Sitting of 21 May 1984

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT

    Pedestrian Crossings
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Secretary of State for Transport if the guidance he gives to local authorities about the criteria for providing pedestrian crossings includes specific provisions reflecting the requirements of disabled people; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): Yes, Sir. Special advice is given on when to provide pedestrian facilities and the use of pelican crossings is recommended in preference to zebra crossings. We also require the use of audible signals with pelican and signal crossings to help the blind, where appropriate.
    Mr. Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. As a principle, will her Department additionally require dropped kerbs at all pedestrian crossings to aid the disabled and ensure that they have time to cross when it is appropriate to do so? Will she push the GLC into action in my constituency by encouraging it to provide a crossing that is suitable for the disabled at Cowgate road? The GLC has for 12 months frustrated my efforts to get a crossing there for the disabled.
    Mrs. Chalker: Although we welcome the use of dropped kerbs, they are sometimes distracting for the blind if they are used unexpectedly. Therefore, we feel it best to consider using dropped kerbs when they are in combination with some form of textured pavement surface. I note my hon. Friend's comment about the GLC. I am not in the least surprised, but I doubt whether it will take any advice from me.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the Minister make sure that when ramping is used it is not such as to allow the disabled person's wheelchair to enter the no-go area while it is not allowed to be in it, but makes it easier to cross the road when it is safe to do so?
    Mrs. Chalker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. Some dropped kerbs have a slight ridge before meeting the roadway. The use of this new type of dropped kerb seems to provide an added safeguard for those who are chairbound.
    Sir David Price: Does my hon. Friend agree that the proper ramping of pedestrian crossings is essential for
    664
    those in wheelchairs and for semi-invalids? Does she recognise that incompetent ramping by local authorities can be lethal to those whom they are endeavouring to help?
    Mrs. Chalker: I recognise that incompetent ramping is extremely dangerous. We give guidance to local authorities, but if my hon. Friend or any other hon. Member comes across ramping that is plainly dangerous, I hope that he or she will take up the matter with the local highway authority.
    Mr. Coombs: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the guidelines allow for extra time to be given at crossings in the vicinity of hospitals? Does she agree that there is a case to be made for extra time to be provided at crossings in the vicinity of old people's homes, nursing homes and even post offices, where many elderly people have to go every week to collect their pensions?
    Mrs. Chalker: I understand my hon. Friend's point about increased time. I believe that a small increase in the "steady green man" time would be desirable to compensate for the crossing time that is lost by the pedestrian's delay in reacting to the appearance of the crossing signal. A small increase would help the disabled. I am considering that and whether to delay the start of the flashing amber light that is shown to drivers, which would help those whom my hon. Friend has in mind to negotiate the crossings safely.

    Cycling Policy
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will convene a conference of interested local authorities to discuss the Government's cycling policies; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Chalker: Conferences dealing with cycling matters already take place as necessary. These provide one opportunity among many for continual exchange of views between the Department, local authorities and other interested bodies. I am asking the Department to convene a conference early next year to review progress.
    Mr. Dormand: Does the Minister accept that the success of the Government's cycling policies depends to a large extent on the initiatives taken by local authorities? In view of the explosion in cycling—I am glad that the Minister is an enthusiast—at a time when the Government are slashing local authorities expenditure, what is she doing to ensure that cycling obtains the resources that it deserves?
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman knows that we are working hard to ensure that we introduce cycling schemes where we can—that is, where they are economical and make sense in the locality. He is right in saying that the matter should be decided by the locality. The schemes should be in the interests of safer cycling, which we have been promoting especially hard in the new code during the last few weeks.
    Mr. Higgins: Has my hon. Friend had a conference with the Home Office about the need to enforce the law on the lighting of bicycles and about the fact that a high percentage of bicycles show no lights?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am as worried as my right hon. Friend about that. I shall discuss enforcement in general with the Home Office in a few days' time. One of our prime

    665
    campaigns, which we must continue for as long as is necessary, is to make it clear in something like our new safety code for cyclists that cyclists are a danger to themselves and to other road users by cycling without lights.

    Railways (Electrification)
    Dr. Marekasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with present progress on railway electrification.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I am glad to report the progress British Rail has made. It has electrified 245 track miles since May 1979. A further 430 track miles are now being electrified or have been approved.
    Dr. Marek: Does the Minister accept that the profitability objective that he has set is now unlikely to be reached within the arbitrary time scale that he laid down? In the light of that, will he set that condition aside and consider the electrification of the east coast main line on its merits, which are, that it would make an independent contribution to British Rail inter-city services and an undisputed 11 per cent. return on investment?
    Mr. Mitchell: The financial objectives of British Rail, for which the Secretary of State asked, are simply those which British Rail proposed for 1988 brought forward to 1986. We have already said that we would give east coast main line electrification urgent consideration when we received the inter-city strategy, which we expect to receive shortly.
    Mr. Adley: Will my hon. Friend make a clear statement that it is the Government's policy to provide the most efficient and effective railway system as an essential component of a modern, industrial country? Will he therefore consider transport policy like defence policy, and, if good defence or transport are needed, provide the best possible and most modern facilities?
    Mr. Mitchell: British Rail is already determined to provide the sort of service to which my hon. Friend referred. It has planned a major increase in investment for the next few years, and my hon. Friend will be pleased with the progress that is being made.
    Mr. Leadbitter: The Minister said that he expected the electrification of the east coast line shortly. What does he mean by "shortly"? Has he a time scale for its implementation?
    Mr. Mitchell: I did not say that I expected east coast main line electrification shortly, but that I expected the inter-city strategy shortly. When I have received that, we shall be able to take a decision on both east coast main line electrification and its timing.
    Mr. Raffan: Will my hon. Friend reconsider pressing British Rail to help finance a study into north Wales electrification in view of the electrification of the Norwich line and the line between Hastings and Tonbridge, both of which will produce a similar rate of return to north Wales electrification, but far fewer potential customers?
    Mr. Mitchell: It is for the management of British Rail to propose electrification where it believes that that is the right thing to do. I have received no such application.
    Mr. Anderson: Is the Minister aware that the 11 per cent. discounted rate of return on the east coast main line investment is 4 per cent. higher than on the investment for comparable road building and 2 per cent. higher than on comparable rail investment in France? If we show by our actions that we have no confidence in our manufacturers in this area, how can we convince foreign buyers to buy British electrified equipment?
    Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is presupposing a result from our examination of proposals for east coast main line electrification. We have not yet carried out that examination.

    Local Government Reform
    Mr. Loydenasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of his analysis of the responses he has received to Cmnd. 9063 and accompanying consultation papers.
    Mr. Cowansasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is yet in a position to publish a detailed analysis of the responses he has received to Cmnd. 9063.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): In the period up to 21 March, 393 responses to my Department's consultation papers were received and they have all been carefully considered.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has made available two reports on the responses to the White Paper and associated consultation documents. These include summaries of views on the reallocation of transport responsibilities.
    Mr. Loyden: In view of the responses received to Cmnd. 9063 and the policy of reallocation of responsibilities, have the Government changed their view on this matter, or has the consultative period simply been an academic exercise?
    Mr. Ridley: Some responses were in favour of the Government's proposals, some were against, but many were addressed to particular parts of the proposals. All of those recommendations have been taken into account.
    Mr. Cowans: Is the Secretary of State aware that there has been much anxiety about the delay in publishing the analysis? Although the Minister said that 393 responses had been received, is it not extremely odd that only 110 were published in his latest document, which has been placed in the Library? Will he give a categorical assurance that all responses will be published when he publishes his analysis of what has been said, because that is the only way in which hon. Members can ensure that the analysis is correct?
    Mr. Ridley: It is for those whose submit their views to decide whether they should be published. If I were to publish every communication that I received from Opposition Members I am sure that they would censure me, because that would give away many things which they would rather not give away.
    Mr. Lewis Stevens: When does my right hon. Friend expect to reach conclusions from his review of bus licensing?
    Mr. Ridley: Fairly soon. I hope that it will be possible to publish a White Paper before too long.
    Mr. Waller: Is it not irresponsible for the metropolitan county councils, especially West Yorkshire council, to try to give the impression in advertisements that simply because the administration of public transport in the metropolitan counties will be changed, support will be withdrawn and many services will be cut?
    Mr. Ridley: I am afraid that we shall be subjected to groundless scaremongering similar to that indulged in by the GLC about London Transport. It would be better to await the detailed proposals, which will come forward in due course.
    Mr. Terlezki: Will my right hon. Friend accept our congratulations on the steps that he has taken to open competition in European aviation? Does he agree that the new £49 return fare being offered by British Airways and KLM from London to Amsterdam shows—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I find it difficult to relate this to the main question.
    Mr. Ridley rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Wareing.
    Mr. Ridley rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not a transport expert, but I could not relate the hon. Gentleman's question to the main question. Perhaps the Minister can.
    Mr. Ridley: I believe that I can relate it, Mr. Speaker. What my hon. Friend says about the benefits which competition in transport services can bring in terms of falling costs and fares is applicable to how the metropolitan counties can manage their affairs when they cease to be in a position to waste money unnecessarily.
    Mr. Wareing: Does the Secretary of State agree that the overwhelming majority of responses to his White Paper, whether in general or in particular, opposed the Government's policy for rearranging the management of passenger transport, highways and traffic management? In the light of those responses, are the Government prepared to offer a fresh consultation paper?
    Mr. Ridley: No. I am convinced that there is a great deal of duplication between the present metropolitan counties and the districts and that there will be considerable benefits to transports by bringing counties to an end. As I said to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), while some of the responses were wholly in favour of the proposals, and some were wholly opposed to them, they were, in the main, directed to specific parts of the proposals and cannot be put into one category.
    Mr. Snape: Does the Secretary of State accept that the proposals in Cmnd. 9063 are, in the opinion of many of us, ill-conceived and ill-thought out. Judging by the votes of some of his right hon. and hon. Friends during the recent past, they are also extremely unpopular as well as undemocratic. Which Conservative party shall we listen to on transport?
    Mr. Ridley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the general election of June 1983 there was overwhelming support for the abolition of the metropolitan counties and the GLC? Who is he to question the views of the electorate?

    Severn Bridge
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make public the terms of reference to be issued to the commissioner conducting the public inquiry into the proposed increase in toll charges on the Severn bridge.
    Mrs. Chalker: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend to him on 20 February last, saying that there will be no formal terms of reference. The question before the inspector will be whether to recommend that the draft order in which the proposed tolls increase was published should be made.
    Mr. Hughes: In view of the strategic importance of the Severn bridge as part of the motorway network and the need for the removal of an impediment to the free flow of freight and other traffic to and from Wales, will the Minister ensure that every consideration is given to views calling for the ending of tolls, let alone their increase?
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman is aware that it is for the inspector to determine what evidence is relevant to the proposal before him, which is to increase toll charges. I understand what the hon. Gentleman has said, but the inquiry is about a particular proposal, and anything that is considered there is decided by the inspector and not by Ministers.
    Mr. Anderson: Is the Minister aware that the proposed increase in tolls will be seen in Wales as an additional deterrent to industrial location in the Principality, adding to the other deterrents which the Government have raised, such as the reduction in the regional development grants. Will that be considered by the inspector?
    Mrs. Chalker: As I said to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), it is for the inspector to determine what evidence is relevant to the proposal. It is for the inspector to decide whether to take into account those matters which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but plainly any road that is some distance from the ports of entry has a bigger problem than somewhere nearer those ports. It is for the inspector to decide.

    Concessionary Fares
    Mr. Snapeasked the Secretary of State for Transport how many of the metropolitan county councils operate countywide schemes for concessionary fares for pensioners and disabled people.
    Mrs. Chalker: All of them.
    Mr. Snape: In view of the Secretary of State's somewhat belated announcement during the Report stage of the London Regional Transport Bill guaranteeing free off-peak travel for the old and disabled in the London area, may we expect a similar announcement in respect of the metropolitan counties? Does he accept that that announcement, when it comes, albeit belated as was his previous one, will be welcomed by the Opposition?
    Mrs. Chalker: If the hon. Gentleman looks up his records he will find that the announcement was made, not at the Report stage of the Bill, but on 15 February last. All that did was to follow what was stated in the White Paper. The hon. Gentleman should get his facts straight, because the new joint passenger authorities will inherit the full

    669
    powers of the metropolitan county councils in relation to concessionary fares. They do not, therefore, need the guarantee, which would not have been needed in London but for the members of the Association of London Authorities, who refused to co-operate with the London Boroughs Association in determining the scheme.
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: As the joint boards will take over the full responsibilities previously held by the county councils, is it not absolutely right that they should also have discretion regarding concessionary fares?
    Mrs. Chalker: Absolutely right.
    Mr. Cowans: Will the Minister give an unequivocal assurance that, whatever management structure is set up after the abolition, the present concessionary schemes, particularly the scheme in Tyne and Wear, where there are free concessionary fares, will not be worsened, but will be maintained?
    Mrs. Chalker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is entirely up to the passenger transport authorities, which will have that responsibility following abolition of the metropolitan authorities. I believe that these matters are rightly decided by the district councils concerned. I am sure that they will take careful note of all that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends say.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Although money is undoubtedly better spent on increasing non-means-tested cash benefits, is my hon. Friend aware that many old people complain that the system is patchy across the country? Is there not a case for convening a conference of transport operators to see whether some kind of uniform national scheme could be operated?
    Mrs. Chalker: The Labour Government turned down that idea, which appeared in their Green paper of 1979. I believe that there is such variation in different parts of the country that the local authorities are in a far better position to know what their elderly and disabled people need and thus to decide what should be provided.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the Minister agree that when people in London are guaranteed a continuation of their free bus service it is wrong that people in the metropolitan counties and elsewhere have no such undertaking from the Government?
    Mrs. Chalker: First, it is not a free bus service, but a concessionary fares scheme paid for out of the rates and taxes. Secondly, people in London have been guaranteed the safeguarding of a basic scheme, but it will still be up to the boroughs to pay for the scheme provided by London Regional Transport. In other parts of the country local authorities will be making their own provision for the services which they believe it is right for their people to have.

    Transport Services (Competition)
    Mr. Traceyasked the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is now taking to increase competition in the provision of transport.
    Mr. Ridley: We have already achieved increased competition in domestic coach and air services and we are now making progress towards liberalising air services and road haulage in the European Community. The London Regional Transport Bill allows for increased competition
    670
    in the provision of public transport in London and I am now reviewing how best to relax bus licensing to achieve a wider variety of services in the rest of the country.
    Mr. Tracey: I am grateful for that answer, but knowing my right hon. Friend to be a man of radical turn of mind I wonder whether he is satisfied with the progress being made. In particular, does he feel that the London Regional Transport Bill allows for adequate privatisation provision for independent transport in London, and is he satisfied with the independent provision of transport on the airline routes?
    Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. On the first point, I believe that the London Regional Transport Bill enables the notions of competition and private enterprise to enter London's transport at the best speed possible. We are also proceeding, not recklessly, but step by step, to increase competition on domestic airlines, and I think that the benefits of that have been noted in all parts of the House.
    Mr. Dalyell: What competition is there for the Carlisle-Settle line? What is its value as a diversionary line involving Scottish trains? Knowing of the Secretary of State's radical turn of mind and of his architectural interests, may I suggest that there is a case for part of the costs of reconstruction of the Ribblehead and other viaducts being borne out of heritage funds and not necessarily out of British Rail funds?
    Mr. Ridley: I never thought to be berated for radicialism by the Conservative hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), but I am grateful to him for recognising the change-about in our roles.
    I can make no statement about the future of the Settle-Carlisle line, but my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State travelled on that line last week and his full understanding of all the factors will no doubt be invaluable to me when the time comes to make up my mind.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware—he will not be aware, but I am about to tell him—that I have just got off a train which arrived at Euston a quarter of an hour late, on which there was standing room only in both second and first-class, and on which the quality of the buffet facilities was lamentable? Is he further aware that when I write to the chairman of British Rail on behalf of my constituents and myself I get fobbed off with apologies and promises to try to do better? When will he bring greater competition into the railways?
    Mr. Ridley: I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting here from his late train in time to ask that supplementary question. I confirm that there is competition from the north-west—he can travel by car, coach or air if he prefers—but I do not think that even he would suggest that it is possible to have competition between trains. I urge him to write again to the chairman of the British Railways Board, because I think that my hon. Friend will find that the chairman is extremely receptive to any ways in which he can improve the service.
    Mr. Snape: When extolling the virtues of such competition from the Preston area, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, had his hon. Friend travelled down the M1 and M6 motorways, he might not have made

    671
    Question Time at all, thereby depriving the House of the superlative answer that the Secretary of State has just given?
    Mr. Ridley: Equally, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will admit that there are risks in travelling to Fenchurch street station.

    Port of London Authority
    Mr. Brintonasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the inspector's report on the inquiry into the port rates charged by the Port of London Authority; and when he expects to be able to make a decision on the inspector's recommendations.
    Mr. David Mitchell: We expect to receive the report very shortly. We will announce our decision as soon as possible, but I cannot yet say when this will be.
    Mr. Brinton: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. When making his decision on this report, will he consider separating the conservancy activities of the PLA from the purely commercial activities, such as the Tilbury area? Does he accept that these commercial activities have, in effect, made the PLA bankrupt?
    Mr. Mitchell: When we have received and considered the report and are in a position to reply to the PLA about its own finances, I shall have in mind the point that my hon. Friend has made.
    Mr. Loyden: Will the Minister bear in mind that heavy conservancy costs in some ports make them less competitive than other ports whose conservancy costs are lighter? Would it not be right and proper for the Government to intervene to ensure equalisation of port conservancy costs by financially supporting authorities faced with high conservancy costs?
    Mr. Mitchell: That concept has never been espoused by any Government. It would, I think, be counterproductive to ensuring effective competition between our ports in attracting cargo.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Will my hon. Friend try to establish the extent to which port rates in London are a genuine charge for conservancy costs and to what extent they subsidise the PLA's loss-making operations? To the extent that they are the latter, does my hon. Friend agree that they are entirely unjustified and ought to be abolished?
    Mr. Mitchell: It would be presumptuous of me to answer that question until we have seen the inspector's report and examined what he says.

    Motorway Network
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied that the current motorway network is adequate for the present level of traffic.
    Mrs. Chalker: Except where improvements or additions are already under construction or are planned, the network is adequate at present.
    Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that the volume of traffic on some stretches of motorway—particularly on the M1 and M6—is excessive and that there is a strong argument for building new stretches of motorway to complement these busy stretches, thereby easing congestion?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am sure my hon. Friend is well aware that my Department's proposals for the extension of the M40 will, if they go ahead, considerably ease passage on the M1. By increasing total expenditure on motorways and trunk roads by 22 per cent. over the next three years we are doing our best to keep up with the increasing amount of traffic using our roads.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister agree that the motorway network and traffic levels in Lancashire would be made more adequate if the Government decided to link the M65 with the M6? When can we expect a decision on the restoration of that motorway scheme to the Government's programme?
    Mrs. Chalker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's impatience, and I shall be only too glad when we reach a decision on the matter. I expect that will be fairly soon, but the hon. Gentleman must realise that the north-west has been provided with more motorways than many other areas which have waited a long time for an improvement to their infrastructure.
    Mr. Richard Page: I compliment my hon. Friend on the pressure that she has exerted to ensure that the M25 is completed, but can she say whether any studies have been made on the introduction of flexibility and extra lanes, if required, as the traffic build-up, especially through my constituency, already suggests that that motorway will be heavily over-subscribed? Will the existing arrangements be adequate?
    Mrs. Chalker: We have, of course, made provision in certain parts of the M25 for four-lane carriageways. I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but until we have completed the remainder—slightly less that 50 per cent.—of the M25, there will be some unnatural flows of vehicles seeking to use the route in a different way. I must ask my hon. Friend to be patient, but I assure him that we have the matter under serious consideration.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that the smugness of her answer to the original question will be much resented in Wales, given that the Severn bridge is very much part of the M4? What is she going to do about all the difficulties with the bridge, the persistent hold-ups, one-lane traffic and, most recently, the fact that an overtime ban is being enforced by those employed on essential repairs?
    Mrs. Chalker: I have no intention of being smug about any answer that I give in the House. As the hon. Gentleman knows, our studies on the Severn crossing and what is to be done with it are a matter for maximum priority by the Department. I shall certainly look into the matter if there are industrial relations problems. However, I dare say that the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends could do a lot to help solve them instead of making unfounded statements.
    Sir Dudley Smith: What is the state of play with the M40, which will ultimately link Birmingham and London? My hon. Friend will be well aware it has been in gestation for nearly 15 years.
    Mrs. Chalker: I am only too well aware of the problems which a long period of planning and going through the public inquiry system can bring about. However, the report has appeared in our Department during the past fortnight. We shall be progressing it

    673
    thoroughly and as quickly as possible. I hope to make an announcement by the end of the year, after my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport have considered its details. On present plans, we expect construction to start in 1987, as in 1985 we shall have to complete the side roads, compulsory purchase orders and any possible inquiries.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Is it not a fact that poorly repaired motorways have caused some of the delay, that there is no real need to increase the motorway network, and that, with a speedy recovery and construction of the M25, there will be no further problems?
    Mrs. Chalker: I cannot say that my crystal ball is as accurate as that of my hon. Friend and that there might not be problems in future. Although we are taking every possible step to minimise the effect on road users of repairing our roads, so that they last another 20 years, we must keep a watching brief on the development of different modes of transport in Britain.

    A423
    Mr. Baldryasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied that the A423 road between Oxford and Banbury is adequate for the weight and volume of traffic that it carries.
    Mrs. Chalker: No, Sir. My hon. Friend is aware of our proposals for extending the M40, which would substantially reduce traffic on the A423.
    Mr. Baldry: Is my hon. Friend aware that the people of north Oxfordshire would be relieved if the Government gave a definite commitment to constructing the M40? We do not want to hear my hon. Friend say, "If the M40 goes ahead." We want a definite commitment that it will go ahead. As my hon. Friend well knows, the trunk road is deplorable and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) has mentioned, we have been waiting about 15 years for the M40, during which time no real improvements to that trunk road have been made. Is my hon. Friend aware that I was also disturbed to hear her say that the M40 would not start until 1987? I thought that it was to be in the trunk road programme from 1986.
    Mrs. Chalker: I cannot give my hon. Friend the assurance that work will start in 1986, but he knows as well as I do that, should the inspector recommend that we go forward with that plan, we shall start as soon as possible. I accept that conditions on the A423 are far from satisfactory. We are carrying out an accident and congestion study to identify any action that can be implemented before the M40 becomes a reality for his, and many other, constituents.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Is my hon. Friend aware that the problems of that part of the country are on not only a north-south but an east-west axis? When assessing the A423, will she also have a close look at the A43, which is even more congested?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am well aware of the need for improvement at Blisworth and many other places along the A43. There are a number of plans in the White Paper. In the past two years schemes have been brought forward to add to the improvements planned for the A43, which should help to release some of my hon. Friend's constituents from those traffic jams.

    Sealink UK Ltd.
    Mr. Stephen Rossasked the Secretary of State for Transport what assurances he can give that the current employees of Sealink will be given the opportunity to acquire a stake in the equity of their company.
    Mr. Ridley: I welcome the British Railways Board's assurance that in assessing offers for Sealink it will take into account the ability and willingness of prospective purchasers to give employees an opportunity to participate in a share ownership scheme.
    Mr. Ross: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the ultimate decision is his? Will he follow the example set by the Government in relation to the National Freight Company and British Telecom, which allows employees a minimum of £70 or £75 worth of shares? Does he agree that the best way forward is to ensure that the work force is involved and that, if Sealink is to be privatised, employees should have at least a 20 per cent. stake in the equity?
    Mr. Ridley: I share the hon. Gentleman's view. That is why I asked British Rail to include in the letter inviting bids the following:
    "In determining the acceptability of offers the British Railways Board will have regard to…a prospective purchaser's ability and willingness to extend to Sealink UK's employees an opportunity to participate in a share ownership scheme."
    We must await the bids.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Dubsasked the Attorney-General if he has any proposals to change the method of assessing the eligibility of applicants for civil legal aid.
    Mr. Parryasked the Attorney-General what plans he has to change the method of considering the eligibility of applications for civil legal aid.
    Ms. Harmanasked the Attorney-General if he has any plans to change the method of determining eligibility for civil legal aid.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): Assessment of financial eligibility for civil legal aid is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. He and the Lord Chancellor are considering the recent Rayner scrutiny report, but no decisions on the main recommendations have yet been reached.
    Mr. Dubs: Is the Attorney-General aware of the widespread concern that confidential information given by applicants for legal aid is being used by the DHSS for other purposes, that that appears to be in accordance with confidential DHSS guidance to staff and that staff are probably acting in breach of the Legal Aid Act 1974? Will the Attorney-General look into that matter?
    The Attorney-General: The case of Whipman v. Whipman has recently been drawn to my attention. I am considering it urgently and intend to advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services as soon as possible.
    Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is an element of artificiality about this, in

    675
    that page 6 of a legal aid application contains a direction to the effect that financial information will be supplied to the Department of Health and Social Security? Is not the effect of that that the Department is supposed to read the information for computing legal aid and to turn a blind eye if a possible case of fraud is suspected?
    The Attorney-General: That problem becomes particularly acute when, in a remote district, the same official may deal with both supplementary benefit and legal aid applications.
    One of the problems results from the purposes for which the confidentiality was imposed. I understand—although I have not read it—that Hansard of the day was clearly reviewed by the learned judge who tried the Whipman v. Whipman case, in which, referring to the purpose of the confidentiality, he said that the party applying for a certificate has to set out his case, as a defendant, or, if he is a plaintiff, what his case would be, and the witnesses he proposes to put before the court. It would be quite wrong if that information were passed to anyone other than the person's own legal advisers.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: In view of the Lord Chancellor's responsibility for these matters, and since the right hon. and learned Gentleman is prepared to talk about the problem and answer questions here, is this a matter that should be discussed by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, as it needs detailed investigation?
    The Attorney-General: It is not for me to say what matters should be discussed by the Home Affairs Committee. The consequences of the Whipman decision are serious. If an errant husband cannot be traced and the wife is compelled to apply for supplementary benefit, which may be well below the sum ordered by the court, and that husband applies for legal aid, his name and address will be known to the DHSS. However, if the decision is right, that cannot be used to provide the remedy which the wife so badly needs.
    Mr. Lawrence: If there is any doubt about the law, and if there is any doubt arising from the case mentioned, have not successive Labour Governments for 11 years also made the same mistake? Is it not time that the law was changed? Do not most people want applications for legal aid to be checked for fraud?
    The Attorney-General: The case occurred in 1951. The L code, as the legal aid code is called, is applied by the DHSS. It used to be applied by the National Assistance Board and then the Supplementary Benefits Commission. The code has been in existence for 30 years, which covers the lifetime of a number of Governments of both political complexions.
    Mr. John Morris: Was the Attorney-General consulted by the DHSS before its spokesman said that the DHSS had been legally advised that the code did not contravene the law? Was the DHSS aware of the comments of Commissioner Grazebrook in the case of Whipman v. Whipman? Can the Attorney-General confirm that the Lord Chancellor believes that it is important that people should not be inhibited from applying for legal aid because of the fear of disclosure of information?
    As the Attorney-General has a responsibility to authorise prosecutions under section 22 of the Legal Aid
    676
    Act 1974, will he refer any breaches of the law to the Director of Public Prosecutions so that he may consider taking action?
    The Attorney-General: I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on his industry and diligence in finding the case—a fact which, unfortunately, I learnt from the newspapers this weekend rather than direct from the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    The matter is under urgent consideration. However, it would be difficult to prosecute officials who had been given instructions—if the L code does so—for committing a criminal offence when, in fact, they were obeying those instructions. The whole matter is being given the most urgent consideration.
    Mr. Andersonasked the Attorney-General what further progress has been made in seeking to reduce the disparities in the grant of legal aid between different magistrates' courts.
    The Solicitor-General (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): The Lord Chancellor has a number of measures in hand to promote greater consistency in the grant of legal aid for the magistrates' courts. The most important of these is the introduction from 1 March 1984 of a right of recourse from the refusal of legal aid by the courts in certain cases.
    Mr. Anderson: Is the Solicitor-General not aware of the wide variations in the refusal rates among magistrates' courts? For example, the rate in Cardiff in 1982 was 7·5 per cent., in Swansea 15 per cent. and in Lower Rhymney 34 per cent.
    We welcome the new right of recourse. What steps will the Government take to monitor the effectiveness of the new right? How will they publicise the right to solicitors and potential appellants?
    The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the new regulations introduced in March, which provide for recourse in certain circumstances. There is an unacceptable degree of inconsistency, and my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor recognises that. The existence of the regulations is well known. They are referred to in the form of refusal which a justice's clerk hands to a disappointed applicant for legal aid.
    In addition, the Lord Chancellor has asked the advisory committee to determine whether the Widgery criteria, as they are known, for the grant of legal aid in criminal cases should be improved. He expects a report in the autumn. He has already arranged for the collection of statistics from courts to be improved to provide a clearer and more reliable picture. He is anxiously considering the matter and intends to take whatever steps are open to him.
    Mr. Loyden: Is consideration being given not only to the personal approach but to the general public interest in certain cases where the criteria should be waived? Is the Solicitor-General aware of the case of one of my constituents, Mrs. Doreen Wardle, whose son died from glue sniffing? She is inhibited from proceeding with an investigation of that case because of the high costs involved.
    The Solicitor-General: The criteria are under consideration by the Lord Chancellor and the Legal Aid Advisory Committee. I note the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. If he cares to write to the Lord Chancellor about the particular circumstances, I know that

    677
    he will receive a carefully considered reply. It is now for the advisory committee to make its report to the Lord Chancellor, who will then consider what changes, if any, need to be made.
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Attorney-General if he will now publish the Rayner report on legal aid assessments.
    The Attorney-General: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) on 9 May.
    Mr. Fraser: What is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reaction to the proposal by the Rayner committee to transfer the business of assessment from the DHSS to the Lord Chancellor's Department? Before taking any steps in that direction, will the Attorney-General consult legal aid practitioners so that the money saved will not be at the expense of the legal aid service?
    The Attorney-General: The decision whether to transfer is a major part of the recommendation, and it is a matter which no doubt my noble Friend will discuss with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. On that and all other matters that are under urgent consideration, I hope that we shall be able to reach a decision soon.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Aid Use
    Mr. Bowen Wellsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he proposes to take to continue his efforts to ensure that aid is used by host countries for developmentally sound purposes.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): All spending proposals in my Department are carefully appraised to ensure that they can produce a satisfactory return to the host country and have a positive impact on their development. Monitoring and evaluation procedures have recently been strengthened. Efforts are being made to achieve better co-ordination between donors and with recipient Governments.
    Mr. Wells: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the report of the Independent Group on British Aid that he is sacrificing the quality of British aid by giving greater weight to Britain's commercial and industrial need?
    Mr. Raison: No, Sir, I do not believe that quality is being sacrificed for Britain's commercial interests. The bulk of our aid goes to the poorer countries, where it is needed most. Its use continues to be fully appraised to make sure that its development impact is satisfactory.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some countries, such as Zambia, accept foreign aid but refuse to remit money owing to individuals who have left the country? Will he impress on these Governments that, unless they abide by international commitments, they cannot expect to continue to be recipients of our foreign aid?
    Mr. Raison: We are always ready to press Governments to pay out moneys which they should pay, but I am reluctant to use the foreign aid programme as a means of bringing that about.
    Mr. Deakins: Is there not a risk that the aid for trade provision will be used by some developing countries for purposes other than those that are developmentally sound, at the behest of British exporters?
    Mr. Raison: It is conceivable that there could be a risk, but it is for my Department to approve all aid and trade provision allocations, and we look at the developmental considerations carefully.

    UNESCO (Ministerial Correspondence)
    Mr. Baldryasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response has been received to the letter of 2 April from the Minister for Overseas Development to the director general of UNESCO.
    Mr. Raison: I have not yet received a direct response to my letter, but I reinforced the message in it when Mr. M'Bow called on me on 18 April. Our proposals are currently being debated by the executive board.
    Mr. Baldry: In view of the recent history of UNESCO, what specific improvements are the Government seeking; and, if those improvements are not forthcoming, will my right hon. Friend consider that Britain should withdraw from UNESCO?
    Mr. Raison: In my letter to Mr. M'Bow I set out the improvements that we require. It would not be possible to list them all here, but they relate to the most effective use of resources, reducing the political content of UNESCO and, generally speaking, greater emphasis on action rather than theoretical studies. Mr. M'Bow understands that, if reforms are not achieved, our membership of UNESCO will be in great doubt.
    Mr. Benn: Do not the real objections to UNESCO come from multinational newspapers and television corporations, which object strongly to developing countries trying to develop their own systems so that they can receive information about their societies and not fall under the control of the international companies that seek to dominate their media?
    Mr. Raison: The right hon. Gentleman gives a distorted impression of what we are doing. I have already explained our objections. It is true that there have been apprehensions lest the New World Information and Communication Order should lead to some loss of freedom among the media. We should be unhappy about that if it came to pass.

    Africa (Power Generation)
    Mr. Rhodes Jamesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid is being provided for the power generation projects in Africa.
    Mr. Raison: We are providing aid for such projects in 10 countries. Details will be published in the Official Report.
    Mr. Rhodes James: I should like to ask a particular question about the new Kiambere project in Kenya. What is the cost of the project to the British taxpayer? While I accept that the potential advantages to Kenya are considerable, what will be the impact on jobs and industry in this country?
    Mr. Raison: Our grant to Kenya for the Kiambere project is up to £12·3 million. I have no doubt that that will be valuable to Kenya. It will also provide important contracts for switchyard equipment, transmission lines and general electrical work for British companies.
    Mr. Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. Friend know that there is a major hydroelectric power station on the border between Namibia and Angola, which was designed to supply power to Angola? Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that, when the situation demands and it is possible for us to give such help, he will be prepared to recommend support to bring the two generators into use to supply power to southern Angola?
    Mr. Raison: I cannot give such an undertaking, but if a proposal is put to me at the appropriate time I shall consider it carefully.

    Following are the details:

    Country and Purpose

    Maximum Amount Allotted £million

    Kenya

    Cost of contracts won by British companies in construction of 140MW hydro power project at Kiambere

    12·3

    Sudan

    Construction of 60MW power station at Khartoum North*

    50·5

    Construction of 40MW extension to Burri power station*

    24·2

    Rehabilitation of original Burri power station

    8·22

    Somalia

    Rehabilitation and replacement of generators in Hargeisa, Berbera and Burao and associated equipment

    1·575

    Tanzania

    Rehabilitation of Mtwara power station

    0·22

    Uganda

    Consultancy on rehabilitation and uprating of Owen Falls power station

    0·51

    Mozambique

    Installation of two 2·5MW generators and ancillary equipment at Pemba power station, and supervisory consultancy

    3·03

    Botswana

    Aid and Trade provision grant for equipment for Morupule power station

    4·418

    Zimbabwe

    Aid and Trade provision grant for pipework at Hwange power station.

    1·00

    * Help will be given with running both power stations for the next 2 to 3 years.

    In addition spare parts have recently been provided to the Gambia, and spares and follow-up service to a generation project in Guinea-Bissau.

    Pakistan
    Mr. Soamesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent commitments of aid have been made to Pakistan.
    Mr. Raison: At the World Bank Consortium meeting on Pakistan in April we announced a further £25 million of grant-aid to Pakistan for projects to be agreed with the
    680
    Pakistan Government. We also announced a grant of £1 million to a programme aimed at discouraging the growth of narcotic drugs.
    Mr. Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Pakistan has a particularly serious problem with the large numbers of refugees coming from Afghanistan? During the discussion with the Pakistan Government, was any reference made to tagging aid specifically to help the Afghans?
    Mr. Raison: We recognise the great problem faced by the Afghan refugees, and we respect the response of the Pakistan Government to the problem. Since 1980 we have allocated about £21 million for the support of those refugees.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Pakistan I was told of the country's gratitude for the aid given to the refugees? However, have the other countries which also condemned the situation that produced the refugees given money proportionate to their means, and, if not, will Her Majesty's Government address them?
    Mr. Raison: I cannot answer for all the other countries concerned. However, the overall response to the problem of Afghan refugees in Pakistan has not been unsatisfactory.

    ACP-EC Conference
    Mr. Keyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the African, Caribbean and Pacific/European Community Council in Fiji.
    Mr. Raison: The annual ACP-EC Council meeting on 2 May discussed issues relating to the management of the second Lomé convention. The third ACP-EC negotiating conference on a successor to the convention on 3 to 5 May made satisfactory progress, and it was agreed that a fourth negotiating conference would be held in Luxembourg on 28 to 29 June.
    Mr. Key: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest contribution of the Lomé convention has been towards the development of trade rather than to making available quantities of aid money? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Government are pursuing that line?
    Mr. Raison: I agree with my hon. Friend. The trade aspect of the Lomé convention is extremely important. In the negotiations we have stressed the need for further liberalisation of trade in the next convention.
    Mr. Stuart Holland: The Minister said that satisfactory progress had been made at the talks. Therefore, can he tell us why there was no discussion of either the amount of finance or the criteria for finance and disbursement? There was virtually no discussion of trade. How does the Minister reconcile the ACP countries' demand that there should be serious discussion of the Community's relationship with South Africa with the invitation to Mr. Pieter Botha to come to this country?
    Mr. Raison: It has always been understood that finance should be tackled at the end of the negotiations. I made clear my views on trade. There was some discussion of trade. It is not true that there was no discussion of trade. A group was devoted to it.

    681
    The hon. Gentleman's remarks about Mr. Botha have little relevance to the matter.
    Mr. Dorrell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that sound economic development in many of these countries requires measures to reduce the rate of growth of their populations? Did he therefore raise that issue, or have it raised, at the recent talks for the ACP-EC renewal? If not, will he do so in future?
    Mr. Raison: The question of population was raised, but it did not feature prominently. However, the Government have done a considerable amount in that area. Our support for population activities has increased considerably in recent years and it will continue to grow.
    Mr. Deakins: Does not the scope of the Lomé convention negotiations and renegotiations need radical
    682
    revision to take account of the gamut of relationships between the poor and rich countries represented and of many other different matters, including the dumping of surpluses under the common agricultural policy?
    Mr. Raison: The Lomé relationship is already wide-ranging. We discussed in Fiji, and will continue to discuss, matters covering a great deal of ground, and our discussions touch at certain points on food aid. I should be reluctant to see the scope of the convention becoming wider and wider. It is important to make the convention effective.
    Mr. Bowen-Wells: Was any progress made on the question of the rules of origin applying to the ACP countries?
    Mr. Raison: Some progress was made, but I hope that we can achieve more.

Teachers (Industrial Action)
3.30 pm
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the indifference of Her Majesty's Government to the effect of the teachers' strike."
The importance of this matter is specific to a number of schools in my constituency. Over the weekend I was made aware of the problem as it affects three high schools which take children up to the age of 18 years. The selective and partial strikes, of which notice is given only 24 hours beforehand, have a cumulative effect. The greatest effect arises out of the cessation of teachers' voluntary lunchtime supervision of meals. As a result of that lack of supervision the pupils go home, and I am advised that attendance in the afternoons is 50 per cent. or less. One headmaster has also advised me that he expects the cumulative effect of the industrial action to be even greater after the spring bank holiday.
The effect of the strike on one middle school on a large housing estate in south Leeds is catastrophic. Over the years, an excellent headmaster and staff have reduced the amount of truancy and done other good work. The strike will set back progress by a number of years.
I received my information last Friday and Saturday. I therefore could not have brought it to the House on Thursday or Wednesday to enable the business to be altered. I am advised that in Bruntcliffe and Morley high schools, and also Rodillian school, formerly Rothwell, it is planned that from lunchtime today about 10 members of staff in each school will be called upon to strike during each session. The cumulative effect of that action on the schools will he that at least 1,100 pupils will have to be sent home for part of the day. It is understood that the action could continue all week. One of the schools has been advised by a newspaper, and perhaps by letter, that all the children from the schools will be sent home as teachers refuse to cover for absent colleagues.
684
It is vital that this matter should be discussed. We cannot wait for the usual channels to operate on Wednesday. This matter is important to my constituents today, but there has been no chance for us to discuss it or for the Secretary of State to tell us what the Government propose to do.
The problem is not only short-term. One headmaster told me that nobody was responding to advertisements for jobs in the school—in particular to advertisements for mathematics teachers.
Why do we have to wait? This is not a political matter, as at the last general election 70 per cent. of teachers voted for parties other than the Labour party. I am told that we face such problems in Morley because the Secretary of State for Education and Science represents a Leeds constituency. It does not matter to me whether that is right or wrong, but to wait until the end of the week would be wrong. My duty is to my constituents in Morley and Leeds, South. There will be real problems this week, and I do not want to watch "Look North" or the "Calendar" programme, or wait until after 10.30 pm tonight, to see it all discussed on television. I want the matter debated on the Floor of the House. That is where it should be debated, and that is why I am making an application under Standing Order No. 10.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the indifference of Her Majesty's Government to the effect of the teachers' strike."
The right hon. Gentleman has raised an important matter, but he will understand that the decision I must make is whether to give the issue precedence over the business that has already been set down for today or tomorrow. I listened carefully to what he said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Coal Industry Dispute
3.35 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific matter of public importance that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the practices of Ministers responsible for Government Departments and the conduct of the police in their harassment of miners and their families during the present mining dispute."
I am making this application because some new factors have emerged in the past few days and they should be discussed before the recess. The factors relate to new evidence of Government intervention from various Departments, under the direct instructions of responsible Ministers, who are supposed to be answerable to Parliament but who are claiming to be standing back from the dispute. The reality is the very opposite. Ministers have authorised several administrative actions, none of which has been reported to the House.
First, instructions have gone out to local offices to delay payments of supplementary benefits, even on the reduced scale, so that some miners' families are not getting their Giro cheques. Secondly, those who work for firms which have been indirectly affected by the dispute and have been laid off by their employers are being treated as strikers and being denied benefit. Thirdly, miners' wives who are expecting babies are being denied grants for baby clothes and basic equipment needed for their children. Fourthly, miners who accepted earlier retirement late last year but whose formal date of leaving fell after 1 March, are being told that they can no longer claim the redundancy pay which was an integral part of the scheme and are being referred back to the Department of Energy, which is not their employer.
Fifthly, the National Coal Board is threatening that miners who do not work this week will be denied the holiday pay entitlement which they earned from work done before the strike began. Sixthly, the electricity authorities are threatening to cut off miners' households unless payments are made on a weekly scale, which would almost take away the full amount of the meagre benefits that are being paid. Seventhly, the police have been instructed to enter the homes of miners who are on strike to search for and evict, under threat of arrest, any other miners who might be staying there, and miners' wives are being harassed in the streets by police patrols. Eighthly, the bail
686
conditions sought by the police and granted by magistrates amount to a systematic denial of civil liberties and the right of assembly when the person concerned has not been convicted of any offence by any court. Lastly, women who are attending pitheads in support of the miners are being harassed and subjected to the same penalties as their husbands.
I submit that these issues are of such importance that if the House ignores them it will give the impression that we are simply not interested in the living conditions of tens of thousands of families and have virtually abdicated our responsibilities to discuss matters that are of public concern, including the maintenance of civil liberties. Moreover, if this debate is again denied, Ministers will conclude that they are free to tighten the screw on miners and their families without having to account to Parliament for their actions.
As I entered the House I heard that a meeting that had been privately and secretly arranged between the NUM and the Coal Board tomorrow had been cancelled by the board. If we do not debate the issue, we shall go through this week and the recess without any public discussion of a matter which, whatever view hon. Members take of it, is of prime concern to those who work in an essential industry, those who work around it and the community, which depends, and always will depend, on the maintenance of the coal industry.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the practices of Ministers responsible for Government Departments and the conduct of the police in the harassment of miners and their families during the present mining dispute."
I listened with great care to what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I have to give him the same answer as I gave the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.
Mr. Eric Deakins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Dr. David Owen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order after the third Standing Order No. 10 application.

Rail Services (Yorkshire)
3.40 pm
Mr. Conal Gregory: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the disruption of rail transport emanating from Yorkshire owing to secondary picketing related to the current miners' dispute."
Secondary picketing by rail union militants in Yorkshire today has caused widespread disruption of public transport. These hard-line Left wingers, acting without any democratic mandate, do not serve the best interests of the railway industry, in which the Government authorised investment of £328 million last year.
The action today, which has disrupted all direct traffic on the east coast mainline, is the most serious to date. Such railwaymen—if they can be called that—are putting the plans for electrification in jeopardy and will cause even more passengers to switch to other forms of transport. I thwarted their intentions and, having left York at 8.45 this morning, arrived at the House about six hours later. Other passengers may be less persistent.
How can British Rail achieve better productivity and efficiency, responding positively to the Government, who have sanctioned over £2,000 million of investment since May 1979, when undemocratic militants take secondary picketing action?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the disruption of rail transport in Yorkshire owing to secondary picketing related to the current miners' dispute."
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and I cannot, therefore submit his application to the House.

Coal Industry Dispute
3.42 pm
Dr. David Owen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to raise again the questions put to you by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) in his application for an emergency debate, but the right hon. Gentleman mentioned a fact which had only recently come to light. The NUM was expecting to have a meeting with the Coal Board tomorrow, but that meeting has been cancelled.
In the light of that development, would not it be appropriate, particularly as the Leader of the House is here, for a statement to be made to the House, or for the business of the House to be rearranged, so that we may discuss the matter?
Am I right in thinking that as no motion has been tabled for the Opposition day on Wednesday, it would be possible, within the rules of order, for the Leader of the Opposition, if he so wished, to use that half day for such a debate?
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I am not responsible for statements that may or may not be made, and I am also not responsible for the choice of subject on Opposition days.

Standing Order No. 10 Applications
3.43 pm
Mr. Eric Deakins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a convention of the House that when Standing Order No. 10 applications are moved Ministers' offices are notified and it is a normal courtesy for Ministers —it was certainly observed when the previous Labour Government were in office—or their junior Ministers to be present on the Government Front Bench? Is it not a gross discourtesy to the House that Ministers from the relevant Departments have not been present for the two applications that have been made this afternoon?
Mr. Speaker: This matter has been raised before. As I have said previously, this is not a matter for me.

Standing Order No. 10 Applications

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c
  Ordered,
  That the draft Job Release Act 1977 (Continuation) Order 1984 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

European Community
3.44 pm
Mr. Jim Spicer: I beg to move,
That this House, recognising the vital role that a closely knit European Community could and should play in world affairs, congratulates both the Prime Minister and Her Majesty's Government on their continuing efforts to ensure a strong voice in Europe for Britain and that all necessary changes are made within the Community to sustain respect for that institution and to enhance its authority both internally and externally.
Mr. Speaker: I should tell the House that I have not selected the amendment.
Mr. Spicer: We stand on the threshold of the second set of elections to the European Parliament, which take place on 14 June. It may not be necessary to remind hon. Members of that fact, but for the public it cannot be said too often. All the projections, and all the pundits who take an interest in such matters, point to a low turnout and an almost complete lack of interest among the general public in most matters relating to the European Community, and above all in the voting intentions of the general public on 14 June. I hope that that will turn out to be a false prediction and that we shall have a good turnout to reflect the interest of the general public on that occasion. I stress that our membership of the European Community is a vital British interest which must be protected and enlarged upon at all costs.
The starting point for and the need of a European Community was clearly established in the early post-war days, and nothing has happened since those days to diminish the need for such a community. In fact, precisely the opposite is the case and there is a greater need than ever for a strong, united European voice on the world stage. I was reminded by his grandson only last week of a comment made at a press conference in Yorkshire by Lord Stockton, formerly Mr. Harold Macmillan, at the time of the 1979 general election. He was asked by a member of the press why he believed there was any purpose or point in there being a European Community. He replied:
"I was almost killed in the first world war. My son, Maurice, was almost killed in the second world war. My belief in a European community is based upon the fact that my grandson will not be killed in a third world war started in Europe."
That remains the main feature of a European community. That is why many people in the House and outside it are still staunch Europeans, and that should not be forgotten.
I became a European on either 2 May or 3 May 1945, when I was about 18 years of age. I had come up through France, Belgium and Holland and I finished the war in that once great city of Hamburg. As I looked upon the desolation that had been created by a second world war and thought about the misery and death that had been occasioned during that war, I became a European. I have held staunchly to that view ever since. It made me determined to play my part in bringing together a European community of nation states—I emphasise the words "nation states"—which could play a major part in preventing such a catastrophe again. During the last 20 years I have played what little part I could to help to bring about a community which could live up to those early ideals.
There are many other important roles for a European Community, and no hon. Member should forget them. It should continually work to abolish intolerable trade barriers, which still exist in the community. One does not

691
need to be reminded of the events of six weeks ago when, up and down the Community, lorries were held up and protests mounted because of the burdens placed on trade. That cost lorry drivers much time, and placed extra burdens and costs on moving goods between the member states.
The Community should co-operate strongly in research and development. There is much that we can and should be proud of in that sphere. We set an example to the rest of the world on the nuclear side. I hope that we shall soon see the first benefits of European co-operation.
The Community should become involved in all areas of economic and social activity, which can best be dealt with at that level. Throughout my speech I shall say which matters should be dealt with at Community level because that is the best way to deal with them.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I am worried about my hon. Friend's terminology. The last part of the motion enjoins the House to vote for a motion on the Community to
"enhance its authority both internally and externally."
Earlier, my hon. Friend spoke of a Europe of nation states. I hope that he will explain to the House how he resolves that contradiction and will put forward some principles so that we can understand which programmes are best dealt with at national level and which at EC level.
Mr. Spicer: I expected my hon. Friend to use his usual probing authority to question a word here and there. As I continue, he will understand where I think that that authority should rest with the Community and where it should not. I shall do my best, but if he is not satisfied perhaps he will intervene again.
The Community should consider research and development in defence procurement. The present duplication and cost of research and development are appalling. It may only be a pipe dream, but we should try to arrive at the day when, instead of a British battle tank, a German battle tank and a French battle tank competing for one market in the 1990s, the Community produces one battle tank. That would mark a major step forward and would save a great deal of money.
Finally, and of prime importance, the Community has a decisive role to play in the Third world. During the last century there was never a time when the Third world faced the possibility of famine on the scale which we must now expect.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Before the hon. Gentleman raised his point about developing battle tanks, he suggested that the establishment of the Community was a guarantee against another war in Europe. Where will these battle tanks be used? Presumably they will be available for use in Europe. Is it not true that there is a danger of war not between us and our western European neighbours—that has nothing to do with the Community—but between east and west Europe? We are stoking up the arms race with battle tanks in the West, of which the hon. Gentleman is so fond, with battle tanks in the East, and with the deployment of ever more nuclear missiles in Europe. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us in what way the European Community will diminish the danger of war between East and West—which is the real danger—rather than considering what happened in a previous generation in western Europe?
Mr. Spicer: How quickly we move from the main point. I strongly disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The European Community has contributed to peace, and when I sit, as I do until 14 June, in the European Parliament with my French and German colleagues I find it inconceivable that there could be another war between France and Germany. That stems from the EC. As to the hon. Gentleman's point about research and development and battle tanks, if we are faced with four times as many Russian tanks as Western tanks, the West must get the maximum output for the minimum cost to arm our defensive forces.
Mr. Leighton: That is what NATO does.
Mr. Spicer: NATO uses those tanks on the fields of battle, but nothing in the treaty prohibits research and development in that area. The European Parliament has already made great progress in this matter, and I hope that it will continue to do so in the years ahead.
The Third world must be of prime importance to us all. In 1984 the African famine will probably be the worst this century and all the predictions are that it will continue for some time. If ever there was an area in which the EC should play a major part, it is in the relief of that famine.
I pay tribute to the work of the Conservative group in the European Parliament, which, during the past five years, has given a lead in all those areas and has been in the forefront of pressing for more action in the Community. I hope that many of those Conservatives will be returned, augmented by new Members.
Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend promised that he would explain the principles by which he would recommend European action as opposed to action on a national level. Will he explain why it is impossible for the British taxpayer, through our national institutions, to relieve that famine, if we decide to do so, and why it is so much better to do it on a European basis?
Mr. Spicer: I am perfectly happy to follow that line. At Question Time today we discussed what we should do unilaterally, but in this area we need co-operation and co-ordination. How can we inform French territories or Portuguese territories such as Angola and Mozambique that we shall contribute our share unilaterally? The aid must be co-ordinated, and the right body to do that is the EC. I said that I would try to answer my hon. Friend's point towards the end of my speech.
All the areas that I have mentioned are ones where a sensible person can subscribe to the idea of a community. The Community's most important function is in foreign affairs. Every six months the Heads of Government meet, and their meetings are augmented by successive meetings of the Council of Ministers and by Foreign Ministers meeting in political co-operation. At all those meetings a host of vital decisions could and should be made both by the Foreign Ministers meeting in political co-operation and by the Heads of Government.
Let me give three or four examples. Could we as a Community not do more to resolve the conflict in Cyprus, which is damaging not just to the people of Cyprus—we should remember that it is an associate member state of the Community—and bringing misery to them, but to Greek-Turkish relations and to the Greeks and Turks in NATO, thus diminishing NATO's role?
Secondly, are we prepared to take account of the recent changes in southern Africa? All those changes, which

693
have come about only in the past two or three months, offer hope to the unhappy people of Mozambigue, Angola and all the other front-line states, which slowly but surely have seen the infrastructure of their countries destroyed, whether by outside influence or their own inability to keep the infrastructure in good order.
Are we going to play a much greater role in restoring the economies and infrastructure of those countries? Are we prepared to grasp the nettle and say that anything that happens in those front-line states will be done in conjunction with South Africa, and are we prepared to co-operate with South Africa and the front-line states in rebuildng the economies of those countries? That is a question that I ask Opposition right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. I am sorry that the leader of the Liberal party is not present, because I am sure that he would be the first to say, "Certainly not. We do not even wish to see the Prime Minister of South Africa coming to this country when matters such as this will be discussed."
I believe that such matters should be discussed. If one wants to know why, one need not go further than the speech by President Machel at the meeting between Prime Minister Botha and himself.
Sir John Biggs-Davison (Epping Forrest): Does my hon. Friend recall that in 1947 the late Ernest Bevin, among others, when discussing early plans for European unity, saw as a concomitant of that unity co-operation amongst powers with African responsibilities for development in that continent? He included South Africa in his thinking.
Mr. Spicer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I was not around in 1947.
Mr. David Penhaligon: Hamburg 1945 and 1947 were after 1945.
Mr. Spicer: That was 1945. It was not 1947. In 1947 I was on my way to Kenya.
My hon. Friend's point is well made. I shall return to President Machel and paraphrase what he said at that meeting. He said, "We are all Africans, be we black or white. For too long we have destroyed and fought over our continent and as a result our people have suffered. Let us now come together and let us work together in friendship and in hope for the future, doing the best we can for our own people." I give that message to the Opposition, and I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister replies he will say something about it.
My third question is: have we hammered out a positive European policy in relation to the Gulf war? It is important that there should be a European voice on that.
Mr. Budgen: Why?
Mr. Spicer: I know that my hon. Friend will continue like this throughout the debate. It is because the Gulf states want to hear a European voice. They are sensitive about the role of the United States, because they know that in election year it is playing both horses. It is looking to the Israelis, and having to rely on the Arabs. In that context, our friendship and alliance with the Gulf states is of prime importance.
My final point on foreign affairs is whether we are as one in our resolve to see an end of the terrorism so frequently exported by countries such as Libya. What a
694
major plus it would have been for the European Community if, in the days following the savage murder of Woman Police Constable Fletcher in St. James's square, there had been a firm announcement from all 10 member states of the European Community saying, "Enough is enough. We outlaw Libya and any other country that intends to behave as Libya has behaved." That is what could and should be done. I know that it may seem to be pie in the sky.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Why could not those steps be taken by international co-operation, without any reference to the European Economic Community?
Mr. Spicer: The main forum for international co-operation is the United Nations. I hazard a guess that had such a matter gone to the United Nations it would still be discussing it with all the power blocs moving. The European Community is meant to be of European origin and we have a definitive European role. If we cannot agree on such matters, it is a pretty poor outlook for the world. Those four matters should be talked about in the Council of Ministers, whether it be by the Heads of State or the Foreign Ministers.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman and I were parliamentary colleagues in the European Parliament when it was indirectly elected. At that time we were worried about arms and about our relations with Latin America. We were members of the European Parliament Latin American group. Has he any views on the end-user certificates in relation to arms, particularly the export to Argentina by West Germany of submarines, Meko 360 and Meko 140 frigates, and other sophisticated arms from the French? Should not the Community do something about that?
Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, but it is easy to point the finger at the West German Government, who were at that time a Social Democratic Government, and at France, which had a Socialist or a Gaullist Government. If one wanted to extend the matter, one could point the finger at the previous Labour Government, because they were instrumental in providing the Argentine fleet with a large part of its surface vessels. I shall leave the matter there. If we wish to pursue it further, we can.
Mr. Dalyell: There are Rolls-Royce engines, David Brown gear boxes and Decca navigation equipment, all made by us, in the formidable weaponry. [Laughter.] Does that not raise serious questions—it is far from a laughing matter—about the export of arms. Whatever view one takes of the Falklands, our troops are involved and are therefore in danger from highly sophisticated weapons provided by ourselves and our European partners. Should not there be European co-operation on such matters?
Mr. Spicer: That can be achieved only by a total embargo on the export of arms, otherwise the end user, wherever he may be, will always manage to get his hands on them. However, that is moving somewhat away from the main thrust of this discussion.
An agenda including the points that I have raised would be welcomed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, because it is to provide a European resolve and European view on such matters that the Community was

695
first founded. Instead, time after time these vital matters which we should be discussing within the Community are pushed to one side to allow room for a further "cobbling together" of short-term solutions on budgetary and agricultural matters.
We all know that the Prime Minister wants to see longterm solutions of these internal problems and also an end to the fudging of issues on a year-to-year basis. What sense can there he in Ministers and Heads of Government gathering around a table and proceeding to argue about milk, butter or budgetary matters? We need a long-term solution. It is for that that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been working over the years. My right hon. Friend wishes to clear the decks, to find long-term solutions to these matters and then to concentrate Community activity in the areas in which it is most important.
If we are in the business of clearing the decks, it is probably high time that we spent a little time considering and reassessing the roles of the various Community institutions. After all, the Community of Six was formed in 1958. It is now a Community of Ten, soon to be Twelve. What was right for the Six in 1958 is not necessarily right today. Let us start from the central proposition, which will please many of my hon. Friends, that Community institutions should assume only those responsibilities which are best discharged at Community level. That is the key point and a broad statement of the way in which I believe that the Community as a whole should work.
I do not wish to spend too long on the Council of Ministers, but if it is asked to carry out additional tasks it must have a tougher, harder and possibly larger secretariat that will spend more time considering the problems that will face the community in the future. My hon. Friend the Minister may disagree, but a forward plan is clearly needed to consider situations in which immediate decisions will be desirable. That capacity for rapid decision making is the main change that I would make in the operation of the Council of Ministers.
As for the European Commission, I must admit that I sometimes find it a most puzzling body, and the views handed down from it at times make very little sense. In my view, it is time that the Commission took a long hard look at article 100 of the treaty of Rome. At the moment far too much of what emanates from the Commission is contentious and does not really lie within the competence of the Community or within the treaty of Rome. A much stronger line should be taken on that. My view can be summed up in the simple phrase, "No harmonisation for the sake of harmonisation." That was the watchword of many nominated Members of the European Parliament and I hope that the new Members, especially Conservatives, will strictly follow that line.
Thirdly, as regards the European Parliament, five years is but a day in politics, but all Conservatives standing for the second time on 14 June know that in the next five years a great deal of progress must be made towards more sensible use of the time of the European Parliament. My worry is over the gradual drift into a time schedule that often becomes chaotic. I wish that every Member of the European Parliament could see what happens at 2.29 pm in this Parliament and how its work is ordered and structured in a way that is sadly lacking in the European Parliament.
696
In my view, it will be for the Conservatives in the new European Parliament to give a lead. I had the great privilege of serving with the late Sir Peter Kirk and under the leadership of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), and I know the part that the Conservatives played in bringing about more structured debates, introducing Question Time and generally improving the quality of the European Parliament. I know, I hope and I expect that the Conservatives to be elected will follow the same line, because if positive steps are not taken within the next five years I greatly fear for the future.
Although it does not often surface, I believe that there is a genuine feeling for the European Community among the people of this country and an understanding that if we go back to basics there is a reason for it. I believe that the electorate of this country want an effective European voice which will be heard and play a full part in world affairs.
I believe that there is also an awareness that the brand of Europeanism now being peddled by the Labour party really constitutes a hatchet job to destroy not just Britain's membership of the Community but the Community itself. The antics of Mrs. Barbara Castle and her Left-wing friends in the Socialist group of the European Parliament in the past five years have made that plain. One would expect the Centre and Centre-Right to be aware of such antics, but time and again I have seen horror writ large on the faces of Members of the Socialist group itself as the Left-wing element of the British Labour group hammers away at the Community and our membership of it, doing a great disservice to this country in the process.
If added proof is required—and how carefully this has been fudged over—one needs only to look at the list of candidates put forward by the Labour party. Putting it charitably, we do not see the same kind of mainstream candidates. In one constituency after another we see the hard Left coming forward every time. [Interruption.] Labour Members may protest, but the evidence shows that middle-of-the-road Socialists who showed their support for the European Community and its ideals have been hounded out of the strongest Labour seats. Two of the best members of the European Parliament of any party—Derek Enright and Brian Key—are just two of those who have been pushed aside to make way for the hard men of the Left. A pretty good hatchet job was certainly done on putting in the boot for those two good men who now will not return to serve the cause of genuine Socialism in the European Parliament.
Let us now consider the role of the Liberals and the SDP. I am sorry that so few of them are present—only two, I believe, and only five Members on the Labour Benches.
Mr. George Foulkes: We have more Members on the Front Bench than the Government.
Mr. Spicer: I believe that the common sense of our electorate will enable them quickly to see through the naive and trusting approach of the SDP and its Liberal partners, who have now made it clear that they are prepared to accept the Community in toto, warts and all. The Liberals have made their position quite clear. First and foremost, they wish to throw away the veto. I cannot say that loudly enough or often enough. If the people of this country do not realise what that means in terms of the wellbeing of this country, God help them and us!
Mr. Penhaligon: The only matter of any substance on which the veto has been used so far was when the Prime Minister, in her various shenanigans to try to get back the money which she so miserably failed to obtain, forced the rest of the Community to use the veto against Britain to secure what proved to be quite a sensible price arrangement for agriculture. I presume that the hon. Gentleman therefore opposes that.
Mr. Spicer: Oh no. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) is present, because he rightly takes a keen interest in agricultural matters. Had the discussions taken place in late March or early April without the threat of the veto, does the hon. Gentleman really believe that our Minister would have come back from Brussels with the retention of the beef premium and sheepmeat regime? It is easy to say, "Yes," but I am not so sure. Had the threat of that veto not existed, there would have been no beef premium or sheepmeat regime, and all of us, including those with dairy interests, would have suffered. Let there be no mistake that the alliance wants to see the end of the veto, whereas we Conservatives do not. We want to see its retention.
The Liberals and Social Democrats also want to give more power to the European Parliament to tax us. Their manifesto, which is in evidence in the Chamber, states:
"The powers of the Parliament over expenditure of the Community should be extended to the revenue side."
What absolute drivel! This fledgling Parliament has been in existence for only five years. Time enough in 10 or 15 years, when it has proved its ability to deal with the present situation, to start talking about extending its powers.
The alliance manifesto also suggests that in the short term we should be happy with VAT as the revenue-raising arm of the Community, but that in the long term we should look for excise duty to go direct to the Community. I cannot wait for the hon. Member for Truro to go down to his part of the world, manifesto in hand, to tell his people, "End of the veto, more power and more revenue raising to the European Parliament." I cannot wait for the hon. Gentleman to go through the 48 or more points contained in the SDP manifesto.
Sir John Biggs-Davision: Is it not ironic that this document from the SDP-Liberal alliance should be covered in red, white and blue—our national colours—when within it are proposals utterly to abandon the sovereignty of Britain?
Mr. Spicer: I can only agree with my hon. Friend.
The alliance also wishes to increase the powers of the Commission. The Commission is a secretariat, and the power rests in the hands of the politicians rather than a secretariat, especially one that has not exactly covered itself with glory over the last 10 years.
Today has seen the launch of the Conservative manifesto for the European elections on 14 June. Within that manifesto is contained a genuine programme which is supportive of our membership of the European Community in every possible way. It does not support a continuation of the stalemate and drift which we have experienced for so long within the European Community.
That manifesto, and the support given to it by the Prime Minister and the Conservative party, points to the high road for Europe. Labour Members made it clear that they want to follow the low road, but we want to follow the high road. Of course we accept the imperfections, but we hold
698
fast to the concept of a community of nation states, and above all we support the Prime Minister's total commitment to a real community playing a major role in helping our unhappy world to resolve at least some of its problems. Within such a community there is a vital role for a strong British voice. We must therefore remain in Europe, and I therefore beg the House to support my motion.
4.24 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: When I was a member of the indirectly-elected European Parliament, I was one of those who was less than enchanted by the whole concept of direct elections, and indeed by what was then the Patijn committee report. At the time, my friend Schelto Patijn was unable to persuade my constituency party about the value of direct elections. I wish that we could put the clock back, because, as an unreconstructed pro-European, I think that there is a strong case for individuals from the Folketing, the Bundestag, the House of Commons and other Parliaments being members of a European Assembly or Parliament on a rotary basis.
As one who benefited from an enormously expensive education of being in a European Assembly or Parliament, I believe that the indirectly-elected Parliament had a great deal to be said for it. In my case, and in many others, it would have been improper had we spent longer than four years in that Parliament, given that we were sent by the House of Commons. It was, however, an enormously valuable experience for which I shall always be grateful. I should like it to have been extended to many of our colleagues on a rotary basis.
I am aware that CERN is not the direct concern of the European Community as such, but, in view of what our European partners are doing on the financing of particle physics, is there not a case for financing extremely expensive scientific collaboration out of a Foreign Office Vote rather than the science budget? The fact that we must now contribute more to CERN than was estimated because of revaluation—which is creating mayhem with the science Vote—means that there is an overwhelming argument for Britain doing as other countries have done. We should therefore consider paying our contribution and subscription to CERN at Geneva out of a Foreign Office Vote rather than making a mess of the science Vote, much to the upset of many colleagues in less expensive scientific areas.
Of direct relevance to the Community is the financing of JET. I have been to Culham, and a remarkable experience it is with its 57ft-wide concrete walls and so on. I know that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir J. Osborn) is interested in these matters, because he and I were members of the Energy Committee that fought so hard to have JET located in Britain rather than in Italy or at Garching in Germany. Are the Government satisfied with the way in which JET places its orders in the various countries of the Community? Should there not be greater ordering from British industry, which is capable of helping JET, as has happened in other European countries where institutions of a similar nature have been placed?
I am told that the British play much fairer cricket in relation to orders that go from JET to other members of the Community than they do when EEC institutions in their countries order in Britain. Therefore, I have asked a general question of some concern.

699
How do the Government view the progress of ESPRIT? There have been other debates, of a pending nature, in the House on that subject, but it is only fair, in a debate on the future of the Community, to ask for an assessment of how ESPRIT is going.
I realise that is a grey area, but I must ask the same question of the European Micro-Biology Organisation, of which Dr. Kendrew was the first director. Again, a good deal of Euro money is involved.
When talking about the future of the Community it is important to know whether the Government think that the British taxpayer's contribution is appropriate—[Interruption.] I do not know what the merriment is, but I am discussing important and concrete matters. I do not know why my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cunmock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is so merry. Many hon. Members will probably talk about the CAP, but my remarks are meant constructively, even if some of my hon. Friends are not particularly interested.
Mr Foulkes: I am interested.
Mr. Dalyell: I apologise to my hon. Friend, as I must have misinterpreted the cause of his merriment. Nevertheless, these are issues that concern many people.
Finally, I return to the subject that the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) raised in his opening speech, to end user certificates, and to the Community's future in the supply of arms not only to South America but to other countries where they may, in certain circumstances, be used against the forces of member states. It is a very wide question, and I shall remind the House of the history behind it. In the Falklands conflict, there can be no doubt that, for all the protestations of the Heads of Government in France, Aerospatiale and Dassault went merrily on supplying the most lethal weapons of war.
Although a great song and dance was made about the fact that a team from Aerospatiale and Dassault did not go from Bourges to to Bahia Blanca in Argentina, we now know just what did happen. A seven-hour telephone call was made, during which it was possible for the Aerospatiale and Dassault engineers to explain to their colleague, Mr. Hervé Colin—the facts are very detailed and can be proven—how to marry an Exocet to the wing of an aircraft. Engineers can explain such things when talking to one another, and there can be no question whatever that the French armaments manufacturers went through the procedure in considerable detail, much to the detriment of HMS Sheffield, HMS Coventry, the Atlantic Conveyor, the Ardent, the Antelope and other ships. What sort of co-operation was it that allowed that to happen? That incident is just one reason why we and our European partners must look into the whole question of the mutual control of armaments.
I am not parading my views on the Falklands in this debate, but I should like to consider one other aspect that relates not to the past, but to the future. During the past year, and indeed this year, the formidable weapons manufacturers Blohm and Voss have been making four Meko 360 frigates, powered by Rolls-Royce engines, with David Brown gear boxes and Decca navigation equipment, made by us. Those are formidable weapons. If we do not do something to negotiate with the infant and vulnerable civilian Government in Argentina, they could—not next year, but the year after, or the year after that—be used against us, Heaven help us, in a replay of uncertain
700
outcome which would certainly involve more bloodshed. Given that Blohm and Voss are members of the Community, it must raise very serious questions if they go ahead and sell such weaponry as submarines to Argentina. It could be used against British forces. Those questions could be repeated over the sale of Oto—Melara mines—[Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) wish to intervene?
Mr. Robin Cook: I was agreeing with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Dalyell: I am glad to have my hon. Friend's agreement on such an important point. I do not wish to labour it, but regardless of views and of anybody's hobby horse, obsession or anything of that kind, it behoves us all, when talking about the future of the Community, to ask ourselves whether we should have some common policy on arms sales for end user certificates. I welcome the opportunity afforded by the hon. Member for Dorset, West to air that point. I could go on, but other hon. Members wish to speak.
4.35 pm
Mr. George Gardiner: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) on raising this subject for debate today, which marks. at least for the major parties, the start of the campaign for elections to the European Parliament on 14 June.
Comment has already been made on the very sparse attendance of Opposition Members. I suppose that the Scottish National Party can claim to be very well represented, as one SNP Member is present. We note with interest that the alliance has managed to find just one hon. Member to contribute to the debate. However, I do not know what we are to make of the main Opposition party. I see that there are now four Labour Members in the Chamber, but throughout most of the speech of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) only three Labour Members were present. The fact that that has happened on the day when the Labour party has chosen to launch its European election manifesto is quite extraordinary. I can only conclude from the evidence that the Labour party wants to run a quiet low-key campaign. However, I very much hope that it fails in that objective.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Does it not appear that the parliamentary Labour party now seems to be working a three-day week? Labour Members are never here on Mondays or Fridays.
Mr. Gardiner: My hon. Friend has made an interesting point.
I said that I hoped that the Labour party's obvious endeavour to play down the whole thing would fail, for the simple reason that I believe it important that the issues involved in our membership of the EC should be discussed at regular intervals with, and before, the voters. There was very lively and deep public discussion in 1975, at the time of the referendum on Community membership. Of course, it resulted in a very convincing majority being recorded in favour of our continued membership. Since then, we have embarked on a pattern of regular elections to the European Parliament. Regardless of arguments over the precise merits of individual candidates—which are, of course very important—it is even more important that the British public should be involved, at periodic intervals—
Mr. Foulkes: The Tory Members are all leaving.
Mr. Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman may laugh at the fact that two of my hon. Friends are on their way out of the Chamber, but his energies would be better devoted to drumming up some Labour Members to attend the debate. [Interruption.] We shall have to see what he can to do to refill the Chamber when he speaks. So far, he has lamentably failed to fill it.
It is important to involve the British public in the argument about what kind of Community we want and are working towards. The majority of my hon. Friends regard the European Community as a community of nation states. I have never deviated from that view. We reject the federalist dreams held by some Members of the alliance and the dreams of those who look back to memories of an imperial past. We also reject the dreams of some of those who are so poorly represented in the Chamber today of a self-contained Socialist republic in Europe insulated from the realities of the world at large.
I make no apology for repeating what my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West said about all of us being in the European Community because it is in our interests. My hon. Friend stressed that it is a vital British interest that we should be in the Community and participating fully in it. It is comparable to our need and interest as full participating members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
I see no conflict between a commitment to the cause of European co-operation and fighting our own corner in the Community whenever British interests are at stake. That consistently has been the philosophy adopted by our Prime Minister and Government.
I have never been in any doubt that our driving purpose within the European Community has been and remains to seek its reform. The European Community, even as envisaged in the Treaty of Rome, cannot be static. Many circumstances change in Europe and outside. We must adapt ourselves, and strengthen ourselves collectively, to deal with the changes. When the Community was established it was obvious to all the original participants that great advantages were to be gained from the creation of a single market free of internal tariff barriers. The value of that was demonstrated early in the Community's existence. Since we have been a member, we have demonstrated that advantage within our shores.
Given the changing patterns of trade in the world, and the new emerging industries and technologies, that argument has even more force. Our purpose is strengthened by seeking to extend the free trade concept and to remove non-tariff barriers within the Community.
How can anyone imagine that there would be any future for the sunrise industries—for electronics and information technology—if we were aside from the remainder of the Community or, indeed, if the whole of Western Europe were divided within itself? Our sunrise industries have to face competition from the vast markets of the United States and Japan.
Mr. Leighton: How do smaller countries such as Norway, Austria and Switzerland seem to do rather better than we do without being members of the Community?
Mr. Gardiner: I do not know by what test the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) claims that such countries "do rather better than" us. They do not stand a strong chance of attracting international investment
702
or even national investment while they are outside the Market, which provides a large home base for industrial and commercial activity.
Our continuing cause in Europe must be reform. We have heard at length and regularly in the House of our attempts to secure reform of the budgetary contributions mechanism. We have heard a great deal about attempts to secure reform of the common agricultural policy, which is painfully slow in coming. I shall not dwell on those matters today because so much time has already been devoted to them in the House and elsewhere.
However, other reforms are as important as those that I have mentioned, though they receive less public attention. I hope that the European election campaign, upon which we are embarking today, will redirect attention to the need for such reforms. We want not only a Common Market in terms of a Community without internal tariff barriers, but a genuinely and completely free trading community. We do not accept the need for delays that have occurred at frontiers over recent years. We do not accept that it is necessary to endure the mass and tangles of red tape involved in moving goods and sometimes people across frontiers in the Community. It is not acceptable that the invisible barriers erected by member states to restrict public purchasing to their own nationally-based firms should be continued. It is not acceptable that the movement of individual citizens across the countries of western Europe should remain as difficult and costly as it is
Industry in Britain still does not derive the full potential benefit from European Community membership that it has a right to demand. Our financial and commercial institutions are still not enjoying anything like the free market throughout Europe that they have a right to expect. British insurance, for example, must be freely available throughout the Community. Surely we have a right to demand that and we must work for it.
Individual citizens still have many additional benefits to gain from the Community beyond the employment prospects created for them by the availability of that large home market. I am glad to see the Government endeavouring to bring down air fares across western Europe. The present cartel arrangements should have no place in the European Community of 1984 and beyond.
Such reforms must rank high in our priorities. They should rank as high as budgetary reform and the continuing curtailment and control of CAP spending. I am glad to note that the Conservative party manifesto launched today makes a number of specific and important commitments in that direction. I hope that the reform campaign will gain impetus through the forthcoming elections to the European Parliament. A great deal has been achieved in western Europe and within the Community in recent years, but, heaven knows, there is still so much to be done.
I urge the Government to present with the fullest vigour their programme for furthering those reforms.
4.50 pm
Mr. Donald Stewart: The hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) was enthusiastic about the Common Market. However, as he developed his speech he made some caveats. It was interesting to note that those caveats were repeated on an even greater scale by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner). As he said, heaven knows, there is so much still waiting to be changed or improved.

703
It is encouraging that both hon. Members strongly suggested that the EC is a community of nation states. It shows that both of them—and no doubt many of their hon. Friends—are beginning to realise that the United Kingdom's position would be difficult, to put it mildly, if we were merged into the one super-state that some of the more enthusiastic Community supporters were proposing a year or two ago.
As I have believed from the beginning, United Kingdom membership of the Community has resulted in an erosion of the sovereignty of this House. All the evidence shows that that has happened on a large scale.
Mr. Jim Spicer: The right hon. Gentleman says that a few years ago some hon. Members were advocating a closer federal state. Does he accept that at least two parties in the House are strong advocates of a federal Europe, with more power to the centre? Will he enlarge upon that and say which two parties are involved?
Mr. Stewart: I accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that I should fight on more than one front at one time. I agree that a number of members of the SDP and Liberal parties—if not all—are enthusiastic advocates of a super-state. Unfortunately, those parties are led by Euro-fanatics whose enthusiasm is greater even than that of the hon. Member for Dorset, West. It would be disastrous to proceed down that road, and any suggestion that we should do so must be repudiated.
I do not wish to go into the details of what we have paid in and what we have received from the EC, despite all the fantastic forecasts about how good the benefits would be. A number of hon. Members threaten that if Britain withdraws from the EC the effects on employment would be disastrous. However, those threats are coming from the very same people who said that we had to become a member of the Community or our employment prospects would suffer. I cannot agree with their arguments, which they have failed to prove.
The hon. Member for Dorset, West said that membership of the EC would keep the peace. I strongly reject that argument. The position would have been no different if the EEC had not been formed. There are no grounds for believing that the Germans would have gone to war with their European neighbours during the years since 1945. In any case, the protection of Europe is a matter for NATO.
It has been claimed that the British people are still enthusiastic about the EEC, but I see not the slightest evidence to support that. In fact, the polls show clearly that the people are wholly disillusioned, that they have no enthusiasm for the Community and, indeed, that they never had any enthusiasm.
Membership of the EEC has resulted in interference in the rights of sovereign states. Hon. Members claim that we now have a common fisheries policy, and that that is a great advance. We have a 12-mile limit—although it is only six miles around my constituency. Two years ago, some Conservative Members were saying that if we did not get a 50-mile limit that would be a sell-out for Britain's fishermen. Yet now they are content with a 12-mile limit. If we were outside the EEC, we would have a 200-mile limit as of right under international law.
Reference has been made to the CAP. Everyone deplores that policy. Every hon. Member who speaks about the Common Market, however dedicated to it, says
704
that the CAP must be reformed. I have heard that said since Britain first entered the Community. When will the reform begin? It will never begin because the French will not allow that. The day reform begins, the French will be out of the EEC. I do not think that there is any prospect of real change in the CAP — a policy that has no relevance to the United Kingdom.
Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman said that all hon. Members deplore the CAP. With respect, that is not true. The CAP has ensured access to secure supplies of food. What we deplore is over-production and the waste involved in that. There is a need to control surpluses.
Mr. Stewart: I shall rephrase my comments. Everyone deplores the excesses of the CAP—but over-production is part of that policy. If we were outside the EEC, we could buy food far more cheaply than we can within the Community. The EEC is responsible for the higher cost of living for United Kingdom consumers. There can be no argument about that. I agree that that can vary year by year, but the whole thrust of my argument is that, while we have been a member of the EEC, we could have bought food in the world market far more cheaply than from within the EC.
The hon. Member for Dorset, West spoke about what has been done for the Third world. That has nothing to do with the EC. Even this stingy, cheese-paring Government are contributing to the Third world. We do not need the EEC to help us in our charitable aims if the Government have it in their heart to give help. Conservative Members should be concerned that while many countries are facing famine and the inhabitants of many nations do not know what it is to have full bellies, the EEC is responsible for over-production and the waste of food. It sells its surpluses to the Russians at give-away prices—goods that many of our old-age pensioners cannot afford to buy.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) said that countries outside the EC, such as Norway, Sweden and Austria, are doing far better than Britain. The hon. Member for Reigate asked how that was measured. It is measured by unemployment. Unemployment in those countries is far lower than in the United Kingdom and many Common Market countries.
Mr. Foulkes: I do not disagree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but would he care to reconcile his criticism of the CAP and his attacks on the Community with what Mrs. Ewing, who is desperately fighting to remain as a Member of the European Parliament, said recently while I was with her on television? She strongly defended the CAP and said that Scotland was getting a great deal more out of the Community than it puts into it.
Mr. Stewart: I knew that the hon. Gentleman was waiting to get that one across because I heard what he said earlier. I did not hear the broadcast to which he refers, but I stand by everything that I have said, regardless of what anybody else is saying about the EEC and the CAP. The Labour party has enough internal problems without trying to stir them up in any other party. The hon. Gentleman might not have to move off the Front Bench to stir up trouble in his party, as there are only three Labour Members present. However, I might be prepared to stir up trouble in the Conservative party.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): This is an interesting

705
point. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, after the last general election, the Scottish National party and its leader changed their previous policy of withdrawal from the Community and now support Scotland, and the rest of the United Kingdom, remaining within the Community. Does the right hon. Gentleman now hold that view?
Mr. Stewart: We are all obliged to go by the policies of our parties. However, I was completely opposed to the EEC at its conception, I am still opposed, and I see no arguments that will make me change my mind.
5.2 pm
Sir John Osborn: This is a valuable debate. The European scene has always had its parallel with a small urban community anywhere in Britain. It makes sense to have a working relationship with one's neighbours in the same street and the same area—in European terms with the countries such as France, Germany and Italy. We must also recognise that in small communities, particularly in Britain, there are children, cousins, nephews and nieces who have dispersed far and wide — in British terms to Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States. The feature there is that people born of different cultures have found a way of getting together much more readily than has been possible in Europe, because of its traditions. The impact of time and distance means that those who have left the home countries of Europe find their family links far stretched. Therefore, it is necessary to develop relations with neighbours in a different economic world from that which existed 50 to 100 years ago.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) on the way in which he presented the motion. Some 40 years ago I was in the services and I remember the Normandy landings, because I obtained my commission about that time. Since then I have become a more convinced European, although I must confess that, as at times I find it a little difficult to get on with my neighbours in my community, so at times it is a little difficult to get on with one's neighbours in the European Economic Community.
This is an important day, because today the parties launch their manifestos for the European elections. I have been impressed by some of the advertisements saying that what has happened in the past—such as world war I in which my father fought—should not happen again. I was also impressed this weekend when I went round the bunker from which Churchill conducted world war 2. Only last week, on my way back from Strasbourg, I drove through battlefields which brought home to me how important it is that we should live with our neighbours in peace if at all possible. I accept that there are economic challenges from the United States of America and other challenges from the East, from the Soviet Union. It is necessary to meet these challenges, but I prefer to meet them working together with my neighbours, rather than in isolation.
I remember Churchill's Zurich speech, because I was demobbed at about that time. I remember the setting up of the Council of Europe, the European Coal and Steel Community and Euratom. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West, for 10 or 12 years in industry
706
and then in politics, I have lived with the growth of these entities which are bringing the citizens of Europe together. In 1973 I joined the Council of Europe. From 1975, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West knows, we were in the European Parliament together until 1979. My background is that of energy policy, industry, regional and overseas development. I was able to see that working together on these issues meant that MEPs could identify targets and work together more effectively. Long may that continue in the European institutions, which I have spoken about.
After the Treaty of Rome and in the early 1960s, I visited Bonn and the other capitals of Europe, meeting the equivalents of the CBI, the chambers of commerce and other businesses, and working out, as a result of that initiative, how better the British people could work with their European neighbours. In the late 1970s my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West and I had long debates about what shape direct elections should take in Britain. If his idea of regional representation had worked, I might have been able to spend the last four or five years meeting the hon. Member for Linlithgow's point about doing the dual mandate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West has. However, as there is a constituency, or Euro constituency, basis for the elections in Great Britain, the dual mandate has been made almost impossible. I share my hon. Friend's view that it is necessary to develop a closer dialogue with the newly elected Members of the European Parliament because the role of a national Parliament is just like that of the separate states in the United States of America, and is all important.
As I go round the countries of Europe, I see that the forces of protectionism and nationalism are greater. That is all the more reason why I should back responsible representation from this country to the European Parliament, and not representation by those who want to pull it apart. I do not want to see a repetition of 1939.
Therefore, my view of the future must be based on the past. I had some sympathy with the concept of European confederalism, when it came to direct elections. There is no doubt that Members of the European Parliament became sensitive to the relationship of separate states to the Federal Government in Washington, or the central Government in Canada or Australia. The independent state Parliaments in these nations have a separate entity, and there is some parallel in the possible growth of Europe on a similar basis. However, people in European countries have a tradition of different languages, history and cultures, and to bring the peoples together rapidly is impossible.
The Council of Europe was created in the early 1950s and some countries are still in the European Free Trade Association. As a member of the Economics Committee of the Council of Europe, I still have regular dialogues with the EFTA countries. I have seen the Community grow from six to 10 in number and I hope that it will grow to 12 in a short period of time.
I hope to be visiting Switzerland, where I have many friends. Through the Council of Europe I frequently meet my opposite numbers in other Parliaments, for example those of Sweden and Austria. When Britain came into the Community, I gave the Council of Europe 25 years, perhaps, and the Western European Union 15 years. The Swiss hang on to their independence, but value dialogue with the Community, although the size of the Community

707
will increase. Therefore, Europe is a mixture of different institutions, but today we are talking about the future of the Common Market, which I want to grow stronger and to expand.
I could deal with many issues. The common agricultural policy has taken up far too much of the European budget. I welcome the positive initiatives by the Prime Minister. I regret the lack of an energy policy. When Britain first discovered North sea gas and oil and were not aware that Norway would have some, too many kept on saying, "It is our gas and our oil." I remember that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and his predecessor drove fellow European partners to look to Siberia and elsewhere for supplies, when they could have been encouraged to buy them in this country.
There is an amendment on own resources. The hon. Member for Linlithgow referred to the work that has been done on energy policy at Culham. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will refer to that when he winds up the debate. Those are costly ventures, in which it is much better to pool resources and work together. Culham, like CERN, is one such example, if the project is justified.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West referred to the market in the Community. I recently had talks with the CBI and others. Business men value the increased trade in the Community. About 2 million to 2·5 million jobs in this country depend on trade with the Common Market. Let us remember that it is better to trade with our neighbours. I have had experience of selling to "our" cousins who have gone to distant lands, and they have found ways, with better resources and raw materials, of making some of the things which I, for one, used to sell to them.
I welcome the debate and the initiative taken by the Conservative Government and Ministers to stay in Europe and make Europe work better for the members of the Community as well as residents in our own countries. Therefore, I shall support candidates with that point of view. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West, referred to Brian Key. Let us bear it in mind that my successor in Sheffield is now the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn). He tried to help the Sheffield steel industry, while at the same time pulling down the Community. He created more enemies than friends. Hostility to the Community did my city a bad rather than a good turn. However, the hon. Gentleman was in the European Parliament at the time, when I was not, and he could better substantiate what I have said.
I shall support the Conservative candidate in my area, knowing full well that he and many other Conservative candidates will want to go on building a more powerful and better Europe so that the standards of living of all of us are raised.
5.14 pm
Mr. David Penhaligon: Bar a few months, I have been a Member of the House for 10 years. I have listened, as all of us have done, even if not collectively, to the various debates on the European Community. There has been a common thread in those debates. The various posturings of the two Front Benches, are best summed up by the expression "moan, groan and whinge". For a decade the House has listened to the Front Benches compete to see who can be the most aggressive, awkward and demanding.
Two great ploys have dominated the issue since I have been in the House. There was a renegotiation while the
708
Labour party was in power, and now the Prime Minister is demanding our money back. I sometimes wonder which of those two ploys has been least successful—there have been successes in neither case. If anything, the Labour Government just had it in terms of lack of success.
The manifestos have all been issued. The other two parties have a slight advantage over me because they issued theirs today, so I have not had a chance to read them. We issued our manifesto a fortnight ago, so the other two parties have had a chance to read ours. I thought that bringing ours out early was a brilliant first strike, but I am beginning to reflect on that in depth. However, I shall leave that matter aside.
In effect, the European election campaign started today. I presume that that was part of the motive—although not dishonourable—of the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) in tabling the motion for debate. He referred to my party's posture on Europe. I hope that what he said does not become the norm in the election campaign. If I said that his comments were not exactly near the truth, that would be an understatement. The hon. Gentleman said that we wished to abolish the veto. I have a copy of our manifesto, and if the hon. Gentleman would like one I could obtain one for him. It says:
"The use of the veto in the Council must be severely restricted".
That is vastly different from saying that the veto should be abolished. The hon. Gentleman also said that we wanted to give vast new powers to the Commission. The document actually says:
"The authority and accountability of the Commission must also be strengthened."
We can argue about the merits of the hon. Gentleman's posture and of our posture, but let us argue the case from where we are, not from where we should like to think the other organisation is in regard to the Common Market. When someone who claims to be pro-Common Market attacks, by distortion, another group that is pro-Common Market that is nearly unforgiveable. Those of us who are pro-Common Market have enough problems without such asinine and peculiar arguments being put forward in the House.
Mr. Jim Spicer: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he should be so defensive about his party's policy? The problem with the alliance's policy is that I can walk into 50 Euro constituencies today and hear in each one a different voice on every subject from every Euro candidate representing the alliance. For example, is it official party policy to support the entry of Spain and Portugal into the Community? Only last week, the hon. Gentleman's colleague, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), said that he did not support that. It is of vital importance to the future of our Community. The hon. Gentleman might say that we are carping and criticising when we talk about his party's policy and ask what it is, but where do we begin to have a proper debate in the election?
Mr. Penhaligon: I recommend that the hon. Gentleman sticks to interventions because he delivers them with much more aggression and conviction than his speeches. We all know that the alliance's official policy is that Spain and Portugal should be members of the Common Market. The hon. Gentleman said that he could walk into 50 different constituencies and find 50 different

709
policies. I assume that that means that 28 are in solid agreement, so that puts us in a stronger position than any other party.
The hon. Gentleman's third criticism was that we would like the European Parliament to be responsible for raising at least some of its own finance. I accept that that is a difference between us. I should like the European Parliament to be responsible for raising some of the money that it spends. If it did, the election on 14 June would be a more meaningful operation than it is. The people who were seeking a mandate from the electorate would be those who were asking for money to spend on projects. The election next month will not be satisfactory in many ways. We all know that candidates can put forward various schemes—with which we may or may not agree—but they are not the same people who are responsible for raising the funds. If there is disagreement, so be it; that is not something of which I am ashamed.
The most obvious issue facing Europe has hardly been touched on in the debate. Thirteen million people in the European Community are unemployed. There must be many countries in the United Nations with a population of fewer than 13 million. One thing that we have learnt in the past decade is that there is not now a European country with enough economic muscle to solve its unemployment problem in splendid isolation. The efforts of the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979 manifestly did not work, and the efforts of M. Mitterrand in France have been no more successful.
However, a study of trading patterns within Europe clearly demonstrates that although—because of imports — each separate country is vulnerable if it goes for growth, Europe collectively is not as vulnerable. I regret the fact that the suggestion by the European Trade Union Confederation that European countries should aim for a modest 1 per cent. reflation was rejected out of hand. Such a policy within Europe could begin to help the 13 million unemployed.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: If the hon. Gentleman believes that only huge and powerful state organisations can provide full employment, why is there high unemployment in the Common Market and less than 3 per cent. unemployment in Austria, Norway and Sweden, which have not joined it?
Mr. Penhaligon: I do not recall saying that only powerful economies can maintain low unemployment. I said that there is not an economy in Europe that is currently strong enough to reflate within its own boundaries without being overrun by the automatic repercussions of reflation which are associated with our dependence on other countries in terms of imports and exports.
Those who are pro-Market and those who are antiMarket—and, indeed, everybody else—agree that the CAP needs reforming. So it does. However, it is worthwhile to reflect on how it came to be in such need. My view—I am not adamant about it, and would be willing to discuss it—is that the downfall of the CAP was caused not so much by the original concept as by the enormous effect of technology on agricultural production during the period of the implementation of the policy. The amount of corn or milk that can be produced on an acre or a hectare has increased massively. The CAP is under threat today not because of a failure of the original concept
710
but because it has been overwhelmed by its own success. However, whatever the causes may be, I accept that there is a need for substantial reform.
Mr. Robin Cook: I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's explanation of the problems of the CAP. If the problem is the massive increase in the amount of grain that can be grown on a piece of ground, why has there been no reduction in price? During the period of that massive increase, there has been a massive increase in the price of grain and the creation of massive surpluses that have to be paid for by the EEC taxpayer.
Mr. Penhaligon: I always like to hear the pure meat of the capitalist system from Opposition Front Bench spokesmen, who have no faith in it. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the cause of the massive increase in the production of grain is that farmers have been farming against a constant price. They have not been farming in a free market. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the agricultural community of this country should re-enter a free market in grain?
I suspect that the hon. Gentleman and I are agreed that over the past few years we have not seen the gradual reduction in the grain price that manifestly should have taken place. I am talking not about a dramatic sea change — a reduction of 20 or 30 per cent. overnight— but about a gradual reduction in real terms. In the past two or three years a downward trend has been discernible, but it has not been of the substance that is required.
The Government would claim that they have made great progress in the reduction of the milk surplus within Europe. The milk surplus within Europe had become so large that something had to be done about it. I do not deny that, and I have never told my farming community in the far south-west anything else. However, I would not have expected the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to return to this House to try to justify a near-surrender. We could not have achieved a worse agreement on milk if we had corresponded by telex. Indeed, telexes might have been checked before being posted and might therefore have been somewhat more specific.
I cannot understand how the Government managed to agree that the British milk farmer must reduce his output by twice as much as the French milk farmer when, at best, we are more or less self-sufficient in milk production. That is beyond me. I have asked that question twice, and received the same answer on both occasions.
The Minister claims a triumph for his abilities to negotiate, on the ground that—I forget the exact words — he has persuaded the French to include within the European milk agreement off-farm sales from French farms and the milk produced by farms with fewer than nine cows. That is the remarkable achievement of which the Minister is so proud, and that is why we are reducing our milk figure by twice as much as the French. What sort of agreement would it have been if all the farms with fewer than nine cows had not been counted, and all the off-farm sales had been allowed? Reform of the CAP will not be achieved by surrender, and I tell the Minister of State that the Government have been precious close to surrender.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) has left the Chamber, because he will not hear me say that one of the Community's great positive achievements has been in fishing. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is still here, I shall be careful about what I say.

711
The European Community has made significant progress towards a sensible fishing policy for Europe. The process has not been easy, and the Community's decisions so far have not been overwhelmingly popular. But progress has been made, and the House should welcome that progress if it wishes this country's fishing industry to prosper.
All the accusations levelled against the Community can be made with reference to fishing, and the fishing context demonstrates what nonsense most of them are. People talk about the sovereignty of this House and about holding and maintaining our own resources. The main fish in my region is, or used to be, the mackerel. During the past decade, the mackerel has been severely overfished. Most of the overfishing has been done by Scottish fishermen —not by fishermen from France, Belgium, Germany or any other Community country.
Those who try to argue the case for the sovereignty of this House refuse to recognise one point. Mackerel are delightful fish but they have one annoying trait. At the moment when they are born, they do not know whether they are French, Cornish, English or indeed German. They have a tendency to swim around. When small, they prefer the coast of France, and when larger they prefer the coast of Cornwall. It is obvious that my fishermen would prefer to have exclusive rights for the catching of adult mackerel. If that were the case, however, the French would say that if they are not allowed to catch any adult mackerel they will be forced to catch the tiddlers. Only a European Community that works together can begin to face such problems and get the agreements necessary to maintain stocks.
Enforcement of such a policy should be carried out to a far greater extent by the communities that are affected by it. Responsibility for enforcing fish conservation rules must be given to those who rely on the fish for their livelihoods. They are the only people who will demonstrate the necessary interest and determination.
The next month will be interesting. Right hon. and hon. Members know that we are occasionally pushed not to answer a question quite as clearly or concisely as the person asking the question desires. Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I would deny that that happens, but we all know that questions are sometimes embarrassing. It will be fascinating to see whether the Labour party can fight the entire election campaign on detailed policy—we know how much research the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has put in—without answering whether the Labour party wants Britain to be a member of the Common Market. That is a key question. I see that the hon. Member for Livingston shakes his head — he obviously does not agree that that issue is key to the election.
Mr. Foulkes: It is just a twitch.
Mr. Penhaligon: Oh. The hon. Member for Livingston has merely developed a twitch so I withdraw my statement. Perhaps I was beginning to strike a nerve. If the Labour party manages to go for an entire month without answering that question, it might yet achieve office again. I hope that it will be screwed down and that people will ask that question repeatedly because without an answer all the detailed policy is so much bunkum and nonsense, and the hon. Member for Livingston is quite intelligent enough to know it.
5.32 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Everyone has congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) on the dramatic timing of this import ant debate—just before these crucial elections. It is sad that only one Labour Back Bencher and not one Social Democratic Member is present. It is not just a case of the laziness of Opposition Members, as most of the general public would not notice much difference if the European Parliament or Assembly disappeared tomorrow.
The Labour party is in difficulties because it is having to argue for capitalism if it argues against the CAP, and some of my right hon. and hon. Friends are in difficulty, in arguing for the Common Market, in using arguments which are much the same as those adduced for the retention of the Greater London council. If they understand it, most voters will reject outright the Eurofanaticism of the Social Democratic-Liberal alliance. I believe that they will vote against Labour because the Labour party has admitted that it has not achieved anything in the Common Market through renegotiations. I believe that the public will be inclined to vote Conservative because we give the impression that we know something about these complicated issues and because the Prime Minister has undoubtedly achieved a great deal over the rebate.
In the election campaign I hope that all of us, especially alliance Members and even some of my hon. Friends, will stop kidding ourselves that success exists when it does not. For example, we have heard much about how the Common Market prevents Britain from going to war with Germany. Most of us realise that the peace of Europe is maintained, not by the French army or the German navy or the Italian air force, but by the NATO Alliance and America's nuclear umbrella. That is the key to our defence and I fear that it is being undermined by disputes between the EEC and the United States about, for example, food dumping. That might undermine the American commitment to Europe.
Sir Anthony Meyer (Clywd, North-West): My hon. Friend is right in saying that the Common Market has not prevented war with Germany, but he must be aware of the threat that could arise if Germany were not tied into a community in which it found some fulfilment. If it were not so tied in, it might seek an alliance with the Soviet Union to secure reunification, which might be the objective of any German Government. It is in that respect that the EC contributes to the unity of Europe.
Mr. Taylor: We are all hearing new ideas. I should have thought that West Germany's participation in NATO was greater security against that country trying to rejoin East Germany. I shall think about my hon. Friend's point, as is always the case with his most interesting arguments.
Foreign policy has been given as a major reason for the bonus that we have. I am always astonished at the utter lack of achievement in foreign policy. After the problem over Afghanistan I awaited with bated breath a common statement from the Common Market. When, after four days, it came out, it was less solid than that made the previous day by the Italian Communist party.
We should stop kidding ourselves about trade. We constantly hear of the great increase in and bonus of trade with the Common Market. It is obvious, however, that the erection of a protective tariff wall around a group of

713
nations will result in more trade within that group. We cannot avoid the simple fact that we always used to have a profit in trade in manufactured goods with the Common Market, but now have a horrendous loss of £8 billion. In a nutshell, for every £3 worth of goods that the Common Market sends us, we send it £2 worth.
Using similar calculations to those employed by the Foreign Office in regard to Japanese trade, our trade with the Common Market has meant a loss of about 800,000 jobs. I am not suggesting that the dramatic change has been caused by the Common Market's economic policies. Part of the reason is that we have become peripheral, and another is that ours is the only petrocurrency in a protected market. It is silly to argue that we have achieved a miracle in trade when in fact we have had a disaster. The sad fact is that our share of the EEC's market in manufactured goods is now less than it was before we joined. Whereas before we joined it was 6·3 per cent. it is now 6·1 per cent.
Nor should we kid ourselves about jobs. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends might have been interested to read in heavy and popular newspapers the dramatic story of firms such as Standard Telephones and Cables Ltd. and Hoover Ltd. which rushed to Britain when we joined the Common Market, and started to invest. Some of those firms have operated successfully in Britain since before the Boer war. We have had the sad story of steel. We have smashed our jobs and capacity, while others have made promises. We should stop the Eurononsense about, for example, investment. How many times have we read that amazing statement that 40 per cent. of Japan's investment in Europe comes to Britain? In fact, it does not. In 1980 the figure was 40 per cent. but we are not told that it was 80 per cent. in the year that we joined and that it is now just 12 per cent. There is a danger of our misleading ourselves about basic facts.
We are also misleading ourselves about the CAP. We talk about how we can reform the policy, but we know that at the Stuttgart conference everyone agreed that we would not even try to reform it; all that we will seek are modifications and adjustments. Alliance Members talk about wanting to reform the CAP, but I wish that they would tell us how they intend to do it. The plain fact is that, post-Stuttgart, there will be no reform, but merely modifications and adjustments.
We should also stop kidding ourselves about the EEC being a force for free trade. As a small trading nation, like Japan, we want free trade. I often wonder whether those who support the EEC think that it would help Japan to form a common market with China. We see the trade barriers evading the GATT and coming round through the back door. For example, we have made ridiculous agreements with Japan on curbing imports. We have said to the Japanese, "Please send us only the same number of videos as last year, but you must charge us at least £50 more for them." We repeatedly see the introduction of health and safety regulations which have no purpose other than keeping out Third world trade.
I wish that we would stop kidding ourselves and admit the simple fact that our experience since joining the Common Market has been a disappointment. We cannot blame the Common Market, because we cannot know what would have happened if we had stayed out, but we
714
know that the ridiculous forecasts made by hon. Members of all parties that we would have more jobs, higher pensions and more investment have proved false.
I make an appeal for the future. No matter what we do about the Common Market and the CAP—and I very much doubt whether the policy will be reformed — I hope that we can all agree that we should stop dumping food on the world market. We make fun of some of the things that happen. The amount of food sent to the Soviet Union has soared since this Government came to power —up by 600 per cent. We send 146,000 tonnes of food to the Eastern bloc every week. We sell them wine at 7p a litre, butter at 53p a pound, flour at 5p a pound, sugar at 5p a pound and beef at 40p a pound.
I had lunch today with some Southend butchers, who said that they found it difficult to sell beef at £2·50 a pound because demand was going down. I am sure that demand would soar if we allowed our people to get the beef at the same price as the Russians. However, that is a minor issue.
If we care about the Third world—and we have all been handing round envelopes for Christian Aid to show our desire to help the Third world—we must abandon the policy of food dumping, which is causing distress, hardship, famine, hunger and death in the Third world. We are dumping food at knock-down prices while poor countries are struggling to get a decent price for their own food.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: Last week was Christian Aid week, and we are all mindful of the damaging impact of the CAP on Third world economies. My hon. Friend is making a powerful analysis of Britain's position and the success or otherwise of the CAP and the Common Market. Can he explain why the problems are not perceived by the Government and why, certainly since 1979, we have not pursued some of the initiatives that he is outlining?
Has the long retreat into Europe vitiated British national policy? Rather than discussing how we came to be where we are, will my hon. Friend tell us how he sees the way out?
Mr. Taylor: I shall try to do that. There has been a strange parting of the ways, with the parties ending up on the wrong sides. Perhaps that explains the low attendance for the debate.
If I were a Socialist, I should fight tooth and nail for everything that the Common Market stands for, with its grand policies for European investment, boosting jobs and spending money all over the place on new bridges, tunnels and goodness knows what else. I can never understand why a true Socialist does not support all that. In the same way, I see a problem for Conservatives. We have ended up on the wrong side, as we did over devolution, and it will be some time before we get back into the proper frame of mind. When we do, everyone will be much happier and the Benches will be full again because we shall not be so embarrassed.
I believe passionately, and I hope that I shall have the agreement of even the most ardent supporter of CAP, that if we want our farms to produce far more food than we can consume and to pay them prices far higher than those on the world market, we can arrange that — that is our business—but we must stop kidding the economies of the Third world. If we have surpluses, by all means get rid of them by other means—we destroy cauliflowers—but

715
we must not dump them on the world market at knockdown prices, because that is doing appalling damage to some of the poorest countries.
Could we not question whether we need all the ridiculous public expenditure involved in the Common Market's social fund, regional fund and the like? Surely there is no purpose in the Common Market undertaking such activity. Conservatives rightly question public expenditure and whether we should intervene for social reasons to spend public money. I do not understand why we should want to spend more on the Common Market, bearing in mind that every £1 that we get from the various funds costs us about £1·70. Even if we made a profit on them, why should we favour cutting public expenditure at home and extending it abroad?
I hope that we shall watch out for the danger of creating more CAPs. I appreciate, as I hope all realists appreciate, that it will be terribly difficult to get anything done about the CAP, because we need unanimous agreement to do anything about any policy. Somehow, we shall have to find ways of paying farmers for doing nothing, because that would appear to be a more effective way of dealing with the problem of surpluses.
However, whatever we do about that, surely we can all agree on the need to stop new CAPs. For example, we could solve the problems of the shipbuilding industry tomorrow by buying tankers at three times the current price, guaranteeing to take them all and deciding that if we cannot use them we will dump them in Hong Kong, Portugal or elsewhere. I am sure that there would be a rush of investment and jobs into shipbuilding, with small shipyards springing up all over the country and doing well. It would be nonsense and it would not be Conservatism, but it would reduce imports and create employment.
I fear that we are about to create another CAP in steel. I had the pleasure recently of going to see that remarkable chap Viscount Davignon, who speaks English very well and understands the problems of the steel industry. Apparently, he aims to stop all subsidies for the steel industry in Europe by the end of next year, so that we shall all be free to go our own way and compete in a free market. But if we achieve that aim, which we will not, it will not be a free market, because we will stop steel coming in from outside unless it is sold at the guide price. In other words, the countries of Europe will have a high-priced input into their manufactured goods and, because of surpluses, we shall eventually have to provide export rebates so that the steel can be dumped abroad. I am sure that Ministers and the Department of Trade and Industry will say that they do not want that to happen. but how can we avoid it if we are to have the protection that is planned within the guide price?
I believe that those who vote in the European elections will be inclined to vote Conservative. They will be right to do so, because we have achieved something, which others have not. However, on the more dramatic negotiations taking place between Prime Ministers, who are hoping to seek reforms, I hope that if it appears that there will be no agreement—as opposed to agreement being postponed until after the elections — I wonder whether my party and the Government will consider as a fall-back position the possibility of our rejoining EFTA. I can see enormous benefits flowing from that and very few losses.
Some may ask why the Common Market should give us the benefit of free trade in manufactures if we do not
716
take on the burdens of contributing to the CAP and so on. If all the trade in Europe stopped tomorrow, Britain would not be the net loser because of the horrendous £8 billion deficit. At the end of the day such an arrangement would work out to our advantage. It would at least be a tolerable and useful fall-back position if the current negotiations on reform do not succeed.
I hope that we shall consider some of the real issues during the election campaign for the European Assembly. Having heard the dramatic, good and important speeches that have featured in the debate, I think that we shall have time for reflection. It seems that quite a few hon. Members are rather confused.
5.50 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer)—I do not know whether I should refer to him as the hon. Member for Wessex as I am not quite sure in which capacity he wishes to be recognised—on having initiated the debate. When I read the Order Paper, I thought that I should begin by congratulating him on having arranged the debate. It was not immediately apparent to me on reading the Order Paper that from the Treasury Bench a Minister would congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having arranged the debate. It must be a historic occasion when an election campaign opens with the Government publishing their manifesto in the morning, only to find during an afternoon debate in the House that their Back Benchers are deeply divided over one of the major issues that the nation will be debating during the election campaign.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dorset, West on having made a much better case for the European Community than is made out in the national advertisements in the name of the Conservative party. I, too, saw the advertisement to which the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) referred. I was astonished to read a full page advertisement which opened with the statement that the 120 companies thereafter set out
"came here to be part of the world's largest trading market."
Listed among the 120 companies are Hoover, Ford and Standard Telephones, which came here in 1919, 1921 and 1883, respectively. I read that one of the managers of Standard Telephones has written what he describes as "a snorter of a letter", to the chairman of the Conservative party complaining about his company being described as an "overseas company", after recently celebrating its centenary in Britain, and demanding a retraction. If the Government are inclined to publish a retraction in the nation's press and to pay for it, the rest of us will be well able to provide a long list of other examples of misleading Conservative propaganda which should also be covered by a general retraction in the nation's press.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dorset, West on one other aspect of the debate which he brought out fully and clearly and which was confirmed by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). The hon. Member for Truro explained that if the alliance were successful in forming a majority in this place, or in Europe, this type of debate would no longer take place. Apparently it would be impossible for hon. Members to table an amendment of the sort that has been appended to the motion.
It is clear from the alliance's manifesto, as confirmed by the hon. Member for Truro, that decisions on own resources would be removed from the House and transferred to Strasbourg. That would apply to VAT

717
decisions, about which the hon. Member for Truro was equally candid, and decisions on excise duties. The hon. Member for Truro and I have both served on Finance Bill Committees, and I have listened to a number of his speeches about sensitivity over higher petrol prices in rural areas such as Truro. I suggest that, before pressing further forward with the alliance's policy, he should take a straw sample of his constituents on how enthusiastic they might be about petrol duty being resolved in Strasbourg.
I have had to listen to a number of lectures from Liberal spokesmen and candidates on how Liberal philosophy causes them to seek to bring decision-making and power nearer to the people. I cannot imagine a more dramatic way of taking power further away from the people than transferring decisions that have an immediate effect on household expenditure to Strasbourg, outwith even the influence of the British Government.
The opening paragraph of the alliance's manifesto could have been written only by the alliance. I think that I carry others with me when I say that no other party represented in the Chamber would have the insufferable and smug arrogance to open its manifesto by stating that it is much more informed than other parties. That sentence has the characteristic ring of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). One day that ineffable conceit will be his downfall.
Mr. Penhaligon: The hon. Gentleman has taken what might be described as one inch from my remarks and extended it to about 10 miles. He has done so without any real justification. The basis of his remarks about me was his claim that we have served as members of Finance Bill Committees. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have managed to demonstrate good sense by avoiding serving on such Committees.
Mr. Cook: I am happy to accept that correction for the record. However, I remember hearing speeches from the hon. Gentleman on petrol duty. Presumably he delivered them in Committee on the Floor of the House or on Report as previous Finance Bills have passed through the House. However, I cannot accept what he says in defence of the alliance's manifesto.
It is clear from page 25 of the manifesto that the alliance believes that
"the powers of the Parliament … should be extended to the revenue side."
It is clear, in page 15, that it believes that the revenue side of the budget should be extended to include issues such as excise duties.
There has been no collusion between the hon. Member for Dorset, West and myself. On an objective reading of the alliance's manifesto we have come independently to precisely the same conclusions. They are the only conclusions that any independent, impartial and objective observer can reach on reading the alliance's manifesto. It is clear that the alliance means to give excise duty powers, including petrol duty, to the European Parliament, to be resolved in Strasbourg, not in the House.
Having gone so far with the hon. Member for Dorset, West, I am sure that I have created some anxiety on his part that I would go with him the whole way and therefore damage his reputation in the House. I must now, regrettably, leave the path of the hon. Gentleman. The motion invites us to applaud
718
"the strong voice in Europe"
of the present Government. The hon. Gentleman may not have been present for all our debates on Europe over the past three or four months. If he had been, he would be aware that on the two issues that the Government have isolated as the major issues for debate in the negotiations between Britain and the rest of the EC, they have failed. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we have had a strident voice in Europe, but, as we have failed to achieve any of our major negotiating objectives, we cannot be said to have a "strong voice". As this may be the last debate on European issues before 14 June, I shall try for the last time, before the European elections, to draw from the Minister answers to the questions that we have been putting to him and his ministerial colleagues for the past two months.
It is clear that the hon. Member for Dorset, West wants to clear the decks on the British budget rebate. There are hon. Members on both sides of the House who would wish to see that happen. When will the decks be cleared? When do the Government expect to be paid the rebate for 1983? I am bound to say that discussion on the matter has reduced to vanishing point. When the last but one meeting of Foreign Ministers Council took place, we were treated to reports in the press that discussion of Britain's rebate had lasted between 20 minutes and an hour. When I pressed the Foreign Secretary to say how long the discussions had continued, he admitted that it was somewhere about the mid point of the two estimates.
The most recent meeting of the Foreign Ministers Council took place last week, but there was no statement following it. However, I was sent a courteous letter by the Foreign Secretary in which he indicated that there was no statement because the substance of the discussions was
"a little less substantial than usual".
From that I divined that there was not even 20 minutes of discussion of the British budget rebate.
I am sorry to have to say to the hon. Member for Dorset, West that progress on the budget rebate must be one of the tests to determine whether the Government have a strong voice in Europe. It is the issue on which they chose to make their voice heard.
I have with me a splendid example of that strident voice —a transcript of the interview that the Prime Minister gave on ITN on 4 January. Sir Alastair Burnet asked her about the rebate for 1983, and she replied that if they default,
"then we will have to, in the famous phrase, and I think they all know exactly what it means, but some things are a little bit wrapped up—that we shall have to take steps to safeguard our position.
SIR ALASTAIR: That means you will take steps?
MRS. THATCHER:Oh indeed yes, we need the money. It's ours, it's due to us. It's promised."
That is the authentic and characteristic strong voice of the Government in Europe. Five months have passed since that interview, and two months have passed since the deadline set by the Prime Minister in that interview. The House is entitled to ask what steps are being taken to secure payment of that rebate. The Prime Minister said then that the other countries in Europe knew exactly what was meant by the phrase,
"we shall have to take steps to safeguard our position."
Since no steps have been taken, will the Minister tell the House, when he replies, precisely what the phrase meant and what steps may be proposed in future to lend strong weight to that strident voice?

719
The other issue on which we must judge the Government's strength—they chose it—is how far they have achieved effective control over expenditure in Europe. They have been so unsuccessful in doing that that this year the European budget will be overspent by £1·5 billion.
It is instructive to note how the largest part of that over-expenditure in agriculture arises, because it goes to the heart of the lunacy of the common agricultural policy. Expenditure on agriculture this year will rise because world food prices are falling. Because world food prices are falling, it will be more expensive than before to provide subsidies to the exporters of food from Europe. Any advantage from falling world food prices should be transferred to the consumer. However, the consumer will not be given that advantage, and instead the taxpayer will pay for increased subsidies. The European Commission must be the only body in the world which is hoping for world food prices to rise during the year.
The Minister has hitherto taken the view that that over-expenditure need not require further finance and can be met by savings. I ask for the fourth time in four months: Where will these savings be made? Today I saw a letter from the office of Piet Dankerts, the President of the European Parliament, in which it is stated that the Council of Ministers has requested savings of £500 milion in nonagricultural expenditure. Will the Minister tell the House whether that is true? If it is, that sum will just about wipe out the entire expenditure of the social fund or the regional fund. Are the Government prepared to see those funds become victims to the juggernaut of agricultural expenditure? If not, how do they see the Commission muddling through this year when it has already such an overspent budget?
Finally, I urge the Minister to answer the pointed questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). If the Community is edging towards a common foreign policy, it must mean — if it means anything—that when the Government are garrisoning the Falklands the Germans should not be supplying submarines to the Argentines for potential use against ships supplying that garrison.
Mr. Dalyell: Two submarines have been built by Blohm and Voss, and six more are under licence from Blohm and Voss in Argentina. That amplifies the nature of my hon. Friend's question.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, because it reinforces the importance of his question.
The hon. Member for Truro, before his departure, treated us to another rendition of his mackerel speech. If I understand him correctly, he said that the House was treated to whining and whingeing speeches from both Dispatch Boxes, claiming each would have been more aggressive in negotiation. He then proceeded to whine and whinge about the milk settlement and suggested that an alliance Government would have negotiated that more aggressively. I put it to him — I hope that his hon. Friends will convey this to him — and to other hon. Members who made this point, that it is not sufficient to inveigh against the excesses of the CAP. We all know that there are excesses. The hon. Member for Southend, East did a service to the nation by highlighting the extent to which we supply cheap food to the Soviet Union and its
720
satellite states. It causes great offence to European consumers, who are denied food at reasonable prices, that that food should be available at cheap prices to other nations' consumers.
There are many further examples. I noted last week that the expenditure on the milk fund is so enormous that a French headmaster is on a charge of fraud for having obtained a subsidy on milk supplied to 40,000 children who did not exist. No sane hon. Member will attempt to defend such excesses.
These excesses are not peripheral. They arise from the basic lunacy of the CAP. The system needs radical reform. If one adopts the price mechanism as a means of supplying income to small farmers, one will inevitably be driven to a high price settlement which provides a killing for large farmers, who in turn have an incentive to produce grotesque surpluses, which in turn require extraordinary expenditure to maintain and then to dump. Hon. Members must never forget that the bulk of the CAP expenditure benefits not the farmer, but goes to managing and disposing of the surpluses called forth by the high prices that the consumer must pay.
Mr. Ralph Howell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are spending only one fifth as much on agricultural support this year as we did in 1960? In 1960, at today's prices, we spent over £1,800 million. This year we are spending £599 million. In 1960 that represented 1·01 of GDP; this year it represents 0·2 per cent. of the GDP.
Mr. Cook: I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's point. It is possible for him to make it only because, when we joined the CAP, it transferred the cost of subsidising farmers from explicit payments by the taxpayer to hidden subsidies from the consumer through high prices. The hon. Gentleman should examine the authoritative study on this point by the Institute of Fiscal Studies. It takes account of the hidden subsidies and the tax payments, and concludes that the CAP cost the British nation an additional £4,000 million a year to provide a total subsidy to the farming community of only £2,000 million a year.
If the hon. Gentleman is in any doubt about the nonsense that flows from the basic structure of the CAP, he should consider last week's decision of the Council of Ministers to increase even further the price of Mediterranean fruit and vegetables as a result of negotiations with Spain and Portugal. That was because Spain and Portugal, which are about to become members of the Community, produce cheap fruit and vegetables. If the consumer were to gain an advantage from the accession of Spain and Portugal to the Community, it should be to gain access to those sources of cheap fruit and vegetables. Not only will the consumer be cheated of that access to cheap fruit and vegetables, but every country's Mediterranean fruit and vegetables will go through a price hike.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has made some interesting and powerful criticisms of the CAP. What I always want to hear when he speaks on this subject is what the Labour party would replace it with. Does it wish there to be no CAP within a European Community, of which it wishes to remain a member, or, if it wishes to replace it, what agricultural policy will it put to the electorate on 14 June?
Mr. Cook: The position that we have taken—the Minister knows this because we have discussed it several times—is that the time has come to shift the subsidy to the farmer from the consumer on to the taxpayer. We should return to the system of direct payments to the farmer that existed in Britain before 1972. If we cannot obtain that on a Common Market basis, we are prepared to contemplate having a British agricultural policy, which may be no bad thing. If the French wish to continue to maintain 2 million peasants on the land producing food uneconomically, that is a perfectly proper and legitimate social decision for the French to take; but there is no reason why they should expect the British consumer to pay for that policy through his or her bread basket.
It is not only the Labour party that puts forward such a proposal. Several hon. Members referred to the manifestos produced by the parties. One of the most stimulating manifestos produced so far is that of the Consumers in the European Communities group, which produced a valuable manifesto calling for a freeze on the prices of commodities in surplus, saying that no more commodities should be brought into the intervention system, and that the consumer should be given access to the world market for food. Those reforms are long overdue, as is the voice of the consumer in the debate on the CAP. It is high time that, as well as an agricultural policy, we sought to create a food policy that is fair to the consumer as well as to the farmer.
I was struck by the extent to which we have managed to debate this matter for the past two and half hours with very little reference to the economic problems that face Europe. It is an extraordinary indictment of the priorities of the Community that the Prime Ministers of the European nations have met in summit three times without once producing a proposal for the economic regeneration of Europe. There is an almost comic absurdity about the contrast between the bureaucrats in the Berlemont spewing out more directives and regulations to achieve greater transparency of the market and to ensure a free market of goods across Europe, and at the same time in each domestic capital of Europe the Governments of each nation carrying through policies of deflation deliberately designed to suppress imports from each other within that free market.
Mercifully, a growing number of voices has been raised against the waste of the lost output from those policies, which represent a forgone income greatly outweighing the short change in the budget which so much concerns the Government. In Brussels last week the Centre for European Policy Studies said that the forecast growth rates for Europe would not cut unemployment, and demanded that the Governments of Europe should carry through a stimulus to their economies to achieve faster growth for a period to reduce that unemployment. The European Trade Union Confederation met last month in Strasbourg. In its report, which was adopted at that meeting, it said that a 1 per cent. expansion in public investment by European Governments would stimulate a 3 per cent. growth in output across Europe. I should not expect the Minister to be aware of that conclusion, because the British Government were the only Government in Europe who were not represented at ministerial level at that meeting, thus showing their complete indifference to any attempt seriously to debate ways in which European countries could work together to pull themselves out of the slump.
722
The evidence of this morning's manifestos is that in Britain only the Labour party points the way out of the slump by demanding a co-ordinated reflation across Europe. A decade ago there were fewer than 2 million unemployed in Europe. There are now more than 13 million. If the Government could bring themselves to be honest about unemployment in Britain, registered unemployment in Europe would be not 13 million, but 14 million. The Labour party will take pride in putting the plight of those unemployed at the centre of its coming campaign, and it will urge Europe to face the prime economic challenge of our time. It will also take pleasure in exposing the abject failure of the Government and their indifference to any attempt to harness the institutions of Europe in a co-operative programme to create the jobs that Europe needs.
6.14 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The deputy Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), has gone on record as saying that he is worried that it might not be possible for the Labour party to persuade Labour voters to vote in the European elections on 14 June. Since the Labour Front Bench spokesmen have been able to persuade only two hon. Members of the parliamentary Labour party to attend this debate, it is an interesting example of the apathy, lack of interest and hostility of the entire Labour party and its supporters to the European Community.
I happily agree with the first comments of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) on his choice of subject and on the way in which he moved the motion. My hon. Friend is a distinguished member of the European Parliament and he and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir J. Osborn) both said that the origins of the Community are to be found in the trauma of the two world wars of this century and the determination of many to avoid another such conflict.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and Opposition Members disputed the strength of the Community, but I remind them of the history of the Community. It was created by bringing together the steel and coal industries of some countries because they were identified by the founding fathers as the strategic industries of Europe. It was thought that if they could be brought under common control conflict among the countries of western Europe would become impossible. If, as some of my hon. Friends said, the main risk of conflict in Europe is now between NATO and the Warsaw pact countries, that in itself shows what benefits the EC and other such developments have achieved. Conflict in western Europe has become unthinkable, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West said, the Community can take credit for that.
Once again, this debate has been significant for the fact that the Foreign Secretary in the Labour Government, who is now the leader of the SDP, made no attempt to speak or to give us the benefit of his experience. However, we have heard his views on another platform. Last week he and the leader of the Liberal party announced to the waiting public the contents of their election manifesto.
The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) attacked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and suggested that her negotiating style had somehow

723
damaged Britain's interests and had been the most important factor in preventing a successful outcome to the negotiations. The right hon. Gentleman should have been a little more cautious in his remarks, because he has a track record in this matter. After all, he was Foreign Secretary in the Labour Government who signally failed to make any progress either in financial matters or in any other aspect of the reform of the Community and who, despite tortuous renegotiation, did not obtain a single ecu of rebate for the British taxpayer.
Not only is the right hon. Member for Devonport a former failed Labour Foreign Secretary; he is a member of an alliance which has already said that it would have accepted what was on offer at the Brussels summit. If that is an example of his firm negotiating skill, it will not impress either the House or the country.
I remind the House of the remarks of Leo Tindemans, the Belgian Foreign Minister, recently on BBC radio, when he said that, in his view, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was the finest negotiator he had ever come across.
Mr. Foulkes: From his point of view.
Mr. Rifkind: No. In his view, she was the finest negotiator he had ever met, and he believed that the significant progress made by the United Kingdom in securing its objectives was largely due to her negotiating skills. There is solid evidence for that.
Mr. Foulkes: Where is the money?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman asks, "Where is the money?" Approximately £2 billion has already gone to the British taxpayer. They are the rebates to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. In addition, the Community accepts—it was not even considered some years ago—that the future burden of financing Community expenditure must take into account the relative prosperity of member states. That has been the cardinal objective of successive British Governments. The previous Labour Government failed to obtain acceptance of that principle. It is now accepted unanimously by all member states. I do not believe that anyone could seriously suggest that that would have been achieved without the negotiating patience and skill of the present Conservative Government.
In addition, we are seeing progress on the control of agricultural expenditure. Hon. Members are entitled to say that much remains to be done before control of agricultural expenditure will meet our requirements, but it is absurd to suggest that the attitude of the Community and of other member states to agricultural expenditure has not undergone a dramatic transformation over the past two or three years.
One of the principles that is now accepted by the Community, which was not previously accepted, is that revenue must determine expenditure, and not the other way round. That is a new development, and one that we can properly recognise.
Mr. Robin Cook: Will that principle be observed during the coming year?
Mr. Rifkind: It is because the previous arrangements to control agricultural expenditure were not and are not
724
working that we have insisted that as part of the post-Stuttgart negotiations a new system of control must be written into the Community's budget procedures. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman enabled me to say that.
I am well aware that the Community's existing policies have not brought controlled agricultural expenditure. The problem was described to me graphically and effectively as being similar to the remark Errol Flynn made about the problems of his own life, when he said he had always found that his difficulty was to reconcile net income with gross habits. That accurately reflects the problems facing the Community in recent years. However, I believe that the form of discipline which is now accepted by all member states is relevant to the Community's operations and represents significant and welcome progress.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: We still do not know what agriculture will cost at the end of this year, next year or any year. It is still not controlled by the amount that we raise. It determines what we spend. Is that not the criticism of the common agricultural policy?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct to draw attention to that point as being the main objective of the present negotiations. It is now accepted that the Finance Ministers must be involved in the determination of agricultural expenditure and that when sums for agricultural expenditure have been determined the Community must achieve proper budgetary procedures to ensure that expenditure comes within those limits.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Finance Ministers, who will determine this global sum, will not be operating under a majority agreement, but that countries, such as Britain, which feel strongly about controlling money will have the veto? That is the key point which my right hon. Friend might like to have. Under this new system and discipline, surely there will be no question of majority voting on the global sum.
Mr. Rikfind: The draft conclusions of the previous summit negotiations pointed in the direction that my hon. Friend and I would wish to see—that there should be effective control of agricultural expenditure, and the member states are studying the various detailed budget procedures that will bring about such a desired result. That is our objective, as I am sure it is my hon. Friend's objective.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Not a majority vote.
Mr. Rifkind: That is under consideration, so that we have effective budget procedures. My hon. Friend knows that the Government's cardinal objective is to bring agricultural expenditure under control. That has always been one of our objectives, and we should not accept a settlement to the negotiations that did not meet our requirement.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) suggested that British companies were not receiving a fair deal under the award of contracts arising from the JET project. I am not sure from where he gets his information, but he could not be more wrong. United Kingdom firms have, up to 13 April, won over 45 per cent. of all contracts. In contrast, West German industry has won 25 per cent., France 8·5 per cent. and Italy 8 per cent. I am sure that that will be of great pleasure to the hon. Gentleman. He also asked about the financing of CERN. If one has a Department of Education and Science, it is

725
logical for the financing of such scientific matters to be determined under the budget of that Department and no other.
Mr. Dalyell: I asked about arms control.
Mr. Rifkind: I am trying to limit my comments to specific matters that arise out of the European Community. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not feel that that matter does. I know that he will find plenty of opportunities to pursue his interest.
The main problem that remains to be bridged in the Community negotiations is the gap in the British budget refund. We believe that, with flexibility throughout the Community, it should be possible for the gap to be bridged. Naturally, we should like to see a solution as early as possible, but I emphasise that if we have to wait a little longer to achieve an acceptable solution, that is something we are prepared to do. We are prepared to wait as long as may be necessary to ensure that the budget arrangements are fair to the people of the United Kingdom and to the European Community.
The policies of Her Majesty's Government are well understood, but a deep sense of confusion is felt by the British public about the policies and attitude of the Labour party. That is not surprising, because if we consider the Labour party's history on this subject, we realise that it is an extraordinary history of changed policies and confused positions.
From 1961 to 1966 the Labour party was hostile to Community membership. When the Labour Government served the country until 1970, they inquired into the prospects of Community membership. From 1970 to 1974 the Labour party was again hostile to Community membership. Between 1974 and 1979 we saw an extraordinary bout of internecine civil war, with members of the Labour Cabinet speaking and voting against one another during and after the referendum campaign. During the last election the Labour party came out hostile to membership, in a most uncontrolled fashion. Since then we have seen a further attempt to fudge the issue.
One is entitled to say now that the Labour party is as committed to the Europan Community as the Soviet Union is to participation in the Los Angeles Olympics. For its own internal purposes the Labour party has achieved a fudged cosmetic formula whereby the vast majority of its members who remain hostile to Community membership have agreed that withdrawal should not be insisted upon, in exchange for a commitment by the Labour leadership that it will make no serious reference to the detailed consequences of Community membership during its European negotiations and campaigning.
If the hon. Member for Livingston disagrees with me, we have the remark by the Leader of the Opposition in his article in New Socialist on a "New Messina", where he said that the Labour party would fight the European elections—
Mr. Foulkes: He wrote it last month.
Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I know, and it was a good work. The Leader of the Opposition said that the Labour party would fight the European elections
"but demand fundamental reforms in the Community. If they could not be achieved, we would reserve the right, like any other nation, to withdraw."
726
Having put those unnegotiable objectives before the country, I remind the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) what the deputy leader of the Labour party said—
Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman told us last month.
Mr. Rifkind: No, I said last month what the deputy leader said in the Financial Times. I am now going to remind the hon. Gentleman of what the deputy leader said in The Guardian, which is a much more agreeable newspaper for the hon. Gentleman. On 8 August 1983 the deputy leader of the Opposition said:
"A threat that we will really leave the Common Market if we do not recreate it in our own image is a disastrous foundation on which to build our European election platform".
Yet that is precisely the basis on which the Labour party is now campaigning.
The hon. Member for Livingston sought to suggest that the Labour party intended to fight the European election on the basis of policies relevant to the European Community. In this context, I read with great interest a supplement to the latest issue of the New Statesman, produced by the Labour party and headed:
"Four reasons for voting Labour in the European Elections".
The reader is entitled to assume that the four reasons relate to the European Community, or at least to European issues, but one of them turns out to be the argument that
"The health service is one of the nation's greatest assets and it is vital that we stop the Tories dismantling it."
I await with eager anticipation the hon. Gentleman's explanation of how a Labour vote in the European elections will help or hinder the National Health Service.
When I last referred to the Health Service as an argument advanced by the Labour party in its European campaign, the hon. Gentleman leapt to the Dispatch Box and claimed that he had been misquoted. I had quoted our own local paper in Edinburgh, which had quoted the hon. Gentleman to that effect. There is now an official Labour document saying exactly the same thing. I shall be happy to give way if he will explain how that is a relevant reason for voting Labour in the European election.
Mr. Foulkes: Read the others.
Mr. Rifkind: I shall happily read the rest. Another reason given for voting Labour is:
"Today when the 'ugly face of capitalism' is expressing itself through the policies of the present government, it is imperative that the Labour Party is strong and secure."
Mr. Foulkes: Quite right.
Mr. Rifkind: It is pathetic that a party seeking to suggest to the electorate that it is fighting the European elections on European issues should make no reference at all to European matters in two of the four main reasons given for voting Labour.
Mr. Norman Buchan: That is rubbish.
Mr. Rifkind: I quite agree.
Mr. Robin Cook: I shall be happy to supply the Minister with a copy of our manifesto, which we launched this morning, so that he can make equally copious reference to that document in the next debate on Europe, which I hope will be before 14 June. We shall fight the election on a platform of European policies of the kind which I have repeatedly described in the last five debates on these matters. As the hon. Gentleman knows, however,

727
in casting their votes in the only national election before the next general election, the electorate are also entitled to pass judgment on the policies of the Government in office. I can see no finer reason for rejecting the Government now in office than their butchering of the Health Service.
Mr. Rifkind: We now have the true position of the Labour party. Clearly it wishes to fight the election on anything but European issues.
On other occasions the hon. Gentleman has said that the Labour party intends to fight the election in partnership with its Socialist allies for peace, using issues such as cruise missiles. When one examines the policies of other Socialist parties, and especially Socialist Governments, however, it seems that it will be difficult for the Labour party to find such allies. The most important Socialist Government in Europe — that of France — not only believe in the independent deterrent, but strongly favour the deployment of cruise missiles.
Writing in Sanity in April of this year, referring to various Socialist parties in the Community, the hon. Member for Livingston said:
"There are differences between us and the Italians and there are of course even more profound differences between us and the French Socialists. They adopt a position within the European Socialist movement which is eccentric".
Hon. Members may laugh, but those are the natural allies which the Labour party will be calling upon for support in the European elections.
We recently heard that the present chairman of the Labour party, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) believes that the best way to encourage people to vote on 14 June is to produce a Socialist song for Europe. We had a prelude to that last night, when the Leader of the Opposition did a song and dance act of his own. I do not know what the Socialist song for Europe will be, but perhaps I may suggest some titles. If it is intended to refer to the state of the Labour party, what about "The party's over, it's time to call it a day"? If it is to refer to the Leader of the Opposition, "Will you still need me when I'm 64" might be appropriate. If it is to refer to the twisting and turning of the Labour party, especially since the last general election, which it fought on a policy of immediate withdrawal from the Community, nothing could be more appropriate than "Let's twist again like we did last summer."
I conclude by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West on the excellent way in which he introduced the motion. I believe that he and my other hon. Friends who have spoken, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), who made a very powerful speech, have explained in the most eloquent possible way why only a vote for the Conservative party in the European elections can be in the national interest. I believe that strong support for the Government, even from those who do not usually vote Conservative, is the most important way to show our partners and allies in Europe the basic soundness of our negotiating position and our faith in the future of Europe, and in a fair and equitable conclusion to the present negotiations. I believe that that is in the interests not just of Britain but of the Community as a whole.
6.36 pm
Mr. Ron Leighton: We have just been entertained with a knockabout attack on the
728
Labour party from which we learnt very little about the Government's policies. Incidentally, I do not think that the Minister was quite accurate in suggesting that President Mitterrand was prepared to have cruise missiles on French soil on the same terms as the British Government.
I join in congratulating the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) on introducing the debate. Like the hon. Gentleman, I want peace to be maintained in Europe and the world, but he must not be like the old generals who, when they start a campaign, try to fight the last war all over again. The danger of war in Europe is between not Western countries, but East and West. I am not sure what an arrangement in one part of Europe can do to diminish that risk.
The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) was right when he said that debates on the Common Market tended to empty the House. The obvious deduction from that is that there is no affection or love for the Common Market in this country or even in the House. He might care to consider why debates of this kind do not attract the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) or the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) who held out such high hopes when they took us into the Common Market. Rather than attending these debates to extol the great achievements that have been made, they tend to keep a discreet distance, because no one—or only the incredibly naive, of whom very few remain, or fools—now expects to hear any good news from the Common Market. The benefits of membership are like flying saucers. Very few people have seen them, and one tends to have doubts about the mental balance of those who claim to have seen them. All rational people who take a dispassionate view of the matter long ago gave up hope of any good news.
All that, of course, was entirely predictable. Everyone knew that the farm policy was crazy and unsuited to British needs. We have always been the largest food importer, and we had the cheapest food of any industrial nation, which benefited our living standards and exporters. That policy had suited Britain since the repeal of the corn laws. Effectively, we have now reimposed the corn laws and have a savage and vicious system of agricultural protection as well as a high price regime.
It is clear why these high prices have come about. We need only look at the farmers' demonstrations on the continent to realise that they are designed to appease the agricultural lobby. In other words, this is the way in which the ruling parties on the continent bribe their farmers to vote for them. I do not mind that or object to it. If that is what they want to do, fine. But I object to their using our money to bribe their farmers.
Before we entered this arrangement, we used to subsidise British farmers to produce half our food. The other half was imported at world market prices. Consequently, we gave subsidies to British farmers to produce cheap food. We now pay subsidies to foreign farmers to maintain high food prices, and there is no sense in that.
Even British farmers were misled. I think that Sir Henry Plumb has been the worst leader that British farmers have ever had, and I look back with fond affection to the days of Lord Woolley. This policy is ruining our countryside. We are drenching it with chemicals and rooting out the

729
hedgerows. We are brutalising and vandalising the countryside. Indeed, if one drives through East Anglia in the autumn, it is like driving through a battlefield.
High food prices have led to high land prices, and as a result the farmers' profit margin is small. Farmers have piled up huge debts and are mortgaged to the hilt. Would-be farmers cannot make a start. Most of our large farms are now owned by City institutions. Despite all that, the whole edifice is collapsing, like the South Sea bubble, because the policy is running out of money.
Certain controls and freezes have consequently been placed on prices, and that has led to squeals from the farmers. Despite those high prices, many farmers will now go bankrupt. Working farmers and farm workers have not benefited.
The hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), whose part of the country I know well, complained in a previous debate about the cut in milk production. He is right. Why should we cut our milk production when we have no surplus of dairy products? What does the hon. Gentleman say when his farmers ask, "Why should we cut production when we produce no surplus?" He must tell them, "It is no good coming to me because these decisions are not made in the British Parliament. They are made by alien institutions, not by the British House of Commons." Therefore, we have lost control over our agriculture and abandoned self-government in such matters.
What we lose on the swings we also lose on the roundabouts of the Community budget. The revenue of that budget is decided not on ability to pay, fairness or equity, but on three bizarre and grotesque taxes. First, there are import duties on manufactured goods from outside. As most of our trade still takes place outside the Common Market, we pay more in taxes on manufactured imports. Secondly, there are levies on food imports. Again, we import more food than other member states, and consequently pay more. We shall always do so. Thirdly, there is the percentage of VAT. When one turns the penny over, one finds that overwhelmingly the money is spent on agriculture. As Britain is not primarily an agricultural nation, it was always likely that we should have to pay in more and draw out less. That was predicted and has been mentioned many times in the House.
The full horror of all this was realised by the Prime Minister only in 1979 when the transitional period ended. When she went to Dublin, she discovered that Britain would have to pay £1 billion net, and she was horrified. She said that she wanted our money back and that she was not prepared to accept half a loaf. She was right. Why should Britain pay anything at all? After all, we are one of the poorest nations in the Community. Surely we should be one of the net beneficiaries. It is a strange club of 10 members when only two contribute. Why should we be one of the two?
In fact, the Prime Minister did settle for half a loaf, which temporarily depended on a permanent solution that was promised throughout the whole of the last Parliament. We were told that it was just around the corner. Initially, it was to be done during the British presidency, then at Stuttgart, then at Athens and then at Brussels, all of which were predictable fiascos.
Now we do not even have the half a loaf for last year that was promised at Stuttgart. What will be done about that? My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr.
730
Cook) asked the Minister about that, but I did not hear a distinct reply. The Prime Minister makes a lot of noise, demands our money and "bats for Britain"— or does she? So far it has been all bluster and no action. If the right hon. Lady remains as a sounding brass or tinkling cymbal —all bluster and no action—the empress will be seen to have no clothes. I suspect that in the forthcoming elections the British electorate will perceive that.
In fact, the Prime Minister has the card to play which could solve the problem. Europe gets our money because we write the cheques. We could solve this problem this evening by resolving to stop signing the cheques which send our money across the exchanges. However, we are told that we cannot do that, because that would be illegal, and that what was promised us at Stuttgart was unconstitutional because there is no provision for summit conferences in the Treaty of Rome and that agreement at such conferences is meaningless. We are told that this is their money, not ours. That shows that this Parliament no longer has the sole power to decide the taxation of the British people.
We are now being taxed by methods and in amounts that are not decided by this Parliament. Alien institutions are taxing us and telling us what to do with our money. There is now a higher body than this Parliament. The House of Commons is being treated like a county council —as though it were the GLC, to be rate capped. There is no more graphic illustration of the loss of self-government that we have endured. Personally, I shall never be reconciled to that, nor will I ever recognise a higher authority outside this House. I am certain that we shall regain these rights. At the moment, we should withhold those payments. They should be paid into some frozen fund, and we should withhold what is justly ours.
However, the greatest damage is done not by the budget but by the trading deficit. Before we entered the Common Market, we had a surplus of £1 billion on our trade balance in manufactured goods. As the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) explained, we are now over £8 billion in deficit. When we joined the EEC, our exports were 130 per cent. of our imports. That ratio has now fallen to 65 per cent. There has been a complete turn-round of about £10 billion. I know that the calculations are difficult, but if that works out at about £10,000 a job it means that that trade deficit is inflicting 1 million unemployed people on this country.
Mr. Richard Shepherd rose—
Mr. Leighton: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, as other hon. Members wish to speak.
I know of no other country that would tolerate such a haemorrhage in its balance of payments. We operate controls against Japan. Where are the free traders who say that we must have no management of our trade? We say that the Japanese can have only 12 per cent. of our motor car market. There is no free trade there. If we are ever to tackle our unemployment problems, we shall have to balance our trade with the Common Market as well, and we shall have to seek some equity.
We should change the basis of our relationship with the EEC. I hope that Labour candidates will campaign on a platform of reform. We want a looser arrangement of free, independent countries. I believe in internationalism. The

731
world "inter" means between. Instead of supra-nationalism, I want to see a group of independent, self-governing countries co-operating together. I completely agreed with the splendid article by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that the Minister read out, which suggested a new treaty that would provide a basis for better relations with our neighbours. Instead of haggling, quarrelling and fighting with them, we would have a much better relationship if we did precisely what my right hon. Friend has suggested.
6.51 pm
Mr. John Stokes: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) on moving this motion just before the EEC elections, which are being held at a time when the EEC is not popular in this country. English people still retain many insular prejudices, with which I have some sympathy. I have been present throughout the debate and have heard more criticism of than praise for the EEC. I am afraid that some of that criticism is well founded, but all the critical speeches have lacked any clear suggestion of an alternative to belonging to the EEC. The Labour party's whole stance on this matter is still an enigma wrapped in a mystery.
It would be unthinkable now for us to leave the Community. With all its imperfections, its failures and the tiresomeness of some of its members, it is still a tremendous bulwark for the West and an insurance that the nations of western Europe will never fight one another again. The question of a fair settlement of the budget lingers on, of course, like the pain in a nagging tooth, but, unlike some Opposition Members, most people will respect the determination of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to try to obtain a fair settlement of this difficult issue.
The motion asks us to look to the future of the EEC. I do not wish to see any increase whatever in the powers of the European Asembly. I cannot really see what that body does, or what it could or should do. I want a Cabinet Minister, who is responsible to this House, representing me in Europe. I cannot see how these new Members of the European Parliament fit into that picture. I hope that we can build the EEC into a strong alliance of friendly nation states and that we shall not look forward to any kind of federal Europe. I cannot see that day coming, at least for a very long time, and it would be most unwise and dangerous to press for it.
The EEC is supposed to have a political will. In the early days we were told, "Do not worry about the price of butter. It is the political will that will matter." I have always regarded that as very important. The EEC supported us in the Falklands war, and we must never forget that, but apart from that it has not done very much. Over the Libyan embassy outrage the silence was deafening. I cannot see why we cannot combine over matters such as terrorism.
I believe that the EEC has a part to play in improving the dreadful situation in the middle east, where, for example, its views on the need for a home for the Palestinians are so much more sensible and balanced than those of our American allies. I also hope that the EEC will support us if we have to intervene in the Gulf with our French and American allies.
In many ways, the political hope of the EEC having a voice in world affairs has been disappointed. It intervened
732
over Northern Ireland, but that was quite out of order and a great mistake. I look upon the EEC fundamentally as a back-up to NATO, even though the EEC has no responsibility for defence. I believe that our statesmen there should exercise the same sort of influence in this congress of Europe as, for example, Castlereagh and Wellington did at the congress of Vienna in 1815.
We have heard a great deal today about the CAP and what a disaster it has turned out to be. As I have no farmers in my constituency, I can speak freely. I welcome the cut in milk production, which should have been made long ago. Surely intelligent milk producers must have known that the good times could not go on for ever. I only wish that there could be a similar cut in cereal production, wine, olive oil, butter and so on. It is certainly an affront to everyone in the West to see all those products sold at knockdown prices to our enemies behind the iron curtain.
I realise that these matters will not be solved easily or in the short-term. I sympathise enormously with my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, and all the other Foreign Office Ministers who have to spend such an unconscionable time on the minutiae of EEC business, instead of spending all their time looking after the greatness of our country. But we must be firm and patient. The continental mind works differently from ours—it has had much less parliamentary experience than we have had, and many of the countries are very new compared with ours. The continentals are too legalistic in their thinking, too dogmatic, too rigid and too logical—and sometimes very tiresome they can be.
Our French friends, in particular, are almost always a burden to us, and no doubt they sometimes find us a burden too. Nevertheless, we must get on together. Although I am strongly in favour of the American alliance, we and some European countries may have rather greater experience of world affairs than America has, and the EEC's voice may be good if the Americans occasionally go slightly awry.
The EEC also presents a challenge to the Warsaw pact powers. It is a beacon of freedom which cannot be hidden behind the Berlin wall. As we know, many on the other side of the iron curtain listen regularly to the free radio in western Europe. The EEC can also show the way to other countries, and particularly to those Third world countries which we wish to help, but which so often behave irresponsibly in the United Nations, and sometimes in a very hostile manner towards us.
I am disappointed with the EEC. I had great hopes of it, and still have hopes of it. We want to see some idealism there and we want to see that collection of the oldest nations in the world—the successors of Christendom—making their mark instead of spending their time on all those mundane, miserable day-to-day matters. Surely we in Europe are the most civilised, cultured and certainly the most Christian powers in the world. Cannot we make a better showing than at present?
Mr. Jim Spicer rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly:—
The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 17.

Division No. 308]

[7 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Arnold, Tom

Amess, David

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

733

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Hayes, J.

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Hayhoe, Barney

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Hayward, Robert

Baldry, Anthony

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Henderson, Barry

Batiste, Spencer

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Bellingham, Henry

Hickmet, Richard

Bendall, Vivian

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Berry, Sir Anthony

Hill, James

Best, Keith

Hind, Kenneth

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Bottomley, Peter

Holt, Richard

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Hooson, Tom

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Hordern, Peter

Braine, Sir Bernard

Howard, Michael

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

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

Bright, Graham

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Brinton, Tim

Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Browne, John

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Bruinvels, Peter

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Bryan, Sir Paul

Hunter, Andrew

Bulmer, Esmond

Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Carlisle, John (N Luton)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Key, Robert

Cash, William

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Chapman, Sydney

Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

Chope, Christopher

Knox, David

Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

Lang, Ian

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Latham, Michael

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Lawler, Geoffrey

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Lawrence, Ivan

Cockeram, Eric

Lee, John (Pendle)

Colvin, Michael

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Coombs, Simon

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Cope, John

Lilley, Peter

Cormack, Patrick

Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

Couchman, James

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Cranborne, Viscount

Lord, Michael

Currie, Mrs Edwina

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Dorreil, Stephen

Major, John

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Mates, Michael

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Mather, Carol

Dunn, Robert

Mellor, David

Evennett, David

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Fallon, Michael

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Farr, John

Miscampbell, Norman

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Nelson, Anthony

Forman, Nigel

Neubert, Michael

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Newton, Tony

Franks, Cecil

Nicholls, Patrick

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Normanton, Tom

Freeman, Roger

Onslow, Cranley

Gale, Roger

Osborn, Sir John

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Ottaway, Richard

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Parris, Matthew

Goodlad, Alastair

Patten, John (Oxford)

Gow, Ian

Pattie, Geoffrey

Gower, Sir Raymond

Porter, Barry

Greenway, Harry

Raffan, Keith

Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Rathbone, Tim

Grist, Ian

Rhodes James, Robert

Ground, Patrick

Rifkind, Malcolm

Grylls, Michael

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Hanley, Jeremy

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Hannam, John

Rost, Peter

Harvey, Robert

Rowe, Andrew

Haselhurst, Alan

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Hawksley, Warren

Sayeed, Jonathan

734

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Tracey, Richard

Shersby, Michael

Trippier, David

Silvester, Fred

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Sims, Roger

Viggers, Peter

Skeet, T. H. H.

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Walden, George

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Wall, Sir Patrick

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Waller, Gary

Speed, Keith

Walters, Dennis

Speller, Tony

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Spencer, Derek

Watts, John

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Squire, Robin

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Wheeler, John

Stern, Michael

Wiggin, Jerry

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Wilkinson, John

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Winterton, Nicholas

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Wolfson, Mark

Stradling Thomas, J.

Wood, Timothy

Sumberg, David

Woodcock, Michael

Tapsell, Peter

Yeo, Tim

Temple-Morris, Peter

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Terlezki, Stefan

Younger, Rt Hon George

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Mr. Jim Spicer and

Thornton, Malcolm

Mr. John Stokes.

Thurnham, Peter

NOES

Alton, David

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Ashdown, Paddy

Skinner, Dennis

Hoyle, Douglas

Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Kirkwood, Archibald

Thorne, Stan (Preston)

Madden, Max

Wainwright, R.

Maxton, John

Meadowcroft, Michael

Tellers for the Noes:

Penhaligon, David

Mr. A. J. Beith and

Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)

Mr. James Wallace.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House, recognising the vital role that a closely knit European Community could and should play in world affairs, congratulates both the Prime Minister and Her Majesty's Government on their continuing efforts to ensure a strong voice in Europe for Britain and that all necessary changes are made within the Community to sustain respect for that institution and to enhance its authority both internally and externally.
Mr. Keith Best: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on the procedure of the House. We have just voted on a matter of considerable importance. The motion congratulates my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government on their continuing efforts to ensure that we have a strong voice in Europe. Only 17 Opposition Members voted. As I counted only a few more than 17 sitting on the Opposition Benches during the debate, I realise that the debate does not arouse the excitement of the Opposition. I am confused whether that means that the Opposition are unable to make up their mind about the matter, or—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that we want to have points of order on such matters.
Mr. John Golding: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that the Opposition want to get on with the Third Reading of the Ordnance Factories and Military Services Bill?
Mr. Speaker: Indeed it is.

Orders of the Day

  Ordnance Factories and Military Services Bill
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.
  7.12 pm
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The purpose of the Bill is to enable the royal ordnance factories, which are at present an integral part of the Ministry of Defence, to become an independent commercial organisation established as a Companies Act company. Under its terms, the Secretary of State for Defence could transfer Government assets — largely those that are at present in the ROF trading fund—to the company, taking complementay action to extinguish the trading fund. He would transfer with the assets, to become company employees, the non-industrial and industrial staff currently paid by the fund or who are engaged in work closely connected with its operations.
  At the heart of the Bill are the provisions in clauses 1, 2 and 3 about schemes. Schemes are the chief mechanism by which MOD and other Government property —including that of copyright presently vested in the Queen —will be transferred to the company to ensure that it can function as a successful commercial organisation.
  In response to the wishes of the Opposition, and following discussion in Committee, we have amended clause 3(9) so as to provide that, within a month of any scheme coming into force, it will be laid before Parliament with only minimal omissions to protect essential security and commercial interests. It is important that the scheme should, with those necessary exclusions, thus be made generally public so that all those whose rights are affected should know where they stand. The schemes will have full legal effect and will explain as comprehensively as possible what is being transferred from the Department to the company.
  In return for that transfer of property, rights and liabilities, the Secretary of State will receive consideration in the form of securities to be issued by the transferee company. Initially, the Secretary of State will be the sole shareholder. Work is in hand to identify and value all the assets that are to be transferred and we shall, of course, take steps to ensure that the Government secure a full financial return for the transfers.
  During our earlier consideration of the Bill in Committee, we had a very full discussion about valuation. I shall, therefore, limit myself to essential principles. There will be a rigorous valuation, the principles of which will be made clear in the published scheme, and a closing account for the ROF trading fund, to be audited by the National Audit Office, reporting to the Public Accounts Committee, and published. We have also undertaken to publish as soon as possible the opening balance sheet of the company. In that way we shall ensure that proper value for the taxpayer will be both achieved and seen by Parliament to have been achieved.
  Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: How will the Minister publish for the stock exchange details that are of
  736
  great security value and that cannot be revealed? How will they be evaluated? Will there be a public declaration giving details of everything that is secure within the ROFs?
  Mr. Pattie: I think that the hon. Gentleman is aware that I am talking about the transfer of the ROFs in their present position as a Department of Government to their future position. The hon. Gentleman asked about security considerations. The same considerations will apply to the new company as apply to any other company seeking to notify the stock exchange about security matters. Many companies in Britain have dealings with the Government and are involved in security matters. They notify the Stock Exchange without any infringement of principles. It is not a problem.
  Crucial to the success of the ROF enterprise is its work force. Thus, a vital part of the Bill — contained in schedule 2 — are the provisions relating to those who will be transferred with the enterprise to the employment of the new company. Employees will transfer under the terms of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 — TUPE '81 — which means that they will do so on, broadly, their present terms and conditions of employment. As has been made clear in previous discussions, there will be no change in such things as employees' pay, leave or in retirement policy as a result of transfer. In addition, the current rights of trade unions — whether Civil Service or otherwise — to negotiate on behalf of their members will be transferred unchanged.
  I recognise the concern that many of those being transferred have about the loss of Civil Service status that will be involved. There are real anxieties here, and it is precisely for that reason that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and I have given the House, at previous stages of the Bill's progress, as much information as possible about the terms and nature of the transfer; and it is precisely for that reason that my Department has been engaged in intensive consultations with the Ministry of Defence trade unions where we are endeavouring to reach clear understandings and, we hope, agreement. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have also seen the unions on a number of occasions.
  It is because of the TUPE '81 regulations, to which I referred, that the proposed legislation contains no detailed provisions relating to terms and conditions of service in the new employment; schedule 2 does, however, contain some incidental provisions necessitated by the particular circumstances of the transfer. Certain terms and conditions of employment of civil servants are directly related to the fact that they are employees of the Crown. There are, for example, restrictions on the political activities of civil servants, and they have a right of recourse to certain Civil Service appeals boards. Clearly it would be inappropriate to transfer those to the new employment.
  The schedule also provides that the act of transfer of employees to the new organisation shall not give rise to an entitlement to redundancy benefits under the Superannuation Act 1972. Indeed, as employment and terms and conditions are unaffected, it would be indefensible—and quite contrary to common sense—if the position were otherwise. Under TUPE '81, the conditions of employment of the staff transferred will be unchanged apart from the minor matters specifically

  737
  related to Crown service to which I have referred. Security of employment in that sense will be no different after the transfer from what it is at present.
  Superannuation arrangements are specifically excluded from the regulations, and staff who are transferred from the Civil Service cannot remain in the principal Civil Service pension scheme. A new company scheme is therefore being devised that will provide benefits comparable to those of the Civil Service scheme, including the continuation of index-linking. The proposed scheme will be governed by trust deeds and will be fully funded in respect of the employees' past service with the Crown. There have already been a number of discussions with the trade unions, and these continue. I understand the concern that the unions have expressed on behalf of their members, and I appreciate that they are not yet fully satisfied that the company scheme will in all circumstances match the Civil Service scheme, but, as I have said, discussions continue and will, I hope, result finally in an outcome acceptable to all parties. I repeat that it is our intention that there should be no detriment in this respect.
  One other crucial personnel issue is that of redundancy compensation. On this I repeat what we made clear on Second Reading and on Report, that compensation levels for existing employees will match those currently provided for in the Civil Service pension scheme. On this issue, too, we are in continuing discussion with the unions.
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned again the point about no detriment, which has been central to the argument. Will he accept that, although he believes that there will be no detriment, he has yet to convince either the work force or—judging by the debate the other day — many Conservative Back Benchers that there will be none? Should not something more be done to convince them that there will be no detriment?
  Mr. Pattie: I said a moment ago that our discussions with the unions are continuing and it is, I hope, implied in that remark that they are continuing because we have not yet got final agreement. To that extent, I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
  In Committee, and also on Report, a number of queries were raised about the proposed structure of the Companies Act company, its board of directors and the subsequent relinquishment of Government control over it. In responding to what has been said, the Government have made clear their intentions, and have done so in sufficient detail to enable judgments to be formed on the merits of our plans, although, inevitably at this stage, a large amount of administrative work is in train to enable the ROFs to cease being an integral part of the Ministry of Defence and to become an independent fully commercial operation.
  The main features of our thinking have been made clear. The ROFs will be incorporated as a holding company with four fully owned subsidiary companies, acting as operating divisions. This is a straightforward commercial arrangement, following examples elsewhere in British industry. ROF employees will work for the new ROF plc, and negotiations with trade unions on pay and conditions of service which have general application will be conducted at national level. The four subsidiary companies — which will be small arms, ammunition,
  738
  weapons and fighting vehicles, and explosives — will divide between them the 11 factories in the ROF trading fund, and the two agency factories. To the explosives company will go those parts of the propellants, explosives and rocket motor establishment—PERME—which are an integral part of the Ministry at present, and also the agency factory managed by IMI at Summerfield.
  PERME was one of the establishments I visited earlier this year to hear at first hand the views of those most affected by the legislation. As a matter of historical fact, the ROFs took over responsibility for the PERME establishments at Waltham Abbey and Westcott and the Summerfield agency factory on 1 April. This reflected the fact that the United Kingdom capability in the design and manufacture of rocket motors is spread among these three sites, among the ROFs and elsewhere. Although we have been capable of designing and manufacturing rocket motors to the highest standards, the industry was diffuse and unproductively complex to manage. Furthermore, with the increasing commonality between the technologies of rocket motors, propellants and explosives, it was our aim to increase the success and competitiveness of this industry so as to make best and most efficient use of its skills and expertise. By integrating PERME with the ROFs, we have created a more managerially cohesive industry which can co-ordinate all its design, development, production and sales activities. This was not previously possible. We believe that the ROFs will now be better able to exploit to the full the capability which PERME represents by cross-fertilisation between the technologies, and by aggressively seeking out new markets both at home and abroad. This we believe will be enormously to the benefit and long-term security of the staff at the PERME establishments, the ROF company, and the United Kingdom capability in rocket motors, propellants and explosives. In all conscience, we could not responsibly continue to preside over the earlier patchwork arrangements.
  Overall, the new ROF company structure will allow the ROFs to function in a fully commercial way, to delegate authority wherever appropriate, and, most importantly, to build on the strengths which already exist in the organisation while assimilating the new functions that are being transferred. It recognises the inter-dependent nature of much of ROF business and also its natural operating units. Others may disagree, but the intention has been not, as has been argued by some Opposition Members, to take issue with the findings of the Mallabar committee, but to bring its work up to date by taking it forward to its logical conclusion.
  There are some other main issues. I note that we have explained that the relationship between the Government and the ROF company, as long as the Government remain the major shareholder, will be governed by the terms of a memorandum of understanding between the Secretary of State and the chairman of the company. We have also explained that we intend to take powers in the articles of association of the privatised company to inhibit foreign control, and we have had lengthy discussions in Committee and on Report about the justification for that and about ways and means.
  One important addition to the Bill since it was introduced is that of a clause and schedule under which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will continue to employ on site at the factories after vesting day, with their existing responsibilities, the Ministry of Defence police.

  739
  We had full discussions about security in Committee and on Report. I think I can fairly say that our decision has in principle been endorsed, as was our proposal that, in due course, the company should recruit, train and deploy its own guard force. I appreciate the concern that has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House on this issue, but I repeat what I said on Report, that, in the light of our plans as announced, there should be no risk that after vesting day the ROFs will become more vulnerable than they are at present to the risk of theft of stores potentially useful to terrorists, or be exposed to attack.
  Clause 14 is concerned with the contingent liabilities of the Secretary of State for Defence in connection with International Military Services Limited — IMS. This clause is in the Bill to meet Parliament's wishes that statutory cover should be taken to provide all sums paid in connection with the Secretary of State's 100 per cent. shareholding in the company, or in consequence of arrangements for financial support of the company. I should emphasise that we are concerned here with a contingent liability. There has been no recourse to public funds so far. The recent trading performance of IMS has been impressive, with substantially increased turnover and reserves. There was a full discussion of this clause in Committee and I do not seek to detain the House further on it.
  The Bill remains a short one and is indeed a limited enabling measure, but the change of status for the royal ordnance factories which it will make possible is an important step forward in the evolution of the ROFs. They have proved their success in manufacturing over several centuries, and they have proved themselves capable of commercial success in their incarnation as the trading fund which was established following the recommendations of the Mallabar report in 1971. It is now time for the significant step taken by the creation of the trading fund to be extended by two further steps.
  First, we are removing the constraints recognised by Mallabar as natural to part of a Government Department but inappropriate for a trading company operating in a fully commercial environment on all fours with its competitors. Secondly, the enterprise is being provided with a research and development capability based upon the transfers from PERME to which I have referred.
  Our aim is to build on the experience of the trading fund to allow the ROFs full freedom to develop commercially as a manufacturing industry, and to respond to the challenges of both domestic and world markets. It is in the market place that the ROFs' management and work force will shape their future. We have provided the means for the ROFs to ensure a healthy order book from the armed services—in 1979 the ROFs secured MOD work worth £210 million, and last year that figure had risen by two thirds to £350 million. The ROFs have not done badly by us and we have not done badly by them. We intend to remain close to each other, but increasingly the ROFs will have to ensure their market competitiveness by building upon this baseload of work for the armed forces with a buoyant export order book. We want them to be as free as possible to do so. That is the heart of our proposals. Our aim is to improve the competitiveness and performance of British industry generally and of this particular—and important—part of defence industry.
  At a later stage but, we hope, a not much later stage, we propose to seek the introduction of private capital into
  740
  the company. The route and timescale for that will depend essentially on the ROFs' trading record, once freed from the constraints to which I referred, but we have made it clear that our preferred method of privatisation, if feasible, would be a stock exchange flotation of the enterprise as a whole. The present Bill is, however, concerned with the incorporation of the ROFs as a wholly Government-owned company. We will at a later date put forward detailed proposals on privatisation in the light of the circumstances at the time. There will no doubt be an opportunity to discuss them, should the House so wish at that time.
  The Bill enables the royal ordnance factories to control their own commercial future. It will be best for the company, provide the best long-term guarantee of employment for the work force, and suit the Ministry best as a customer. I commend it to the House.
  7.31 pm
  Mr. Denzil Davies: The Minister of State read his brief, but he did not tell us why the Government have embarked on this exercise. He tried to tone it down, saying that the Bill was concerned only with forming a company to be owned by the Secretary of State. However, we all know that that is a preliminary to selling the ordnance factories in the market place, when they will be totally on their own.
  I should like the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to give a clearer reply to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) in respect of the problems of informing the stock exchange about assets that might be of a secret nature. The Minister, in reply to my hon. Friend, said that apparently other companies had notified the stock exchange, and there had been no problem of security. I hope that we shall receive an expanded answer, because the Minister of State was thrown a little by my hon. Friend's question and was concerned to choose his words carefully.
  No one has told us why it is necessary for profitable and productive factories, like the ROFs, which have provided the armed forces with weapons and ammunition of the highest quality at a very reasonable price for a long time, with a loyal and skilled work force, to be sold into the market place, with all the turmoil, uncertainty and consequences that no one can foresee. What on earth is the benefit of this exercise to the country? What is the benefit to the country's defences? What benefit is there to the employees of the ordnance factories and to the British taxpayer? We received no answers to those questions on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report, or now on Third Reading. However, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary still has to wind up. Perhaps we shall receive answers then, but I doubt it.
  At one time it seemed that this was a small operation by the Ministry of Defence and that it was not terribly important; but, having studied the sections in the defence White Paper on the reorganisation of the defence industry and the Secretary of State's plans for contracting out for the dockyards, gunnery ranges and all the paraphernalia of management, I believe that the Bill is just part of a grand design by the Government to change the relationship that has existed for a long time between the Government and—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee)indicated assent.
  Mr. Davies: I am glad that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is nodding assent to what I am saying. The Government are changing the relationship between the Ministry of Defence and the defence industry. I once described it as a symbiotic relationship; it has its advantages. It seems we are debating the forerunner of a substantial change in that relationship.
  The Prime Minister is on her own ideological high, and is determined to sell everything in sight, including part of our armed forces. The Secretary of State for Defence is suffering from what I would call managerial mania. He wants to sell or contract out whatever he can find. He wants to change the relationship to which I referred. It is curious that the two have somehow come together. On the one hand, we have the Prime Minister's ideological need to sell everything and, on the other, the Secretary of State's managerial desire to do so.
  Conservative Members who have defence interests in their constituencies should start thinking about this. The whole exercise could be very damaging not only to the ordnance factories, but to Britain's defence interests, the armed forces and jobs in the defence industry. Many jobs will be lost over the next few years as a result not only of the Bill but of the changes that will be made.
  One thing is clear. The Bill is proposed not because the ordnance factories are unprofitable. They have made profits most of the time. They have made no claim upon the Treasury or the public sector borrowing requirement. Indeed, they have paid money back into the dreaded PSBR and helped the Government to reduce it slightly. There is no question about their efficiency. They have been awarded the Queen's Award for Industry. We have not heard any criticism of the ordnance factories' efficiency.
  There has been no criticism of the prices that the ordnance factories charge. There are problems in respect of establishing prices, even now when the prices are established between private manufacturers, the defence industry and the Ministry of Defence. That is, and always will be, a problem. I do not think that anyone would suggest that the trading fund has overcharged the Ministry of Defence. I should have thought that it could not do so, because the Ministry of Defence knows very well what the costs of the trading fund are and can determine the prices. Therefore, there is no question of overcharging. The ordnance factories have produced good quality armaments, ammunition and weapons at proper and reasonable prices.
  There is no question about the quality of the product, which is first class. On Second Reading the Minister of State said that the efforts of the staff in the ordnance factories
  "have made the organisation a success not only in terms of the quality of its products, which are second to none in the world, but in its trading performance."—[Official Report, 16 January 1984; Vol. 52, c. 26.]
  Why on earth is it necessary to tamper with this organisation when its products are second to none and its trading performance is so good? I should have thought that it was not possible to improve on that, in the light of the Minister of State's words.
  What about the quality of staff? One should go back to the Mallabar report, which was dismissed by the Government as it was embarrassing. It is as up-to-date today as it was in 1971 when it first came out. The
  742
  reference to staff in the report was read out on Second Reading, and it is right to read it again before we vote on Third Reading. In chapter 6, it stated:
  "The main features which prompt general comment are:

  (1) the degree of identification with the Armed Forces operates in all the factories. This identification provides strong motivation towards the manufacture of a high quality, reliable and safe product …

  (3) The calibre of management staff generally; the ability of the more junior managers (foremen and assistant foremen) to express their views and the freedom with which they did so. They were articulate to a degree not often found in industry …

  Those of us who have spent our careers in industry and who, between us, have covered all aspects of industrial management felt that the factories were well managed and controlled. Our view was endorsed by our specialist colleagues".

  The staff are first class, loyal and intelligent. How will it be possible to improve the situation by selling them off into the market place? As I have said, the reason for the sale is ideological.
  I came to the Second Reading debate as a cynical ex-Treasury Minister thinking, "It is the money that they are after." The Government need every penny that they can get. The oil revenues are about to peak and will start slowly to decline, and supporting the 3·5 million unemployed is expensive. The Government will sell anything off in order to try to finance themselves for the next three or four years. However, the sale will not provide very much money.
  We are told—not by the Government but by some City analysts, who multiply the profits by a certain multiplier—
  Mr. Nicholas Baker: Merchant bankers.
  Mr. Davies: Yes; the merchant bankers will collect huge fees if the sale goes through.
  Mr. Robert Atkins: How much money did the right hon. Gentleman make?
  Mr. Davies: I wish that the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) would not intervene from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Atkins: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman, from his experience as a merchant banker, about which we heard so much in Committee, will be able to guide my hon. Friend the Minister of State about the details and the price.
  Mr. Davies: It is my experience which enables me to say how much the merchant bankers used to get. As a person of high moral standards, I left the merchant bank when I realised what high fees it was demanding.
  The Government will not make much money out of the sale. The figure given by the City analysts was £300 million, but they did not take account of the new climate of competition and the fact that in future the new ordnance factories will have the right to sell first to the Ministry of Defence. The figure is bound to be much less than £300 million, given the new bracing competitive climate which will accompany the changes taking place in the defence industries. Even if the figure is £300 million, about £250 million will be spent on preserving pension rights. After the stockbrokers' and merchant bankers' fees have been deducted, the PSBR may benefit by only £50 million, or less. The motive cannot be financial. The factories are being sold because of the ideological fix of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State.

  743
  One specific reason for the sale is that it will expunge 18,000 civil servants from the books of the Ministry of Defence. That will keep the Prime Minister happy. When the Secretary of State makes his end of term report, he will be able to show that he has got rid of all those civil servants, and done so on the cheap. Despite some concessions, it is clear that, in relation to the pension arrangements, the Government are getting rid of those civil servants on the cheap. They will not have pension arrangements similar to those in the Civil Service.
  The Tories are opposed to the index-linking of Civil Service pensions, but they should remember that index-linking was introduced by a Conservative Government, and the Scott report, which was set up by a Conservative Government, did not recommend abolishing it. Conservative Members must therefore accept that it would be wrong for the Government to chuck away the index-linked pension rights of the people concerned. Because of the nature of the funding of Government and private pension schemes, it is not possible to give the same index-linking to the employees of a private company as to members of the Civil Service pension scheme.
  The Government are taking away pension rights from the employees, and it was the height of cheek for the Minister of State to say that new entrants will receive comparable benefits. There are to be two pension schemes. There will be one for the employees who, like helots, are to be transferred to the new company from the Civil Service. It will not be as good as their present scheme. The second scheme will be for new entrants, and that scheme will be even worse. It will be a second-class scheme. If the two schemes are to provide comparable benefits, why are two schemes to be provided? This is a way of saving a little money on the cheap. The problems of having two separate trust deeds and two funds will be such that it will not be worth having two schemes if the benefits are to be comparable. The Minister of State knows that they are not and cannot be comparable.
  Clearly the Bill is part of a major exercise in selling off and freeing from Government influence and control—I choose my words with care — the whole defence industrial base. The Government are changing the order of things. The existing relationship, involving the Ministry of Defence and the private defence manufacturers, will be changed by what the Secretary of State has in mind. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State — the ideological dry and wet—have found a common cause and point of coalescence in selling off, and ending the control of, our defence industries.
  An important point was made by the Minister of State on Second Reading. I missed its significance at the time, because of his genial bonhomie and soporific prose. He said:
  "The Government's message, loud and clear, to companies in the defence industrial base has been, and continues to be, 'concentrate more on your exports because in real terms the Ministry of Defence will be less and less able to provide the proportion of work that you have enjoyed with us in the past.'"
  The quotation marks in the Official Report must have appeared in the Minister's notes. If not, Hansard would not have known that they were there.
  That was a most important statement, although neither I nor the hon. Member for South Ribble took note of it at the time. The Minister of State continued:
  744
  "We recognise that we must help industry to improve its export performance by earlier involvement in the planning of our future requirements and also by assisting it to design and produce equipment that is more saleable abroad."
  That follows from the first proposition.
  "We will do this not by insisting on the so-called gold plating of requirements"—
  more jargon—
  "which adds greatly to costs and also often produces over-elaborate sophistication."—[Official Report, 16 January 1984; Vol. 52, c. 27.]
  That statement is important in regard to the ROFs and changing the emphasis in the relationship between the Ministry of Defence and arms manufacturers. Later, we had the defence White Paper and its obsession with changing the defence industries. Now we read in today's newspapers that British Shipbuilders is to sell off its only profitable yards. Its warship building yards are to be sold off as part of this exercise. We recently read of the silly proposed takeover bid by Thorn-EMI for British Aerospace. Conservative Members will not listen and will probably scoff at this, but, in the next few years, there will be many takeovers and mergers in the defence industry because of what is happening now. The result will be detrimental to Britain's defence industrial base, to our armed forces and to the people who work in the industry because many jobs will be lost. Experience shows that is the case once the City gets involved in takeovers and realises that there is money to be made and shares to be shuffled around.
  The Minister has told the defence industry to sell abroad — to export or die. We heard that one years ago. However, it is the new doctrine in relation to defence industries. We have also heard about gold plating. When stripped of the jargon, export or die and gold plating mean, "Scour the world to find as many tin-pot dictators as you can and sell them defence equipment. It does not have to be gold plated. You can make second-rate equipment because the Ministry of Defence will now buy it for the British armed forces as well so that it is easier for you to sell it." Conservative Members might not like that, but it is true. Frigates for Uruguay do not have to be as sophisticated as those for the eastern Atlantic. The complaint has always been that the Ministry of Defence's requirements are too stringent, with the result that frigates, for example, cannot be sold. I admit that we sold a few to Argentina—perhaps under a Labour Government. No more gold plating really means inferior equipment which second or third-rate countries will buy. Apparently it is now thought good enough for our armed forces as well.
  The British defence industry, like the defence industries of most western countries, such as France and the United States, has been protected though the protection has not been in the form of import controls. Governments have generally tried to buy British, because that has been felt to be right. The industry has been protected a little by the gold plating or special requirements of the Ministry of Defence, as those requirements have made it difficult for others to compete. The industry has also been protected a little on price because a blind eye has been turned on cost to protect the industrial base. Such protection has maintained our defence industry and its viability, despite the fact that our civilian manufacturing base has been eroded rapidly since 1980. It now appears that the Government are removing that protection. If that is the case and countries such as France and the United States retain it, our defence industries will suffer, and

  745
  companies, especially small subcontractors, will go to the wall. Ultimately that move might not serve the best interests of our armed forces or our defence industrial base.
  I am afraid that, in the next five years, there will be the same erosion in our defence industrial base as we have seen in the civilian manufacturing base. There will be no exports, and the imports that have been coming in quite quickly recently will come in even faster.
  If the Bill receives a Third Reading and goes through the other place unscathed and if the Government sell off their majority stake in the ROFs, irreparable damage will be done to factories that have shown themselves to be efficient and productive and to equipment that the British armed forces have relied on. Moreover, many people who have served the ROFs loyally and with skill will be put out of work. The only beneficiaries will be the defence industries of other countries. For that and other reasons, we shall vote against the Bill receiving a Third Reading.
  7.56 pm
  Mr. Robert Atkins: I do not intend to speak for long, because I have a dreadful cold and because many of us have heard many of the arguments go round and round. We have not made much progress since Committee. It has been confirmed for me today that the Opposition's heart has not been in the campaign against the Bill. It is clear from what the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) said about gold plating and other matters that he was short of things to say and had to make up some things that are clearly not true.
  Mr. Denzil Davies: It was the Minister of State who on Second Reading mentioned gold plating, and I was merely responding to what he said.
  Mr. Atkins: I apologise if I misled the House in regard to what the right hon. Gentleman said, but, like many of my hon. Friends, I got the impression that he went a little over the top on matters that are not strictly relevant to this debate.
  I should like to deal with gold plating, or its reverse—sanitising—which is the jargon expression we hear. When making equipment for sale abroad, because of restrictions from the Foreign Office or the Ministry of Defence, manufacturers sanitise it so that potential customers do not get the state of the art equipment. It cannot be construed that we are selling third-rate equipment; they just do not get the top quality stuff that we might need for a role that we fulfil. They might need to fulfil a lesser role. Our and the customers' interests are therefore protected.
  Many hon. Members, especially after the Select Committee report on defence procurement, criticised gold plating. The changing requirements of the armed forces have resulted in changes having to be made to bring equipment up to the highest possible standards. The continuously changing objectives have made it difficult for industry to manufacture that equipment. I have heard it argued from a variety of sources that the sooner we can persuade the Ministry and other purchasers to freeze designs—which is what the French and the Americans do—and retrofit modifications when required, the better it will be.
  746
  But enough of that. Let me get back to the ROFs. I was waylaid by the comments of the right hon. Member for Llanelli. I support the Bill and I have a substantial constituency interest, because the Chorley ROF comprises much of the southern boundary of my constituency and is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, ROF employer. The Blackburn factory is not far from my constituency and some of my constituents work at the Patricroft ROF.
  I meet quite a few of the people who work at ROFs and I am delighted to agree with the right hon. Member for Llanelli and my hon. Friend the Minister of State that the ROF employees are remarkable men and women. They are a superb and dedicated work force and there is no doubt about their commitment to their jobs.
  We conceded on Second Reading and in Committee that there are anxieties. When there are changes, there are bound to be anxieties about the future. They centre primarily on jobs, but I do not take kindly to the Opposition talking about job losses in defence industries. Their policies propose job cuts in defence industries that would make what the right hon. Member for Llanelli claims will happen after the Bill becomes law—which I do not accept—seem small beer.
  Of course we cannot guarantee jobs. In the last few years, jobs at ROF Bishopton have been lost while the factory has been under the control of the Ministry of Defence. Market trends and problems associated with propellants and products made at Bishopton have led to a reduction in the work force. Even under Government control there would be no guarantee that work forces would be maintained at present levels.
  The only guarantee that we can give is that if the factories continue to produce their products as well as they produce them at present and can maintain existing markets and find new markets, they will maintain existing job levels. Indeed, I believe that the factories are good enough to develop new markets and create new jobs. I cannot guarantee that, but that is my view on the basis of what I have seen in the ROFs and elsewhere in the defence industries.
  It is ridiculous for the Opposition to keep throwing the jobs issue in our face. They know as well as we do that jobs depend on the market, prices, demand, supply, backup and so on.
  The other area of concern is the welfare and pension arrangements. My hon. Friend the Minister of State mentioned TUPE '81 and the continuing discussions. I am happy to go along with him, while recognising that there is still anxiety about welfare and pensions. I know from what my hon. Friend has said previously that the discussions will continue to a proper conclusion.
  There has also been anxiety about security. In Committee and on Report hon. Members on both sides of the House mentioned the problems relating to the Ministry of Defence police. My hon. Friend the Minister recognised that there were genuine worries across the parties and I am glad that he decided to maintain the Ministry police at the ROFs for the intervening period and to introduce a new guard force to take over a variety of the activities carried out by the Ministry police.
  Mr. Ashdown: How does the hon. Gentleman feel about the Minister of State's clear suggestion that ultimately a private security force will not have access to arms?
  Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend the Minister spoke clearly and carefully about that issue the other day and he made it plain that the Ministry police would remain in post until the evaluation by the Ministry suggested that they should be withdrawn. The Ministry police have access to arms, although I understand that they have been used only once in the past 10 or 12 years. The evaluation may suggest that in some cases the Ministry police, should not be withdrawn. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and I share, in differing ways, the anxiety about this matter. I was heartened by what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said.
  There has also been concern about communication with employees. I was at Chorley when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary visited the factory and was told about the complaint that communications with the work force and the trade unions had not been as good as one might wish. My hon. Friend recognised the justification of that complaint.
  We are human and we make mistakes—believe it or not—and we tried in Committee to rectify that. I have not always been as successful as I had hoped. Some offers made to the work force have not been taken up, but representatives of trade unions have come to see me and I have been able to explain matters that have worried them. I hope that that process will continue and that we will try to reinforce it as changes occur in the next few years.
  At the end of the Committee stage questions were asked about the sales and turnover of the ROFs in the context of International Military Services. Questions have been asked about how much the ROFs contribute to IMS and I should like my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to tell us what part of the equipment budget is represented by ROF sales and what proportion they represent of IMS activities.
  I want to see with the ROFs—as I saw with British Aerospace, another major manufacturer in my constituency—a genuine involvement by the work force and genuine public ownership of the company and organisation. I hope that we will be able to produce a scheme to build on the service and commitment of the superb and dedicated workers in the factories throughout this country.
  The factories are making excellent products to an excellent design and with excellent productivity. They will have nothing to fear when the Bill becomes law. I believe that they will be able to open new markets and get involved in wider areas of activity. If that proves to be the case, the future for the ROFs will remain as bright as it is now.
  8.8 pm
  Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I hope that the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) will forgive me if I do not take up his comments until later in my speech, though I wish him a speedy recovery from whatever he is suffering from.
  The royal ordnance factory at Patricroft is in my constituency and was founded by Naismith, the man who invented the steam hammer, which was a vital part of the industrial revolution. It goes all the way back to the days of the industrial revolution. I suppose that the Minister would say that that is a good reason for privatisation. However, it has a history of considerable length, and this year it won the Queen's Award for Industry and Exports. Therefore, it is not old fashioned or out-of-date. I think that everyone in the Chamber will agree with me if I use a service expression and say that the Queen's Award for
  748
  Industry and Exports does not come up with the rations. In other words, it has to be earned. The quality of the royal ordnance factory at Patricroft is the same as that of all other ROFs. All the ROFs represent quality and superb workmanship.
  It is those who use the equipment that is produced by the ROFs who perhaps are most closely involved with their work and efficiency. It is they whom the ROFs are supposed to serve. When we talk about ex-service men we include those of both high and low rank. The hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) fought in the second world war and so did I. He was an officer and I was a flight sergeant. The Minister should have asked ex-service men whether they thought that they received a bad deal from the ROFs. He should have asked the generals, the admirals, the squaddies and the erks. If he had done so, they would have said that they were extremely well served by them.
  It might be said that that is history. I was not a member of the Committee which considered the Bill, but I have been meeting service men of high rank and low rank who are currently serving in the forces. I made a thorough search but I could find no consumer of the ROFs' products who had any complaints. There are very few organisations throughout the world which never receive complaints. However, it is the Government's policy to privatise organisations that are serving the country well. They implement this policy for no good reason.
  The Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State are pleasant enough. They are cheerful and kind but they know not what they do to the supply of equipment to the armed forces.
  Mr. Robert Atkins: Come on!
  Mr. Carter-Jones: I am coming on. Perhaps I am being a bit too strong but there are some who say that I am too friendly. The study group of Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal produced a report that contained five options. I think that Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal was right to back the first option, an evolved trading fund. If that line had been pursued, everyone would have been satisfied and the ROFs could have expanded. Why expand a royal ordnance factory? In answer to a nicely planted parliamentary question from the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), a letter was reproduced by the Minister of State with great joy and gusto. Part of the letter reads:
  "Over the many years in which the Royal Ordnance Factories have been producing equipment for the Armed Forces and for overseas customers, and especially since they began to operate under a Trading Fund in 1974, their overall performance has been very satisfactory, and all their customers have been delighted with the service that they have received."
  That was the starting point. The study group's first option would have provided the right answer. Evolved and enhanced trading would have produced more money and more resources to meet needs.
  The hon. Member for South Ribble asked a question which I do not think was planted. The then Secretary of State replied to him and said:
  "The co-operation of existing staff at all levels is vital for the success of the ROFs both during the transitional period and when Companies Act status is achieved; and the need is well recognised for early discussions with the trade unions concerned on the terms and conditions of service to apply on the change of status ."—[Official Report, 20 May 1982; Vol. 24, c. 151.]
  It is about two years since the hon. Gentleman asked that question and there has been more than adequate

  749
  opportunity for discussions to take place in great depth and understanding. Part of the Minister's letter to the hon. Member for Bolton, West read:
  "Turning to the effect of privatisation on the conditions of service of ROF employees, your constituent will know that we have already informed the Trade Unions in a consultative document issued last Autumn that it is the Government's intention that the transfer shall not result in a worsening in terms and conditions".
  If all the preparations have been made, why, two years later, is everyone in the ROFs complaining? Why, two years after the hon. Member for South Ribble asked his question, have the members of the ROFs sent little billets-doux to the Secretary of State to tell him that they do not want to be privatised? The work force does not want to know and the users of the equipment do not want any change to take place.
  Let us consider the product against this background. We are told from time to time that private industry is best, but is that right? The royal ordnance factory at Patricroft delivers rocket motors of better quality and at a cheaper price than any of its private industry competitors. It has a very low failure rate. I shall never know why an evolved trading fund has not been put into practice.
  I shall spend my last few moments appealing to the those in another place.
  Mr. Robert Atkins: Oh, dear.
  Mr. Carter-Jones: I was referring to the last few moments of my speech. If the hon. Gentleman is hoping that I shall go away, I must tell him that I shall remain here at least for this debate.
  Those in another place may take a rather different view from the Government. They may hold the armed forces in higher esteem than do the Government. There may be some old generals and others in another place who are prepared in the national interest to vote against their party. Ministers cannot praise the quality of workmanship, the standard of efficiency and the capacity to produce high technology products that the ROFs possess and then surrender those qualities to squalid free competition.
  8.20 pm
  Mrs. Anna McCurley: Sir Robert Walpole liberally applied the maxim "quieta non movere" to his political career, and I am inclined to adhere to the wisdom of letting well alone. Therefore, I offer an anxious welcome to and acceptance of the Bill. My acceptance is strengthened by the exaggerations of Opposition Members. It is amazing how such exaggerations can turn one off a case.
  One of the three largest royal ordnance factories is at Bishopton in my constituency. It employs more than 2,000 workers. Key industries in Renfrewshire have had a rough time during the last decade. The last time that I spoke in the House was to applaud warmly the Government's actions in supporting the development of the micro-technology industry in my constituency, which also facilitated the transfer from the public to the private sector of the ailing Scott Lithgow yard, thus saving employment on the lower Clyde from annihilation. It was a loss-making and scarcely viable firm.
  Tonight we are considering a totally different set-up at ROF Bishopton. It is exceptionally well managed, its industrial relations track record is excellent, it has a steady
  750
  performance and market—indeed, a developing market — for its high quality products. Recently ROF Bishopton secured substantial orders from the United States of America, and there has been only a slight decrease in employment during the past few years. It is an ideal set-up for men and management. Now it must transfer from being a Government-run body to being free from financial constraints and scrutiny in the broader commercial field.
  There are two distinct trains of thought running through the minds of the personnel at Bishopton. They are worried that the change of status may mean a contraction of employment or, worse still—depending on the way in which the company develops—that the facility could be under threat because it is remoter than most locations and most of its processes could be absorbed into ROFs in England. It is the largest producer of propellants for use in gun ammunition, rockets and guided weapons, and the sole United Kingdom manufacturer of combustible charge containers. That is some guarantee of continuity at Bishopton.
  Nevertheless, there is already more than 20 per cent. unemployment in the area, and any further loss through alterations to the status quo will be met with firm resistance, not least from me. On the other hand, because of its excellent production record, Bishopton is thought by personnel to be fettered by the constraints of the present system. There is a solid volume of opinion that good can be made better by improved commercial status and that Bishopton will prosper and flourish, thus giving employment for many years to come. That is why I support the Bill.
  There are, however, some small points that the Minister should consider. I was not a member of the Committee, but during one of our recent all-night sittings I spent some time, profitably, reading all 27 reports. [Interruption.] If there were not 27, it seemed like that. I distilled what I read to three pages of foolscap, which must be a comment on the Standing Committee system. I regret that some small but significant details were overlooked in the morass of duplicated speeches and fatuous arguments about paper panties from Marks and Spencer.
  Mr. Ashdown: Does the hon. Lady accept that, if it had not been for Opposition Members, she could probably have distilled the reports to two sentences?
  Mrs. McCurley: No, Sir. It was the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Gentlemen who extended the Committee's life beyond reason.
  Will my hon. Friend the Minister assure me that he will pay special attention to the transfer of farm tenancies on ROF property, offering them for sale to the existing tenants? Will he also assure me that tenants in ROF houses will be treated like local authority tenants and offered either appropriate discounts at sale or some form of guarantee of tenancy in future? There are a substantial number of people in that category, and their wishes must be respected.
  Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the apprentices who are employed at ROF Bishopton and, no doubt, at other ROFs? I hope that he will guarantee them continuous training. There are few apprenticeships these days. I hope that something can be done for them in this instance.
  I am pleased that the question of security has been resolved. In many ways, it was the most important issue

  751
  in a factory that has 900 installations on a vast open site, and whose manufactured items are portable and pocketable. I commend the shop stewards who put that aspect even above the consideration of their membership and terms and conditions of employment. I am satisfied—and I hope I am proved right—that the new scheme will not be to their detriment. The loyal dedication of the work force must be given the highest consideration under the transfer scheme.
  8.27 pm
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) for mentioning the security issues, to which I shall return. She said that the matter had been resolved, but I do not believe that, and many Conservative Members will agree with me.
  On Second Reading I said that this was a squalid piece of Tory ideology of short-term advantage to few and long-term benefit to none. Despite sitting through 24 sittings in Committee, to which the Government made little contribution, and despite the arguments between Ministers and Opposition Members, I remain of that opinion.
  We are undertaking a matter of no small importance. We are breaking up an organisation which has for no fewer than 40() years had a royal charter, granted by King Henry VIII, to serve Britain's defence industries. I am not a traditionalist, perhaps I am something of an iconoclast, but when one does something of that order without good reason, there is cause for anxiety.
  The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) argued powerfully that the organisation has served our arms and defence systems magnificently, and the Minister agreed. We are breaking up an organisation which during that time has developed a sense of integration, and common purpose and aim with our defence forces. It is an integral part of the strength of Britain's defence forces. If we are to break it up, we must have good reasons for doing so, and therefore I shall examine the Government's reasons.
  First, is it in line with the Government's policy of increasing competition? On this occasion and many others the Government have said that it is. They believe that if we increase competition we will provide a better service, greater output and a better product. All the evidence shows that when the organisation is sold it will be bought by other organisations already in the defence industry. Therefore, instead of more organisations providing the service to the Ministry of Defence, there will be fewer. We shall enlarge those organisations which are already involved, and, instead of increased competition, there will be less competition.
  I was somewhat amused by the recent interesting amalgamation of the defence industry and entertainment, with the projected merger of Thorn-EMI and British Aerospace. Those who were members of the Committee will recall that people's experiences and professions played a great part in their contributions. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) brought to bear his considerable experience in the manufacture and marketing of items of ladies' underwear, while the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) was previously an insurance broker, and the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) revealed himself as a merchant banker. It came to my attention that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, the hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie), was at one time under contract
  752
  to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) as a cabaret act. It was not a song-and-dance act, but a rather tasteful and successful singing act. One wonders whether this interesting new amalgamation of defence and entertainment is at least partly his doing. However, the chances of the entertainment industry buying out the ROFs are rather slim.
  The result of the privatisation will be fewer employees and less competition, not more, as the Government hope. What other reasons can there be? Perhaps the change will provide better value for money. I must doubt that, because, as the Minister agreed, no less than 38 per cent. of ROF production goes overseas. Therefore, one must assume that the ROFs are already competitive. If they did not provide reasonable value for money now, they would not enjoy such success abroad. The evidence is to the contrary: the ROFs continue to serve our defence forces effectively, and they enjoy a large overseas market.
  Perhaps the ROFs are considered to be a burden on the taxpayer. Again, the contrary is the case. Since 1974 the ROFs have made £140 million of profits, of which between £45 million and £47 million passed direct to the Treasury. Rather than being a cost to the taxpayer and an enterprise that might be hived off to the private sector, the ROFs have made a significant contribution to the Treasury.
  Is it said that the ROFs are lacking in efficiency? The facts point in the opposite direction. In the ROFs, value added per employee increased from £5,900 in 1976 to £7,500 in 1981. If the rest of British industry had managed to improve its value added per employee along those lines, we would not be in our present difficulties. The Government have conceded that the ROFs are extremely efficient.
  I was especially interested to hear the Minister say that the Government were not contradicting the Mallabar report, but were bringing it up to date. The hon. Member for Eccles said on Second Reading:
  "The Mallabar committee, following an in-depth study, said that one must stick with a royal ordnance factory-type of solution."— [Official Report, 16 January 1984; Vol. 52, c. 51.]
  That was the committee's conclusion, yet the Minister argues that by overturning that conclusion the Government are not contradicting it, but simply bringing it up to date. They are bringing it up to date, not to the commercial realities of the world, but to the ideology of the Government. Only in that sense can the Minister's proposals be considered as bringing the Mallabar report up to date.
  Are the Government saying that when the ROFs are privatised they will provide a better service to the defence of the realm? The answer must be no. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Eccles, who said that senior officers, officers of middle rank and, indeed, men of other ranks, to whom I have spoken, view the Government's decision to privatise the royal ordnance factories with much anxiety. The Minister said that the ROFs make a magnificent contribution to the defence of the realm, and it is difficult to imagine how that can be improved under the present proposals.
  Will privatisation improve the products? Again, one must assume not. There is no doubt that moving this section of the defence industry into an area where the primary concern must be the exercise of economics rather

  753
  than the exercise of the value and usefulness of the product might result in a deterioration of the product enjoyed by the services.
  I agree that private defence firms are important and make a valuable contribution. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement is smiling; no doubt he is thinking, as I am, about Westland Helicopters. I recognise that in a mixed economy private firms make a great contribution. However, the ROFs have established a standard of quality which other private firms must live up to. By turning over these vital factories to the private sector we might be in danger of diminishing that overall quality. ROFs have set standards of excellence which might not relate to the exigencies of providing an economic return for money. Therefore, it is possible that standards will be lowered.
  Those can be the Government's only reasons for wishing to privatise the ROFs, but none of them stands up to inspection. What then will be the result of the privatisation? The integrity of our national defence effort will inevitably be damaged, because the Government are removing the essential and integral relationship between the ROFs and the services to which they provide equipment. Whatever the Minister might say to the contrary, there is no doubt that the morale of the ROF work force has been damaged by the proposals and that it will continue to be damaged. I was especially interested to hear the Minister agree that much work must be done to convince the work force that it will not suffer as a result of the Bill.
  I understand from those to whom I have spoken in ROFs that they are uncertain about the future. We must recognise that many people enter the Civil Service, in some cases accepting lower wages than they could get outside, because they know that they have some job security. They are prepared to play one off against the other. Now they are worried about asset stripping, factories being bought and closed, the possibility of takeovers and the possibility of foreign involvement. We are all worried about that. The result is that our defences will, to some extent, be weaker after the Bill than they were before it. The Government will argue that, after two or three years, problems with the quality of the service, the product and morale of the work force will be overcome. However, for some time our defences are likely to be weaker.
  The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde mentioned security, which is where the true nature of the Government's narrow-minded commitment to ideology shows. The party of law and order has reached a position where the Minister agreed that, in the final analysis, when the Ministry of Defence police are withdrawn from the factories, those who then seek to protect those factories and all the valuable targets to which the hon. Lady referred will not have access to arms; and that against a background of increasing terrorist capacity and threat. This must be of great importance to hon. Members on both sides of the House. A representative of my local police force believes that it is nonsense that, for instance, ROF Bridgwater must, in the ultimate line of defence, be protected by the Avon and Somerset constabulary.
  I know of one place, which for obvious reasons I shall not name, where the policeman who might have to protect the royal ordnance factory against terrorist attacks is about
  754
  three quarters of an hour away, unarmed and alone in a village police station. Perhaps the Minister believes that our intelligence will be so good that we will be able to predict a terrorist attack on a royal ordnance factory. There is no evidence that, bearing in mind the Libyan siege and all the other recent occurrences, our intelligence is that good or ever will be.
  The Minister and the hon. Member for South Ribble, who is not in his seat, said that the evidence does not support the need for arms and that they have been drawn to be used only once. I have said previously, but I tell the Minister again, that I am astonished that the Opposition have to tell the Government and a Minister in the Ministry of Defence of the value of deterrence. It is extraordinary. The Minister would not expect us to use the arguments in the cruise missile debate on Wednesday that we do not need cruise missiles because they have never been used. The point of having an armed police force and access to arms at the royal ordnance factories is that they will act as a deterrent and as a last line of defence. I am astonished that the Minister cannot see that and advances the arguments that he does.
  I hope the Minister will reconsider the protection of the royal ordnance factories. I hope that those who protect them will have access to arms. If the Minister cannot withdraw his statement for reasons of face—one well understands why he may not be able to—I hope that when he replies to the debate he will tell us that before the royal ordnance factory protection is handed over to an unarmed, private security force he will bring the issue back before the House for a full debate so that we can assess the position.
  If the Minister allows a private security force to take over the protection of the royal ordnance factories and does not allow it access to arms, it will not be long before he has to return to the House to explain—he will have a difficult time when he does—a major and perhaps even tragic terrorist incursion, with possible serious consequences for us all.
  The Bill is a folly. It does not make economic sense. It will dismantle an old and respected institution which has served us well for over 400 years. It is likely to weaken the defence of our nation. If the Minister carries through his proposals for a private security force without access to arms, it is certain to make our society more dangerous. That is why we shall vote against the Bill tonight.
  8.42 pm
  Mr. Martin Brandon-Bravo: This measure has been presented as a clash of political dogma between advocates of the utter sanctity of public ownership and those who can find no place for that mode of operation. I hope that I fall in neither of those camps. The Bill is ultimately about jobs — security and prospects. It is on that point that I speak in support of the Bill.
  I cannot speak for the other royal ordnance factories, but Nottingham, in full public ownership and Ministry of Defence control, has declined in recent years from about 2,000 employees to 1,100.
  I could take the cosy way out and decline to support the measure and probably please a large percentage of the Nottinghamshire work force. I could sit tight and say nothing, and if it all went sour I could claim, "Well, it was

  755
  not me, Sir." I doubt whether either course would save one job or offer any prospect of improvement in the present position.
  Present defence policies are unlikely to produce an improvement in the procurement of conventional arms. As has been said by one or two hon. Members, the policies of Her Majesty's Opposition would produce a substantial reduction. Left to their own devices, terminal decay would not he long delayed for the ROFs. It would not be long before someone was looking for amalgamations. That is what my constituents fear most.
  That fear remains the same whether or not the Bill goes on to the statute book. There is the fear that if something is not done to obtain more work, someone will talk about an amalgamation. Privatisation will not increase that threat. I hope fervently that it will reduce it. My task and duty as a Member representing a constituency with a royal ordnance factory bang in the middle is to consider those fears to see whether they are real and try to make a considered response. With its predominance in exports, I believe that the new framework that is being offered will allow management to go out and sell, not just what they make now but what I know their skills will enable them to make and sell and which perhaps is not currently within their remit.
  I find it sad that the formal trade union response seems to ignore completely that new opportunity. The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) sought to show that privatisation would loosen public control and that the quality of the product would therefore worsen. Some of my constituents work for Plessey or Thorn, and they would take great exception to the suggestion that their companies, executives and work forces are any less loyal to this country and less conscious of the quality of the product they make for the Ministry of Defence than the employees of the royal ordnance factories, of whom I make no criticism. The hon. Member for Eccles and other Opposition Members have sought throughout the debate to imply that only those people employed in the public sector have that sense of dedication and duty. I utterly challenge that argument.
  The Opposition argument and trade union submission to Members on both sides has been that the royal ordnance factories are not allowed to refuse an order regardless of its size or profitability. They suggest that no private company would provide such a unique service. That shows a complete lack of understanding of the private sector. That subject brought about a serious debate in Committee, but one which had some lightheartedness. It was on that subject that my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) referred to a certain retail chain with a turnover of £2·5 billion a year which needs no lessons from anyone about quality. I was not going to mention the matter tonight, but as the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) referred to those unspeakable female garments, dare I say that for some the possession of panties is just as vital as the possession of ordnance for others.
  Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Lady said it.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Gentleman said it as well as my hon. Friend.
  It is suggested that a high-ranking officer—I do not know whether it is one or many — has said that competition will cost lives. I return again to the speech of
  756
  the hon. Member for Eccles. If competition costs lives, why do we purchase 90 or 96 per cent.—whichever it is—of our defence procurement from the private sector?
  Mr. Pattie: It is 93 per cent.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is 93 per cent. We buy from the United States, arid I believe that this country has every reason to be grateful for the quality of some of its products used in the Falklands war. No one questioned the quality of those products. They are the products of a society dedicated to competition.
  In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister described the new structure—the four subsidiaries and the holding company. Again, the Opposition have argued that that is somehow a false, weak approach and is liable to lead to disaster. As I said on Second Reading, if we were setting up from scratch a company as complex as the multiplicity of the ROFs I believe that we would conclude that it would be quite wrong to run it as a single management unit and that it clearly fell into three or four parts. We should want a main board to keep overall control, but there would be three or four clearly identifiable parts. For those parts to succeed — that is what this debate is all about—we would want a chief executive in charge of the components capable of making his own decisions without having to work his way through all the Civil Service jargon before being able to make the simplest decision. In my experience, in the brief time in which I have tried to deal with ROF Nottingham, I believe that the best thing to come out of the Bill will be the removal of all those constraints. If a managing director dealing with Nottingham arid Leeds can act in the best interests of those two units making complementary equipment, those two units will have a greater chance of success. Therefore, I welcome that structure and the appointment of four managing directors. I believe that that is what we should have done if we had been starting from scratch.
  On terms and conditions, the trade union side has constantly suggested that there may be circumstances in which pensions could not be fully index linked. That is probably true, but I can think of only one circumstance in which it might happen—in the event, heaven forbid, of a Labour Government who would let inflation rip and thus destroy the foundations of the schemes to be approved today.
  A further unjustifiable criticism has been levelled against the Minister. On Second Reading and throughout the Committee stage we said that we had an absolute duty to do the best that we could for existing employees. I believe that we have done our very best to deliver that pledge. I see no conflict in making provision for people who have already given their lives to the ROFs in terms of pensions and redundancy provisions, but telling people who join ROF plc in the future that they will enjoy no more than the terms that they would obtain elsewhere in private industry. The two-tier system does not worry me. My main concern was the duty of the House to those who had given their lives to the existing ROFs. I believe that we have delivered that pledge.
  Therefore, not because I believe it to be the greatest thing since sliced bread—no one has a crystal ball to see that far into the future—but because I believe that, with the current problems of defence procurement, this is

  757
  probably the greatest hope and promise of a reasonable future that we can offer the 20,000 employees, I hope that the Bill will be passed.
  8.53 pm
  Mr. Peter Pike: When the Minister opened the debate, I hoped that he would give some reason for the Government's wish to proceed with privatisation or, better still, that after his visit to my constituency last Friday, of which I read in the press at the weekend, he had returned a wiser man and had changed his mind about the Bill. Unfortunately, he has neither changed his mind nor produced one good reason for privatisation.
  When the Minister opened the debate on 16 January he seemed to be making the case for public ownership rather than for privatisation. He said:
  "The present organisation and its antecedents have served this country well for nearly 400 years, through the Napoleonic wars, the two world wars, the recent Falkland Islands conflict, and now, in times of peace, in the development of the most up-to-date equipment to meet an increasingly sophisticated threat."
  As we all know, whatever their peace-time features, the ROFs have always been able to step up production at times of crisis to meet the needs of the nation.
  The Minister continued:
  "Other countries have taken a keen interest in purchasing the ROFs' high-quality products. We wish this record to continue, subject of course to the control which the Government exercise over all arms sales abroad.
  Today, as in the past, the ROFs are staffed by a loyal and dedicated work force numbering just under 18,500. Their efforts have made the organisation a success not only in terms of the quality of its products, which are second to none in the world, but in its trading performance."—[Official Report, 16 January 1984; Vol. 52. c. 26.]
  At no stage on Second Reading or in the 24 sittings of the Standing Committee was there any criticism of the ROFs in their present form. On every occasion the staff were described as doing a good job and their efforts as praiseworthy. Like the Minister of State, I was impressed by the fact that in Blackburn and elsewhere in many cases three generations of the same family have served in the ROF structure. That is the kind of loyalty that people have to the organisation.
  The record of the ROFs on productivity, profitability and every other criterion by which a private enterprise company would judge its performance has been extremely good. The trading profit last year was £68·8 million, making a total of £270 million since 1974 when the trading fund was established. The forecast for the coming year is £50 million profit. Last year, sales exceeded £448 million and exports accounted for 40 per cent. of sales. The ROFs are naturally proud to have won two Queen's Awards for Exports. That is an excellent record of achievement, not a case for public ownership.
  Mr. John Golding: It may have been a slip of the tongue, but my hon. Friend said that this record was not a case for public ownership. I am sure that he meant privatisation. This is a case for public ownership, and I am sure that my hon. Friend fully agrees with that.
  Mr. Pike: I certainly do. It was a slip of the tongue. My hon. Friend can be reassured that I am not in favour of privatisation. Indeed, there is a strong case for the ROFs remaining in public ownership.
  758
  The hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) referred a letter to the Minister on behalf of a constituent, a Mr. Shotter, and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) referred a similar letter to the Minister. In his reply the Minister said:
  "I can tell that the purpose of the Government's privatisation policy is to increase competition within the defence industry. Following the establishment of the Royal Ordnance Factories as an independent commercial organisation under the Companies Act, the Government will hold all the issued shares. The new organisation will trade as a wholly Government-owned entity until such time as private capital is introduced. No decisions have yet been taken as to when this will be, or by what means it will be achieved. Much depends on the kind of track record which the ROFs can establish for themselves in the initial period of trading in the private sector."
  Then comes the important point:
  "However, to split up the organisation into its constituent parts and sell each one off separately to existing firms within the defence industry would be unlikely to lead to that greater degree of competition which it is the Government's purpose to ensure." —[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 7 February 1984; c. 103.]
  The retention of part of the industry in public ownership would ensure that there is competition with the private sector. To put the lot into private enterprise will remove an element of competition, not increase it. Therefore, the Government's own objective is very much defeated by what is proposed.
  The Minister has told us that the Government's preferred option is to invite capital at a later stage through the holding company. That important point should be remembered, because it seems that the Government wish not to sell off individual sections, but to ensure that the ROFs will remain a separate entity. If that is the preferred option, it should have been clearly laid down in the Bill. Had that been established at the start, the Government might have been able to make a case for the ROFs becoming a plc. However, they have not moved sufficiently to prove the case for privatisation.
  Five options were considered by Strathcona, three of which were considered viable and the other two were discounted. The first three options were:

  "An evolved trading fund;
  Disposal to private industry;
  Creation of a Companies Act structure".
  The Bill moves towards three, and ultimately two, of the options recommended by Strathcona. But that report also said that any proposed change should be "broadly acceptable" to the ROF work force. That is important, because it is clear that the proposal that the Government are now pursuing is not acceptable to the employees. For that important reason, we should oppose Third Reading.
  If the Government sincerely believe that privatisation should not be to the detriment of the employees, they should have accepted Opposition amendments moved in Committee and on Report that would have guaranteed such safeguards. We would have felt much happier, as would the employees, and that would have assured the House that the Government were sincere in their intention that privatisation would not be detrimental.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. Tom Sackville: Several Labour Members, particularly the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), asked why it was necessary to transfer the ROFs into the private sector in view of their record, their profitability, their skilled and loyal work force, their dedication in the past and their good service to this country and our armed forces.

  759
  That question is based on the premise that the ROFs are being transferred simply to punish them unjustly. The suggestion behind the question is, "The child has been good, why must it be punished?" However, the transfer of a business into the private sector cannot be viewed in that way. There is no evidence to justify doing so, and, indeed, all the evidence is to the contrary. For example, British Aerospace at Lostock in my constituency was transferred into the private sector only a few years ago, and has gone from strength to strength ever since. At present, its shares stand at about twice the issue price of only a few years ago. That is testimony to its success.
  The assumption is that if such a great change is made everything will be mined. It is assumed that nothing will improve as a result of change and that if things are good now they can only get worse. That is clearly a very negative view, and it is also entirely mistaken. Let us examine the proposition that the profitability or commercial success of the ROFs will be impaired. They are profitable, although in terms of their turnover they are not particularly profitable as commercial companies go. But then they should be profitable. The sector in which the ROFs operate is unfortunately one of the few assured growth sectors of recent years. Unfortunately from a world standpoint, there is a growing and wide demand for armaments and munitions, including those made by the ROFs. There is every reason why they should be a thriving and expanding business and why they should be profitable.
  It has been suggested quite wrongly that because the ROFs are already exporting, they are efficient and no further improvements can be made. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) made the rather questionable assertion that, because a certain percentage of production is exported, the ROFs must already be as competitive as they could he in world markets. The idea that they could not be more profitable or competitive through privatisation is quite mistaken, as events will no doubt prove.
  Opposition Members have also made the very questionable assertion that privatisation will somehow alter the whole relationship of the Ministry of Defence with its suppliers. As has been said, more than 95 per cent. of the Ministry of Defence's procurement comes from the private sector. It is strange to assert that suddenly altering the ownership of the ROFs will somehow have an enormous effect on the Ministry of Defence's attitude to its suppliers. The system between the Ministry of Defence and its private sector suppliers works extremely well now, and will continue to do so when they are joined by the ROFs.
  It has also been quite erroneously stated that, because the ROFs are to be encouraged to export more in future, they will be exporting second or perhaps—as the right hon. Member for Llanelli said—even third-rate goods to our overseas customers. That is a very odd idea, and it is a slur on the hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions, of men and women who work in our export defence industries. They export first-rate goods to our customers overseas.
  It has also been suggested that once the present very close link between the Minister of Defence and the ROFs is ended, the procurement executive will somehow go and buy second-rate cheaper, foreign goods. There is no evidence to suggest that it would do so. I have no doubt that the ROFs can continue to be as efficient—and even
  760
  more efficient—than at present, and will present the procurement executive of the Ministry of Defence with the right goods at the right price.
  All that is fairly self-evident. What really interests me is the continuing campaign based upon misinformation and the intimidation of those who work at royal ordnance factories, including several of my constituents who work at Patricroft and Chorley. They have been told repeatedly by Labour Members and certain trade unionists that what is proposed in the Bill will ruin their job prospects and their rights. A shameless attempt is being made to oppose Government legislation, using the fears of people who work in the ROFs.
  I make it clear to my constituents and to all the others who work in ROFs that they have nothing to fear from this measure. Their future is not threatened, but is made brighter by all the opportunities that the measure opens up.
  As I see it, the future of ROFs can be threatened in only two ways. The first is if the Government decide to featherbed ROF suppliers by preferential treatment, and to insulate them from the real world of competition. That will always result in cuts and more money being spent on defence equipment than is needed, and featherbedded suppliers will undoubtedly suffer.
  The second way that ROFs could suffer is if, by chance, the Labour party came to power. It has made it clear that it intends to make major cuts in defence expenditure. The ROFs have continued to prosper in the past few years because this Government have spent a proper amount on defence. That will continue to be Government policy. I have no doubt that ROFs will continue to prosper as a result.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. Bruce George: I had not intended to comment adversely on the speech of the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), but some of his comments deserve a response. He talked about a campaign of misinformation and intimidation at ordnance factories. He talked of a shameless attempt at exploiting fear. He was talking about the exercise of legitimate trade union activity in ordnance factories. For the hon. Gentleman to use such language to describe legitimate campaigning is unfair. If he feels so strongly about intimidation, he should have opened his mouth in Committee and not kept his remarks until 45 minutes before the end of the Bill's proceedings. The trade unionists who worked closely with Opposition Members put forward an excellent case, which has not been refuted. The comments of the hon. Member for Bolton, West did not refute their argument for ordnance factories remaining within the public sector.
  At a time when the Government should be addressing their limited abilities to resolving other defence problems, such as the cessation of relations between the Soviet Union and the United States, procurement policies and intra-Alliance tensions, it is ironic and sad that they are concerned with such a small unnecessary Bill.
  It has been said time and again that ordnance factories are not involved in the commanding heights of the economy. They involve about 7 per cent. of armaments production. I believe in a mixed economy, and a mixed economy in defence. I believe in a public sector defence system working alongside the private sector in defence. The Government want to obliterate the public sector in defence production. Perhaps I am being naive and idealistic, but the production of weapons of war and mass

  761
  destruction should inherently be within the public sector—at least 7 per cent. of it. To wipe out the public sector in armament production, where it has been involved not just for a century, but through a lineal descent from the 13th century to the ordnance factories of the day, will be to turn aside many centuries of public control of armament production. It is being done in the name of dogma—dogma is prevailing over reason.
  In Committee we said time and again that the work force was unanimously opposed to privatisation. Ministers have gone round the country with their double act—almost Bonnie and Clyde—and been given short shrift by the majority of the work force.. The measure is being put through against their wishes. We have been told how production has become profitable and efficient. Government reports commissioned to analyse the future of the ROFs have said that they are capable of improvement within the existing framework. The ROFs have a proven record in war. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) may eulogise about the private sector during the Falklands war, but he should look at some of the correspondence from the Ministry of Defence to the ROFs, complimenting them on what they did during that conflict.
  The Bill is a package which neatly groups together the companies. We know full well the purpose of the 24 Committee sittings — it was to prepare an attractive package which could be sold to the highest bidders. Already the wolves are gathering. Rumours are circulating of companies wanting the more profitable sectors of the ROFs. From the integrated structure will be stripped the profitable sectors, leaving only the less profitable, which will wither and die. That will be the end of the ROFs, other than the highly profitable sectors.
  We were told last week that somehow the MOD police would train a new ROF mark 2 police force. The MOD police are already overstretched. They are involved not only in their duties in their own ordnance factories, but they must provide staff to police military installations in response to demonstrations. There is definitely a correlation between the low level of staffing in the ordnance factories, which have been stripped of their MOD police, and the potential rate of crime.
  We are now being told that the overstretched MOD police will take on the task of training, from scratch, a new private police force. I hope that the Minister has given some thought to that. There is no scope within that organisation to devote the proper time to deal with the adequate training of a new private police force, unless the Minister wants, as I suspect, the most cursory training programme, which will produce an inadequate security force. As I have said many times, it will be a soft touch for anyone wishing to plunder the armaments in the ordnance factories.
  I was privileged to participate in the Committee proceedings, and a few interesting aspects came out in Committee. We have often heard about the Labour party's opposition to certain matters. In Committee we heard the Labour party being positive on one aspect of defence—the ROFs. I suggest that the Government introduce more legislation, and there will be a more positive response from the Labour party to other areas of defence. The Minister can rush out and propose new Bills to his heart's content.
  762
  I Want to issue a warning—not a threat. There are people in this House with expertise in defence, but in another place there are people with far greater expertise. They include men who have served in the armed forces, such as ex-chiefs of defence staff. I hope that they have been following the proceedings in this House.
  I hope that when the House of Lords looks at this superfluous legislation, which in many ways is vindictive, it will do what it sometimes does better than us—oppose the enlarged majority in the House of Commons which has pushed through, albeit legitimately, desperately unnecessary legislation. If the Lords and the ex-chiefs of defence staff do their job properly, the Government may have more trouble in the other place than, regrettably, they have had in this.
  9.20 pm
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: I am glad that you called me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I intend to make only a brief contribution to the debate. I feel rather like the Lone Ranger on the Conservative Benches, but I intend to stick to my guns. As many hon. Members who have followed the passage of this legislation through the House will remember, I made a speech on 16 January on Second Reading. I was here last week and listened carefully to the debate on Report. However, I was not on the Committee and so was not able to listen to the blow-by-blow account of the things that went on there. Although I have listened carefully to all these debates, I have not yet changed my mind.
  Most of us are realists and will understand that the legislation will go through and will go on to the other place. I hope that their Lordships will look at it with fresh eyes. In the meantime, one or two other points remain to be made.
  I have two vested interests. First, I have in my constituency Radway Green, which is the biggest 'single employer and a very successful small arms manufacturing company that is part of the ROFs. Many of the employees there have been in touch with me during the passage of this legislation. My other vested interest is that I have a son in the British Army, and naturally I am concerned about the high quality of the safe and reliable products provided for the three armed services over the years by the ROFs.
  Three points have arisen from the debates that we have had in the House. The first, which I mentioned on 16 January, relates to security and the Ministry of Defence police. That matter has been aired by hon. Members on both sides of the House this evening. We had an unfortunate incident at Radway Green connected with internal security, which is at the moment sub judice and therefore I cannot comment on it. Many of us are concerned about the possibility of terrorist attack and about security in the future. I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister decided to look at this problem again. I hope that when he sums up he will give further assurances that, post vesting day and the setting up of the new company, security will be absolutely assured. This is an important point.
  My second point is about the pay and conditions of the people who have been working for many years in the ROFs. I am not concerned about the new entrants who will join the company post privatisation, because they will have a new contract and will know what it is and can either work or not for the company. However, many people have worked for a long time, with service of 30 or 40 years, in

  763
  the ROFs and therefore the Civil Service. I hope that the Minister will go even further than he has and assure those people, who are most fearful for their pay and conditions, and especially pensions, in the future. I hope that there will be no detriment to them on pensions and that the talks that he is having with the trade unions will have a favourable outcome.
  Another point that was discusssed on Report concerns the time when the companies are floated and the public will be able to buy into them. I am pleased that the employees will be able to buy shares at favourable rates, but at the same time there should be a limitation on foreign ownership. I was equally concerned that parts of the defence industry could fall into the hands of foreign owners. There are many multinational companies, trading under British names in this country, that I would not like to see own a great part of Royal Ordnance Factories plc. I do not need to name names. I am sure that many hon. Members will know those firms, which have been tremendous asset strippers. They have plonked vast amounts of capital in the banks and shifted money from one place to another to get the maximum interest; they have not invested it in manufacturing companies in this country and have not helped employment one little bit. I should not like that to happen when the ROFs go private.
  The legislation is inevitable. I am sure that most of us realise that. I shall stick to my guns and not support the Government — most reluctantly, but basically for the reasons that I gave on 16 January. I do not believe that the legislation is in the best national interest. I do not believe for one moment that it is necessary. I cannot understand why the Government have given so much valuable parliamentary time to it, when we have so many other more important problems to deal with and to solve. I cannot understand why this small matter has been tackled in the way that it has.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) started with a quotation, I shall end with one by Oscar Wilde. I hope that the Government are not one
  "who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing."
  9.26 Pm
  Mr. John Golding: The Bill is an abomination. Why are the ROFs being privatised? Not because they are inefficient — Ministers have constantly praised them for their efficiency. Not because they are unprofitable — they have made £270 million since 1974. Not because they have failed in the export market—they have won two Queen's awards. They are being privatised solely because of political dogma, because the Prime Minister's philosophy, blind and without justification, is that private enterprise is best, and because of her irrational hatred of civil servants. That is why the ROFs are being pinched, filched and stolen from the public by the Government. There is no rhyme or reason for it.
  I have studied the Committee reports carefully. It is clear that the situation is the same as it was for the Telecommunications Bill. Two junior Tory Ministers did their best with a bad Bill that they, in their heart of hearts, did not support. They suffered the indignity—day in, day out—of presenting bad arguments. Why? Because their Secretary of State was kowtowing to the Prime
  764
  Minister. Bluntly, the Ministers did not seem to know what they were doing. If they were tried for offences against the State they would be found guilty, but insane.
  The Bill is insane. For hundreds of years the ROFs have served Britain well, making the weapons of war efficiently and to a high quality, without anyone making enormous profits. All the profit has been made for the country. The workers have been loyal and hardworking. For most of the time they have been badly paid, but they put up with the low pay because of the relative job security and the pension at the end.
  Now the Prime Minister has a touch of the DPs—dogmatic privatisation. What will be the consequences? The brief from the Transport and General Workers Union sums it up well:
  "It will damage Britain's defence, lead to a financial loss for the Government and the taxpayer, endanger the future of a profitable and successful organisation of over 300 years standing, damage the future jobs and conditions of the workforce."
  Having studied the reports of the Committee stage, I congratulate the Labour Opposition on the case that they presented. I congratulate them on behalf of our armed forces, the workers in the industry and, above all, the British people. In particular, I congratulate my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). After serving on the Telecommunications Bill Committee, he went straight on to the Committee on the Ordnance Factories and Military Services Bill to make sure that our concern for Radway Green was expressed. I hope that after the Finance Bill has been dealt with he will be given a day off, or perhaps half a day off, so that he can get his breath.
  The importance of this change for the Army is well summed up in a paragraph of the union briefing. A high-ranking army officer has voiced the concern of the armed forces. He has told the unions that "competition will cost lives". He has accused the Government of wanting to compel the Army to buy the cheapest in the market. He says:
  "We can buy cheaper. But the failure rate will multiply tenfold".
  That is not our view; that is the view of the Army.
  Privatisation will not only cost lives; it will also cost the taxpayer money. It appears that the factories may be sold off at a loss. The Secretary of State underlined the dogmatic basis of the Bill when he said that any gain for the public purse would be purely incidental.
  That is a scandal. The Government are selling off at a loss a profitable firm which has won the Queen's award. Is that businesslike? Would any other Government in the world sell off such a fine concern at a loss? It does not make sense. It is dogma gone mad.
  Who will suffer? Members of the armed forces will suffer—their spokesman has said that the Bill will cost lives—and the staff will lose their livelihoods. The staff have been loyal and hardworking, and in return their jobs and pensions are to be jeopardised. The ending of the preferred source policy, and the policy of break-up and sale, are both threats to job security. If anything is clear, it is that the Bill has brought great insecurity to the staff. The Labour party did not have to make that clear to the staff. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central will agree that it was the workers of Radway Green who made it clear to us—and to the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton). They saw the danger.
  The fact that Ministers have failed to give adequate assurances is appalling, and so is their attitude to pensions

  765
  and to index-linking. The pensions have been paid for by years of low wages. Those civil servants are entitled to their historic rights, and to redundancy payments for loss of Civil Service status. They are entitled to a continuation of the conditions that they have in the Civil Service.
  The Bill threatens lives and livelihoods and is based on the politics of dogma. The Government may well live to regret it.
  9.33 pm
  Mr. Mark Fisher: In Committee, on Report and today, Opposition Members, with the support of some courageous Conservative Members such as the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), have shown that the Government's case is wrong for Britain's defence, for workers in the ROFs and for security.
  As I believe that we have established the wrongness of what the Government are doing, I should like to deal with its financial sense. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) said that he fears that there will be a loss. He is undoubtedly right, and I wish that he had been a member of the Committee so that he could have pursued the point with us. The figures show that a loss is almost certain. In an unguarded moment, the chairman of the ROFs valued the company at £300 million. The Minister of State has been trying to avoid that figure ever since it was set. Nevertheless, the company's book value is £456 million and that does not include good will.
  There is a distinct fear, if not certainty, in many people's minds that the Government are giving away control of public assets worth £450 million in the book in return, if they sell only 51 per cent. of the company, as was the case with British Telecom, for a probable £150 million. The Government tell us that the cost of such action and making good the pension fund will be £250 million, so there will be a cash loss of £100 million. For that sum the Government will have lost control and effectively given away £250 million worth of public assets that have been paid for with taxpayers' money. That is why valuation is so important. The Treasury should note that, far from contributing to the £2 billion that the Chancellor put into the public expenditure White Paper as asset sales for the year, this asset sale will almost certainly cost the Treasury money. That is nonsense.
  In Committee we pushed the point on valuation and repeatedly asked the Government for the basis of their valuation. Eventually, the Under-Secretary said that the valuation had been made on the basis of usefulness to the new company. I hope that the City, the Treasury, Coopers and Lybrand, the Property Services Agency, Customs and Excise and everyone else understand the theory of usefulness. It is not historic cost or current cost or the price-earnings ratio, but the wholly specious theory of usefulness. The Under-Secretary had to live with that slip throughout Committee stage and has not been allowed to get away with it. It is appalling for the Government to value public assets on such a subjective and insubstantial basis. I hope that the Under-Secretary will present a more substantial method of valuing the shares tonight.
  It is not just valuation on which the Government are so hopelessly shaky. The Under-Secretary is looking down at his wholly inadequate brief. This is not a case of
  766
  presentation. We know that there is to be a new balance sheet. Can the Under-Secretary tell us what the depreciation policy will be? Will it be the same as that under which the ROFs have worked for the past few years or, like British Telecom, will the Government suddenly produce out of the hat a completely new one? A few weeks ago we learnt that BT's new depreciation policy had knocked £993 million off the company's value, even after a 24 per cent. increase in depreciation the year before. Will the Under-Secretary juggle with the figures with the ROFs as well? In the new balance sheet that he has announced, will he set out what loans will appear to the Government and what form they will be in? Will they be debentures or non-voting preference stock? What will be the equity debt ratio and when will the Secretary of State make a statement? If, like BT, there is to be a 1:1 equity debt ratio, it will be extremely unattractive and, unlike BT, the ROFs do not have the attraction of being a new technology industry.
  I hope that the Secretary of State, the Minister of State or the Under-Secretary will make a statement soon, because the House has a right to know. That is why we have tried to ensure that the House receives such statements as, otherwise, public money will be thrown away by a thoroughly bad Bill. This is an enabling Bill and the Minister of State had the cheek to say when opening today's debate that, through the Bill, control of the ROFs will be in their own hands. That is nonsense, and he knows it. He knows that the Bill means selling off the factories and therefore control passing to whoever buys them. This is a disastrous Bill, not only for the defence of this country and our future, but for the Government's financial and economic policies.
  9.40 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I congratulate the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) on making a brave statement for a new Member. Having been in a similar position in the past, I can assure the hon. Lady that she may be certain of her reward in the future, but it will only be on the Opposition Front Bench.
  This is a miserable little Bill. The case against it was argued forcibly by the Minister of State on Second Reading. He outlined fully the reasons why the ROFs should not be privatised. He pointed out their distinguished history, their profitability, their ability to meet the needs of the armed services, the fact that they have never failed the nation, the quality of their products and the dedication of their workers. Yet he went on to suggest that, in some strange way, the Government would improve on a highly successful and competitive publicly owned organisation by putting it on to the private market and bringing in private capital.
  If, as we believe, the Minister of State's logic is turned upside down by his decision, we have to look elsewhere for the real reasons for the denationalisation of the royal ordnance factories. We find them not so much in the factories as in the ideology of the Government and their determination to turn anything that makes a profit in the public sector over to their friends in the City and elsewhere.
  If the efficiency of the ROFs is good, their profits are secure, innovation is present and the armed forces have a guaranteed supply of essential services, why should it be necessary to go through the ritual of privatisation? The

  767
  answer must lie in the character of the Secretary of State and his determination and ambition to prove his mettle to the new intake of Tory Members.
  The right hon. Gentleman seeks to improve his reputation with the arids and ideologues, as he tried in Liverpool to improve his position with the wets in his party. He will seek to do that by cutting the Civil Service. With this one Bill, he gets rid of 18,500 civil servants at a vote. Of course, those people will still be there and will have to be paid by the new ROF plc, but the right hon. Gentleman has met the demands of his political mistress. He has cut the number of civil servants in his Ministry —18,500 civil servants on a platter for a new political Salome. However, those civil servants will be not less of a cost to the Ministry but an increased cost. Every private firm that employs those civil servants and the new ROF plc which maintains them in their present jobs will seek an additional profit from the Minister.
  We do not have to look far for other reasons for the Secretary of State's keenness to privatise the ROFs. One is to reward the Conservative party's friends and supporters in the City. That is what it is all about. The Government are not quite certain how to do that, but this is one way that they have chosen.
  Mr. Robert Atkins: Does the hon. Gentleman think that no union pension fund will buy shares in the new company in the foreseeable future?
  Mr. McNamara: I have no idea because I do not control the policies of the unions' pension funds. I know what the courts have said and I know, too, that unions that have wanted to decide where their pension funds are invested have been stopped from doing so. I have in mind the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board's pension scheme. The unions do not have a veto over where they invest and the hon. Gentleman knows that.
  There are rich pickings for the Government's select group of friends. What happened when Amersham International, Associated British Ports, British Aerospace, Britoil, Cable and Wireless and the National Freight Company were nationalised? Seven firms of primary underwriters and financial advisers, three firms of legal advisers and six firms of stockbrokers received in fees and commission a total of £22,694,000. Those were the rich pickings of the Government's City friends. That is what the selling of public undertakings to private companies is all about. The Government are rewarding their friends and supporters.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) has asked, which group within the charmed circle of only 16 firms will be privileged to float the royal ordnance factories? Which solicitors will be involved? Which firm of underwriters will enjoy all the rich pickings in the City? The Government's City friends are interested in trying to make money out of the flotation, and that is what this is all about. This is a measure that is designed to further the Government's interests and those of their friends who supported them in the general election.
  The producers of wealth will not enjoy the rich pickings. They will be enjoyed by those who batten down the producers, and they are the Government's City friends. In previous flotations 16 firms have received over £22 million in fees and commissions. There was not much
  768
  distribution on those occasions. There was little distribution to the Conservative party's property-owning democracy. Will the Government choose to break the charmed circle of 16 firms?
  Despite the platitudes of the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), we have not been told what percentage of shares will go to the work force. It is certain that there will not be public ownership or worker ownership. We know that the shares will go outside the factories.
  What protection will exist to prevent the ROFs being taken into the ownership of their competitors? We have all read the Secretary of State's letter in which he states that it would not be his intention to privatise the ROFs if he felt that they would end up in the hands of their competitors, but how can he guarantee that that will not happen? Once we have a plc on the market, how can he guarantee that the factories' rivals will not appear on the scene? How can he say that some show-biz company will take them over in the way that Thorn-EMI has taken over British Aerospace? We shall probably have Billy Smart's circus taking over the ROFs. That is the way in which the Government are behaving by allowing privatisation to go ahead.
  What have the Government promised the loyal and dedicated work force of the ROFs? What has been offered to these much appreciated workers? The Government achieved what Hitler, Kaiser Bill, Louis XIV or even Philip II of Spain failed to realise, for they brought out on strike all the ROF workers on the same day in protest against what is being done to their terms and conditions of employment and to their standard of living. That was their reaction to the threat that the Government are posing to national security.
  We find on Third Reading that all the Government's commitments to the work force have been completely dishonoured. After five months of debate there has been no agreement on pensions or redundancy payments. The Government know that if they were to guarantee redundancy payments, the profit from the flotation would be even less. The Government have not, either in Committee or on Report, come forward with a guarantee so that we could go from this Third Reading with a clear, straightforward statement that there would be no detriment to the conditions of the people employed in the industry.
  The major change in the Bill was the pressure which forced the Government to change their mind about security. I am not quite as worried as the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) about what will happen with an internal security force, because I do not believe that it will materialise. Not even this Government would be so foolish as to create opportunities for terrorists such as those suggested by that proposal.
  For all the reasons that have been advocated since the day we first debated the Bill on 16 January to the present, on the grounds of organisation, efficiency and justice to the work force, but above all on the grounds of national security — something which the Government are continually prepared to squander—we oppose the Bill.
  9.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr., John Lee): We are drawing to the close of many hours of debate on the Bill from Second Reading, through 24 Committee sessions and Report stage to Third Reading. From the Opposition we

  769
  have had—it was amply demonstrated tonight by the speeches of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) —the usual mix of sarcasm and exaggeration. On Second Reading the right hon. Member for Llanelli made a ludicrous and disgraceful attack on private defence companies. He did not do so tonight, but he made equally dismissive comments about our overseas military sales—the £2·5 billion worth of goods that we sell overseas, the 150,000 jobs that are involved in defence exports, and the 40 per cent. of ROF products that are sold overseas.
  By contrast, the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) and for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) were models of balance, and I appreciate their support. The line of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) has been consistent, and she has maintained the family tradition of independence.
  Security was mentioned repeatedly this evening, as it was many times in Committee. Security is continually kept under review, and we acknowledge the comments of the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). Significant improvements in security arrangements are being made, but I cannot go into precise details at this stage. On Report the House had a full debate on our new proposals for security arrangements at ROF sites. To reiterate our position, we have taken powers in the Bill to enable Ministry of Defence police to remain at ROF sites for as long as we consider it necessary. Parallel to that, the ROFs will set up a company guard force to take on the responsibility of guarding ROF sites where that is considered appropriate. Our eventual aim is to replace Ministry of Defence police with company guard personnel. That will, of course, depend upon an assessment of the threat at various sites.
  Several detailed questions were asked about the organisation and training of the new company guard force. It is far too early to give full answers to those questions. The Ministry of Defence will liaise closely with the ROFs on recruiting and training such a guard force, with the aim of creating a reliable and efficient organisation.
  Much has been made of the fact that Ministry of Defence police have access to arms. The new company guard force will not be armed, but security arrangements must be cleared with local police authorities and contingency plans will be made for civil police support, where necessary, on each site. As the House knows, the civil police can draw arms should the position so warrant it. Contingency plans will include the possible need to call upon armed police. As the new company guard force is built up during the coming months, liaison arrangements with existing MOD police guards will be worked out. I emphasise that MOD policemen will remain subject to the ultimate control of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
  Foreign control has also been mentioned repeatedly during our debates. We have always made clear our intention that the new ROF companies should not come under foreign control. The best way to ensure that objective would be to have appropriate articles of association for the company once it ceases to be under
  770
  Government control. Accordingly, we have drawn up drafts, which were made available to the Standing Committee which examined the Bill.
  The draft articles require the company to maintain a register of shares held by people who are not British citizens. They limit the number of these shares to 15 per cent. of the issued share capital of the company and provide for a special share to be held by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Even after he has disposed of the bulk of his shareholding, it will give him the power of veto over any attempt to change the articles in question. It will also enable him to veto the share of any substantial part of the business which is more than 15 per cent. of the value of the business, or produces more than 15 per cent. of the profits. It will be open for consideration at the time whether the Secretary of State should exercise that power in the case of a projected sale to a British interest, but he would certainly do so to prevent a sale to a foreign interest.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble asked about the relationship between ROFs and International Military Services Ltd. Of the total IMS budget for 1984, ROF products account for approximately half the turnover, but less than 25 per cent. of the profits before tax. Most of that relates to the performance on contracts which were signed several years ago. On the new business budgeted for signature in 1984, ROF products represent only 25 per cent. of the contract value.
  The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) asked about houses. My hon. Friend asked about farm tenancies. The rights of tenants will not be diminished and tenants whose houses are transferred to the company will enjoy all legal safeguards. The same applies to farm tenants. House properties that lie inside the ROFs' perimeters will be transferred to the company together with the houses that fall within the safeguarded areas at the explosives ROFs. Those unaffected by safeguarding will remain with the MOD, except where the company requires the house or land on which they stand. The details of that arrangement are being worked out, together with what consideration should be paid for the properties where they represent an asset to the company.
  The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central asked about the valuation of the assets. As we made clear in Committee, it will not be possible to value every item of property and each right or liability which is to be transferred initially before vesting day. The precise identity of many of the assets cannot be ascertained until vesting day; for example, a large proportion of them in terms of value will consist of work in progress. Work is carried on in respect of such assets for the benefit of the trading fund until vesting day, and after vesting day for the benefit of the new company. It will therefore be necessary to make an inventory of these assets at vesting day, and only then can their precise value be ascertained. The same is true of some liabilities, such as payments due to suppliers.
  During our proceedings right hon. and hon. Members have repeatedly and rightly referred to the long and distinguished history of the ROFs, the quality of their products and the loyalty, integrity and dedication of the work force at all levels. That must not prevent us from reviewing their structure and role in our evolving defence procurement strategy. The ROFs served our nation nobly in the past. Our proposals will ensure a strengthened

  771
  organisation. It will consist of a holding company with four subsidiaries, considerably enhanced managerial, research and marketing resources, greater flexibility in recruitment and salary levels and, assuming privatisation by flotation of the whole, will give employees a real opportunity for the first time to invest and participate in the company.
  The ROFs have a bright future, but they cannot be above criticism or change. The Government would be failing in their duty if, in the search for greater competition and efficiency in defence spending, they preserved the sheltered position relative to other defence contractors which the ROFs have historically enjoyed.
  I am confident that the royal ordnance factories will respond to the challenge and opportunities, and I commend the Bill to the House.
  Mr. McNamara rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. McNamara: Why, Mr. Speaker, will you now not give—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister has sat down.
  Mr. John Major rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The House proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I humbly request information as to why hon. Members were not called to speak in the debate when there was still a minute of the allotted time to go?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member had already spoken and therefore had exhausted his right to speak again. The Minister had sat down.
  Mr. McNamara: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If an hon. Member who had not spoken had risen to intervene, of course I should have called him.
  Mr. McNamara: If I had asked the leave of the House—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member did not ask the leave of the House.
  The House having divided: Ayes 244, Noes 172.

  Division No. 309]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bendall, Vivian

  Alexander, Richard

  Berry, Sir Anthony

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Best, Keith

  Amess, David

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Arnold, Tom

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Baldry, Anthony

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Batiste, Spencer

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Bellingham, Henry

  Bright, Graham

  772

  Brinton, Tim

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Holt, Richard

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Hooson, Tom

  Browne, John

  Hordern, Peter

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Howard, Michael

  Bryan, Sir Paul

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

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Butterfill, John

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Cash, William

  Hunt, John (Ravensboume)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hunter, Andrew

  Chope, Christopher

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Cockeram, Eric

  Key, Robert

  Colvin, Michael

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Coombs, Simon

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Cope, John

  Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Knox, David

  Couchman, James

  Lamont, Norman

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lang, Ian

  Crouch, David

  Latham, Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Eggar, Tim

  Lilley, Peter

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Evennett, David

  Lord, Michael

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Fallon, Michael

  McCusker, Harold

  Farr, John

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Maclean, David John

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Major, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Mather, Carol

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Franks, Cecil

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Freeman, Roger

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Gale, Roger

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Neubert, Michael

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Newton, Tony

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Gow, Ian

  Onslow, Cranley

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Osborn, Sir John

  Greenway, Harry

  Page, John (Harrow W)

  Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Grist, Ian

  Parris, Matthew

  Ground, Patrick

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Grylls, Michael

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Porter, Barry

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hannam, John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Harvey, Robert

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Hawksley, Warren

  Rost, Peter

  Hayes, J.

  Rowe, Andrew

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Hayward, Robert

  Ryder, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Heddle, John

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Henderson, Barry

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb1)

  Hickmet, Richard

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hill, James

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Shersby, Michael

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Silvester, Fred

  773

  Sims, Roger

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Thurnham, Peter

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Tracey, Richard

  Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

  Trippier, David

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Speed, Keith

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Speller, Tony

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Spencer, Derek

  Viggers, Peter

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Walden, George

  Squire, Robin

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Waller, Gary

  Steen, Anthony

  Ward, John

  Stern, Michael

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Watts, John

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Wheeler, John

  Stokes, John

  Whitfield, John

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Wilkinson, John

  Sumberg, David

  Wolfson, Mark

  Tapsell, Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Woodcock, Michael

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Mr. David Hunt.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Conlan, Bernard

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Alton, David

  Corbett, Robin

  Anderson, Donald

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Craigen, J. M.

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Crowther, Stan

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Barron, Kevin

  Dalyell, Tam

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Beith, A. J.

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Bell, Stuart

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

  Benn, Tony

  Deakins, Eric

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

  Dewar, Donald

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dixon, Donald

  Blair, Anthony

  Dobson, Frank

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Dormand, Jack

  Boyes, Roland

  Douglas, Dick

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dubs, Alfred

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Eadie, Alex

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

  Eastham, Ken

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Ellis, Raymond

  Buchan, Norman

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Ewing, Harry

  Campbell, Ian

  Fatchett, Derek

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Faulds, Andrew

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Fisher, Mark

  Clay, Robert

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Forrester, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Foster, Derek

  Coleman, Donald

  Foulkes, George

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  774

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Freud, Clement

  Nellist, David

  Garrett, W. E.

  O'Brien, William

  George, Bruce

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Golding, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Gourlay, Harry

  Penhaligon, David

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Pike, Peter

  Hardy, Peter

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Randall, Stuart

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Haynes, Frank

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Robertson, George

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Howells, Geraint

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Ryman, John

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Janner, Hon Greville

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

  John, Brynmor

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)

  Kirkwood, Archibald

  Snape, Peter

  Lamond, James

  Soley, Clive

  Leighton, Ronald

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Stott, Roger

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Strang, Gavin

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Straw, Jack

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Loyden, Edward

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  McGuire, Michael

  Torney, Tom

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Wallace, James

  Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Wareing, Robert

  Madden, Max

  Weetch, Ken

  Marek, Dr John

  White, James

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Martin, Michael

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Wilson, Gordon

  Maxton, John

  Winnick, David

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Meacher, Michael

  Woodall, Alec

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Michie, William

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Mr. John McWilliam.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That at this day's sitting, consideration of Lords Amendments to the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Amendment Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. — [Mr. Lang.]

  Social Security (Adjudication) Regulations
  10.13 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Social Security (Adjudication) Regulations 1984 (S.I., 1984, No. 451), dated 26th March 1984, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd April, be annulled.
  The regulations put into effect the provisions of schedule 8 to the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983 for creating a unified social security and supplementary benefit appeals system. The Opposition have tabled this prayer because the whole area of social security adjudications is riddled with serious issues of injustice which will by no means be resolved by the regulations and will in some important ways be made worse.
  We regret that organisations with direct experience of adjudication were not consulted before the regulations were published in their final form. The Secretary of State and the Council on Tribunals refused to allow outside organisations to see the regulations in draft form which is, of course, as hon. Members know, when influence can be genuinely exerted. Therefore, our first complaint is that we deplore this unnecessary and undesirable secrecy in decision making.
  Indeed, the BMA has indicated that the Minister concerned admitted that, had not the opportunity for enabling legislation been presented by the existence of this "miscellaneous provisions" Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill, there would have been more consultation, and furthermore that the proroguing of the last Parliament curtailed anticipated debate. Senator Goldwater would no doubt say in such circumstances that that is really not the way to run a railroad. In our view, it is quite wrong that proper debate and consultation should be pre-empted by such accidental contingencies. That is one reason why we insist on a full debate tonight.
  On the main substance of the regulations, we very much doubt whether either national insurance tribunal members or supplementary benefit tribunal members are yet in a position to cope properly with the amalgamation of the two systems. The truth is that there is, on the one side—I am sure that hon. Members will fully bear this out—a terrifying complexity to the supplementary benefit regulations. Indeed, the Minister is wont to put very large volumes before the House with, I think, 43 pages of indices, just to impress on us how complex they are. On the other side, there is a daunting plethora of legislation, covering the whole range of other benefits, alongside supplementary benefit and family income supplement.
  Given that, the present position on training is clearly unsatisfactory. At present, tribunal members receive only a few days' training on benefits, and even that can take place after they have begun to sit on tribunals. So my first question is what extra training is being given to tribunal members to ensure not only that the present inadequate standards are substantially improved but that they can successfully manage the huge complexity of the extra duties being imposed on them by the regulations? What
  776
  ongoing training is to be provided to ensure that they keep up with what the House, even under this Government, ensures is a welter of changes in legislation, and social security commissioners' decisions?
  There is another very disturbing aspect. It appears that the DHSS is sanctioning a limitation of access to primary legislation to the chairperson only. I understand that tribunal members have recently been told that they will not be issued with the supplementary benefit legislation, because the "chairperson will have it". That was the reason given. Is this, then, another cut, whereby the law relating to supplementary benefit and family income supplement, the so-called Yellow Book, and the law relating to all other social security benefits, the so-called Brown Books, are not made available to tribunal members? If so, how can tribunal members reach informed decisions without the legislation? That is an important question if we expect them to carry out their duties.
  This is not a minor issue but an important principle, that other members of the tribunal are of equal status with the chairperson as adjudicators. It is surely vital that they retain the capability, based on informed knowledge, to outvote the chairperson if they so choose. I hope that the Minister agrees with that and that he will resolve the problem.
  A third objection to the regulations is that they appear to consolidate a two-tier quality of decision making. Under section 100 of the Social Security Act 1975, the duty of insurance officers is to give written notice of their decision
  "and the reasons for it".
  I stress the words
  "and the reasons for it".
  A supplementary benefit officer, while being obliged to give a written decision, has been under no obligation to give reasons for it. Under regulation 68(6), a supplementary benefit claimant has the right to
  "a statement of the reasons",
  but only if he or she applies for it within 28 days of a decision.
  Why the distinction? Why is there not a requirement to provide a statement in each case? Supplementary benefit officers are notorious for reaching wrong decisions. A duty to give reasons for a decision would oblige adjudicators to show that their decision is in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. Supplementary benefit tribunals have always been the slums of the English tribunal system. It is time that that distinction was removed.
  Our fourth complaint involves another aspect of petty-minded cost saving which will worsen the adjudication process. The regulations permit a single adjudicating medical practitioner, rather than two doctors, to assess applicants for various social security and disablement benefits. I have no doubt that another cheese-paring exercise is involved, since it is difficult to find another reason. It will not work because it is a false economy. A claimant is more likely to appeal against a decision when one doctor rather than two is involved. There will be good reasons for appeals since an error of judgment is more likely when one doctor makes an assessment of the cause and degree of disablement. I hope that the Minister will reconsider.
  How will the Secretary of State exercise his proposed discretion to direct that a particular claim shall be assessed by a two-doctor board rather than a single doctor, when the pre-medical board scrutiny by a Civil Service medical officer has been dispensed with and only lay people

  777
  undertake the task? The implication is that the Secretary of State will not be in a position to exercise such discretion and that claimants will be subject, willy-nilly, to assessment by a single doctor and their rights will thereby be less protected. Is that really what the Government intend? If they intend the Secretary of State to exercise such discretion, by what means will he do so under the regulations?
  Our fifth objection to the regulations is that they place no explicit duty on adjudicating officers dealing with supplementary benefit to examine all a claimant's needs when a request is received for a weekly or single payment. Far from trying to ensure that claimants receive the full benefits to which they are entitled under the law, this Government have taken the unprecedented step, in response to one of the commissioner's decisions, of going out of their way to make it clear that the visiting officer has no such duty.
  The whole point of the 1980 reforms of the supplementary benefit scheme, according to the DHSS, was that the legal entitlement would improve take up. That improved take up will happen only if claimants can rely on officers to inform them of their entitlement. The majority of claimants are not fully informed of their entitlement. Ministers are deliberately intervening on commissioners' decisions to ensure that they are not fully informed, contrary to all their rhetoric of four years ago. This is an important matter. If the Government are serious in their claim that they want people not only to be prevented from obtaining benefits to which they are not entitled—and the Government are hot on that—but that they obtain the benefits to which they are genuinely entitled, why do we have a regulation that makes that unlikely, if not almost impossible?
  In addition to those five fundamental objections, there are a number of lesser, although still significant issues on the adjudication process. It is only by putting down the prayer that we have the opportunity to debate this important general issue.
  Claimants have been known to have had to wait for up to a year before their appeal is heard—even for up to three months for a decision from the commissioner after the hearing. Does the Minister agree that such inordinately long delays are wholly unacceptable? If so, what will he do to reduce them?
  We are disappointed that the regulations make no attempt to improve the rights to representation — something that we regard as extremely important. Indeed, some argue that the regulations actually limit the right. Will the Minister at least give an assurance that there is no intention to limit representation to one person? The one strand of the Bell report on tribunals, on which no action was taken in the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983, was the expansion of advisory and representative facilities for claimants. That would have a dramatic effect on claimants' entitlements. The Government's record on their willingness to spend on behalf of claimants to pursue their entitlements shows why they have done nothing about that recommendation.
  There is a change in regulation 19 from commissioners having to record their reasons for a decision simply to having to give grounds for their decisions. That may be purely a technicality, and if so the Minister can confirm that. However, we wonder whether it is not something
  778
  rather different—that by allowing a much less stringent and less detailed response from commissioners, the Government are placing a deliberate restriction on the rights of claimants to obtain redress. If that is so, we deplore it and want the regulation changed.
  We believe that chairpersons should have a duty to take note of evidence as the tribunal hearing proceeds. It is wrong that, all too often, that task is left to the clerk of the tribunal, who is a DHSS employee. Carefully weighing up the evidence is a task that cannot be fairly carried out on the basis of a DHSS officer's notes.
  Primary legislation in social security has become increasingly broad and vague. Acts are empty shells that the Minister is empowered to fill with the substance of law by the making of regulations. It is not simply that the Acts omit the details—they often omit the basic principles. The Social Security Act 1980 lays down the barest outline of the supplementay benefits scheme, and contains less detail than the 1976 Act that it replaces. When it was passed, hon. Members and interested organisations had little opportunity to debate or examine the new law in detail as most of the substance was left to the now voluminous regulations.
  The Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982, which gave birth to the present housing benefit scheme, is an even emptier shell. It simply provides that the Minister "may by regulation" make a scheme for local authorities relating to the grant of rent and rate rebates and allowances. Nothing could be vaguer than that. Everything is left to delegated legislation that can be speedily changed and that largely escapes the usual processes of consultation and debate.
  These regulations are of the essence of the way that the supplementary benefit rules are administerd and applied to those on the poverty line. That is why this debate is important. I have given abundant evidence to show that there are major and fundamental objections to the way that the rules stand in these regulations. They aggravate several injustices in key parts of claimants' rights and are biased to obvious cost saving at the expense of real fairness and equity. For these reasons, I appeal to the House to reject the regulations so that they can be fully reconsidered and improved by the Government before they are finally passed.
  10.30 pm
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: I always listen with the greatest interest to the strong words of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). I agree with him that this is an important subject that affects many millions of people and is of concern to every hon. Member. However, his words rang a little hollow, and it is rather a pity that, despite his great insistence on having a debate, he is backed by all of three hon. Members from his party, two of whom are sitting on the Front Bench with him. Even if he is concerned, it looks as though most other Labour Members are not, in which case one has to ask why we are here debating this subject on an Opposition prayer.
  The new regulations are a considerable improvement, and are part of a substantial Government movement to improve the tribunals and the appeal system for supplementary benefit, pensions and the rest. To start with, there is now one set of tribunals instead of two. The national insurance tribunal and the supplementary benefit tribunal are merged into one, and that must be a great

  779
  improvement, particularly as many people are claiming both sets of benefits. It was a fiendishly complicated business before, and it is marginally better now.
  The second change is the removal of the insistence that there must be a trade unionist on the tribunals. It will be a welcome replacement to have instead the insistence that people on the tribunal must have local knowledge—we all welcome that. On the Second Reading of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill, the Minister said that he would look as well at applications from people representing the disabled and other interest groups, to make sure that they were represented.
  Another improvement will be what might be called beefing up the chairman, and he may have to be legally qualified. I am not legally qualified, and I wonder whether we are not replacing one set of restrictive practices—the need for a trade unionist—by another set of restrictive practices—the need for a lawyer. Anyone who has read through this lot of documents will agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health, who said that only lawyers will be able to understand them. I have been reading them all day, and if I understand one tenth of them, I feel that I have done well.
  These regulations affect a large number of people. We spend £37 billion a year on supplementary benefits, pensions and so on. It has come to a pretty pass when the only people who can understand them properly are those with a legal background. We are talking about difficulties that are sometimes faced in times of great extremity by people at the edges of our society, such as the disabled. It is a tragedy that they cannot simply pick up these documents and figure out what they should do next, and that those who advise them, such as local councillors, do not understand what is being done to them and for them through the regulations, which are, after all, intended to be for their benefit.
  In the Library, there are boxes full of advisory leaflets from organisations trying to explain to the disabled their entitlement. There should be a prize for clear English, and I hope that the DHSS will one day qualify for it, but the day has not yet come.
  One of the Opposition's main complaints is the omission of the specific reference to trade union members, and this was raised in the other place by Lord Dean of Beswick. He asked that "sympathetic consideration" should be given to trade unionists
  "by way of their retaining rights"
  to serve on the tribunals
  "that have been granted in the past by successive Governments regarding this matter".
  That sums up the attitude of the trade unionists in the Labour party. They are not interested in exercising the obligations to serve—they want to retain a right. That right often does not exist for the people who go to tribunals. I remember taking to a tribunal people who were seeking supplementary benefit because of industrial trouble in Birmingham. Their sheer anger when they found a trade unionist adjudicating was something to see. They felt strongly that in many cases people had lost their jobs—and that much of the livelihood of the city was in jeopardy—because of the activities of trade unionists of the sort that they then found facing them at the tribunal. There is a difference between a right to serve and an obligation to do something useful.
  I was amused at the answer of the noble Lord Glenarthur, who said that
  780
  "representation by trade union members is important: but so also is flexibility to overcome delays that have been caused by the shortage of trade union members in some cases." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 April 1984; Vol. 450, c. 597.]
  That is one reason why it is a good thing to move away from trade unions.
  Any of us who has ever dealt with any cases that go to tribunals—even in an area such as Derby, where the Department of Health and Social Security is extremely helpful and has done its utmost in any case that I have taken to it, for which I am grateful—knows that the delays cause a great deal of anxiety and anguish. We are dealing with people who are in difficulties and who are in trouble. Whatever the public image of people who have to go to tribunals, the fact is that many of them, particularly disabled people, are as genuine a case as one could ever find. The delay that occurs is thoroughly unsatisfactory.
  Those people normally have between 10 and 28 days to lodge appeals. There are four pages of schedules in the book on how long one has to lodge an appeal, ranging from 10 days to three months. I defy anyone to figure out which is the correct period for any particular case. That in itself would exercise a lawyer for a long time. In most cases, the maximum period is about 28 days. However, it takes an awful lot longer than 28 days to get a hearing, and longer than that to get an answer. It looks as if the situation is getting worse.
  In reply to a question on 7 December 1983 about how long the completion of appeals at supplementary benefit tribunals was taking, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said that in the three months to 30 June 1983, the average time from the lodgement of appeal to the date of the hearing by the supplementary benefit tribunal was 8·3 weeks. That is not a good record. On 6 March this year, The Prime Minister said in answer to a question that the time had gone up to 9·7 weeks in the three months ending 31 December 1983.
  If those figures are correct, the period is getting longer. I accept that it might be because one period related to the summer, when there might be fewer appeals, and the other related to the winter, when there might be more appeals on heating and so on, but 9·7 weeks on average, for the whole country, cannot be accepted by any of us as reasonable. That is a very long time. We are talking about people who may have needed that money four or five months before. That is just the time to the hearing. It will take possibly several more weeks after that to get a reply from the tribunal, after which a decision has to be made about where to go from there.
  Part X of the regulations refers to the mobility allowance adjudications. I have a little bit of special pleading to make, with which the Minister may be familiar. I have been chasing the DHSS at the highest levels since last December on application for mobility allowance by a family that includes two mentally handicapped children. I am well aware that the mentally handicapped can walk. Under the regulations, the rules say clearly that one gets mobility allowance if one can demonstrate a lack of ability to walk. To those who are managing mentally handicapped children, the ability to walk is irrelevant. The test that is applied is to ask the child to walk to the door and back, and the child can do that, but it may be impossible to get that child to undertake any independent transport.

  781
  The case with which I am concerned involves two mentally handicapped adults. They are in their twenties. A mobility allowance has been refused. The ability to walk is not a sufficient criterion. Regulation 53(d) refers to whether a person's
  "condition will be such as permits him from time to time to benefit from enhanced facilities for locomotion".
  If ever there was a definition of a form of assistance that would be extremely useful to the mentally handicapped and their families, that is it.
  I believe that the Secretary of State's reviews of disablement and benefits are considering the mentally handicapped. I hope that the inclusion of the mentally handicapped among those who qualify for mobility allowance, as they already qualify for attendance allowance, will be considered.
  The new regulations are a great improvement, but I hope that it will be understood that changing the structure is not enough by itself. We need to consider the results. My hon. Friend will support my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in changing the structure, but if he could reduce the delays to a period that we would all regard as reasonable, and make the regulations such as could be understood by all and the whole system more human, he would receive the accolade of the entire House.
  10.42 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: This is a very important subject. It affects more and more of our constituents as, over the months and years, more and more people require welfare benefit.
  I echo the plea of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) for more coherent and more easily understandable regulations. Like her, I have spent much of the day trying to make sense of the regulations. In spite of the fact that I have a legal qualification, I have not made much more sense of them than the hon. Lady has. She and I are accustomed to perusing regulations, and, I hate to think what the average claimant would make of them in their present form.
  In the late 1970s and the early 1980s there was a widespread view that there was a need for rationalisation of the social security system. Experts such as David Donnison took the view that rationalisation was necessary to prevent the collapse of the system, and at that stage I was prepared to be guided by their views, but having studied the regulations I have to conclude that the reality does not measure up to the hopes and aspirations expressed at that time.
  I do not necessarily take as rigid a view as the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). I think that the regulations are defective, and I do not support them, but I think that the Minister has a tremendously difficult job. He is trying to rationalise the two systems and to bring supplementary benefit into line with the national insurance regulations of the past.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West was absolutely right about the need for consultation. The Government are taking a great risk—they are quite wrong—in bringing in these regulations, which apply from 23 April, without falling over backwards to make sure that all who are in the front line are given a full say. The Minister could not put his hand on his heart and say that he has done that. In the fullness of time that will prove to have been a mistake.
  782
  My local constituency experience and my discussions with pressure groups suggest that the social security and national insurance chairmen who are being asked to adopt these regulations are quaking in their shoes. I do not blame them. Anyone who can master both the yellow book and the brown book must have either a photographic memory and/or more time on his hands than any local chairman whom I have met; and if that applies to the chairmen—who will, in future, have to be legally qualified—it must apply even more to the wing men. I have appeared before the tribunals, and in my experience the wing men are carried away by the weight of the regulations.
  That was the case when the chairman was not a lawyer, so now, when the chairman will be a lawyer, it is extremely unlikely that the lay members will outvote the chairman. That is a retrograde step. As the hon. Member for Oldham, West said, it is crucial that lay persons should, as of right, have direct access to the yellow and brown books if they are to have any role to play in tribunal proceedings. There should not be a difference between the national insurance and the supplementay benefits decisions.
  I appreciate that there are pressures in the Government to indulge in all possible cost-saving exercises. I support cost saving, but yellow and brown books could be made available to the panel of tribunals at a reasonable cost. That is a saving which the Government could well have done without. The stance which the Department seems to be taking with regard to not assessing all of the circumstances when asked to adjudicate is retrograde. Hon. Members find that, by putting the question differently to the Department, our constituents get much better treatment. A constituent asks whether he is entitled to X or Y benefit and the Department can truthfully put its hand on its heart and say no, but if I write asking to what benefits my constituent is entitled, the answer is what I want and the constituent needs. Lay people do not know what questions to ask. Who can blame them when they are faced with our ineffably complex system? It might be an additional and onerous burden on the Department, but it should examine all the circumstances when a person makes a claim.
  I am also worried about delays. My experience in this regard is limited to my constituency. Even in relatively small places in the south-east of Scotland there are delays. People in my part of the world must make long journeys and incur considerable expense to get to tribunals. That is an inhibiting factor. Legal representation would be the most direct and helpful step that the Department could take, although I accept that its provision might not be within the gift of the Minister. In spite of the fact that discretion has alledgedly been screwed out of the system and lay persons should be able to make sense of it, the one step that would make the biggest difference in cutting through the swathe of complexity would be the introduction of lawyers and the provision of legal aid for such representation at tribunals. That might be expensive, but the service would benefit greatly, from such a change.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Oldham, West that it is a fundamental point of principle, equity and justice that minutes that are taken at a tribunal should be taken by the chairman and not the clerk, as the clerk is a DHSS employee who has a vested interest. Decisions should be made on the basis of facts recorded by the chairman.
  There are so many questions about the regulations that I cannot support them, but I should like to make it clear

  783
  that I do not go as far as the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who damned them completely. I understand that the Minister's job is complicated. It would be much better if he took these proposals away for six months and sorted them out properly before presenting them again.
  10.49 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I am grateful for the opportunity of discussing the adjudication regulations, because they are of great significance to many less well-off people, as well as some who are a little better off, and are well worthy of discussion by the House.
  I emphasise that although, because of the parliamentary pressures arising from the dissolution at the time when the underlying primary legislation was going through the House, some of these matters were not discussed as fully as they would have been if the Bill had gone through on a normal timetable, that was not the result of any intention by the Government to attenuate discussion or of any Government wish to proceed other than openly.
  In view of the strictures that have been levelled against us, I should point out that although there was not much discussion in the latter stages of the passage of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill—which became known as the HASSASSA Act—on the Floor of the House, there was an extensive discussion in Committee, during which, as far as I can recall, one of the major questions raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) tonight—single doctor adjudication—was not raised at all by the Opposition.
  There was considerable consultation with the BMA about the changes. I accept that the association's private practice committee, which is not normally the greatest friend of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, just as he is not normally its greatest supporter, has reservations about our proposals. However, the absence of agreement is not the same as an absence of consultation, and there has been a good deal of consultation in the drawing up of the proposals.
  I am happy to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) that the adjudication regulations, although bulky, represent a condensed version of the previous secondary legislation on the subject. In the past, these items were scattered through 11 statutory instruments and we have consolidated them in a form which I am advised—I do not pretend to have counted — is one third shorter than their varied predecessors. The commendable economy of administration for which the Government are well known has been carried through into the adjudication regulations. That is in line with our intention that one of the aims of the HASSASSA Act should be to simplify and streamline the social security adjudication system.
  The fact that the system is not as simplified and streamlined under the regulations as I or the House should like does not detract from the fact that they are a significant move in the right direction. I was much encouraged that the Child Poverty Action Group's recent book "We don't give clothing grants any more"—which is not noticeably flattering to the Government — says in chapter 3 on appeals:
  "The DHSS has clearly recognised the problems and is moving to correct them."
  784
  That is a comment on our proposals on appeals, part of which are represented by the regulations.
  Despite that, I recognise that the regulations are complicated and it may help the House and others concerned with these matters if I summarise the three main changes introduced by the Act and, thereby, place the regulations in context. The officers who decide these claims, formerly known by different titles according to the particular benefit, are now all entitled "adjudication officers", to make explicit the single process of adjudication where the law is applied to the facts of each case. To monitor the standards of that process of initial adjudication, HASSASSA provided for the appointment of a chief adjudication officer, who is to issue advice and guidance on the law to all adjudication officers. He replaces the former chief supplementary benefit officer and the chief insurance officer. He will furthermore—this is a useful departure—be making an annual report to the Secretary of State on standards of adjudication by adjudication officers, which will be published. In due course that might give rise to further debate.
  Where a claimant is dissatisfied with the decision made by the first tier, he has the right to appeal to an independent tribunal, and these tribunals—this is the second set of changes—have been unified under a presidential system under HASSASSA. The Act provided for the appointment of a president of social security appeal tribunals and medical appeal tribunals. He is appointed by the Lord Chancellor and not the Secretary of State. He is responsible for the administrative organisation of the tribunal system, the training of chairmen and members and the appointment of tribunal members. I am glad to say that Judge Byrt QC has been in post as the SSAT president since November and is now assisted by seven regional chairmen and four full-time chairmen. The full unification—it was implicit in the remarks of the hon. Member for Oldham, West that the process is not yet complete, and I must accept that—of national insurance local tribunals and supplementary benefit appeal tribunals will unquestionably be an evolutionary process, but the adjudication regulations represent an important step towards harmonising their different traditions.
  Medical appeal tribunals, although under the administrative wing of the president, will retain their separate identity. The initial tier of medical adjudication will also remain distinct from lay adjudication, and this subject formed the third strand of the main legislation by preparing the ground for regulations on the use of adjudicating medical practitioners rather than the previous system of two-doctor medical boards, with the safeguards of broader rights of appeal to a medical appeal tribunal.
  Against that background, the preparation of the adjudication regulations involved the largely technical task of drawing together the different procedures of adjudication. In general, the regulations continue the previous practice. That needs to be borne in mind against the background of some of the criticisms that have been made, which suggested that many features of the regulations were being introduced for the first time. As I have said, much of the regulations are a continuation of that which have already existed. It may be argued that there is scope for further improvements, but it is important that the House should understand that that is being urged without necessarily any criticism of positive changes that the Government are proposing, although I recognise that some are regarded as being less than satisfactory There

  785
  are changes and this is not purely a measure of consolidation. Some changes have not so far been mentioned and I hope that the House will welcome them. There has been a concentration, perhaps understandably, on some of the criticisms.
  Regulation 4(4) gives all appellants the unfettered right to a private tribunal hearing. In the past, national insurance cases were held in public, while supplementary benefit and FIS cases were held in private. We have allowed choice by allowing the claimant to opt for either according to his own preference, and that has the backing of the Council on Tribunals.
  Regulation 7 provides that appeal tribunals should be able to refer a question to a medical practitioner for examination and report. Up to now, national insurance tribunals had this power, but it has now been extended to supplementary benefit cases. It should be useful, for example, where additions for dietary needs are requested on medical grounds.
  Regulation 20 implements a change in the system for applying for leave to appeal, of which I gave notice in our Committee debate last year, namely, that applications for leave to appeal should be directed initially to the tribunal chairman, and only in the event of a refusal or late application direct to the commissioner. We have ensured that only legally qualified chairmen will consider such applications, as it is necessary in supplementary benefit applications to be able to identify the possible point of law. This regulation does not restrict the right of appeal, as an application may still be made to the commissioner after refusal of leave to appeal by the tribunal chairman. It does, however, provide a useful sift, as it exposes doubtful points of law at an early stage, and it is appropriate that we should demonstrate our faith in the new tribunal system by entrusting chairmen with a new responsibility.
  Another important point raises the question of delays, on which hon. Members on both sides of the House have commented. Regulation 29 modifies the system for appealing to the commissioners, by introducing a time limit of three months for those who wish to submit written observations on an application, appeal or reference on a national insurance claim. There was previously no time limit for those cases, but the time limit of four weeks applicable to point of law appeals—mainly supplementary benefit ones—could not be implemented where the commissioner undertakes a complete re-hearing of the case.
  We intend to consider that after experience of the new system. There is a useful improvement in that the time limits for observations — mainly the Department's observations — have been kept the same regarding supplementary benefit point of law cases. Although we have been unable to introduce the same relatively low time limit for national insurance appeals, for which a great deal of information must often be gathered, we have for the first time introduced a time limit—of three months. That shows our anxiety to reduce the delays, which have undoubtedly occurred.
  I am glad to say that delays on appeals to commissioners were significantly reduced as a result of efforts by the Department and the commissioners to speed up matters. I accept as willingly now as I did in Committee
  786
  that delays on supplementary appeal tribunals are longer than I should like or think it appropriate for the House to find acceptable.
  Part of the purpose of the exercise—the change in last year's Act, these new regulations, the new structure of tribunals and various other steps are being taken, for example, to improve the training of adjudication officers in our Department—is to speed up the process of appeal and produce a position which I can more readily defend as acceptable. I hope and believe that it will have that effect, but it will take time.
  I now turn to the changes, on which the hon. Member for Oldham, West spent much time, in the arrangements for the medical adjudication of industrial injuries disablement benefit claims. Regulation 32 brings more flexibility into the system by permitting more extensive use of single doctors in deciding medical questions that arise in such claims.
  Until now these questions have in most cases been decided by a medical board of two doctors. However, an internal departmental study suggested that the large majority of disablement benefit claims involve relatively straightforward medical issues, are not contentious, lead to small gratuities only, and do not justify the deliberations of two doctors. In 80 per cent. of all cases the disablement assessed was 10 per cent. or less, and in most cases ran for a period of 12 months or less, giving rise to a gratuity averaging about £130—using rates current now—for a one-year award.
  It is these comparatively medically straightforward cases that a single doctor, an adjudicating medical practitioner, will be called upon to determine under the revised arrangements in regulation 32. For the minority of cases where there are more difficult medical issues, two doctors will continue to act as a medical board. Such difficulties are often found in applications for review on the grounds of fresh evidence, or unforeseen aggravation of the results of the industrial injury, or prescribed disease and in the diagnosis of recrudescence questions that arise in prescribed diseases claims. Accordingly, the regulations make provision for all review applications and all claims to prescribed diseases to be considered by the medical board of two doctors. There will, of course, be other cases outside those two categories where the medical issues are likely to be complex. Therefore, provision has been made for any such cases where medical advice suggests that a second medical opinion is desirable to be referred by the Secretary of State to a two-doctor medical board.
  In answer to the specific question of the hon. Member for Oldham, West about how this will be achieved, in broad terms the laymen who make the initial assessment will be given a set of guidelines about cases which they should refer to a medical officer. He, in turn, will be aware of the regulations and guidelines by which cases would normally go to a two-doctor board. To make it even clearer, cases involving eyes and ears, psychiatric cases, multiple injuries, malignant diseases and cardio-vascular conditions will normally go to a two-doctor medical board in the same way as they do at present.
  I accept that, as with any such changes, these changes will need careful monitoring, and I guarantee that they will get it. Of course, we shall make changes if some of the fears that have been expressed are justified. But we believe that they will not be justified, and that the safeguards that we introduced to ensure that the genuinely more difficult

  787
  cases get the necessary additional treatment of a two-doctor medical board will overcome the anxieties that have been expressed. Indeed, we believe that the effect of the arrangements will be to ensure a better match between the complexity of the issues and the number of doctors needed to decide those issues.
  What this will do — I do not regard it as penny-pinching or as cheese-paring, in the sense in which the hon. Gentleman used the words—will be to allow better use of a scarce medical adjudication resource, and at the same time it has made it possible for us to strengthen the appeal rights of claimants by removing a restriction on appeal that has existed since the start of the industrial injuries scheme. This change which, with the other changes, took effect on 23 April, allows disablement benefit claimants to appeal to a medical appeal tribunal against a provisional award by an adjudicating medical practitioner, in a way that they have not previously been allowed to appeal. There is a countervailing improvement that we can make with the resources that are freed by the change to single-doctor boarding for some simpler cases.
  Of course, I know that disquiet has been voiced by doctors who undertake industrial injuries adjudication and, as I have already said, by the private practice committee of the British Medical Association. Their chief worry is that adjudication by one doctor acting alone may lead to variations on decision-making, with resultant unfairness to claimants. However, there seems to be common ground that many medical examinations for industrial injuries purposes involve straightforward medical conditions that would cause little or no difficulty to a single doctor in reaching the appropriate decision. The arrangements are designed to ensure that such cases only are referred to a single doctor, so the problems envisaged should rarely arise.
  However, I should emphasise that if the medical complexities of the case become evident only during the medical examination, the further arrangements will allow for the reference to the single doctor to be revoked and the case considered afresh by two doctors. Moreover, if, despite the straightforward nature of the case, the claimant is aggrieved at the single doctor's decision, he can protect his interests by exercising the right of appeal which, through the removal of the restriction that I mentioned earlier, is now available to nearly all claimants.
  I hope that they will have allayed some of the worries that arise, understandably, at a time of change. We intend to monitor the effects of the new arrangements closely, and we shall, of course, make adjustment if we find that they are not working satisfactorily.
  Reverting for a moment to non-medical adjudication, regulation 69 describes the procedure when one adjudication officer has to refer a case to another adjudication officer. Those circumstances will arise because complications arise from the inter-action between different kinds of benefit. So long as certain supplementary benefit questions depend upon decisions made in relation to other benefits, such as child benefit or unemployment benefit, there will be a need to refer to specialists, to ensure consistency of decisions relating to an individual. In those circumstances, it does not make sense for the appeal tribunal to hear a case before the full facts are available, and we have therefore ensured that the appeal tribunal should become involved only when all the questions have been tackled by the adjudication officers in the first instance. If a question can be resolved by the
  788
  adjudication officer, we should not bring in the tribunal without cause, because the system is an expensive resource that we should clearly use as efficiently as we can.
  Having made those points about some of the changes contained in the regulations, I should deal with some of the other points which were raised during the debate. First, the hon. Member for Oldham, West mentioned training, and the issue of yellow and brown books. I shall make two points, one of which is simple and relevant. It has never in the past been the practice for members of national insurance local tribunals to have the brown book, although I accept that members of supplementary benefit appeal tribunals have had the yellow book. There is a disparity in the traditions, and it would be as possible to rely upon one precedent as another to say what was right. I understand that the members of national insurance local tribunals have not had the brown book because it was felt to be less necessary in tribunals with a legally qualified chairman. To that extent it could be argued that that is the sounder precedent in the case of the new amalgamated tribunals.
  Leaving that aside, I have to make the basic point, which I would have thought that hon. Members would recognise, certainly those who were on last year's Committee, that the subject of training that the hon. Member for Oldham, West raised, and that of the supply of materials to tribunal members are not, under the Act, matters for Ministers. They are matters for the president of the appeal tribunals. He has made no request or recommendation to us for the supply of the materials that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Should he do so, we would of course consider the point, but it is a matter for him that is written into the Act. Parts of the relevant section were written in in deference to representations from the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends when 'we discussed the Bill last year.
  As part of the independence of the president of the tribunals, training and the supply of literature are matters for him and not for Ministers. Therefore, I can say no more about that this evening except that we would consider any propositions put to us.
  May I make another important point relating to what the hon. Gentleman said about the taking of notes at tribunals? It appears that he has not registered the extent to which the tribunals are not the same animals as the previous ones in that respect. After a transitional stage the clerks to the tribunals will not be the employees of the DHSS. In the legislation we have provided for the clerks to be directly employed by the president of the social security appeal tribunals. At present DHSS officers are still fulfilling those tasks as a transitional provision, but in doing so they are responsible to the president and not to Ministers. The hon. Gentleman's remarks about note-taking at tribunals fall by the wayside in view of the additional independence that we have, in my view rightly—I feel that it is long overdue—given the clerks. That is what we are proposing and it seems to make the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the taking of notes largely irrelevant.
  There is little else that I can usefully add in response to the hon. Gentleman's points. I have tried to cover them all.
  Mr. Meacher: I am not at all convinced by some of the Minister's explanations and the way in which he tries to avoid responsibility for the availability of the social

  789
  security Acts by laying it at the door of the president of the appeals tribunal. His explanation as to how he intends to reduce delays is also highly dubious.
  The Minister has not answered two of the questions that I asked. First, should not supplementary benefit officers be required to give reasons for their decisions in each case? Secondly, and above all, should it not be a duty on visiting officers to inform claimants of all their entitlements when a request is being made for one single payment or weekly payment?
  Mr. Newton: I am sorry. I had not intended to try to avoid the hon. Gentleman's questions.
  On the first point, we are giving training to adjudication officers on the decisions issued in supplementary benefit cases. I believe that we are making progress towards giving every claimant the right to request reasons, and the forms notifying decisions will inform claimants of that right. We are not seeking to deny people the reasons for the decisions made about their claims. We are seeking to extend the availability of reasons to them. For administrative reasons, we should be reluctant to go quite as far as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but this is certainly something that I shall bear in mind and towards which we are making progress. Indeed, I hope that with the improved training that we are seeking to give to adjudication officers this is one of the areas in which there will be a modest further improvement in the way in which claimants are treated and in the rights of claimants as a result of the changes as a whole.
  With regard to the duties of officers, I must rest on the position that a benefit officer must deal essentially with what the claimant claims. In the end, it is up to the claimant to put forward his requests. I believe that that must be so. Otherwise, there can be no doubt that an officer could be forced into the position of having to conduct a widespread and possibly intrusive investigation of all the claimant's affairs.
  With all the advice and improved information that we can make available to people, we should not depart from the basic principle that it must be for the claimant to make his claim. It is not for officers of the Department to guess what that claim might be. There is a clear distinction between that and the duty of the Department to make it as easy as possible for claimants to know what their entitlement may be through improved information and advice.
  In this context, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South seems to have missed the celebrated newspaper picture of my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security two or three months ago receiving a plain English award on behalf of the Department for one of the earlier productions of our new forms unit which is utterly dedicated to making our English better than it now is. The progress already made was reflected in that award.
  In my view, there is a clear distinction to be drawn between our duty to provide the maximum and clearest possible advice and information to claimants about benefits and their possible entitlements and the duty of benefit officers, adjudication officers or officers of the Department, which must be to assess the claims that claimants make. In saying that, I do not wish to imply that we do not encourage our officers to be as helpful as possible, but to go beyond that and to suggest that they
  790
  have a duty to investigate every possible aspect of the claimant's affairs, as the hon. Gentleman came close to requesting, would be to go further than I am prepared to contemplate or than would be right in a benefit system such as ours.
  I hope that I have covered the questions that the hon. Gentleman asked, even if I have not managed fully to satisfy him on all of them. I have outlined some of the improvements that the regulations make. In view of the manifest fact that even if our proposals are not perfect they certainly represent a significant improvement on the situation until now I hope that hon. Members will not press their opposition to the regulations.
  11.19 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: If, as the Minister said, these regulations turn out in practice to be an improvement on the preceding system, it will be the first change introduced by the Government in this sphere that has succeeded in doing so, whatever claims may have been made for the changes in advance.
  I noticed with interest the observations of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) on trade unionists, and I am sure that trade unionists in her locality, who have had conversations with her in the past, will note them with equal interest. I was particularly interested in her contention that trade unionists are not people with local' knowledge. That was a particularly fascinating sideline.
  Two other points are more worthy of comment. The hon. Lady referred to the annoyance among claimants on confronting trade union members sitting in judgment. That probably pales into insignificance beside the despair felt by most claimants when confronted by people who have no experience of their problems and have very little sympathy for them.
  The hon. Lady also referred to the tragedy of the lack of clarity in these regulations, as did the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). I entirely agree. In a slightly different context the hon. Gentleman admitted that he supported the Government's wish to save costs.
  The basic reason for the lack of clarity is not the inability of the Department to write plain English—little though that may be borne out by some of the contributions we hear in the House — but simply because all the changes implemented by the Government have always been done on a nil cost basis. If the Government were prepared to put more money into the social security system, it would be possible to have simpler regulations and we would not need debates of this kind.
  I was not particularly impressed by the Minister's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on training and the facilities available to tribunals. He said that this was a matter for the president, and I hope that the president will take note of the remarks that have been made. I have too much respect for the Minister not to imagine that when he takes decisions he has primary information in front of him, and the president ought to recognise that that is necessary for tribunal members.
  If the president does not ask for such information to be made available, many will suspect that he has not done so because of pressures from the Government in the context of the costs involved. Many would regard that as an indication that the president is not taking his duties with sufficient seriousness.

  791
  I note that regulation 3 of the appeals rules, which applied previously, does not appear in these new regulations. As this allows the Secretary of State to pay travelling and subsistence allowances to those who attend tribunals, perhaps the Minister will now say—if not, perhaps he will write—whether travelling expenses will be paid in future. If this is merely an omission, I am sure that the Government will rectify it as speedily as the Minister for Social Security so often rectifies the other omissions and errors that they make.
  We have observed another of the petty meanness to which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West referred. In regulation 59 (b) the Government have slipped in a substitution so that it will now read:
  "a trade union of which the claimant is a member at the time of the appeal and was so immediately before the question at issue arose".
  I can only think that this is an attempt to deprive those individuals who need to make a claim—and who had not previously perceived the wisdom of joining a trade union but did so between the date of their injury and the date of their appeal—of the assistance that trade unions can and do provide in making representations on these points in these circumstances. If that is the case, it is yet another example of the Government's petty meanness and stupidity.
  I shall highlight some of the problems that arise with tribunals. Often, the decisions of the Department's officers—and heaven knows it is not their fault, because they are suffering under the Prime Minister's self-imposed determination to reduce the Civil Service and so may face enormous difficulties on that count—are sadly all too frequently quite incorrect. Earlier this week, I had the example of a call from an office in Wales. As far as I can discover a wholly arbitrary decision has been made, perhaps for some years, by the local officer about what the grounds should be for an award of single payments for floor covering. It has had the effect of reducing the payments due by half. There appears to be no regulation to back up that decision. No commisioner's ruling provided any basis for it. It had been concocted at some point by someone in the local office. Heaven knows for how many years it has been applied.
  The CPAG's excellent book has been quoted. On page 42, it gives yet another example of a claimant being given a wrong decision, and that was from a tribunal. I note that it is said that the tribunals will be better in future. We certainly hope so. However, a tribunal accepted the benefit officer's argument that because someone had had an illness for many years that led him to need special clothing, he no longer qualified for a clothing grant, because it was now normal wear and tear. Again, that decision had no basis on which any reliance could be placed. The tribunal members might have been able to contest it if they had had primary legislation, information, regulations, and so on in front of them.
  It is not only the information available to tribunals that is important, but the attitude. On page 41, there is an excellent example. Many members of existing tribunals rely very heavily on whatever interpretation of the law is placed before them. They appear not fully to recognise the fact that there may be conflicting interpretations of the law, let alone of information. One organiser in London is quoted as saying:
  "In fact every time I challenged the presenting officer to quote his source, I was interrupted by the chairperson with 'He is only trying to help you dear.'."
  792
  Sadly, that is an all too familar experience to those who appear before tribunals today. I recognise that the Minister feels that that will change, but we believe that it is more likely to change if tribunals consist of people who are able, on their own account, to be well informed.
  Perhaps the weakest of all the many weak arguments that the Minister put to us was that it was for claimants to identify their needs and to press officers to meet them, and not for benefit officers to guest at them. If the regulations were the model of clarity sought by some hon. Members and by the Minister, the Minister might have a more sensible basis for his argument. However, although he was quite curt to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West about his unkind remarks, he must be aware that it is not only my hon. Friend, but one of his own commissioners who has said that it is outrageous. Surely it must be the duty of officers to investigate all the needs of claimants. It is only the Department that has agreed with the application of that argument.
  The Minister clearly did not have time to deal with all the points raised in the debate, and we hope that he will write answering the points made about regulation 19, and so on. If not, we shall press him further for a reply. We shall vote for the prayer and against the regulations, because, as usual, they are not as clear as they might, be and, more importantly, because we feel that tonight—as so often in the past—the Government's fine words will be borne out by a worse experience for claimants in practice.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 104, Noes 177.

  Division No. 310]

  [11.30 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Alton, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Foster, Derek

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Freud, Clement

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  George, Bruce

  Beith, A. J.

  Golding, John

  Benn, Tony

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

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

  Hardy, Peter

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Boyes, Roland

  Howells, Geraint

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

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

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clay, Robert

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Kirkwood, Archibald

  Cohen, Harry

  Lamond, James

  Coleman, Donald

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Corbett, Robin

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Craigen, J. M.

  Loyden, Edward

  Crowther, Stan

  McCartney, Hugh

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Cunningham, Dr John

  McGuire, Michael

  Dalyell, Tam

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

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

  McWilliam, John

  Deakins, Eric

  Madden, Max

  Dewar, Donald

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Dormand, Jack

  Maxton, John

  Douglas, Dick

  Meacher, Michael

  Eadie, Alex

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Eastham, Ken

  Michie, William

  Ellis, Raymond

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Nellist, David

  Ewing, Harry

  O'Brien, William

  Fatchett, Derek

  Penhaligon, David

  793

  Pike, Peter

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Stott, Roger

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Wallace, James

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Robertson, George

  Wareing, Robert

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wilson, Gordon

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Winnick, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Woodall, Alec

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

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)

  Snape, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Soley, Clive

  Mr. Don Dixon and

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Mr. Frank Haynes.

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Amess, David

  Dover, Den

  Arnold, Tom

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Eggar, Tim

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Evennett, David

  Batiste, Spencer

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fallon, Michael

  Berry, Sir Anthony

  Farr, John

  Best, Keith

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Forman, Nigel

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Franks, Cecil

  Bottomley, Peter

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Freeman, Roger

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Gale, Roger

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bright, Graham

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Brinton, Tim

  Gow, Ian

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Ground, Patrick

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Butterfill, John

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Hannam, John

  Cash, William

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Chope, Christopher

  Harvey, Robert

  Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk) .

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Colvin, Michael

  Hayes, J.

  Coombs, Simon

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Cope, John

  Hayward, Robert

  Couchman, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Heddle, John

  Crouch, David

  Henderson, Barry

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hickmet, Richard

  794

  Hind, Kenneth

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Speed, Keith

  Holt, Richard

  Speller, Tony

  Hooson, Tom

  Spencer, Derek

  Hordern, Peter

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Howard, Michael

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

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

  Squire, Robin

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Steen, Anthony

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Stern, Michael

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Sumberg, David

  Key, Robert

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Knox, David

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Thurnham, Peter

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Major, John

  Tracey, Richard

  Mather, Carol

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Viggers, Peter

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Murphy, Christopher

  Walden, George

  Newton, Tony

  Waller, Gary

  Osborn, Sir John

  Ward, John

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Parris, Matthew

  Warren, Kenneth

  Porter, Barry

  Watts, John

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Wheeler, John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Whitfield, John

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Wilkinson, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Rowe, Andrew

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Ryder, Richard

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Wood, Timothy

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Woodcock, Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Yeo, Tim

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Mr. Ian Lang and

  Silvester, Fred

  Mr. Michael Neubert.

  Sims, Roger

  Question accordingly negatived.

  Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Amendment Bill
  Lords amendments considererd.
  Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Amendment Bill
    Clause 4

      SECRETARY OF STATE'S POWER TO AUTHORISE REFUSAL TO SELL CERTAIN DWELLING HOUSES REQUIRED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 23, leave out from 'later' to 'serve' in line 25.
      11.40 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this we may take the following Lords amendments: No. 2, in page 3, leave out line 27 and insert
      'A refusal by the landlord under'
      No. 3, in page 3, line 29, leave out 'enable him to ascertain whether' and insert 'demonstrate that'
      No. 4, in page 3, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 10 on page 4.
      Mr. Stewart: It is with some reluctance that I recommend that the House should accept these amendments. Hon. Members will recall that the present clause 4 was generally welcomed when it was inserted into the Bill by Government amendment on Report, following undertakings that we had given in Committee, particularly to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen).
      We introduced the new clause because we wished to be helpful to the islands councils, which had represented that they should not be required to sell teachers' houses on the islands because of the problems that that could create in outlying areas and in the remote islands—problems that were referred to in particular by hon. Members representing those areas. We had considered whether the islands councils might be left discretion in this matter, but we recognised that the teachers, who are secure tenants, also had an interest and it seemed to us to be unfair that teachers should be discriminated against and potentially denied the right to buy their houses simply because of the accident of their employment, and without there being any demonstrable link between the house and the tenant's employment other than the word of their landlord.
      For that reason, as hon. Members know, we suggested as a compromise that the islands councils should be given the power to refuse to sell such houses, provided that they had the consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I believe that this compromise was generally welcomed by the House on report as a fair solution to the problem of the islands, while protecting the interests of the teachers.
      Before the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) leaps to his feet, let me say that I recognise that he specifically said that it would be better for the islands councils to retain discretion in this matter. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary explained at the time, we did not regard this as acceptable because we felt that there was the possibility of a conflict of interest between the landlord and tenant and we therefore considered it undesirable that the landlord should be left
      796
      as sole judge in his own case. This was why we suggested that the decision should be taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, on the basis of evidence presented by the islands councils. A similar procedure already existed under the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 in the case of amenity housing for the elderly and disabled, and it has, I believe, worked to the satisfaction of both landlords and tenants.
      The present amendments, however, will leave the islands councils sole judge in deciding whether or not to sell a particular house and a tenant will have no right of appeal agains their decision. This is without precedent in the tenants' rights legislation. If a teacher feels that this landlord has unfairly or unreasonably refused to sell him his house, there will be no one to whom he can turn for redress. That could lead to ill feeling and difficulty between the islands councils as landlords and a substantial group of their tenants.
      In reconsidering the Government's position on this matter we have taken note of the report of the committee of inquiry into the functions and powers of the islands councils. The committee recommended that the islands councils should be left with discretion in the matter and should not be required to seek my right hon. Friend's consent before refusing to sell a house to a teacher.
      It is generally recognised—it has been recognised in all the debates on this subject—that the islands councils are a special and unique case. The islands councils have represented that they are responsible bodies, and we accept that without reservation. We believe that if the islands councils are given discretion in this matter they 'will exercise it reasonably. The Government will, of course, monitor the situation carefully, and if there is any suggestion that the discretion is being abused, we shall need to reconsider the position. I hope that that will not be necessary.
      On that basis, I recommend that the House should agree with the Lords in their amendments.
      11.45 pm
      Mr. Jim Craigen (Glasgow, Maryhill): I cannot resist congratulating the Minister on putting a brave face on the Lords amendments. In times past, I have described him as the movable tent at the Scottish Office. Try as he does, it is his misfortune that he has had to return to his housing portfolio of old.
      The three islands councils have had a tortuous struggle to secure this minor concession in the legislation since it was first mooted in Committee. I asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), to think as an islander. As the Minister said, the Government had a certain flexibility at that stage, but in truth it has taken their Lordships, by 95 votes to 84, to impress upon the Government the need to budge. Moreover, the Montgomery committee, in chapter 14, put forward a persuasive case on the reasons why the Government should accept the amendment. Therefore, we welcome the fact that at last the Government have realised that there is no need for the heavy-handedness of the Secretary of State for Scotland with regard to the three islands councils.
      The Minister said that the Government are leaving the respective councils as the sole judge. I have no doubt that, as all-purpose authorities, handling both housing and education, they will exercise the judgment of Solomon on these matters. It is sufficient for us to know that the

      797
      Government have acknowledged the different position of the islands councils, as all-purpose authorities. We are glad that the Government agree with the other place on this issue.
      Mr. Donald Stewart: I welcome the Government's acceptance of the amendments. As the islands councils have achieved this victory, I do not want to go over past history. With regard to the Western Isles council—it may be true of the Orkney and Shetland islands councils as well—I could not understand the Government's difficulty in allowing the councils to use their own judgment, because they fully met their obligations under the tenants' rights legislation. My council did so with regard to the sale of teachers' houses at Stornoway, where there was an ample housing stock, and it could be done without difficulty. I am delighted that the other place has concentrated the Government's mind in this excellent way.
      The Minister says that the islands councils will be the sole judge. That could be an excellent precedent to follow in many similar situations.
      While thanking the Government for their acceptance of the Lords Amendments, I would like also, on behalf of my council, to thank the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) for his part in achieving this result.
      Mr. James Wallace: When asked by a gentleman of the press to comment on the vote in another place, I said that I hoped that the Government would show good sense and would not seek to overturn the amendment made there. I am glad to see that, in the end, good sense has prevailed.
      The Minister said that the islands authorities were being given an unprecedented power. That is true, but only because the islands authorities are unitary authorities. On mainland Scotland, the education and housing functions are of course separated between the regional and district councils. I share the Minister's hope that the islands authorities will use their power in a responsible manner. As the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) pointed out, the islands authorities' record to date on the sale of council houses has been good. In the built-up areas in both Orkney and Shetland in particular, where there has been a supply of teachers' houses, the councils have been prepared to sell.
      I welcome this move to give discretion to the local authorities because it is the local authorities which are best
      798
      placed to make local decisions. The fact that it has been left to the most undemocratic Chamber in the western world to defend the rights of local democracy is a telling comment on our present situation. However, I hope that the Government's behaviour may herald the reversal of the trend of the past few years towards concentrating decisions in the hands of the Secretary of State. I hope that there will be a trend towards a return to local democracy. In the meantime, for this small relief, much thanks.
      Mr. John Maxton: The Minister has said that an unprecedented power is being given to the islands authorities, but nothing of the sort is happening. Teachers under the islands authorities are merely being brought into line with teachers on islands such as Islay, Arran or Bute, which are under the authority of Strathclyde region and have no right to buy because they are under the education authority, and with the many other teachers living in school houses in remote rural areas throughout the mainland who have no right to buy. The islands authorities are simply being brought into line with every other local authority, and every other education authority, in the rest of Scotland. It makes sense not to have one unique group of teachers who have the right to buy their houses when no other group of teachers in Scotland has that right. The House of Lords has done no more than restore a small measure of sanity to a somewhat insane housing policy.
      I hope that the ability to take their own decisions will be restored to all district and regional authorities. They should have the power to decide what they wish to do with their housing stock, of whatever sort it may be.
      Mr. Allan Stewart: I shall refrain from responding to the latter remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). I am glad that the Government's proposals have all-party support, and I commend them to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4 agreed to.

      REPATRIATION OF PRISONERS BILL [LORDS]
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 69(6) (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
      Question agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read a Second time.
      Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

  Repatriation of Prisoners Bill [Lords] [Money]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Repatriation of Prisoners Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorize—

  (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State for the purposes of that Act; and

  (b) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received by the Secretary of State under that Act. —[Mr. Major.]

  11.54 pm
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I shall be brief and colleagues can go home, because I do not intend to divide the House on an issue which has been raised throughout the passage of the Bill and which I raised many months ago with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
  The money resolution gives me an opportunity to raise the point again as it does not seem that the financial effects of the Bill are covered by the text and the explanatory memorandum. In all probability, other expenses will be created by the Bill because there is no statutory requirement on the Home Secretary to refuse to repatriate a terrorist. The extra expense will arise because there might well be extended negotiations between Britain and countries that try to repatriate terrorists whom we have convicted. It is inevitable that some countries will attempt to get their terrorists repatriated. We shall have to resist that.
  The Bill states that absolute discretion lies with the Home Secretary, who will have to take account of all the prevailing considerations and the merits of the case. Flexibility is specifically written into the Bill. It is highly dangerous that the Home Secretary can and will be put under pressure time and again. British Governments have been put under pressure to effect a swap. Lonsdale was swapped for Greville Wynne and there is a long list of such examples. It is unreasonable to suppose that the same will not happen again. Additional expense will therefore be incurred by negotiating with and going to countries and the time delays involved. That is my justification for raising the matter.
  The essential fact is that the British public will not tolerate the return of terrorists. We now have five Libyans who are being held for terrorist offences in Manchester and London. The Gaddafi regime has arrested two innocent Britons—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker Mr. Paul Dean): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman, but he must stick to the expenses involved. This is a narrow money resolution.
  Mr. Lawrence: I envisage extra expense being involved in negotiating a blackmail. Money would be saved if there were statutory provision in this Bill to stop the repatriation of terrorists. It would strengthen the backbone of the Home Secretary, who would then have no truck with any expensive negotiation. It is one thing for the Home Secretary to say, "I have a discretion and I shall not give in" and quite another for him to say, "I have no discretion. The law says that I cannot give in in any circumstances."
  This matter has been raised often and, so far, the Government have not given way. It should be reconsidered
  800
  constantly. The Home Secretary needs to be protected against the type of pressures that will be put on him. I urge the Government to reconsider a matter that has been urged by all parties during the passage of the Bill. They should put it beyond doubt that no terrorist will be repatriated because the Bill provides that that shall not occur. That would save money which would otherwise be involved in negotiations and the waste of time.
  11.59 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has used his customary ingenuity to make on the money resolution a point which also applies to the substance of the Bill. No doubt he will have other opportunities to make that point.
  I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend has any doubts about the robustness with which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will use the discretion conferred on him by the Bill. My job is simply to say that the terms of the money resolution are widely drawn and provide for any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State for the purpoe of implementing the provisions of the Bill to be paid out of money provided by Parliament.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Repatriation of Prisoners Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorize—

  (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State for the purposes of that Act, and

  (b) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received by the Secretary of State under that Act.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

    ENERGY ISSUES IN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 80(5) (Standing Committees on European Community documents.)
    That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 9706/82, 8024/83, 8296/83, 4987/83, 7804/83, 9865/83, 8110/83, 8051/83 and 7809/83; and fully supports appropriate cost-effective measures that will help to minimise the Community's dependence on imported oil. — [Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
    Question agreed to.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

    SECURITIES
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
    That the draft Stock Exchange (Listing) Regulations 1984, which were laid before this House on 1st May, be approved.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
    Question agreed to.

    ROADS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Ordered,
    That the Bill be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee —[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

  Mr. Alan Tschelebinski
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
  12 midnight
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the need for a public inquiry into the death of Alan Tschelebinski in Strangeways prison, Manchester in January 1983.
  I had hoped that the Minister of State, Home Office, who is to reply to the debate, would agree to such a public inquiry. Although nothing can be done for Alan or his parents, we ought to learn the lessons of this tragedy and ensure that nothing like it happens again.
  I should have preferred a public inquiry, because I have to criticise many of the individuals who dealt with Alan during the last few minths of his life, and the problem with an Adjournment debate is that it does not give such individuals the opportunity to defend their actions and explain themselves. A public inquiry would give them the chance to explain why they behaved as they did.
  A public inquiry would also give us a chance to look at how, once again, the police complaints procedure has not worked. There has been a whitewash over the way in which the police dealt with a mentally ill individual. In addition, a public inquiry would have given us an opportunity to look at the prison medical service, which was not adequate to meet Alan's needs during his eight days in prison.
  I shall briefly outline what happened to Alan between 1976 and his death in 1983. While working at Portwood brush works, he contracted TB. Before that, although he had suffered mild epileptic fits at school, he had not had any major problems. However, while being treated for TB at Marple Dale hospital, he suffered a severe attack of grand mal and fairly soon thereafter the first instance of his being violent to other people occurred when he attacked another patient.
  However, after that, it was possible for Alan to return home and, although life was fairly difficult for him there, he managed to hold various jobs. In the end, in 1979, it was arranged for him to go into St. Thomas' hospital, Stockport for a short period because of some of the difficulties at home. The social services department arranged for him to go first to Simon house and then Chaucer house — short-term accommodation in Stockport.
  Unfortunately, following a case conference at Chaucer house, Alan jumped from a first-floor window and sustained cuts and injuries that resulted in his having to be taken to Manchester royal infirmary. It was felt that he could not be discharged back into the community, but adequate accommodation for him was not available at Stepping hill hospital, Stockport. He was transferred to Prestwich hospital, where considerable investigations were conducted into his epilepsy and into the possibility that he had a cerebral tumour. Extensive investigations were carried out at Salford royal infirmary and Bootham park hospital in York.
  For most of the time that Alan was at Prestwich, his behaviour seemed to respond to treatment and, although there was one outburst of violence in late 1981, when he atacked a nurse, it was hoped in 1982 that he could be returned into the community in Stockport.
  802
  Unfortunately, there was an apparent lack of liaison between Prestwich hospital and the social services department at Stockport. Nothing happened for a long time, and during that period Alan began to complain that the staff at Prestwich hospital were teasing him. He became very dissatisfied. Eventally it was arranged that he should be moved from Prestwich hospital to the Stepping hill hospital at Stockport, and he went there in November 1982. From that date he appears to have gone to the local police station on two occasions to complain about the treatment that he had received at Prestwich hospital. The doctors at Prestwich believe that he was exaggerating in his complaints.
  Alan returned home over the Christmas period of 1982. He was going out from Stepping hill hospital with the agreement of the staff, and he did so on a number of occasions. On the Wednesday after Christmas he left his home and his parents assumed that he was returning to the hospital. However, it is alleged that he returned to Prestwich hospital to look for a nurse against whom he had a grudge. At any rate, he believed that he had a grudge against the nurse. Having failed to find the nurse, he set fire to a car belonging to the nurse. He then returned to the Stepping hill hospital and on the following day, Thursday 30 December, the police interviewed him at the hospital as part of their inquiries into the burning of the car. Following that, he was taken to Bury court, where he appeared on the Friday without his parents being able to be present at the court hearing. He was remanded to Strangeways prison and eight days later he died in prison in pretty poor circumstances.
  I believe that a public inquiry should address itself to why the police, when they arrested him at Stepping hill hospital, did not inform Alan's parents that they were arresting him. I have a letter that was sent to me in May 1983 by Chief Superintendent Halliwell of the Bury division, in which he makes it clear that he did not tell the parents because he did not believe that he had a duty to do so. He wrote:
  "I would advise you that, of course, Mr. Tschelebinski is an adult and there is no requirement on the police to notify his parents under these circumstances."
  I accept that there is no duty on the police to inform the parents of an adult that their son or daughter is the subject of their inquiries, but I understood that it was clear practice — it is to be incorporated in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill—that when there is any doubt about the mental condition of an adult it is the duty of the police to inform the parents.
  It was clear to the doctor who was treating Alan at Stepping hill hospital that it was necessary for his parents to be informed. He makes it clear that the nursing staff at Stepping hill hospital impressed upon the police that they believed that Alan's parents should be told and supplied to the police medication for Alan's condition so that he could be properly looked after. The charge nurse was left with the clear understanding that the police would inform Alan's parents of his position.
  The police claim that in taking Alan to Bury he told them that he did not want his parents informed. They believed that it was more reasonable to listen to Alan than to his doctor and the charge nurse who was treating him.
  When I asked the Minister to consider the holding of a public inquiry, he decided to refer the issue to the Police Complaints Board. There have been considerable discrepancies between what the doctors have said and the

  803
  police. It was made clear to the police that Alan's parents should be informed. There are discrepancies between what emerged at the inquest and what subsequently emerged when the reporting officer reported to the Police Complaints Board.
  I shall read a letter from the solicitors which makes it clear that at the inquest it emerged that the police did not appreciate Alan's condition. The letter states:
  "After the burning of the car, the Police evidence was that they went to Stepping Hill Hospital to arrest him and they denied any knowledge of his psychiatric condition. They maintain that they were introduced to Mr. Tschelebinski in the Hospital waiting room and no mention was made to them that he had been brought from the psychiatric ward. I find this extremely hard to believe, as also I disbelieve all their protestions that they had no knowledge of his mental condition. It is quite clear from the information I have, and which I put to the Police, that this man suffered from epilepsy and also had a serious mental condition and in common parlance, he was completely mad.
  It would appear that the Magistrates were certainly unaware of his medical history when they remanded him to Strageways and it seems unlikely, in my experience, that they would have done this had they been fully aware of the facts. The Police denied, in their evidence, any suggestion whatever that he had shown any tendencies of insanity and yet it came out later at the inquest, after the Police Sergeants had finished their evidence, that when he arrived at the prison he had a card with him asking the prison authorities to watch him as he was 'violent'. Therefore the Police clearly had an inkling of his medical condition."
  It is important that the police complaints investigator should have interviewed Alan's parents—which he did—and also the magistrate's clerk at Bury to find out what the police said then, and checked on the evidence at the inquest. I have reason to believe that he did not do that. I hope that when the Minister replies he will confirm whether or not that happened.
  The police did not inform Alan's parents on the Thursday and, of particular importance, at about 9 o'clock on Friday morning, half an hour before Alan was due to appear in court, they phoned his parents, who pointed out that it was impossible to get from Brinnington, Stockport to Bury in half an hour. Instead of postponing the case, the police decided to proceed without the parents. It is unfortunate that the magistrates were not provided with all the information and remanded Alan in Strangeways. It is clear from medical evidence that he should not have been put into the conditions that he was at Strangeways.
  When Allan arrived at Strangeways he experienced what no one should experience in British prisons. The evidence at the inquest continues:
  "On the day after his arrival at Strangeways he was transferred to a bare cell i.e. a cell with no furniture, bare brick walls and a concrete floor and only a mattress on the floor. This was allegedly for his own safety and he was stripped naked and left in this cell from about the second day until the date of his death. At first he apparently refused food but later he began to eat. He was said to have caused the bruising and injuries to himself by `running against the cell walls'. From the Pathologist's evidence these bruises had in fact occurred some days before his death and they were consistent with this behaviour. He is also said to have spent most of his time lying on the cell floor, latterly in his own excreta. The prison doctor maintains in his evidence that he had a full medical record from the hospitals and that the hospital at Strangeways was a proper place for his detention rather than a secure mental ward. The doctor also maintains that the doctors were competent to treat such a person, even though they had no padded cells or any place to detain him in order to prevent him injuring himself. By way of excuse, they said that their padded cells had been destroyed in a recent fire and that they were using temporary accommodation in the prison."
  In addition to that, the prison authorities refused to allow his parents to visit him during his few days in prison. They said that he was too ill to have visitors, in spite of
  804
  the fact that his mother had dealt with him on many occasions when he was suffering from fits and might well have been the one person who could calm him down. She certainly could have impressed on the prison authorities that they should treat him differently.
  There is a major need for an inquiry so that we can find out why the police failed to inform the parents, and satisfy ourselves that the police did riot give one story to the police complaints board and a different one at the inquest. We must also discover why the magistrates at Bury remanded someone to a prison when, had they examined even briefly the charge sheet, they would have realised something about his mental background and would at least have taken into account the fact that Strangeways was an inappropriate place. If the medical officer of Strangeways genuinely had all the medical background on Alan that he claimed at the inquest he had, he, too, should have realised that Strangeways was not the sort of place where, especially in view of the damage to other prison accommodation, Alan could be looked after properly. Finally, we must know why, when it was clear that Alan was in such a bad condition, the medical officer did riot move him to a secure mental hospital that might have had appropriate accommodation for him.
  I realise that in 15 minutes I can only sketch the problems of a tragic case. hope that the Minister can answer some of the questions tonight, but, far more, I hope that the Minister will be prepared to have a public inquiry, or some form of inquiry, where all the people involved in this tragedy can be questioned, where lessons can be learnt, and where we can ensure that no one else suffers in this way.
  12.15 am
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has brought to our attention a terrible personal tragedy, and anyone who examines the matter must share with him a sense of tragedy and express real sympathy to the family of Mr. Tschelebinski. I make no criticism of the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter in this way. It is natural that he should do so. He asks for an inquiry, but we must take into account the fact that Mr. Tschelebinski's death has already been inquired into by inquest and that the role of the police in the matter has been investigated, and a report made to the independent Police Complaints Board.
  The hon. Gentleman covered many aspects of the case, and to complement rather than contradict what he said I should set out the events as we have them. On 29 December 1982 the Bury division of Greater Manchester police received a complaint from a member of the staff at Prestwich hospital that his car had been set on fire. Following police inquiries, Mr. Tschelebinski was arrested the following day at Stepping Hill hospital, where he had been a patient for about three weeks. He appeared before Bury magistrates' court on 31 December, when the prosecution requested a remand in custody, which was granted.
  Mr. Tschelebinski was received at Manchester prison the same day, where he was examined on reception by a medical officer, who noted his medical history and called for his previous medical records from Prestwich arid Stepping Hill hospitals. In view of Mr. Tschelebinski's epileptic condition and his previous attempt at suicide, the medical officer arranged for him to be admitted to the

  805
  prison hospital and prescribed medication. At first, Mr. Tschelebinski was very disturbed in his behaviour and also refused food and would not take his anti-epileptic medication regularly. Probably as a result of this refusal he had several epileptic fits on 4 and 5 January, and was given injections to control him.
  By 6 January Mr. Tschelebinski had begun to show some signs of improvement. The medical officer had arranged for him to be seen by a consultant psychiatrist from Prestwich, who saw him on 6 January. Meanwhile, with constant nursing care, Mr. Tschelebinski's condition began to improve, and he started to take his medication regularly. He was taking fluids and eating a small amount of his meals. By 7 January he was considered to be much improved, more approachable, speaking to staff and taking a full diet and regular medication. When Mr. Tschelebinski's cell was unlocked at 7.45 on the morning of 8 January staff noted that he had defecated on the floor of his room. When the other inmates had been attended to, the hospital staff returned to give Mr. Tschelebinski his medication and breakfast. At this point he was cooperative, spoke to staff, and took both his medication and breakfast.
  At about 8.55 am Mr. Tschelebinski's cell was unlocked again so that he could be given a bath and his room cleaned. The staff found him on the floor apparently dead. The officer who found him immediately cleared his mouth of food and instituted artificial respiration and external cardiac massage, which was continued with the help of other officers, and the medical officer was called.
  Those resuscitation attempts were unsuccessful and the medical officer pronounced Mr. Tschelebinski dead at about 9.25 am. The inquest into the death was held at Manchester on 28 April 1983. I need not go into the medical evidence, because there is no dispute about it. The jury returned a finding of death by misadventure. In accepting the finding the coroner added that no blame could be placed on the prison staff.
  I shall deal with the points made by the hon. Gentleman. It is perhaps logical that I should deal chronologically with the criticisms that he makes of the role of the police. He argued that the police were at fault in failing immediately to notify Mr. Tschelebinski's parents of the fact that he was in custody, despite having told the nursing staff that they would do so.
  I understand that the Police Complaints Board was satisfied from the investigation report that in not informing Mr. Tschelebinski's parents the officer was complying with Mr. Tschelebinski's own wishes that they should not be notified. The offer to notify his parents was made by another police officer when he was taken to the police station, and was refused. He changed his mind about their being informed on the morning of 31 December, shortly before his court appearance, and they were then immediately contacted.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that the police were nevertheless under an obligation, despite that expression of his wishes that his parents should not be informed, to notify them, and in correspondence the hon. Gentleman has referred to the judges' rules. The relevant passage is concerned with cases of doubt as to whether the person can understand the questions put, or where he appears likely to be especially open to suggestion.
  806
  The Police Complaints Board investigation found that though it was plain that Mr. Tschelebinski had had previous psychiatric problems, at the time of his arrest he was considered by his consultant to be fully aware of his actions and fit to be charged and detained. In those circumstances, the board agreed that there was no obligation on the police to inform Mr. Tschelebinski's parents, against his wishes. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the criticism made in the course of the investigation and endorsed by the Police Complaints Board was that, having come to that conclusion, which the board thought was justified, the arresting officers failed to inform the hospital that they were not, as they had undertaken to do, contacting the Tschelebinskis.
  The board was satisfied from the investigating officer's report that the arresting officer was made fully aware of Mr. Tschelebinski's status as an informal patient at Stepping Hill hospital, receiving treatment for epilepsy, and of his previous mental history.
  The police informed the prosecuting solicitor of Mr. Tschelebinski's earlier treatment for mental illness, and that information was given to the magistrates. I understand that it was that information that led the clerk of the court to recommend Mr. Tschelebinski's remand to a "place of safety", which was to be the hospital wing of Strangeways prison.
  The clerk showed the reasons for his remand in custody to be the
  "seriousness of the offence, defendant's mental condition"
  and confirmed that Strangeways prison was the authorised establishment to receive prisoners on remand.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me about the conduct of the investigation, and he has implicitly criticised the board's report. He is aware, because he is experienced in these matters, that Ministers have been given no power by Parliament to intervene in any way in the investigation of complaints against the police or in the consideration by the Police Complaints Board of investigation reports. The Police Complaints Board is not under the control of Government. It has been deliberately set up by Parliament otherwise.
  As the hon. Gentleman also knows, the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, which received its Third Reading last week, changes that procedure so that the new Police Complaints Authority can itself supervise the investigation of complaints as defined by the Bill. I hope he will agree that that will be a change for the better in the procedures that we are discussing.
  The hon. Gentleman also suggested that the magistrates' court was in error in not sending Mr. Tschelebinski to a psychiatric hospital instead of to a prison. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot comment on the decisions of the court. As he also knows, because it has emerged in correspondence which he originated, in our judgment a magistrates' court has no power to order a remand to hospital in circumstances such as those of Mr. Tschelebinski's case.
  The hon. Gentleman asked why Mr. Tschelebinski was put in a bare cell without clothes. When the medical officer examined him on reception he noted that he was generally disturbed, that he had made an attempt at suicide before and that he was an epileptic. To minimise the danger of self-injury, Mr. Tschelebinski was put in a room from which the furniture had been removed, but which contained a number of mattresses. His clothes were also removed to prevent any suicide attempt. I am told that the

  807
  room was adequately heated and that he was given a blanket. As I think my chronology of events shows, he was under regular supervision by hospital staff.
  Unfortunately, despite those precautions, Mr. Tschelebinski sustained some injuries. On 5 January he was found to have a laceration to the back of his scalp, and on 6 January bruising on his knees and elbows was noted. He was given medical treatment, his condition gradually improved and the risk of self-injury decreased
  As the hon. Gentleman said, Mr. Tschelebinski's mother telephoned several times to ask about her son's health and was advised that he was not in a fit state to be visited. As in any case of a relative wishing to visit a prisoner who is in a disturbed state, that advice was given after medical staff had considered the possible effects of a visit in those circumstances on both the patient and the visitor.
  That is the sequence of events in this tragic case. Obviously, we have looked carefully at all the information that has come to us from the various sources that I have described. As the hon. Gentleman has taken up a number of other cases—I do not say similar cases, because I recall none in my experience with quite the same elements
  808
  of tragedy — he will be aware that hindsight is a powerful force in discussions of this kind. In fairness to all concerned, we have to consider whether those involved took reasonable decisions in the light of the circumstances at the time and the knowledge that they had or could reasonably have been expected to have at that time.
  Against that test, we have considered very carefully the information available to us and the results of the different inquiries that have already been made—the inquest and the Police Complaints Board investigation. As I have said, we have no powers to intervene in or comment on the Police Complaints Board report. With regard to the prison, where jurisdiction is different, we see no reason to differ from the conclusion of the coroner, who made it clear that in his view no blame attached to prison staff for Mr. Tschelebinski's unexpected and sudden death.
  Therefore, while recognising fully, and indeed sharing, the sense of tragedy that came through in the hon. Gentleman's speech, I do not think that he established the case for a public inquiry.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Twelve o'clock.

THE ARTS
  Arts Council
  Arts Council
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Public Records Office
  Public Records Office
  Maternity Leave
  Maternity Leave
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Corporation Tax
  Corporation Tax
  Employment of Labour (Taxation)
  Employment of Labour (Taxation)
  Inland Revenue Computer Centre, Telford
  Inland Revenue Computer Centre, Telford
  Drug Trafficking
  Drug Trafficking
  EC (Project Finance)
  EC (Project Finance)
  Member's Correspondence
  Member's Correspondence
  EC (Fraudulent Claims)
  EC (Fraudulent Claims)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Aid and Trade
  Aid and Trade
  Falklands Hospital
  Falklands Hospital
  African, Caribbean and Pacific/EEC Council, Fiji
  African, Caribbean and Pacific/EEC Council, Fiji
  Bolivia
  Bolivia
  Overseas Aid Expenditure
  Overseas Aid Expenditure
  International Development Association
  International Development Association
PRIME MINISTER
  Conveyancing
  Conveyancing
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Polygraphs
  Polygraphs
WALES
  "Local Authority Financial Statistics"
  "Local Authority Financial Statistics"
  Cynon Valley
  Cynon Valley
  Elderly Persons (Accommodation)
  Elderly Persons (Accommodation)
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Severn Bridge (Tolls Inquiry)
  Severn Bridge (Tolls Inquiry)
  Perinatal and Infant Mortality
  Perinatal and Infant Mortality
  Dust Deposit (South Wales)
  Dust Deposit (South Wales)
  Dairy Farming
  Dairy Farming
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Drugs Offences
  Drugs Offences
  Afia and Asmal Begum
  Afia and Asmal Begum
  Corruption Allegations (Hackney and Islington)
  Corruption Allegations (Hackney and Islington)
  Solvent Abuse
  Solvent Abuse
  Greenham Common
  Greenham Common
  Prisoners (Nationality)
  Prisoners (Nationality)
  Crime Statistics
  Crime Statistics
  Hong Kong (Iranian Refugees)
  Hong Kong (Iranian Refugees)
  Mr. Trevor Phillips
  Mr. Trevor Phillips
  Detained Persons (Photographs)
  Detained Persons (Photographs)
  Prison System (Control)
  Prison System (Control)
  Policing Methods
  Policing Methods
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  South African Nationals (Entry)
  South African Nationals (Entry)
  Television Licences
  Television Licences
  Advisory Committee on Animal Experiments
  Advisory Committee on Animal Experiments
  Community Broadcasting
  Community Broadcasting
  Pickets
  Pickets
  Satellite Broadcasting
  Satellite Broadcasting
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Work Experience
  Work Experience
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Esperanto
  Esperanto
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Warship Yards (Privatisation)
  Warship Yards (Privatisation)
  British Shipbuilders
  British Shipbuilders
  Centre for European Public Enterprise
  Centre for European Public Enterprise
  Optical Fibre Makers
  Optical Fibre Makers
  Consumer Credit Act 1974
  Consumer Credit Act 1974
  Bankruptcies
  Bankruptcies
  Swan Hunter
  Swan Hunter
  Solid Fuel Sales (Code of Practice)
  Solid Fuel Sales (Code of Practice)
  Export of Goods (Control) (Amendment No. 6) Order
  Export of Goods (Control) (Amendment No. 6) Order
  Argentina (Literature)
  Argentina (Literature)
  EC (Trade Deficit)
  EC (Trade Deficit)
  Solvent Abuse
  Solvent Abuse
  Aid and Trade Funds
  Aid and Trade Funds
  Consumer Protection
  Consumer Protection
  Sunshine Radio
  Sunshine Radio
  Illegal Broadcasting
  Illegal Broadcasting
  Research and Development
  Research and Development
ENVIRONMENT
  Rates
  Rates
  Urban Programme
  Urban Programme
  Expenditure Targets
  Expenditure Targets
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Conservation Areas (Renotification)
  Conservation Areas (Renotification)
  Listed Buildings (Modbury)
  Listed Buildings (Modbury)
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Greater London Council (Abolition)
  Greater London Council (Abolition)
  Football Matches (Disturbances)
  Football Matches (Disturbances)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Low Wages
  Low Wages
  Appropriation
  Appropriation
  Security
  Security
TRANSPORT
  Departmental Costs
  Departmental Costs
  Trunk Roads (London)
  Trunk Roads (London)
  Rail Closures
  Rail Closures
  Railways (Electrification)
  Railways (Electrification)
  South Circular Road
  South Circular Road
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  London Dial-a-Ride Service
  London Dial-a-Ride Service
  Associated British Ports
  Associated British Ports
  British Airways
  British Airways
  Highways (Investment)
  Highways (Investment)
  Road and Rail Accidents
  Road and Rail Accidents
  Buses (Public Interest)
  Buses (Public Interest)
  Road Construction
  Road Construction
  Road Maintenance
  Road Maintenance
  Maternity Leave
  Maternity Leave
  Council of Ministers
  Council of Ministers
  Council of Europe (Resolution 815(1984))
  Council of Europe (Resolution 815(1984))
  Airlines (Revenue and Capacity Sharing)
  Airlines (Revenue and Capacity Sharing)
  Pensioners (Travel Concessions)
  Pensioners (Travel Concessions)
  Pensioners (Standing Charges and Fuel Costs)
  Pensioners (Standing Charges and Fuel Costs)
EMPLOYMENT
  Average Earnings
  Average Earnings
  Training Accident Statistics (MSC Report)
  Training Accident Statistics (MSC Report)
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Northern Region
  Northern Region
  Jobcentre (Moss Side)
  Jobcentre (Moss Side)
  Community Industry (West Cumbria)
  Community Industry (West Cumbria)
  Temporary Short Time Working Scheme
  Temporary Short Time Working Scheme
  Union Dues
  Union Dues
  Mr. Richard Ehrman
  Mr. Richard Ehrman
  European Social Fund
  European Social Fund
  Training Schemes
  Training Schemes
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Dairy Farmers
  Dairy Farmers
  Subsidence
  Subsidence
  Agricultural Support
  Agricultural Support
  Milk Quotas
  Milk Quotas
  Agricultural Alcohol
  Agricultural Alcohol
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Congress of Free Romanians
  Congress of Free Romanians
  British Protected Persons
  British Protected Persons
  Hong Kong (Iranian Refugees)
  Hong Kong (Iranian Refugees)
  Public Records
  Public Records
  Mr. Dennis Skinner
  Mr. Dennis Skinner
  Soviet Union
  Soviet Union
  Uganda (Expropriated Properties)
  Uganda (Expropriated Properties)
  Philippines (General Election)
  Philippines (General Election)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Regional Secure Psychiatric Facility (South-East Thames)
  Regional Secure Psychiatric Facility (South-East Thames)
  Benefit Office, Rothwell
  Benefit Office, Rothwell
  NHS (Stock Control)
  NHS (Stock Control)
  NHS Accounts (Report)
  NHS Accounts (Report)
  Doctors (Statistics)
  Doctors (Statistics)
  Voluntary Unemployment Deductions
  Voluntary Unemployment Deductions
  Retirement Pension
  Retirement Pension
  Pensioners (Australia and New Zealand)
  Pensioners (Australia and New Zealand)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefits and Family Income Supplements
  Supplementary Benefits and Family Income Supplements
  Infant Mortality
  Infant Mortality
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Health and Social Security Bill
  Health and Social Security Bill
  Bournemouth General Hospital
  Bournemouth General Hospital
  Invalidity Benefit
  Invalidity Benefit
  Unemployment Review Officers
  Unemployment Review Officers
  Legal Aid (Personal Information)
  Legal Aid (Personal Information)
  Pensions and Benefits
  Pensions and Benefits
  Hospital Waiting Times
  Hospital Waiting Times
  NHS (Hearing Aids)
  NHS (Hearing Aids)
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Young Unemployed Persons
  Young Unemployed Persons
  Commissioners (Unreported Decisions)
  Commissioners (Unreported Decisions)
  Social Security Regulations
  Social Security Regulations
  Cervical Screening
  Cervical Screening
  St. Thomas's Hospital
  St. Thomas's Hospital
ENERGY
  Maternity Leave
  Maternity Leave
  German Creek, Australia (Coal Development)
  German Creek, Australia (Coal Development)
  Coal Imports
  Coal Imports
  Subsidence
  Subsidence
  Colliery Spoil
  Colliery Spoil
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Wytch Farm
  Wytch Farm
  Coal-firing Budget Scheme
  Coal-firing Budget Scheme
  Undersea Electricity Link
  Undersea Electricity Link
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
SCOTLAND
  Sellafield Inquiry
  Sellafield Inquiry
  Leukaemia
  Leukaemia
  Airports
  Airports
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Electricity Generation
  Electricity Generation
  Mental Deficiency Nurse Staffing Project
  Mental Deficiency Nurse Staffing Project
  Radioactivity (Monitoring)
  Radioactivity (Monitoring)
  Pickets
  Pickets
DEFENCE
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Simonstown Naval Base
  Simonstown Naval Base
  Ash and Pirbright Ranges
  Ash and Pirbright Ranges
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Service Equipment Exhibitions
  Service Equipment Exhibitions
  Public Relations
  Public Relations
  Eternal Triangle Exercise
  Eternal Triangle Exercise
  Temporary Departmental Staff
  Temporary Departmental Staff
  "The Observer" (Advertisement)
  "The Observer" (Advertisement)
  Ascension Island
  Ascension Island

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

National Seed Development Organisation
Lord John-Mackie: 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 is the future of the National Seed Development Organisation at Cambridge.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, in the context of their general policy on privatisation, the Government are examining the possibility of privatising the National Seed Development Organisation. A decision on whether to privatise the organisation will be taken in the light of this exploratory examination.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for that reply, does he realise that NSDO would be, without going into the dogma of privatisation, one of the most difficult things to privatise, because it is linked up with the research stations in the country—the Plant Breeding Institute at East Craigs in Edinburgh and at Aberystwyth in Wales? How can they privatise them without giving a complete monopoly to some private company to develop public assets?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, so far as the other plant breeding institutes are concerned, the Government's present policy is to maintain the existing arrangements, for financing the production of state-bred finished varieties. I say to the noble Lord that the Ministry of Agriculture will continue to fund those
2
activities within our resources for research and development.
So far as creating a monopoly is concerned, all I would say is that the National Seed Development Organisation is a marketing organisation set up to handle state-bred finished varieties. It is an arrangement that has worked well in the past, and the purpose of our examination is simply to decide whether this marketing function could be privatised for the future.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, if I may say so, the noble Lord must be aware that there is an awful difference between a public monopoly and a private monopoly. If the Government sell it, for argument's sake, to Dalgety Spillers, I think that Nickerson's would create a fearful row if only one company was to get the monopoly of the PBI's work.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord who, I know, has a great deal of experience in these matters, there are difficulties with the present set-up of the National Seed Development Organisation. It is not in any way the fault of the people who are in the organisation, who have, of course, discharged all their functions most commendably over the years. But the fact of the matter is that it is very difficult at the moment objectively to assess the financial performance of the NSDO. As the noble Lord will know, the NSDO does not purchase the varieties it obtains for marketing from state-financed plant breeding stations but instead we have a situation where the NSDO in Cambridge pays to the Government an arbitrary 50 per cent. of the royalties it receives. That means that the real costs of Government research and development on material passed to the NSDO are not paid for directly. What I am saying to the noble Lord is that privatisation could result in a more realistic return for Government investment in research and development. I believe that that could be a very real advance.
Lord Walston: My Lords, is the noble Lord or his department. at the same time as investigating the possibility of privatising the NSDO. looking in any way at the privatisation of the actual research which produces the varieties sold by the NSDO?
Lord Belstead: No. my Lords.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that over a long period of years the NSDO has really rendered a significant service to the agricultural industry? Is the Minister aware that I certainly have heard no criticism of the NSDO in any way and that this appears to me to be a further doctrinaire step by the Government to consider privatisation for the sake of privatisation, without any accompanying benefit to the farmers of this country at all? Will the noble Lord say what is the nature of the inquiry which is going on at the present time? What is the object of the inquiry? How soon will it be before the Government announce the result of the inquiry?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. that this is doctrinaire. I have explained at some length in answer to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, the financial reasons which lie behind our belief that it is right to have an exploration of whether it would be desirable to privatise the NSDO. We have of course kept the NSDO governing body informed and. indeed, the staff of the organisation. I should like to go out of my way in replying to the noble Lord to say that of course Parliament will be informed before any decision is taken.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, will the noble Minister confirm that, whatever decision is reached by Her Majesty's Government in relation to privatisation in this context, the level of financing now enjoyed by the Agriculture and Food Research Council will not be further lowered? I am asking that in the specific context of the Welsh Plant Breeding Station, which, as the noble Minister knows, has already suffered cuts of emasculating proportions?
Lord Belstead: No, my Lords.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the point that was raised about the staff is a very real one and that all the rumours, investigations and so on are very upsetting to the skilled and devoted staff of this organisation? The Government must think a little more about people and a lot less about money.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the staff of the National Seed Development Organisation have been told of the possibility of privatisation. There has been no question of proceeding behind their backs. I think that I should perhaps underline what I said earlier to the noble Lord. I think that, if the Government can foster sound management, commercial efficiency, and value for money for the taxpayer, then it will be found that our great organisations on which we depend—and I have made it clear that I believe that the responsibilities of the NSDO have been most commendably discharged—are on a firmer basis for the future. This is one of the points which we shall certainly be keeping in mind in our exploration of this matter.

Motorways and Trunk Roads
2.45 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 how many miles of motorway and trunk road have been completed since 1978.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, between January 1979 and April 1984. 207 miles of motorway and 512 miles of other trunk roads have been completed in Great Britain.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Could he also tell us what level of capital expenditure there was on the motorways in the four years before 1979 and the four years after 1979?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, not perhaps in those terms: but in the financial years 1979–80 to 1982–83. £2,1 10 million was spent on capital investment compared with £1,410 million in the financial years 1975–76 to 1978–79.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, motorways and trunk roads have to end in conurbations. Can the noble Lord, the Minister say what consideration has been given by the Government to the campaign launched by the construction industry showing the amount of work to be carried through in the conurbations? Have the Government had discussions; and what is the effect on the conurbations' road development of the reduction in the transport supplementary grant from 70 per cent. to 55 per cent.?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I very much regret to tell the noble Lord. Lord Underhill, that I cannot answer his supplementary questions on local roads since the original Question was on trunk roads and motorways.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, could my noble friend say when he thinks the M.25 is going to be finished, and whether there are any plans for improving the trunk roads towards the south side of the river?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the 121.5 miles of M.25 will be completed in 1986 at a total cost of £909 million.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend say how many miles of motorway are now laden beyond their design capacity, and are consequently in need of repair?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I cannot answer my noble friend in terms of mileage, but I can tell him that the older motorways—those which are 19 or 20 years of age, and notably the M1—are in need of renewal and repair. There are no motorways that are considerably overladen; that is, past the forecast traffic figures that were projected at the time of construction.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me this? If the intention of the

5
Government's White Paper in the early 'seventies had been carried out—an intention to build 2,000 miles of strategic motorway by 1980—would that not have saved millions of pounds, even considering the increase in inflation during this time? My second question is: are the Government learning from the earlier mistakes that were made when we started our motorway programme, as exemplified in the early parts of the MI in Hertfordshire, where the road was two lanes each way while the rest of the M1 was three lanes in each way and where great expense is now being incurred to increase the number of traffic lanes? Has that lesson been learned? I ask because when the Dartford Tunnel was built, it was built with two lanes each way. Will that not create a bottleneck, with the prospect of greater expense in the future?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, in so far as the figure of 2,000 miles is concerned, my noble friend will accept that there are changes in patterns of traffic and that no scheme outlined some 20 years ago can remain absolute in all terms and conditions. Currently, there are 1,404 miles of motorway and 4,826 miles of other trunk roads. There is in the current plan a further 200-odd miles of motorway and some 512 miles trunk road to be completed in the next few years. As far as my noble friend's question relating to the two-lane or three-lane approach to the Dartford Tunnel is concerned, I can tell him that in our view the congestion currently occurring is not due to the narrowing of the traffic approaches but to the tollbooth numbers. These are being increased on both sides of the river at departmental expense.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the place for a discussion on motorways is a debate?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, it is not for me to agree or disagree with the noble Baroness. I am here (as one of my noble friends said only last week) to answer to the best of my ability the questions which the House puts to me.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, as one who is very deeply impressed by the construction of the motorways, may I ask how the expenditure on them compares with the expenditure on providing new houses for the homeless and the overcrowded?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, that is another question, but Her Majesty's Government have spent a good deal on providing for the homeless. It is always, as the noble Lord will agree, a question of balance.

Miners: Tax Rebates
2.51 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government by what authority income tax rebates are being withheld from miners on strike.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, the authority is to be found in Section 29 of the Finance Act 1981 and the regulations made thereunder. Any refund due can normally only be made when the employee returns to work.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, in view of the fact that the present Government are continually telling the public and this House that taxation is money belonging to the taxpayer, is not the withholding of the appropriate rebates to non-working miners a blatant act of theft?
Lord Cockfield: No, my Lords. Any rebates due will be paid at the end of the strike when the individual returns to work. The matter was, however, debated in full on the Floor of the House in another place in the course of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill on 11th May 1981, and the reasons for the change then made in the law were very fully explained by my right honourable and learned friend the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
Lord Gormley: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell me why in the case of the miners something has gone wrong? What is the difference between the miners and the rest of the people?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the change in the law was made three years ago in 1981. There is no difference between the treatment of miners who may be on strike and anybody else who may he on strike.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it not reprehensible, especially bearing in mind the reports of manipulation of the social security system against the miners and their families, that the miners should also not now be able to get a rebate of money which belongs to them not only for the current financial year but for the financial year 1983–84? Should not the Government at least pay the amount of money due to the miners for the financial year 1983–84, which would amount to about three or four weeks' rebate?
Lord Cockfield: No, my Lords, the position is very clearly laid down in the Finance Act 1981 and the National Coal Board are simply fulfilling the obligations laid upon them by Parliament at that time. The noble Lord was himself at that period a Member of another place and he will realise that a Division was called and the Government were supported by a substantial majority in the Division Lobby.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Yes, my Lords, but this is a question of miners' families now being not on the breadline but very much below the breadline. Would it not be in the Government's own interest to try to assist in this matter? Otherwise, the charge that they are trying to starve the miners back to work will stick?
Lord Cockfield: No, my Lords. That is not so. The change was made in 1981 and it affects everybody on strike. So far as the miners are concerned, the primary responsibility for supporting people on strike clearly rests with the union.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend agree, since the strike is supposed to be about closures—every one of which is foreseen in The Plan for Coal, agreed by successive Governments, the coal board and the NUM—that the short answer is surely to bring the strike to an end?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I appreciate the comments made by my noble friend, but they do of course go outside the ambit of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Edmund-Davies: My Lords, I take it that there have been others than miners on strike since Section 29 of the Act of 1981 came into force. For clarification may we be told whether there has been any withholding of rebates from any others than miners since the Act came into force?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I made it clear in reply to the first supplementary that the change in the law applies to everybody on strike. There is no differentiation between miners and anybody else in this respect.
Lord Edmund-Davies: My Lords, as a matter of fact, has there been a withholding from strikers other than miners since Section 29 came in?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I have obviously not investigated that question, but I find it impossible to believe that, in general, the law has not been strictly followed in all cases.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, may I ask the Minister this question? He said that there was no difference between the work that miners have to do and the work that other workers have to do—
Noble Lords: No!
Baroness Gaitskell: Just a moment. May I ask the Minister whether he has been down a mine? Has he lain on that floor with a ceiling a few inches above him? Has he done that work? Has he brought up the coal? I do not think he has, and I do not agree with him.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, may I be permitted to reciprocate the noble Baroness's comment in the last part of her question? Of course, I appreciate the point that she is making, but I did not in any way deal with the comparative question of work done by miners and work done by other people. The Question relates solely to a point of tax law and I was saying that, so far as tax law is concerned, there is no differentiation between one group in the community and another.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is not only strikers who suffer and that a married woman who gives up her employment, and states specifically to the Inland Revenue that she has no intention of returning to work, may have to wait up to 15 months for an income tax rebate?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, that is an entirely different matter—
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I was not aware of the fact that any of the ladies to whom the noble Countess was referring were miners or that they were on strike, and those are the questions that are dealt with in the Question on the Order Paper. But if there is any specific case which the noble Countess has in mind, I shall be only too glad to look into it and to communicate with her.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware, having already enunciated the taxation principles that are involved in the Question, that there are very often precedents—in fact, there are at the present time—for the taxing statutes to be amended particularly during the passage of the Finance Bill? In view of the fact that the Government have already shown themselves very willing to amend substantially in certain respects the Finance Bill which is currently going through another place, will the noble Lord make representations for this group of people who are on strike and find out whether in the current political, and indeed economic. circumstances it might be wise for the Finance Bill to contain an amendment to the taxation statute?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, as the noble Lord is very well aware, these are matters for another place and not for your Lordships.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister trying to transfer responsibility from the Government to the National Coal Board? In his answer he stated, in an aside, that this was the way in which the National Coal Board was acting. Surely it is the Treasury which is acting in this way and which must take the responsibility. If that is the case, is it not clear that this is one further tactic of the Government to starve the miners and their families into submitting to a policy laid down by this Government?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I made it clear that the National Coal Board were simply carrying out their obligations under the statute. The responsibility for the content of the statute is not a matter for the Treasury but for Parliament. Parliament took a vote on this matter. I would suggest that the noble Lord should read the debate which took place on 11th May 1981.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what, to the last available date, is the total sum due by way of rebate to coal miners who are now on strike?
Lord Cockfield: No, my Lords. I am not in a position to give that information. The only relevant comment which I would make is that in respect of the period after 5th April no refunds would have been due. because no tax would have been paid by people on strike at that date.

Austin Montego: Sales Figures
3.2 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: 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 is the value of orders British Leyland has received to date for the new Austin Montego.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, £110 million worth of orders had been received by British Leyland from fleet buyers at the time the car was launched on 25th April. Figures from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders show that up to the end of April, 1,938 Montegos had been registered. I understand from Austin Rover that in the first 10 days of May, the car was the ninth best seller in the United Kingdom, taking over 3 per cent. of the market.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very good piece of news. May I ask him whether or not this has come about because British Leyland has entirely re-formed itself in recent years and now has better designs, better productivity, massive investment, much better co-operation between the 80,000 people who now work there, and as a result there is a buoyant order book which is very good both for Britain and for British Leyland?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the comments made by my noble friend are entirely accurate. The car has made a good start and this is a good augury for the future of British Leyland. It is also a matter of some encouragement that in the accounts for 1983, which have just been published, British Leyland showed a profit at the operating level of £4.1 million. This represents an achievement by everybody concerned—the workforce as well as the management.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that this excellent performance is in sharp contrast to the four years' performance immediately before the company had to be brought into national ownership? Is the noble Lord aware that in 1971 the shares of the company under private enterprise were quoted at 46.5p and that in 1974, immediately prior to nationalisation, they were quoted at 8.5p?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the noble Lord's historical researches are no doubt of considerable interest to himself, if to nobody else. The important point is that after a period of great difficulty this very important company is now showing significant progress. We must all wish this progress to continue.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the figures he has just given, which the whole House welcomes, include export orders?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I cannot give a specific figure, but last year the Austin Rover group exported 20 per cent. of its total output.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in the light of the very fulsome and well justified praise that the noble Lord the Minister has just extended to British Leyland, can he give the House an assurance that this successfully publicly-owned company will not now be privatised, either wholly or piecemeal?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am clearly not prepared to give any such assurance to the noble Lord. In any event, his question goes wide of the Question on the Order Paper.

Health and Social Security Bill
3.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Nearly every session of Parliament contains a Bill on health or social security issues. This one is no exception, and the Bill inevitably deals with a wide range of subjects. It represents the Government's continuing commitment to promote the interest of the consumer in the health service and to achieve a more rational scheme of social security provision, making the best use of available resources.
The main provisions of the Bill illustrate these objectives. First, we are taking steps to curtail the monopoly granted to opticians and doctors on the sale of glasses and to permit much freer advertising by opticians. This will result in more competition, more choice, and lower prices. It is a change which will benefit nearly everyone who wears glasses. Secondly, we propose to make important changes in the status, accountability, and structure of family practitioner committees. Thirdly, we are proposing to introduce a new benefit—severe disablement allowance—which will replace non-contributory invalidity pension. It will provide a more logical, fair and acceptable form of benefit for people who are outside the scope of the contributory scheme. Fourthly, we propose to rationalise the rules affecting dependency additions to social security benefits. And finally, we are tackling the wholly indefensible position of "franking", which results in a manifest loss for some members of occupational pension schemes.
The Bill also makes minor or technical amendments to existing legislation, which I think (or at least hope) are uncontroversial. I propose in my speech to deal with the main provisions of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Caithness, having been so recently pitched into this complex area, will deal with any points which arise on both minor as well as major provisions when he winds up the debate.
First, I shall deal with optical services, which are covered in clauses 1 to 4. Clause 1 has two objectives. The first is to relax the restriction on competition for the supply of optical services imposed by the Opticians Act of 1958. Achieving this objective enables us to take forward a second one, which is that, given a more competitive market, it will no longer be necessary to persist with the state provision of glasses. A free private market will serve those who need glasses much better than will the present arrangements.

11
Our attack on the restrictions imposed by the Opticians Act had its genesis in the report by the Office of Fair Trading, Opticians and Competition. The study leading to this report followed considerable public disquiet at the high cost of private glasses. Our reform of the Opticians Act tackles two issues. The first relates to advertising. The General Optical Council have the power to make statutory rules regulating advertising by registered opticians. The result has been disastrous for the consumer. A prerequisite of a free market is information. Without comparative information on the range of services and prices of other suppliers, the consumer has no real choice. At present the GOC rules do not allow opticians to advertise their existence, their opening times, what services they provide, what types of frame they stock, or what they charge. They certainly cannot use local newspapers or other normal media to inform the public. The Office of Fair Trading concluded that, in the absence of such information, opticians could virtually set their own prices without regard to the behaviour of other opticians.
Advertising will improve choice for consumers and it will lead to lower prices. Experience in the United States, where advertising restrictions vary from place to place, suggests that prices are nearly 40 per cent. lower in the least restrictive cities compared to the most restrictive ones. We have no reason not to expect significant price reductions here.
I now turn to the question of relaxing the restrictions on who can sell glasses. At present, glasses can be sold only by, or under the supervision of, a registered medical practitioner or a registered optician. This restriction extends, quite illogically, even to empty frames without lenses. The Office of Fair Trading made out a powerful case why this restriction has made glasses more expensive than they need otherwise be. It is the Government's view that a restriction of this kind can he justified only in exceptional cases of public interest. Only in a small number of trades and occupations is it felt necessary to restrict the practice of that calling to those who are professionally registered. We believe that such treatment is justifiable only if the public would otherwise be put seriously at risk by incompetent practice. Expert medical opinion is that "wrong glasses"—that is to say, the wrong types of lenses in glasses—cannot damage adult eyes.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Glenarthur: Most people, my Lords, will themselves be able to reach a judgment about their glasses and tell whether they are significantly "wrong". But the Bill ensures that young, developing eyes, which can be damaged by incorrect glasses, are dealt with only by qualified persons. The Bill requires that all glasses sold by non-opticians shall accord with a written prescription following a sight test. This ensures that all wearers of glasses will have a periodic screening for glaucoma and certain other eye and general diseases which can be detected by a sight examination.
The clause gives a power to impose conditions on the unregistered traders who will enter the market. We are already consulting widely on what these conditions should be, to ensure that safe and serviceable glasses are sold. But the best consumer protection of all is a
12
free, competitive market. Those retailers who do not produce serviceable glasses will soon be weeded out by consumer choice. We confidently expect that this reform will increase choice and lower prices, and that it will not lead to a deterioration in the standard of glasses provided.
These reforms of the private market will enable us to tackle the problem of National Health Service glasses. Provision of glasses is unlike most other parts of the National Health Service. New glasses are an infrequent, yet regular, requirement—perhaps needed every two to three years or so—and form an ideal subject for responsible prudent provision by individuals.
The purchase of glasses shares none of the characteristics of services which need to be free at the point of delivery. Indeed, except for a brief period between 1948 and 1951. provision of glasses has not been free. Successive Governments have seen no reason why they should be free. What we are left with, after more than 30 years of the National Health Service, is a range of outmoded glasses which are indiscriminately subsidised by an average of £5 a pair. Most people will undoubtedly get a better overall deal in terms of style, choice and price from the reformed private market than they do from the National Health Service.
But anyone who is on a low income will still be able to get National Health Service glasses. For anyone on supplementary benefit, they will be completely free. If people are above this level, but still of limited means, they will get help with the cost. Children, too, will continue to get their glasses free. No one who is really hard up will have a financial barrier placed between him or her and the glasses he or she needs.
Some transitional arrangements are required and these are covered by Clause 28. For the time being, children and those on low incomes will get National Health Service glasses as now. In the longer term, Schedule 1 gives us the power to substitute financial grants. It is right that once market conditions have stabilised, children and those on a low income also should have the benefits of wider choice. For the small group of National Health Service patients who need expensive lenses, we intend that they will have the option of continued access to National Health Service glasses, at a controlled price. We will not, however, continue to subsidise these lenses indiscriminately. Overall, therefore, we believe that the time is ripe for this antiquated and unnecessary state provision to cease.
I now turn to Clause 5 of the Bill. We intend to publish a Green Paper on future primary health care needs, in order to stimulate an informed debate among the health care professions and the public. Central to any strategy for meeting those needs must be a firm focus for the provision of the family practitioner services. That is what this Bill provides. Our aim is directed at simplifying and strengthening the administrative arrangements for these services by removing the administrative dependence of family practitioner committees on district health authorities and making them fully accountable to the Secretary of State as employing authorities in their own right.
The present arrangements were made in 1974, with the best of intentions. However it has become

13
increasingly apparent that the administrative dependence of FPCs on district health authorities has caused problems of delegation and accountability and has led to the creation of an unnecessarily complicated bureaucracy. In the light of experience we have come to the conclusion that new arrangements are required.
The new arrangements will have three main features: the clarification of lines of responsibility and strengthening of accountability; an increase in administrative efficiency; and improved collaboration between family practitioner committees on the one hand and health and local authorities on the other. It was with that last, important objective in mind that last month we published the report of a joint working group on collaboration between family practitioner committees and health authorities. Copies have been placed in the Library of your Lordships' House.
Its most important message is that the new family practitioner committees which this Bill proposes should broaden and develop their experience and technical capacity in order to make a stronger contribution to the planning of health services. It also suggests an annual programme and a profile and strategy statement every five years as part of the process of calling committees to account.
During the passage of the Bill in another place, the Government have also taken the opportunity to introduce a number of other desirable amendments to existing health legislation. In particular, I should refer to Clause 7, which seeks to put beyond argument the remuneration arrangements for the four National Health Service contractor professions—the general medical practitioners, dentists, opticians and pharmacists. It is long-standing and accepted practice that past inadequate or excessive payments are offset in future payments; this is, in the interests of the professions and the taxpayer. However, the legal basis of the practice has recently been challenged by the body which represents the pharmacists contractors—the pharmaceutical services negotiating committee. Although the High Court ruled against the challenge and in favour of the existing arrangements, we wish to make the statutory position clear beyond any doubt. I must emphasise that this clause does not represent any change in Government policy; it is intended simply to clarify the present arrangements, as they have been understood by the professions and the Government for many years.
I now turn to Part II of the Bill, which deals with social security matters, of which the introduction of a new benefit—severe disablement allowance in Clause 11—is the dominant issue. As your Lordships will be aware, it replaces non-contributory invalidity pension—or NCIP—which has been available since 1975 to men and single women who are incapable of work, but who do not satisfy the necessary contribution conditions to qualify for contributory sickness or invalidity benefit. Married women have been able to qualify since 1977, but only if they are also incapable of performing their normal household duties. This benefit has become known as the housewives' non contributory invalidity pension—or HNCIP.
This additional "household duties" test has long been a source of controversy and discontent both on
14
grounds of discrimination and because of the nature of the test itself. The proposals in the Bill follow a review which was carried out by officials of the department on a recommendation of the then National Insurance Advisory Committee in 1980.
Unlike NCIP, the new benefit will make no distinction on grounds of sex or marital status.Those who become incapable of work on or before their twentieth birthday will qualify on that basis. Those who become incapable of work later in life will qualify if they are also 80 per cent. disabled.
Everyone drawing NCIP or HNCIP, when severe disablement allowance is to be introduced in November of this year, will automatically be transferred to the new benefit. And, in addition, once SDA is fully phased-in, we estimate that around 20,000 more people will qualify over and above the numbers entitled to the present benefits, at an extra cost of some £20 million a year. In the longer term, since some people who would have qualified for NCIP or HNCIP may not qualify for SDA, these figures may be somewhat lower; and it is estimated that after perhaps 30-40 years there will be around 5,000 extra beneficiaries overall.
Much of the criticism of our proposals has stemmed from an understandable disappointment that we have been unable to adopt the straightforward solution of paying NCIP to married women on the same basis as men and single women. However, the Government have never made any secret of the fact that this was not a viable option. The extra costs would amount to some £275 million a year, and money on this scale is simply not available.
SDA will continue to provide an income replacement benefit payable at the same rate as NCIP and on a simple test of incapacity for work to those handicapped at birth or in childhood who are never able to work and build up a contribution record. The additional disablement test for those who first become incapable of work over the age of 20 is intended to concentrate the available resources on the most severely disabled. In effect, this is what the household duties test does at present. We intend to replace it with a much fairer and more objective test using the same principles of assessing disablement as have been successfully used in the industrial injuries scheme since 1948 and in the war pensions scheme since 1917.
I am confident that severe disablement allowance represents a fair solution to a problem that has exercised successive Administrations. The new benefit represents an important improvement in the general level of cash benefits. It is a significant step towards the Government's long-term aim of a more coherent system of benefits for sick and disabled people.
I turn now to the proposals for changes in the dependency provisions of the social security scheme. Clause 13 introduces Schedule 4 and is concerned with dependency additions in respect of children. There are at present two levels of these additions. One is the rate paid with the short-term benefits—chiefly unemployment and sickness benefit—and the other is that paid with benefits for long-term contingencies like retirement and invalidity. As the level of child benefit has gone up, so the rate of the child dependency addition has gone down and we now have a rate of just

15
15p a week by way of child addition with the short-term benefits. At the next general uprating of benefits in the autumn we intend to discontinue the 15p rate so that support for those at work and those not at work because of a short-term contingency will be by way of child benefit, now set at £6·50 a week for each child and free of tax.
Those receiving the long-term benefits get child additions of £7·60 a week—also tax free—on top of child benefit. These are now more readily available because of the changes we have made to comply with the EC directive on equal treatment. We have given some thought to the implications of this change and have concluded that it would be right to introduce a test of child dependency. We intend that where a beneficiary's wife or husband is earning over £80 a week, the dependency addition for one child of £7·60 will be withdrawn and further additions will be withdrawn for each extra £ 10 of earnings. This would only affect new beneficiaries as we shall give transitional protection to those already on benefit when the new rule starts.
There is one further item I should mention about this group of proposals. Several of our dependency provisions are subject to an earnings rule, and we propose in Clause 14 that where a dependant has an occupational pension this should count as earnings in the same way as wages or salary. But I want to make it clear that this will not affect personal benefits and pensions. and, in particular, it will make no difference to the retirement pensioners' earnings rule.
Finally, the Bill contains items which affect occupational pension schemes. Clause 19 facilitates the transfer of accrued rights of groups of earners or their pensions between different occupational pension schemes, while Clause 20 prohibits the practice of franking. Franking is the term used to describe the practice whereby the statutory revaluation of guaranteed minimum pension is achieved by eroding other scheme benefits payable. It is an abuse, and as such it has been widely criticised. In the 1981 report on early leavers, the Occupational Pensions Board recommended that it should be abolished so that:
"It would thus no longer be permissible for schemes to set the revaluation of the GMP on state scheme benefits against other preserved benefits".
Generally, it now seems that there are few who try to defend the practice, and at the conference on early leavers last September my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services made it clear that we intended to abolish franking as soon as possible. This is the first step in our programme to improve the treatment of the early leaver.
In conclusion, this is a wide-ranging and important Bill which makes a number of significant improvements to health and social security provision. In particular, the provisions concerning optical services, opticians and the sale of glasses demonstrate the Government's policy: to put the interests of the user of the service first. I have concentrated on what we believe are the most important provisions. No doubt other features of the Bill will be discussed in detail in Committee. Above all, this Bill is concerned with securing a better deal for the public, and on this basis I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
3.26 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, first, I am sure the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for his explanation of this highly controversial Bill. Secondly, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on his first appearance on the Government Front Bench, to wind up this debate. My only wish for him in the mood of sympathy with which I start my speech is that he had a more attractive Bill to defend.
In fact, this is in my view a ragbag of a Bill, with hardly anything to commend it. I intend to choose just the same five items as did the noble Minister, although I have to say that my conclusions on all of them will be sharply different from those he himself reached. Other points, of course, will he dealt with in Committee, and I have no doubt that my noble friend Lady Jeger who will be winding up for us, will have other points to make.
I therefore start with Clause 1 on which I have had, as other noble Lords will have had, a huge volume of representation from professional organisations including the medical and optical professions, consumer bodies and voluntary organisations, especially those concerned with elderly people. There are, of course, two main issues here. First, there is the decision of the Government to deny NHS support to nearly two-thirds of those now assisted by the optical service of the National Health Service. This is a further chipping away at the National Health Service, which is supposedly safe in the Government's hands. One has to ask: why has this action been taken? The noble Lord says that it will make it cheaper for all. Time will tell. I must say that I have not met anyone who believes that that will be the case, except for the noble Minister who said it. I ask, since the Government are proposing to save £17 million according to the financial memorandum: is there any other motive except to save £17 million?
Does the Minister accept that those principally affected will be the elderly? Of the elderly 22 per cent. have some sort of visual impairment and 75 per cent. of all registered blind and partially sighted are over the age of 65. Therefore, the measure that the Government are putting forward in this part of Clause I will particulary hit elderly people. I resent that, and I hope that the House will resent it. Often cataract patients may need three changes of glasses in the 18 months following an operation. These people, unless they are on supplementary benefit, will suffer financial hardship if they are no longer eligible for NHS glasses.
In my view it would be a step backward if visually impaired people were in future required to pay for their disability. It breaches the very principle on which the National Health Service was created; namely, that it is all of us—the taxpayers—who should pay for those who are sick, rather than that the burden should fall on the sick themselves. I believe that the provision is a mean and a petty one.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will have his opportunity to make a speech. I want to set out from the Front Bench the many important things that need to be set out. The second issue affects opticians and the public. There is the extraordinary proposal in Clause 1 to end the provision in the Opticians Act 1958 which allows only registered or medical practitioners to sell optical appliances. This proposal has been roundly condemned from all sides. If the noble Lord wishes to point out a side which has not condemned it, of course I will now give way.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way early in this debate, because it is desirable. Many of us have had a circular on BMA paper which actually comes from the committee of the ophthalmic group. On following it up, I learn that some of what is contained in it is absolutely untruthful. In fact the full committee of the ophthalmic group has never met since this Bill was published. It has never met since the Bill was published! It is wrong to pretend that the BMA is behind this document. It is not behind it, has not discussed it. and nor has the full committee met. It is true that a few members of the executive of the committee have met under Mr. Gilkes, but it is not right to say that all people condemn the proposal.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, this is grossly unfair. The noble Lord has put his name down to make a speech. He ought not to make such a long intervention. If he wishes to say that the BMA does not know its job, that the doctors do not know theirs and that he knows it better, let him say so in his speech. I have here just what the ophthalmic group committee of the BMA said. It represents all medically qualified optical staff. I have this information on the notepaper of the BMA. Noble Lords keep intervening from a seated position.
This document says three things. First:
"If dispensing by unqualified persons is allowed, there will be no effective control over what is dispensed and no protection for patients if they are dissatisfied with the product".
Secondly,
"The proposed changes could have practical and financial consequences for those with special needs, be they medical (e.g. patients with cataracts or if the prescription is a complex one involving special factors) or social".
Thirdly,
"Since spectacles are a product with a significant health element, we do not feel that it is appropriate for the public to be unduly influenced in their purchase by advertising".
I must say to the noble Lord who was intervening that it is not just the BMA which has made representations. It is all the professions involved in optical services. These are people who have spent their lives in that service and who know far better than the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne (who is again intervening from a seated position) the needs of their patients. I must ask the Minister, in view of what his noble friends behind him have said, what consultation there was with the professions before the Government took this further backward step. Perhaps he would like to say now what consultation there was. I will give way to the noble Lord; but he does not want to say. I do not believe that there was effective consultation.
18
The BMA has expressed its view. What about the public? The Minister said that the proposal was in the interests of the user. The Federation of Optical Corporate Bodies decided that an independent survey of a nationally representative sample of spectacle wearers provided more reliable information about consumer attitudes towards opticians and their services. A total sample of over 1,000 spectacle wearers was interviewed. The results of the survey showed that 73 per cent. of respondents claimed that they would not want to shop around for spectacles. In terms of factors considered important in choosing spectacles, the most important factor was "professional advice". Twenty-eight per cent. said this was their most important factor; second was "style of frames", followed by "cost". Seventy per cent. rated the overall service from opticians as being "excellent" or "very good", and only three per cent. criticised them as being "poor". Sixty-nine per cent. rated the service received from opticians as being "good value for money". Nearly everyone (98 per cent.) rejected the idea of buying spectacles:
"from mail order or over the counter without any professional advice".
Spectacle wearers have a high regard for opticians—I believe it is right that they should—and the professional treatment received. Correct eyesight is quite clearly regarded as a serious medical requirement, especially among elderly people. The idea that it should go out to the open market, as the Minister put it, is one that most people would find objectionable. I believe that any move towards the supply of spectacles by unqualified sellers will offer cost benefits to some, but they will clearly be benefits dearly won by many others. They will be won by putting eyesight at risk; they will be won at the expense of optimum visual performance; and they will be won by increasing other spectacle prices, as well as by decreasing the general optical service in its vulnerable areas.
Age Concern, with its special interest for elderly people, has set out the case admirably in the letter it sent to the Secretary of State on 2nd February 1984:
"There is no guarantee that the price of non-NHS spectacles will fall if the Bill is enacted. People who currently obtain NHS spectacles and cease to be eligible and who need to change their glasses regularly, could therefore face financial hardship…the price of NHS glasses could rise if the Bill is enacted since NHS lenses are supplied at below cost and the frames benefit from long manufacturing runs.
If non-opticians are allowed to sell spectacles the viability of existing opticians' shops could be threatened and this could lead to a reduction in eyetesting facilities".
It could certainly make it more difficult for people in rural areas to go to their optician. It continues:
"Similarly, the smaller opticians who lack the resources to advertise may also suffer from the competition".
I think that those are very strong arguments.
It is interesting that these feelings are expressed not just by one political party. I was very impressed when Mrs. Jill Knight on 2nd May (column 399 of Hansard) in another place—
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: Hear, hear!
Lord Ennals: Yes, my Lords, she knows what she is talking about on this subject. Perhaps she does not on

19
others, but she really does about this. Her husband is in the profession. She said:
"It is almost 30 years now since the House, in its wisdom, passed legislation to protect the public from the dangers of allowing persons without expert knowledge to dispense spectacles".
She went on to say much more, but time does not permit me to read it into the record. The arguments were there, and I believe that they will be voiced by other noble Lords during the course of this debate.
My next subject is the family practitioner service. I welcome the Minister's statement about a Green Paper on primary health care. Our objective should be to bring the whole of the primary health care services into a closer relationship with the hospital and community services. The Tory reorganisation in 1974 significantly failed to do that. The Minister recognised that fact. The Tory reorganisation in 1982 also failed to achieve integration. The latest proposal would cut them off altogether, presumably to make it easier to make further cuts in primary health care. If that is not so, in this connection may I ask once again in the House whether the Minister who is to reply will say when the Binder Hamlyn report will be published? Why is it being sat on for month after month? Why is the matter not open for debate for those who care about the primary health care services, which I believe are absolutely crucial to the National Health Service in this country?
The new proposal seems to put far more power into the hands of the Secretary of State than ever before. Is it really true that he will himself appoint 3,000 members of the family practitioner committees? How do the Government square that centralised non-democracy with the line that they are taking on democracy in the trade unions? What is the justification for this change which, together with the implementation of the Griffiths Report, is a third Tory reorganisation in 10 years, putting more power to the centre? Instead of this interminable tinkering with the structure, why do not the Government let the National Health Service get on with its job?
I now turn to Clause 7 and professional remuneration in the National Health Service, particularly that of pharmacists and opticians. From my experience gained as Secretary of State, I am only too well aware of the protracted negotiations which take place almost continuously between the Department of Health and these family practitioner contractors who are not fortunate enough to have fixed annual negotiations or a permanent review body. In the case of the pharmacists, the final amount of remuneration due to them is determined according to the best available estimate of their reimbursable costs, such as the cost of medicines, labour, overheads, and so on. But there is no reason in my view why these estimates cannot be replaced by the actual costs incurred at the end of the year in question. Otherwise, what we are doing—and that is precisely what this Bill is doing—is authorising retrospective demands upon the pharmacists. The system requires a more orderly method of annual review in line with the present arrangement for doctors and nurses. On Clause 7, I and a number of noble Lords will table an amendment to limit the retrospective adjustment of remuneration to a period of one year. What the Government are proposing now
20
is a retrospective clawback covering a whole period of three years which I believe is going to have a very serious effect upon many of the pharmacists.
My fourth point concerns Clause 13, which, for the sake of saving, according to the financial memorandum, less than £4 million in a full year. takes away the entitlement of child addition for those receiving short term benefit. Fifteen pence a week does not seem very much. However, if one is living on £25 a week, 15p is something. It reduces financial support for children of the unemployed and the sick by 15p per child per week. We have to put this matter in perspective. As a result of changing the basis on which child additions were uprated in 1980, total child support—that is child addition plus child benefit—received by an unemployed claimant is now £1.70 less than under the rules that my Tory successors inherited from me.
The Government's action is condemned by their own Social Security Advisory Committee. I do not understand what impels Government Ministers to act in so callous a manner against the 4 million unemployed. It is as if somehow or other it was their fault. First the earnings related supplement was taken away. Then unemployment benefit was taxed. Next the uprating of unemployment benefit was set below the rate of inflation. Now child additions are being taken out. It seems as though the Government somehow wish to punish the unemployed for their misfortune. I cannot believe this is true. If that is not true, then why come forward with a clause like that in this Bill?
Finally, I want to refer to the severe disablement allowance in Clause 11, referred to by the noble Minister. I must say that this is an issue on which there is very strong feeling among organisations representing people who are disabled in one way or another. People are disabled in many ways. As I do, they all welcome the proposed abolition of the household duties test. But having said that, there seems to be total unanimity among the organisations who have made representations to me in condemning the alternative proposed in the Bill. I cannot find any organisation representing disabled people which supports the Government on this proposal. If I am wrong and I have missed one out, no doubt the noble Minister, when he comes to reply, will tell me which that one was. I ask: why was there no consultation whatsoever with the major organisations concerned? How stupid it is to alienate organisations which have a detailed knowledge of the needs of disabled people. I am thinking of organisations like the Spastics Society, like RADAR, the Disablement Income Group and MIND. These groups are dealing daily with the problems of disabled people. Did they have an opportunity for consultation? No, my Lords. not a little bit of it.
The proposals for the new benefit were announced on the very same day that the Government's interdepartmental report on the household duties test was published. You might say, "Well, of course time was very short.- It had taken three years for that report to be completed and published, and on the same day that it was published the Bill was published saying what it was going to do instead. There was not any opportunity at all for consultation.

21
I was told by the Disablement Income Group:
"We think that a debate and consultation of interested parties are essential before such a major change in the social security system is proposed. Had either occurred, we doubt that these most unsatisfactory proposals would have been made…The Bill proposes to abolish the household duties test and end discrimination against disabled married women by introducing a second, and"
—in many people's opinions
"irrelevant test for everyone over the age of 20. Not all disabled married women who would be eligible for the existing housewives' non-contributory invalidity pension will be eligible for the proposed severe disablement allowance"—
called the SDA.
"The Government estimates that about 16,000 disabled married women who are incapable of work, would have passed the household duties test and thus would have been eligible for HNCIP but will not be eligible for SDA."
Older disabled students on a course of study compatible with incapacity for work had been able to draw NCIP while studying. Many will now be ineligible for the new benefit and may have to give up their studies and, as a result, perhaps their opportunities to work.
"Credits towards a pension will be lost by many who will now have to look to supplementary benefit as their main source of financial support rather than NCIP…
"A test of degree of disablement is wholly inappropriate in the context of a benefit for total incapacity for work. Some people who are merely 20 per cent. disabled may be unable to work on account of their disabilities, whereas some people who are 100 per cent. disabled may be quite capable of earning a very good living."
I happen to be 100 per cent. war disabled. I cannot say that the allowances I get at this House are a very substantial financial support but clearly I am able to do, though inadequately, a day's work. There is no correlation between degree of disablement, as measured by industrial injuries or war injuries, and capacity to work and earnings ability. So it is illogical to connect the two, in respect of an incomes maintenance scheme for those whose disability prevents them from doing any work.
This is an issue which has aroused very strong passions. Some of you will have seen what I thought was the very responsible statement by John Cox on behalf of the Spastics Society in the Guardian just a few days ago. He said:
"In principle, the Society cannot accept an age cut-off point for assessment-free claims, which admits the harsh inequity of the two tier test proposed for older people. Furthermore, we believe that the age cut-off could deter young disabled people from taking up further education or training opportunities.
"The Society is keen to see any move towards the realisation of a Comprehensive Disability Costs Allowance and Income Scheme, but we do not believe that the SDA is suitable to meet the needs of congenitally disabled people."
That is just the same conclusion therefore as that at a recent meeting of representatives of disablement charities, attended by many Members of your Lordships' House. Though I am not committing any noble Lords here, the conclusions reached by the organisations were simple and unanimous. They urged the Government to drop Clause 11 at this stage, to consult with the experts such as those who are involved in DIG, RADAR, the Spastics Society, MIND, and the rest, and to come back again with an agreed solution which actually meets the known needs of disabled people. The Government would not lose face by acting in this way. In fact, they would earn considerable credit for taking the proper route by
22
which conclusions should be reached. A new allowance is very much needed; but, this time, we must get it right.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for his very clear exposition of the contents of this Bill. There is no one general theme, as he explained, linking the different parts of the Bill together which we can say at once that we are in favour of, or opposed to. The Bill was described in another place as a miscellaneous ragbag of a Bill that artificially combines wholly unconnected issues. Unfortunately, that is true of a good many of the social security Bills that come before this House.
I should have liked to have said that this Bill was like the curate's egg, good in parts; but the good parts are rather difficult to find. However, I can begin with one point of agreement. We support, as did the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, the ending of franking that is provided for in Clause 20. It was wrong that, in a contracted-out occupational pension scheme, the obligatory annual uprating for inflation of the guaranteed minimum pension could be allowed gradually to subsume the balance of the pension.
May I turn for a moment to the child dependency addition. I have made it clear in this House before that we approve the gradual elimination of these benefits so far as short-term benefits are concerned, and that we approve also the substitution of child benefit as the single method of providing child support in these cases. But we have objected in the past, and we continue to object, to the fact that child benefit has not been increased sufficiently to compensate for the loss of child dependency additions, as, again, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, pointed out. It is also a point on which the Social Security Advisory Committee has commented severely.
Child dependency additions will remain, as the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, explained, for those on long-term benefits, but they will be subject to a new earnings rule so far as spouses' earnings are concerned. I think I am right in saying—the noble Earl who is to reply will correct me if I am wrong—that a retirement pensioner with a spouse and a dependent child is subject during the first five years of retirement to three earnings rules. First, if the pensioner earns more than £65 a week, the pension is docked, and the principle is that he is deemed not to have properly retired. Secondly, if the spouse earns more than £45 a week, which is now to include occupational schemes, then the spouse's pension is docked, and that is on the principle that the spouse is not a dependant.
Now there is to be the third test, as a result of the Bill, that if the spouse earns, in the case I mentioned, more than £80 a week, then the child dependency addition is withdrawn. There does not seem to be a principle behind that. It is a means test to ration a national insurance benefit. We should bear in mind that this is not supplementary benefit. It is a national insurance benefit, and it would therefore seem that this is, in fact, a breach of the national insurance principle.
I think your Lordships will agree from the example that I have given that the earnings rules, which are

23
more extensive and cover other cases than those I have mentioned, are complex and confusing. This point was emphasised by the Social Security Advisory Committee in its second report, when it called for simplification and rationalisation of earnings rules. I shall leave it to my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley to comment further on the proposed changes as they affect child dependency additions.
The proposals for family practitioner committees raise two questions. First, is this a move away from the integration at local level of the different branches of the health service? Secondly—and this was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals—does it concentrate too much centralised power in the hands of the Secretary of State? I shall leave it to my noble friends Lady Robson of Kiddington and Lord Kilmarnock to answer those important questions. I wish to concentrate in my remaining remarks on the proposals with regard to optical appliances and on the new severe disablement allowance. First, I turn to the appliances. The Bill, as the noble Lord explained to us, keeps the free sight test by a qualified person. It keeps prescriptions by a qualified person. But, in regard to dispensing and the sale of spectacles, except where children and contact lenses are concerned, it opens the door for a free-for-all.
This has been defended as the breaking of a monopoly. If anyone talks to a Liberal about breaking a monopoly, they certainly get a good reception in the first instance. I can perhaps remind the House that Winston Churchill, in his Liberal days, said that socialism attacks capital but liberalism attacks monopoly. However, when I come to look at the situation here, it does not seem to me that there is a monopoly. Large numbers of opticians' firms are in competition with each other. and there is no concentration of ownership. Is there a cartel? When I come to examine it, it does not seem to me that there is a cartel. This is emphasised by the statement made by the Minister in another place when he said that the same spectacles could be bought for 102 from one optician and for £42 from another.
There is no cartel, but there is a closed shop. We on these Benches are not very keen on closed shops: but we have always accepted a closed shop based on professional qualification where the protection of the public demands it, as, for example, in the case of doctors. Is it necessary to have qualified dispensers? I would say that the answer is: yes, if you want accurate prescribing and some redress if things go wrong. If you look at the subjects that a consulting optician has to study in a three-year course, I think that your Lordships will agree with that.
The question then arises: does it matter if you get inaccurate prescribing? The Government say: no, it does not, because it will not do any damage to sight. However, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in this House on 27th April 1983—that is just over a year ago—speaking on this matter, said:
"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".
24
This was the noble Lord speaking for the Government. The noble Lord went on:
"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."
A contributory cause to accidents! The noble Lord continued:
"It may well be that this is a very small risk, but I personally would not choose to be driving down the M l behind or in front of somebody who had less than perfect eyesight."
He went on to say:
"I recall also that before I came to your Lordships' House I was a pilot. I had on my licence an endorsement to the effect that I had to wear 'approved correction to defective vision'. I imagine that those of your Lordships, if there are any, who had the misfortune to fly with me would have preferred that the glasses that I was wearing were the correct ones".—[Official Report, 27/4/83; col. 1035.]
On a previous occasion my noble friend Lord Winstanley said that incorrectly prescribed glasses would not harm: "You just can't see", he said. That brings us back to the point made so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. There is sufficient doubt about the possible dangers to convince me that all those dispensing should have a qualification, not necessarily as high as that of dispensing opticians, but sufficient to enable them to know what they are doing.
We on these Benches share the concern about the withdrawal of National Health Service spectacles from all but the poorest and children. We believe that there are many above the limits set in this Bill who nevertheless are still on comparatively slender resources. For example, I think of elderly people with a small occupational pension who will suffer as a result of the withdrawal of these spectacles. The withdrawal reduces the scope of the National Health Service, and on that point the Gloucester family practitioner committee had this to say:
"To restrict the supply of spectacles to patients other than children and those who receive supplementary benefit will deprive the majority of patients in this country from receiving spectacles through the National Health Service. This proposal is in direct contradiction to the many statements in Parliament that the present Government has no intention to reduce the scope of the National Health Service".
That was the view of the Gloucester family practitioner committee.
Some 32 million people per year are affected by this withdrawal and I myself cannot see how the price level is going to fall if one takes out of it the lowest element. To conclude my comments on optical appliances on a less critical note, may I say that we welcome the modification of the restrictions on advertising which are contained in the Bill.
I should like now to turn to the severe disablement allowance. With the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. we welcome the withdrawal of the household duties test for disabled housewives, but we cannot give a similar welcome to the severe disablement allowance. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred to the fact that this appeared to have been introduced without any proper consultation with the disabled or the organisations which represent them. I believe, as he said, that they are all opposed to this proposal. They are opposed to it in the main because it makes the system more complex, because it confuses compensation for disability with income maintenance. As the noble Lord said, someone who is 80 per cent. disabled may

25
be capable of work, whereas someone less disabled may not be capable of work. Some who now qualify for the non-contributory invalidity pension would not qualify, if they were applying for the first time, after the Bill becomes law.
The Bill continues to discriminate against married women. I think that that was implicit in what the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said. The noncontributory invalidity pension is designed to provide for those with no adequate national insurance contribution record. The review of the household duties test states in paragraph 35:
"The overwhelming majority of people who become disabled while of working age and who lack an adequate contribution record are married women".
Two-hundred-and-forty thousand married women are prevented by the household duties test from getting the non-contributory invalidity pension. Some 20,000 extra people are all that will be brought in by the severe disablement allowance.
The noble Lord has told us that £275 million would be the cost of bringing in all those who at present are kept out by the household duties test. The new arrangement is designed to have the practical effect of reducing the numbers of housewives included and keeping down the cost. We on these Benches will continue to press for a disability income which would have two elements—one, an income maintenance element, and the other an expenses allowance element.
May I say in conclusion that while, as I have indicated, there are in the Bill one or two items with which we agree, there is much about which we have strong reservations and much which we strongly oppose. While in accordance with the convention in this House we shall not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, I think I have said enough to make it clear why my right honourable and honourable friends in another place felt obliged to vote against it.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, I wish to address myself to the Opticians Act. The Bill before your Lordships' House is intended to re-examine and amend where necessary an Act which was introduced in 1958 by a Private Member. It was never introduced by Government. Willingness now on the part of Her Majesty's Government to carry out some amendments represents to me at least a chink of light at the end of a dark tunnel. After hearing the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, I regard it as positive sunshine.
From the outset that orginal Bill was a contentious one. It was fought tooth and nail on the Floor of the House of Commons, where, rightly and justifiably, its motivation was called into question. Throughout the 25 years of its operation it has been the subject of committees of inquiry of various kinds as to the manner of its interpretation and numerous abuses which have gone unchecked and have left the customer defenceless in the face of sharp practice.
I use the word "customer" with a certain reservation because that is the correct word where a willing buyer purchases from a willing seller. Indeed, where a willing person seeks advice of a physical nature from a professional expert, the word "patient" is correct. But for somebody who has no desire for medical or
26
professional advice and is more than capable of remedying inconveniences which beset the advancing years and is officially denied a right to a simple aid, then we are in a different ball game. We are in the situation of the alleged Russian who dissents from a discriminatory and unfair law and, because of his dissension, is declared a mental defective. He is subjected to psychiatric treatment and in that instance the relationship involves neither customer nor patient. He is a victim, as is the dissenting presbyope (that is simply somebody with an ageing eye) wishing only to offset a predictable situation with a predictable standard aid, who is denied that right because, in absentio, he has been categorised as a visual defective.
The abuse of Section 21 by the opticians has created many dissidents, many victims. I declare myself to be just such a dissident and just such a victim, and in that I am in excellent company. Recently a shop was opened. It opened its doors to presbyopes like myself, offering a variety of magnifications and frames at realistic prices. The rush to buy while the going was good enabled the owner to open in that short period seven branches.
I said that I was in excellent company and, indeed, I found that leading ophthalmologists were also customers. However, on the specious pretext that the ageing process makes us all visual defectives at some time, and without any shred of justification, many of these branches have been forced to close. I was astonished to hear a leading witness presenting evidence that magnifiers such as presbyopes use are indeed not magnifiers because they are minimal magnifiers and are needed for minimal magnification.
I brought these matters to the notice of this House in an Unstarred Question in 1981. The consequential volume of support for change encouraged me to go the whole hog and seek the repeal of Section 21. At the express wish of Her Majesty's Government I withdrew that Bill, pending an Office of Fair Trading report on the way the Act was working either for or against the public interest. As one would expect, it was a thoroughly researched and a thoroughly professional document. Now, of course, there is a smear campaign, but there is no question that that was an excellent report. There have been many expressions of concern over the years in your Lordships' House which have shown that the fears expressed in that report were fully justified.
Indeed, the report went further by looking at Section 25 of the Act and highlighting the difficulties of the average housewife or pensioner traipsing around trying to discover such simple facts as prices, services offered, speed of service, times of opening and general efficiency. This was further substantiated by a consumer magazine report which highlighted the truly absurd variations in prices—for example, anywhere between £40 and £100 for indentical frames. Such variations are, of course, sustained by an ability to deceive and by nil competition.
Yet another report—this time by the Committee of Public Accounts—highlighted the abuses of value added tax in what was termed delicately as "unintended profits". In other words, under the protective cover of the National Health Service monopoly, there was the practice of buying cheap

27
lenses from the Far East and then recovering VAT in accordance with standard rates applicable to the home-produced goods. This had the double effect of squeezing the home industry and drawing an unmerited subsidy from the taxpayer.
In order to satisfy some doubters in your Lordships' House as to the dangers, if any, of buying reading glasses over the counter, some members of the Repeals Group, to which I belong, funded a small survey on this issue with members of the Ophthalmological Society. We owe a debt of gratitude to the fact that nearly 400 of them replied and of those a one-third majority wanted total derestriction on reading glasses. Bearing in mind that many stood to lose financially, it was a highly significant response.
The Government have now once again brought this Bill into the political arena and it is easy to see why. In so doing they have now to look back to the origins of the Act, because—as I read it—what is said in this Bill empowers the General Optical Council to veto and override anything that they do not like at Privy Council level later on. It brings us back to those days when it was openly stated by those wishing to get control of the market that wearing wrongly prescribed glasses was a major cause for blindness. That would not be accepted today; it would not get past the Trade Descriptions Act. But business is not played according to Queensberry Rules.
The Government commissioned the Crook Report. Their recommendations were intended to be the tablets upon which this new faculty of opticians would find its ethos. The aims are clearly set out, and indeed they were to be the pillars upon which an edifice, akin to the medical profession, could be founded. Central to the whole thinking was that eye-testing opticians and dispensing opticians should be entirely separate. That idea stemmed, of course, from the precedent of the medical profession and the inherent dangers manifested in the earlier days of medicine when professional or quack medicos could diagnose in their consultancies merely in order to sell their own cure-alls. Paragraph 66 of the Crook Report says that the public interest is the main consideration for this all-important directive of separating these two functions. It has never been implemented.
Another fundamental directive concerned the formation of ophthalmic optical corporate bodies. Their remit at that time—a dual role of testing sight and dispensing—was to be terminated as soon as expedient and no new corporate bodies were to be allowed. There can be no room for misinterpretation of those rulings. Also, there were explicit rulings given on partnerships being formed with non-professional opticians, because undesirable pressures could, in that situation, influence professional judgment. The whole tenor of the report was to pre-empt the abuses which would inevitably follow unless strict guidelines were set out for a governing body. The General Optical Council was set up and pledged to adhere to those proposals. The rules have been flouted. Why? Why has there been no attempt to implement any part of them?
After 25 years we still have at the centre the General Optical Council, supposedly the guardians of the
28
public and of their eyesight. It consists of 26 members in all, 22 of whom are opticians; 13 at least—maybe more—represent corporate bodies which, according to the Crook Report, should not exist at all. The biggest of these by far is Dollond and Aitchison, a subsidiary of the American tobacco consortium, Gallahers. With somewhere around 750 retail outlets in the high street—or so I am informed—they have the lion's share. With such muscle power it is beyond dispute that they dominate the entire trade and the General Optical Council is subservient to them. What this body of people did to the Crook Report was to tear it up—or at least the bits which did not suit them—as soon as they got hold of the statutory reins of power or quasi-autonomy as formulated in the word "quango". With such a central autonomous position they have far greater power than the whole of the medical profession put together, and that cannot be healthy.
No member of the public can escape at some time being branded a visual defective. No member of the trade can compete efficiently and provide a service of a competitive nature without running the risk of being arraigned before a secret court and put out of business. Believe it or not, this comes under the heading of "infamous conduct". Under such total power no government can enact legislation which cannot at a later stage, when it suits them—as with the Crook Report—be torn up, buried and forgotten.
So long as this "Trojan Horse" sits within the edifice of the National Health Service, its members representing only their paymasters, the work of this House and of another place will be rendered nugatory. Before any attempt is made to get some measure of reform into the Bill, and in the light of past performance, I would ask the House that the members of the General Optical Council should now be told to stand down and their places should be filled by a representative body—a body which in fact and in truth is seen to represent the public interest and which is identifiable by the public as representing their interests in what are truly matters of vital concern to them.
4.17 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I should like very briefly to speak and ask questions on Clauses 11 and 13. Clause 11, as your Lordships know, concerns the new severe disablement allowance which will be introduced to replace the current non-contributory invalidity benefit and housewife's non-contributory invalidity benefit. While welcoming, as other noble Lords have done, the abolition of the housewife's duties test, the new severe disablement allowance is, for many reasons, cause for concern. I am sure that other noble Lords will pursue this subject—particularly the 80 per cent. test; the age cut-off; and the medical and social implications.
I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Caithness, who is to reply, if it is possible to be given the amount of money that is spent now on the current noncontributory invalidity benefit, and what will be the cost to the country of the new severe disablement allowance. I have not given notice of this question and I appreciate that it will not be possible for him to give an answer this evening. But I would be most grateful if I could have a reply in writing.

29
Secondly, would not the Minister agree that, as it stands at the moment, the Bill's provisions on the child dependency allowances may militate against the interests of families with children? But if, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has said, child benefit is going to be raised, then it may be a different matter. Is it possible for the Minister to say whether, in the review of benefits that is to be made by the Secretary of State, child benefit is to be reviewed? If so, then of course a different complexion will be put on this clause.
Can the Minister also say—and here again I would not expect him to reply this evening, but I hope that he will write to me—what is the present position with regard to expenditure and what will be the expenditure if the new system is introduced?
4.20 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I rise to speak on the Second Reading of this Bill and, as was said by the Minister in opening the debate, I am aware that this is the latest in a long series of social security Bills put forward by the present Administration since the election. What the noble Lord did not say was that all those Bills have had one thing in common, which has been openly admitted by the Government; namely, they have all been aimed at reducing the cost of the social and welfare benefits available to people in this country. This has been openly stated in Committee, and I have had the privilege of sitting on a number of Standing Committees in the other place where, in reply to debates on various amendments, Ministers have regularly said that the main purpose of this or that specific measure has been that it is a nil-cost provision.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords. I hate to interrupt the noble Lord but he is slightly misrepresenting what has been said. What has been said in many cases is that we are trying to achieve better value for money. How the noble Lord can say that we are not spending more money when the SDA is costing another £20 million, I do not know.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I hope that before the end of the Committee procedure I shall be able to give the noble Lord the Minister lots of answers to that. For the time being, I shall not go too deeply into the history, but I can assure the noble Lord that the exact words "nil-cost provision" have figured in many ministerial replies from that side of the Chamber.
As I have said, in previous Bills benefits have been delayed. They have been reduced, taxed and been subjected to clawback devices; they have lost the advantages of linkage with wages or prices, whichever was the highest; and generally all benefits have become so complex that even the experts are now finding it difficult to administer them. The latest example of that must be the unified housing benefit, which is almost totally out of hand.
This Bill, which in my view could easily have been two or three separate Bills, takes the whole process a step further. As one noble Lord has, I think, already mentioned, there is no apparent linkage, as there was in many of the previous Bills. There is no automatic linkage between some of the subjects covered in the four points outlined by the noble Lord the
30
Minister—no obvious link. So this could have been two or three Bills at least, but this Bill takes the whole process of complicating legislation and of the nil-cost provision a stage further.
I should like to comment on just those two aspects, which have already been commented on at length, so I do not have to be too long-winded. I should like to support the views already expressed, certainly from this side of the Chamber, on the effect upon the ophthalmic services. I hesitate to develop that because of the excellent technical address that we have had from the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, and from other noble Lords who have spoken on this aspect. But, because of my close association with Age Concern over a number of years, I, too, felt that they had aptly summed up the problems in the letter that they wrote to the Secretary of State, which has already been quoted in this debate, although I do not recall seeing any reply to it.
However, I was rather worried, and I am still worried, that the Minister and others continue to say that if this Bill is enacted spectacles will become cheaper, that if people are able to buy them from all sorts of outlets, competition will bring down the price, and so on. I imagine that most noble Lords will have received a copy of a document entitled A Dubious Bargain, which has been produced by some members of the ophthalmic profession for our perusal. On page 15 it says:
"The British UKO lens and frames manufacturing company produced the latest 924 frames for 0.30—'there won't be anything coming in from abroad that will be better value, not for that money', says David Wiseman of UKO."
They go on to develop the discussion about the 924 frame and what will happen to it:
"When the government decided on a new NHS frame which was stylish rather than functional UKO took on 30 extra staff",
at their Northern Ireland factory in order to tool up and produce these frames. The document continues:
"Now they are saddled with the frames because the biggest customer, the NHS, is pulling out after next year."
I do not know whether the noble Lord has any better examples of better value for money than the £3.30 frame which has been produced by this firm and which is being made available to the NHS. I think that we should all like to hear about that value for money. I am also worried about the disparaging statements that are coming from all quarters, and which I read in the press, attacking what I have always considered to be the very honourable, highly-trained and highly-skilled profession of opticians and all those connected with the industry. I am worried because it would seem that we are setting the ground for introducing all kinds of semi-skilled, or even unskilled, people to this business of dispensing and providing spectacles.
It is no good people saying that once the test has been taken anyone can dispense spectacles, which was another point raised by a previous speaker. I am also aware of the existence of a machine which literally takes seconds to diagnose the type of glasses required. You simply look into an eyepiece and the operator asks you whether you can see a line; if you say "Yes". he says "Put your other eye there. Can you see it now?" If the answer is "Yes", he presses a button and a small piece of paper comes out, as a bill comes out of a till in a supermarket, and he says, "That is your

31
prescription and you must take it along to someone to dispense it". That frightens me. I know that these machines exist, and I daresay that other noble Lords will have seen this contraption for testing eyes. It takes away the skill from the test. The prescription is then taken to Woolworths, Debenhams or even Marks and Spencer to be dispensed.
Then it is said that no damage is caused to anyone by wearing wrong glasses. It seems that we have all been living under some kind of misapprehension for many years that the testing and dispensing of glasses was an important and skilled job and ought to be done properly. We have all been taught by the same people who are now trying to "unteach" us about the difficulties of eye strain, the possibility of accidents and all the other things that can happen if we wear ill-fitting or badly dispensed glasses.
I am simply voicing the concern of all ordinary people, who are not experts in this field but who are worried if we take away the skilled service and go back to the situation which existed pre-NHS, when spectacles were sold on the market stall, where one went along and picked up one pair after another and tried them on and bought the pair that one could see through best. We thought that we had got rid of market stall spectacles of pre-NHS days. This Bill is taking us right back to that situation, with all the problems that then existed.
But what is worse, and what worries me more than anything, is that that situation is now being supported—in fact, advocated—by people who I should have thought ought to have been a little more careful and responsible about that kind of approach. So I certainly look forward to the Committee proceedings on the provisions of these ophthalmic clauses and what happens to spectacles and glasses and the difficulties and dangers in which we shall find ourselves if this Bill goes through in its present form.
I want to spend just a few minutes on the other point—namely, the question of Clause 11, which has been mentioned by speakers on both sides of the Chamber. The clause contains proposals to abolish the non-contributory invalidity pensions and to replace them with a severe disablement allowance. In practice, these proposals will abolish the additional household duties tests which married and cohabiting women have to satisfy in order to qualify for the noncontributory invalidity pension. That has been welcomed. I recall the discussions during the campaign. I am not saying that it was led as well as it might have been by people on my own side at the time, but I can well recall the campaign against the household duties tests, and a very successful campaign it turned out to be. Therefore, I, with others, welcome the abolition of that test.
But the proposals to abolish it followed a review of the household duties test which was initiated in July 1980 after the National Insurance Advisory Committee had recommended that the test should be phased out if a satisfactory non-discriminatory alternative could be devised. This approach had the support of all the voluntary organisations concerned with the problems and of Members of both Houses of Parliament who take an interest in these matters. But
32
the inference of this approach was that consultation would be necessary if we were to reach this satisfactory non-discriminatory alternative. This was confirmed by the then Secretary of State in a letter to the Spastics Society in March 1982, when he said:
"We are pressing on with the review in the full awareness that those who have made representations about the household duties test are impatient for results but I canot at present give a date for its completion. When it is, we will, as promised, report to Parliament."
That was followed later by the Minister who was responsible in July 1982, Sir Hugh Rossi, Member of Parliament for Hornsey, who had this to say:
"We intend to publish the results of the review and then to invite consultation."
What happened to the consultation? We have been asking ever since. The review was published on 1st December, the Bill received its first formal reading on the following day, 2nd December. and was published on the 5th. Where was the consultation? Did the Government rush the Bill through in order to avoid consultation? Were they afraid that there may be some embarrassing delays. having in mind the EEC directive, and so on, if consultation took place; or is the truth as was suggested by my right honourable friend Brynmor John in the other place when he spoke during the Second Reading debate on 20th December? He said, at col. 339:
"The only conclusion that we can reach is that the Bill represents the weakest and cheapest scheme that will formally comply with the appropriate European directive".
Again, I hope that we shall be able to investigate those aspects when we come to the Committee stage.
My noble friend who led from the Front Bench went into some detail about the objections raised by all the voluntary organisations. I have had a number of meetings with the voluntary organisations and discussed these matters with them. I can only agree with all the criticisms that my noble friend and they have levelled at the Bill. I hope that we shall be able to substantiate these criticisms and convince the Government that the consultation was necessary, that it ought to have taken place, and. I am convinced. would have resulted in an agreed alternative nondiscriminatory scheme. That is still my aim. I hope that as a result of the Committee procedure we shall be able to convince the Government themselves to bring some constructive amendments to achieve that kind of aim.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords. I want to concentrate on the optician part of this Bill, as did the noble Lord, Lord Rugby. Before I do that, may I say that I had a message at the beginning of this debate from the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, who has been active in this field for about 25 years. Unfortunately, he is ill in bed with a high temperature and wants to offer his apologies for not joining in. He is one of the most robust advocates of a little more freedom. Coming from the SDP Benches he would have been a welcome addition, and we are all sorry that he is not here for this debate.
I am sorry in a way that this particular aspect was not put in a short Bill without lots of other issues. A short, sharp Bill concentrating on optical matters would have been more desirable, but I know from past experience of seven years as a Minister that the

33
moment you get a Bill a lot of people rush at you and say, "We have been looking for an opportunity, Minister, to tag this along in some Bill. Would you mind if we hang it on? It is only five clauses and three schedules". Of course that is generally the part that gets the most attention and causes the most difficulty, and you miss the wood for the trees.
We have all received many documents in the run up to this Bill. The press have for many years taken a close interest over the possibility of greater freedom. I received the same document which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, quoted from, and he quoted absolutely correctly. It says at the end:
"If you have any queries please ring Mrs. Susan Marks."
I promptly did so, and I asked, "Though they are on BMA paper, are they actually the views of the BMA? I understand that the BMA have not met on this issue, but of course it has been decentralised to their ophthalmic group, quite understandably." So I then asked, "Has the full committee of the ophthalmic group met?" The answer was. "No, it has not met since the Bill was published. But some members of the executive committee have met".
That is a slightly different view. I am sorry if I interrupted the noble Lord, but he is a straightforward, honest, and honourable chap, with many years' service in this field, and I am sure that he did not want to get too far down that road quoting, as one might be entitled to quote, something that was never really considered by the BMA, or not considered in full by their ophthalmic committee.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I am most grateful to him, because I felt a reluctance in this regard. The noble Lord will be aware that the issue that had been referred to the ophthalmic group committee of the BMA was one that they had dealt with over a considerable period of time. They had been in correspondence with the Secretary of State for Social Services, and copies were made available to the BMA. The BMA is perfectly entitled to refer to one of its expert committees the handling of that particular field of expertise. I think that the criticism that the noble Lord is making of the BMA is an unreasonable one.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I did not think that I criticised the BMA. I said that the matter had not come before them. I find it difficult now to be told that they had been careful cohorts with the Minister when the allegation in several speeches has been that there has been very little, or no, consultation at all. What becomes of that argument if we are told that over years they have been in correspondence and have been carefully exercising their minds with the Minister of the day?
Lord Ennals: My Lords, it was not over years; it was 12th December 1983.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I still think that it is important that specialist committees should at least meet when an important Bill is published. They have never met since this Bill was published. I get the feeling—and this may apply to others who speak in this debate—that some do not know what is in the Bill.
34
I wish to speak to some of the points because I take the view that this Bill, desirable though it is—and certainly it is a good start after 25 years' waiting—ought to go rather further than it does.
It is not liberal enough. How sad I was—and how many old-time Liberals must be revving in their graves—to find the Liberal Party saying that it cannot even accept this mite of liberalisation on a minor issue. It is sad, after the great days of Gladstone and the speeches that lasted three hours, to say that this tiny, little nibble of a Bill cannot have Liberal support.
The two largest optical markets in the free world are in the United States and Japan. In both those huge countries they take infinite pains, as we all know, about health care and eye care. Why is it that in both those markets they allow much more freedom than this Bill is now going to suggest? Why do they find, with all their care over health—and anyone who goes to the United States knows that at the drop of a hat they will give you a test, and probably an enema, too—
A noble Lord: And an X-ray.
Lord Orr-Ewing: And an X-ray, and everything else. Why do you suppose that they have allowed freedom, and why in those markets are spectacles so much more easily and cheaply available, particularly for those who, through perfectly normal ageing processes. need some help in reading? I think that the telephone book found me out first. The prayer book also finds you out. if you do not know it by heart, or they change it; and then there is other small print. Maps, by the way, are absolute hell. But I have not got diseased eyes. I have the kind of eyes which half the people wearing spectacles in this country also have. After the age of 45 or 50, whatever it is, you need magnification of small print. This is not a faulty eye. It is perfectly natural.
In other ways our muscles also do not react quite so well. I cannot jump so high. I cannot run so fast. Whenever I play cricket I am always run out nowadays because of what I thought was a safe one to extra cover, but I forget that I cannot go so fast. My muscles do not react. Exactly the same applies to the muscles of every person's eyes. They cannot focus as well as they used to, they cannot be as alert as they used to be, and they age. I am suggesting that this is a perfectly natural process and is not a disease.
I cannot help at this moment saying that all this sad reflection—I must rag the Front Bench Opposition spokesman on this one—is like "granny in the glen" over the British Telecommunications Bill. We were told that everyone was going to suffer; that everyone from now on would have to wander around with a white stick; and that we were all going to he deprived of rights. We are not. If one reads the Bill one sees that we are not going to be deprived of rights or care. Extra care will he taken. Of course. it does exist at the moment—I feel that some of us who would like a little greater liberalisation would like to do what the United States. Japan. Singapore and the Far East are doing and what Sweden is doing. In the days of Sir Harold Wilson, as he then was, we were always used to having Sweden quoted as the "great socialist country". They have liberated their old controls over the sale of spectacles. They have gone the route on which this

35
Government are going a little too slowly. In the Committee stage of this Bill I very much hope that in all parts of the House we shall look after the people who need to be looked after—that is half the customers in this country.
When I go to the States I know that at this stage in my life my eyes are + 3½diopters in each eye. I go into a store and look at the type of glasses that are there. It is rather like a seaside resort where there are post cards in racks I choose the frame that I want and then look down the frame and it says: l–1½, 2–2½, 3–3½diopters. This is perfectly possible. You are never going to harm your eyes—everyone is now agreed about that.
Lord Ennals: No. my Lords.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, the noble Lord does not agree? Does he think that eyes are harmed?
Lord Ennals: Both my eyes are different.
Lord Orr-Ewing: I am awfully glad that the noble Lord mentioned that, but are they violently different, because it has been discovered that the human frame. the eye particularly, is far more flexible than people hitherto thought. You can make an allowance. My eyes are slightly different but there is an extreme adaptability. In the States, incidentally, they are doing research because they find that bifocal lenses sometimes cause accidents in that people stumble over a step because they are not looking through the right part of the lens. They now find that it is perfectly possible in some cases—I am not advocating this but it reflects the differences in how adaptable are our eyes—to have the lens in one eye for reading and in the other eye for more distant vision. The adaptability of our eyes and our brain is so great that one can allow for it. Where there is a minor difference it is perfectly acceptable.
This viewpoint is supported by the professional people—the eye doctors, the Ophthalmological Society. The vast majority of them support the idea that the monopoly on sales should now go. Not only would we be bettering the advice of people as qualified as that, but we would be greatly helping the average person. I do not exclude from this the million or so visitors who come to our country. Are they in future to have to carry a prescription as well as their blood groups, their identity cards, their driving licences and their credit cards? Are they in future to have prescriptions because if they break their glasses, as most of us do at some time in our lives, they find it very difficult to get them quickly fixed?
Everyone will benefit if this freedom is allowed. I should like the Government to go a little further and I shall seek to put down amendments and support amendments which show that reading glasses, properly marked, should be able to be bought in multiple stores as they can be in the great majority of countries of this world.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I wish to deal purely with Part I of the Bill as my noble friend
36
Lord Banks has dealt with Part II dealing with the social security provisions. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has admitted that the Bill is full of different and unconnected pieces of legislation. Before I come to the provisions of the Bill itself, I should like to implore the Government to end that annual production of a Bill dealing with the NHS or with the various aspects of the NHS. The Government have been in power for some time now and they must have come to fairly definite conclusions about the direction in which they want the NHS to move. We would all, I think, welcome a comprehensive Bill clearly setting out the Government's views on the NHS. The present piecemeal fashion of legislation relating to the health service inevitably leaves the Government open to the accusation that they are far from wholehearted in their support of the health service.
Secondly, I also wish that we could have Bills introduced specifically for the National Health Service and specifically for the social security aspects, instead of having them put together in one Bill. I think that both subjects are of such immense importance to the average citizen that they deserve separate treatment.
I return to the Bill. First, I should like to thank the noble Lord. Lord Glenarthur, for his Notes on Clauses and for the very clear way in which he introduced the Bill. I should like also to refer to the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, that it must be difficult for a Liberal to come out and speak against the freeing of competition. But may I say that being a Liberal does not necessarily mean that one is laissez-faire and that one does not care about the kind of provision that one provides for people who maybe are not able to discriminate themselves. So, as the noble Lord. Lord Banks, has said, we welcome the relaxation embodied in Clause 1(2) on advertising. We believe that this can only be beneficial to the patient, but we have however grave reservations about Clause 1(1).
Much has been said by various noble Lords about the fact that wrongly dispensed glasses cannot damage your health. I agree that it cannot damage your health but it can cause you enormous discomfort, and I believe can endanger people because they do not see as well as they might. They may not even be aware that they are not seeing as well as they might. There is much much more to the supply of glasses than the actual prescription by the practising opticians.
When you get a prescription and go to your dispensing optician, he has a lot of work to carry out to make certain that those glasses are the right ones for you. He has to measure the width between your eyes so that you focus properly through the lenses. He has to make certain, if you wear bifocals, that the division between the vision is in the right position. depending on the kind of job that you do. All those things require a certain amount of skill. I believe it is essential that people have a certain amount of training before they are allowed to prescribe glasses.
Secondly, in the new system, who is to make certain that the dispenser possesses the right equipment in his premises for the testing and checking of lenses? As noble Lords know, most lenses are produced by prescription houses or laboratories and they are sent to the dispensing optician who then presents them to the

37
customer. He must have the proper equipment for checking and double checking that those lenses are correct to that prescription and are meant for that particular patient. There is nothing in the Bill that will ensure that persons selling glasses will have adequate equipment in their premises.
Thirdly, under the regulations that will be laid down, I understand that in another place we have been given the assurance that only prescriptions up to two years old will he permissible for dispensing. But you can envisage a patient who, having had a prescription two years ago, at the end of two years goes to his optician and has a new pair of glasses made. He could, equally, wear those glasses for two or three years; and in all that time he would not have had an eye test. Among a certain group of people in our society, particularly the elderly, it can be very important to have an eye test every year. That is another danger that I see.
Then, too, I am nervous about how the average patient will get redress in cases of complaint. If the General Optical Council or the FPC are going to be responsible for the provision of services, how can they be responsible if there is not a register of the people who are entitled to dispense glasses? Lastly, I should feel very worried about the orders relating to this clause being passed through this House under the negative procedure. I should much prefer it be under the affirmative procedure.
I will now turn to the family practitioner committees. I should like to turn to Clause 5, which proposes the establishment of wholly independent family practitioner committees appointed by the Secretary of State and accountable to him alone. It has never been my experience that three wholly independent bodies make for better co-operation than that obtained from two independent authorities. The problem of getting agreement from a greater number of independent authorities surely must be more difficult. Both the Royal Commission and the Acheson Report agree that there is great advantage in responsibility for the whole range of services in a given area being discharged by a single authority. Only then would it be possible for the barriers between different parts of the health service to be removed.
I was pleased to hear that the Government are producing yet another Green Paper on primary care. I doubt whether we really need so many Green Papers on primary care. We already have documents that set out the aim of primary care. We are a caring community. What we need from the Government is not more Green Papers or more instructions but a certain amount of finance so that we can introduce primary care. The establishment of a wholly independent family practitioner committee charged with the provision, one presumes, of primary care within the community makes one wonder whether in due time the duty of providing community care will be removed from the health authorities and handed over to the new, autonomous FPCs, thereby slowly returning to the pattern of service that we had before 1974, with complete division between the hospital service and the community care services.
Much has been said in another place during the passage of this Bill about the disproportionate amount
38
of money spent by district health authorities on the hospital service compared with that spent on community services. That comparison does not take into account the money spent on the family practitioner service: it was related only to the funds available to the district health authorities. I am the first to acknowledge the value of the family practitioner service in this country. We are tremendously fortunate in having a devoted service from our general practitioners, and most people see the NHS as their family doctor because, with luck. that is the one and only part of the service with which they will come into contact.
However, because of the division in the service there is much passing of the buck from one side to the other. Under financial constraints, the hospital service has cut down on drug prescriptions for patients, passing the responsibility to the general practitioner. On the other hand, the general practitioners tend to refer to hospitals patients who, in the past, would have been dealt with by them in their surgeries. I came across an example the other day when a mother took her small 4 year-old child to her general practitioner because she had fallen in the playground and slightly cut her chin. The mother and child were sent to Charing Cross Hospital accident department, and the child had to sit there seeing a lot of very badly injured people for the purpose of having one small stitch put in. That does go on; for every general practitioner is not necessarily doing a marvellous job. And when that kind of thing happens, we increase enormously the cost to the hospital service.
It follows that if we are going to have the right kind of balance we need to have the family practitioner service, the hospital service and the community services under one head. I believe that that can happen only when the family practitioner committees are fully accountable to the DHAs and the regions. Regarding the membership of the FPCs. I also have grave reservations. The provision of four representatives of local authorities and district authorities on the family practitioner committees could create great anomalies. In some instances, there could be four representatives from one district health authority on an FPC or there could be only four representatives to represent more than four districts.
Secondly, those of us who have worked in the NHS know how difficult it is to get a good attendance at health service meetings by local authority members, not because they do not want to attend but because of pressure of committee work in their own authorities —work which is increasing under the present economic and financial constraints. A local authority will now be faced with having to produce members of regional health authorities, members of district health authorities, members of joint consultative committees and members of family practitioner committees. I make that quite a large number of local authority members. Where are they to come from? I do not believe that we shall see a better attendance by local authority members on health service committees by increasing the number that they have to provide. I believe that if we are going to have them truly represented we must have for them (just as we have for the pharmacists) permission for a deputy to attend. I think that is the only way that we shall make certain

39
that there is proper representation of the elected representatives of the people on the family practitioner committees or on any other health authority committee.
There are many more aspects of the Bill that are disturbing. We hope that amendments can be agreed at Committee stage to make some sense out of this hotchpotch of a Bill.
5 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords. may I first express my apologies to the Minister who is to wind up, as well as to my noble friend Lady Jeger. Owing to a promise that I made, I have to attend a meeting later in the evening. At the time I did not know that this Bill was to be debated today. but I must keep my word so I proffer my apologies.
To a few of us who are left and who have been concerned with the National Health Service from its inception by Aneurin Bevan. it is absolutely amazing to see what has happened over the years. The converts are almost incredible. The vast number of Conservatives who have now been converted to the National Health Service equates with the Chinese general who baptised his troops with a hosepipe. That is always a very good thing.
As a former staff side chairman in the Foreign Office. I wondered whether this measure would be accepted and whether Parliament would throw it out. After the most appalling war in Europe's history, we wondered whether this country of ours could introduce something which the world had never seen before. But we did it, and what is encouraging is that successive Governments have maintained the grand principles which were enunciated by Nye Bevan when he introduced this measure.
However. I am a little worried about this Bill, because it departs from anything that has been done before. With Dick Crossman, my noble friend Lord Ennals and other Ministers in the Opposition, I have scrutinised what has happened since 1947. I am bound to say that, while this Bill is really four Bills in one, at best it is a miscellany of miscalculations and at worst it is a deliberate infusion of rising damp in the National Health Service. It is not an outright attack, but it is slow, invidious and cunning, and when one has been involved for many years generally, as well as specifically, one recognises these things almost immediately.
This Bill mutilates rather than constructs. It is not much concerned with the enhancing of health or social services. The quintessential of this measure is to save around £265 million to £300 million for the Government to hand out in tax reductions later on to the better off. This Bill is more of a bad feudal "means" than the Good Samaritan which Bevan created.
Much of the time will be taken up with the opticians' aspect. I listened very carefully to the most informative speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Rugby and Lord Orr-Ewing, and I am bound to say that I have to agree with much of what they said, though I have to disagree on some aspects. For example, very many people, who may think that they do not need
40
glasses. really need them if only to read the small print on some of the documents of private enterprise insurers in the private sector of the health service, because those who have not read the small print find themselves later on in very difficult situations. It would be much better if they had read the small print and had NHS glasses to do it.
However, I understand that the Government do not intend to include contact lenses in their opening up of freedom to the opticians. If that is the case, may I ask why? Is there any difference in my wearing these glasses, which I look down on, and having lenses inside my eye? All they have to do is make me able to see, so I cannot see what the difference is. No doubt I shall be informed later.
What I want to say loud and clear is what is recognised by ophthalmic surgeons and opticians throughout the world, including the United States of America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, France and Germany. They have one acknowledgement of which we ought to be proud, which is that Britain provides the best quality lenses in the world. That is important and I am proud to be able to say it, so I hope that this Bill does not detract from that remarkable accolade.
There is another aspect which worries me. I do not understand why no Labour Government or anyone else said that everyone should have the best frames. We are now to move into a situation where National Health Service frames will be restricted to the very poor. They will therefore become stigmatised. Adults who wear National Health Service frames in the future, if this appalling Bill becomes law, will be wearing their badge of being poor in this good society of ours. These are some of the matters which Nye Bevan looked at very closely when he had to fight the BMA and the Conservative Opposition. who fought every line of the Bill at every stage. I am very pleased to say that within a few years they were totally converted.
My fear is that under this Bill that great stand. which was made right through to the 'sixties and 'seventies by Governments of both sides. will now start to change dramatically. To begin with, it seems to me that under the Bill there will be a loss of expert dispensing by opticians and. with the introduction of cut-price proposals by big corporations and multiples. it will be a policy combining callousness with real myopia. It will be bad for the public and what is more—and I am amazed that this came from a Tory Government— it will he so unfair to the small businessman and the small firm dispenser. many of whom have written to me expressing their apprehensions. Does this Bill really mean that expertise does not count any more?
I want to ask one question of the noble Earl who is to reply. Will foreign speculators be allowed to enter this country to compete against the British and to bring with them orders from their countries, so that there will be a wide variety of nice, cheap Japanese glasses as well as good solid British glasses? I want that question answered tonight if that is at all possible.
The apprehension is not confined merely to these Benches. I do not think anyone would say that the Sunday Telegraph is a very hard Left-wing newspaper, but it has suggested that elderly people who are now

41
paying £35 for complicated lenses will probably be paying around £81 because of the Government's proposal in this Bill. We need to take full cognisance of that.
The noble Lord quite rightly quoted the Office of Fair Trading, who have said—and I think I can agree with this—that opticians should be allowed to provide more information about prices. But the Bill flies in the face of other proposals. I can see that there is an argument for opticians being allowed to advertise and to compete within a limited area. I have no disagreement whatsoever with that and it would be an improvement. But what I am gravely apprehensive about is that other aspects of this Bill fly in the face of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the National Health Service and of the Acheson Report.
I am astounded that the Government had no consultation with the Association of Optical Practitioners, and did not bring the association together with the Office of Fair Trading to talk about this in a sensible way, so that something could have emerged. A proposition from the Office of Fair Trading and from the Association of Optical Practitioners would have been part and parcel of a clause which would have been acceptable to me and to the noble Lords, Lord Rugby and Lord Orr-Ewing.
Why was this not done? Before the Committee stage, perhaps it will be done. There has been a great deal of argument about the view of the BMA. This was quoted in another place by the Conservative Member for High Peak, Mr. Christopher Hawkins. He said:
"I have no link with the optical industry other than I am a wearer of glasses. But I should like to quote from the British Medical Association ophthalmic group committee, which says: 'While specific harm to the eyes is unlikely to arise from the use or non-use of spectacles, there is firm medical agreement that the correct and appropriate dispensing of spectacles has very significant health implications. The committee cannot accept that after the prescription has been issued optical appliances take on the status of mere consumer durables and feels strongly that when highly skilled and expensive medical or surgical treatment has been provided under the NHS' "—
Lord Mottistone: My Lords—
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am nearly finished.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I intervene for a very good reason, if the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, will allow me.
Lord Molloy: In two seconds, my Lords.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, it is out of order to quote what has been said by a Member, other than a Member of the Government. in another place. I think that the noble Lord ought to have been stopped a little sooner.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am quoting what was said by the British Medical Association. Why are Members opposite so hostile to the BMA? I really cannot understand their attitude, so I had better start again from the beginning. This was said by the BMA. not by a Member of another place. Is this top committee of the BMA not to be heard in this House? As long as I am here, they will he heard.
Lord Mottistone: I apologise to the noble Lord. I got hold of the wrong end of the stick. I thought he was quoting a Member of another place.
Lord Molloy: I accept the apology of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. Since I had almost finished, I shall read just the last part of the statement:
"'The committee cannot accept that after the prescription has been issued optical appliances take on the status of mere consumer durables'."
I should not have thought that one needs to be an optician to accept that point. Everybody would accept it as a matter of simple commonsense. I return to my other plea: that if, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. and the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, there had been consultation with the BMA and with the opticians, the Government would have gone to the other place last December with a clause which would have sailed through the other place. Their objection is very real indeed. I am not an expert when I go to the doctor with a terrible pain in my stomach, or when I go to the optician because I cannot read. If I were, I should not bother to go; I would give myself the tests. Therefore, it would be wise to speak to these people.
I turn briefly to Schedule 3. As my noble friend who spoke earlier said, the Secretary of State will appoint 30 members of all the family practitioner committees instead of. as is now the case, the family practitioner committees electing locally their own chairmen and membership. As has already been stated, this means that the Secretary of State will personally appoint 3,000 people, so 1984 is here all right: Big Brother will decide all. It is an obscenity to suggest that one Minister should be able to make all of those appointments. When one realises how senior officers in the armed forces are appointed, this kind of procedure is absolutely despicable. It is an affront to those people who wish to indulge in the enterprise of the pioneer. Those people will he discarded. The Secretary of State will replace them by the servitude of lackeys. This, to me, is highly distasteful.
May I now deal briefly with the disabled? Speaking for more than 80 organisations, the Disability Alliance describes the Bill as a "mean and shabby measure". I do not intend to go through the whole list of members of the Disability Alliance, but who is it that says that this Bill is a mean and shabby measure? I merely quote what they say. I have a right to quote what these organisations, representing the disabled, think. That is what Parliament is all about. The leaders of the Spastics Society, the Disablement Income Group, MENCAP and the Multiple Sclerosis Society are all astounded at the Government's proposals. The Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation is convinced that, if introduced as it is, the new benefit will prove to be a disaster. Why are they so convinced? I am trying to get the Ministers opposite to understand that not merely the supporters of my party, the Liberal Party and the SDP, but renowned and well-respected major organisations are gravely apprehensive. Once again, why were they not consulted? It is not too late to do so.
Since the last war all parties have joined in the building of a fairer society. Both Labour and Conservative Ministers have defended the National Health Service. Indeed, both Labour and Conservative

43
Ministers have improved the National Health Service. Sometimes they had to fight to do so. The present Minister gives in with an alacrity that is deplorable. The principle of defending the National Health Service no longer applies. Do the Government, in their search for money, really believe that they have got to do what they are doing? I quite understand that they have got to find more money. In order to give tax reductions to the well-off, they look at the big industrialists and say that they cannot touch them. Nor can the Government touch the big people in commerce and industry, with their big cars and fine homes. That might affect their morale. The Government then look at the City—the prosperous bankers, and so on—and say that they cannot touch any of them. Then they suddenly decide that those they can attack are the cripples, the disabled, the hard of hearing, those with poor sight and the sick. I suppose it requires a great deal of courage to do that. How wonderful to have Ministers with such strength of character that they can indulge in that kind of action.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, before the noble Lord continues, how does he square his vicious attack on this Government's record on the National Health Service with the fact. which he knows as well as I do, that this Government have increased spending on the National Health Service by about 8 per cent. in real terms, from £7 billion to £17.5 billion, since they came to office?
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the Minister does not seem to realise that most of the money has been squeezed out of those whose standards of living ought to have been maintained—those like nurses and ambulance drivers. The police and the armed forces have left them way behind. Midwives also have had to suffer in order to make this so-called contribution, which makes it even more unjust.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord's challenges are so excessively wild that I must ask him to sa,, how they have been affected in the way that he suggests.
Lord Molloy: My Lords. may I ask the noble Lord to repeat his question?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, can the noble Lord justify his charge that nurses, midwives and others have been affected in the way that he suggests?
Lord Molloy: I have been doing so for three years, my Lords. Where has the noble Lord the Minister been? Some of my charges have been directed at him. I have been trying to educate him for at least two years. What a waste of time that has been! After that intervention, I am bound to say that it might be more truthful to say of this Government, O tempora! O mores!, because they are pretty hopeless. Over the past four years this House, despite the fact that there is a Conservative majority, has developed a new reputation. It scrutinises more. This Chamber has shown more understanding and, because it scrutinises better and more freely, because it is free of the whipping system, it has shown greater concern. It has
44
developed an image which I believe to be remarkable. if not wonderful. This Chamber has become the acknowledged guardian of the people. Perhaps that is right and proper, for it was the barons who forced King John to sign Magna Carta. When we are in Committee therefore I hope that we shall deal this Government a reminder of Magna Carta.
All parties should acknowledge the fact that we have been groping for many years—and this is under all Governments, including Labour Governments against Tory Oppositions and Tory Governments against Labour and Liberal Oppositions—towards a general consensus on improving the great articles of state. such as education and the National Health Service, in the national interest. It would be a great shame if that kind of principle was in any way spoilt by the present attitude of this Government.
I hope that when we are in Committee we shall endeavour to change a number of aspects to this Bill. This House may not be able to influence or gain the support of the ordinary British people. but it can remind the world of the lead given by Britain in shaping and fashioning a civilised society. Despite all our political differences in the past. we have moved forward by doing just that. It now seems that. under this cunning little Bill, we shall be departing from that great principle. I hope this House will ensure that that principle will be returned to when we embark upon the Committee stage.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Suffield: My Lords, I wish to refer today only to that part of the Bill relating to the Opticians Act. While I have sympathy with the object of the Bill—namely, to ensure a reduction in the price of spectacles—I have certain reservations regarding its ultimate effect on both the price of spectacles and the standards of eye care in this country.
When free eye examinations and the provision of spectacles under the National Health Service cease. the availability of a large range of spectacle frames will also cease because manufacturers will stop making them. In the past. supply to the National Health Service has been subsidised by the private sector, and therefore it is quite true that the price of private spectacles should fall—at least. certain of them.
I am informed that the present price of spectacles in this country is among the lowest in Europe and that no other Western country provides spectacles to National Health Service standard at a comparable price. However, although the simple and cheaper private spectacles may become cheaper still, the more complex prescription lenses will probably cost more. Even now, these can cost double the National Health Service charge of £32.
The unregistered supplier of frames and lenses will be interested only in supplying the simpler and more profitable of these: the qualified optician will be left to supply the more complicated and expensive. To this must be added the cost of the eye examination. And what will be the position regarding VAT? If this is to be charged. it will be based not only on the retail price of the spectacle frames but also on the cost of the eye examination and the prescription lenses. How w ill those on low incomes—not. I understand. those on

45
supplementary benefit—who require the more complex type of spectacles be able to afford them?
In America, the effect of advertising has been to move the supply away from professional opticians to commercial firms which have a lower standard of patient care. This may lead, in this country, to a change in the pattern of supply away from privately-owned practices, thereby denuding rural areas of ophthalmic facilities.
Although prescriptions will still be provided by qualified registered opticians, the same prescription can be made up in frames in many different ways. They have to be suited to the particular needs of the individual. This care is unlikely to be provided by the large suppliers. Although I can confirm that no medical damage is done to the eyes, incorrect fitting and adjustment can lead to headaches or, in the worst cases, to double vision. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, has already observed that one needs no imagination to appreciate the dangers to drivers and to industrial users where this occurs. Is it not possible to introduce a British Standard for spectacles?
The sale of ready-glazed lenses—not sunglasses —without prescription is illegal under the Act, but their importation must be prevented by banning the advertising of them. Some are now entering the country by mail order. There is also an attempt to outwit the law by calling them magnifying glasses. Advertising by both the profession and by commercial firms should be governed by the rules of the Office of Fair Trading. This point has been mentioned already.
My final question is this: what method is open to a dissatisfied client to obtain redress? The only means at present would seem to be through the Sale of Goods Act. But if the eye examination is carried out by one person, the supply of frames by another, and the lenses by a third, it will he difficult to say who is responsible. Litigation to recover the sum of £30 or £40 would hardly seem worthwhile. That is all I have to say, and I hope that the noble Earl will be able to provide some of the answers.
5.25 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I am greatly concerned about the effects of parts of this Bill on certain sections of the population; effects which appear to me to be adverse. As I have been given to understand, the Government now propose to permit persons with no optical qualifications to engage in ophthalmic dispensing—also, to sell and supply ophthalmic frames and lenses to adults. There are 6,179 registered ophthalmic opticians. There are also 2,879 registered dispensing opticians in the United Kingdom. In almost every city and town, there are several opticians in competition with one another, and no chain which has anything approaching a monoply.
I would ask the Minister this question: what advantage would accrue to myself or to any other individual in this country in going to an unqualified person to purchase a pair of spectacles? I would ask the Minister also: would he himself be prepared to do so? I have no desire to labour these points to the Minister but it is on ground of simple common sense that I question the Government's apparent policy. I can see every argument for securing spectacles more cheaply,
46
but surely there are means of doing so available to the Government other than by allowing unqualified persons to dispense.
This Bill also limits the provision of National Health Service spectacles to children up to the age of 16. to students in full-time education up to the age of 19, and to people receiving supplementary benefit. I am sure the Government know that the majority of undergraduates are aged between 18 and 22. Why add one more item of expense to the budget of those supported by student grants? I may add that I wear National Health Service glasses and I do not come within any of those categories. As the Bill stands, a very large group to be excluded will be retired people—many of whom are on small fixed incomes and small pensions. No financial assistance will be given to those people unless they are in receipt of supplementary benefit.
The Minister of State for Health in another place has said that the Government recognise that there was a problem with certain sections of the public and have been considering what should be done to help those people. I was therefore very glad to hear the Minister say that those with the need for special lenses will he able still to have National Health Service glasses, if they wish, if they are in financial need. I urge the Government to consider particularly the needs of partially-sighted people.
With regard to the dispensing of spectacles, I understand from people with a knowledge of this subject that the dispensing of spectacles is very important—especially so with bifocal lenses which require further measurements. These may be small points but they are very important to the health of those people requiring spectacles.
I turn now to Clause 1 1, which concerns the severe disablement allowance. It is 10 years since the introduction of the non-contributory invalidity pension payable to people incapable of work and who have not, for whatever reason, paid sufficient contributions to qualify for sickness and subsequent invalidity benefit. A major problem has been that married women have had to show that they are incapable of normal household duties. Although I welcome the end of the household duties test as being discriminatory against women, for the past seven years this test has been under review. The last review was conducted by the DHSS, and successive Ministers have agreed to a debate on any eventual proposals. However, I understand that the Government published this Bill on the day after the DHSS report. So, far from being able to consider the report, the Bill must already have been sent to press.
I believe it has not been fully realised that this Bill takes away from men and single women a right they have had since 1975. No longer will incapacity for work for a period of 196 days qualify people for benefit. If they are over 20 they will have to show that they are 80 per cent. disabled. MIND has estimated that over 26,000 people with mental disorders will. over a period, lose entitlement to benefit. RADAR has calculated from Government figures that 1.280 additional married women claimants each year will fail to obtain SDA who would have qualified under the former household duties test. This would he because of the 80 per cent. test of disablement and the great

47
difficulty in applying it to people suffering from multiple sclerosis or epilepsy—let alone mental health. I am worried that it can seem that too little thought has been given to these proposals. Many voluntary organisations would have liked constructive discussions with the Government on possible alternatives to solving these problems. I cannot say that I feel happy with the Bill as it stands.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, it has been no easy matter for me to understand this disconnected Bill, even while wearing my bifocal National Health Service magnifying glasses, which I gather are shortly to become an extinct species. I do own another pair with expensive frames. I was persuaded to get them, against my better judgment—an appeal to vanity, or something—but I have had much more trouble with them. The National Health Service lenses keep falling out of the expensive German frames. It is another example of how the public-private mix does not always work.
I do not think that those who have pressed for an end to the opticians' closed shop, and thus initiated this part of the Bill, ever had this in mind—the ending of the National Health Service provision of glasses. The Government have slipped in this one. The Government are agreeing to pay, as outlined in Schedule 1. for glasses needed by children and those on supplementary benefit. However, as my noble friend Lord Ennals said, I do not think this is a wide enough provision by any means. For example, I consider that it should apply to all pensioners, many of whom, as has been said, have complicated eye conditions such as glaucoma or cataracts where frequent lens changes are necessary. This is an area which I certainly hope can be improved in Committee.
This whole aspect of the Bill—getting rid of a service which was everybody's right without restriction and without means testing—is in every way regressive and I am totally opposed to it. But we have to do what we can to try to improve it until better days come along.
My main concern is the change in the status of the family practitioner committees. Independent status as an employing authority with direct remuneration from the Department of Health and Social Security is regarded as a promotion by the family practitioner committees and, as such, has been largely welcomed, particularly by the BMA which considers that this move will benefit primary health care. Ostensibly the status of primary health care receives a boost to its morale by this change. Until now the family practitioners have definitely had a subordinate role to the area health authorities, as they were, and which are now the district health authorities; although they have had the great advantage of not being cash limited. Ninety per cent. of the expenditure of district health authorities is on the hospital sector which therefore has been their main preoccupation.
At this stage I should like to give your Lordships some of the views of the British Medical Association on this change. It states:
"The DHAs are often prepared to transfer responsibility for patient care to the primary sector, but conscious of their own
48
pressing needs they are reluctant to match this transfer with adequate resources. FPCs have been unable to initiate this kind of resource shift and to achieve the resulting savings in total NHS expenditure because they have been subordinate in these matters to the policies of their local DHAs.
"This point is well illustrated by the pattern of care for the elderly. The costs of maintaining elderly patients in long term hospital care are high (at least £40 per day per patient). At present 94 per cent. of the elderly population aged 65 years and over live in the community, whereas the remaining six per cent. are in institutional care. A small increase in the 94 per cent. of the elderly living in the community could yield substantial savings in expenditure on geriatric institutional care. thus freeing resources for other uses. But the transfer of long stay elderly patients to the community (or more realistically, a reduction in the number being admitted to hospitals and other institutions) does require a commitment of resources to community health services, including local authority services and family practitioner services.
"It is natural, because of the level of involvement of DHAs in the hospital sector, that an increased role for primary care in the NHS would only be achieved if it were given direct responsibility to act through its own health authorities. The new FPCs would be able to present the case for family practitioner services both within the NHS and outside it. They would be able to contribute to the planning of growth of primary care in partnership with DHAs, using their own ear-marked funds for developing its contribution to the NHS. In short, they would be able to serve as catalysts, stimulating the expansion of the most cost-effective sector of the NHS. Through their agency local government could he propelled into making a serious commitment to community health services. There is a range of opportunities for change, and this includes accommodation for the elderly/infirm, home helps. meals services and laundry services".
Having said that—and I respect those views—I wonder if that is the best way of integrating hospital and community care. It was only in 1979 that the Royal Commission on the National Health Service recommended that the family practitioner committees should be abolished and that their functions should be assumed by the district health authorities as a step towards integration. During the last parliamentary Session when this same question was being debated in this Chamber—I think during the Committee stage—the then Minister the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in reply to my noble friend Lady Jeger (who had been consulted prior to the decision to separate the FPCs from the health authorities), wrote to her listing 633 organisations which had been approached. Fifty-six per cent. of the replies favoured a solution as in the present Bill and the Minister implied that that virtually clinched the matter. In fact, most of those who were consulted prior to the decision were statutory or professional bodies working in the professional organisational mould and were, therefore, likely to have an interest in the continuation of the status quo of the FPCs.
The Royal Commission on the National Health Service, which advocated the abolition of the FPCs, made its recommendation on the basis of consultation with 1,300 named organisations and a further 650 individuals—a much wider spectrum than that on which the present decision of the Government to make the FPCs independent is based. It is a pity that when the opportunity for change arose in 1982 the narrower rather than the wider view was taken. I consider also that it is an insult to the work of the distinguished members of the Royal Commission that a decision was taken which flies directly in the face of their recommendations. The Royal Commission was set up by the previous administration, but one must ask whether that is a good reason for overturning such authoritative and well-informed advice.

49
However, the family practitioner committees have had their way and it could be that this vitally important branch of the health service should have special treatment and encouragment. I can only say that the family practitioner committees do not enjoy a very good reputation among community health councils and other health workers who have been trying to build up good community health services. They have a reputation for being inward-looking and for self-interest. I can only hope that their better status will be reflected in magnanimity to other branches of the health service, as suggested by the excellent working party whose report was referred to by the noble Lord. Lord Glenarthur, in his opening remarks. I also hope that the hand now being offered directly from the DHSS to family pracititioner committees does not turn into what many fear will be an icy grip, which will, first of all, gradually impose cash limits and, finally, result in a second-rate service.
5.40 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords. I will, if I may, start off on a slightly different tack. On Monday last week in your Lordships' Chamber it was said in so many words that it is not easy to forget the disabled; we do not get a chance to. That is true, but it is wrong in implying that the disabled have made their point and enough is enough. What was said was true because, since I have been attending your Lordships' Chamber regularly (that is, since last October), we have had two Bills on disablement, we have had the Telecommunications Bill, the Housing and Building Control Bill and the Rates Bill—all with a high content about the disabled. At present we have the London Regional Transport Bill going through Committee. Again today we have the Health and Social Security Bill—on which. incidentally, I shall be restricting myself to Clause 1 I . Yes, it has not been easy to forget the disabled in this House, but the reason is very simple. In Bill after Bill the Government have neglected to pay attention to the specific needs and requirements of the disabled.
Also last Monday the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, in talking on the London Regional Transport Bill, said:
"much as we value the help and advice of able-bodied people, we know that there are vital points on the travelling needs of disabled people that the able bodied simply do not comprehend".—[Official Report, 14/5/84; col. 11601
The noble Baroness was right. Who but the blind can comprehend what it is like to he blind, and who but those confined to a wheelchair for life can comprehend what it is like to he so confined? Those of us who speak up for the disabled have in mind their best interests, even though we do not really know what it is like.
My noble friend Lord Kilmarnock, who will be winding up for the Alliance, warned me that social security matters are always very complicated and. oh, was he right! I have read and re-read Clause 11, and I have compared it with the section of the 1975 Act that it is to replace. I have read the copious briefings from which so many noble Lords have been quoting, and I have listened to talks by the experts. Quite honestly, I am not sure that I am not now more bemused than I was before I heard anyone say anything. However, bemused or not, I must say that there are certain
50
aspects of Clause 11 that are perfectly clear, even to me
I should like to take first the severe disablement scheme. This is an arbitrary percentage test of disability and will be an additional hurdle towards the incapacity benefit. As I understand it, if the DHSS decides to remove somebody's mobility allowance, that person will have to pass the 80 per cent. test if he is not to lose his SDA. The 80 per cent. test is modelled on the industrial injuries and war pension scheme, which at present operates a graded system of benefits. Your Lordships will note that it is a graded system. For industrial injuries that may be fair, as it means that nobody except those at the very bottom will lose out completely. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, so cogently said in his opening speech, there are many people totally incapable of being able to work who would fail the 60 per cent. test, let alone the 80 per cent. test, and there are many others who would pass the 100 per cent. test with case but are perfectly capable of working.
The fact is that the industrial injuries scale is inappropriate for assessing degrees of disability in people suffering from a diverse range and mixture of handicaps. It is not only inappropriate. but the doctors operating the industrial injuries scheme have little or no experience of dealing with 80 per cent. disability claims. I have worked out from the figures that I have read that the majority of their assessments average no more than 30 per cent. Here we are asking them to adjudge on something quite different, which is not industrial injuries and works on an 80 per cent. basis. We must remember that it is 80 per cent. It is not 79 per cent. or 794 per cent. It is 80 per cent. unless there is a cut-off.
Apart from the obvious drawbacks, the new system will discriminate among different groups of people on grounds of percentage loss of faculty. age at start of claim and existing entitlement and between deserving and undeserving disabilities. The major discrimination remains against those who for a variety of reasons have become disabled through illness or accident when in full-time further education, in training or when unemployed. They will lose out. With regard to the unemployed, the current high level of unemployment among young people means that many will be at risk even before they have had the opportunity to work and so to meet the first condition of sickness benefit, which is to he in employment. As for the proposed cut-off point, this ignores the growing trend towards early retirement and forced redundancy in middle age, and the severe hardships that would result in people not signing on—for work which is non-existent—and thus becoming incapable of work but being unable to pass the 80 per cent. test.
But apart from any other considerations, the 20-year cut-off is far too low, and the provisions and requirements of SDA could act as a disincentive to youngsters to stay on in full-time education, to enter a training scheme or to work beyond the age of 20. But equally the 20-year cut-off could act as a deterrent to employers. It is difficult enough as it is for the young disabled to get work, but if an employer knows that, if he takes on a young disabled person, within a very short time that person has to make up his mind whether or not he will continue in employment, that is

51
a great inducement for him not to bother giving employment to that person in the first place.
I am a trustee of the Countrywide Workshops Charitable Trust. Countrywide workshops markets exclusively products made by the blind and the disabled. I was reading through a draft letter which the trust was going to send out. This is what I read:
"another aim is to encourage the young disabled, by example. By showing what can and is being achieved, I hope that they too will want to try and do something for themselves, and not just be discouraged by the very few job opportunities available to them in the present economic climate".
When I read those words, an alarm bell rang in my head. 1 may be wrong—and if I am perhaps the noble Earl will tell me so when he replies on behalf of the Government—but as I read Clause 11, by encouraging the young disabled to stay on in full-time education beyond the age of 20, and/or encouraging them to learn a trade, and then encouraging them at least to try to find work, we may actually be doing them a disservice, because financially, regardless of their self-respect, it will now be in their best interests to give up and allow the state to look after them for the rest of their lives.
It has been and is being suggested in certain quarters that the Government have been sly and underhand in this Bill especially in respect of married and cohabiting women; that they have tried to give the impression of ending the patent discrimination in the old Bill, while perpetrating it in the new Bill under a heavy disguise. Let me say that we on these Benches do not believe this. The fact of the matter is that the Government have set itself certain parameters in respect of the amount of money they will spend on disability allowances and pensions. All they have done in this new Act is to try and devise an equitable scheme, which will not exceed the financial ceilings or targets they have set themselves. They have done this but I do not believe that they have done it equitably. The fact that the end result is a clause that has hardly anything to commend it. does not in our view warrant the charge of duplicity in the Government.
Because this clause is not equitable. we would urge the Government to withdraw Clause I 1 and substitute an enabling one. This would give them and the organisations representing the disabled breathing space in which to discuss methods of meeting the Government's financial guidelines in a way that would be most equitable to the greatest number of disabled people with the greatest need.
In conclusion, I should like to quote from St. Luke, Chapter 14, Verse 21:
"Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed. and the halt, and the blind".
To which we should add, if Clause 11 is allowed to stand part in subsequent stages. that their ages and national insurance contributions may be checked, so they may be given the 80 per cent. severe disablement test.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I seek to take part in this debate in order to express concern about Clause 11. Therefore I shall address myself only to
52
Part II of the Bill and to the changes proposed for severely disabled people. In two of the principal changes, the Government's intentions seem admirable. What is worrying is the way in which they propose to carry out those intentions. Clause 11 introduces the severe disablement allowance replacing the non-contributory invalidity pension. This would have the effect of abolishing the household duties test for disabled housewives.
I of course welcome that proposed abolition. Indeed. it would be churlish of me not to do so, having been in print on the subject several times. I have reminded myself that it was three years ago, in writing the book commissioned for the International Year of Disabled People, that I was pointing out that the test was quite arbitrary: that many of the cases in which the individuals had been rejected were then successful on appeal; and that the test discouraged a housewife from trying to carry out her household duties and was therefore a disincentive to rehabilitation. Further, I was pointing out that the national insurance advisory committee had, in the previous year, 1980, recommended abandoning the test.
Last December, the announcement came that the Government had decided to abandon the household duties test. However, at the same time the Government published their internal review and this Bill. Apparently no time was given for consultations with the organisations specialising in different forms of disablement before the Bill was published. That is what the organisations have been telling me and no doubt others in your Lordships' House.
There was no doubt contact between the Government departments and individuals or some of these organisations but we do not know to what extent. They certainly feel that they did not have the consultations which they would have expected before the Bill appeared in print. I suggest that one year less spent on the review and one year more on consultations would have produced more workable results. I concede that this is a very complex subject. It is not easy to construct an alternative system of tests, which will apply fairly to different categories, for example. to disabled housewives, and to different forms of handicap. I submit that because it is complex the Government should not have deprived themselves of the opportunity to obtain good advice in consultations with organisations who specialise in these matters.
In my opinion, the second matter on which the Government are to be commended on their good intentions is that they are attempting to identify severely disabled people who need special help. Again it is the way in which it is proposed to carry out that intention that does not, regrettably. stand up to close inspection. For some time. several of those who are prominent, both in Parliament and outside Parliament. in taking leading parts in this field, have been seeking a definition of such a category of severely disabled persons. After all, those are the disabled persons upon whom we should be concentrating our attention.
For years there has been a percentage system for classification of war disabled and those who have been disabled by industrial injury. Then the Amelia Harris survey, in the four years from 1967 to 1971.

53
introduced categories of their own when they were carrying out the sampling of all kinds of disablement. That was really the first attempt to place severely disabled people in a category.
The Government are now in this Bill proposing that the category should be 80 per cent. and above, as assessed in the war and industrial injuries examinations. That form of assessment cannot of course be simply and directly applied in other cases for several reasons. First, the medical tests in war and industrial injuries cases do not deal with sufferers from, for example, cerebral palsy or multiple sclerosis. Nor do they deal with any congential impairments such as being deaf and dumb. Hitherto, these tests have dealt with war injuries and industrial injuries and with the effects of military service and the effects of conditions of work.
Another consideration is that the capacity to do a job is not directly related to the percentage of disablement. Someone who is 50 per cent. disabled may be quite incapable of carrying out any job for which he is suited. We all know of cases of people with very high percentages of disablement, by the scales to which I have been referring for war or industrial injuries, who are able to carry out certain jobs successfully.
Another point is that the war disability percentage classification system has not had to consider whether the person is successfully doing a job or not—and rightly so, for the purposes of that kind of examination. Accordingly, considerable extension and adaptation of the existing percentage system will be necessary. I regard these proposals in the Bill as still at a rudimentary stage. I urge the Government to import flexibility into Clause 11. I understand most readily—and applaud what the Government are doing—that having taken the decision at the end of last year, they wanted to proceed immediately and not to lose any more time. Moreover, this Bill was there and was a suitable vehicle for the purpose.
In my view, however, that will be proved to have been shortsighted. It would have been better to have obtained some general agreement on the changes among the organisations representing severely disabled people. What can be done now? We could leave more to be worked out in consultations and brought forward later to Parliament, perhaps in subordinate legislation. I know that this is an unsatisfactory way of proceeding because orders cannot be amended and have to be approved or rejected. However, there are arrangements now in Clause 11 for regulations to be made by Ministers that will no doubt have to come before Parliament later in some form.
Perhaps I may summarise. In my opinion the Government deserve praise for tackling these problems, for deciding to make changes that have been generally advocated as needed. Some of us are worried, however, that a new system is being proposed in the Bill that has not yet been fully thought out and which may simply replace the present system with a fresh set of anomalies.
6.1 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I wish to apologise to the Minister for the fact that I was not in the House
54
when he introduced the debate. I was caught up in traffic difficulties on my way to the House. The Bill consists of 29 clauses and eight schedules: but, as noble Lords have mentioned time after time, it lacks a single theme. I propose to address myself to two or, if I have time, three clauses, Clauses 1, 5 and 11. I appreciate that the ground has been well covered, and I shall do my best not to repeat arguments already advanced.
It seems to me that when a Government are introducing substantial changes to the NHS we would do well to judge those changes by reference to the principles involved in the basic legislation. The founder of the NHS—or, rather, his vision— encompassed a number of principles. Two of them are very relevant to a discussion of Clause 1. Bevan always advocated that there should be adequate training compatible with responsibility; and that a financial barrier should not be placed between a patient and the skilled services that are available to him. Clause 1 is in breach of the first principle to which I have referred because it will permit non-trained. unqualified persons to be engaged in dispensing spectacles to adults.
Under present regulations, I understand that the course of study lasts for a minumum of two years, together with another year of practical training. Last year, 313 students began this course of study. It seems to me that the Bill devalues professional training. Many of us are worried about how the changes will affect, particularly, the provision of services in rural areas. If non-opticians are allowed to sell spectacles, will this not affect the validity of the smaller opticians in rural areas? If that were to happen. it could lead to a reduction in eye-testing facilities available locally. It may be that the Minister can tell us something about how the Bill will affect the rural areas.
We appreciate that unqualified persons are not to supply spectacles without prescription, and that they are not to supply spectacles to children. But how are these prohibitions to be enforced? The non-qualified optician will not be a member of a professional body, so the professional body cannot take disciplinary proceedings against him. I have searched the provisions of the Bill, but I see no reference whatever to a penalty that can be imposed if the non-optician is in breach of these two important prohibitions.
Clause 2, in the case of many people—I accept not in the case of everyone, but in the case of many—will also be in breach of Bevan's second principle, that there should be no financial barrier placed between the patient and skilled services. I, for my part. accept that the average price of the simplest glasses in the private sector will probably be reduced. That is the Government's hope. Even a Government are allowed to have hopes. But it is almost certain that they will not be cheaper than NHS glasses.
There is considerable evidence—indeed overwhelming, evidence—received not just from the opticians but from voluntary organisations with a special interest in this field, that the price of complicated glasses will increase. We have heard time after time this afternoon that, as a group, old-age pensioners will be the largest single category to be adversely affected by the provisions of Clause 1. Just over a quarter of all elderly people have a visual impairment of some sort. That figure gives us an

55
indication of the size of the problem. Often, they need stronger and more complicated lenses. and they will need to change the lenses more often.
There are many elderly people with small occupational pensions and little or no capital, and who do not qualify for supplementary benefit, who can ill-afford to buy glasses in the private sector or to change their glasses as often as they should. We should not be complacent. Many will be vulnerable. That is the considered opinion of Age Concern. If the Government insist on denying NHS glasses to elderly persons generally, then we ask that they should widen the exemption category.
I wish now to deal with Clause 5. The primary health care services have been described as the linchpin of the NHS. The thinking on which the relevant parts of the 1974 legislation were based was that the process of co-operation between the general practitioner services and the hospital services would be speeded up when the general practitioners, clinicians, nurses and others were side by side in the same authority, and when that same authority builds the health centres, runs the ambulances and employs the nurses, clinicians and others. If there was one theme running through the 1974 Act—a theme that was reinforced time after time by the department and by Ministers—that theme was integration. It was agreed that what was required was one decision-making authority to cover the whole field of health care in every district. and with one budget. By Section 5 of the 1974 Act the family practitioner services were brought within the unified local administration, although retaining a degree of independence.
However, we are now asked to assume—I underline the assumption—that the co-operation intended by the 1974 Act has been less than was hoped for because of the degree of unification introduced by Section 5 of the 1974 Act. Is there any firm evidence that because of the 1974 reorganisation purpose-built health centres. the quality of doctors' waiting rooms and the general practitioner services generally have had to compete unfavourably with the tasks and demands that have assailed the local health administrations? Is there any direct evidence, valued evidence, that the structures in the districts created in 1974 have made it more difficult for clinicians, GPs and others to give a higher standard of care to patients? I have come across no such evidence. And even if the evidence were to show that the building up of primary health care facilities has not been as successful as was hoped for, that may he because the 1974 reorganisation itself was far less than integration.
We appreciate that the general medical practitioners fully support the proposals in Clause 2 of the Bill. I value very much the contribution of the family practitioners. and obviously one values their judgment in this connection. But I suggest that the only reliable inference which the Government should seek to draw from that support is that there has been difficulty in planning and monitoring the service in the districts in a way that retains the confidence of the general practitioners and general administrators. That is why earlier on my noble friend referred to the general practitioners welcoming this proposal because it was a boost to their morale. So the evidence perhaps draws
56
attention to a difficulty inherent in the task of building up community services and to the fact that hitherto that difficulty has been underestimated.
I understand that the Minister referred to the Government's intention to produce a Green Paper on the primary services. I hope very much that it will address itself to those questions. to those difficulties, and how we can overcome those difficulties. Certainly the evidence cannot be used to provide a case for setting up general practitioner authorities independent of the district health authorities. The total separation of these services could lead to a more fragmented service. I did not hear the Minister's opening speech, but in the other place we heard very little—indeed, we heard nothing—from the Ministers about the risks of fragmentation of the service. We on these Benches consider that integration has considerable potential and that we should strive to make it work.
I turn now to the severe disablement allowance. It is a matter of considerable regret and disappointment that the Government did not consult with the main disablement organisations before rushing into legislation. Time after time this afternoon bodies have been named. They contain men and women with first-hand knowledge of the needs of the disabled. They know better than Government to what extent statutory measures designed to meet the needs of the disabled succeed or fail or are likely to succeed or fail.
These are the organisations which are respected for their vigorous examination of proposals, policies and actions intended to meet the requirements of the disabled, and they all challenge the concept of the severe disablement benefit which is embodied in this Bill. Again, I know of no disablement organisation which supports the proposal. Is not this in itself evidence that the Government have not got it right and even at this late stage should think again? However, if they are sticking to the line which they have adopted. then we are sure that the validity of this provision will be tested in the European courts.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thought the noble Lord. Lord Molloy, expressed surprise that the Conservatives had been converted to the National Health Service. I put it to him that it can be the other way about. I admired the National Health Service from the word "Go" because I was a very poorly-paid naval officer with a large family which had to grow up and the National Health Service was absolutely vital. However, because of the performance and policies of the Labour Party, not least in not paying me very much when they were in power and I was in the Navy, I found myself converted to the Conservatives. So your Lordships can take it that it is the other way round—a national health supporter has been converted to the Conservatives rather than the way round the noble Lord put it.
I must apologise to all three noble Lords on the Front Bench and to the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, for having been otherwise detained at the beginning of this debate and arriving in time only for the last one-third or so of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rugby. I am sorry that that should be so. Having missed the opening speech of my noble friend the Minister, I find it difficult to contribute to those sections of the Bill on

57
which I have heard consistently "anti" speeches without having heard his undoubtedly very clever "pro" speech, which I look forward to reading.
I propose to concentrate on the section relating to spectacles, where I in part support the Government. For example. I trust that the Government will stick to their position. in particular with regard to the need for up-to-date prescriptions based on a free eye test. I would hope that during the passage of the Bill the House will be able to persuade the Government that they should retain qualified dispensing.
I believe that the structure of the present optical service stems from the wish in the 1950s, 1960s and, indeed, the 1970s to create and strengthen professional bodies. This led to a country-wide acceptance that only a qualified person could do a whole range of activities, in many of which long experience is often of as much value as high qualifications, if not more. I think it is possible that as a result the optical service is more specialised than it need be.
However, we now have the present system and all the opticians I know and who have served me, as it were, are thoroughly dedicated to a first-class professional performance; they are to be congratulated for that. Any moves to change the system we have got now must be made with great caution so as not to destroy what is good in that present system.
As I see it, the changes the Government are proposing are that there will be cheaper glasses for some people and that will he offset by more expensive glasses for others. Nobody quite seems to know who is going to benefit and who is not, but clearly some will not. There is also a question of greater risk to some people, and my noble friend Lord Suffield gave some good and interesting details on important points in this connection. Perhaps that will be offset by the availability of cheaper spare glasses for others, but in many cases with poorer visual performance, especially if they are dispensed by an amateur.
As I seem to have a bit of time, perhaps I may explain briefly my own experience with spectacles, which brings out several of these points. I have had spectacles like this since I was in the mid-40s, because I was a naval officer and had to have perfect eyesight to begin with. To that extent I am exactly the same as my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing and, as he said, about half the population. These specs are the most suitable because they give one a wide rim for reading. However, there was a happy occasion when my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was made the leader of the Conservative Party. I attended a meeting in this House and had to sit at the back of the room. To my horror, I could not see clearly who was my new, splendid leader, because my eyesight was not good enough.
A noble Lord: Does the noble Lord know now?
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I cannot tell your Lordships how much I admire my right honourable leader and how much benefit bifocal spectacles have been to me. I went to the optician and he said that I needed bifocals and he gave them to me. I then found that I was able to see noble Lords opposite more clearly, too. However, your Lordships will notice that
58
I am not wearing them at the moment because the trouble with bifocal specs is that one cannot read quite so readily because they have such a small reading lens. In any event I think that I know most noble Lords opposite quite well enough without having to look too closely at them.
However, this aspect has a more serious connotation. I am talking of seven or eight years ago when I acquired these specs. I have only had to have one other pair in the interim. Initially, I used them hardly at all. But I then found that I needed them for watching television. I found that they were absolutely ideal and they still are ideal. I am using the same pair as I had about four years ago. I then found—and this is really important—that these spectacles, which fit me perfectly because they have been properly dispensed, are also the ones that I have to use for driving. When driving down to the Isle of Wight from here on the motorway without wearing spectacles and certainly not having had a drink, I found that I tended to go to sleep. That was very dangerous. It alarmed my wife; it sometimes alarmed other motorists and it certainly alarmed me. It then occurred to me that if I needed bifocals for watching television. I would do well to wear them while driving. Since I have adopted that habit within the past six months, I have never felt sleepy at all. I believe that it is very important not only to have absolutely the right glasses. but also glasses that fit properly.
I suspect that if people are allowed to buy their specs over the counter—even within the Government's present rules—there is a very serious risk that only lip service will be paid to the need for recent prescriptions and the need for accurate dispensing. My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing described how he was sometimes in a hurry to get a pair of specs and he said that it took a long time to get them if one used the other method. I am not saying that my noble friend would do this, but I can see that there would be certain people who would bully the shop assistant—who would not be a qualified person and who therefore could not produce a qualified answer—and would say, "Come on, give me these specs. They look all right". The shop assistant would ask for the prescription and the customer would produce one which was way out of date, and would say that it was all right and he would go off with his specs. That type of thing is much more of a risk to the rest of us—quite apart from the people concerned, who may be bad drivers—than the type of risks about which I heard the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, talking at the end of his speech. So I honestly think that the Government ought to take another look at the business of dispensing. It really is the most important aspect.
The other aspect that must be borne in mind is that of cost. A lot of people say that they can get their specs cheaper. As I understand it, the simplest type of National Health specs now cost £1055. No doubt bifocals cost a good deal more. Of course they will cost even more again because under the new rules they will go up by, for example, another £5, or 50 per cent. or something like that. If we are talking around the £10 or even £20 mark, we are talking about spectacles which cost between one and a half and two and a half bottles of whisky. If you are a normal chap like me and like my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, who only has to have new specs every three or four years, you are

59
talking—whatever the system may be—about the cost of, say, a couple of bottles of whisky every three years. If you cannot give up drinking for about three days in Lent in order to spare that amount, then surely we are getting the whole matter right out of proportion as regards all the arguments about added costs or not, as the case may be.
Even if one has a complicated pair of specs like those of my noble friend Lord Suffield, which probably cost nearer 100, we can also judge them in terms of bottles of whisky. It is the equivalent of, for example, 16 bottles of whisky spread over two or three years. Really, it is nothing. I chose whisky because that is my favourite luxury. Other noble Lords can choose other luxuries. We must get the cost aspect into perspective. We must ask the Government again to think very seriously about this dispensing business. I shall be right behind anybody who puts down an amendment on that matter.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I do not often oppose the noble Lord. Lord Mottistone, but today I am afraid that I am going to oppose him completely because I support the case made out by the noble Lord. Lord Rugby, and the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. I am a little distressed to see that the noble Baroness, whose name appears on the list of speakers to reply for the Opposition. is not in the Chamber at the moment. She was not present when either the noble Lord. Lord Rugby, or the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, spoke, so she will not know the strength of the case which those two noble Lords put across.
I am speaking in my capacity as chairman of a repeals group which we formed some two or three years ago to look at legislation which we thought might well he repealed. One of the earliest matters we looked at was Sections 21 and 25 of the Opticians Act. We came to the conclusion that the whole of those two sections ought to be repealed. We helped the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, produce his Bill, which he was invited to withdraw and which he did withdraw because the Government had decided to send the case to the Office of Fair Trading.
We waited a very long time for the report of the Office of Fair Trading. When it eventually came out we still did not know for quite a long time what the Government were going to do. Meanwhile, we decided in our group to hold a ballot. We balloted the 654 United Kingdom members of the Ophthalmological Society. We received 357 replies—equivalent to 55 per cent.—which was not too bad. We asked them a question:
"Should the present statutory monopoly for opticians (or doctors) to sell simple reading spectacles be repealed?"
Of the replies. 189 said "Yes"; 145 said "No"; and 23 could not make up their minds.
When we sent out that ballot paper we asked the people whom we were balloting to make their comments. We received a lot of very interesting comments. Let me first give your Lordships a selection of the comments made by those who were against repeal. The most important point that was made concerned the importance of the early detection of
60
glaucoma. I think that about 50 per cent. of those against repeal made that point. They also referred to the importance of the prescription and the skill of the profession and they also—and this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals—referred to the fact that different lenses are often required for each eye. But many of those people stated that prices in any event were too high.
Then those who were for repeal said that the present system was far too expensive and that exorbitant profits were being made; they said that there were many charlatans in the business and that false confidence can often be given because opticians often fail to detect glaucoma. They then continued:
"Prior to 1958 [we] came across no cases harmed by over counter sales".
At the end some of them suggested: why not, have a health warning similar to the one on packets of cigarettes?
So I believe that there is a case for relaxing the monopoly on the provision of reading glasses. I do not want to contest what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said about his experiences, but I also wear bifocals. I believe that they are only for presbyopia, which is a natural condition which affects all of us at a certain age. I found that I was unable to get my bifocals on the National Health Service. Whether that was someone telling me a wrong story I do not not know, but they cost me quite a lot of money. The result is that I do not have my eyes tested every two years; I think that the last time I went was about four years ago, and I believe that my present glasses are perfectly satisfactory.
I conclude by telling the Minister that some of us are likely to put down amendments to Clause 1 to try to relax the restrictions which are at present contained in it.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, it has been said that this is three or four Bills in one. Judging from the debate, it is certainly two very separate Bills on two separate subjects and I wish to move the debate slightly away from the optical side, about which we have been hearing in the last few speeches, from the side which can possibly be dealt with by, according to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, the non-consumption of a bottle of whisky in three days or the non-consumption of 16 bottles over two years, which seems to me to be a much smaller rate of consumption—I suspect that if he grossed it up he would find it was rather different. I want to deal with the other part of the Bill, which moves to a very different world indeed, a world where there are no luxuries and not even the ability to go out for an evening to a pub among the kind of families about whom we are talking.
Some of the provisions in the clause dealing with social security are unacceptable. Tonight I want to speak as an officer of Church Action on Poverty, a body which is composed of concerned people in all the Christian Churches in this country. I want to make just a few remarks on Clause 8. Clause 8 deals with the final phasing-out of the child dependency additions. At present these are only 15p and, according to the Government. affect only "about 212.000 children",

61
and in saying that I would point out that I quote from the proceedings in another place. However, 212,000 children is a great many children, and that number is arrived at by the application of the means test, which, as my noble friend Lord Banks has said, is a breach of the insurance principle, for otherwise the number would be higher. But 200,000 children are worth talking about, and that is what I shall talk about this evening.
There is fairly wide agreement among a large number of people that these particular payments should be phased out. Certainly the party of which I am a member, as my noble friend Lord Banks has said, agrees with that. Church Action on Poverty is not particularly concerned with that problem. What it is concerned with is the result—that poor families will suffer. This appears to be what will happen. No one is against administrative tidying; the trouble is that in the adjustments of the living standards of the already deprived, it always appears to be rounding down which occurs and never rounding up.
The agreed principle is that child benefit should replace CDAs. That is fair enough. But in effect at the end of these adjustments children will be at least 1.70 worse off than they would have been if the old scheme had continued from the very beginning, and some of the spokesmen in another place put it slightly higher than that. The Social Security Advisory Committee, which has already been quoted in this context, in its first annual report said of this scheme:
" the objective is a sound one only if there is no loss of income in real terms to families dependent on the scheme".
There is such a definite loss. Our very real concern about this is heightened by the Government's approach to the whole problem. In Standing Committee A in another place on 6th March 1984 at col. 442, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security said:
"It has never been the perceived view in this country that it is the state's business, even for those on supplementary benefit, to expect to meet from state benefits or through taxation the full costs of bringing up children".
I find that a most extraordinary statement. If people are unemployed and have no financial resources—and these are the people about whom we are talking—where else will the money come from to bring up those children? This is a specific quotation on which I would ask the Minister who replies to this debate to comment. I have not given warning of it; frankly, I do not think I need to have given warning of it. It is a general proposition and one which has been put forward by a Minister of the present Government. I think it either needs to be reinforced, in which case it opens an even greater debate on poverty than society is having already, or it needs to be withdrawn.
Of course the state must support the families which find themselves in this position. That is certainly our view, and one which surely must have universal backing. We are not just talking about the 15p; we are not just talking about the technicalities of moving from one system to another; we are talking about real poverty, real misery and, in the course of the technicalities to which we are driven in discussing this Bill, let us not forget that.
I now quote from an article published in the Methodist Division of Social Responsibility News
62
Supplement headed "Focus on Poverty". It is an article by Bob Holman, who is in fact a social worker for the Church of England Children's Society. Before he became a communtiy worker, he was Professor of Social Administration at the University of Bath. He says:
"What are the main effects of poverty on children? There are five main ones. 1. Some children in poor families are now in serious physical want …2. More generally, the children are enduring a climate of family anxiety. 3. The children face the contrast of their emptiness amidst the plenty of others. 4. "—
and this is the only one where I shall quote from the expansion on the sentence—
"Poverty means that children suffer adverse parental treatment."
I think it is a point worth making that poor parents are no worse than other parents but they have a very great deal more to put up with, and research has shown
"that the strains of social deprivations force parents unwillingly to adopt child rearing practices which inhibit the social, emotional and intellectual growth of their youngsters."
Finally:
"the nearly 100,000 children in public care are disproportionately drawn from the families of the poor."
They are the very families which are going to be hit by the changes which have been made, and are now being completed by the changeover in this Bill, and by this clause of this Bill.
We believe that this matter of the responsibility of the state for the poverty of children and families, which was repudiated by the Under-Secretary in that Committee stage in another place, must be covered. Indeed, if we cannot have a pledge that the money will be made up one way or another—presumably through child benefits, if we are going to go on with this particular reform—we hope that noble Lords will oppose, or seek to amend, this clause when it comes to Committee stage.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I must apologise for missing some of the opening speeches of our debate this afternoon, particularly to my noble friend the Minister and noble Lords on the Front Benches opposite. However, I think it is unlikely that anything that I am going to say will have been said before. As a practising dentist who spent 15 years working within the National Health Service, I strongly support the Government's plan in this Bill to give family practitioner committees responsibility for their own administrative arrangements. Those practitioners working within the family practitioner services are independent, and it seems to me wholly appropriate that there should be health authorities specifically for this sector of the health service where such a different approach to planning and management is needed.
Having said that, health services need to be planned as a whole. This is true of my own field, dentistry. Health service administrators and planners are not always popular people, but in dentistry we simply have not had enough planning, not enough thinking about what is needed and how we can best achieve it, taking the dental services as a whole. With this in mind, I also welcome the new DHSS working group report on planning collaboration between FPCs and DHAs, especially the emphasis it gives to dental planning.

63
It may be asked: what do we need to plan in dentistry? The answer is: all the usual things—services for children, for the elderly, for handicapped people and for people who are housebound: but for everyone else as well including the parents of the children and the children of the elderly. They need National Health Service dental services, too.
Let me concentrate on just one aspect of dental planning which matters for all patient groups. This is the location of dental practices. In general dental practice, unlike general medical practice, there are no central controls on practice location, so general dental practitioners, as I did, have to work out themselves where their services are likely to be needed. This is a sound policy for a profession of independent contractors, but it is becoming more difficult to identify the areas of need as we train more dentists and as more areas have dental services at an adequate level. We need help, and this help is going to have to come from the FPCs and DHAs researching local needs and making the information available to dentists so that the can make more soundly-based decisions on practice location and development.
So then I look at the composition of FPCs, shown in Schedule 3 to this Bill, and ask myself whether these new FPCs are really likely to take this sort of problem seriously. I have to say that I am doubtful, because out of 30 members and 15 contractor members. only three will be dentists. My noble friend the Minister will say that this is the composition now and that it has worked well, but I would disagree and say that it has produced committees which generally have not taken much interest in broader dental issues. They will keep the names of dentists on a list; they will investigate any complaint made about any aspect of treatment; they will ensure that superannuation contributions are paid: but in many areas that is as far as it goes. What I am saying is that I believe dentists are underrepresented on FPCs. They always were: but it matters more now that the FPCs are being asked to broaden and develop their planning activities. FPCs are going to be developing new working methodssub-committees, or whatever—to carry out their new functions, and the dental members are going to have to be involved. If they are not, essential dental matters will not receive the attention they need. The present three dental members are going to have their work cut out.
But there is a particular problem for dental practitioners serving on NHS committees of this sort, which normally meet during the day. Dentists working within the NHS are paid for the items of work they do. To take time off to attend a committee meeting could cause serious financial problems. The income stops, but daily practice overheads still have to be paid for at an average rate of something like £100 a day. So taking part in expanded FPC work is going to be a real problem for most of the dental members.
This problem could be considerably eased by a simple proposal which I hope my noble friend the Minister will consider sympathetically. I suggest that an additional sub-paragraph should be inserted in Schedule 3. paragraph 12. after sub-paragraph (6), to the effect that there should be one deputy dental member of the FPC so that the load can be spread and
64
to improve the chance of a dental voice being heard at all appropriate times in an FPC's deliberations. I hope that this will be seen as a relatively uncontroversial measure in the face of a real problem. It is not an ideal solution, as I believe that dentistry is badly underrepresented with only three dental members.
In Gloucestershire, where I used to practise within the NHS. there are 60 per cent. more doctors on the FPC list than dentists. Yet the medical profession has eight members on the FPC and my own profession only three. Ultimately I am sure that there will have to be changes in the numbers balance between the professions in Schedule 3. I am not proposing this at the present time. but I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to my suggestion, and perhaps even give me an encouraging answer this evening. If he is unable to help at this stage. I shall feel under an obligation to my profession to come back with a suitable amendment at Committee stage.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, one of the advantages of speaking late is that much that you would want to say has been said before, and you can scratch out a lot of your notes. I am in that happy position. However, I want to comment on the Bill on two sections in Part I and perhaps for a little longer on Part II. All the sections I shall comment on have been commented on by other people.
There are two serious aspects of the section dealing with ophthalmic services which are to be deplored. The abolition of the availability of National Health Service spectacles for the vast majority of the population is regrettable. As has been said before, it will cause hardship. particularly to the elderly, but it will also cause hardship to the poorer sections of the community. In the case of the removal of the control over the sale of spectacles. this could have unpleasant results. In my view, the results may be felt most in the poorer sections of the community.
The Minister waxed eloquent about the free market. I am afraid that I do not share his enthusiasm. There are many unpleasant consequences that can flow from the free market. In fact I agree with the opinion of the noble Lord. Lord Trefgarne, his colleague. which was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. earlier. I hope the Minister and the House will pay great attention to the speech that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Suffield from across the way. It is all very well to be willing to have a free market in the sale of spectacles but there is need for some control and there is a need to maintain standards.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. is not in his place. I was a little surprised at his outburst. When all is said and done, he is accustomed to organisations. Most organisations delegate powers to their specialist committees. And, in effect, when a decision has been made on principle, it is normal for the committee to deal with it or it can be dealt with at a lower level by a sub-committee or by the officers of the committee. I cannot see that there was any need for the song and dance about whether the whole of the Ophthalmic Services Committee of the BMA had met before this letter was written.
I hope that during the Committee Stage we shall improve Clause 1. Unlike my noble friend to my left.

65
I welcome the independence of family practitioner committees. I strongly endorse the views of the BMA which were read out to the House earlier. Primary health care is the most cost effective sector of the National Health Service. Its expansion would benefit patients by increasing the range and accessibility of services and also reduce overall costs of the National Health Service. Until FPC administrators have the same standing as district health authority administrators and the funding of the family practitioner services is separated from the health authority budgets, effective planning is not possible.
The development of the primary care sector requires the establishment of an independent administrator wholly committed to its growth. The FPCs as now established can do this. With their newly acquired status they will have an equal standing in their dealings with health and local authorities, with which they will be able to make at first hand the case for important developments in community care.
The DHAs, as has been said earlier, are, quite rightly, heavily influenced by the hospital sector, because it accounts for the great bulk of their expenditure. As a consequence, it is not as easy as it ought to be for the expansion of the primary care service to take place. It is all very well to talk about integration, but it is wrong to try to integrate services by making one subordinate to the others. The new FPCs will be able to present the case for family practitioner services both within the National Health Service and outside it. 1 think that that is of the utmost importance. As I see it. only the Secretary of State can stand in the way of the needed expansion and improvement of primary care. I really do hope that the Minister will recognise the importance of doing this particular job and give the primary sector the support it deserves.
I end up where I began, by pointing out that the primary care sector is the most cost effective sector of the National Health Service; that it can be expanded; that there can he a shift from hospital to community care, but it must be planned and it must have the necessary resources. If that is done, quite a lot of benefit can flow to the service.
I welcome the proposed Green Paper. I hope it will lead not only to some worthwile discussions but to worthwhile action. I hope that the Government are not merely putting out another Green Paper in order to be able to fob us off with some platitudes.
I turn to Clause 11. I am worried about this clause and speak about it today as a practising GP. Like many other noble Lords, I have received innumerable representations against this clause. At first I did not grasp it as fully as I should but when I subsequently had it explained to me by one of my colleagues who understood it better, I began to share the concern. I understand that it is the need to withdraw subsection (2) of Section 36 of the 1975 Act which made this clause necessary. I believe that we must look at what we are going to lose. The non-contributory invalidity pension has proved a valuable benefit to everyone else except married women and those who have stayed at home to look after their families. I have seen no criticism of its major role in supporting them to justify our submitting them all—because we are doing that
66
Vol. 452now—married and unmarried alike, to an additional test which, frankly, has only one purpose—that is, to exclude certain people; people who do not reach this arbitrary 80 per cent. disablement on a specific schedule which, in fact, is more concerned with industrial injuries than with sickness.
I find myself unable to explain this 80 per cent. severe disablement allowance to myself. I find it difficult to explain to myself. Because I cannot explain it to myself I shall not be able to explain it to my patients. I shall have to tell them, for example, that if, when they produce my statment on their incapacity to work to their local DHSS, it is found that their contribution record is insufficient for an invalidity pension. they will have to have another examination which I believe is to be done by two doctors from the DHSS. I shall tell them that they will then have to answer a lot of questions and be medically examined to establish levels of amputation, blindness, deafness, severe disfigurement, none of which happen to be the likely cause of their incapacity because most of the people I deal with come from civilian life.
Another problem I have is that, whether they are qualified by having 80 per cent. disablement or not, they are unable to work. I am satisfied about that—that is why I gave them a certificate in the first instance. Yet I must tell them that the fact that I have given this certificate is perhaps only a way of starting the process; that it is not going to enable them to get the benefit; that they have to have this additional examination—and have to have it with the likelihood that a large percentage of them will fail it.
I have to ask myself this. Do I tell them not to apply for the benefit?—because, in effect, by giving them that certificate, I may well be subjecting them to hardship, embarrassment and stress, which is not very good for them. These are the problems that I find as a doctor which concern me and about which, therefore, I am quite unhappy. What is more. I am not entirely sure that today it is true, as it may have been in the past, that the man goes out to work and the woman stays at home, runs the house and looks after the children. What is more true today is that both parents, the man and woman, the husband and wife, go out to work, and if they are an agreeable couple, in the sense that the man is willing to do his share of the work, both will do the housework. If he is a male chauvinist, then the woman will go to work and when she comes home she will do the housework.
The approach therefore needs to be changed. In effect, I think that the Government have changed it to some extent. For example, no longer do we have the lower-rate insurance. A married woman who is working now has to pay the full rate. As I see it, therefore, the numbers of people who are affected by the present household duties test will gradually diminish and, in fact, in the future, the number of people who do not have contributory pensions and therefore need the non-contributory pension, could be considerably less than today.
I hope that the requests which have been made earlier will be accepted by the Government. I believe that this is a clause that the Government need to look at again, that this is a clause about which the Government need to consult a little more. I hope that.

67
when we come to the Committee stage and we ask them to do so, they will agree.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, noble Lords who have taken part in the debates on opticians for the last four or five years will, I am sure, share with me the feeling of relief that the end appears to be in sight. It has gone on for a very long time and, even though I do not agree with everything in this Bill, I am very glad that we have got to this point. There is no doubt that there are parts of the Bill about which opticians are not happy, about which doctors are not happy and about which many Members of another place were unhappy; and about which, from the debate this evening, it appears that many of your Lordships are unhappy. My own views have not changed substantially since the period when I had the honour of being the spokesman in your Lordships' House for the DHSS; that is to say, I fully support the Government in opposing the rather extreme view propounded by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing today and frequently propounded in the past by the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, to legalise the sale of ready-made spectacles.
I should like to make one or two comments about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rugby. He mentioned the composition of the General Opticial Council, and I think suggested that something like 18 out of the 22 were opticians. I do not have the figures with me. but I know that is incorrect and I look forward to my noble friend Lord Caithness correcting that, because I think it gives a false impression. I can also confirm that the Dollond and Aitchison Group are not represented on the General Optical Council and nor for that matter are even the Federation of Optical Corporate Bodies. So I think that one should clear that up.
The noble Lord also referred in his speech to the seven eye shops opened by a company which employed Peter Risdon, an out-of-work actor, as a frontman. What the noble Lord did not say is that on Monday last Peter Risdon was fined £100 and ordered to pay £500 costs. His activities are not only illegal now but would be so after the Bill if, in its present form. it were enacted. At the conclusion of the case, the noble Lord was reported in the Daily Telegraph as having said that,
"The decision was disappointing and meant that the price of a pair of reading glasses would remain at £80 or £90".
That is misleading information. In fact, properly prescribed reading spectacles are now available (and for some considerable time have been available) at prices round £10 to £14; although anyone can pay more if they wish.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, would the noble Lord perhaps say what the delays are in being able to obtain reading glasses, which sometimes can be as much as three weeks so that people have had to buy private ones? They have been cajoled into buying private ones, at a figure of round about £80 or £90, simply because they cannot wait for that period of time.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I have no doubt that the situation varies from place to place and
68
from optician to optician. What the noble Lord is suggesting is that everybody has to wait three weeks for their glasses—and that is by no means true.
Lord Monson: My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, aware that at this very moment I am wearing a pair of Mr. Risdon's glasses which cost me £8·50; and that they are perfectly satisfactory in every way?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that the noble Lord is satisfied with his glasses, but I imagine that he is also concerned that others less educated than himself are not misled by people selling glasses who do not actually know what they are doing.
Perhaps I should again declare my present interest in the Bill as president of the Federation of Optical Corporate Bodies, as a result of which I have somewhat increased my knowledge over the last year or so. I appreciate that the Government no doubt take the view that they are steering a middle course between the extreme view personified by the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, on the one hand, and the views held by the optical profession. In fact, I think the Government have been very astute. In listening to the arguments today, they seem to get somebody to agree on one bit and somebody else to agree on another bit and one or two to disagree on other bits. However, I believe that the Government's proposals to allow unqualified persons to engage in ophthalmic dispensing is itself an extreme proposal put forward without any real justification; and I will come back to that later.
First. I should like to make it clear that, together with many other noble Lords. I fully support the Government's proposals to relax the present restrictions on advertising by opticians, so long as there is no advertising of the professional function of the testing of sight and provided that provision is made to ensure that advertisements of the prices of spectacles are not misleading to the public. For that reason I think it will be important that any price advertisement by opticians should indicate precisely what it refers to—whether it is only the frames, whether it is the frame and lenses and whether it includes any professional fees or charges. Subject to those important qualifications, I know that the federation are willing to accept price advertising in future—and the magnitude of this change and the effect that it will have on competition should not be underestimated.
Secondly, I am prepared to support the Government's proposed changes for the ending of the general provision of spectacles under the general ophthalmic service, subject to satisfactory safeguards to protect the visually disadvantaged. The Government have already hinted at some willingness to provide financial assistance to those requiring more complex lenses, and I hope and expect that we might have some more definite statement from Her Majesty's Government tonight.
The main reason why I am able to support the NHS changes. which I realise some members of the Opposition are concerned about, is that this will end the distortion of the optical market and do more than advertising or any other single measure to reduce the average price of private spectacles, which have in fact already been reducing since the Department of Health

69
and Social Security, after years of delay, increased NHS fees. It is often not appreciated sufficiently that approximately 80 per cent. of all lenses are supplied under the NHS at state-controlled prices and approximately 50 per cent. of all frames at cost price. What a loss leader!
I believe that the ending of the NHS provision will enable progressive opticians to provide the public with a better and wider range of budget priced spectacles at costs very comparable to those at present charged under the NHS service. No longer will private spectacle prices have to subsidise NHS work, as has been necessary in recent years, so private spectacle average prices will fall. Perhaps then criticisms of opticians will cease. Even the OFT supported the views of the two Price Commission reports that opticians had not been making excessive profits.
It is my conviction that, if Her Majesty's Government had limited their proposals to allowing opticians to advertise prices and to the changes in the general ophthalmic services, they could achieve both their main aims of increasing competition and achieving a reduction in prices, together with a wider choice of attractive budget priced frames and lenses for the public.
Regrettably, the Government have chosen to swallow completely the superficial arguments presented in chapter 9 of the report of the Office of Fair Trading. Accordingly. the Government are proposing in Clause 1(1) of the Bill to permit unqualified persons to dispense—provided that it is against a recent prescription issued, the Government say, in the previous two years—and those two years we shall have to look at in Committee.
I think it is objectionable that the Government had no proper consultations with the organisations representing dispensing opticians after the OFT report was published, although such consultations were not only requested from but promised by Ministers. Instead Ministers have preferred to rely upon the advice of the Office of Fair Tradng, which was concerned only with the competition issues and had no one on its team with any optical or medical qualifications.
Furthermore, it had been made clear, when the then Minister of State for Consumer Affairs, Mrs. Sally Oppenheim, announced the review, that the report was not expected to come to conclusions on matters affecting the public interest. I believe that the Government's proposal, based on the shaky foundations of the OFT report, to permit unqualified persons to dispense spectacles is very much a matter affecting the public interest.
It is not only dispensing opticians who are concerned about unqualified people being allowed to practise dispensing; ophthalmologists have expressed their concern as well. The chairman of the Ophthalmic Group Committee of the British Medical Association has said:
"While specific harm to the eyes is unlikely to arise from the use or non-use of spectacles, there is firm medical agreement that the correct and appropriate dispensing of spectacles has very significant health implications. The Committee cannot accept that after the prescription has been issued optical appliances take on the status of mere consumer durables and feel strongly that when highly skilled and expensive medical or surgical treatment has been provided
70
under the NHS the final rounding-off of such treatment with spectacles or an optical appliance must also be provided by skilled or qualified personnel".
Her Majesty's Government wish to break what is known as the opticians' monopoly and I was very interested in the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, who I thought analysed the situation extremely well. This monopoly consists of some 2,900 dispensing opticians and 6,200 ophthalmic opticians, all in competition with each other. It is therefore the case that no optician and no optical company has anything approaching a monopoly. What is so curious is that Her Majesty's Government happily follow the advice of the Office of Fair Trading to allow unqualified and unregistered people to dispense, despite the other suggestion of the Office of Fair Trading that motor mechanics and installers of double glazing should be qualified and registered.
One of the problems when debating these matters is that there are many people, including some noble Lords and, I am afraid, the present Government, who have largely misunderstood or failed to understand the function of a dispensing optician. Some people do not appreciate the difference between a prescription and a specification. Certainly the Government have shown little sign of understanding the difference. My honourable friend the Minister of Health seems to take the view that, since it is normal for prescriptions issued by an ophthalmologist or an ophthalmic optician to be sent to a prescription house where the spectacles are made up, then there should be no problem so long as they are made to British Standards. That sounds very plausible, but it is by no means the full story since it omits the essential stage of dispensing.
What actually happens—and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, tried to explain this—is that the dispensing optician, after discussing someone's employment, way of life and hobbies, advises on the type of lens form and frame that will be suitable for his prescription. Careful measurements are taken to ensure that the lenses are properly centred and that the spectacles fit the patient's face. A great many more technicalities are involved in ophthalmic dispensing, but I think that this outline is sufficient for my purpose. The dispensing optician then adds all the dispensing details and measurements together with the prescription on the specification, and it is the specification or order which is forwarded to the prescription house or workshop. To send a prescription alone would be quite useless; and, of course, the optician has the final responsibility for the accuracy and fit of the spectacles.
While it may have been excusable for the OFT to fail to understand the importance of ophthalmic dispensing and the training and experience which are necessary, despite all the evidence which it was given on this subject, I find the same failure on the part of the DHSS quite extraordinary and inexcusable. I notice that quite a number of noble Lords are wearing spectacles, and if those wearing bifocals want to get the message about this business of careful dispensing they should move their spectacles just a little bit away from their eyes or a little bit sideways or up and down, and they will find that if they stay like that for a minute or two they will be feeling quite uncomfortable. That is perhaps the best way of getting this point over.

71
I believe that the Government, in their boundless enthusiasm for increasing competition, have made a serious mistake and if unqualified persons are allowed to dispense spectacles there could be grave consequences. In a recent letter. my honourable friend the Minister of Health has written that Her Majesty's Government rest their case on two irrefutable facts. The first is that wearing wrong spectacles does no permanent damage to the eyes. While I am not able to judge the weight of medical evidence in this regard, although I have heard it said very frequently, perhaps my noble friend Lord Glenarthur could let me have by letter the full medical evidence on which the Government rely in this regard. The second is that anybody who was supplied with the wrong spectacles would be aware that they were wrong. That is not true in the case of anybody who has had an eye operation, such as a cataract operation.
During the later stages of the Bill I shall urge your Lordships to leave out subsection (1) of Clause 1, unless I can persuade my noble friends on the Front Bench to reach a sensible compromise. What I urge them to do is to proceed as rapidly as they may wish with the removal of any unreasonable restriction on advertising by opticians and implement the general optical service changes, and then judge the effects on competition and prices of these two very major measures over a period of from 12 to 18 months. In the meantime, the proposal to allow unqualified persons to dispense should be withdrawn or put in cold storage. If. as I confidently expect, the prices of private spectacles continue to fall, there will be no need to incur the risk of a general fall in standards of ophthalmic dispensing by unqualified persons.
Finally, I should like to pose a few questions. With regard to enforcement, how do Her Majesty's Government propose to ensure that unqualified spectacle vendors observe any or all of the so-called conditions and safeguards to be laid down by Order in Council? How, for example, will the Government ensure that these unqualified persons do not in fact dispense, except to a recent prescription? How will they ensure that these unqualified persons will not be dispensing to children? Are they perhaps considering the appointment of an optical ombudsman? If the Government's reply is simply that they will be relying on the present law, that hardly seems likely to be adequate.
My second question to Her Majesty's Government is whether there is any other country within the EEC, with the possible exception of Denmark, which does not currently license or regulate ophthalmic dispensing? Thirdly. may I ask whether there is any country in the world which, having once established a system of regulation, has then proceeded to deregulate ophthalmic dispensing? Fourthly, how do the Government propose to enforce the application of British Standards by both registered opticians and unregistered spectacle vendors? Fifthly, I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in their opinion, permitting unqualified persons to dispense will in any way raise standards for ophthalmic dispensing? Sixthly, do Her Majesty's Government accept that standards of ophthalmic dispensing are a matter affecting the public interest? And I should also
72
like to ask why they should be prepared to envisage lower standards than we have at present? Finally, how do Her Majesty's Government intend to prevent the importation and sale of cheap spectacle frames from Taiwan and the Far East made of cellulose nitrate, which, as I am sure your Lordships will know, is highly inflammable.
Unless Her Majesty's Government can provide satisfactory answers to these questions and to the other concerns which I have expressed, at the Committee stage of the Bill I shall wish to propose certain amendments, including an amendment to require any order made under subsection (3)(a) to be made by Affirmative Resolution of each House of Parliament. However, I hope that this will not be necessary and that Her Majesty's Government will have second thoughts and will withdraw that particular subsection. The most important role which this House can play is, I believe, as a revising Chamber, and the very first subsection in the Bill is in serious need of revision.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we are reaching the end of an interesting but rather disjointed debate. I can understand that it is convenient to the Department of Health and Social Security to get its annual Bill. It might be more convenient for the rest of us, as the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, suggested, if in future we had separate Bills, for health and social services on the one hand and for social security on the other.
May I begin by congratulating the noble Earl. Lord Caithness. on his promotion and by congratulating also the rank and dignity of Earldom as a whole in achieving such prominence on the Government Front Bench, to which I am sure the latest noble Earl to join it will bring additional lustre.
I shall refer only briefly to Clause 1 of the Bill. to which a number of noble Lords have already devoted large parts or, in some cases, all of their speeches. I must say at once that in my view a no doubt praiseworthy zeal for the destruction of monopolies, with which I agree in principle and which is a cherished Liberal tenet, seems in this particularly sensitive field to be leading to unfortunate results for large numbers of our neediest citizens, unless of course the Bill is amended in order to protect them at the Committee stage. It cannot possibly be right that something like 3·2 million people, or 64 per cent. of those at present receiving support for the purchase of ophthalmic services, will lose that support under the Bill as at present drafted.
The object of breaking monopolies is normally to protect the consumer's interest against the producer's, and I accept that many people with uncomplicated prescriptions—the kind of people referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, the average user of reading spectacles—are likely to benefit under the Bill. But in this case the interest of some consumers is not the same as that of others, and I must state my special concern for those with complex prescriptions who, it seems, will be paying up to three times as much as they did before the removal of National Health Service support. This point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Prvs-Davies.

73
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, spoke of the promotion of consumer interest in the Bill, but I have to tell him that the National Consumer Council do not agree with him. They speak of the need for
"a safety net for those consumers who have less common sight problems and who are unlikely to benefit from more competition because of the small size of the market for the lenses they need".
A little later they say:
"We are particularly concerned about the effect that the removal of the NHS subsidy will have on people requiring special or complex lenses. There is unlikely to be much competition in the supply of such lenses because of the relatively small number of people involved and the individual nature of the lenses they require, so prices of complex lenses will rise when the NHS subsidy is removed".
I find that to be a matter of deep concern.
Furthermore. the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, mentioned cataract operations. It is well known that cataract operations sometimes require as many as three changes of glasses in the 18 months after the operation. This could put an intolerable burden on elderly people at the lower end of the income scale and might indeed mean that they simply could not afford the aids which would assure them of reasonable vision, with a consequent huge decline in the quality of their lives and, indeed, a corresponding rise in the hazards they would be a prey to through diminished vision.
At Second Reading in another place on 20th December 1983 the Secretary of State said at col. 297 of Hansard:
"it has been argued that there are those with the very poorest sight who need complicated and more expensive lenses and I am certainly prepared to consider the evidence on that to see whether they can have continued access to NI-IS glasses".
But by the time the Bill reached Report stage nothing had been done. A wider amendment to entitle all pensioners to purchase lenses and frames under the provisions of the general optical service was defeated, and I find nothing in the Bill as it stands to exempt even the partially sighted. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. spoke briefly of the possibility of a controlled price for complex prescriptions. This was an area about which the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, also showed concern. May I ask the noble Earl whether the Government will bring forward an amendment at the Committee stage on this point. Unless the Government can give us substantial assurances this evening, this is something which we shall have to take very seriously at the Committee stage. In this respect, the Bill cannot he allowed to go forward as it stands.
On the question of advertising, this is supported by the National Consumer Council. We are not against advertising, provided that there is proper quality control; but such control will not necessarily be maintained by the Government's very proper insistence upon qualified prescribing if there is little or no control over the quality of dispensing. This is something about which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is worried.
Another worrying aspect of this Bill is that it appears to contain no safeguards against negligence resulting in damage or injury. What happens if someone driving a vehicle while wearing wrongly dispensed spectacles causes injury either to himself or to another person? I can find no provision in the Bill for such a contingency. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, offered a
74
rather telling quotation from the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who, at an earlier stage in his ministerial life, was concerned that this might be a contributory cause to accidents.
I believe that I have said enough to indicate our grave disquiet over certain aspects of Clause 1 of the Bill and to warn the Minister of a hefty raft of amendments at Committee stage. I hope that when we come to that stage the Government will listen carefully to what we have to say and will show themselves to be somewhat less inflexible and opinionated than they have been on some recent occasions. Sight is a precious gift, and in the case of the elderly it is doubly so, for as the other faculties necessary for active physical participation in daily life decline, the capacity to participate in the world around by means of observation becomes a priceless asset. I trust that the Government will not seek to sacrifice that asset for the sake of getting their Bill through unamended, or virtually unamended. That would be an inexcusable exercise of political machismo.
I turn now to family practitioner committees, which are the subject of Clause 5. This is a subject we have debated on a number of occasions. I confess that I remain of the opinion expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. that it would have been preferable to bring the FPC services together with the hospital services under the umbrella of the DHA, as is the case in Scotland. I do not often disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, but I am afraid that I do in this particular respect, although I agree with him on the outstanding importance of primary care. It must be remembered that one of the main aims of the 1974 reorganisation was to create a more integrated National Health Service, and this clause is a long stride in the opposite direction. However, we have to be realistic and it seems unlikely that we shall succeed, at this late stage in the argument, in converting the Government to our point of view. In all probability, FPCs will achieve their independent status. Having accepted that, it becomes a matter of urgency to ask whether the Government have really thought the consequence through. I want to express my alarm in regard to a number of points and to ask the noble Earl some questions.
First, although the representatives of the medical committee, the local authorities, the dental committee, the pharmaceutical committee and the opticians are to remain the same in number, there are now to be seven free-wheeling appointments in the gift of the Secretary of State. The method of appointment of all members is to to be changed. In future, all members will be appointed by the Secretary of State from persons nominated by the various bodies rather than being directly appointed by those bodies themselves. Furthermore, the chairmen will no longer be elected by the members but will also be appointed by the Secretary of State. This means that local influence on the committees will be further diminished and the power of the Secretary of State will be further increased. I believe someone mentioned a patronage of 3,000 places. I wish to record our fundamental disagreement with this proposal and our intention to come forward with amendments on this score at Committee stage.

75
There are other points which give rise to disquiet. As the noble Earl will he better aware than anyone, the strategic plans of RHAs for the next few years envisage a significant shift of resources from the acute sector to community care. How will this be administered, and what pattern of primary care do the Government envisage after this further reconstruction of the service? Concern has been expressed in some quarters that this Bill will open the way for FPCs in the future to employ directly nurses, midwives, health visitors, community specialist nurses for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped, and perhaps other types of professions in the community health field. Is this what the Government intend to do? If so, there are two points to be made.
The first is that any reversal of the 1974 objective of greater integration would carry with it the danger of creating two overlapping spheres of responsibility and two rival bureaucracies. The second point concerns the role of the nursing profession. Nurses would want to see included in the Bill—quite naturally, in my opinion—a facility for nurse membership of FPCs as a distinct category similar to that which exists currently for health authorities. It would of course be possible for nurses to be appointed within the DHA quota in Schedule 2. Part II, paragraph 6(3)(h) or under 6(3)(g), within the seven nominations directly in the Secretary of State's gift. But neither category gives any guarantee of nurse representation, and unless the noble Earl can provide an assurance that such a provision will be made I shall have to return to this matter at Committee stage.
This brings me to the administrative aspect. Clause 5(3) on page 7 of the Bill would seem to pave the way for FPC chairmen to be paid on the present lines of payment to RHA and DHA chairmen. Is this the Government's intention? The responsibilities would not seem to be comparable. Also, will there be a special grade of FPC administrator? If the new system is to work, it will obviously need to attract people of real ability. Would the noble Earl not agree that such people are unlikely to be attracted unless there is a unified, administrative career structure for the whole of the National Health Service, and unless those in it are able to move between FPCs and other types of health authority? Would this not he essential to the preservation of some dialogue and mutual understanding between the two branches of the service? The Royal College of General Practitioners is strongly of the view that unless there is a unified career structure, whatever benefits the Government expect from the new structure will certainly be lost. May I have the noble Earl's comment on that?
On the financial side, can the Government cross their heart and say that they do not envisage a substantial increase in costs to follow the establishment of FPCs as health authorities in their own right, with powers to engage their own staff! Have they never heard of Parkinson's Law? Where is the money to be found, if not at the expense of other branches of the NHS? It is also relevant to ask: what are the recommendations on control of GP spending in the Binder Hamlyn report? The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asked about this. Why does the report remain
76
unpublished? Does it contain some recommendations uncongenial to the Government? Or does it contain recommendations that might be uncongenial to the rest of us? Why all this secrecy? What it there to hide?
What about the Green Paper on primary care? The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, questioned the need for another Green Paper. If the Government decide that there is a need, is it sensible to introduce legislation in advance of consultation? The Government's record in this respect is rather bad. They have received a lot of flak tonight from all sides of the House. The noble Lord. Lord Stallard, was one of those who mentioned this point. I myself feel that the Government should order some embroidered samplers to be hung in every Minister's office, which should read "No legislation without consultation". They are going down the opposite road.
I believe that I have said enough to indicate my believe that the Government have not thought their proposals through. There are other questions, but I shall keep them for Committee stage. However, there is one final question I cannot refrain from asking now. What are the Government's real, underlying motives in relation to this part of the Bill? Perhaps I have a suspicious mind, but I cannot help surmising that fully-fledged independence for FPCs could—just could—be a paving step towards reprivatisation of the general practitioner side of the service and conversion at some time in the future to an item-of-service basis of payment, underpinned by a mutual insurance system covering 80 per cent., say, of the doctor's charge, as in France. That may be pure fantasy, but I shall be relieved to hear from the noble Earl that it is not even a gleam in the Government's eye. I see the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, shaking his head, and I am much relieved to see that.
I turn briefly and finally to Clause 1 I of the Bill, which introduces a new special disablement allowance. My noble friend Lord Attlee has already spoken in some detail and very effectively on this point, particularly on the discouraging effect this Bill may have on the young disabled to continue in education and training with a view to securing a job. I will not go into the matter in any depth at this stage. Certainly we welcome, as does the Social Security Advisory Committee, the abolition of the household duties test for married women. This is obviously right in principle. But there are two main provisions in the Bill which. understandably, have excited much adverse comment. These are the cut-off at the age of 20 of automatic entitlement on a simple test of incapacity for work, and the very high threshold of 80 per cent. disability which has to be surmounted to qualify after that age.
Presumably the Government have erected these hurdles in order to make the change to the new benefit cost-neutral, or as nearly so as possible. These are the financial parameters referred to by my noble friend Lord Attlee. But, not unnaturally, a number of voluntary organisations have voiced concern about the effect of these rules on the particular sector of disablement which they represent. From the many statistics and estimates elicited by Written Questions in another place, two figures stand out. The first is that some 16,000 housewives who currently qualify for HNCIP will be unlikely to clear the 80 per cent.

77
hurdle. Can the noble Earl comment on what support he envisages for them in the future, and on how much they will lose?
Then there is the staggering revelation—at least, it staggered me—that of the 143,000 claimants of NCIP, 81,500 (or 57 per cent.) are suffering from mental disorders. Of these, it has been calculated—this is, of course, an estimate—that as many as 26,500 will not qualify for the new SDA. If this is true it can be seen only as a severe setback for the Government's proclaimed policy of care in the community. How can the closure of large, old uneconomic hospitals be speeded up, or take place at all, if these people are deprived of the therapeutic earnings at present allowed to them under NCIP? Can the noble Earl tell me how the Government's declared policy is to be implemented if the income of many of those struggling to live in the community is actually reduced? I fail to understand that. This seems to be yet another instance of a direct conflict between the highly desirable concept of care in the community and the Government's actual legislation.
There are many other points, but the evening is drawing on. One of great importance is that the criteria for assessing disability are wholly inappropriate for considering disablement through mental disorder. We shall want to bring forward proposals on that at Committee stage. For example, MIND suggests:
"A possible approach to the level of disability of a mentally disordered person would be for an independent multidisciplinary assessment by a panel including a psychiatrist, social worker and other competent professionals with experience of mental health problems".
That is something we shall certainly have to come back to. The proposed system is totally inadequate as at present written into the Bill.
Our colleagues in another place voted against this Bill on both Second and Third Readings on account of its many flaws, which were not corrected in another place. I understand that the Government are planning to have only two days for the Committee stage. If the debate this afternoon is anything to go by we shall need, I am sure. more time.
7.42 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to this debate. Perhaps I may say especially to the noble Lord, Lord Spens—who has only just returned to the Chamber—that I may not have been here for every minute but I seem to have been here for a lot of minutes. I should like to say how happy I am to see the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on the Front Bench opposite. I hope he will enjoy his new appointment and that we shall enjoy many interesting arguments as time goes by.
The most important statement to be made about this Bill, before one goes into details of the clauses, is that it is another rag-bag of a Bill. It consists of wholly unconnected issues, and this has happened before under the present Government. This is really four Bills in one. I submit to the House—and I say this in no party sense because it is, I think, a constitutional point—that it is very bad to put four Bills into one. It is no way to legislate. We have four Bills masquerading as one. It is undemocratic and disrespectful to Parliament. From a constitutional point of view it is
78
much better that the Bills which come before this House should be homogeneous and should deal with single issues. A Bill like this which deals with everything from spectacles to disability and the family practitioner committees is not the way to legislate intelligently in this House.
It is also a bad Bill because it just tinkers once more with the National Health Service. It tinkers again with social security. We have had successive changes in detail which are confusing, expensive to administer, and which often create even more anomalies in the health and welfare services. We understand that the Secretary of State is undertaking four reviews of the system, but it is not clear whether there will be any public discussion or consultation about those reviews. Any radical beneficial changes must also involve the Treasury and broad principles of public expenditure finance, including taxation and contributions as well as benefits. There seems to be no focus at present for this wider political public debate, which must be about philosophical as well as fiscal attitudes. So tonight we have just another example of shifting around old problems and creating new problems without any coherent beneficial policies.
The Bill does nothing effective to resolve the poverty trap or the unemployment trap. It leaves confusion worse confounded. It leaves untouched the hardships resulting from the Government's policy of taxing unemployment and sickness benefit, the collecting of national insurance contributions from people on sick leave, and it leaves the blind allowance at £1·25 a week. When I asked in a Question on 21st March what should be the blind allowance if it was upgraded in conformity with inflation I was told that it should be £8·21 a week. We are leaving blind people with an allowance of £1·25 when even the Government admit that taking inflation into account, and not for any other reasons, it should now be £8·21. I make no apology to your Lordships for talking about blind people, because we have had a great discussion about spectacles and the ophthalmic services. My goodness! I am worried about how many more blind people will be left with this inadequate allowance.
The Government maintain the abolition of the earnings related supplement to which thousands of workers have contributed. They have introduced a disastrous policy of housing benefits. The Government's own Ministers have had to acknowledge the need for a review of that after 18 months. Applicants are made to feel that they are means-tested mendicants. The Government pay them about £4 billion a year while the Government give nearly £3 billion a year in tax relief on mortgages, however well-off the applicants might be. The Government hesitate to make essential increases in child benefits above the present £4.2 billion but give away £3 billion in married men's tax allowance, whether or not they have any children at all.
Therefore, it is necessary to set this context for the Bill we are now discussing. It is apparently the last legislation this Session on social security and the health service, but it omits one of the most urgently needed changes—the provision of long-term benefit rates for the long-term unemployed. The Government's own Social Security Advisory

79
Committee, which surely cannot be accused of electioneering, said in its 1982–3 report:
"We continue to regard as our main priority the extension to unemployed claimants of the long-term supplementary benefit scale rate."
On page 2 the report states:
"We make no apology for repeating our firm conviction that the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society should be protected whatever sacrifices have to be made by the rest of the community."
So what do we get tonight instead of these urgent and beneficial changes? We get a Bill which puts the optical services into the market place. We understand that the Government expect to save about £17 million a year by doing this. If the Government are saving £17 million a year that means they are taking £17 million a year away from people who need the services. The proposals before the House might be cheaper for some, but they will inevitably be dearer for those who are now paying about £ 12 for their spectacles.
This is a question which has been discussed in great detail. I do not propose to detain your Lordships long on this aspect of the Bill, but I must ask the noble Earl about pensioners. It was said in another place that there was not to be an exemption from charges for pensioners because not all pensioners were poor. I have to ask the noble Earl whether that is the first step towards the Government changing the prescription exemptions for National Health medicines so that pensioners no longer get their prescriptions free. If they cannot get their glasses free on the basis that not all pensioners are poor, perhaps soon we shall not be able to get our prescriptions free on the same basis.
Will the next step be that prescriptions which come from doctors do not have to go to pharmacists? Will we be able to take our EC10s, or whatever they are now called, to the department store on the ground that that is good competition—we should be able to shop around and pharmacists should not have a monopoly? Is that the way we are going? I note that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for whom I have a great respect, is shaking his head. I very much hope that he can prove me wrong. I must tell him that many people share my anxieties about this.
I must ask the noble Earl also how we are going to police this situation. Someone with a prescription may go into a shop and get some sort of glasses which are then found not to be convenient and not to be useful. These traders are not accountable to any professional body. Will the patient be able to take those glasses back? Is there any arrangement whereby they have to be changed if they are not satisfactory? Can the noble Earl give us any further information following the statement made on 20th December in the other place? .A question was raised about elderly people with serious eye problems such as cataracts and postoperative problems. I quote from column 297:
"there are those with the very poorest sight who need complicated and more expensive lenses, and I am certainly prepared to consider the evidence on that to see whether they can have continued access to NHS glasses".
That was on 20th December, and I think that it would be useful for your Lordships to know whether that statement has been taken any further.
80
I will not go into many details of this debate, because I think that there have been a number of interesting propositions put to your Lordships to which we shall come back at the Committee stage, but I must refer especially to Clause 11. This provides a severe disablement allowance of £20.45 a week for people continuously incapable of work for 28 weeks on or before their 20th birthday or for people continuously incapable to the extent of 80 per cent. disablement. I wonder whether the noble Earl can tell us why the age of 20 has been fixed on? What is there that is magic about 20? It is not the age of citizenship; it is not the age of consent. I do not know what there is about 20 that makes it the age in this Bill.
I also have to ask the noble Earl, why is there the 80 per cent. limit? What is 80 per cent. disablement? Is it two legs off, one leg or one arm? Can the noble Earl explain to the House the point about this 80 per cent. disablement being continuous? Those of us who know something about the problems of disabled people realise that there are circumstances (for instance, when someone has multiple sclerosis) when there may be a remission. The person can get better for a bit. perhaps do a little job for two or three weeks and then have to have a rest. Are we to pin on people an 80 per cent. disablement label, which will mean that they are stuck with that? Surely they must be allowed to try to get better. We are trying to get all these technological aids for disabled people so that they can do a little job. They surely do not have to be either one thing or the other. The 28-week rule will be a disincentive for people to take on a job for a little while.
I want also to ask the noble Earl whether the Government propose to raise the weekly £20 disregard for therapeutic work to help disabled people to do little jobs which are of great benefit to them and to society. What are the Government's intentions regarding the £4 disregard for people on benefit who are able to work for 35 hours a week? I submit that these are fair questions to a Government who have pledged themselves in their last two manifestos to abolishing earnings rules.
The severe disablement allowance replaces the noncontributory invalidity pension. I am glad that it abolishes the household duties test for married women, but let us not congratulate the Government too much. We know that that arose from an EEC compulsory resolution which said that it was unlawful to discriminate between men and women in social insurance provisions. Will there be people who are receiving the present benefit who will be disqualified from this new benefit? I ask this question—I really have done some homework—because on 16th December in another place the junior Minister said, at col. 629:
"it is estimated that about 16.000 married or cohabiting women currently receiving the HNCIP would not qualify for severe disablement allowance".
What is to happen to them? Are they to lose their allowance, or will they be enabled to go on with a preserved right to benefit?
What consultations have the Government had with disabled organisations in order to try to work out some of those things? Many of us, in no party sense at all, have been having discussions with representatives of disabled organisations. I shall quote only one sentence

81
from the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation:
"The new benefit would prove a disaster".
I am sure that the Government do not want it to prove a disaster, so why has a situation arisen in which the organisations which are talking to many of us feel that it is a disaster?
I will just quickly go on to Clause 13 with Schedule 4. I am sure that many noble Lords will be surprised to know that some families get a dependency allowance for their children of 15p a week. As I understand it, that is to be discontinued under the Bill. The idea is that these dependency payments should be subsumed into child benefit. Of course that would be absolutely right. The Social Security Advisory Committee said that the proposal to replace the child dependency additions by child benefit:
"is a sound one only if there is no loss of income in real terms to families on contributed benefit".
But there is no evidence in this Bill or in the schedules that that will happen. It seems to us that these families will lose that mean little 15p a week without getting any additional benefit under the arrangements for children.
There is then the question of a spouse, who should not be earning over £80 per week. That is another earnings rule from a government who are supposed to want to abolish earnings rules. Then in Clause 19 we get the proposed taxation of occupational pensions. Occupational pensions are now, according to this Bill, to be regarded as earnings. That their pension should be regarded as earnings for taxation pensions is something which will be unacceptable to many people of all parties and of all attitidues in this House. I am only mentioning a few points to show what a ragbag of a Bill this is, as one goes on from one point to another.
I should have thought that the main objects of any Government should be to try to abolish the poverty trap and to try to abolish the unemployment trap. But now we are going to have a situation where we have a breach of the insurance principle, because these occupational pensions were paid by people's contributions. Now we are going to have this weekly earning limit of£80, plus £10 for each child. I must ask the noble Earl whether this £80, which is written into the Bill, is gross or net. Will it include housing benefit? Will it include family income supplement, taxation, savings and building society interest? Surely the Government are again bringing in a means test for people who should expect their benefits as of right because of their contributions. The Social Security Advisory Committee also said that the idea of replacing the child dependency additions by child benefit:
"is a sound one only if there is no loss of income in real terms to families on contributed benefit."
There are many other faults in this Bill which I know we shall want to take up at Committee stage. I feel that I have said enough today to suggest to your Lordships that there really must be considerable time and effort given during Committee stage to this Bill, which is a disaster as far as the most hard-up and vulnerable people in this country are concerned.
8.3 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have come to the end of a very interesting debate on this Bill. I am grateful to the many noble Lords for their contributions. Before turning to the more detailed points which have been raised on the various aspects of the Bill, I should like to make some general remarks on the provisions upon which much of the debate has concentrated--namely those contained in Clauses 1 and 11.
Opposition to these clauses has, I think, in general centred on three matters. The first is the liberalisation as regards those who can sell glasses. Secondly, there is the withdrawl of state provision of glasses to most people. Thirdly, there is the the proposed new severe disablement allowance.
With regard to the sale of glasses, I must reiterate that medical opinion is firm that the wrong glasses cannot cause any damage to adult eyes. It is also a fact that most people will be aware if their glasses are incorrect in some way. Faced with these facts. we feel able to relax the total ban on sales of glasses other than by qualified opticians. This does not mean we favour or encourage wrong dispensing. Indeed, the clause makes it a statutory requirement that glasses sold by non-opticians would have to conform to the prescription given by a doctor or ophthalmic optician. We believe that glasses, like most other products, need to be safe and serviceable. However, requiring glasses to be correct does not mean that we need to legislate upon those who can sell them. Many products which are potentially more dangerous than glasses are sold and used.
As an example, I invite your Lordships to look upwards, because you are content to sit under a roof held up by scaffolding. No one has advocated a scaffolders' Bill or a scaffolding council to restrict scaffolding to those registered. I do not want to tempt fate but I believe your Lordships face a greater risk from the scaffolding falling down than from unqualified dispensers. In such cases, safeguards are attached to the products or workmanship not to the sellers.
Nothing I have heard tonight shakes our conviction that this proven way of conducting business cannot be applied to glasses. We are consulting widely with consumer and professional bodies on the content of the orders which will govern sales by non-opticians. We are convinced that conditions can be attached, which will ensure the objectives sought by many of tonight's speakers including my noble friend Lord Suffield and the noble Lord, Lord Molloy—that is, safe and serviceable glasses. One safeguard we already have in mind is to require glasses to conform to appropriate British Standards. Fears of an influx of dangerous, substandard goods. including dangerous frame materials, are therefore unfounded.
I turn to the ending of NHS glasses. It has been suggested that this will no longer permit many people access to affordable glasses. We are sure that this fear is totally unfounded. Many people already pay the full cost of their frames and nearly all the cost of lenses. The average subsidy on lenses is £5. Glasses are changed about every two to three years. Consequently, the proposals contained in Clause I mean that we are

83
withdrawing a benefit worth perhaps five pence a week from most people. This benefit is at present totally indiscriminate and is given to all who choose "NHS brand" lenses.
We have heard much about pensioners. I should make it quite clear that pensioners as a group have never had free glasses. Many need simple glasses. Simple glasses are subsidised by about £2. Some pensioners losing £2 once every two years hardly constitutes the destruction of the NHS, despite what some noble Lords would appear to think.
I acknowledge that there is a small minority who are subsidised by greater amounts for special expensive lenses. About 1 per cent. of users receive over £15 per pair. Even this represents a mere fourteen pence a week. There is a fear, however, that the cost of these special lenses may rise disproportionately; that opticians will cut prices of simple glasses and load the cost on expensive ones. We doubt that this will happen. Nevertheless we are proposing to ensure that this minority does not suffer such a fate by allowing the users of expensive lenses to continue to get them through the NHS. Our negotiating strength will be put to their use to ensure a controlled price for these special lenses. To the extent that users of such lenses are on low incomes, they will also qualify for help towards the cost. Many old people needing such lenses will get them free on income grounds or have much of their charge remitted, and, of course, the higher the charges the greater the remission. We believe that no one will be denied access to the glasses they need on income grounds.
I hope I have sufficiently disposed of the rather extravagant suggestion that the new provisions portend the dismantling of the NHS. Perhaps I can also set your Lordships' minds at rest on another erroneous idea that has gained some currency: that free sight tests will be put at risk by this Bill. This is not the case, my Lords. The requirement to provide NHS sight tests is contained in the NHS Act 1977. The Bill contains no provision for a change. Charges could only be introduced by primary legislation. There is nothing in this Bill which affects that position.
Before concluding my remarks on the optical provisions in the Bill, I should like to add a few words on a matter which I know many of your Lordships will be concerned about—and rightly so. That is the question of enforcing the requirement on unregistered dispensers to dispense according to a prescription. Anyone breaking conditions contained in orders made under Section 2 I of the Opticians Act will be in breach of that section. They will be subject to a fine off 1,000. It is open to anyone to lay information before magistrates where they believe an offence has been committed. By the very nature of these offences, they cannot be committed secretly by the trader. They require the active collusion of a member of the public. We believe the risk of breaches is minimal. Traders have started to break the present law because it is clearly too restricting and has lost the necessary credibility with the public which all laws need if they are to be effective. We believe that the vast majority of people will benefit from the package of proposals.
84
Moving on now to our proposals for the introduction of the new benefit, severe disablement allowance, there is no intention for there to be any correlation with regard to the incapacity. The first condition for SDA is the incapacity for work. The additional 80 per cent. disablement test is simply intended to direct resources to the most severely disabled. On the question of consultation, the Government accepted the recommendations in the official review, and we therefore thought it right to bring forward legislation as soon as possible to remove the dissatisfaction generated by the present household duties test that has been universally condemned today. None of the other options identified was practical and affordable. A delay in order to consult on the details of the scheme could have meant losing the opportunity of introducing legislation this Session.
My honourable friend the Minister for the Disabled has been consulting for some months. and debates in this House and another place formed part of the scrutiny. None of the orgnisations that have criticised this measure has come up with positive proposals for an alternative to SDA, NCIP or HNCIP other than straightforward abolition of the household duties test. As my noble friend has said, this would cost £275 million. Even if resources were available, I am far from convinced that spending them in this way would be the best means of improving the lot of disabled people. Those who criticise our proposals have made no real attempt to face the issues within present financial constraints. The fact is that we must live—all of us—within the means that the economy can afford.
Suggestions have been made that the age 20 rule should be extended in various ways. SDA, like NCIP. is intended to be an income maintenance benefit primarily for the congenitally handicapped or those disabled in childhood who never have the opportunity to work and build up a contribution record. Given this priority, the logical cut off point for the easier qualifying condition is age 16 rather than 20. We feel that we could not legitimately make a special concession for the over 20s in full time education without making similar concessions for other groups: for example, the unemployed or those looking after children or elderly relatives.
In assessing the level of disablement, we propose to apply criteria which have been successfully applied to both physical and mental disabilities in the industrial injuries and war pensions fields over many years with general public acceptance. In building on the long experience of those schemes. I am confident that the well-tried 80 per cent. disablement test will provide a much fairer and more objective basis of benefit provision than the present household duties test for HNCIP.
On the wider front, contrary to what some noble Lords have suggested today. we estimate that the introduction of SDA will initially bring in an extra 20.000 beneficiaries and that the number who will qualify each year in the future on the 80 per cent. disablement test will be some 10 per cent. higher than the number who presently qualify for HNCIP. I am sure, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will agree, that these are considerable steps forward at a time when resources are severely limited. The extra cost of this will be £20 million a year.

85
Turning now to other and additional matters raised by your Lordships, I shall try to respond to the main points, but if I overlook any of the issues raised, I can promise that I shall check the Official Report and write to those noble Lords I have not answered. The subject of family practitioner committees was debated at length in the spring of last year and many of the questions raised tonight were answered in debate. I shall endeavour to mention them briefly again. Our proposals are not a fragmentation of the primary care service. That criticism, we believe, is a misconception of what we are about. The committees already exist and have done so in one form or another since the inception of the NHS. Our object is to make them accountable to Ministers by directly appointing them and, secondly, to make them more efficient by enabling them to employ their own staff and to become responsible for their own administrative budgets and, as necessary, called to account. The appointment of all members of FPCs by the Secretary of State is designed solely to ensure that accountability.
Lord Ennals: Appalling.
The Earl of Caithness: My noble friend, Lord Colwyn, mentioned the question of dental deputy members for FPCs. It is a long established principle adopted in respect of deputies that provision should be made for only one where the profession or other group has a single representative on the FPC. To go beyond that would be to open up the possibility of deputies for all parties. This would obviously have undesirable results so far as continuity of experience is concerned.
Certain of your Lordships believe that our proposals will make collaboration between the districts and the FPCs more difficult. We do not believe this. On the contrary, it is expected that FPCs and DHAs will continue to collaborate closely in the provision of primary care as the Bill makes it a requirement for them so to do. Additionally, the Bill provides for automatic FPC representation on local joint consultative committees. Family practitioner committees in Scotland are administered by the health hoards. However, the situation in England, with its much larger number of patients and practitioners and generally higher population densities than Scotland, is different and admits to a solution that we have adopted. Some points have been raised about the membership of the comittees. I should like to remind noble Lords that we have taken powers to enlarge membership of committees in certain circumstances and after consultation.
Moving on to the child dependency addition, the point has been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, that the proposed earnings rules for long term child dependency additions are simply a back door way of means testing national insurance benefits. That is not the case. There has always been an earnings rule to determine entitlement to the extra benefit for an adult dependant.
With regard to occupational pensions, I should make it clear that the Government do not wish to impose a full-blooded means test, and we do not wish to penalise the thrifty. We wish simply to draw a distinction between pensions for which a past
86
employer has substantially contributed, and which probably featured in the conditions of employment, and income deriving from voluntary investment.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and my noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne asked what consultation took place with the optical profession before the introduction of the Bill. All organisations involved were consulted. They were invited to a meeting with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services on 8th November 1983. Since the Bill has been published, there have been consultations at official level.
The noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Banks, my noble friend Lady Faithfull and the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, raised the the short term CDA problems. They expressed concern that withdrawal of the short term CDAs would hurt the poorest and most vulnerable. However, the withdrawal will take place at a time of up-rating and no one will be worse off. In addition, two-thirds of those who will lose the short term CDA are in receipt of supplementary benefit. The withdrawal of the CDA will simply mean more supplementary benefit.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asked which groups supported us when it came to the SDA. The Social Security Advisory Committee, for example, generally welcomed the proposal. I should also like to illustrate the age 20 rule. Between the ages of 16 and 19, a young person will be prevented from drawing SDA only where he is undergoing normal full-time education. Beyond that age, further education will only be a bar to entitlement if the type of course being followed is inconsistent with the finding that he is incapable of work. The noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Kilmarnock, raised the question of when the Binder Hamlyn report will be published. I can only tell them that it is expected to be published at the same time as the Green Paper.
Lord Ennals: When?
The Earl of Caithness: In the future, my Lords. The noble Lords, Lord Banks and Lord Beaumont of Whitley, raised the question of the introduction of an earnings rule as a means test for the long-term CDA. I covered this point a moment ago. There is no intention of means testing national insurance benefit. There always has been an earnings rule to determine entitlement to the extra benefit for an adult dependant. The proposed earnings rules for CDAs simply ensure that the extra benefit for a child goes only to those beneficiaries for whom it was intended. I am sure we would all agree that that is very laudable.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked why there are three earning rules for pensioners. The earnings rules are for different purposes. The £65 personal earnings rule is to establish that the pensioner has actually retired. The £45 earnings test for a wife is to establish that she is really dependent on the pensioner. The new £80 rule is in line with the concept of defining dependency hut at a higher level. To put the proposal in perspective, a family consisting of a pensioner, his wife and a child could have earnings of more than £100 before affecting the entitlement to the personal pension and the adult and child dependency addition.

87
The noble Lords, Lord Banks and Lord Kilmarnock, referred to the speech of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. At the time the speech was made my noble friend was speaking against the total repeal of the safeguards in the Opticians Act. The Government are keeping registration of opticians to give an informed choice of supplier. They are making it a requirement that all glasses sold accord with a recent prescription. Lord Trefgarne was speaking against self-selected glasses. The Government are not proposing this, although some noble Lords have suggested that we should. We are also consulting widely to ensure safe and serviceable glasses. This was my noble friend's objective and it is still the Government's objective.
We are grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Rugby, for starting a public debate on the matter of glasses. He raised a point with regard to the GOC. The GOC is concerned mainly with the education and registration of opticians. In respect of its rules on publicity it has strayed into areas where it has affected competition. We believe that it is necessary to regulate its activities in this area. We do this in the Bill. However, we believe that in other work it can safely be left to regulate the profession.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, raised the question of what we call the 924 glasses, saying that these will disappear. Of course, they will not disappear, and other NHS frames that are popular will not disappear. If they are good value for money, there is no reason to suppose that they will not hold their own in the free private market.
My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred to the letter of 15th May from the BMA. 1 have seen the letter to which the noble Lords referred. They may well be correct that the letter does not represent the views of all BMA members or even all 'ophthalmologists. However, the Government judge all such representations on their merits. It is not whether the views are those of the BMA or of just a few individuals which influences us, but rather whether there are any substantive arguments which need to be considered.
The noble Lord. Lord Molloy, raised the question of the Secretary of State's appointments of all the FPC members. Although local authorities will no longer appoint four members, four of the lay appointments will be made from their nominations, and similarly in the case of DHAs. Some of the other seven lay members may also be chosen from local authority or DHA nominations, especially where more than four such authorities respectively are involved.
The question of contact lenses and the need for special treatment was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. There is virtually unanimous support for the view that, unlike glasses, badly fitted contact lenses can damage the eyes. This is why we are proposing in Clause 2 to strengthen the law.
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, asked why NHS glasses should not be available for those over 19 years of age in full-time education. NHS glasses have only ever been supplied free to those under 16, or those under 19 if in full-time education. Those over 19 in full-time education have always paid for their glasses unless they were on low incomes. If persons over 19 in
88
full-time education are on low incomes they can be assessed and get their glasses either free or at a reduced cost. This will continue.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, suggested that SDA was a disincentive to employers to take on disabled youngsters. We believe this to be wholly speculative. Disabled youngsters capable of work obviously want to work, and experience, particularly after the International Year of the Disabled in 1981, suggests that employers are not discriminating against them.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, mentioned a comment in Standing Committee A in another place. I can take this opportunity of saying firmly that there has been a misprint. It was either a slip of the tongue or a misprint. The word "even" should have been "except". The quotation should now read:
"It has never been the perceived view in this country that it is the state's business, except for those on supplementry benefit. to expect to meet from state benefits or through taxation the full costs of bringing up children".
My noble friend Lord Cullen. the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and the noble Baroness. Lady Jeger, raised a problem relating to cataract patients. Cataract patients are treated by hospitals. It is customary for hospitals to lend glasses to those who need frequent changes of prescription. There is no need for an amendment in relation to the problem of expensive lenses, as this can be tackled in regulations.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Cullen for letting me have advance notice of the points he raised. His point about standards of dispensing was raised also by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. We do not believe that permitting unqualified dispensers in itself will raise standards. However. competition between qualified opticians and other retailers will have this effect. Competition is the best enforcer of standards. We do not accept that permitting unregistered retailers to sell glasses will lead to lower standards. New entrants may not be trained to do all the things a dispensing optician can tackle. However. this does not mean that they will not perform adequately the jobs they have agreed to tackle.
As I have said, I will write to other noble Lords who have raised points. I would conclude by reiterating what my noble friend said earlier. This is a far-reaching and significant Bill, which represents the Government's continuing commitment to promoting the interests of the consumer in the health services and to achieving a more rational scheme of social security provisions. Therefore I have great pleasure in commending the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Child Abduction Bill
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Before embarking upon my speech, let me say how glad we are that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, is to make his maiden speech in this debate today. We are. indeed, fortunate in that he is a barrister and therefore well versed in the law.

89
I am glad to speak to your Lordships about a measure which is non-political and is to protect both children and adults from the acute fear and distress caused by the taking away of a child. As your Lordships may know, this Private Member's Bill was introduced and taken through the other place by Mr. Timothy Wood, the Member of Parliament for Stevenage, who is to be praised for picking up the torch of a similar Bill unexpectedly knocked out of the hand of Mr. Rhodes James, the Member for Cambridge, by the general election last June. Mr. Timothy Wood is particularly to be congratulated as he piloted the Bill through the other place in the first Session of his first Parliament.
When the Criminal Law Revision Committee, whose chairman is Lord Justice Lawton, looked at the present state of the law concerning child abduction, it exposed how vague and anomalous it was. As was stated by the Minister in another place, Lord Justice Lawton is owed a debt of gratitude for the work of his committee, both on the subject of child abduction and on this Bill.
The Bill deals with two kinds of child stealing, and while they are distinct and the motives and results relating to them are distinct, the common factor is the abduction of a child and that is what we are seeking to control by this Bill. So this measure seeks to deal with matters of the utmost gravity: the safety and welfare of our most vulnerable members of society, and the very dangers to which their vulnerability lays them open.
The history of this measure lies in the necessity under current law to show that a person who takes a child away is doing so by force or fraud and with the intention of permanently depriving the parent of possession of that child. Two kinds of cases have led the Criminal Law Revision Committee, in its report on Offences Against the Person, to conclude that the law is inadequate and to recommend changes along the lines proposed in this Bill.
The first is the "tug of love" case, in which a parent removes a child from this country's jurisdiction altogether. Under Section 56 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 it is an offence called child stealing for a person to abduct by force or fraud a child under 14 with intent to deprive any parent, guardian or other person having the lawful care or charge of the child, of the possession of that child. But a proviso to that section makes it clear that:
"no person who shall have claimed any right to the possession of such child, or shall be the mother or shall have claimed to be the father of an illegitimate child, shall be liable to be prosecuted"
for an offence under that section.
The Criminal Law Revision Committee recommended that the criminal law should be extended to parents who abduct their children with the intention of taking them out of the realm. The committee's reasoning was as follows:
"If the child is taken by a parent who does not intend to leave the country … this is best dealt with by, courts having family jurisdiction as a breach of a court order and not by the criminal courts. However, the law does need to be able to act quickly if a parent abducts his child with the intention of taking him out of the country without the consent of the other spouse. Such situations cause severe distress to those having lawful control and, once the child has left the jurisdiction, obtaining his return is costly, usually slow and on occasions, impossible".
90
Debates on this Bill in another place highlighted particular cases of great sadness and distress in which one parent had taken a child abroad in circumstances such that the other parent was unlikely ever to see his or her child again. This can happen even where custody has been awarded to the parent who remains in this country. I think your Lordships can imagine the amount of fear and suffering that can be caused, both to the deprived parent and also to the child who is snatched from a loving home. We must always he careful about extending the criminal law to domestic matters or family conflicts, but we are talking here about a real evil that challenges human ties between parents and children.
The effect of Clause 1 is to make it a criminal offence for someone closely connected with a child to seek to take or send him beyond the jurisdiction of the courts without the appropriate consent of others with equal ties. It does not bring within its scope simple custodial disputes between individual parents in England and Wales; nor, as I have said, does it seek to impose criminal sanctions in cases where the child remains in this country. Perhaps your Lordships will bear with me if I go through the provisions of the main clauses with some care, as I think that although it has been heartening to see that in another place this measure united all parties—as I hope it will here—it is an important measure and we must get it right.
I have described the main effect of Clause 1. Subsection (2) of the clause sets out the persons who are connected with the child for the purpose of the clause. They are: the child's parents, his guardian, a person with custody of the child under an order made by a court in England or Wales, and, in the case of an illegitimate child, a man in respect of whom there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is the child's father.
Subsection (3) of the clause defines "the appropriate consent" as being:
"the consent of each person—,

(i) who is a parent or guardian of the child; or

(ii) to whom custody of the child has been awarded … by an order of a court in England or Wales:"

or the consent of the court which made the custody order in respect of the child; or,
"the leave of the court granted on an application".
under either of the Acts mentioned in paragraph (c). These provisions enable a child's parent or guardians who are unable to agree on any question affecting the child's welfare to apply to the courts for a direction about the matter in dispute.
Subsection (5) of this Bill has been the subject of much sincere and informed debate. It is important that Clause 1 should bite on those who intend to abduct their children abroad: but it is also very important that innocent travel arrangements between parents and children should not be unduly hindered by the need to protect the minority of children from parental abduction. Accordingly, the Bill makes it clear that the burden falls on the prosecution to show that the defendant did not come within subsection (5). However, it will be for the defendant to adduce sufficient evidence to raise an issue as to the applicability of the subsection.

91
Subsections (5) and (6), taken together with the requirement of the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for a prosecution for an offence under Clause 1 should ensure that a parent will not have to go to inordinate lengths to contact an estranged spouse before, for example, taking a child on a trip to France. But, although it is right that a parent who stands charged with a criminal offence in respect of his own child should have proper safeguards in respect of where the burden of proof lies, it is also right that the offence, as formulated in the Bill, should exist and be enforced to catch abductors in "tug of love" cases.
Subsection (7) merely defines relevant terms, but subsection (8) is of considerable interest, as it protects a child who is in the care of a local authority or a voluntary organisation from abduction, subject to the provisions of the schedule to this Bill. Perhaps detailed consideration of the schedule should await this Bill's Committee stage. I am sure that none of your Lordships would dissent from the general principle of extending the protection of the criminal law to these children as to others.
Perhaps I may invite your Lordships to look at Part II of the Bill as it relates to Clause 1. It has been important to ensure that there should be a similar offence of abduction by a parent of a child under Scots law. This effect is achieved by Part II of the Bill and means that it would not be possible, for example, for a parent to abduct a child in England and go to ground for some time in Scotland before taking the child abroad.
The second risk to children which the Bill addresses is the one against which every wise parent warns his child—that of staying or going away with a stranger. I urge noble Lords to note that there is at present no offence with which a stranger who keeps a child away from those who should be looking after him can be charged, unless the abduction involved force or fraud or there is further dreadful assault whose intention can be proved. But there is intrinsic harm in the abduction iself, both because it is morally wrong and because of the grave emotional consequences to the child victims and to the adults from whom the children are taken, who are themselves victims of a grievous loss.
The fact that a stranger entices a child away with promises and bribes rather than fear or force makes the activity no less dangerous and is wrong. It is to this activity that Clause 2 relates. Under Clause 2, it will be an offence for a person not connected with the child in the way defined in Clause I to remove him from or keep out of the lawful control of any person who should be looking after him. There is. of course, a defence of "reasonable excuse", so that no one looking after a lost child or rescuing a child from danger should run the risk of prosecution.
In addition, there are further defences relating to the person's belief as to the age of the child or his relationship to the child. Where a man believes that he is the father of an illegitimate child a successful defence against a charge under Clause 2 would probably place him well within the ambit of Clause 1, where he commits an offence if he intends to take the child out of the country. Clause 3 of the Bill amplifies the reference to taking, sending and detaining in
92
Clauses 1 and 2 to include those responsible for causing a child to be abducted. It is obviously right that, where a parent or a stranger has employed or threatened others to do the dirty work, these people should also be liable to prosecution for abduction.
Clause 4 gives the penalties for an offence under Clauses 1 or 2 of the Bill. The maximum is a term of imprisonment not exceeding seven years. There will, of course, be many cases with mitigating circumstances where the courts will impose much less severe penalties; but maximum penalties must be adequate for the worst cases, and I believe that these are about right. In addition, Clause 4 provides that no prosecution for an offence under Clause 1 shall be instituted without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and I have already mentioned the desirability of treading lightly in relation to prosecutions about activities within families.
Part III of the Bill embodies the consequential amendments and repeals with which I shall not trouble your Lordships in today's debate. I should. however, make it clear that both offences under the Bill will be extraditable under the Extradition Act 1870 and that those convicted will also be returnable to Commonwealth countries under the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967. This should assist in some cases where the parent has abducted a child abroad, but I should stress that our hope is that attempts to commit a criminal offence of this kind will be frustrated by the criminal law before the child is actually removed.
This Bill is necessary. The increase in the divorce rate, the greater freedom of international movement, the growing number of international marriages, the increasing number of separations, and the greater number of cases involving the snatching of children are important reasons demonstrating the urgent need for this measure.
To conclude, perhaps I should commend to your Lordships a spirit of cautious optimism in taking forward this measure. There is no question about the need for such a measure or about the inadequacy and antiquity of the present law. Nor is there any question about its importance or its contribution to the strands of the criminal, civil and international law which must be woven together fully to protect our children. I am confident that the measure will control some of the worst attempts at child abduction.
But a note of caution should not be omitted. This Bill is but one strand in the net that I have mentioned, which must be closely woven in order to protect our children. Work is being taken forward with the Law Commissions on reciprocal enforcement of custody orders, and international agreements relating to kidnapping and abduction must be pursued with vigour. I do not think that it would be right to say that if this Bill is passed, there will be no sad cases of child abduction, but I do think that the Bill is an important part of the armoury of legisaltion, enforcement and agreement which we need. I hope that, as in another place, your Lordships will feel able to support this Bill without any political reservations, so that its smooth progress through this House will ensure that it becomes law without delay. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill he now read a second time.—(Baroness Faithfull.)
8.49 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, in addressing your Lordships' House for the first time, it is my hope that I shall be as brief and uncontroversial as is this Bill. This Bill is welcome. Clearly, considerable thought has gone into its drafting and it fulfils two objects. First, it fills the gap which may have been exposed in the law relating to kidnapping. Secondly, it replaces the prolixity of Section 56 of the Offences Against the Person Act, which requires proof of fraud or force.
It covers a wide range of abductions from the angry, thwarted parent to the sexual pervert to the mentally unbalanced. It covers the long-term abduction through to the short-term snatch. It may even cover the distresssing case of the demented or deranged person who may remove a pram from outside a shop. The main reason why this Bill is so welcome is that any legislation which inhibits unilateral action of this sort by parents or by other people must be valuable.
If I concentrate on Clause 1—that is, abduction by parents out of the United Kingdom—I hope that I shall be forgiven. It is a mischief of which I have some knowledge as a practitioner in this area of the law. If I may agree with the noble Baroness, not only is the Bill welcome, it is necessary. There is an increasing problem because of the speed and mobility provided by international transport, and also because of the growing rate of marital breakdown. The problem of course is most acute where the breakdown of the marriage involved is between parents of different cultures and different nationalities.
It is hard to describe the anguish of a mother—and it is usually a mother but not invariably—when she realises that her child has gone, and gone to a foreign country whose legal systems may have no respect, or no great respect, for a British custody order, and whose society has no respect for a mother—at least as against a father. It has been described as rather like bereavement without the certainty of death.
It is hard to convey the fear of parents who believe that their child, or children, may be abducted. It is a fear which can linger for years undiminished by the passage of time. undiminished by expedients such as changing names, moving home, changing schools. Above all, it is hard to assess the impact on the children themselves. It is not always a great adventure to be taken away; it is often traumatic. One must remember that these children are children whose parents have already done them the great disservice of separating, often acrimoniously, and sometimes violently. For those children therefore the fixed points in their lives become of greater importance, the home and the school, and of course an abduction deprives them of those fixed points. Any measure which diminishes those cruelties must be welcomed.
The second main reason why this Bill is welcome is that it takes the sole responsibility of bringing the matter before a court from the aggrieved parent, and now that responsibility is to be shared by the prosecuting authorities. If I may echo the noble Baroness, one hesitates before any extension of the criminal law into the sensitive area of family law, and I venture to suggest that few parents who snatch children are being consciously vindictive or deliberately using children as pawns, which is often an
94
unhelpful phrase. They are often motivated by more complex emotional responses.
Furthermore, there are existing legal and administrative safeguards and procedures. I shall not list them all; they are quite well known. But the reason why the criminal law needs to be introduced into this area is, first of all, despite all the existing safeguards, the problem of abduction continues. It still happens and it is still all too easy to get a child out of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it is not always safe to mention in public the means by which that is done. Secondly, it is welcome because it is not just a private matter between a mother and a father. The public interest should intervene to prevent and punish this kind of misbehaviour. A welcome side effect may well be that the police will become more willing to get involved in what hitherto they would have regarded as domestic disputes.
Thirdly, it covers what is sometimes called the prelitigation snatch. Fourthly, hitherto bringing the matter before the court, or a court—which means the civil court—has depended upon the resolve and the funds of the aggrieved parent. Not only did the parents face the expense of proceedings but may also in many cases have faced the emotional constraint. There must have been many a mother, advised of her right to apply to the civil court to commit the father to prison for contempt, who has felt the fear that she would come to be seen by the child as having been responsible for having had the father sent to prison.
Despite the desirability of criminal sanctions, it is certainly my hope that the abducting parent will still be first and foremost answerable to the court whose order has been flouted. No doubt where the parent has been dealt with for contempt of the order the Director of Public Prosecutions will not expose him, or her, to the double penalty of a prosecution under this legislation. I hope also that a warning of the criminal offence hereby created under Clause I will appear with some prominence on all custody orders.
Unfortunately in the last analysis a determined parent will not worry about criminal sanctions if he feels that he can get away with it. Prevention and detection must always be better than punishment. Extradition can be a cumbersome and protracted procedure; but this Bill is nevertheless welcome, in the noble Baroness's phrase as one strand in the net. The way ahead, however, lies with international conventions directed to the speedy return of children to the countries of residence.
There already are in existence the Council of Europe Convention and the Hague Convention, yet to be ratified by this country. There is clearly a pressing need to consider whether the advantages of such conventions in their present form outweigh the disadvantages, and there are disadvantages in particular with relation to the wrongfully imported child. That particular disadvantage which has troubled many people is the obligation imposed on this country to return, without any due inquiry, a child to countries where the welfare of that child is not the paramount legal consideration.
I venture to suggest that the advantages of ratification nevertheless outweigh those disadvantages, particularly if it is one more means of achieving the

95
speedy return of children to this country, being the country of origin. Meanwhile, the sooner this Bill becomes law the better.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in the course of what many of us thought was a most creditable first performance from the Dispatch Box, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, asked us to envisage at least the possibility that the scaffolding in this roof might fall upon us. If that is a fate that has to befall your Lordships' House, I am so glad that it did not occur before the noble Lord, Lord Meston, made his notable maiden speech. It is a pleasure for a professional colleague to congratulate upon his maiden speech someone who is a barrister, and. if I may say so, the son of a very reputed and notable lawyer whose publications, indeed, included commentaries upon many Acts of Parliament which have helped fellow practitioners understand them all the better. To hear a son follow in his father's footsteps and speak from his own experience at the Bar for the benefit of your Lordships' House on this Bill was a pleasure that we look forward to being repeated many times in the future.
We are also very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. Not for the first time is she coming forward with measures of humanity. The Bill which she is introducing into this House commends, as she rightly said, support from all sides of your Lordships' House. There are no politics in this, and if there were I should like to believe that it would be a political unity in any event that welcomed this Bill—which is necessary, if I may summarise it, for three main reasons.
First, there was a case in the Court of Appeal, Regina v. Daily, which made it abundantly clear that no criminal offence was committed if a parent took away his own child under 16 in any circumstances, and between the ages of 16 and 18 if the child was unmarried. In those circumstances no criminal offence at all was committed; and that is the present state of the law. Secondly, in regard to any third party, not a parent, we have to go back, as your Lordships have already been told, to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, Section 56 of which makes it a necessary ingredient to have either fraud or force before a criminal act is committed. The third reason for the necessity of this Bill, quite apart from your Lordships having been reminded of the present unfortunate state of the multiplication of divided families, separation and divorces—not a matter of which society and our country can be proud—is that nevertheless, in that atmosphere, one has to admit that where any one of these offences occurs in regard to a parent who has run off with a child and taken that child abroad, extradition is impossible but will be made possible by this Bill. That means an effective way of dealing with a situation where no such way exists at the moment.
So this is a necessary, humane and sensible Bill. But that does not mean that there are not matters dealt with in this Bill which will merit your Lordships' concentrated concern. If I may, I am merely going to mention three of them, and I shall do that very shortly. Reference was made to your Lordships of the fact that
96
this Bill is really the product of the Fourteenth Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee in respect of Offences Against the Person. As the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, rightly said, we owe a great debt of gratitude to that committee and to the chairman of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, Lord Justice Lawton.
When the committee considered the aspect with which we have been dealing under Part I of the Bill—namely, in regard to parents and in regard to third parties abducting children—the committee came to the conclusion that the upper age limit ought to be 14, and not 16 as in the Bill. I am going, if I may, to quote just a few sentences from paragraph 239 of the committee's report, where they say:
"We consider that an age limit of 14 is appropriate for these offences. If a person unlawfully detains a child above that age without the child's consent he may of course be charged with unlawful detention. If, however, a child over 14 consents to be taken away from his or her parents, we do not consider that any offence should be committed, unless the taking is for unlawful sexual purposes. Practical reasons have led us to fix the age at 14 since parental control after that age may be difficult or non-existent".
The age under Part I of the Bill is 16, and not 14. That, therefore, has gone against the recommendation of the committee. When one looks at the age of 16, one wonders whether at least it ought not to be debated with great anxiety by your Lordships in due course, as to whether the age of 16 is right and convenient; because of course, as we all know, in the Family Division orders are made in respect of children until the age of 18 and there is also the question of local authority care and orders in that respect, too, which are made up to the age of 18. So when we come to further stages of the Bill I think we shall have to consider very carefully, hearing in mind especially that we are going against the recommendation of the Criminal Law Revision Committee in this respect, the question of age.
There is another respect in which, in this Bill, we vary the recommendations of the Criminal Law Revision Committee. It may look as though it is a very minor matter, but when we are dealing with a parent who has taken a child out of the United Kingdom and who commits a criminal offence under this Bill—and previous speakers have stressed how necessary it is to be very careful before one starts making criminal offences relating to purely family matters, as between parents and children and wife and husband—there is a defence under Clause 1 of the Bill. I am looking at subsection (5)(c) of that clause, which reads:
"the other person has unreasonably refused to consent."
That means that this Bill does not merely apply to people who have been before the Family Division for any reason at all, or who, indeed, have gone to any court in respect of the custody of children, or access to the children. That means that this Bill—and I appreciate that the Director of Public Prosecutions would have to sanction a prosecution—can relate to where a husband and wife living perfectly peacefully together; where the husband is offered a job in France, let us say, and wants to take his son aged 15 with him: and where the wife says, "I am not leaving England because you have a job in France. I love England. And you are not taking the boy with you!" The father, in respect of a family which, as I have said, has never been before any court at all, and where no matrimo-

97
nial proceedings have been necessary or have been brought, thereupon takes the son, feeling he is quite entitled to do it, to France, where he is going to be employed for a number of years.
We are suddenly bringing into a criminal act a situation where the Director of Public Procecutions, upon the complaint of a mother and a wife, in those circumstances, has to adjudicate, presumably as to whether or not the wife was reasonable in her refusal; and, furthermore, if he does authorise a prosecution, that is a matter which comes before a criminal court. At the moment, I do not see where, in those circumstances, a father can go for guidance, because there is no civil proceding in respect of the family differences at all: there is nothing by way of a divorce or a judicial separation which has occurred or, indeed, is wanted by either party. So that is another matter that we shall have to look at with some concern, anxiety and care in the future stages of this Bill.
Lastly, I ought to point out to your Lordships, because it may not be apparent, that this Bill differs from the report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee in one other respect; and that is in the penalties which are to be imposed under this Bill. They are in fact greater than the Criminal Law Revision Committee recommended. I think that your Lordships will find that I am right, and that the Criminal Law Revision Committee had in mind, in one case, a maximum sentence of three years if the matter went on indictment, whereas this Bill recommends seven years, and in the other case they had in mind two years and, again, this Bill recommends a greater sentence than that. These arc matters to which we shall have to give some amount of care in the future stages of the Bill. But on Second Reading, without any hesitation from these Benches, I commend it to your Lordships' approval.
9.11 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, if she will allow me to say so, my noble friend Lady Faithfull has done a real service by bringing this Bill before your Lordships' House and has done it so well that it will render my task in expressing the view (which I am about to do) that the Government consider it an admirable Bill, much easier and, I hope, my speech much more succinct than it might otherwise have been. I must next congratulate the maiden speaker—on an unusual topic, if he will allow me to say so, for a maiden speech. He showed us a command of the technical considerations which make this Bill necessary and desirable which did him credit. I hope that on other matters, both in this field and in others, he will enlighten us again. I should like to take the opportunity of wishing him a long and happy membership of this House.
To the noble Lord, Lord Meston (who raised, very properly, the question of the Hague Convention) I think I am in a position to say that it is my intention to introduce legislation to enable the Hague and European Conventions to be ratified so soon as a legislative opportunity occurs. To that extent I thank him for giving me the opportunity of saying that.
The problems connected with child abduction have had a rather curious and chequered legal history into
98
which I shall not go in any detail. But I think that perhaps, in view of the fact that the ground elsewhere has been fairly well cultivated, I should like to say a word or two about it. There was the Offences against the Person Act of 1861 which, in Section 56, limits the offence to cases where there is force or fraud and provides that parents should not be liable to prosecution under it. The latter seems to me to he an odd exclusion. My own view, for what it is worth, is that children are just as much deserving of the protection of the criminal law in this field as in any other. Experience has—at least in my judgment —established that parents ought to be liable to criminal penalties in serious cases no less than any other class of person because there is a growing field of case in which the child needs protection against the unilateral action of a parent. Incidentally—although it has not been explicitly said in this discussion, it has been implied throughout—the other parent has feelings and rights to be protected against the spouse who takes unilateral action.
I feel therefore that it is right that we should legislate in this field. It is also right to make the consent of the custodial person in question the criterion, rather than force or fraud, and rather than the other more esoteric criteria which might otherwise be introduced. As regards a stranger, I think it is right to make the absence of lawful excuse the right criterion under Clause 2.
Going on with my discussion of the existing law, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to the case of Daily in the Court of Appeal. As he rightly said, the Court of Appeal after a rather unusual hearing decided two things: first, that the law of kidnapping, to which I shall come in a moment, did not apply to children under a certain age; and, secondly, that parents could not be guilty of it under the age of 18, with a minor exception, even if the children were otherwise protected. That case is, in fact, under discussion in your Lordships' House. It was heard two or three weeks ago and I presided at the Appellate Committee. It is expected that the report of the Appellate Committee will give rise to a judgment fairly soon.
I can tell the House—because these hearings are held in public and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will be able to infer what I mean—that their Lordships of the Appellate Committee did not think it necessary to call upon the appellant to reply to the respondent's argument. So that the law of kidnapping is another parameter—if I may borrow a phrase that is popular nowadays—in the calculation which we must make.
The law of kidnapping is a very old common law offence indeed. It can be punished by imprisonment for life; that is to say, there is no limit to the sentence of imprisonment which can be imposed. Everybody agrees that this offence exists, from the earliest textbooks to the most modern, but it has this peculiar history, that between about 1680 and the 20th century there were no prosecutions at all. Since about 1970, prosecutions have been fairly frequent, usually, but not always, at the instance of the Director of Public Prosecutions. But it has had this curious result: that the long abeyance into which the offence fell in practice has led to a certain imprecision and doubt about the necessary ingredients of the offence.

99
When the Appellate Committee delivers its judgment—which, as I say. I trust will not be long—we hope that some of the imprecisions and doubts will have been removed. But there are some points, at any rate, which will not be available to the House in its legal jurisdiction to make certain, owing to the nature of the facts which were then before it. For instance, the question of the desirability or otherwise of having the director's consent necessary in a prosecution for kidnapping, as well as child abduction under this Bill, would not be open to the Appellate Committee or to this House in its appellate jurisdiction to entertain one way or the other. This is a matter which we may have to consider.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull has covered the ground so fully that I can, I think, say very little more about the content of the Bill. I shall say a word or two to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, though the three points which he raised can probably more usefully be dilated upon at the Committee stage.
In passing, I should like to say—this bears on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Meston—that I am one of the many who hold the view, which I believe the Criminal Law Revision Committee share, and probably the Court of Appeal in Daily, that in ordinary cases of not very great seriousness the family jurisdication of the civil courts is probably adequate to deal with child snatching. But there are very many cases one knows of, both of kidnapping and of child abduction, which are clearly within the field of public law, with criminal sanctions being absolutely imperative.
If I may trespass upon the time of the House in relation to the facts in Daily, the father in that case, who subsequently got off free, had committed two (not one) abductions—one in 1978, so far as I remember, and one in 1981. On the first occasion he came upon the mother, when the child was only two, with three hired bullies (who subsequently got three years for their pains) armed with knives and other weapons of offence, dragged the child away and took it to New Zealand. The mother, with persistence, followed the child to New Zealand and got it hack by the process of law. But after another three years, in 1981, the child then being five, the man came back again—this time alone—and took the child, kicking and screaming in its pyjamas, away from its mother's arms to Dublin. Any of your Lordships would, I believe, say that if that is not against the law, it ought to be. This is a matter which will be against our law, if the Bill is passed.
Part II of the Bill deals with the situation in Scotland. Clause 2 deals with strangers. Let me give an example of where Clause 2 might be of importance. In 1972 the defendant in a case had the well-known name of Jones. He was aged 40. He met two girls aged 10 at the local swimming baths. He travelled with them on the same bus and paid their fares. The girls bought sweets with their bus fare money. The man then suggested to the girls that they should go for a walk
100
with him. They agreed. He told the girls to go home and change and to hurry up, and that he would give them some sweets when they returned. They returned to the house of one of the girls and her mother, because she noticed that the girls were eating sweets, asked them where they had been. They told her the truth. The police were informed and went to the rendezvous where the defendant was waiting. The defendant admitted that he had intended to commit an indecent assault. He was charged with an attempt to commit an offence under Section 20 of the Sexual Offences Act. The judge rightly had to direct the jury that they would have to acquit the defendant because of the rules relating to proximity.
This kind of case illustrates the point that one is trying to make; namely, that a revision of the law, more or less on the lines recommended by the Criminal Law Revision Committee and Lord Justice Lawton, is overdue. Conduct which is socially criminal and connected with an evil intention shows I believe that we should seize this opportunity to enact this piece of legislation.
I would say this to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on one of his three points, which he might care to ponder before the Committee stage. He gave the example of a father finding employment in France and being the father of a boy of 15 whom he, unilaterally, intends to take away against the will of the mother and who asks what he can do to protect himself. It is very clear that in such a case the child ought to be warded, and that the courts ought to decide the matter under the family jurisdiction. If after that the father unilaterally took the child away, the necessary consequences would follow.
I am not wholly convinced that 16 is a worse age than 14, but we can go into that matter later. I am very glad indeed that all noble Lords have taken such a friendly view of the Bill. I hope that it will now be given a Second Reading.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I will first congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on his clear knowledgeable, thoughtful and compassionate speech. It was the kind of speech which Members of this House welcome, and we hope that he will speak often in your Lordships' House.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for all the points he has made. I concur with him that. although we agree on the basic principles of this Bill, there are points to be discussed at Committee stage. I am most grateful to him for having brought forward these points.
To the noble and learned Lord, may I offer my thanks for the fascinating history he has given us in respect of abduction, kidnapping and child-snatching. I could have done with even longer, to hear all that he has to say on both the past and the present. I thank all noble Lords, and the noble and learned Lord, for taking part in this debate.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Hong Kong: Future
9.26 p.m.
Lord Fanshawe of Richmond Lord Fanshawe of Richmond rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their current approach to the negotiations with the People's Republic of China on the future of Hong Kong, in the light of the recent visit by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to China and Hong Kong?
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order paper. The reason I have raised this problem this evening is the need felt by many people that your Lordships' House should make some comments on the situation which now faces the people of Hong Kong following the lengthy negotiations, which are still continuing. between Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China. The thoughtful and sensitive debate in another place last week, about which we have read, underlines the need for this House also to put forward its views.
All parties and all Members of both Houses of Parliament here at Westminster wish to show the People's Republic of China and the people of Hong Kong our deep concern for the future of the territory. At least 10 noble Lords have put down their names to speak to this Unstarred Question, which underlines the point I have made. I am particularly glad that the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose of Beoch, will also be speaking. He is an old personal friend of mine and everybody who knows Hong Kong will be well aware of the fact that he was not only the longest-serving Governor of Hong Kong but also, in my view and in the view of most people who know Hong Kong, the greatest. most far-sighted and most successful Governor that Hong Kong has had during its 142 years of history.
My interest stems from the occasion when I visited Hong Kong for the first time 22 years ago, as a young Member of Parliament in another place, and as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Air. I was fascinated at the time by the extent to which and the speed at which the then colony of Hong Kong was developing. And I was surprised and rather shocked at the lack of interest in that dynamic place that I found here at Westminster.
Soon after, I formed the Anglo-Hong Kong All Party Parliamentary Group. I became its first chairman, and I remained chairman for six years until 1970. In 1970 I was honoured to be made a Minister at the Foreign Office after the general election, with responsibility for Hong Kong.
Soon afterwards I commenced negotiations for the exchange of ambassadors between Great Britain and the People's Republic of China. These negotiations were concluded at the end of 1971 and I flew to Peking in June 1972 as the first Western Foreign Office Minister to visit the People's Republic of China since the revolution which took place in 1949, and I signed the agreement in Peking at that time.
I think my few words will indicate my interest and my concern for the future of Hong Kong. Of course, there must be many doubts in Hong Kong at present. I know from experience, having been in Hong Kong
102
and Macao at the time of the cultural revolution in 1967, and having seen what occurred during that unfortunate period, that there are understandably deep worries and that different ideas—some realistic, some not so realistic—are being put forward at present. No one likes change. I suspect there are one or two noble Lords in the Chamber this evening who would prefer not to see changes of any kind taking place—not just in Hong Kong or the Far East but perhaps in their own personal lives or in this Chamber as proposed by some people outside.
I should like briefly to make a few points and to put forward a few thoughts at a time which I realise is extremely difficult and sensitive in the negotiations now taking place. Mr Chi Peng-Fei, who is leading the ministerial team in China at present, was Foreign Minister of China at the time I was in the Foreign Office, and I grew to know him quite well. Indeed, he visited my house in the country in England. I hope that he and his team will listen carefully and take into account the views expressed here by noble Lords tonight and the views expressed last week in the other place.
The time-scale of these negotiations is very tight. The impression at the moment is that the Chinese Government would like to see these negotiations finished by September. I ask my noble friend whether she will comment in her reply on the fact of the parliamentary timetable, which, as all of us know in this Chamber, entails both Houses of Parliament rising for the summer Recess at the end of July and not returning until October. This will inevitably make it impossible for Westminster to give its opinion—its very important opinion—on whatever agreement is reached.
It is very important that the right agreement is reached. That agreement must be right and workable if it is to function in Hong Kong and, from the point of view of the People's Republic of China, it may be that this agreement could be a guideline for use in other negotiations affecting other areas, not necessarily Hong Kong, that they might have in years ahead.
I believe that this agreement must be set out in great detail in order to create that confidence which is necessary for any such agreement to work. I certainly wish to he satisfied that aspects covering security and finance are fully covered in addition to other aspects such as the law, freedom of religion and freedom of speech which have been mentioned in the debate in another place and will no doubt be mentioned by many of your Lordships tonight.
We in the United Kingdom and, I believe, Her Majesty's Government, have already made clear the determination of the British people and their Government to fulfil our moral obligations to the people in Hong Kong. In that context, I should like to pay tribute to the members of the delegation of unofficial members of EXCO and LEGCO who have been in London during the past few days. I believe that this delegation has cleared the air. Some of them are old friends of mine who I have known for many years. They and their predecessors over the past 20 or 30 years, in giving their time and their effort, have

103
managed to help and guide successive governors and the people of Hong Kong into the development that has taken place today.
A few honourable Members in another place, in my view, were casting quite unwarranted aspersions upon this delegation in the debate last week. I do not believe that in any way any of us—certainly in this House—would wish to cast aspersions on their good faith and hard work. Their views may be controversial, but that is the stuff of politics. That is what it is all about. We are now trying to seek a way forward. Inevitably certain views given and put forward by some people may well be controversial.
We must all try to achieve a realistic outcome to these talks. Although noble Lords in this Chamber are not involved in the day-to-day discussions or the detail of the negotiations (which are of course a matter for governments), I personally feel that we should try to strengthen the democratic representative structures within Hong Kong.
At the same time, I should like to put down a warning that such representative structures, unless devised with great care, could entail dangers and strains, with the establishment of political parties from the extreme left to the extreme right and with all the pressures and difficulties that could follow and the spill-out on relationships with the People's Republic of China over the last few years of the lease.
What is on offer? What is on offer is a remarkable new idea. It is a remarkable solution—that is, two different political systems working side by side in one country. Many of your Lordships will, I know, have visited some of the new economic zones which have been set up along the borders of the People's Republic of China. I myself visited the economic zone of Shen Zen, which is now working and working quite successfully, but this is an economic free enterprise zone within the political ambit of China. What is now being put forward is both a political and an economic zone, which will be a political system and an economic system very different from those in other parts of the Chinese People's Republic. I believe personally that that is an imaginative and workable concern, provided that all the details are fully worked out.
What is our strength in this negotiation? Nothing in international life and international affairs will guarantee that any agreement reached between nations is kept to. There is no one who can produce that sort of guarantee, but there are two aspects which I think strengthen our arm in these negotiations. As was said in the other place, China, under many different régimes, since 1911 has never breached any international treaty. It has never breached any of the treaties made with us over Hong Kong, even though it did not recognise those treaties and maintained that it was forced to sign them. Therefore is it not unlikely that there will be a breakdown of a new agreement freely negotiated now. even though the present regime may change in the years ahead, even though the men in Peking may be different in 10 or 20 years' time from the people who are there today?
The second strength is the great, invisible trading assets of Hong Kong; the confidence; the skill; the working people—the Chinese people who have built up Hong Kong to be what it is today under the
104
guidance and leadership of devoted British officials. If this is dissipated, Hong Kong will no longer be Hong Kong as it is today: it will become a desert. That will not be what Peking—or Beijing, as it is now called—would wish to see. Therefore it is not in Beijing's interest nor in Hong Kong's interest nor in Britain's interests to see these discussions fail.
Perhaps I should say that we should be careful of doubting the sincerity of those with whom we are negotiating. There are great dangers in this. If you are going into a negotiation, whether it be a business negotiation or a political negotiation, and if you start by doubting the sincerity of those to whom you are talking, you may as well pack up and not even start the negotiation at all.
So in conclusion, the views expressed tonight will be studied in great detail in Beijing and Hong Kong. I have no doubt that during the talks our negotiators, led by our ambassador in Beijing, a very skilful expert on China. Sir Richard Evans, helped by Sir Edward Youde, the Governor of Hong Kong, will mix care with their realism, never forgetting our commitments to the people of Hong Kong.
9.42 p.m.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, it is a great pleasure for me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fanshawe, with whom I had the honour of working when he was Minister responsible for the Foreign Office and I was Governor of Hong Kong. I do not remember disagreeing with him often then. I certainly do not disagree with anything he has said tonight, with the exception of what he has said about myself.
I am certainly very pleased that he has set down this Unstarred Question because it gives us an opportunity to comment on the Government's approach to the future of Hong Kong as set out in the Foreign Secretary's statement, first in Hong Kong and then in another place on 16th May. I should like to say straight away that I think he was absolutely right to say that the concept of British administration after 1997 was now unrealistic. Palatable or unpalatable, it was an inescapable conclusion. Now it leaves those concerned to concentrate on defining alternative arrangements which both Governments believe will be realistic and which will allow everyone to know what their future prospects are.
It was most remarkable and helpful that it was the Chinese Government itself, which, from the outset. recognised that the object for successor arrangements in Hong Kong should be continuity, that it should be managed quite differently from the rest of China and that the essentials of present systems and freedoms, including the capitalist system. should be maintained.
The Foreign Secretary defined very well what these essentials are. While a great deal will depend on the detail contained in the eventual agreement, surely we can welcome the objectives towards which both governments are working. Nevertheless, a great many people in Hong Kong are deeply worried about their future. We have had a visit of the unofficial members of the executive and legislative council to explain to us

105
what they believe these worries are. I should say that in the circumstances I think it was their clear duty to do this. I associate myself with everything which the noble Lord, Lord Fanshawe, has said about them. I personally am deeply indebted to many of them.
It is very important that these worries of the people in Hong Kong should be met, so far as possible, by us, by the Chinese Government, or by the Hong Kong Government, or by an adjustment of attitudes of the people in Hong Kong. I suggest that for our part first we can do our best to ensure that the agreement which will be signed between Britain and China contains sufficient detail for future arrangements to be clear. I feel sure that this is exactly what we are doing.
Surely, the Chinese Government, too, will accept the importance of including in an agreement the detailed implications of the very imaginative ideas that they have put forward. Secondly, people in Hong Kong want to be sure that the arrangements will last. Chinese leaders have said that they will last for at least 50 years after 1997 and it is, of course, very important that this, too, should be included in the agreement. But additionally there is concern that the basic law which will eventually define Hong Kong's administration under the constitution of China may detract from the arrangements in the Sino-British agreement. The Secretary of State has spoken of a binding international agreement. It would be helpful if the noble Baroness, the Minister of State, would confirm that we have no reason whatever to anticipate that the provisions of the basic law will breach the provisions of the agreement.
Many people in Hong Kong are anxious to obtain assurance piled on assurance about their future. This is understandable and for historical reasons that are well known. But I am afraid that the assurance that an international agreement can ever provide cannot be entirely complete whether in this case or any other. However, one can say that there is every prospect of this agreement holding up—and this is for a very wide variety of reasons so well put in the debate in another place that I will not repeat them tonight. although the noble Lord, Lord Fanshawe, did refer to one very important aspect.
Secondly—and I must say this—a chorus of distrust from Hong Kong would be the worst possible approach to the future. After all, its success is inextricably bound to a close, positive and, I should hope, productive relationship with the Chinese Government. Some people in Hong Kong would say, "Very well. We will work on the best assumption, as you suggest; but where can we go and who will be responsible for us, should we try to go there if things go wrong?" It is very important that the community of Hong Kong should stick together during the run-up to 1997 determined to make a success of the future as it has of the past. For my part, I think that people are more likely to stay in Hong Kong and not to leave if they have some assurance, first, that they will be free to leave, if leave they must, and, secondly, that Her Majesty's Government will do their best to ensure that the effective rights that holders of British dependent territories citizens' passports now have will be no less after 1997 than they were before.
106
We may think these contingencies too remote to consider at this stage, but they seem much more immediate to people in Hong Kong. I do not expect the noble Baroness, the Minister of State, to cover these matters tonight, but I ask her to note that, on these questions, something from the British Government could make an enormous difference to maintaining confidence at the time the agreement is published, as we hope it will be, later this year. Far from inviting an exodus, I believe that it would go a long way to forestalling it.
Moreover, one must remember that in the interval between 1984 and 1997 a great deal will become clearer to people in Hong Kong, and indeed here. The Chinese Government and their actions in and about Hong Kong should provide the best possible proof that current fears are groundless—if, as I believe, groundless they are. Meanwhile, I urge the Hong Kong people, and in particular those in the public services which are so vital to continuity, to wait and see how things develop and not to be panicked by rumour or instant commentators into attitudes or assessments that must be premature and in all likelihood will be proved baseless. Much now depends on the good sense and determination of the people of Hong Kong and their unofficial leaders. They can talk themselves into despair and self-defeat or, as I am sure they will do, overcome their anxieties and uncertainties to build firm foundations for their own future.
I am sure that the Secretary of State was right in foreseeing a move to a more representative Government in Hong Kong. The local talent in the public services and among unofficials is there in abundance. The machinery and practice of an electoral system based on adult suffrage are also there. The power and influence of both can be increased in whatever way and at whatever speed the Hong Kong Government think best. To steer Hong Kong through the transitional phase, a more obviously representative Government could well be a great help.
Hong Kong is one of the most productive communities and best situated harbours and pieces of real estate in the world. It has a population second to none, very well able to run its own affairs, and a history of great economic success and rapid technological advance. If the principles of the present approach can be embodied successfully in a satisfactorily detailed agreement, I have no doubt that the combined sense of the Chinese Government and of the people of Hong Kong will ensure that the future is as successful as the past.
9.52 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I speak with the utmost modesty and trepidation after the speeches by the noble Lords, Lord Fanshawe and Lord MacLehose: Lord Fanshawe with his own individual experience of those crucial phases which he himself handled back in the early 1970s, and Lord MacLehose, than whom no man in this country knows more about Hong Kong or is better qualified to give an opinion about the most likely way of getting through the next 63 years to the satisfaction of all parties concerned.

107
First of all, on behalf of all my colleagues on these Benches I should like to endorse heartily what the noble Lord. Lord MacLehose, has said by way of words of advice—not that we are entitled to give it; he is—to the people of Hong Kong in the meantime. China has been in a state of virtually uninterrupted revolution or revolutions since the middle of the nineteenth century, and since 1911 has been engaged in an uninterrupted progress of recovering bits of Chinese territory which were taken from it under the so-called unequal treaties. It is important that the British Parliament and people should bear this in mind.
We know Hong Kong as a fabulously successful little British colony with an enormous Chinese population which somehow or other—we do not quite know how—came to be under our rule and turned into an economic miracle. The Chinese Government and people know it as the last of the territories which were taken from them by European invaders, in our case as the fruit of burning down quite a sizeable bit of their capital city. When we speak of an unequal treaty we ourselves must think how unequal we would consider it if somebody had taken a hit of England from us after having burned down Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle. We should consider it unequal even a hundred years later; and that is the fact for them.
What sets the framework of our present possibilities is the fact that 92 per cent. of the territory of Hong Kong—though not, of course, 92 per cent. of its population; far from it—is the subject of a contract between the Chinese and British Governments. It is a lease which, like any other lease, is no more than a contract between people or peoples, or nations, and that lease terminates in 1997. There is nothing unequal about it; or, rather, there was something unequal about the way in which it began, but there is nothing equivocal about the way in which it is to end. We have always agreed; we signed on the dotted line. It ends in 1997.
That will leave 8 per cent. of the territory, although much more of the population, which was taken as a result of the European invasions and colonisations of China. All the others, with the exception of Macao next door, have long since (many from the 1930s and before) been rectified from the Chinese point of view. It is impossible in the case of the lease of the new territories to change the ending date. It is impossible in the case of Hong Kong Island itself to look beyond 1997 for British rule in terms of a simple movement of world history, and one which is understood and endorsed as fully by those people in this country who know what is happening as it is by the people of China.
In the meantime there is the question of political and economic confidence, and we must be careful what we do about that. I suppose that in the last few years the two matters which have shaken it the most have been, first the Prime Minister's speech in Peking in 1982, when, flushed with the Falklands victory, she seemed for a moment to have lost sight of the difference between the Falkland Islands and Hong Kong. Secondly, there was the recent decision of Jardine's to transfer their centre of operations elsewhere. We must deplore them both, but to the
108
extent to which we deplore the former at least, we can only welcome the unglamorous but extremely useful and effective performance so far of the Foreign Secretary in pulling the Prime Minister's chestnuts out of the fire. Who wants to be glamorous when he can be useful? And that, I submit, is what the Foreign Secretary has been in recent months.
The question arises: what will be the relation between the installation or introduction of democracy in Hong Kong after 1997 and the maintenance of political and economic confidence and stability there during the same period? That is not a very easy question to answer. I repeat: we can only admire the skill with which Sir Geoffrey Howe has so far been speaking about it, and hope and express our confidence that what he is actually doing about it (which is unknown to us) is as skilful as what he is saying about it.
We have had two delegations: one delegation was from the unofficial members of the Executive and Legislative Council; and the other delegation was from the Hong Kong Federation of Students and others. Those delegations have been to London in the last few weeks. I should like to echo what has been said. We in the Alliance are extremely glad to have had the opportunity to meet both delegations and to hear their views. It is not only the right but probably the duty of those people, as the noble Lord. Lord MacLehose, has said, to come here and tell us how they analyse the situation, and what they want.
In favour of a rapid and far-reaching introduction of democracy is the fact that it would avoid the danger of Britain handing over the sovereignty of an unopened package to China in 1997. Nobody really knows with certainty what are the wishes and intentions of the people of Hong Kong for themselves under the new dispensation. They can only be ascertained—and we discovered it ourselves in the 17th century—to the satisfaction of British people, at any rate, by the introduction of a measure of directly elected representative democracy. On the other hand, the rapid and far-reaching introduction of that would appear to carry certain dangers with it, particularly the penalty of a possible resurgence of doubts in Peking, which could happen quickly if the exuberance of a newly or too rapidly introduced democracy were to become overvisible and overworrying to everybody concerned, to all three parties: to the people of Hong Kong themselves, to the Government of China and to the Government of this country. Therefore, it seems to me obvious—and I imagine that it is even more obvious to the Government—that the introduction of democracy must be by stages which carry at least the tacit agreement of Peking, if not the explicit agreement. The latter should be preferred if it is possible to obtain it.
I shall not press the Minister of State to confirm this, but we understand that it is already in the bag between Britain and China that Hong Kong should form a kind of extra-special enterprise zone under, or related to, Article 31 of the Chinese constitution, and that there should be passport and customs control at the frontier between Hong Kong and the existing special enterprise zone, which constitutes the present frontier of Hong Kong. We understand that for 50 years the people of Hong Kong, while forming part of China, would be allowed and encouraged to continue their present legal

109
system and their present economic system, and that there should be some form of words which vaguely expresses their present way of life, whatever that is. But if it comprises both legal system and the economic system, that is coming very close to saying, "way of life". We understand that the Chinese phrase is that Hong Kong would be "a separate entity", and another Chinese phrase is that there would be "two systems within one nation".
I imagine that the House would also hope that we can get separate or in some way distinct or semi-distinct Hong Kong membership of various international organisations: first, GATT, which we understand China herself is joining; as well as GATT, the IMF. the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank; and, perhaps most important of all, the Multi-Fibre Agreement. If it cannot have separate or distinct membership of the Multi-Fibre Agreement, then perhaps it can at least have a kind of inflected Chinese membership. If the convertibility of the Hong Kong dollar can he guaranteed well in advance of 1997 to be maintained thereafter, no doubt that would also perform wonders in easing the transition of sovereignty.
Mention has been made of the problems of emigration from Hong Kong after 1997. There are problems, and they are extremely complicated, and by anything I say I do not wish to exacerbate them. But I should like to mention that it is displeasing—and I do not know what the remedy is—to know that in the Hong Kong press at the moment advertisements are appearing for Hong Kong people to emigrate to various countries in exchange for a certain specified capital investment in the economy of those countries. We read that the figure for Canada is a quarter of a million dollars, and that the figures for a whole raft of other countries, going downhill from that, end up with Haiti at something like a tenth of that figure.
This is surprising and disquieting to learn. I do not know the answer, but at all stages we should remember that the Hong Kong population, though immensely successful economically, does nor consist entirely of rich people. It was also disquieting to read the remarks of one Government supporter in the House of Commons the other day who said that precisely the same thing should be done by this country. I think we would all agree that the Commons debate last week, which also took place late in the evening, was an extremely helpful one for the Government. It was clear that every speaker intended to be helpful to the Government, and in my amateur judgment they probably were. I am sure that what has taken place so far tonight, the first two speeches, will also be helpful to the Government, and I believe that our debate as a whole may be. I am sure that I speak for every Member of this House when I say that that is our intention in speaking tonight.
The tripartite enterprise of devising a future for Hong Kong—tripartite between the people of Hong Kong and its Government, the Chinese Government, and the Parliament and Government of this country—must be an extraordinarily taxing one for the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues. They are dealing quite simply with the peaceful transfer of sovereignty over a population which shares our economic system but not our race, to a nation which
110
shares their race but not their economic ideas or system. It will be a great achievement by all three Governments if it can be done successfully. Let us hope that we shall be able to continue over the next two generations to note, as we can note tonight, that it is being done successfully.
10.6 p.m.
Lord Rhodes: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Fanshawe, for raising this subject on an Unstarred Question tonight. It is an important one. In rising to speak I wish to make it clear that much of what I am going to say represents the views of my noble and disappointed friend Lord Kadoorie, who has come all the way from Hong Kong to speak but unfortunately has not taken the Oath in this Parliament, without which it is impossible to sit and speak in your Lordships' House. Much of what he had to say is being said through me.
So much has been said and written about Hong Kong over the past few days that it is difficult to avoid repetition. Consequently, I shall confine my remarks to two points where further clarification might be useful. We are all aware of the recent visit to England of UMELCO from Hong Kong, but it is as well to redefine the meaning of this word. UMELCO stands for Unofficial Members of the Executive and Legislative Councils of Hong Kong. As unofficials they are to be contrasted with the officials who sit alongside them in the colony's ruling bodies; the executive council, akin to a cabinet, and the legislative council. similar to Parliament. While the officials are civil servants, the unofficials are members of the public appointed to public office by the Governor. They are the nearest thing Hong Kong has to Members of Parliament.
Members of UMELCO, though not elected in the sense that this word is understood in England, are in close contact with all sections of the community and have no hesitation whatever in expressing both the minority and majority views of their constituents. They sit on no fewer than 300 committees and are able to gauge opinion at all levels. Their honesty of purpose and devotion to Hong Kong and its welfare cannot be questioned. Perhaps what is more important in the context of the future survival of Hong Kong as we know it is their personal association with industry, their knowledge of world markets, their power to create work and, with it, prosperity.
The second point on which there could be misunderstanding is that the 2.5 million people of Hong Kong with British dependent territory citizenship would all wish to emigrate to the United Kingdom before the 1997 deadline.
This is far from being the case. The vast majority of Chinese living in Hong Kong have neither the means nor the inclination to leave their homes to settle elsewhere. There is no question of an invasion of the British Isles by a Hong Kong "boat people". Hong Kong well knows the burden of overcrowding and all that this entails, and has no intention or desire to add to the problems experienced in this country. All that the Hong Kong British are asking for is the retention of those basic freedoms inherent in a British constitution—freedom of thought, freedom of speech,

111
freedom of choice, freedom to work and freedom of movement.
Upon expiry of the lease, when Hong Kong is no longer a British dependent territory, those ethnic Chinese who so wish will no doubt be able to obtain a Chinese passport: but what of those who are naturalised and the many expatriates born in the Far East who hold Hong Kong passports and who will be left stateless? Surely the United Kingdom owes them the freedom of movement and protection available to British subjects in all parts of the world. Perhaps a compromise sufficient to satisfy the United Kingdom immigration authorities could be found by allowing holders of British Hong Kong passports to have a separate passport which would give them the full protection of a United Kingdom passport anywhere in the world, except that the holder would have to obtain a visa if he wished to come to England, and a work permit if he sought employment in this country. Such a passport could be limited to the 50-year transition period promised by the Chinese.
My Lords, you have all had a copy of the statement issued by the Unofficial Members of the Hong Kong executive and legislative councils, "The Future of Hong Kong". I fully appreciate their contention that Parliament may cede sovereignty over the Territory, but it cannot by the same Act deprive British nationals of their national status. They expect, with good reason, Parliament to honour its moral and legal obligations to the 2.5 million British passport holders which declare them to he British Hong Kong in international law. Hong Kong belongers are citizens of a British dependent territory now destined to become a special autonomous region of the People's Republic of China. Britain has pledged that no agreement will be signed unless it can be commended to Hong Kong people as a internationally registered agreement that assures their stability.
The Chinese Government have repeatedly stated that Hong Kong's life-style will continue, and that they wish existing systems and freedoms in Hong Kong and the free market economy to remain fundamentally unchanged for at least 50 years after 1997. However, we must remember that we are living in an era of rapid change where flexibility is essential. In such a climate it is not realistic to think of an agreement that provides for continued British administration in Hong Kong after 1997, and in these circumstances—and particularly before the contemplated devolution of power from the Central People's Government to the Hong Kong special administrative region via a basic law to be promulgated in the early 1990s—it is unpractical to ask for firm long-term agreements in specific terms; rather should we look to clearly stated heads of agreement based on the goodwill of the parties involved.
Today, our aim must be to search for the highest common factor between a socialist and a capitalist society. Common ground may be hard to find but this should not be impossible between the parties concerned. Hong Kong is renowned for its adaptability, and after all, the United Kingdom is the most knowledgeable Western country on China; and China, through Hong Kong, has considerable experience of the practical side of Western capitalism.
112
Hong Kong, as the world's most important joint venture, has been a success in the past and I see no reason why this cannot remain. Both China and the United Kingdom wish for the continued prosperity of Hong Kong and its people. This augurs well for understanding. Today, optimism and pessimism vie with each other for credulity. But one thing is certain: a mutually satisfactory agreement can never be reached without trust between the parties concerned. Past experience in the immediate post-war period and under different circumstances does not necessarily presage the future.
Co-operation rather than confrontation will create that confidence so essential to prosperity. Bland British assurances, unilateral Chinese declarations and rumours fuel fear of the unknown; but, upon reflection, there is a strong mutuality of interest and little reason to doubt the ability, good faith and common sense of those at the negotiating table. Consequently, both as a friend of the noble Lord, Lord Kadoorie and a Member of this House. I look forward to the future in a spirit of quiet optimism.
10.17 p.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, in any context, but particularly that of Hong Kong, it is an awesome privilege to follow such eminent and experienced speakers as the noble Lords, Lord MacLehose and Lord Rhodes. I also regret most deeply, as I am sure w ill your Lordships, the fact that we are not able to hear the noble Lord, Lord Kadoorie, this evening with all his wisdom and experience of Hong Kong. However, awesome though it may be to follow two such august speakers. it is both my lot and my slot and I shall not shirk it as I believe that this is an enormously important debate which will have significant implications, particularly for the people of Hong Kong. My noble friend Lord Fanshawe is to be congratulated upon tabling his Unstarred Question.
The key issue for Hong Kong has always been confidence. Hong Kong has one, and really only one, resource—its people. Without them and their confidence in the system, Hong Kong basically is nothing. It has no space, it has no mineral resources, no self-supporting agriculture and, perhaps most extreme of all, nothing like enough water to sustain its population. As has been mentioned so many times—and most recently tonight and in another place last week, on 16th May—the logical goals of the parties concerned in these negotiations are, by and large, common. The need for confidentiality is, I think, widely understood, as is the de facto existence of three rather than two interested parties: Beijing, Whitehall and, as has been mentioned this evening, Hong Kong. The common goal, within the constraints of transfer of sovereignty, is, surely, to keep Hong Kong after 1997 as closely resembling Hong Kong before 1997 as possible.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, said, we have heard an enormous amount about Hong Kong, particularly over the last 10 days or so, but I make no apologies for repeating some of the facts and opinions that have been mentioned over those days and, indeed, already in your Lordships' House this evening. They are, I suggest, the quality of Beijing's word and the

113
post-1997 administration; clarification that the Basic Law, as it is now called, or mini-constitution, will reflect the terms of the agreement, since the latter will almost certainly predate the former; the maintenance of existing systems and the law; the continuance of a negotiable currency and of freedom of speech, of religion and, perhaps most important should all else fail, of travel. There are so many interwoven issues involved that it is difficult to find the beginning of the thread, and no one yet knows exactly where, when and, indeed, in what condition the end of that thread will appear.
The representatives of UMELCO, who visited London last week and some of whom are indeed listening tonight, have done us all a real service in bringing some of those issues to a head. As your Lordships are aware—again, as has been mentioned this evening—they are not the democratically elected representatives of the people of Hong Kong, but let no one doubt their value, nor that they can and do, in fact, have a good feel for the pulse of Hong Kong. I echo remarks made by other noble Lords already this evening, that their partial castigation in another place five days ago was unjustified, unwarranted and, on occasions, distinctly discourteous. UMELCO can, and should, have a significant role in shaping Hong Kong's future, at least until 1997.
I return to the key factors. Both jointly and severally, they spell out the paramount necessity for confidence. I again make no apologies for repeating that word; it will not be the last time that I use it. Can Beijing's word be trusted and, indeed, what is that word? By all past precedent, yes, it can, should and must be trusted. It has stood the test through some truly turbulent times since 1949—already 35 years. Having said that, it would of course be naive to assume that anything in this world is absolutely categorically certain. As to what is that word, I urge my noble and right honourable friends to do their utmost to impress on their opposite numbers in Beijing just how important written detail is and will continue to be in Hong Kong. Again, I say, "confidence".
From first-hand experience as a businessman, I know just how astute the Hong Kong Chinese are in commerce. They are accustomed to an internationally recognised and freely convertible currency. They are at home with an occidental approach to business. They have grown used to the importance of both the large and the small print of a contract. Beijing is perhaps not so accustomed to, and, indeed—again, from my own experience—may tend to brush aside the importance of written detail. I ask Her Majesty's Government to do their utmost in the negotiations to impress upon Beijing that, in everyone's interest, the more detail on both specifics and assurances the better. Hong Kong will then know much better where it will stand and the people will become the more confident. Surely, fear of the unknown is the greatest fear of all. If confidence even begins to slip away, that slip could well become a landslide and Hong Kong knows all about landslides, particularly in typhoon conditions.
It is, I therefore suggest, vital to all concerned to maintain and, if possible, increase confidence over the next 13, but particularly perhaps over the next five years. If confidence goes, then there could—and I only say "could"—be an exodus. If that exodus were to
114
involve only the very top, the very wealthy, it would be bad enough. If it were to include what might be described as senior or middle management, it would be disastrous. Generally, such managers are already, or are eligible to become, British dependent territory citizens.
My second specific request to my noble and right honourable friends is therefore to ensure that the agreement with Beijing has written into it some form of dual Chinese and British nationality after 1997. Some noble Lords may recall my interest during the course of the British Nationality Bill throughout 1981. I did not then, and I do not now, advocate any radical change in this country's immigration laws. I am advised that statistically (here I take just minor issue with the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes) there are, excluding Her Majesty's Forces, some 18,000 British citizen passport holders in Hong Kong—18,000 only. They have the right of entry into and abode in the United Kingdom.
In addition there are currently about 1.1 million British dependent territory citizens who are passport holders. They have the right of entry into and abode in Hong Kong but not in the United Kingdom. They are, however, entitled to British consular protection and can travel without visas to most Western European and Commonwealth countries. There are also a further 2 million who are eligible for BDTC passports but who have not yet applied, of whom 1 million—one-half—have no travel documents of any kind. Finally, statistically, there are a further 1.1 million who have just travel documents, mainly certificates of identity, under which holders are not entitled to British consular protection and have to apply for visas for all countries.
On 2nd July 1997 it would appear, as other noble Lords have already commented, that British dependent territory citizenship will cease as far as residents of Hong Kong are concerned, for the very good reason that Hong Kong will no longer be a British dependent territory. I am advised that this situation was brought to the attention of the Chinese authorities on 3rd May of this year—that is, just 18 days ago. Mr. Cheung Yan-Lung, a member of Hong Kong's legislative council, asked Mr. Chi Peng-Fei, whom the noble Lord, Lord Fanshawe of Richmond, has already mentioned, Mr. Chi being the head of the Hong Kong and Macao Bureau, about the status of Hong Kong British dependent territory citizens after 1997. Mr. Chi is reported as having replied that on the basis of Hong Kong's historical situation and precedent, China would be prepared to make an exception for Hong Kong British dependent territory citizens to have dual nationality after 1997. Mr. Chi is further reported as having been more specific in stating that, as far as China was concerned, those in Hong Kong who had previously held BDTC passports could, for two generations after 1997, hold British overseas citizens' passports as well as Chinese passports, provided that Her Majesty's Government agreed.
My question, therefore, to my noble friend on the Front Bench is: would it be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government to write into any agreement with Beijing that all British dependent territory citizens of Hong Kong on the date of hand over would automatically become British overseas citizens for

115
such a period, under the terms of Part III of the British Nationality Act, 1981, as suitably amended to include such persons?
Such an agreement would not—and I do emphasise "not"—in any way open the floodgates of immigration to this or any other country. As now, each such passport holder would have to apply as an individual for entry and right of abode to the country concerned. Such British Overseas Citizenship would, however, I am convinced, be seen as of real benefit to those eligible in Hong Kong. Just as important, it could well tip the balance in pursuading those who might have thought otherwise to remain in Hong Kong both up to and beyond 1997, thereby maintaining in turn that all-important confidence.
Hong Kong thrives on its commercial industry and its commercial independence, neither of which would exist without confidence by its people in themselves and in Hong Kong itself. I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks that this was, and is, a vitally important debate. Clearly, Hong Kong regards it so; your Lordships have only to look around the gallery this evening to see many familiar Hong Kong faces.
The Financial Times—surely an independent organ—commented on 18th May:
"Some brokers attributed the easier Hong Kong Stock Market to British Foreign Secretary Sir Geoffery Howe's statement at the House of Commons debate on Hong Kong".
On the following day, 19th May, the Financial Times commented:
"Analysts said they expect further downward pressure on prices when the UK Upper House of Parliament starts its debate on the Hong Kong issue next Monday".
There are those who are listening to us. I urge my noble friend the Minister of State to do her utmost in her closing remarks to bolster Hong Kong's confidence—and particularly to comment regarding British Overseas Citizenship after 1997 for those who will have been, up to that date, British Dependent Territory Citizens.
10.32 p.m.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness the Minister of State will agree that since September 1982, when the issue of Hong Kong became of singular importance, the British Parliament has been not only restrained but also highly sensitive to the seriousness and delicacy of the negotiations taking place between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the People's Republic of China.
These negotiations are without parallel. You have Her Majesty's Government negotiating on behalf of the people of a colonial territory; a people who do not have any democratic structure through which their voice can be known and heard. You have a British Government seeking, through discussions, the best accord for the future of some 5 ½ million people.
On the other hand, you have the Government of the People's Republic of China, who have always looked upon Hong Kong as theirs, and who have always rejected the treaties under which Hong Kong was ceded to Britain. And yet the Government of the People's Republic of China, although they have claimed sovereignty, have been willing to enter into a
116
great act of statesmanship; they have been willing to sit down with a colonial power and discuss the best way in which the stability and the prosperity of the people of Hong Kong can be assured. I believe this is without any form of parallel—at least in my knowledge of history. In a sense it is that statesmanship and the consistency of the approach of the People's Republic of China that gives me the greatest confidence for the future of the people in Hong Kong.
A few weeks ago I would have hesitated on whether we should have had a debate, but the statement of the Secretary of State on Good Friday was a watershed in these negotiations and I think that it is absolutely right to have this debate. Reading carefully all that was said in another place, and listening to what has been said here so far this evening, I do not believe that anything said would in any way create discord in the negotiators in Beijing.
I must refer to one aspect which has been touched upon on a number of occasions this evening and also in the debate in another place. Reference was made to the members of the executive council and the legislative council, and I look to the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, who was a Governor, to endorse what I now say. They are appointed not so much as a parliament but as a branch of the administration to give guidance and advice to the Government on the ministration of Hong Kong. They have a very valuable role and I would not wish, in terms of confidence, for it to be seen in Hong Kong that there is anything but united support for their presence here during these past few days while the question of Hong Kong has been debated in both Houses. I would say that if they had not been here then I would have been very critical of them. Although some of us may know Hong Kong a little bit more intimately. I think it is right that we in Parliament should be able to have an understanding of the fears and uncertainties that exist in Hong Kong today.
One needs to speak with confidence. I must say that although I have a great deal of sympathy with what has been said in regard to passports and the British Nationality Acts, I do not think that that is a matter we should seek to pursue now. If one does, one raises a question in one's mind as to what is the settlement and what trust one places in that settlement. We have heard a great deal about guarantees. Those of us who have been in political life long enough know that there are no guarantees whatever today. The only guarantee one has is the judgment one makes of the people with whom one enters into agreements and a belief that they will acknowledge them and implement them.
The People's Republic of China, even in the darkest of days of relations between Britain and China, has always acknowledged and fulfilled its agreements. I remember one occasion, in the very depths—I believe in 1967—when there was a very acute crisis and Hong Kong was desperately short of water. We relied upon the water to come through from China and nothing gave me greater satisfaction than to get the message that the water was coming through the tunnels, dead to the minute of the hour of the day of the contract. It did not need to do it, but that is China.
In the Chinese approach to this agreement one of the most significant things is that they speak of an

117
agreement for 50 years. If they said 25 years, we should be highly suspicious. If they said an agreement to eternity, we should be highly suspicious. But to those of us who know China, 50 years has some significance. It is a period which is attainable. I have no doubt at all that in their minds 50 years is 50 years.
I read the Secretary of State's speech with very great care. It was in many ways a masterly exposition; hut you could read through it his own belief that a settlement was not only possible but that it could prove satisfactory not only to Hong Kong but, more importantly. to this British Parliament. If you read what he says, and you read again and again the consistency of what the People's Republic of China has been saying, it is very interesting to see that there is a broad thrust of agreement.
I suspect that the greatest difficulty will be in the implementation—the nuts and bolts—of such an agreement. It seems to me that the greatest danger for Hong Kong will lie in the next 12 to 18 months. My view—and I would not press it hut I would express it—is that a statement of broad agreement, if it can be achieved, would he most welcome as early as possible. I believe that if broad agreement of principles could he announced. it would put many of the fears and anxieties, I will not say completely, but largely at rest. I think that the nuts and bolts and general complexity of this agreement will take many months. if not years, not only to negotiate but to design and to implement. Therefore I would not wish for an agreement to be prolonged in order that the nuts and bolts can all be dealt with before it is announced. I believe that a broad statement of principles is desirable—I will not say when, but as early as possible.
I hope—and this is a hope—that something imaginative could also be agreed, not necessarily within the agreement but seen side by side with it. I think that the noble Lord. Lord MacLehose, will understand what I am saying. One of the difficulties today is over the question of Crown lands. The period in the New Territories—13 or 12 years and a hit—is very short if you are thinking about land development. There is no doubt that a great deal of development is being held up.
I do not press the Minister tonight, but is it not possible for an imaginative gesture both by Her Majesty's Government and by the People's Republic of China for a move to be made in the releasing of land and for land to be lent for development on a much longer term than now exists, which I think is 12 years or so? If an imaginative gesture of co-operation could go alongside a broad thrust and principle of agreement, I think that we should see a transformation in the spirit of the people of Hong Kong.
One could speak for much greater lengths but I would hope a message will go out from this House to the Government of the People's Republic of China and to the peoples of Hong Kong that they have so much in common interests, although so much now rests upon the responsibility and statesmanship of the People's Republic of China. There is so much common interest that what we now need to see is the matter resolved on paper. resolved as an agreement but recognising that the spirit is clearly there. I saw on the tape only this very afternoon, the statement of a
118
senior official of the Foreign Office in the People's Republic of China, speaking about the great future ahead for Hong Kong within the thrust of their own policy. I believe that there is a great future for Hong Kong.
My last words are these. We live in a period of recession. In March, Hong Kong showed a 62 per cent. increase in its exports and re-exports over March of last year. It showed a 52 per cent. increase for the first three months of this year. It is a thrusting economy. It has a great future. If we can only resolve this political problem, which I believe is attainable, then the future of Hong Kong is undoubtedly great.
10.46 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I think we should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fanshawe, for giving us an opportunity to express our views and hopes about the future of Hong Kong. It is a special pleasure to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, with his knowledge and confidence in the good intentions of the Government of the People's Republic of China, which I completely share, and indeed his emphasis on the need for a broad agreement first, before we get down to details.
I hope to elaborate shortly on this, in my brief personal intervention, which I am proud to make from these Benches and in which I will declare an interest in the long association that my family has had with Hong Kong during the past hundred years. This is with a company which I am pleased to say has every intention of remaining in Hong Kong for many more years to come. Hong Kong has always been, and always will be, the gateway for trade with mainland China. If the Government of the People's Republic of China were ever far-sighted enough or courageous enough to open up all their eastern seaboard to free trade with the West, then I think not only would Hong Kong gain in importance geographically as a container port but it would become even more firmly established as the major commercial and financial centre of the Pacific Basin area. This is definitely not the moment for Hong Kong trading companies to fold up their tents: it is a time to invest in the future of Hong Kong and the prospects of a consumer market of a billion people on the Chinese mainland.
While it is my intention to speak up for the people of Hong Kong in this debate, it really is very difficult to discover who can constitutionally represent, or indeed speak with authority for, the people of Hong Kong. Therefore. I believe it is now up to us, as Members of Parliament, to do our best to ensure, as many other noble Lords have said. that the people of Hong Kong obtain a fair deal in the intermediate years, between now and 1997 and thereafter.
Perhaps I am fortunate in that, through my lady wife, who speaks six Chinese dialects. I can as a Parliamentarian, at least, listen to the views of both the Hong Kong Chinese and the People's Republic of China. They are views which are expressed in their own language, in their own phraseology and which have been represented to me, at this moment in time, as a genuine willingness to see the handover of Hong Kong in 1997 go through successfully and with the minimum disruption in the ways of life of either

119
country. I am convinced that that is the declared intention of both Governments, with their respective Foreign Ministers. I must endorse also what other noble Lords have said about the efforts and approach made by the right honourable gentleman our own Foreign Minister.
This brings me on to the mystery men and women (as I call them) of UMELCO, who have expressed their worries and doubts about the future of Hong Kong in some extraordinarily articulate and well-drafted documents, and, indeed, verbally to me. I am not clear whether these views represent the official policy of the Government of Hong Kong or just the views of some citizens of Hong Kong. But they have been put fairly and squarely, and I hope to pursue some of the points that have perhaps not been taken up by other noble Lords, as well as the case of the BDTC passport holders.
Before coming to that, other noble Lords have spoken in various ways about the unofficial members of the Hong Kong Government. But I should like to ask the noble Baroness the Minister of State about the official members of the Hong Kong Government—that is, the civil servants—and about what is the policy of localisation. Is it really going fast enough to give the confidence to local Hong Kong Chinese, who have a future only in Hong Kong rather than a retirement home in. say, Sevenoaks? Are they given the confidence and the responsibility that they are fully capable of taking? I should like to hear whether there is any policy to accelerate the process of what has been called localisation. I believe that there are 850 expatriate civil servants who are on long-term pensionable contracts and another 2,300 who are on two-and-a-half-year contracts, which can easily not be renewed, and who can be replaced with local Hong Kong Chinese. However, these remarks are really addressed to those expatriates on long-term pensionable contracts, and aged over 40.
I come back now to the problem—the difficult problem, as everyone has recognised—of the holders of the BDTC passports, and their worries as to their validity or renewability in 1997. I do not believe that this is the moment to remind Her Majesty's Government of the anticipated difficulties which these passports will create for their holders—anticipated, as many noble Lords will recall, during the long passage of the British Nationality Bill through this House. I believe that it is incumbent on us, as Members of Parliament, to do our best to fulfil some unfulfilled obligations in this direction, and primarily to the holders of these passports. One solution that I put forward to the noble Baroness the Minister of State is that BDTC passports are converted into travel documents which are recognised internationally for visa purposes and which would provide some validity to the promise of freedom of travel after 1997 given by the right honourable gentleman the Foreign Secretary and his counterpart from the People's Republic of China. Furthermore, I believe that such a document need not necessarily have any rights of abode attached to it. But it could provide just the insurance policy required by the holders of BDTC passports in the form of a permanent exit visa from the territory if they
120
wished to use it as such or as a business travel aid after 1997.
I come now to the main question that still remains unanswered by Her Majesty's Government, and which was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. It was not really clarified in the excellent debate last week in another place, so far as I could see. It concerns the nature of the agreement which we, as Members of Parliament, will be asked to ratify in the near future. There seems to me to be some confusion as to what are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government and those of the Hong Kong Government. If the agreement to come before Parliament for ratification is concerned only with principle, I. like the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and various others, foresee no difficulty. If, however, it is Her Majesty's Government's intention to put a detailed agreement before Parliament which includes all the basic law, I cannot see how such an agreement can possibly be drawn up within the time available.
I am therefore asking the noble Baroness the Minister of State to define clearly what form she hopes this agreement may take. If it is the former—that is, the broader one that I have described—I believe that there is every chance that the details can be worked out amicably in due course of time. The basic law that would presumably incorporate the principles of such an agreement could be made workable, given time and good will on both sides. If, on the other hand, it is Her Majesty's Government's intent to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s before presentation to Parliament for ratification, I can foresee the appalling delays that this will create, which can only aggravate the uncertainty as to the future of the territory and seriously undermine the confidence of its people.
Furthermore, I think the commercial organisations which at this moment in time are attempting to make plans for the future, including 1997 and beyond, would also see this as a serious set-back in their longterm future. I am equally sure that such a policy would be interpreted by the Government of China, rightly or wrongly, as a delaying tactic, which would not be conducive to a successful outcome of the current negotiations.
Assuming that the noble Baroness will confirm that it is only the heads of agreement or the broad agreement which will be ratified by Parliament, then I should like to propose the following suggestion for her consideration. It is that after ratification a working committee be set up which would not have any constitutional rights but which would include Members of this Parliament, the Hong Kong Government and representatives from the People's Republic of China. The object of this joint committee would be to implement the ratified agreement principles through the establishment of practical and detailed laws and systems by which the territory can operate in 1997.
These are really the nuts and bolts to which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred. I believe that the nuts and bolts of the agreement should be worked out above board: that the negotiators should be asked to come out of the closet. They have been in there far too long, and I think we should have a look at them and see them at work. I believe that this would be possible

121
only after we had ratified the broad principles. Let us have a look at what they are doing, because it is very difficult to make a speech of any kind on Hong Kong and its future when one really has no idea what the negotiators are up to.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I am sure they are working their hearts out for a successful agreement. Very well; let us have a broad agreement, but then let us have a working committee that can show the people of Hong Kong that it means business and can show the people of Hong Kong that representatives from the People's Republic of China have their hearts in a successful negotiated finality of transfer in 1997, as indeed they have. If the secrecy continues for the nuts and bolts negotiations, I foresee some difficulties and some misunderstandings such as have crept into some of the speeches and some of the representations we have had so far.
Finally, in one intervention in the debate in another place there was a reference to comparisons between the decline of the Roman Empire and the present situation in Hong Kong. I do not believe that there are any valid comparisons here, although there could be some similarities with the problems that this created for statesmen in the fifth century A.D. Hong Kong has been part of two empires, both of which have faded away and been replaced by a new understanding that all of us are now citizens within a global society. Our responsibility as parliamentarians should reflect this change. In this context it may be fitting to quote the final sentences from Stewart Perowne's classical work, The End of the Roman World. Therefore, I conclude with this thought for all those of good intent who are involved in the future of the people of Hong Kong:
"There are greater institutions than empires. When they dissolve, those that dwell in them combine in new associations, both national and international, material and spiritual, but men remain what they have always been and always will be, potential citizens of the true Augustinian Eternal City".
10.59 p.m.
Lord Oram: My Lords, like others who have spoken in the debate, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Fanshawe of Richmond, for giving us this opportunity of having a debate to follow up the excellent debate which was held last week in another place. Already it has become apparent that in this House we have a number of noble Lords with particular knowledge and experience of Hong Kong, and therefore for me this has been a particularly welcome opportunity to hear them expound their views. I hasten to add that I exclude myself from that category of peers specially knowledgeable on this subject. We cannot of course expect the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to add a great deal to what the Foreign Secretary said in his speech in another place last Wednesday. But we shall listen with particular interest to her comments on the notable speeches that we have heard.
Last week there were two very welcome statements concerning the future of Hong Kong. The first was the reaffirmation by the Foreign Secretary of the statement which he had earlier made in Hong Kong that he now accepted that British administration in Hong Kong cannot continue after 1997. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, reminded us, those wise words by
122
the Foreign Secretary have done a good deal to repair the damage which was done by the Prime Minister during her visit to Peking in September 1982. The second welcome reaffirmation last week was by the Chinese Prime Minister when he stated at the Chinese National People's Congress that Hong Kong will retain its status as a free port and as an international finance and trade centre, and that the economic system will be preserved for 50 years after 1997—a statement which has been referred to by a number of previous speakers.
I believe that those two statements, taken together, one by the British Government and one by the Chinese Government, surely lay the foundation of an acceptable treaty about the future of Hong Kong—at least for the kind of broad agreement of which my noble friend Lord Shepherd was speaking, and he had the support of the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw. I believe with them that this is the kind of agreement at which we should be aiming, and that the "nuts and bolts"—to use Lord Shepherd's expression—should be left to later, more detailed, negotiations.
In his speech last week the Foreign Secretary said that Hong Kong is a unique society calling for a unique solution. It is indeed unique—unique in the history of the decolonisation of the former British Empire. Major parts of that empire only reached independence after a history of turbulence and struggle. But in the case of Hong Kong it is to be hoped that the situation will be different. In no other case of the granting of independence has there been a deadline accepted by both sides which provides for such a long period of preparation for independence. In no other case that I can recall have the negotiators reached such a measure of basic agreement in principle so long before the point at which the transfer of power is projected. Therefore, although we may only have a short period to conclude the treaty, we have a long period to prepare for the actual transfer of authority.
I suggest that the big question that follows from that is: how are we to use that period of preparation? The Chinese Government have declared that they want to see Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong. I believe that on all sides that can be taken as a very desirable objective. But the question is: how fully and by what means will the people of Hong Kong be able to administer their territory? It was on this point alone that I found myself in some difficulty when I read the Foreign Secretary's speech. Although he said that within the next few years the government of Hong Kong will be developed on increasingly representative lines, he obviously regarded the nature of that development as something for the Hong Kong Government themselves to determine. That troubles me when I recall that the Hong Kong Government are not a democratically elected government; they are a government which are appointed from above. They are not themselves democratic, and therefore in my view they cannot be the best judge of how democracy in Hong Kong can be brought about.
In the coming years it seems to me that we need the utmost encouragement of the growth of democracy from below. There have been a number of references to the delegations from Hong Kong that have been speaking and writing to us in recent days. I should like to refer to the unofficial delegation which was led by

123
Dr. Ding. He and his colleagues have put forward what seem to me to be modest and sensible proposals for a step-by-step approach towards direct elections to the executive and legislative councils. I believe that we would do well to give serious consideration to those suggestions that that delegation has put forward.
However, I would go further than Dr. Ding and his colleagues in seeking democracy for Hong Kong. They have in mind elections to the various parts of the machinery of government. But whenever I think of democracy I have in mind very much more than that, because I believe that democracy is fragile unless it is underpinned by a range of social and economic organisations, such as trade unions, student organizations, co-operatives, voluntary social service groups, women's organisations and neighbourhood committees. That kind of organization, of which we have a vast number in our own democratic society, must be there to underpin the electoral system for the machinery of government. I hope that from now on the maximum encouragement will be given to developments of that kind.
It is sometimes suggested—indeed, several speakers in another place raised this point; and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, this evening also made reference to this—that the creation of a truly democratic Hong Kong would be unwelcome to China and might therefore hinder the process of preparation. Such a view, it seems to me, fails to take into account the changes which are currently taking place in the People's Republic of China itself under the leadership of Chairman Deng and his colleagues.
I should like to say a few words about those changes. A few months ago I had an opportunity of an intensive study tour, particularly in rural China, when I was able to appreciate the extent to which the peasants are now being empowered to conduct their own affairs to a vastly greater degree than was possible during the years of the cultural revolution and during the period when they were organised in massive communes. It is sometimes said that China, through adopting these measures, is abandoning its socialism. In my view it is doing no such thing, but it is taking important steps towards a much more liberal form of socialism.
In weighing up the relationship between mainland China and Hong Kong I think that we ought to have these developments in China very much in mind, because with such developments proceeding on the mainland I do not believe that a democratic Hong Kong will be anathema to the Chinese leaders. In these discussions it is too readily assumed that the economies of Hong Kong and of mainland China are so different that, like oil and water, they cannot be made to mix. That I believe to be a much too pessimistic view, as other speakers have suggested, and particularly my noble friend Lord Rhodes.
If we have in mind what I have described as the liberalising process in China and also again a matter that has been referred to by others, the fact that China is establishing special economic zones in the coastal regions in order to encourage foreign investment, and in order to open the Chinese economy to the rest of the world, and if we take those things all together, then I believe that we and the people of Hong Kong can face
124
the future with that optimism that I am glad to say has been expressed in almost every speech in this debate. I am confident that a modus vivendi between these different ways of life can be found, and in fact will be found.
Only last week the Prime Minister of China, in a speech to which I have already referred. indicated further steps in developing the so-called "responsibility system" through which Chinese workers are not only reaching decisions about their working lives, but are rewarded in proportion to the success of their efforts.
11.12 p.m.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, the House is again indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Fanshawe of Richmond, for introducing a debate which is both topical and of long-term importance, although this week it is on rather a different aspect of our heritage from the debate last week, which also attracted vast experience and a large number of speakers despite the lateness of the hour. I know that he, as a former Whip and Minister in another place, and I should not regard this as a late hour. but as a junior Member of your Lordships' House I would ask that we do not follow the bad example of the other place in the matter of the hours that they tend to keep.
Unlike most people who have spoken but perhaps like my noble friend Lord Oram, I cannot claim the great personal knowledge that has been brought to bear on the subject. because my visits have been only three or four in number and of fairly short duration. In between the visits I noticed enormous changes. There must have even been big changes since the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, took me around in his helicopter to see the developments about five years ago. One can only conclude after seeing how Hong Kong has coped with that enormous expansion of population, many members of which were unsought—and, I may say, since I was deploying a lot of soldiers to try to stop them coming in, unwanted—that Hong Kong has coped extraordinarily well with the situation.
When I was there of course I was more concerned with defence than with constitutional matters. I remember well my first visit, when my host took me to his house via an appointment with his tailor, which indicated that, as I found frequently, the senior military personnel always had their priorities right. There is no question but that Hong Kong is a unique society. It is now in a unique international legal situation and it requires a unique solution. I think that it would be easier to get agreement about the nature of the uniqueness of the society and of the legal and historic situation than to get unanimity about the precision of the unique solution that we should all like to find.
But we are privileged tonight in having heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, who brings to bear an unique experience of Hong Kong and China after not only his eleven years of most distinguished governorship but also a previous period as a political adviser in the colony. I am sure that noble Lords were as disappointed as I that the noble Lord, Lord Kadoorie, was unable to give us personally the benefit of his long and distinguished career and

125
experience, but we are indebted to my noble friend Lord Rhodes for acting as his voice in this matter, at the sacrifice, I fear, perhaps, of some comments by Lord Rhodes from his own considerable experience (noble Lords will know that he led with great distinction three or four parliamentary delegations to China and in fact did as much as anyone in recent years to improve the bilateral relations between our two countries).
Quite clearly, from the historical survey that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, succinctly gave us, it is not going to be easy—probably impossible—to satisfy all the parties and all the aspirations of those concerned—the people of Hong Kong, and the citizens of the People's Republic of China, with their concerns about Taiwan and their northern neighbours, as well as their commercial concern with Hong Kong as their outlet to the wider world. However, while there are these problems, I believe that there is a strong community of interests, as many noble Lords have said, which should make it possible to get a satisfactory agreement.
There are also, more particularly for the concern of the United Kingdom Parliament, possible problems of immigration, although I would tend to follow the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, rather than that of the noble Lords, Lords Geddes and Tanlaw, who want to get very detailed answers to some very difficult questions tonight when we are not far into the details of the very delicate negotiations that are ahead. Quite clearly, as appeared in the very good and bipartisan debate in the other House and. I believe, in our equally good and informed debate here tonight, we must recognise that the actual conduct of the negotiations must be left to the Government. I think that we need to stress too that Hong Kong is really only a colony in terms. That I know is one of the problems of its relationship, and the concern of the People's Republic is to remove what they may feel is a stigma, but Hong Kong does enjoy an immense amount of autonomy, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, would endorse. I found, when I tried to talk to them about a little greater contribution to their local defence costs, that we certainly had no revenue benefits from the territory. So any idea that we want to stay for any commercial or revenue purposes can certainly be put to rest.
There is a difficulty that has been expressed by a number of speakers that there are not democratic institutions and there is probably not time to develop them before at least the first stage of the negotiations has to be concluded. One has heard many people speak about a deadline of September next, which is not very far away. Maybe the noble Baroness the Minister can tell us to what extent the Government feel bound by such a deadline. As has been said, it is very important that the opinion of the people of Hong Kong should be fully taken into account; although, clearly, there is the difficulty as to how one can obtain that opinion. I endorse what the noble Lords, Lord Fanshawe, Lord Shepherd, and others have said about the valuable contribution that is being made by the unofficial members of the Executive and Legislative Councils and underline the fact that we welcome their coming here to brief us on their views and the issues as they see them in Hong Kong. But at the same time, as I am sure they would agree, they are not, and cannot
126
be, fully representative. It is very difficult to see how in the short term—although I agree very strongly with my noble friend Lord Oram that one should seek to develop it in the years ahead when, as I hope, there will be an agreement of a satisfactory character—there will be democratic institutions necessary to put it fully into effect.
The idea of a referendum has not been raised here tonight, but it was raised, I think, in the other place. I do not feel that a referendum would be appropriate and I think our own experience of referenda has not been exactly encouraging; but certainly it would imply that the referendum was the decision. I think that we must certainly disabuse anyone of any idea that the people of Hong Kong will be the final arbiter in the matter. I hope the Minister will confirm again tonight that the final decision in any agreement must rest with the United Kingdom Parliament. I think that the Foreign Secretary has already said this, but I believe it is important that that should be clear.
Of course, I think that we must avoid at all costs the mistake that I recognise was made by successive Governments over the Falklands, where the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament was handed over not only to a parish council but to a pretty small parish council at that. We cannot say that no agreement will he made without the consent of the local people in Hong Kong even if there was some way of ascertaining that opinion. Obviously, their views and their interests are vital, but the final decision I believe must rest with the United Kingdom and Parliament.
It seems to me that, after the rather diastrous start in 1982 to which reference has been made, negotiations now seem to be on a basis which could and should lead to a satisfactory outcome. I think it is necessary to say that full and detailed proposals will be necessary before either the people of Hong Kong or this House or another place can give a decisive view. I would stress this to the Government and I would ask our Chinese friends to understand it as well. Indeed, I hope they will heed, both in Hong Kong and in Beijing, the very wise speech, the very measured speech, of the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, on these points. I believe that it is necessary to have detail in order to allay the fears and to sustain confidence in Hong Kong itself.
I warmly welcome the improvement in bilateral relations with the People's Republic. I had some dealings myself when I was Secretary of State for Defence with delegations here from China; and I formed the view that they had genuine and sincere desires not only in the trade field but for closer relations over a whole range of industrial and commercial policies. I would strongly endorse what has been said by a number of noble Lords—Lord Rhodes, Lord Geddes and Lord Shepherd—about the great importance of making it clear that we do accept their sincerity and trust and that this is the basis on which all the negotiations must be carried through. I acknowledge the great experience of my noble friend Lord Shepherd as a negotiator, particularly in Hong Kong, and in the Far East generally.
We should acknowledge the imaginative approach of the Chinese leaders. As the Foreign Secretary said, it was put to him what they were seeking was to get two

127
systems within one nation. That is fine as a general principle, but, if I may take the engineering metaphor of my noble friend Lord Shepherd a little further, I would not be so demanding that I would want to know all the nuts and bolts of an agreement, though I do not think general principles—a blue-print, to carry on the engineering simile—would do. What we must certainly have, if we are asked to form a view, is a prototype of the kind of regime that will succeed British government in 1997.
Of course. it is prosperity, not only in the future but now, that is important both for China and for the people of Hong Kong. I believe that there is a need for confidence to sustain that prosperity, to sustain the very remarkable figures that my noble friend Lord Shepherd gave us as their increased exports at a time of world recession. I think he said 62 per cent. in March this year as compared with March 1983. I only wish that we could have some small portion of a percentage of that character.
If I may, I shall conclude by a quotation from the South China: Morning Post nine days after the Foreign Secretary's press conference in Hong Kong, when the immediate impact had begun to die away. It reads:
"However, if China was prepared to accept Hongkong for 143 tumultuous years despite massive changes, why should it not also honour an international agreement covering the next 50 years?
Let us acknowledge it had to come to an end one day. And what we have to be certain about in making this transition is not to bemoan our fate and stand aloof from change, but to make sure that the Hongkong spirit continues regardless of what flag flies."
It is in the Government's power, in their talks with the Chinese Government, to ensure that the Hong Kong spirit survives as predicted in that editorial, and I hope that the noble Baroness, the Minister of State, will be able to confirm tonight that that is Her Majesty's Government's objective.
11.28 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say that we are all very grateful to my noble friend Lord Fanshawe for tabling this Question this evening and giving the House an opportunity to debate this important issue of Hong Kong's future. I should like to assure your Lordships that it is a matter of the highest concern to Her Majesty's Government.
I think we would all agree that we have been fortunate this evening to hear from so many noble Lords who have very considerable personal experience of being in government in Hong Kong, having business interests in Hong Kong, knowing Hong Kong from visits or having visited China. I should like to share with the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, our disappointment that we were unable to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Kadoorie, but I think we were all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, for putting Lord Kadoorie's points for him. I shall, of course, draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State what has been said in the debate this evening. We shall study it carefully.
Many noble Lords who are present this evening know well the remarkable community which is Hong
128
Kong. Anyone who has visited the territory will have been impressed by its economic and social achievements. It is unique in its historical background, notably the fact that 92 per cent. of its land area is covered by a lease which expires in 1997. It is unique, too, in the negotiations which are now under way to assure its future.
It is natural and understandable that the people of the territory should feel anxiety about their future. Some noble Lords have no doubt met the groups which have recently visited London to express the concern of the Hong Kong people and their views about the way in which the territory should evolve. It is our intention in the negotiations to do everything possible to allay those concerns. I hope that this meets one of the points which was raised by my noble friend Lord Geddes.
Her Majesty's Government are also deeply aware of the anxieties and frustrations caused by the confidentiality of the negotiations. We believe that this confidentiality, upon which both sides are agreed, provides our negotiators with the best basis on which to operate. But we have thought it right, without breaking the confidentiality of the talks, to give as clear a description as we can of the general approach of the British Government to the important problem at stake.
This was first done during the visit which my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary undertook to the Far East last month. In Peking he held detailed and serious talks with the Chinese leaders on all aspects of the future of Hong Kong. His aim was to review the course of the negotiations which are under way at diplomatic level, to sum up the progress made and to give them a fresh impetus. In Hong Kong my right honourable friend held discussions with the governor and the unofficial members of the Executive and Legislative Councils, as well as meeting representatives of various strands of local opinion. He also made a public statement on the Government's approach to Hong Kong's future. Copies of that statement have been deposited in the Library of the House.
In that statement the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary described his clear conclusion that it would not be realistic to think of an agreement that provided for continued British administration in Hong Kong after 1997. Every possibility had been fully explored before that conclusion was reached, but it was based on experience in the negotiations themselves and on the reality of the expiry of the lease over the New Territories in 1997. Instead, we have sought to explore other ways of securing the assurances necessary for continuity in Hong Kong.
There is a good basis on which we can build. The Chinese Government have made it clear publicly that they recognise the special circumstances of Hong Kong and that they want its social and economic systems and lifestyle to remain unchanged. We have therefore been examining with the Government of China how it might be possible to arrive at arrangements that would secure for Hong Kong, after 1997, a high degree of autonomy under Chinese sovereignty and that would preserve the way of life of

129
Hong Kong, together with the essentials of the present systems.
It is indeed possible to foresee a situation in the future in which Hong Kong would, as part of China, enjoy a high degree of autonomy which would last for at least 50 years from 1997. In such a situation, that autonomy would extend to administration, the making of laws, the maintenance of Hong Kong's system of justice and responsibility for public order in the territory. Under such arrangements, the laws of Hong Kong, including the written and common law, would be based upon the present system. Hong Kong would manage its own public finances within which taxes levied in Hong Kong would, as now, be employed in Hong Kong for the benefit of the Hong Kong people. There would also be a place for outside people—from Britain and elsewhere—to go on working and making a contribution to life in Hong Kong.
What is of particular importance is that under such arrangements Hong Kong would continue to operate as an international financial and commercial centre, as it does today. Hong Kong's extensive and direct economic relations with its trading partners all over the world would be allowed to continue and develop. Arrangements would need to be made in co-operation with other countries concerned to ensure that Hong Kong remained an important participant in regional and world economic institutions such as the Asian Development Bank, the Multi-Fibre Arrangement, and in particular the GATT.
My noble friend Lord Fanshawe asked about the detail of the agreement. In this context, I should emphasise the high degree of autonomy already exercised today by the Hong Kong Government. The day-to-day life of the territory is determined by decisions taken in Hong Kong, not in London. Those who live in Hong Kong and all those who have dealings with the territory will be looking for an assurance that such autonomy will be maintained after 1997. That assurance can best be provided by a detailed and binding agreement clearly describing arrangements for the future.
A number of noble Lords—including my noble friend Lord Fanshawe and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet—asked about the democratic structure of Hong Kong. A related point is the degree to which the administration of Hong Kong will be in the hands of local people. The Chinese Government have made it clear, publicly, that after 1997 Hong Kong people will administer Hong Kong. This would be in line with the process of democratic development in Hong Kong which is already under way and which Her Majesty's Government fully endorse.
At the local level in Hong Kong, proposals have recently been made which will strengthen the existing elected element in government. In the summer the Hong Kong Government will be publishing a Green Paper setting out proposals whereby the representative status of the two central government institutions—the Executive Council and the Legislative Council—might be developed in the years to come. For their part, the British Government will provide—up to 1997—a firm framework within which the Hong Kong Government, in consultation with the local people, can
130
administer the territory and plan for its future. As they contemplate the future, the Hong Kong people naturally have questions in their minds. They are looking for assurances that an agreement will be observed. They are asking how they can give their views on the terms of an agreement. Some are concerned about their nationality status. I shall address these questions in turn.
My noble friend Lord Fanshawe and the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, spoke of the implementation of the agreement which can never be absolutely guaranteed. But there are very powerful incentives working for the upholding of an agreement on Hong Kong. First, there is the fact that the international prestige of two sovereign governments—parties to a binding agreement—would be at stake. Secondly, there is the common interest of both parties, publicly affirmed, in Hong Kong's continued success. This was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd.
Thirdly, there are the excellent relations which exist between Britain and China. These would underpin our objective of a binding international agreement in which arrangements for Hong Kong's continuing prosperity and stability, based on a high degree of autonomy, would be formally recorded. I believe this meets the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mulley.
The noble Lords, Lord Tanlaw, Lord Shepherd and Lord Oram, asked about the nature of the agreement. With regard to the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, only an outline agreement of broad principles should be agreed and presented to Parliament; I cannot go into detail on the exact form which may emerge. However, I have been impressed by the arguments which have been put by other noble Lords that to sustain confidence a package of proposals should contain sufficient detail to show people in Hong Kong how it is envisaged that continuity should be maintained.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, about the localisation of the Hong Kong Civil Service. I should like to say that there is already a substantial majority of Hong Kong local people in the public service. The number is increasing and there are in particular growing numbers of Hong Kong Chinese in senior posts. Her Majesty's Government fully support this policy of the Hong Kong Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, asked about consultation. Our consultation with the people of Hong Kong has been a continuous process from the beginning of the negotiations. It takes many and varied forms. Such debates as this one allow the process to be intensified and taken ahead on a more informed basis. We shall continue to take Hong Kong views fully into account. In due course the people of Hong Kong will have a full opportunity to make their views known on the terms of an agreement. We are considering actively what method might be adopted: but I have to say now that a referendum would have very real drawbacks.
Nearly every noble Lord referred to the question of nationality. Her Majesty's Government fully understand the concerns of the Hong Kong people, particularly the BDTCs, which have been so clearly expressed, notably by the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, and the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, about their position after

131
1997. We realise their desire that their position should be protected. I know that noble Lords will understand that I cannot go into any detail on the negotiations with the Chinese Government on this or other points. I can confirm that we are looking for arrangements that will allow Hong Kong people to enter and leave the territory freely while looking forward with confidence to a secure future there.
The Government understand the concerns of people in Hong Kong with British nationality, the great majority of whom are British dependent territory citizens, and their wish to retain that nationality. I have to say that I do not believe that either this Parliament or a successor would favour changes which stimulated emigration from Hong Kong to the United Kingdom or elsewhere. That is a further reason why we are looking for arrangements which would allow Hong Kong people to enter and leave the territory freely and at the same time provide a secure future for them there.
On the question of timing, to which a number of noble Lords referred, where the timetable of our negotiations is concerned there can be no question of rushing Parliament. It is too soon to say precisely when a draft agreement might be published, but we are working to a timetable in the talks which takes account of Chinese wishes and of all our own requirements. We are aware of the Chinese desire for an announcement in September. At the same time we recognise that any arrangements negotiated must subsequently be debated by Parliament. taking into account the views of Hong Kong.
Perhaps I may make it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, who raised this point, and to others who asked, that as far as the British Government are concerned it is Parliament which will make the final decisions on Hong Kong's future. Meanwhile it is our intention to keep our responsibility for administration up to 1997.
Let me try to sum up. We realise that the unique circumstances of Hong Kong require imaginative solutions. The territory is home to a highly individual community which has evolved its own institutions and its own distinctive lifestyle. We want to see the essence of all this endure. We see our good relations with China and our common interest in Hong Kong's stable future as a basis on which to build the continuity of a society in order to provide a secure home for its inhabitants and a major centre serving the world economy.
Our complex and difficult negotiations with the Chinese Government continue. Although a good deal of progress has been made, we are still some way from an agreement. A number of important points still have to be resolved, but we believe that on both sides there is a will and a commitment to overcome the remaining obstacles and to achieve an agreement. Our aim is a binding agreement which will secure a high degree of continuity for Hong Kong under Chinese sovereignty, which will preserve the essentials of the present system and way of life in Hong Kong and which will be acceptable to the people of Hong Kong. It must be one which we can honourably commend to Parliament.

London Transport (Tower Hill) Bill [H.L.]
The Queen's Consent signified: reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
The Lord Kadoorie—Took the Oath.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before midnight.

  EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT IN MANAGEMENT POLICY
  EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT IN MANAGEMENT POLICY
  CULTURAL PROPERTY: UNESCO CONVENTION
  CULTURAL PROPERTY: UNESCO CONVENTION
  MENTALLY ILL AND HANDICAPPED PATIENTS: ACCOMMODATION
  MENTALLY ILL AND HANDICAPPED PATIENTS: ACCOMMODATION
  REMAND PRISONS: CORRESPONDENCE
  REMAND PRISONS: CORRESPONDENCE