1065
There is no doubt that the competition of alternative suppliers will reduce pries. It is also true that glasses. Taking all reasonable safely factors into account and bearing in mind the subordinate legislation to follow, competition is the best assurance of consumer satisfaction. It is on that basis that, if my noble friend presses his amendment to a division, I ask the committee to reject it.
Loar Cullen of Ashbourne: We have had a very interesting debate and a great many people speaking on both sides. I feel that one or two points that have been raised I should try to clear up a little. One is the question of the prescription, which people seem to take rather calmly. The prescription is of course the absolutely vital matter before you get your lenses. But the specification, which I do not think has been mentioned today, is what is sent to the prescription house, and it contains all the measurement carefully made by the dispensing optician without which the prescription is of no value.
I should also like to take up one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, about the profits of optical companies, because both the two Price Commissions and the office of Fair Trading came to the conclusion that opticians were not making excessive profits. The reasons for that of course is that opticians are making losses on their National Health Service work and the only way that they can keep in business at all is by increasing the price of private spectacles. However, this price is falling and is now lower than it was in 1981. Anyhow, we have had a very interesting debate and I should certainly like to test the feelings of the Committee.
7.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71, Not-Contents, 94.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Glenamara, L.

Ardwick, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller]

Auckland, L.

Banks, L.

Hampton, L.

Bernett, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hughes, L.

Beswick, L.

Jeger, B.

Birk, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blease, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kagan, L.

Bowden, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lockwood, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Loudoun, C.

Collision, L.

McNair, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

David, B.

Mayhew, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Merrivale, L.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Molloy, L.

Drumalbyn, L

Mottistone, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mulley, L.

Ennals, L.

Nicol, B

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Oram, L.

Ferrier, L.

Pender, L.

Galpern, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

1066

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Stewart of Fulharm, L.

Rea, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Renwick, L.

Stone, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B. [Teller]

Suffield, L.

Taylor of Manfield, L.

Serota, B.

Underhill, L.

Shackleton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Somers, L.

Whaddon, L.

Stallard, L.

White, B.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

NON-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kitchener, E.

Allerton, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Avon, E.

Lawrence, L.

Bauer, L.

Linksey and Abingdon, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Long, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lindsey and abingdon, E.

Beloff, L.

MacLethose of Beoch, L

Belstead, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boothby, L.

Mar, C.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Margadale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marlery, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon- Avon, L.

Caithness, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mersery, L.

Carnergy of Lour, B.

Milverton, L.

Cockfield, L.

Minto, E.

Coleraine, L.

Monoson, L.

Colwyn, L.

Morris, L.

Craigavon, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Crathorne, L.

Nathan, L.

Croft, L.

Northesk, E.

Cromartie, E.

Northfield, L.

Davidson, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

O'Neill of the maine, L.

Donaldson of kingsbridge, L.

Orkney, E.

Eccles, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Effingham, E,

Ranglan, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Elton, L.

Reigate, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rhodes, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rochdale, V.

Gisborough, L.

Rodney, L.

Glanusk, L.

Rugby, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Gray, L.

Sharples, B.

Grimond, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Grimstone of Westbury, L.

Spens, L.

Hailshmam of Saint Marylebone, L.

Stamp, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller]

Hayter, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hemphill, L

Teviot, L.

Hives, L.

Trumpington, B.

Holderness, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vickers, B.

Inglewood, L.

Westbury, L.

Killearn, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think that this is probably a convenient moment to adjourn the Committee stage of the Bill. In moving that the House do now resume, I think that it is fair to tell your Lordships that we shall not be returning to this particular business before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
7.28 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[References are to [Bill 108] as first printed for the Commons].
1 Clause 1, page I, line 5, after ("may") insert (", after consultation with such bodies as he considers appropriate,").
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. In moving this amendment, I propose to touch on some of the other changes of importance that have been made to the Bill and then, with the permission of the House, I shall move Amendments Nos. 2 to 16 en bloc.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
2 Page 1, line 6, leave out from ("area") to end of line 9 and insert ("within Scottish inshore waters.").
3 Page 1, line 10, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) Orders under this section may prohibit, within the specified sea area, all or any, or a combination of the following—

(a) all fishing for sea fish:

(b) fishing for a specified description of sea fish:

(c) fishing by a specified method;

(d) fishing from a specified description of fishing boat; and they may—

(e) specify the period during which any prohibition is to apply;

(f) make exceptions to any prohibition contained in the order.").

4 Page 2, line 6, after ("shall") insert (", unless the order provides otherwise,").
5 Page 2, line 7 leave out subsection (4).
6 After Clause 1. insert the following new clause—
("Power to prohibit the carriage of specified types of net.
The Secretary of State may, after consultation with such bodies as he considers appropriate, make orders under this section prohibiting the carriage, for any purpose. in any British fishing boat, in any specified sea area within Scottish inshore waters, of a type of net specified in the order; and such an order may make exceptions to any prohibition contained therein.").
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
("Powers of water bailiffs, etc.
.—(1) This section applies where an order under section I of this Act imposes any prohibition or restriction on fishing for salmon or migratory trout within any waters which form part of the district of a district board within the meaning of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951.
(2) Any water bailiff or constable or any person appointed by the Secretary of State in pursuance of section 10(5) of the said Act of 1951 may exercise in relation to a contravention of an order referred to in subsection (1) any of the powers conferred upon him in relation to a contravention of that Act by the following provisions thereof—

(a) sections 11 and 12 (which confer powers of search and arrest); and

(b) sections 10(1)(d) and 20, so far as those provisions relate to the seizure of fish, instruments or articles liable to forfeiture or to the disposal of such fish.

and subsections 10(3) and (6) (which contain provisions ancillary thereto) shall apply as if the Acts therein mentioned included this Act.").
8 Clause 7, page 5, line 22, at end insert—
(" "Scottish inshore waters" means the sea adjacent to the coast of Scotland and to the landward of a limit of six miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured, up to the mean high-water mark of ordinary spring tides;").
9 Page 5, line 24, at end insert—
("(2) Orders under section 1 or 2 of this Act shall be made by Statutory Instruments which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
10 Page 6, line 4, after ("section 32") insert ("(a)").
11 Page 6, line 6, leave out ("and") and insert—
(":

(b) for the words "Secretary for Scotland" there substituted the words "Secretary of State";

(c) the words from "and the Secretary of the Board" to "name of the Board" shall be omitted;

(d) for the words "Chairman and Secretary of the Fishery Board" there shall be substituted the words "Secretary of State"; and

(e)").

12 Page 6, line 7, at end insert—
("Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (57 & 58 Viet. c. 60) In section 374, after the words "Fishery Limits Act 1976" there shall be inserted the words "Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984".
Illegal Trawling (Scotland) Act 1934 (c. 18)
In section 4(1) for the words "section six of the Herring Fishing (Scotland) Act 1889 or of any byelaw for the time being in force" there shall be substituted the words "an order under section 1 of the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984".
In section 6—

(a) the definitions of "Herring Fishery (Scotland) Acts" is repealed; and

(b) in the definition of "illegal trawling"—

(i) for the words "section six of the Herring Fishing (Scotland) Act 1889 or of any byelaw for the time being in force" there shall be substituted the words "an order under section 1 of the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984"; and

(ii) the words from "and the expression" to the end of the definition are repealed.".

13 Schedule 2, page 7, leave out line 4.
14 Page 7, line 29, leave out ("section 4") and insert ("sections 4 and 11").
15 Page 7, line 30, at end insert—

("49 & 50 Vict. c.29.

Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886.

In section 32, the words from "and the Secretary of the Board" to "name of the Board".".

16 Page 7, line 42 column 3, at end insert—

("In section 6, the definition of "Herring Fishery (Scotland) Acts", and in the definition of "illegal trawling" the words from "and the expression" to the end of the definition.").

I should also point out that in Amendment No. 6, in the last line, the word "prohibitions" should be in the singular. It should read, "prohibition". The Bill has been considerably altered since it last appeared in your Lordships' House. I do not propose to deal with all the amendments in detail, for many of them are technical or drafting changes, although I shall attempt to give a fuller explanation of any particular points raised by noble Lords.
I should however like to draw your Lordships' attention to some of the more substantive changes

1069
which have been made. I would point out that, although they may have flowered in another place, their seeds were planted here. Clause 1 has been extensively redrafted to make it much clearer and simpler to understand and to make explicit powers which previously were present only by inference. This is, however, an addition to the clause which makes consultation by the Secretary of State with appropriate bodies mandatory before orders are made. I am sure your Lordships will find that change particularly acceptable.
Clause 2 is a new clause which was introduced primarily to help in combating the very serious problem of salmon poaching at sea. It will give the Secretary of State power to ban the carriage of monofilament gill nets. The use of these nets for catching salmon is already prohibited, but it is difficult to enforce when fishermen have virtually to be caught in the act at sea and can claim to be using the nets to fish for other species. I understand that very little use is made of monofilament nets in legitimate fisheries. A ban on the carriage of these nets will make law enforcement easier and will have a significant effect on poaching.
Clause 7 is also new and is designed to allow water bailiffs to enforce any order relating to salmon under Clause I of the Bill. Examples of such orders might be to prevent the setting of a gill net other than by a boat, or the setting of enmeshing leader nets to fixed engines. The powers given to bailiffs are restricted to Clause 1 orders and are the same as those contained in existing salmon legislation.
The other amendments are, as I have said, technical and drafting changes, but I believe that the Bill, which was a good one to begin with, has now been significantly improved as a result of debates here and in another place. The overhaul of existing legislation and the creation of a modern inshore fisheries regime is much needed. This Bill provides that and I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Earl for his introductory remarks on the Commons amendments to this Bill. We on this side of the House are also very pleased that many of the amendments are the result of our discussions and suggestions, and even of amendments put down in this House by myself, my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Grimond.
I mention in particular the first amendment, because we suggested that it would make the Secretary of State's work considerably easier if he were instructed to consult with such bodies as he considers appropriate. Although it was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, that the Secretary of State would certainly consult—and I think that the noble Lord changed his mind at a certain point—he did not think that it was necessary to make it mandatory. I am very glad that, having had our discussions, the Government have decided that it is better for all concerned that the Secretary of State and the various
1070
fishing bodies in Scotland should now get together. It is better for all of them that there should be that provision and I give a very warm welcome to the first amendment.
As regards the rest of the Bill, the Minister is quite right to take all the remaining amendments together. Most of the amendments were followed through by Members of this House in another place and we viewed with considerable interest the fact that those in Committee in another place used many of the arguments put forward in this House in order to reinforce their case for the amendments.
There is only one point upon which I should like the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, to expand. I readily agree that I require further information because of my lack of knowledge of the subject rather than any intimate knowledge of fishing. Most of my knowledge about fishing has come through consultation with the various fishing authorities when the Bill first appeared.
However, Amendment No. 7, which arises after Clause 5, deals with the powers of the water bailiffs. The noble Earl may not have the details to hand at the moment, but he mentioned the matter briefly when he introduced the amendments. If the noble Earl could give me a fuller explanation of that clause now I would be very pleased. If not, I would be quite content if he agreed to write to me at a later date giving me a fuller explanation. However, with those comments I must say that I am quite happy with the Bill: I did not think that the Bill was as good as the Minister perhaps thought it was when he introduced it; but after the work of many people in this place and another place I think that it is much more workable and a much better Bill.
Lord Boothby: My Lords, I should just like to say that I think that the Bill has been greatly improved by the amendments made in another place. I always liked the Bill, but it has now been made even better. I would just like to congratulate the Government. Alas! I cannot congratulate them on everything these days, but there is one matter that they have handled superbly since the war and that is the inshore fishing industry, especially the inshore fishing industry of Scotland, with which I have had something to do in the course of a long political career. After the war that industry was facing disaster. Now it is one of the most prosperous industries in Scotland, and the Government, all Governments—but particularly this Government and successive Ministers of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—should bear considerable credit, if only for persuading European Governments of the need for conservation; and they deserve it. I am very satisfied with this Bill. I am very satisfied with the condition of the inshore fishing industry generally in Scotland; and I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating all concerned.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, and the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. We are very grateful for the support and help that they have given us in trying to make this a better Bill. It shows that this Government do take matters away and read very carefully what is said in this House, and it also shows that they are flexible enough to amend the Bill for better when the arguments are conclusive.

1071
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, asked me about Amendment No. 7. I can expand on that a little. The purpose of the amendment is to enable water bailiffs to enforce any order relating to salmon under Clause 1 of the Bill. It repeats a similar provision in the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 which extends identical enforcement power to the bailiffs for orders made under that Act. The effect is that water bailiffs may exercise powers given to them in the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951 to search boats, examine nets and, with a warrant, to search any person, premises or vehicle and to detain any person found committing an offence in respect of any order prohibiting salmon fishing.
I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. If it does not do so, I shall gladly write to the noble Lord in more detail at a latter stage. Meanwhile, I commend the Commons amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have spoken to the rest of the amendments, and with the leave of the House I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 16 inclusive.
[Printed above.]
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure. I understand that it has been agreed through the usual channels that we shall return to the earlier business at 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.39 to 8.30 p.m.]

Health and Social Security Bill
House again Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Northfield Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 2, at end insert—(";or (g) containing two lenses of equal strength and of a power not exceeding 4 dioptres for reading purposes.";")
The noble Lord said: The effect of this amendment would be to allow reading spectacles, as all call them, to be freely on sale without prescription. This is rather like old times; the situation makes me think of the Agricultural Holdings Bill when we were dragging the Conservative party, which was protesting if not actually kicking and screaming, towards a free market and on that occasion the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, was on our side. It will be very interesting to see whether, on being made a minister, he has been sufficiently nobbled to swap side and be against a free market.
Seconly, I believe that we are on familiar ground because of something I said in the House of Commons
1072
on 16th April 1958. As all noble Lords will recognize, I was a mere boy then. On that occasion I seconded an amendment in these exact terms after having tried to count the House out in order to kill a Bill. I did not succeed on either stratagem. So here we come to do battle again.
Today I am talking about spectacles of the type that I am now wearing, which still have their label on, which are available in America for about 12 dollars or which I can buy on the streets of Hong Kong for about £1.50. I am taking about the progress that we have made in this direction in the last 26 years. First, we have obtained an agreement from the Government that the selling of spectacles by an optician is a commercial operation and that it should be separated from the professional one. We have at last won that point. Secondly, we have convinced the Government that to wear the wrong spectacles does not cause any great harm. As the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said in replaying to the last debate, that was at the core of the undue restrictions that were placed on sales in 1958.
In this amendment we ask the Government to go one step further and to admit at last that presbyopia (which is the effect of ageing in the eyes when one begins to need magnification) is not a disease but is a perfectly natural process and should not be classed as disease and thus subject to all the restrictions on appliances that go with disease. Everyone should be able to have magnification in reading glasses as they become older.
Much of the trouble regarding this arises from the paternalistic outlook of many people. They say that they do not want poor people rummaging about in Woolworth's, as they used to do, because they cannot afford a decent pair of spectacles. That is not how spectacles are handled today. If you go into any American store which sells spectacles over the counter, you will find that they are properly arranged in display cabinets, with the degree of correction perfectly clearly stated, and with the degree of correction perfectly clearly stated, and, with the help of the shop assistant, you can choose the pair that provides the degree of magnification that you need. Let us get away from the feeling that there is something terrible about helping oneself to spectacles. As old age approaches, it is quire proper and it is not the degrading process that it used to be rummaging around for cheap good in cheap shops.
Secondly, would people be so foolish as to be tempted to avoid sight tests? This is one of the arguments against the amendment. First, we must recognize that that will not be the case because they know that sight tests in this country are free. It might well be that in some other countries they would be tempted to avoid sight tests if such spectacles were on open sale, but in this country, with free sight tests, they will go for eye tests and profit from them, and thus from time to time check on their eyesight.
In the report of the Office of Fair Trading at paragraph 9.9 it states that they carried out a public survey and that 98 per cent. of the public knew that they should be sight-tested before buying spectacles. Therefore, after years of the health service, there is now a full understanding that proper care for the eyes means having one's eyes tested and checked from time to time.
Therefore, the issue is: should we force people to do this or should we leave it optional, as the amendment proposes? The real issue is: what is freedom in this case? I reject the degree of paternalism which was brought out in the last debate, which says, "We know that you might do yourself some harm by choosing your own spectacles; therefore we shall stop you". We must get away from that approach. After years of the health service, 98 per cent. of people are sensible enough to take advantage of the free sight test.
Apart from this sense of personal responsibility in these matters, there is the question of freedom. In paragraph 9.35 the report of the Office of Fair Trading says that the proponents of this change, like myself or Mr. Trevor-Roper, the distinguished ophthalmologist who supports us on these matters,
"believe that generally Section 21 of the Act"—
that is, the restrictions in it—
"represents an unwarranted intrusion on the personal freedom to choose a lower level of service in return for a lower price".
That freedom ought to be open to us and we should not have to say that we must always go to a fully qualified man and go through all the hoops, with all the expense. We should be able to have a lower level of service and buy over the counter at a lower price if we make that choice. We should also be able to buy spare pairs of spectacles when we break them or if we are going abroad and need some spares to take with us.
Lastly, there is no reason why we should not allow people to buy these spectacles as fashion dictates. Women are very influenced by fashion when they choose spectacle frames and there is no reason at all why they should not have a few spare pairs of simple correction spectacles of a fashionable type that go with their various outfits. Therefore, there are many reasons why we should have this freedom to choose spectacles over the counter without causing great harm to our eyesight.
What would be the size of the market? The report of the Office of Fair Trading says that in the United States of America it is about 10 per cent. However, they estimate that in this country it would be between 3 per cent. and 5 per cent. of the market for spectacles because most people would continue to take advantage of the National Health Service, whereas in the United States there is no such service. So the report says that between 3 per cent. and 5 per cent. of spectacles would fall in this category if the freedom existed here.
The only real disadvantage that the Government put forward is the danger of non-detection of disease. I want to examine that disadvantage before I sit down. Mr. Trevor-Roper and other distinguished medical men have given clear evidence to the Office of Fair Trading inquiry, which was very fair. One noble Lord said that he did not believe that they had taken evidence from the opticians. My goodness, they did—to the point where the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, and I were complaining that the whole thing was being inordinately delayed and we thought that the Government were trying to sit on this inquiry for too long and hold it up. I repeat, it was very fair.
Anyway, Mr. Trevor-Roper made clear that in his opinion—and he is backed up by other medical men—most diseases of the eye are sufficiently
1074
apparent to cause the patient to seek medical advice. This is crucial to the argument. The only case where this is not so is that of glaucoma. The Government's case for resisting this amendment up to now has been the fear that people with glaucoma will not be detected if we do not force them to have an eye test before they buy spectacles.
Can we examine this as my final point? Mr. Trevor-Roper and others—this comes out in the OFT report, and the OFT people accept the figure—estimate that between 0.2 per cent. and 2 per cent. of the population are susceptible to glaucoma. We are first of all arguing about a very rare condition. But what one has to look at is how many people would be at risk. I have said that only 3 to 5 per cent. of spectacle purchasers would fall in this bracket. Therefore, we are arguing about the danger to 1 or 2 per cent. of 3 to 5 per cent. of spectacle purchasers: an infinitesimally small number, a tiny number, of 1 or 2 per cent. of the 3 to 5 per cent. of the population who might buy over the counter, who might be detected as suffering from glaucoma.
In those circumstances, can we really justify that all of us, without exception, must go through an eye test before we are allowed to buy a pair of spectacles? Is it not getting ridiculous when it is down to figures of that sort? I end on that note about paternalism. I can stand a certain amount of paternalism where large numbers of people arc involved, but are we going to say that everybody in our society must have an eye test because 0.2 per cent. of 3 per cent. of the population might in some way be detected as having glaucoma? I could go on with the argument, but I shall not. It is as ridiculous as that, and I hope that this time the Government are going to accept the principle of this amendment. I beg to move.
8.43 p.m.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: I bow to the enormous experience which the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has displayed in this area. I must admit that in my involvement in politics it has not frequently been my experience to find myself as wholeheartedly in agreement with every word that the noble Lord has expressed from the Opposition Benches as has been the case with what the noble Lord has said tonight. I would go further and make it clear that so far as I am concerned I would not for a moment quibble at his amendment, which seems to me to fulfil admirably the purposes that the amendment which I have drafted seeks to achieve. Therefore, I am only too happy to tag on behind the noble Lord's amendment tonight.
I should like briefly to describe my personal involvement in this area, such as it is. About four or five years ago I lost my reading glasses. I needed them urgently, and I was eventually advised that there was an establishment in Wardour Street, or somewhere like that, where you could get a pair of spectacles within the day with a prescription. That I achieved, and it cost me £65. Three years later I suffered a similar inconvenience. By that time I was a Minister in Her Majesty's Treasury. One of the inconveniences of being a Minister in Her Majesty's Treasury, in my experience, is that you cannot afford to go to Wardour Street and pay £60 for a pair of spectacles. Therefore, I had to obtain the appropriate prescription and wait

1075
for three days before I could obtain the spectacles I needed. In the meantime, I had to try to do my best with borrowed spectacles, or none.
I do not know whether all the dangers which we were warned about on the earlier amendment as to the hazards to our eyesight have any substance at all. I must say that I doubt it very much; but I find it hard to believe that they are liable to do more harm to one's eyesight than borrowing other people's spectacles or trying to use none in order to read during the period one has to endure before one can obtain spectacles on a prescription.
On the third occasion, four months ago, when I again had the misfortune to lose my reading glasses, I was advised to repair to the establishment of a gentleman called Mr. Risdon, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, referred earlier. Mr. Risdon had opened an eye shop in Clerkenwell. This evening I have with me a pair of spectacles which I obtained from his eye shop. I went into his eye shop having no prescription. I examined a series of cards, and found a pair of glasses which appeared to enable me to read quite adequately. I have been using them ever since, and they seem to suit my purposes entirely. I can read very well with them, I can assure my noble friend. They cost me £7–50, and I was out of the shop in three minutes.
That is a convenience and also an economy which this amendment, and the others to which I and other noble Lords have put our names, is designed to open up to all our fellow citizens. We would be conferring an enormous benefit on the generality of our citizens: the large number who need glasses for reading, who suffer from what I gather is called presbyopia and who could obtain their glasses with convenience and economy if these amendments were passed.
I want to refer briefly to some of the arguments that we have heard in the Committee tonight against this extension of personal freedom and personal economy, some of which the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has already dealt with. I do not think that we need delay ourselves over the proposition that there is any danger of people damaging their eyes by acquiring glasses in the way in which I acquired mine, because at the trial of Mr. Risdon for his open defiance of the 1958 Act the President of the Ophthalmological Society (I hope I have the title right) acknowledged in court that there was no possibility of damage to adult eyesight from the acquisition of the sort of spectacles which Mr. Risdon was offering to his public. Frankly, I do not think that anybody this evening has attempted to refute that proposition, though they have made other allegations, to which I shall refer.
The second allegation is that if people who may need (as most of us do, unless we are lucky, with the advancement of age) the assistance of magnifying glasses for the purpose of reading are not subjected to a preliminary test, then there is a danger that serious defects of vision, or diseases of the eye, will go undetected. The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, exposed most effectively, if I may say so, the drawbacks to this proposition. I should like to add one or two further drawbacks.
1076
The optical profession has told us all that it is estimated that in this country something like 236,000 among us—the precision of the figure I find fascinating—are today wandering around with glaucoma. If that is the case it does not suggest that this magnificent testing system is particularly effective in its job. If ever there was an "own goal" it seems to me that that is one. But I submit to your Lordships that the argument goes rather wider than that.
I wrote an article in one of the public prints recently which in effect, I must admit, was advancing the case for the amendments which we are discussing tonight. Subsequently I received a letter from a gentlemen who wrote as follows:
"I write as one who has worn spectacles for the correction of short-sight and mild astigmatism for over 40 years so that by middle-age I had experienced a fair number of two-yearly eye tests from a succession of well-established opticians.
"Around my fiftieth birthday, just after I had paid the usual exorbitant sum for a new pair of spectacles made to a prescription only marginally changed from the previous one, the company for which I worked introduced routine eye screening for staff engaged upon certain research projects. The eye specialist retained by the company lo do this screening subjected me to a very comprehensive examination, which went very well until he concluded the proceedings with a determination of my ocular tensions (which I now know to be an important indicator in glaucoma). With some alarm he told me that my tensions were "phenomenally high and potentially so dangerous to my vision that it was imperative for me to undergo further examination and treatment without delay".
He then went to see a specialist and was found indeed to be suffering from severe incipient glaucoma. He asked why this had not been identified in the numerous tests over many years that he had been subjected to by opticians. The specialist replied that the usual acuity tests carried out by an optician would be quite irrelevent to his condition.
I can add another example even nearer home. I am led to understand that my noble friend Lady Trumpington found the need to acquire a pair of glasses. She purchased a pair of glasses after the usual optical tests. She found that they did her no good. When she returned to the optician the optician said clearly she was suffering from diabetes, so she went to a specialist who found that she was not suffering from diabetes in any way at all. What she was suffering from was incipient cataract. This was corrected and I am delighted to say that my noble friend is now totally restored in her vision. She has given me her personal agreement that I should mention these facts to the House because I think they are highly relevant to the matters that we are discussing this evening.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: May I ask my noble friend whether, after what he said about opticians, he wants less well-trained opticians in the future?
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: What I am trying to say is that the argument that eye testing as at present conducted is a means of controlling, preventing, or checking eye disease is totally unsubstantiated and all the evidence points in the opposite direction. I believe it is arrant nonsense to pretend that the sort of tests that are conducted as a means of obtaining a prescription for glasses are a means of identifying serious eye disease—that is exposed as completely hollow. This is the proposition that I am advancing to your Lordships.

1077
I would personally accept that there is one argument which may be advanced against these amendments. It is not one I think that is often advanced by the optical profession. If the proposition may be advanced that those of us who with the advancement of age—something that indeed happens to all of us—require magnifying glasses to enable us to read were exonerated from the obligation of obtaining a prior prescription, then it is possible that the points at which a prescription could be obtained for the rest of the glasses-wearing population who genuinely need prescriptions, and who are quite rightly not covered by these amendments, might be reduced. That is a serious argument, but I do not believe that the sensible way to deal with that is to impose upon the majority of our fellow citizens who need magnifying glasses for the purposes of reading an obligation to obtain a prior prescription.
As my noble friend from the front Bench said earlier, it is demonstrated without any contravention that there is no hazard at all to eyesight in adults obtaining magnifying glasses which they need for reading without benefit of prescription. I believe that the evidence is overwhelmingly against the proposition that the obligation to obtain a prescription is any sort of a genuine control, a genuine detection, of eye disease.
I must say, with regard to the argument which we heard earlier—that if we are all to be free to go off and buy our glasses off the peg without prescription then we shall all be bumping into each other or falling off the pavement under buses—that it makes one wonder about those in other countries: and there are a great many of them, Australia, most of the Scandinavian countries, contrary to what the right honourable noble Lord said earlier, something like 90 per cent. of the states in the United States, where people have no such obligations imposed. Do we find them all falling off buses, bumping into each other? Is there an enormous incidence of horrifying accidents and disasters because they can go and buy their spectacles off the peg in a shop, as we were able to do until 1958 in this country? Is there any evidence at all that in the period up to 1958 we were all banging into each other, falling off pavements, or driving into each other on the M. 1? The argument really does not stand up.
To my mind the logic of what we are doing tonight is that we should carry the freedom and choice for the individual, and the economy that would result, one stage further. The Government have in this Bill, I believe, made a major strike for improved competition and better choice for the citizen. Let us go on one stage further, and if we carry these amendments that is what we shall do.
Lord Mottistone: I think my noble friend said that he was taking his Amendments 3 and 4 with number 2. Is that right?
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: Yes.
Lord Mottistone: It was a little surprising to have nearly an 18-minute speech in a Committee stage in this House from the number two speaker. I hope my noble friend will note that. The point that the noble
1078
Lord, Lord Northfield, made, which was the key to his amendment and the key to my noble friend's amendment, was that the effect of these amendments is to remove the need for the prescription. The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, said that 98 per cent. of people know that they need to have the eye test. Of course, that might be so. We have been at it for nearly 20 years—or is it 30?—and we have become accustomed to it. But, in my experience, when the pressure that the legislation imposes is removed, it does not take long for the 98 per cent. to go rattling down.
Lord Northfield: Even when it is free?
Lord Mottistone: The point about this is that the prescription has a validity. Both the noble Lords said that it did not have a validity for the maximum number of people. That may be true, but it has a validity for some of the people some of the time. I take very much the point that was made briefly in a splendid speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, that we do not want to rush into making a total change overnight. We have a system which has been serving us well. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, pointed out how other countries are coming in our direction.
Lord Northfield: They are not.
Lord Mottistone: Yes, I think that this is true. I do not know about the United States. I am always suspicious about the United States—
Baroness Jeger: Hear, hear!
Lord Mottistone:—suspicious in the sense that sometimes people will go over there and do things which are not legal under the law of the state in question at the time. So one needs to watch that, but in Europe I think this is true.
The whole point of these things is to abolish the need for the prescription. If it was necessary—and this seems to be the sense both of the debate now and the debate that we had earlier—to go to have our eyes tested perhaps every two months, that might be a terrible imposition, but we do not need to do that if we are of the normal run of people. We need to go, at the most, every two years, and in my case I am now round the three- or four-year mark. This is not a great strain and it is up to me. There is a lot of freedom. With all the remarks about freedom from the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, I thought he was coming to join us on these Benches. I hope he will talk about freedom to his noble colleagues in all sorts of other areas in which they do not really recommend freedom.
The whole point about these amendments is that they abolish the prescription too soon. It has a validity and there is a need, and I trust that your Lordships will resist all these three amendments.
Lord Rugby: The matter of the prescription is only important in certain respects. The main one is to get a properly prescribed lens. It has nothing whatever to do with a medical check. I stress that the whole tenor of the legislation was to state that by no stretch of the imagination were opticians to be accorded a medical

1079
status. They have no medical status and the noble Lord seems to be suggesting in his speech that, if one goes to have a test and a prescription is given, that that as well is an automatic screening for various aliments either of the eye or possibly of other parts of the body and for diabetes.
Unfortunately, when the prescription is also tied to the sale of an appliance, the likelihood is that the prescription will be directed towards that sale. All too often, even if something is evident, the optician is not likely, or has no need, to declare it, because it will do his own business down by failing to sell the valuable product at the end of the sale. In other words, he is doing the very thing which doctors were stopped from doing—namely, having a consultancy and at the same time prescribing medicines which they had invented themselves and which were known as cure-alls. For the same reason, we are asking that there should be a separation now between the optician who does the eye test and the department which persuades the person to buy the prescriptive glasses on those premises. They should take that prescription out to see whether they can extract the best advantage from it.
Lord Bowden: I wonder whether I may be allowed briefly to intervene and explain something of the history of the connection between eye testing and the ability to detect eye diseases, because it originated in Manchester.
Years ago we had a two-year course leading to a diploma. We thought that it would be a good idea to upgrade it and to make it into a three-year course leading to a degree. But to make that possible we decided that it was essential that a student should have an opportunity of seeing the treatment given in the Manchester Eye Hospital. Ever since that time, all students of ophthalmic optics in Manchester have worked for quite extended periods under supervision in the Manchester Eye Hospital; it being clearly understood that the purpose of this tuition was not in any circumstances to make it possible for them to treat the diseases concerned but rather that they should be able to identify them and, if need be, refer patients for expert treatment.
That has been an extremely important development which has made our own department celebrated and has since been copied by many others—the Northampton School in London, for example, does much the same. It is very important indeed to realise that students who are learning to dispense spectacles should, at the same time, have experience of diseased and malfunctioning eyes so that they can recognise them and arrange for the people whom they see to have further, better and proper medical treatment. That is my first point.
The second point I would make is that everyone realises that it is quite wrong that ophthalmic opticians should be required in effect, to subsidise their professional skills with the selling of spectacles. Everyone has always disliked it for the very reasons which were mentioned moments ago which make it impossible for medical men to do that in this country. It is very much better that there should be a separation between these two functions which makes the proper
1080
function very understandable and makes it possible for the profession to exercise the skills which it has learned both in the correction of visual defects and in the analysis of malfunctioning eyes.
The first and second points that I must make are that, in no circumstances, should there be a dependence on the part of those who are earning their living as practising ophthalmic opticians to supplement their incomes by dispensing spectacles. For this reason, we very much welcome the increase which was recently given by the Department of Health in the price to be paid for an individual eye test.
These are complex issues indeed. The question as to what extent a profession should be encouraged to advertise is very hard for the layman to consider dispassionately. Solicitors of course are now going to be encouraged to advertise, and I very much hope that sooner or later the Bar will do the same. What a thought that lawyers and barristers will be able to say, "I got Three-Fingered Jack off with only six months. Look what I can do for you!" This possibility, I am sure, would transform the nature of the Bar and the legal profession. But the question we have to ask ourselves is this. Would the Bar like it? And we know of course that they would not. Would they tolerate it? We know of course that they would not. In any event, would the practice of the law be improved if it were insisted upon by the Government? The answer obviously is, certainly not.
These traditional practices really are only a survival of the medieval guilds. Someone—I think it was Shaw—once said that all professions are, in essence, a conspiracy against the public. So let us face the fact that ophthalmic opticians are working within the same constraints as are the members of all the other professions, and that they are no better or no worse because they have to try to exploit their opportunities when they can. I know ophthalmic opticians very well. We had a very big department of ophthalmic optics. They are extremely dedicated, responsible and serious men struggling to create a profession where until recently there was not one. After all, it was not very long ago since the barbers first separated themselves off from the surgeons and created the profession of surgery. That was not very long ago. When the Duke of Wellington fell ill, he said, "Send for the apothecary!"—there being no such person in those days as a professional physician. All the professions are growing; they are becoming more and more self-assertive if you like, and they are in the process of giving a better and better service to the community. The ophthalmic opticians are doing the same.
9.12 p.m.
Lord Monson: I, too, should like to endorse every word spoken by the noble Lord. Lord Northfield. I particularly liked his attack upon the wholly un-Thatcherite paternalism we have heard expressed in this Committee tonight. Like my noble friend—or I suppose that I should correctly say, the noble Lord—Lord Bruce-Gardyne, I, too, have bought spectacles from Mr. Peter Risdon, one pair of which I have in my hands at this moment. In fact, I have bought three different pairs from him, costing £4, £7.50 and £8.50 respectively. They are of different

1081
magnifications for different lighting conditions—for daylight, for good artificial light and for poor artificial light, respectively. They are also of different magnifications for different times of day because, it may not be generally appreciated that one needs lesser magnification in the morning when one's eye muscles are rested than in the evening when one's eye muscles are tired.
The problem with stipulating that prescriptions must be produced before a pair of reading glasses can be bought is that the strength prescribed if the eye test is carried out in the morning will be different from the strength prescribed when the test is carried out at midday and even more different from the strength prescribed if the test is carried out in the evening. What many of us object to about the present state of affairs is not primarily the high prices of spectacles, although we would welcome the reduction that this Bill certainly would produce, partly because of increased competition and partly because of the scope that opticians would have to reduce their high overheads by moving from over-furnished, prime, High Street, ground-floor sites.
Neither is it a question of courtesy. I have always been treated with great courtesy on the rare occasions that 1 have visited an ordinary optician in the United Kingdom. What really gets under my skin—and, I suspect, under the skin of tens of thousands of my fellow countrymen—is being described inevitably patronisingly (and therefore insultingly) as a "patient" when there is absolutely nothing wrong with us. The use of the word "patient" is part of the mystique put about by the optical profession to pretend to a medical skill which in fact they do not possess. People over 45 who need simple reading glasses are not in any way diseased or disabled; an individual over the age of 45 who finds that he or she needs reading spectacles is no more to be described as a "patient" than a neighbour of the same age, who finds that he needs to take a lift up to the fourth floor instead of climbing up the stairs as hitherto, is correctly to be described as a patient.
Lord Auckland: I think that we are in grave danger in this debate of getting into undue technicalities. I was very surprised to hear my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne say that he had to pay £65 at a shop in Wigmore Street. This morning I obtained a new pair of spectacles at a cost of £37, including of course the eye test from an optician, who I had been visiting for some years. It has been argued that opticians have a monopoly; but many other people have monopolies. I would be quite prepared to see an obligation on opticians to display their prices outside their shops, as indeed many do.
I think the whole query about this amendment is, if it is carried and if no prescription is required, what redress has the person whose eyes may become affected later and whose sight becomes seriously impaired? This point should be very much considered. If an optician makes a mistake, he or she can be proceeded against. That is my understanding, anyway. Therefore I think these amendments are defective. There is too much made of the fact that perhaps only 2 per cent, of the population suffers from glaucoma, a disease which is largely, or was at one time, suffered
1082
from in the tropics. There are other eye diseases besides glaucoma. I do not know the figures for these diseases but we have the possibility of the prescription being withdrawn—I know it is there for children under 16 but it must also be there for others because at any age eyesight can be impaired. Therefore I hope that these amendments are rejected.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: I just want to make one brief intervention, and I promise I shall not give any views as to where I have just bought a pair of spectacles, whether it was in Wigmore Street, Hong Kong, Singapore or anywhere else. I think that we have heard quite enough about individual pairs of spectacles when what we really want to be doing is taking a responsible view for people who are perhaps not so fortunate as other noble Lords who travel all over the world and who need to get their spectacles on a reasonable basis, which is what I hope they will be able to do in the future.
I have only one other point to make. We hear a good deal about this magnification. I know that we do not want to get technical (and I cannot get technical, anyhow) but magnification is not the appropriate term. What I understand—I have been given this on pretty good authority—is that the point of having reading spectacles is to focus light on to the back of the retina from a near object. As we all know, after 45 years one is not able to do that naturally and therefore the lens is meant to provide a clear image and not an enlarged one. So I think that we ought to stop talking about magnification.
The Earl of Caithness: We have had a long debate on this matter and we have covered a lot of the ground in the first amendment as well. The Government, when studying the Office of Fair Trading report, gave serious consideration to the merits of allowing self-selected reading glasses. I accept the evidence, which is quite clear, that they cannot ruin adult eyes. The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, reminded me of the happy hours we spent on the Agricultural Holdings Bill. We made great strides in liberalisation, which this Government are doing now. We are persuaded of the merits of requiring a sight test before glasses are dispensed. This is in line with the thinking and practice of most Western countries. Such sight tests perform a valuable role in ensuring that glaucoma and certain other serious eye and general diseases, such as diabetic retinopathy, cataracts, vascular abnormality, macular degeneration—I could go on for a long time but I do not wish to bore your Lordships—are detected.
It has been our stance throughout this controversy that we are proposing nothing that will expose the public to a greater level of risk to their health. Similarly, we do not believe that the public interest is served by letting someone drift into preventable blindness out of sheer carelessness or lack of knowledge. This amendment and Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 would break the present link between sight testing and sales of glasses. It is this factor that matters, not whether reading glasses are involved or relatively low-powered lenses. I do not believe that the sight test requirement is a really onerous condition. The public can readily obtain them, and they are free.

1083
It is our firm belief that the eye test performs a valuable screening role. Glaucoma is not a major disease numerically, but having the sight test does allow for early detection of any cause of blindness. The acuity test is not in itself sufficient, but an optician who failed to examine the back of an eye with an ophthalmoscope, which is the most reliable method, would be in breach of his professional terms of service and his professional code of practice. There is already an obligation on an optician providing NHS sight tests to hand the prescription over on request. Some proportion of patients do request their prescriptions now, and many more will doubtless do so when this Bill is enacted.
In preparation for this Bill, we have begun consultations with optical bodies on changes as to the terms and conditions of service of opticians providing GOS sight tests. As my noble friend Lord Glenarthur has already said on Amendment No. 1, one of these changes is to make a positive requirement that a prescription is given to a person after a sight test is completed.
The noble Baroness. Lady Robson, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and just now my noble friend Lord Mottistone, said we should proceed in stages; and we believe that this Bill, as at present drafted, is the right stage to have reached at the moment. We will, of course, keep the matter under review. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, will be persuaded to the Government's view that considerable liberalisation can be achieved by the Bill as it stands and that the additional competitive benefits in self-selected reading glasses are outweighed by the greater risk to which some people would be exposed.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Earl sits down, would he not agree that the arguments he has just advanced about testing for diabetes, and so on, could be used to justify a requirement that every single adult in the country should undergo a periodical eye test, whether or not he or she needs glasses?
Lord Northfield: The debate has gone exactly as I forecast. The memories of the Agricultural Holdings Bill debates are reinforced because I see that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, who was resisting the open market in farm rents, has now been brought in to reinforce the Front Bench in resisting the free market on this issue, too. It is amazing how hard it is to drag the Tory Party towards the free market, and I must confess that on matters like this I am beginning to despair of them.
There are just two points I would make quite briefly. First, it is not the case that Western countries are moving towards restrictionism in this matter. The Office of Fair Trading report makes it quite clear that ready-made spectacles are on free sale in the United States, in several of the Australian states, in the whole of Japan and in the whole of Canada, for example—and in Portugal, Greece and Sweden as well. It is not the case that countries which are rather like our own in some way are drifting apart on this matter. They are in fact in favour of freedom, and you can buy freely there.
1084
Secondly, I would say that it just is not the case, despite the noble Earl getting all mixed up with the names of all the diseases, that an eye test is needed in order to detect them. As Mr. Trevor-Roper has made clear a thousand times, most of those diseases are sensed by the patient anyway, and he would go haring off to a doctor or an optician the minute he felt them. They are not things from which he would find relief by buying a pair of spectacles. So it is clearly quite silly to confuse this argument with all these other diseases. They will be detected in the normal process of medical care, as soon as the patient realises the discomfort and that spectacles do not cure it.
We end where we began. I shall go on as I now go abroad. Noble Lords from all parts of the House come up to me and say, "I hear that you are going to America. Will you bring me back a pair of spectacles of this correction?" and I come back loaded with spectacles for my noble friends. 1 just feel sorry for those outside, who do not have friends going to America or Hong Kong to help them. It is quite ridiculous. These spectacles can be bought for £5, £6 or £7 in America, and in Hong Kong I get them for £1.50. I will take orders after this debate, if some of your Lordships are envious of these prices.
I shall, of course, beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but we shall have an attempt at drafting it more accurately in a way that can be forced to a Division at Report stage. So 1 hope that we can get an amendment which in drafting terms is watertight. Finally. I wonder where this paternalism is going to end. As the BMA said at one point in this long argument, "Are we next going to say that dentists must have a monopoly of selling toothbrushes, because somebody who wants to buy a toothbrush should be checked to see whether he has dental decay before he is allowed to buy an appliance?" It is becoming as silly as that and I only hope that that sort of point will one day register with this Government. We have dragged them so far into the open market. I hope that one day we will get them the rest of the way. In the meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.]
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 20, leave out from ("not") to ("before") in line 21 and insert ("earlier than three years").
The noble Lord said: This is very much the second or even third- best amendment, because I would have much preferred that of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, or one of those of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne. However, it represents an effort to find some sort of common ground between the libertarians, on the one hand, and the paternalist lobby, on the other. If it is necessary for people who are not in any way ill or disabled—I do not accept that it is necessary, but if it is considered so—to have to undergo the inconvenience and. to some extent, the indignity of obtaining a prescription for perfectly straightforward reading glasses, which in many other civilised countries, as the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, pointed out, they could buy across the counter, then, for Heaven's sake!, let them not have to submit to this charade more than once every three years. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord, Lord Monson, raises an interesting point. We still have an open mind on the time for which a prescription should be valid. Some have suggested that this should be as short as one year. However, our view is that two years would be an appropriate period. This view is backed by the views of the Faculty of Ophthalmologists and the Ophthalmic Group Committee of the BMA. We are still open to listen to other views and to receive other evidence. Because views differ, and indeed could well change in the light of scientific discoveries, I believe that the time should be specified in subordinate
1086
legislation. This will provide flexibility without losing parliamentary control since orders are subject to the scrutiny of both Houses. With that, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw this amendment.
Lord Monson: I started off being very encouraged by the noble Earl's reply, but became rather despondent towards the end. I will read carefully what he has said and perhaps come back to this matter at Report stage. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 28, at end insert—
(": or
(c) any other appliances with the exception of reading spectacles prescribed to correct presbyopia and with lenses not exceeding a maximum power of +4 dioptres.")
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to propose a compromise which I hope may seem reasonable to the Committee. I am particularly encouraged in that thought by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, has put his name to our amendment. We have heard impassioned speeches ever since this debate started, either for or against free dispensing of spectacles. The passion has been equal, I feel, on both sides.
The effect of the amendment is to provide that an order under subsection (3A) of the Bill would not only prohibit unqualified and unregistered sellers from fitting contact lenses to anybody, or supplying spectacles to children under the age of 16; it would also confine non-opticians to the supply of reading spectacles, which is, after all, what many noble Lords have been talking about.
I believe, on the other hand, that the Government are correct to insist upon the continued requirement of sight testing. It is frequently discovered at the time of a sight test that there is a medical reason for the fact that the eyesight is deteriorating. As a result, the person concerned is referred to his general practitioner to find out what is the problem.
It is quite unforgivable for the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, to draw a conclusion from the fact that one member of a profession makes a mistake. That does not condemn the profession as such. There is no profession in this country that has not occasionally made a mistake. You do not condemn all solicitors because one person has made a mistake. You do not condemn all chartered accountants because one of them has failed to discover a fraud in a set of accounts. It is a human weakness that occasionally somebody makes a mistake, but this does not condemn the profession as a whole. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: I did not condemn the profession. I did not utter a word of condemnation. All I said was that there did not seem to be very clear evidence that sight testing was a very effective way of discovering serious eye disease. Would the noble Baroness comment on the proposition from the opticians themselves that nearly 250,000 people in this country are suffering from undetected glaucoma? Does not that suggest that the eye testing regime which we have at present is less than wholly effective—if, indeed, there is any truth in the figures?
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I have no means of checking whether those figures are true. I am aware that to detect glaucoma in the early stages is one of the most difficult things to do because, to begin with, it is virtually symptomless. It could be that the figures which have just been quoted imply that that is the number of people who have the beginnings of glaucoma. My experience is that, when people have
1088
their eyesight tested, the prescribing optician is able to discover whether a more serious problem than purely bad eyesight is present. I believe, therefore, that there are strong arguments against the sale of ready-made spectacles without prescription, and I am delighted that the Government have recognised those arguments.
The opticians are not, perhaps, very keen on the amendment standing in my name and those of my noble friends. They would think it very undesirable that unqualified people should dispense even reading glasses. However, I am certain that opticians and many others, both in this House and in another place, feel that to permit unqualified people to sell reading glasses is the lesser of two evils. I hope that the Committee will support the amendment. I believe that this compromise amendment could make the two sides meet and that improvements could be made to the Bill which is before us.
We in this country have, I believe, a very high standard in ophthalmic dispensing. It is important that that high standard should be retained. It must be restricted to those who attain a minimum standard of competence through training and qualification. That is important. It is that which the Bill has now jeopardised. Therefore, I believe it is right to limit the harmful effects of the change by restricting unqualified people to the dispensing of reading spectacles only.
Lord Rugby: I am afraid that I must dissociate myself from this amendment because I misread it, and I thought that this amendment was concerned purely and simply with the other amendment relating to reading spectacles. I have already stated, and have gone on the record as stating, that the dispenser of optical appliances is nothing more or less than a seller of optical appliances.
The actual make-up of the lenses is not conducted by the dispenser; the lenses are made up by members of the Optical Manufacturers' Association: by the prescription manufacturing houses. The prescription is sent to be made up by a recognised manufacturer. The lenses are returned in the post and fitted into the frames. Those lenses conform to very highly qualified procedures from which there can be no deviation. Therefore, there is no reason at all why an optical dispenser should not dispense any lenses he likes.
Lord Kilmarnock: So far, I have not intervened in this debate between what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, rather felicitously called the libertarians on one side and the paternalists on the other. I support the amendment moved by my noble friend. I am sorry that the noble Lord. Lord Rugby, is not with us, because I was encouraged by seeing his name to this amendment. I thought that he was moving towards a compromise position, but it seems that he is moving back. I should like to tell the noble Lord that I was initally attracted to the movement led by him and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, together with other noble Lords on the Benches opposite, towards relaxing the law on these matters. But the more I looked into the effects that it would

1089
have on disadvantaged groups and upon those with really bad sight, the more reservations I found I had.
I was not happy with the first amendment moved in Committee this evening, and nor am I happy with the Bill as it stands. Later, we shall come to amendments dealing with costs—which are also very important. But here we are concerned simply with dispensing; in what circumstances dispensing must be done by registered qualified dispensers, and in what circumstances it may be opened up to those who are not qualified—provided they sell spectacles against a prescription.
I remain sympathetic to what one might call the "reading glasses movement" headed by the noble Lords, Lord Orr-Ewing and Lord Bruce-Gardyne. But I do not believe that unqualified dispensing should go any further than that very substantial sector of the market. Unqualified dispensers should certainly not be permitted to dispense the more complicated prescriptions for bifocals, trifocals or varifocal lenses of progressive power, nor other lenses incorporating worked prisms or corrections for astigmatism. Certainly it cannot be right or sensible to allow post-cataract patients to have their spectacles dispensed by someone who may have no training or qualifications.
On those grounds, I support this amendment. In fact, I should be prepared to support either of the amendments, because I believe that there is another in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. However, I understand from my noble friend Lady Robson that our amendment is slightly better drafted in professional terms, and so on balance I will support that amendment—but I am certainly behind both of them. It seems to me that we have here a reasonable compromise between the libertarian position and the paternalistic position which has been attacked by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. I suggest to your Lordships that we should rally behind one or other of these amendments.
Lord Mottistone: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to speak to my own amendment, Amendment No. 7, which is in effect an alternative to Amendment No. 6.
Amendment No. 7: Page 2, line 28, at end insert—
(": or
(d) any optical appliance defined by order as being either a low vision aid or an optical appliance, which includes in its composition a high power, complex or multifocal lens.")
I am very sad to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, does not support Amendment No. 6. I thought he had realised that there was a need for some kind of a compromise position regarding dispensing—but he clearly does not. But as this debate goes on, we might convert even him. I would have thought that he was the leader of his side, and not my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, in this particular battle.
The purpose of my amendment, as, I think, is the purpose of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, is to control the dispensing of high power complex or multi-focal lenses and low vision aids by limiting it to registered opticians. I think that your Lordships will readily understand that in these specialised cases specialised skills are needed. It is quite simple. I hope very much that my noble friends on the Front Bench will agree that in this area the Bill has not
1090
gone quite far enough. We understand that they are wholly overboard in the sense that reading glasses of the type I am wearing at the moment do not require any aids at all; and the fact that I might fall down the steps is quite irrelevant to them. We know all about that. But when one needs very special spectacles—as does my noble friend Lord Suffield, for example, as he told us on Second Reading—it is perhaps right that they should be dispensed by an expert rather than by just any person. I suppose that it is reasonable that we should have an amendment either on the lines of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness or mine. I have no great preference, but I think that my amendment is better because it uses less technical words. I commend it to my noble friends.
Lord Ennals: I only rise to make one comment which is that I supported the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, quite intentionally. I have no intention of withdrawing. I made no mistake. I might have supported the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, but did not do so when I saw that the noble Lord. Lord Rugby, had added his name to it. I hope that Amendment No. 7 will be seen favourably by the Government.
Lord Northfield: The noble Baroness looked at me when she was talking about a compromise. I want to make clear that this is not a compromise between me, or the people who I stand with, and anybody. This is a compromise between the people who do not want to do anything at all and the Government. It is going one step back compared with the Bill. It is certainly not a compromise with us. Therefore. I hope that the noble Baroness will not look at me when speaking on this issue. She has the wrong compromise in mind. She wants to go further back than the Government. Goodness knows, they have not gone far enough! The noble Baroness has it wrong.
As for the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, he has it wrong, too, if I may say so. There is a failure to understand how the industry works. A dispenser does not sit in a back room making spectacles and lenses; nor does an optician. The prescription arrives and the person who receives it whether an optician or one of the new non-qualified people, simply sends it to a prescription house which makes it up. All that then happens when it comes back to the person doing the dispensing is that he puts it in a frame and makes sure that the frame fits on the face of the person concerned and that it is centred. Frankly, the complication of the lens which the noble Lord talked about at great length has nothing to do with the dispenser. That is a specialised function carried out by the optical houses. The noble Lord has the story completely wrong.
The Earl of Caithness: With the leave of the Committee I, too, should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. I start by saying yet again—and I should like to stress it as would my noble friend Lord Glenarthur—that the medical evidence is quite clear that glasses, however complicated or powerful, cannot damage adult eyes. It is also widely acknowledged that the more powerful the prescription, the more noticeable symptons of dispensing errors will be. There is therefore no reason

1091
why alternative suppliers should be limited to the more simple glasses.
It is certainly true that the more complicated prescriptions require a higher level of attention to such matters as centration of the lenses and the back vertex distance of the glasses. However, those who choose to supply such glasses are under a clear legal requirement to supply glasses which conform to the prescription. We are considering carefully what additional steps might be taken to strengthen the hand of the consumer; for example, that the taking of certain measurements is a necessary contractual condition between supplier and customer. The public make many sophisticated judgments on a wide range of consumer choices. There really is no reason to believe that they will be incapable of detecting error, complaining and obtaining redress.
We acknowledge that there is a very small number of people whose eye condition requires more knowledgeable dispensing—conditions where the background knowledge of a fully trained person will be required to help ensure a successful outcome, and occasions where mere technical competence in interpreting and making up the prescription may not suffice. In such cases it is open to the doctor or other prescriber strongly to advise his patient that special care is needed in the selection of his supplier. He may even feel that the prescription should be endorsed with his advice to use one of the many registered opticians. This will be entirely acceptable. Indeed, we are considering reinforcing this approach by requiring alternative suppliers to display a warning notice advising would-be customers to heed their preserver's advice. The needs of this minority can therefore be met in the context of doctor-patient relationships. For these reasons, we believe Amendment No. 6 is inappropriate and unnecessary, as the public can be protected without having to be nannied.
I turn now to part of Amendment No. 7 in the name of my noble friend Lord Mottistone, where he raises the point of low vision aids. I should like to assure my noble friend that there is no intention that unregistered opticians should sell low vision aids required by those with the worst sight. Low vision aids, for the information of noble Lords, cover a variety of devices of varying complexity prescribed to aid those with little vision. At the simplest level, a hand-held magnifier could be a low vision aid. At the other extreme, a closed circuit television system could be used as an aid. Each device or combination of devices is devised for the individual patient. Many obtain low vision aids on loan from the hospital eye service. Not many qualified opticians undertake this work. We believe that it is unlikely that unregistered suppliers will want to enter this market. However, to avoid any risk, I undertake to ensure that orders for exemptions exclude such optical appliances. The definition will require some considerable thought to avoid catching quite legitimate sales involving simple hand-held magnifiers. We will of course consult on these orders. I hope that my noble friend will accept this assurance. For the reasons already stated, I cannot however share his desire to exclude the more complicated forms of glasses. I therefore ask the Committee to reject these amendments.
Lord Mottistone: May I ask my noble friend to explain this? Do I understand that he agrees at any rate with the first part of my amendment and will put down an amendment of his own at the next stage, or is he suggesting that the relevant parts of it will be incorporated in the relevant orders?
The Earl of Caithness: No, we will not bring forward an amendment. We will have it in orders.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: While thanking the noble Earl for his reply, regretting that he has not been able to go any further towards meeting us in our amendments and not being certain what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will do with his amendment, 1 am afraid that I must press my amendment.
9.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 52.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Mottistone. L.

Auckland. L.

Nicol, B.

Banks. L. [Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Renton. L.

Ennals. L.

Robson of Kiddington. B.

Ferrier, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch. B.

Jeger. B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Kagan, L.

Stoddart of Swindon. L. [Teller.]

Kilmarnock. L.

Lockwood, B.

Underhill, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Winstanley. L

Molloy, L.

L

NOT CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Ampthill. L.

Avon. E.

Hives, L.

Bauer. L.

Ingrow, L.

Belhaven and Stenton. L.

Killearn, L.

Beloff. L.

Lawrence. L.

Belstead. L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Brougham and Vaux. L.

Long, V.

Caithness. E.

Lucas of Chilworth. L.

Carnegy of Lour. B.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Coleraine. L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Colwyn, L.

Monson. L.

Craigavon, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Craigmyle. L.

Croft. L.

Northfield. L.

Davidson, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rochdale, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Effingham. E.

Skelmerdale, L.

Elliot of Harwood. B.

Suffield, L.

Elton, L.

Swinton. E. [Teller.]

Fortescue. E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Trumpington. B.

Gisborough. L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Glanusk. L.

Westbury. L.

Glenarthur, L.

Whitelaw. V.

Grimston of Westbury. L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
9.57 p.m.
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 28, at end insert—

(e) any optical appliance for a registered partially sighted person:or

(f) any optical appliance for an old age pensioner.")

The noble Lord said: I move this amendment at the invitation of my noble friend. As the Committee is aware, the Bill as it stands requires qualified dispensing only in the case of children and in the case of the provision of contact lenses. This amendment would require, in addition, qualified dispensing for the registered partially sighted and old age pensioners. In fact, 75 per cent. of registered blind and partially sighted people are over 65, so there is a considerable overlap between these two categories. Twenty-seven per cent. of all elderly people have some visual impairment.
Old people often need complex lenses. References has already been made on a number of occasions today to those required by, for example, people recovering from cataract operations. Often, old people may have serious eye conditions. We do not believe that these two categories should be exposed to any risk, however small some people may think it is. We feel it is essential that their glasses should be dispensed by fully qualified persons. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: I should like first to deal with the question of old age pensioners. There are no medical grounds for excluding the over-65s from unregistered suppliers. Their eyes are no more capable of permanent damage from inappropriate glasses than are those of younger adults. It is probably true, as the noble Lord. Lord Banks, suggests, that a higher proportion of this age group require more powerful lenses, but this does not of itself make unregistered sellers undesirable. Indeed, patients with high-powered lenses are more likely to notice visual distortions. There is no argument for excluding pensioners from the benefit of greater competition and the lower prices that this will bring.
So far as the other part of the amendment is concerned, those who are registered partially sighted will usually be advised by their medical advisers to obtain glasses from a qualified optician. But we are not at the moment convinced that the law should deprive all registered partially sighted of the right to choose where they should obtain their spectacles and thus expose them to possible extra financial costs that might be avoided by the rest of the population.
We are still considering representations on this matter. If we are persuaded that legal constraints are needed, these can be put into orders under the powers which are contained in the Bill. So an amendment to this Bill is not required and it would, of course, be open to your Lordships to pray against any orders that came forward. I hope that with those remarks the noble Lord will not press his amendment to a Division.
Lord Ennals: I was very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, say that consideration was being given, particularly in the field of disability, because it is rarely the case that disability can be neatly categorised and that a person's disability is confined to
1094
one particular aspect of his or her way of life or health. It is certainly true that disabilities affecting the nervous system are often evidenced in the eye and that other disabilities increase a person's dependence on his own good sight.
For many people with a disability the economic provision of National Health Service spectacles has an important effect on their quality of life in just the same way as access to the whole range of national health services is important to them. The withdrawal of NHS optical dispensing from these groups should be seen in the context of the total health provision.
Some may say that it seems curious that the blind require spectacles. But for many of these people the preservation and enhancement of the tiny part of their eyesight that remains is vital to their lives. The blind and the partially sighted together, as a group of disabled people whose disability may not be confined to sight, deserve continuing access to NHS optical dispensing. So I was very encouraged by what the noble Lord said, and I hope that when consideration is being given to orders—even though I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, will not be pressing the amendment—consideration will be given to an order which will give effect to the principle in relation to disabled people.
Lord Banks: I, too, am glad to hear that consideration is being given to the position of the partially sighted. I cannot pretend that I was altogether satisfied with the reply which the noble Lord gave. I would like to consider what he said and perhaps to return to this particular subject at a later stage. But in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne Lord Cullen of Ashbourne moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 32, at end insert—
("(3E) No order under subsection (3a) above shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.".")
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to require that any order which is introduced to permit the sale of optical appliances by unqualified persons should be subject to affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament. Whether or not the amendment is technically correct I am not quite sure, but I would like to hear the views of my noble friend on the Front Bench.
This seems a reasonable amendment to propose, because during the Committee stage of the passage of the Bill in another place, the Government accepted that any Order in Council making changes in the General Optical Council Publicity Rules dealing with advertising should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. It can be argued that the conditions and safeguards to be applied to unqualified sellers of spectacles, upon which the Govenment have placed such great reliance, are a matter of much greater public importance than the advertising rules affecting opticians. It is, therefore, important that Parliament should positively approve the adequacy of any such safeguards.
At the moment, apart from the safeguards built into the Bill to prevent unqualified people from dispensing contact lenses or selling spectacles to children under the age of 16, the only other safeguard envisaged by the Government appears to be the requirement that spectacles should comply with British Standards. However, this will not correct any errors in dispensing and there still remains a very big question mark about how the Government propose to ensure that the conditions and safeguards to be laid down in the Order in Council are in fact to be enforced.
At the moment the Goverment appear to be relying on the fact that a breach of the Order in Council would render an unqualified seller of spectacles liable to prosecution under Section 21. However, the police have never shown any willingness to undertake such prosecutions in the past and there seems no likelihood of their adopting a different attitude in the future. Such prosecutions as have been brought in the past have been initiated by the General Optical Council. But that body has no statutory duty to prosecute, and since its primary duty is to regulate the registered profession, it is open to doubt whether the GOC will still be prepared to assume a prosecuting role, especially when neither the General Medical Council nor the General Dental Council do so in relation to doctors and dentists.
Futhermore, this enabling power, taken in subsection (1) of Clause 1 of the Bill, to end the so-called opticians' monopoly, is another example of an objectionable tendency in legislation to deal with matters of major importance in subordinate legislation. In this particular case Section 21 of the Opticians Act 1958 is an offence-creating section, and it can be argued therefore that if the ingredients of that statutory offence are to be changed, then it should be done by direct amendment to Section 21 rather than by subordinate legislation subject merely to the negative resolution. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: Very briefly, I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, and indeed my name is down to the amendment. Clearly a number of Orders in Council will flow from this legislation. We had one example in the previous short debate. That being the case, it is important that both Houses should have the opportunity of scrutiny without the need to pray against it. Therefore, I strongly support this particular amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I, too support my noble friend. It seems to me that at the moment, apart from the point made on my Amendment No. 7, the Bill contains so much of the detail which will be set out in the orders that this is a case where we should have an affirmative procedure and not a negative one. I should have thought that the case for it is overwhelming, and I hope that my noble friend will agree.
Lord Rugby: I was not here when this debate started, but 1 understand that in fact the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, acts as president for the optical corporate bodies, which are highly commercial concerns. I am sure he will admit that he is involved in a commercial exercise in putting forward their points of view. if
1096
anyone doubts that, I would refer him to the public relations department which those bodies possess and which apparently has an abundant supply of money in order to publicise the case for the retention of a monopoly, in which they are very predominant. That publicity material has been sent around both Houses of Parliament on a very large scale. I regard that as a form of advertising, if no one else does. If they can advertise in that form, I see no reason at all why other people who wish to enter the market should not equally enjoy the same privilege.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: With great respect, that is a very interesting observation, but it has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the amendment.
Lord Ennals: If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Rugby. I think that that was a most unpleasant intervention. I am able to stand up and say that because I am not involved in any financial implications at all. Of course, professional bodies are entitled to lobby this House as they are entitled to lobby the other place. It would be absolutely wrong if we in this Committee were to criticise their ability and freedom to do so. In fact, much of our work would be made harder if we did not have the benefit of the expertise which they place at our disposal. So I deeply resent that the reference was made and I assure the noble Lord that I have not gained one penny from it.
Lord Renton: On reflection, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, will not persist in the line which he has just taken. All my working life until recent years I have belonged to a very highly competitive profession indeed. But it is also a highly qualified profession. We hope that these regulations will have something to say about the requirement that people in the competitive world which the Government quite rightly envisaged have adequate qualifications or are subject to adequate safeguards. That should be so, whatever the interests of opticians, as they now are, may be. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, will not expect the Government to accept his argument as part of this case.
Lord Rugby: I was not putting forward an argument. I was trying to make a statement of fact. We have the optical corporate bodies who now occupy prime sites in the selling end of optical appliances in all the major city centres. They occupy a privileged position because they now dominate a monopoly position. That is what I am trying to bring home. In order to get competition into the market I believe that other people should be allowed to advertise in the same way that is their privilege at the moment.
Lord Mottistone: What relevance has the speech which the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, has just made and the one he made earlier to Amendment No. 9? It may have been suitable for other occasions, but of all the amendments it has no relevance to Amendment No. 9, apart from the fact that it was most distateful and uncalled for, but that is neither here nor there. It is quite irrelevant, and I should think that it is out of order in the Committee.
10.12 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: Not for the first time have I or many of my noble friends stood at this Dispatch Box and discussed the question of affirmative versus negative resolution. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, knows what I am talking about. I cannot share my noble friend's enthusiasm for the affirmative resolution procedure in this case either. The Bill as drafted provides an adequate means of parliamentary scrutiny. The orders which can be made under it can be the subject of a Prayer by either House. The Government have been open minded on this subject.
Orders which override the wishes of the General Optical Council in the matter of advertising are to be subject to the affirmative procedure. It is clearly unusual for the Privy Council to be given power to override the decisions of a statutory body exercising jurisdiction over an independent profession. It is clearly a power which must be exercised sparingly if the independent status of the GOC is not to be undermined. A power of this nature justifies special scrutiny.
My noble friend Lord Cullen queried whether or not the amendment was properly drafted. I am advised that it is excellently drafted. I understand that parliamentary counsel could not have improved on it. Its only technical failing is that it should have been in substitution for subsection (3D) and not (3E), but that no doubt is a point which he has already noted.
However, the orders we are dealing with here are not an unusual exercise of power, as my noble friend suggested they were. They are mainstream examples of subordinate legislation, and nothing particularly unusual. The subject matter is indeed important but the orders will merely be putting flesh on the bones of the clear principles set out in the Bill before the committee. They will specify what appliances can be sold by non-opticians and lay down the conditions governing their sale.
The Bill itself puts clear constraints around the powers. It sets out the important exceptions to the appliances which can be exempted. The Bill imposes the most important condition: the prerequisite of a sight test. I really do not see what real additional checks on the Privy Council are required here. They are tightly constrained by the Bill as to how far they can go. Their proposals are subject to a Prayer of annulment by either House if your Lordships or Members of another place believe that the orders are not satisfactory.
To adopt the affirmative procedure in this case will subject the public to unnecessary delay in the furtherance to their advantage of the Bill's proposals. The public want to see a liberalisation of the market in glasses and they want lower prices, too. They will see no advantage in a delay. The negative resolution procedure will give the public what it clearly wants, while retaining adequate parliamentary scrutiny over the orders. I believe that no good purpose is served by this amendment, and I hope that my noble friend will see fit not to press it.
Lord Banks: The noble Lord says that there are clear principles in the Bill and because of that it is not necessary to have the affirmative procedure. Is the
1098
noble Lord saying that the affirmative procedure can only, or should only, be used when the orders are based on principles not contained in the Bill?
Lord Glenarthur: I think the noble Lord is twisting my argument. What I said was that these are mainstream examples of subordinate legislation—not unusual orders—and I think the noble Lord, in the way that he put it, is in fact misrepresenting the argument.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: In reply to my noble friend, of course I shall not press this amendment. I would say that the way in which these regulations are done is extremely important. They will be very carefully examined. Many of us are highly doubtful as to how they will be enforced in so far as unqualified and unregistered opticians are concerned. Who will make sure that they are not selling spectacles to children, not selling contact lenses or whatever, when there is no way of actually knowing who they are, what their address is, or anything else? However, having said that, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rugby Lord Rugby moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 32, at end insert—
(" (c) in subsection (4), before the word "appliance" in the second and third places where it occurs there shall be inserted the word "optical", the words "of being used" shall be deleted and for the words "a defect of sight" there shall be substituted the words "an optical abnormality or disease";").
The noble Lord said: I have seen fit to add the word "optical" to the word "appliance". I think it is important that it should be qualified all the time. There are many appliances on the market which might be described as having a relationship to the eye. For instance, if you take an extreme case, a white walking stick could be described as an appliance in that particular sense. I believe "optical appliance" perhaps clears up any misapprehension. I would in fact only wonder whether it should be "ophthalmic optical appliance" where a prescription is supplied by someone who is a qualified ophthalmologist, because I think in that way we would probably get nearer to what we are really looking for. However, I think it makes it quite clear that an "optical appliance", when referred to, should not be just an appliance.
I wish also to go into the realm of the word "defect" which is apparently capable of great misunderstanding. In a court case to which I recently listened the word "defect" was clearly totally inappropriate and nobody could give a proper description as to what was meant by the word "defect". I think if we had had "an optical abnormality or disease" then that would have cleared this point up because in certain cases—it applied especially in this court case-we are dealing with what is described as "a normal defect". I think it would have been better if "a normal defect" could have been described as an abnormality. It would have made it clearer for everyone concerned.
Could we therefore have an "optical abnormality" instead of "defect", especially where age is concerned because one cannot describe age as a defect. In court age was described as a defect, but it seems to me that where one is dealing with a certain age group of

1099
people—say, people all of 45—one has to consider a normal condition for people of 45 years of age. If somebody has an abnormality, and I should like to bring this into the Bill instead of the word "defect".
Lord Mottistone: As I am advised, the effect of this Amendment No. 10 would be to change the defence available to someone prosecuted for selling an optical appliance to make it easier for ready-made reading glasses to be sold without prescription. That is the practical effect as opposed to all the remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, made.
Lord Glenarthur: I have listened with care to what the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, said in moving his amendment and to what my noble friend Lord Mottistone said also. I have to tell Lord Rugby that I do not believe that this amendment actually achieves his intentions. As I see it, having carefully looked at the Opticians Act 1958 and the Bill, his amendment would merely alter the nature of the proof required when someone sought to use the defence that they sold glasses as an antique rather than to correct—or whatever—a defect of sight; or, as the amendment would make it, to correct an optical abnormality or disease. I believe that the noble Lord wanted this amendment to allow a general defence against prosecution on the grounds that the glasses concerned were only intended to correct the results of the natural ageing process of the eye or presbyopia.
Once again I must stress the point that we are not maintaining that self-selected glasses to correct presbyopia would, in themselves, be harmful. The person concerned might get less than his full potential correction to his vision but his eyes would not, at the end of the day, be harmed by it. Our objection to self-selection is that it breaks the link between sight testing and the sale of glasses: a point made earlier by my noble friend Lord Caithness. It thus would allow some cases of glaucoma and other diseases to go undetected. We believe that this is a risk we need not and we should not take. The requirement to have a recent sight test is not particularly onerous and will not detract much from the Bill's aim to improve competition. We believe that the extra competitive advantages of self-selection are not commensurate with the risks involved. Thus I hope the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Northfield: I shall not enter the general argument, but I wonder whether the noble Lord would care to look into the point that if an amendment on these lines were to be moved at Report stage the best place to make this amendment would be in the definitions of the words "optical appliance" at the end of the 1958 Act? In case we wish to return to this matter at the Report stage, perhaps he would write to me and confirm that that is the best drafting advice that the Government can give.
Lord Glenarthur: I certainly shall come back to the noble Lord. I think that probably he is correct; but I need to seek advice on that. Section 30 is probably the appropriate place; but I shall need to confirm it in writing.
Lord Rugby: With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rugby Lord Rugby moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 32, at end insert—
("(d) at the end of subsection (4) there shall be added—
"or that he supplied or repaired an optical appliance for purposes of restoring partial or total visual accommodation where otherwise the safety of the individual might have been adversely affected.".")
The noble Lord said: This amendment is in relation to repairing or giving first aid to somebody who has had an accident, possibly a car accident or something of that sort, and thus is incapacitated because his spectacles are damaged, but needing quite simple repairs such as those which can be effected by a jeweller or an engineer enabling him to make a temporary repair and thereby restore partial, if not total, sight to that person.
I believe that this is a very important amendment because at present it is stated that an optical appliance is an empty spectacle frame and anybody who dares to mend either a hinge, an arm or any part of it can be prosecuted. In view of the immensely incapacitating effect on people without their glasses, I believe that somebody in a professional capacity should be fully entitled to assist, if at all possible and, if necessary, to charge a professional fee for that repair to safeguard that person from another form of worse accident.
Lord Mottistone: I am advised that this also would provide a similar extension to the last amendment to defences available to an individual prosecuted for selling readymade glasses. I think perhaps it is not all that it seems.
Lord Glenarthur: I have some sympathy with the intention which lies behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rugby. In future many people will probably keep prescriptions for glasses upon their persons; but if not, it will not be too onerous to have to go to a registered optician. One of the benefits of increased competition will be that the prices charged by opticians will become more reasonable. Also, increased competition will make all suppliers more customer-conscious and give a faster service.
I fear that the amendment would open the door to abuse and would put suppliers in a difficult position if faced with a plausible tale of woe from a customer. I am not convinced that the benefit of the extra flexibility proposed would be commensurate with the extra risk which could arise from its abuse. Repairs to frames have not been illegal in the past. In future, even replacement frames will be able to be supplied without prescription. I do not think, anyway, that lenses can be repaired. Replacement lenses will only be available on production of a prescription, and this point was covered earlier this afternoon. I accept that to some extent this could be irksome on occasion; but, as I have said, this minor inconvenience must be balanced against the possible abuse to which the amendment could lead. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Rugby: I have been told by a doctor that perhaps one of the worst things that can happen to

1101
persons in an accident is the loss of spectacles. They are so totally incapacitated. I cannot believe that anyone in this Committee would be so heartless as to say that they should be left in a semi-blind state while an optician, who is probably not available over the weekend, is only prepared to say that people must carry a spare pair of glasses around with them; when they cannot possibly anticipate this type of occurrence. Many people must realise that spectacles are highly fragile and that we might have to carry half a dozen pairs around with us in those circumstances. It is ludicrous to say that somebody cannot make a repair for fear of hurting this closed-shop opticians' profession.
Lord Glenarthur: If I can return to the noble Lord, the point is that if he is referring to frames there is nothing to suggest that the repair of frames is illegal. I accept the fact that hinges come undone and that damage can be done to the plastic. We have all seen examples of repairs which have been made to glasses. The noble Lord, in praying in aid the point about damage, suggested that it would not be possible for someone to get a repair to his glasses over the weekend. I understand the intention behind the amendment, but I think we should be going a little too far in this case, particularly in view of the fact that frames can be repaired at the present time while broken lenses cannot be repaired anyway.
Lord Winstanley: I apologise for detaining noble Lords and the Committee on this matter but I assure the noble Lord that there is a point here and one that I hope at some stage he will look into. Perhaps noble Lords will forgive me if I recount a personal experience which tended to make me take the view that Lord Rugby has taken on this.
Not very long ago I had to travel from your Lordships' House to do something which required reading. I had to read a script. The screw came out of the corner of my glasses. They were a metal pair and when that happened they expanded and out dropped the lens. I could have seen the screw and I could have seen the hole that the screw goes into if I had had my glasses on. But I could not put my glasses on and could not screw the screw in. I was at Euston Station and I asked the chemist there if he could do it. "Oh, no," he said, "that is optical work. I could go to prison for doing optical work." I said, "Where shall I go? Is there an optician here?". He said, "No, but there is an instrument maker outside. Try him." I went to the instrument maker and said, "I wonder if you could put this little screw into my spectacles." "That's optical work. It is more than my living's worth to do that. It is optical work." So I said, in that case, would you be kind enough to sell me that little screwdriver and that lens so that I can put the screw in?" "No," he said "that would be helping you to do optical work."
The story did have an happy ending. I travelled on the train. I was going up to do a broadcast in Manchester. I happened to be sitting next to a pop-singer from a group known as The Paper Dolls. She was not an optician. She had not got a screwdriver. But she had very long finger nails. This tale is absolutely true. I said, "Look, dear, do you think you could put
1102
this screw in my spectacles?" She was able to do it, I was able to do my work later on, and I got out of a rather difficult situation. It was not a dangerous situation but it really did seem to me an absolute absurdity if, under the Opticians Act, it was an offence for somebody to put a screw in a pair of spectacles. I wonder if the noble Lord would look into that point at some stage and let me know so that we can decide whether or not the monopoly in the Opticians Act as far as that kind of work is concerned does require some kind of relaxation.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: Perhaps the noble Lord might take a leaf out of my book. I always keep a spare pair of spectacles and a screwdriver in my briefcase because I have had just the same experience as he has. I do it myself and no one has taken me to court yet.
Lord Glenarthur: I must confess that I do have some sympathy with the point of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and my noble friend Lord Mottistone. When I have been asked to do anything in this line, I have found a very thin piece of fuse wire to be an answer and it has worked quite well. I cannot give an undertaking that it will be possible to do anything, but I shall take away what the noble Lord has said and study it in the Official Report. If it is possible to do something, I will of course be in touch with him and let him know. I would not like to give any undertaking now except to say that I will certainly look at what has been said.
Lord Rugby: I thank the noble Lord for that. He must remember that many people do not carry briefcases. They live very far away in the country and sometimes, especially in agriculture in which I am engaged, it is very important that they should be able to see properly. We can easily have accidents with these very fragile things and we are not within miles of opticians' shops. Often we cannot get to a person who can do repairs. I think this is something which the noble Lord should look at carefully because life can sometimes be difficult and dangerous situations can be involved. For instance, electricians are perhaps engaged in circuitry in very uncomfortable positions and wearing perhaps only a pair of slacks and a sweat shirt. Where do they keep a spare pair of spectacles? The standard spectacles supplied by opticians are very fragile and break very easily. They are for self-employed people, and I do think that first aid for spectacles is vital and important, and I hope that the Minister will look into it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 41, after ("Council") insert ("and such bodies representative of the interests of the general public as seem to the Privy Council to be appropriate").
The noble Baroness said: May I speak also to Amendments Nos. 13 and 14:
Amendment No. 13: Page 3, line 5, leave out from ("Council") to end of line 7 and insert ("and to such bodies representative of the interests of the general public as seem to the Privy Council to be

1103
appropriate to the modifications they propose to make and consider any observations of those bodies thereon.")
Amendment No. 14: Page 3, line 23, after ("Council") insert ("and those bodies representative of the interests of the general public which the Privy Council has consulted").
These amendments seek to extend consultation beyond the professional interests and to involve the consumer. Similar amendments were tabled at the Report stage in the Commons but were resisted by the Government. I felt that the resistance was not very logical for the Government argued that they intended to consult the consumer interests anyway and that there was therefore no need to write it down. In my view, all too often when it comes to discussing consumer interests the argument is that it is not necessary to write a provision into a Bill and that it will automatically happen. It is my experience that it does not. I believe that it should be written down in the Bill. I should also like the Government to clarify what consumer interest they would consult. Would they consult the voluntary organisations? Would they involve the CHCs? These are questions that I would very much like to have answered. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: I note what the noble Baroness said in proposing her amendment, but I have to tell her that I feel that her amendments are unnecessary. The clause already requires that where changes are made without the GOC's consent the orders shall have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. In other cases either House can pray against the orders. Members of your Lordships' House and of another place represent the public. To require affirmative resolution procedure unless both the GOC and bodies representing the public have indicated consent might well require all orders to be so treated. The GOC and the other bodies might well take up opposed views. It is more satisfactory for the Government to perform their usual role in such matters and reach their own judgment after carefully considering all viewpoints.
The GOC itself is not there simply to represent the views of the optical profession. It does have a small number of lay members who are intended to represent the general public. Sadly, however, this body, on this issue, has, I fear, become somewhat out of touch with public feeling generally and is only reflecting the wishes of the profession.
There is ample evidence in the OFT report that only minimal restrictions on advertising are needed. We believe the report also reflects public feeling on this particular issue. We have, for example, the full support of the Consumers' Association and also of the National Consumer Council for our proposals on this matter.
Ministers can take soundings from such bodies without the need for formal arrangements. If it would in any way help the noble Baroness. I certainly can give an assurance that both these bodies will be given an opportunity to comment on any orders on which we are bound by the Bill to consult the GOC. I hope that, with that, she will be satisfied and will not press her amendment.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I thank the noble Lord for his reply, and, in view of his assurances that the consumer interest will be truly consulted, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 4, line 6, at end insert
("( ) The Secretary of State shall by order make provision for the control of the advertising, publicising or promotion of optical appliances as defined by the Opticians Act 1958 in any manner to the public, by persons not being registered medical practitioners or registered opticians.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name. The Government's contention has been that advertising will increase competition; but there clearly will not be fair and equal competition, and clearly there will be a risk to the public, if the unregistered sellers of spectacles are allowed to advertise appliances in a profligate and unrestrained manner. While precisely similar advertising restraints will be placed upon the registered seller and the registered practitioner, there remains a similar duty upon the Government, I would submit, to protect the public interest—and this is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, was making just a moment ago.
If the unregistered sellers are free to make spurious claims, to advertise worthless qualifications and to engage in misleading price comparisons, as against registered practitioners—which presumably registered practitioners will quite properly be prohibited from doing—then the registered practitioner goes into the new situation with one hand tied behind his back. The public will be faced, on the one hand, with restrained, properly controlled and regulated advertising of professional services, and, on the other hand, with unregistered sellers able to use every advertising trick to gull the unwary patient and persuade him away from qualified and registered dispensers.
The purpose of this clause is to make provision for the Secretary of State to formulate by order simple restrictions on the mode and content of advertising by the unqualified to satisfy the requirement that the public should not be misled as to whom they are consulting or what services are being offered. Further, the order should prevent comparative price advertising as against registered practitioners, and the advertising of bogus or spurious qualifications. I beg to move.
Lord Northfield: I do not want to intervene at any length on this, but I think my noble friend may find it is already covered by the Bill. That is for the Government to say. While I am on my feet—and it is the only opportunity we have—I think we should give a welcome to this relaxation on advertising. My noble friends on this side of the Chamber often wonder why we distrust opticians to some extent. If my noble friend would only reflect on the job we had to get opticians to display prices—my goodness, the pressure and the years it took to get that! And even then they only carried the display of prices by, I think one vote on the General Optical Council. It was absolutely disgraceful.
The Minister has said what he wants advertising to do. He said in column 388 (I have to paraphrase; I cannot quote) that he wants opticians-and the dispensers, too—to be able to advertise their whereabouts, their hours of opening, the range of

1105
prices of frames available and all the basic information to allow the market to flourish and the consumers to exercise some choice as to where to go for what they need. It surely is right that we should have this degree of advertising by both opticians and the new non-registered dispensers.
Finally, it is worth reading out what the Office of Fair Trading said about the present restrictions on advertising. This is in paragraph 11.103 of its report, and it said:
"The rules on publicity of 1981 effectively deny consumers information on available opticians in their locality; the range and prices of available products; and the services which are offered by opticians in terms of opening hours, speed of dispensing, product guarantees and specialised services such as contact lens work and, to a lesser extent, quality. Consumers are therefore denied the knowledge on which to make an informed choice of optician".
How right that is, and how many years have we been battling to get opticians to admit it! I unreservedly welcome the relaxation on advertising that is in the Bill.
Lord Suffield: For the reasons he gave, I support the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, about advertising. I feel that like should be compared with like, because the same constraints should be on both commercial firms and professional firms. It is not like car manufacturers, who are all the same and can run down each other's product. While there are contraints on the professional firm there must be constraints on the commercial firm for the reasons that the noble Lord gave.
The Earl of Caithness: The effect of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, would be to require the Secretary of State to make orders controlling the advertising of optical appliances other than by registered opticians or doctors. We see no need for this sort of bureaucratic arrangement for regulating advertisements or publicity involving glasses by either manufacturers or retailers. Advertisements for glasses, like other things, will be subject to the Trade Descriptions Act, the law on misrepresentation and the codes of the Advertising Standards Authority and the Independent Broadcasting Authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will be pleased to hear that both of the latter bodies already have provisions in their codes relating to advertisements containing health claims or involving health-related products. Indeed, they are aware of this Bill and are both prepared to revise their codes to cover any particular problems which liberalising the sales of glasses might throw up. Our present view is that these codes are adequate to avoid the excesses which some noble Lords fear.
Furthermore, it must be remembered that there is the buffer of a sight test which stands between advertising-generated demand for glasses and their supply. I think that this point must be borne in mind when considering some of the points which the noble Lord. Lord Ennals, made. The fact that one has to have this sight test—and this is one of the good reasons for maintaining it in the Bill—means that any excesses of advertising will be subject to it. Therefore, I cannot accept that the advertising of glasses requires special legal controls, and I hope that the noble Lord will now see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ennals: I do not feel at this moment that I want to withdraw it, and I will explain the reason why. My noble friend, who has not always been my friend in the course of the proceedings, Lord Northcliffe—I beg his pardon; I mean Lord Northfield. I deliberately try to insult him by calling him by the wrong name! It is quite effective sometimes; but it is hard on the Chief Whip, who criticises one for that sort of tactic in another place. But my noble friend Lord Northfield said in his intervention that this is to be found in another part of the Bill, and it is not necessary to have this amendment. Perhaps he will intervene and explain to me where in the Bill this is covered. So far as I can see, the responsibility that I am trying to place upon the Secretary of State is not covered in any other part of the Bill.
Certainly I welcome the points that were made by the noble Earl in his answer, and his reference to the Trade Descriptions Act and the Advertising Standards Authority's willingness to guarantee that there will be fair competition. But the point that I wanted to make was made by the noble Lords who supported my amendment; namely, that there ought to be equal with equal, like with like: that if there is going to be an effective system, as there is, of advertising for the professionals, there must be an effective system of advertising for the non-professionals. I have argued the case against the clause; I do not wish to have it at all. But we have got it. If some element of restraint is going to be placed upon those who are not qualified, the best way in which to impose it is, as I have already suggested, by the Secretary of State standing as the moderator. He should have the responsibility of ensuring that like is compared with like, and that there are proper restrictions in relation to the non-trained, non-qualified dispenser. I am hoping to have an answer from the noble Earl.
The Earl of Caithness: I do not think I can add much to what I have already said. However, I omitted to thank the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, for his welcome of our proposed relaxation of advertising. The point that the noble Lord raised with regard to this amendment is not covered elsewhere in the Bill. However, any constraints on the optical profession are, in effect, self-imposed. We are having to take legislative powers in order to force the GOC to liberalise. No doubt they will bear in mind the disadvantage under which this will place them. They can revise the rules themselves. No doubt they should have done so by now. We see no reason why the GOC needs so many rules.
Lord Northfield: I thought that the matter was covered at the bottom of page 2, by the orders which the Privy Council can make. If I have misled the noble Lord I apologise. I said that it was not for me to dictate to him the answer that the Government would make. The Government have given the right answer, though it was not the one I thought.
Lord Ennals: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord Denham: This is probably the right time to resume the House. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Anglian Water Authority (King's Lynn Tidal Defences) Bill
The Queen's Consent signified; Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
Selby Bridge Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

Barclays Bank Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  EDUCATION SUPPORT GRANTS
  EDUCATION SUPPORT GRANTS