Sitting of 14 April 1988

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [10 December], That the Bill be now considered.
  Debate further adjourned till Thursday 21 April.
  TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)
  YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL (By Order)
  CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL (By Order)
  FALMOUTH CONTAINER TERMINAL BILL (By Order)
  NORTH KILLINGHOLME CARGO TERMINAL BILL (By Order)
  ST. GEORGE'S HILL, WEYBRIDGE, ESTATE BILL (By Order)
  SOUTHERN WATER AUTHORITY BILL
  (By Order)
  Orders for Second reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 21 April.
  BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming debate on Question [15 March], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Debate to be resumed upon Thursday 21 April.
  NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE TOWN MOOR BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday 21 April.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Personal Incomes
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the effect on the weekly income of a single unemployed person with no private income of his Budget changes.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Major): My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has asked me to apologise to the House for his absence today. He is attending meetings of the interim and development committees of the IMF and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development in Washington.
    The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that the Budget is about tax and will not therefore have a direct effect on the incomes of those who do not pay tax.
    Mr. Wareing: Can the Chief Secretary justify an unemployed young person under the age of 25 having his social security benefit reduced to £26·05 a week when one of the right hon. Gentleman's millionaire friends earning—or should I say, receiving—an income of £1 million a year has been given £3,729 a week as a result of the Chancellor's Budget? Is that not a disgrace, and does the right hon. Gentleman not go in fear that his rich friends might now become part of the dependancy culture of which his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is so fearful?
    Mr. Major: A substantial part of that question does not arise from the original question. However, more than half a million people under 25 gain in cash terms, as the hon. Gentleman should know.
    The hon. Gentleman asked about the unemployed, and the Budget does several things of material interest to them. First and foremost, it will, in my judgment, improve their chances of getting a job. Secondly, when they have jobs the Budget will raise the threshold at which they will pay tax. Thirdly, it reduces the basic rate at which they pay. Fourthly, the unemployed will receive any tax rebates speedily, and they will be substantial rebates if they have been unemployed for some time.
    Mr. Higgins: Despite the precise wording of my right hon. Friend's original answer., does he agree that as a result of the Budget some of those who were paying tax will not now pay it?
    Mr. Major: I am entirely content to agree with my right hon. Friend about that. The figure that my right hon. Friend perhaps had in the back of his mind was 780,000—the number of people who will not pay tax and who otherwise would have done so.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: We will refuse to separate the tax cuts of the Budget from the benefit cuts of the social security changes. Does the Minister agree with my estimate that, after this Budget, a person earning £100,000 a year will receive a staggering extra £268 a week, while the benefit changes mean that a single unemployed person will receive less than one tenth of that amount? Can the right hon. Gentleman—he is spoken of as a future leader of the Conservative party—not see what anyone with a basic

    329
    sense of fairness can see, namely, that it is the function of government to eradicate social injustice, not deliberately seek to create it?
    Mr. Major: The Government spend one third of their income on social security to eradicate social injustice.

    Economic Growth
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for how many years the rate of economic growth in the United Kingdom has averaged 3 per cent., or more.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): The six years to 1987 saw average economic growth of 3 per cent. a year. This is the longest period of steady growth, at around this rate, for half a century.
    Mr. Mitchell: Are not those figures an eloquent testimony to the success of the Government's economic policies? Is it not interesting to note that in the last year, when we have had growth of 4·5 per cent., we have been firmly at the top of the international league of growth of our major competitor countries?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a great contrast with the 1960s and 1970s, when we were bottom of the international growth league. It is a contrast also with the performance of the last Labour Government, when the growth rate in every year was lower than the average of the last six years under this Government.
    Mr. Beith: What will happen to growth if exchange rates are at a high and uncompetitive level? Will the Minister heed the warnings of the CBI and others about the effects on GDP of what is happening to exchange rates, or would that be bucking the market?
    Mr. Lilley: I am happy to say that the outlook for growth is very favourable and we remain one of the more rapidly growing countries in the Western world.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend agree that industrial growth is proceeding well and that it was fed very much with the pound much lower than it is today? My right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who is in Washington, says that we will have a stable pound. Without a stable and lower pound we will not maintain economic growth.
    Mr. Lilley: Economic growth has been improved and our economy transformed by a series of measures to improve the supply side performance of the British economy. That is of the utmost importance and has been achieved within a monetary framework which keeps monetary policy bearing down on inflation and ensures that exchange rates are reasonably stable.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Given that the Minister thinks that the Government's economic record is so wonderful, can he tell us how many people are in full-time employment in the United Kingdom now compared with the figure for the last year of the Labour Government?
    Mr. Lilley: I remind the hon. Gentleman that over the past year the fall in unemployment has been greater than ever previously recorded.

    Business Taxation
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what responses he has received to his Budget proposals for changes in business taxation.
    Mr. Devlin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what responses he has received to his Budget proposals for changes in business taxation.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): The proposals that my right hon. Friend announced in his Budget statement have been widely welcomed.
    Mr. Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the responses which may well have come in congratulate the Government on establishing a single rate of inheritance tax? Will not this measure ensure that it will be much easier to pass on family businesses and retain those family businesses in operation for future generations?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right, but that was, of course, just one of the measures in the Budget. It will, as he said, enable family businesses to be passed on to future generations, which is a good thing. The Budget was widely welcomed. The CBI said:
    "This is the Budget we have been waiting for. It will help to maintain the momentum of Britain's economic recovery and should boost business confidence."
    Mr. Devlin: Is it not right that, because of the Budget, we now have one of the lowest rates of business taxation in the Western world? Is that not a major boost to companies wishing to invest here, to companies that are already here, and to the revenue?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right. We have one of the lowest rates of corporation tax in the Western world, and the small business rate of tax is at the lowest level ever. This should be a great magnet, bringing further inward investment into this country, and should be welcomed by everyone.
    Mr. Darling: Has the Chancellor received representations on the business expansion scheme proposals, to the effect that it is wrong to provide a tax shelter for those who are the richest in society to enable them to set up rented accommodation, often to exploit those at the poorest end of society?
    Mr. Lamont: We have not received representations to that effect. The hon. Gentleman may be interested, and perhaps surprised, to hear that we have had some representations from people protesting because we have narrowed and limited the relief fund of the business expansion scheme. We did that because we wanted to concentrate on start-ups and small businesses. We think that it is well worth while extending the scheme to the private rented sector. We need more rented accommodation.
    Mr. Chris Smith: Do the Government not recognise that their own commissioned survey of the business expansion scheme has shown that it has relatively minor job creation effects, that it has tended to concentrate on low-risk, asset-based enterprises and not on high risk ventures, that it is largely based in the south-east, and that it has tended to transfer funds from the north to the south? In addition, it is being used as a tax haven rather than as an efficient way of channelling private investment into enterprise and wealth creation. Far from expanding it, should the Government not have changed it radically or even scrapped it?
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman seems to be ignoring what I have just said. In many respects, we have narrowed the scheme. It is obvious from his question that he is unaware that we had a survey of the scheme done by Peat,

    331
    Marwick, Mitchell and Co. which reached very different conclusions from those to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It s precisely because we think that the scheme should not he used to create asset-backed investments at the taxpayer's expense that we have narrowed its application to £½million small businesses. That will deal precisely with the point that the hon. Getleman raised and he should acknowledge that.

    Budget (Representations)
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on his Budget.
    The Paymaster General (Mr. Peter Brooke): My right hon. Friend has received widespread support for his Budget.
    Mr. Colvin: Nevertheless, it is a pity that a Treasury Minister did not have time to meet representatives of the general aviation industry before the Chancellor's Budget, which might then have pleased that industry a little more. Does my hon. Friend think it fair that jet airliners pay no duty on the Avtur fuel that they use, while the general aviation industry, which is 95 per cent. piston engine, pays duty on its Avgas? Does my hon. Friend not think that that is unfair?
    Mr. Brooke: I am sorry that I did not have the chance of meeting my hon. Friend on this occasion as I have done in previous years. On his specific question, the duty on Avgas was reduced to half the duty on petrol in 1982, and there is no justification for a further reduction. Avgas is a high-lead petrol and many cars could run on it. The pump price of Avgas limits abuse. If the duty were removed there would be a serious risk of the diversion of Avgas to road fuel use and significant revenue loss.
    Mr. Duffy: Given that economic stability at home and constructive economic co-operation abroad are among the Budget's prime objectives, how does the Minister reconcile yesterday's G7 commitment to stable exchange rates with recent serious policy disagreements within the Treasury and at No. 10 about both interest rate and exchange rate policy?
    Mr. Brooke: Given the first half of the hon. Gentleman's question, he must have been very pleased by yesterday's announcement.
    Mr. Roger King: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a Budget, not for the rich people of this country, but for the 25 million people engaged in employment and producing the real wealth of this nation? Is it not the result of those people keeping more of their own money that indirectly leads to our creating more real wealth for use in our health services and social benefits programmes?
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to the fact that the Budget does not involve a giveaway. It involves less money being taken from taxpayers. My hon. Friend is also entirely right to say that it is the success of the whole economy that has contributed to our present prosperity.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Is the Minister aware of the widespread resentment at the Chancellor's rates bill for his mansion at Dorneywood in Buckinghamshire? That bill will fall from £6,400 to a mere £400 for the Chancellor and his wife when the poll tax is introduced. That sort of unfair taxation has caused widespread resentment.
    Mr. Brooke: Some of the difficulties that the Opposition are experiencing at the moment may arise from the fact that that question has absolutely nothing to do with the original one.
    Mr. Gow: So that the Labour party may make a proper international comparison, can my hon. Friend confirm that the top rate of income tax in the Soviet Union is 41 per cent.?
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend has always been a man of the widest possible information, and I am delighted that he has added to mine.
    Mr. John Smith: Bearing in mind that the Minister has other political responsibilities as well as his duties at the Treasury, can he estimate how much the Conservative party will gain and how much the Revenue will lose as a result of the proposal in the Budget to remove inheritance tax completely from all donations to political parties?
    Mr. Brooke: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right to draw attention to the fact that I have separate responsibilities. The office of Paymaster General is quite separate from the Treasury. In neither capacity, however, do I propose to crystal gaze on the question that the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend reconsider the matter of Avgas in view of the experience with other fuels, namely that by changing the colour of the fuel one can ensure that it is not used improperly? Does my hon. Friend agree that that method is better than using taxation for the same purpose?
    Mr. Brooke: I will treat my hon. Friend's question as a very early representation for next year's Budget.

    Personal Incomes
    Mr. Galbraith: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the weekly gain for a single person earning £50,000 a year from his Budget tax changes.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: Just under £80 for an individual with no reliefs other than the single person's allowance.
    Mr. Galbraith: Does the Minister agree that it would have been better to give that money to the pensioners, who have received nothing from the Budget? What has the Minister to say to the pensioner from my constituency, who has travelled here today, whose total income from a state pension and a British Rail pension is £60 per week and who received nothing from the Budget, but last Monday lost £8 as a result of housing benefit cuts? When will the Government stop taking from the poor and giving to the rich?
    Mr. Lamont: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not the custom to announce pension increases at the time of the Budget. That will be done at the time of the Autumn Statement. A single person with an income of £60 per week will be paying tax and will benefit from the Budget. The contribution made by the cuts in tax rates is that they will continue the economic growth that has enabled us to increase the total pensions and social security bills by very considerable amounts.
    Mr. David Shaw: How does my hon. Friend account for the fact that when higher rates of taxation reached a maximum of 83 per cent. under the Labour Government they raised only £800 million, whereas today, when the

    333
    highest rate is 60 per cent., £3,800 million is raised? Does this not show the logic of reducing, and continuing to reduce, higher rates of taxation?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend makes a very good point.
    He and the Opposition may be interested to know that in 1978–79 the taxpayers on higher rates produced 19 per cent. of tax revenue, whereas the figure for this year is 30 per cent. We have thus demonstrated that it is possible to cut rates and increase revenue, as my hon. Friend has pointed out on this and other occasions.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Minister confirm that as a result of the Finance Bill published today £800 million will be given in tax handouts to the very small minority of people with earnings in excess of £100,000 per year? Will he also confirm that for the same amount of money no pensioner need suffer a cut in housing benefit, no family need suffer a freeze in child benefit and no one at all need feel compelled to beg or borrow from the state charity that has been set up in the form of the social fund? Does he accept that in all sections of the community there is deep revulsion against the two-nation Toryism which he now represents and which has produced the most unjust, the most unfair and the most socially divisive Finance Bill this century?
    Mr. Lamont: I do not see anything "two-nation" about 70 per cent—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should listen to what I have to say. Seventy per cent. of the cost of the Budget is going on basic rate cuts and increases in personal allowances. I also see nothing "two-nation" about 23 million people benefiting from the basic rate cut.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reductions in the higher rates of tax will encourage the internationally mobile either to stay in the United Kingdom or to come back to it? Does he agree also that the presence of leading surgeons and leading industrialists, and leaders in other areas, can only benefit Britain?
    Mr. Lamont: That is no doubt why cutting the higher rates in the past has increased revenue. My hon. Friend rightly emphasises that we need to attract inward investment, and we also need to attract the managers that go with those projects. That is just one of the reasons why the higher rate cuts are to the benefit of the whole economy.

    Departmental Votes (Transfers)
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements his Department has to vire money between one Department and another.
    Mr. Major: The Treasury has no power to vire money between Votes. That can be done only by the presentation of Supplementary Estimates.
    Mr. Allen: Will the Minister concede that the Treasury's monthly returns show an increase in spending in the last three or four months of the financial year which is due to Departments trying to spend up to their limits, and that if there were an effective viring system, transferring money from one Department to another, greater spending could take place on housing and social security?
    Mr. Major: There has for a long time been bunching in public expenditure, and not only at the end of the year. It
    334
    is precisely to deal with unexpected demands that we have a contingency reserve that is unallocated at the beginning of the year. This year, that was substantially used.
    Mr. Hanley: Will my right hon. Friend move more towards three-year funding arrangements for more Government Departments?
    Mr. Major: We agree a public expenditure settlement that spreads far further than one year.

    Balance of Payments
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the impact on the current account of the balance of payments of the basic and higher rate income tax cuts announced in the Budget.
    Mr. Turner: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the impact on the current account of the balance of payments of the basic and higher rate income tax cuts announced in the Budget.
    Mr. Lilley: The current account deficit is forecast to remain below I per cent. of national income in 1988.
    Mr. McAllion: Is the Minister aware that the CBI trend survey for March suggested that manufactured imports would grow more than twice as fast as exports in 1988? If so, will he explain to the House why the Chancellor gave away billions of pounds in tax cuts to the rich in the same month? Does he not understand that, as well as being socially divisive and unjust, those tax cuts can only serve to damage the long-term economic interests of the nation? They will lead to the sucking in of even more imports and thereby worsen an already critical trade imbalance.
    Mr. Lilley: Our forecast for the balance of payments in the coming year is based on the tax cuts that were announced in the Budget. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that instead of running a surplus of £3 billion we should run a surplus of £7 billion. We are running a surplus on public account, and he believes that that has some impact on the balance of payments. So far, our track record in forecasting the economy is much better than that of most outside bodies. Of course, there is a degree of uncertainty about it, but we believe that that is the best estimate that can be made.
    Mr. Turner: Is it not right that, on the Government's own estimates, we are facing in the current year a deficit of £4 billion, that, even worse, in the first two months there is a deficit of £1·6 billion, and that tax cuts will only suck in more imports? Why can the Government not recognise that the Budget was no good for the poor or for the economy?
    Mr. Lilley: The deficit forecast for the coming year is, at less than 1 per cent. of GDP, a fraction of the deficits that were run by the previous Labour Government. It is clearly easily manageable. I repeat the point that I made earlier. If the hon. Gentleman is against any tax reductions in the Budget, he is presumably in favour of running an even larger surplus, which is the exact opposite of the Labour party's policy at the time of the election.
    Sir William Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that the small balance of payments deficit that we are facing is easily contained in the huge reserves that Britain now has, compared with the overall deficit of the previous Labour Government? Since 1979 this Government have had a £20 billion surplus on the balance of payments.
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is quite correct. As a country, not only do we have large official reserves, but we have large net assets overseas amounting to some $90 billion. That puts us in a much stronger position than we were under the last Labour Government.
    Mr. McCrindle: In view of the sizeable increase in net disposable income which will derive from the Budget tax cuts, and the possibility that some of that spending will be on imported goods, will my hon. Friend pay some attention to the possible effect on our balance of payments of such a move? In particular, will he reassure me that the whole business of control of credit is being given some attention at the Treasury, as to some of us it seems to be getting out of control?
    Mr. Lilley: The estimates and projections that we have made take into account the effect of tax deductions on expenditure. I can assure my hon. Friend that the growth that we forecast will be very balanced. We expect consumer expenditure to grow somewhat less rapidly in the coming year than it did in the last year—by some 4 per cent. By contrast, we expect business investment to grow at 9 per cent. per annum. We envisage very strongly investment-led growth in the coming year. Naturally, we keep an eye on credit, and we believe that credit growth is perfectly containable at the moment.
    Mr. John Smith: In view of the fact that the current account figures for the months so far this year have been very bad indeed, and that the deficit appears to be getting steadily worse, will the Minister tell the House clearly and precisely what is the Government's strategy for reducing the deficit in the balance of payments?
    Mr. Lilley: Clearly it is too early to come to conclusions on the basis of the first two months of the year, when there may well have been exceptional factors resulting from the introduction of the single administrative document. We never make changes in forecasts on the basis of the figures for one or two months. We believe that the sort of deficit we are forecasting is easily containable, and, as I pointed out, it is substantially smaller than that which the Labour Government seemed content to run.

    Personal Incomes
    Mr. McLeish: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the weekly gain of a single person earning £300,000 a year from his Budget tax changes.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: Just over £1,000 for an individual with no reliefs other than the single person's allowance.
    Mr. McLeish: Is it not ridiculous in the present day that that answer confirms the fact that an income tax saving of £1,037 per week will accrue to someone earning £300,000 a year? Was the Minister not in the House yesterday to hear the Secretary of State for Social Services describe his cuts for the poor as a charter for self-respect? In view of that, will he give an assurance to the House that the next Budget will be one-nation Budget whereby the poor get richer as an incentive, rather than being ground into the dust as they are at present?
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman concentrates on an extraordinarily small proportion of the tax-paying public, and a very small part of the cost of the higher rate reductions,. Even of the higher rate reductions, 60 per cent. of the gainers are earning less than £40,000, which
    336
    shows, incidentally, that the point made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) was wholly wrong arithmetically.
    Mr. Boswell: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House exactly how many taxpayers are in that position, and by how much the basic rate of tax for the rest of us could have been reduced if their gain had been taken away entirely?
    Mr. Lamont: It certainly would not have enabled any reduction in the basic rate for the rest of us.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is it not clear that the large majority of ordinary taxpayers will be paying tax at 25 per cent. and national insurance contributions at 9 per cent.—a total of 34 per cent. and the higher taxpayers in the land will be paying only 40 per cent.? Therefore, the difference between the people at the bottom and the people at the top paying tax is only 6 per cent. It is not clear that we are now coming to the end of progressive taxation, which has been embraced by every Administration this century until this one?
    Mr. Lamont: No. It would be quite wrong to say that the tax system was still not progressive. I point out to Opposition Members that a person on five times average earning will still be paying 10 times the amount of tax of a person on average earnings.

    Income Tax
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to what will be the higher rates of income tax in each of the major industrial countries in 1988–89.
    Mr. Sackville: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has about the higher rates of income tax in each of the major industrial countries in 1988–89.
    Mr. Major: The higher rate of income tax in the United Kingdom is now one of the lowest of any major industrial country. I shall arrange for the relevant information to be placed in the Official Report.
    Mr. Taylor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. Does it not prove that as a result of the Budget Britain is one of the most attractive countries internationally? Will it not lead to an increased number of industries moving into this country, providing more jobs and thus increasing the amount of revenue coming to the Exchequer, for the benefit of all citizens?
    Mr. Major: We certainly hope and expect that there will be an increased flow of inward investment. However, there has been a substantial amount of inward investment in recent years. There was £6·1billion in 1987 alone, the largest figure ever recorded, and £2·6million in Scotland alone over the past few years.
    Mr. Sackville: Does my right hon. Friend agree that penal rates of taxation damage the economy as a whole and help no section of society? Does he further accept that there may be no economic justification for any level of income tax higher than the basic rate?
    Mr. Major: I am certainly prepared to agree with my hon. Friend on the subject of penal taxation. The subject of a single rate of taxation might be a matter for another day. However, I recall that Mr. Disraeli once proposed the abolition of taxation in an election manifesto and lost.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: In view of the proposals for capital taxation, why does the Government's philosophy of easing dependence apply to those who seek social security but not to those who benefit from inherited wealth? Can the Minister offer a scrap of evidence that the sons or daughters of those who benefit from unearned income will use that for the greater good? Why should they be dependent? Why should the enterprise ethic apply purely to the poorest of the poor?
    Mr. Major: I am not entirely sure that the hon. Gentleman's question follows from the specific question on the Order Paper. In any event, I think that his premise is wholly mistaken.
    Dr. Reid: Do not the Minister's answers represent two-nation Toryism at its worst? Does he recall the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) that a single person earning over £300,000 a year will benefit by £1,000 a week? Will he contrast that with the admission made yesterday by the Prime Minister that a single person earning less than £50 a week will be £7·80 a week worse off after the social security cuts? Does that not represent two nations, or are they both part of the same big happy family?
    Mr. Major: Perhaps I might remind the hon. Gentleman that before any tax cuts were contemplated in the Budget an extra £2,000 million was allocated to social security expenditure for the forthcoming year. On the matter of higher and lower rates of tax, I must say that high taxes do not redistribute income; all they do is redistribute it to taxpayers and that is of no use to anyone.
    Following is the information:

    Higher rates of income tax (percentage) for a married couple without children Group of Seven countries

    Country

    Top rates(s)

    Total number of rate-bands

    Canada

    39

    3

    43·5

    France

    49

    53·9

    13

    56·8

    Germany

    56

    n/a

    Italy

    53

    58

    9

    62

    Japan

    65

    72

    12

    78

    United Kingdom

    40

    2

    USA

    34·7

    2

    Notes to figures in table:

    1. The rates relate to employment income; it is assumed that this is all earned by the husband.

    2. The figures reflect the latest enacted rates, as far as is known.

    3. The figures for Canada include provisional taxes at the rate for Ontario; those for Japan include local taxes at the typical rate; those for the USA include State taxes at the Californian rate.

    4. The German income tax system does not have rate bands as such. Rates rise gradually from the starting rate of 22 per cent. until the top rate of 56 per cent. is reached.

    Married Couples (Taxation)
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received since the Budget about his proposals for separate taxation of married couples.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: My right hon. Friend's proposals have been widely welcomed.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Will the proposals end the iniquitous tax on marriage and ensure that a married couple pay no more tax than two single people? Will it also stop the taxation of a wife's savings income at her husband's marginal rate of tax? If it will do those things, has my right hon. Friend received the congratulations of the Opposition Front Bench, or are the Opposition embarrassed about not having done that when they had the chance?
    Mr. Lamont: We have not received any representations from the Opposition on this matter. My hon. Friend is right. The significance of this change is that it ends a 180-year anomaly whereby a married woman's income is aggregated with that of her husband and she does not fill in her own tax return. That is obviously wholly wrong and wholly inappropriate today.
    Ms. Armstrong: Will the Minister recognise that the only thing that this has done is ensure that women can fill in their own forms? As for gaining any benefit, that is much less likely. Will he confirm that it is still the Government's intention that what used to be the married man's allowance is, in effect, still going to be the married man's allowance because it will be paid to the husband irrespective of the wishes or the earnings of the wife?
    Mr. Lamont: On the second point, no, I do not accept that because, as the hon. Lady knows, since she participated in the debate on the Budget, it is possible for the husband to transfer the unused portion of the allowance to the wife. Secondly, when the hon. Lady says that it is far from certain that these changes will be of benefit to people, she is way off the mark: 1·6 million women will pay less tax. Half of those are elderly people, and 165,000 elderly couples will be taken out of tax completely. I do not call that a rather marginal change. I think that it is a major change.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my hon. Friend give some attention to the proposal whereby the basic tax allowance for a mother could be transferred, in the case of a non-working mother, to the husband, as an encouragement to those mothers who stay at home to look after their children?
    Mr. Lamont: I shall look at the point that my hon. Friend makes, but I think that I have partly answered that in the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong). In most cases what we propose via the transfer will ensure the right result and that the allowances are used in the way that most benefits the married couple.
    Dr. Marek: Can the Minister tell the House how many super-rich couples will benefit as a result of these proposals and by how much per week, in cash terms, on their unearned income, if they arrange their tax affairs to the best of their ability?
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman, like the Opposition in general, is obsessed by the super-rich. The significance of this change is that 1·6million women will pay less tax.

    339
    The Opposition make the wrong assumption, namely, that the only people who have any savings are rich people, whereas all married women with savings who at the moment have their tax aggregated with their husband's will benefit very significantly from this reform

    Personal Incomes
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much in real terms he expects take-home pay for a married man, with two children, on average earnings to have risen between 1978–79 and 1988–89.
    Mr. Major: I expect his real take-home pay to have risen by 27½ per cent. between 1978–79 and 1988–89. This compares with about one half of 1 per cent. between 1973–74 and 1978–79.
    Mr. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the very welcome answer that he has given the House this afternoon shows that it is this Government who have a real commitment to helping ordinary families on ordinary incomes and to tackling family poverty? Further, will he tell the House how many people have been taken out of taxation altogether as a result of last month's Budget?
    Mr. Major: On the last point, 780,000 people who would otherwise have paid it have been taken out of tax as a result of the Budget. My hon. Friend is entirely right in that real take-home pay will be substantially up at all multiples of average earnings, whereas with the 1973 to 1979 position quite the reverse occurred.

    Economic Assistance (Leicester)
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take to assist the local economy in Leicester.
    Mr. Brooke: The Government's economic policy is creating the conditions for the economy to flourish in all parts of the country. For example, unemployment in the Leicester, East constituency has fallen by over 20 per cent. in the past year.
    Mr. Vaz: Does the Minister agree that one way in which the Government could positively affect the economy in Leicester would be by the Treasury releasing to the Department of the Environment the £30 million that has been stolen from the people of Leicester through cuts in the housing investment programme? Does he not accept that the expenditure of these resources would provide more jobs and more homes for people in Leicester?
    Mr. Brooke: I think that the economy of Leicester is doing very well indeed without the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Ashby: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the economy of Leicester is much improved as a result of the Budget? Has he seen the great welcome which has been given by the business men of Leicestershire to the Budget proposals? Is he aware that they say that it will increase the economic growth of the area?
    Mr. Brooke: I understand that that excellent newspaper, the Leicester Mercury, started its article on the morrow of the Budget with the words:
    "Reaction from Leicestershire's business community suggests that Lawson's tax-slashing Budget could be the key to job-creating growth."
    340
    To remain within the rules of order, Mr. Speaker, I should explain that the Lawson referred to is my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    Interest Rates
    Mr. Duffy: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the present level of interest rates.
    Mr. Lilley: Bank base rates are 8 per cent.
    Mr. Duffy: As exports and the balance of payments continue to attract concern, why has the Chancellor been so reluctant to ease interest rates? There can be few hon. Members on either side who have not received appeals from local industry in recent months.
    Mr. Lilley: Interest rates are at a level which keeps monetary policy bearing down on inflation. That is our first priority. But it is clear from the buoyancy of business and business intentions that investment intentions are strong. As I mentioned earlier, investment is projected to grow by 9 per cent. in the coming year and manufacturing investment by 11·5 per cent.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 April.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall have further meetings later today.
    Mrs. Ewing: How can the Prime Minister, in all conscience, sleep easily in her bed at night when she knows that thousands of poor, the elderly and the handicapped have lost as much as £20 per week as a result of the vicious changes in housing benefit legislation?
    The Prime Minister: Because on the whole our reforms have targeted help on the disabled and on low-income families, particularly those who have low pay. There have been changes in housing benefit, as the hon. Lady is aware, with a capital limit of some £6,000. Even so, the amount spent on housing benefit by the people will still be more in real terms than in 1979. We shall still be in the position where every two households have not only to keep themselves but have to contribute to keeping every third household.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is it not a true description of the function of the Prime Minister not to do the job of departmental Ministers but so to guide Government policy that the financial and economic strains in it lead to the greatest possible wealth creation, which the departmental Ministers can then distribute?
    The Prime Minister: I would not leave all the wealth creation for departmental Ministers to distribute. We would not get wealth creation unless people were able to keep a bigger proportion of their earnings. That is the engine of wealth creation. It is the reason why we have a higher standard of living than ever before. It is the reason why now departmental Ministers, especially those

    341
    involved with social security, are spending a bigger proportion on social security than ever before and a bigger proportion of the national income.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister now agree that the flat-rate poll tax should be replaced by a system which is more closely related to people's ability to pay?
    The Prime Minister: The community charge takes into account people's ability to pay.—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman of course will be aware that those on income support receive an average payment to pay the 20 per cent. which they would otherwise have to pay out of their income. Above that, there is a rebate from 80 per cent. Taking those two things together, it means between 7 and 8 million people do not pay the full community charge because of rebates.
    Mr. Kinnock: Yes, or no.
    The Prime Minister: I have given the right hon. Gentleman a much better answer than that.
    Mr. Kinnock: For once, the Prime Minister could give a much better answer, which would be of interest to me and to my hon. Friends, and I am sure to her mates, too.
    The Prime Minister: May I make three quick points just to try to get it across to the right hon. Gentleman. The first one is this. In England the community charge meets only a quarter of local authority expenditure. Between 7 million and 8 million people will not have to pay the community charge in full, because of rebates or extra income support. Finally, 10 per cent. of households with the highest income will pay 15 times as much towards the cost of local services as the 10 per cent. of households with the lowest incomes.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread interest in this House and in the country in the meeting which she had yesterday with Mother Teresa of Calcutta? After meeting this very remarkable woman, does she agree with Mother Teresa's assertion that the poorest nations on earth are those that substitute the violence of abortion on demand for love and practical help? Will my right hon. Friend therefore ensure that the amended Bill before the House at the moment, which had a substantial majority on Second Reading and which has passed its Committee stage after reasonable debate and amendment, will have a fair run, and will not be baulked, and that the nation, where we have a majority on this issue, will not be baulked either?
    The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend is aware, every person in this House has the greatest respect and affection for Mother Teresa and for the work that she does. Even though we might disagree with her on one or two things, we still admire and respect her views. My right hon. Friend is very persuasive, but he knows the position with regard to private Members' time. The Government do not give time for private Members' Bills. Private Members are able to take advantage of every procedure with regard to Committees, which is known to them in full.
    Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Illsley: What message does the Prime Minister have for more than 3,000 school children in Barnsley who have lost their entitlement to free school meals as a result of her Government's means-test mentality, which has brought about the recent social security reforms?
    The Prime Minister: This is taken into account in the cash benefits which are available. However much the hon. Gentleman may try to denigrate them, the economic policy of this Government has led to higher payments on social security, at a time of falling unemployment, than ever before. They are levels that the Labour party could not have dreamt of: £46 billion, including £2 billion extra, an amount which means that working people—the working family—have to pay an average of £64 a week to keep social security going now; £32 a week to keep the National Health Service going, and a further £25 a week to keep education going.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when Governments of the past declared war on poverty, poverty always won because of a declining economy and a benefit system that was highly complicated and full of anomalies? Having put the economy right, will my right hon. Friend press on with the difficult but essential task of re-establishing the original aims of the welfare state, which were self-help where possible and accurate targeting of benefits for those who could not help themselves?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Public services can flourish only if we have a flourishing private sector. The private sector creates the necessary wealth to run the social services and to raise the standard of living. We should congratulate all working people on the excellent way in which they are responding and creating that wealth, and on the excellent way in which, after the reforms, it is targeted on those in greatest need—in other words, the disabled and families with children, particularly those on low incomes.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Taylor: What advice does the Prime Minister give to the many sensible councils of all party political persuasions which have been hit by the proposed restrictions on barter deals? Some are run by the Conservative party. Carrick district council, for example, has plans for Truro city hall, and Restormel borough council has plans for St. Austell centre. Both are low-spending councils.
    The Prime Minister: We have had to make changes in the capital position of councils because, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, too much creative accounting was going on and getting round some of the existing rules. That is why we had to take steps to change the position.
    Mr. Wells: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the great benefits of the social security changes which have just been introduced is that they discourage young people from choosing to escape the authority of their parents by leaving home and living on social security benefits and not genuinely seeking work?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, social security is meant for those who need help because they genuinely cannot find work, are sick, or are too old to

    343
    work. We know some parents who have been worried that their young people have left home and gone on to the dole to have a flat when the parents felt that the young people could take a job.
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Welsh: Is the Prime Minister aware of the great concern felt by industry, commerce, trade unions, academics and other important groups on Tayside about any possible threatened closure of Dundee university dental school? It cannot make economic sense to spend millions of pounds on a new building elsewhere—[Interruption.]—and to threaten an existing efficient organisation and, consequently, Dundee dental hospital, as well as to impair the whole future of the university. [Interruption.] Will she lend her help to those groups on Tayside who are trying to save those important assets for the region?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to let me have notice of the question that he intended to ask. Otherwise, I could not have heard what it was. The working party of the University Grants Committee—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman may be allowed to hear my reply as he asked a specific question. The working party of the UGC has recommended, among the measures, the withdrawal of the funding of the dental school at Dundee university. It is for the UGC to decide whether to accept and implement the working party's recommendation. However, the committee has consulted the universities, professional bodies and the Government Departments concerned so that all the implications for local dental services can be taken into account before a decision is reached. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Despite the firm and clear assurances at the recent European Council meeting, the
    344
    Brussels arrangements announced yesterday are that £225 million is to be spent every week this year on dumping and destroying food surpluses. Will the Prime Minister be willing to put up a fight in view of this breach of promise and this scandalous abuse of public money, which does massive damage to the Third world and which is an insult to every poor person in Europe?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend asks a complicated question, which could take a long time to answer. As he knows, surpluses and selling them off also damage the Third world as they affect agricultural economies. That is why we tried to do two things in the last Council meeting. We tried to reduce the increase in agricultural production—in some cases, by the price mechanism—and tried at the same time to write off the surpluses that are at present in store, as we hoped, that that would reduce the amount in store. We want to dispose of the surpluses as quickly as possible, preferably by 1992. When we get there, I am sure that my hon. Friend will approve of the policy decisions that we have taken.
    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Sheerman: In this week, of all weeks, when so many people have been made poorer, when the poorest have been made even poorer still, how can the Prime Minister justify spending £300 per head on a business man's breakfast to launch the campaign for the inner cities?
    The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the premise behind the hon. Gentleman's question. This week, in cash terms, there will be 5 million gainers from the social security reforms, 2 million people will not face a change in cash terms and there will be a decrease for less than 1 million people. As I stated earlier, we are doing as much as we can to help the inner cities. What the hon. Gentleman is really complaining about is that we are succeeding in presenting our policy properly.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
Mr. Speaker: Before the Leader of the House does that, the House will be aware that I attempt to call as many Back-Bench Members as possible to ask a business question. However, I am bound to have regard to the business already set down on a Thursday and also to the purpose of business questions, which is not so that hon. Members can make the speech that they hope to make on the subject of their choice, nor to obtain an instant ministerial reply, but to ask for a debate and to state briefly why it should be granted. To enable me to continue to be generous in calling supplementary questions to business questions, I ask Back-Benchers to confine themselves to one question each, and not to make speeches.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 18 APRIL, TUESDAY 19 APRIL, WEDNESDAY 20 APRIL, THURSDAY 21 APRIL—Progress on remaining stages of the Local Government Finance Bill (1st to 4th Allotted Days).
At the end of Tuesday, Ways and Means resolution relating to the Local Government Finance Bill, followed by motion relating to the Standard and Collective Charges (Scotland) Regulations.
At the end on Wednesday, motion relating to the Personal Community Charge (Students) (Scotland) Regulations.

FRIDAY 22 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY 25 APRIL—Completion of remaining stages of the Local Government Finance Bill (5th Allotted Day).

Mr. Dobson: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement and welcome the Government's decision to provide a record fifth day on the Floor of the House for the Report stage and Third Reading of the poll tax Bill.
In view of the rapidly changing international situation, are we likely to have a debate on foreign affairs?
In view of the importance attached in recent ministerial statements to the setting up of the Independent Living Fund to assist the most severely disabled people affected by the social security changes, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when there will be a statement on its work, and whether its staff will exceed the one civil servant who is at present in post?
When will the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs be established? I remind the right hon. Gentleman that on 13 January he told the House that his hon. Friends who represent seats outside Scotland were perfectly entitled to serve on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. When are they going to do just that?
Finally, the Leader of the House will recall that we asked for consideration of the abolition of the Inner London education authority to be deferred pending the outcome of the parents' ballot, the Government having no mandate at the election for the abolition of ILEA. What they did have a mandate for—I quote from the Tory election manifesto—was to "increase parental choice." As 94 per cent. of the parents of inner London have indicated
346
that they want to save the Inner London education authority, does the right hon. Gentleman propose to have a further debate on the matter or, better still, to bring back that part of the Bill?
Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said about providing extra time for the Local Government Finance Bill. As he said, we have five days. It is important that this measure be properly debated before it goes to the House of Lords.
I recognise the fast-moving international situation and the need for a foreign affairs debate in the not-too-distant future; and I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said to me a minute ago.
We have spent a fair amount of time on social security recently. The hon. Gentleman, however, raised a question about the Independent Living Fund. I will refer it to the Secretary of State for Social Services and, if he feels it appropriate, I have no doubt that he will make a statement.
I am sorry that attempts to set up the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs have taken an enormous time and yet we have achieved nothing. I recognise that this causes some frustration in some quarters. The matter is with the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, and, no doubt, the Committee is considering how best to proceed. There is nothing I can do while the matter is with the Committee.
I also recognise the hon. Gentleman's particular interest in the Inner London education authority, but would remind him that the Education Reform Bill is now in another place. I have no doubt that we will be getting back to the subject in due course, but I do not think that it is appropriate to come back to it at present.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: As a number of aspects of the conduct of the business of the House need to be considered in parallel with the work of the Select Committee on televising our proceedings, when may we expect to see the Select Committee on Procedure established?
Mr. Wakeham: We have certainly had a number of discussions, and I hope that it will be possible to re-establish the Select Committee on Procedure very shortly.
Mr. A. J. Beith: May we have a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer next week on the meetings that he has been attending in Washington, where he seems to have espoused a doctrine of exchange rate stability which is not supported by the Prime Minister?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman wants to be careful if he puts provocative remarks to me, because I do not believe them to be true; however, I will refer his request to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on his return, and he will decide how best to proceed.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: In view of the very welcome statement last night that the new system of social security payments would be carefully monitored, will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for Social Services to give a detailed statement to the House next week explaining precisely how?
Mr. Wakeham: I thought that I heard my hon. Friend the Minister of State, in replying to the debate, say that he thought that the new scheme should settle down and that

347
we should then look at it and decide whether changes were necessary. Overnight is rather a short time in which to have a considered view of how it is working.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement next week, in advance of the votes on the poll tax Bill, to explain which Government Department has commissioned Gallup to send people scurrying around my constituency this week telling lies about the amount of poll tax to be paid in Birmingham by using the figure of £186 instead of £249? When asked, the interviewers said to my constituents, "Unofficially, it's a Government matter."
Mr. Wakeham: I will look into that for the hon. Gentleman. When Gallup interviewers go around my constituents, they ask questions, not answer them.
Mr. Robert McCrindle: Are we anywhere near receiving a statement from the Home Secretary on the vexed question of the cost of television licences for elderly persons and the anomalies which have become evident in the present scheme in relation to sheltered accommodation? Does my right hon. Friend accept that there are few items which cause greater distress to elderly people than the seeming contradiction of the operation of this scheme?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that this is a very important matter, and also recognise my hon. Friend's concern about it. There are no immediate plans for the Home Secretary to make a statement on it, but I will certainly refer my hon. Friend's concern to him.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Inasmuch as the stock exchange surveillance department submitted a report to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry six weeks ago identifying between eight and 12 persons who were involved in criminal acts of insider dealing in the shares of Matthew Brown when it was taken over by Scottish and Newcastle Breweries, and inasmuch as that report is on the Secretary of State's desk with no action being taken, may we have a statement to the House as to why the Government are dragging their feet over the prosecution of criminals?
Mr. Wakeham: I have not seen the report, I do not know what it contains and I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has seen it. I shall refer the matter to my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. and noble Friend will take every action appropriate in the circumstances.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: In view of the growing public concern about air safety arising from congestion in the south-eastern airports and the importance of air traffic to the development of the regions, does my right hon. Friend consider that a debate on this important subject is due?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that this is an important subject, and that when incidents occur they cause concern. The A accidents Investigation Branch is investigating the circumstances of the recent incident and it would be too soon to say what the outcome of the investigation may be. I recognise the need for a debate on these matters from time to time, and I shall see what can be done, but I cannot promise anything in the immediate future.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Leader of the House aware of a report that has been published today by the director of social services in London, which shows a serious crisis, including a huge turnover of staff, 4,000 vacancies for social workers in. London and a shortage of occupational therapists and speech therapists? Given the fact that those problems are widely shared throughout the United Kingdom—they are not helped by the crisis in the National Health Service or the social security changes—does the Leader of the House agree that there is an urgent need for a debate?
Mr. Wakeham: As the hon. Gentleman said, the report has been published today. The first thing to do is to read and study it and decide how best to proceed from there.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will the Leader of the House set aside time for a debate on the workings of the Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951, which repealed the Witchcraft Act 1735? It is common knowledge in the House that many people have been charged with and convicted of offences against children involved in witchcraft initiation ceremonies. We need a chance to discuss the working of witchcraft and how it can be controlled in this country. [Laughter.] People laughed when I spoke nine years ago about child abuse. Those people are now listening, and I am warning the House that witchcraft is sweeping the country.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is in Downing street.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a serious question.
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is quite right to pursue matters that he considers important and to bring them before the House. I wish that I could arrange time for a debate next week on the subject, but I am afraid that I cannot. Perhaps my hon. Friend will try his luck at an Adjournment debate in the near future.
Ms. Clare Short: I welcome what the Leader of the House said about the urgency of a foreign affairs debate, but I press him hard about the brutality of the Israeli army in the occupied territories., with the terrible violence and killing and beating of men, women and children that is taking place, so that the Government will press for an international conference at which there could be a settlement about the middle east on the basis of a Palestinian state and an Israeli state standing side by side.
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Lady will know of the initiatives and pressure that the Government have beer trying to bring to bear to reach a settlement in the middle east. What the hon. Lady says is controversial in some: quarters, but nevertheless it is part of the serious middle: east position and it adds to the strength of the case for a foreign affairs debate as soon as one can be arranged.
Mr. Michael Latham: Before we have a foreign affairs debate, would it not be sensible to consider whether it is wise to wander all around the world in one debate discussing large areas in which we have no control and precious little interest? Would it not be better to target the debate on a particular area? Why not the middle east, as the hon. Lady suggested?
Mr. Wakeham: I shall certainly take note of what my hon. Friend says.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Pursuant to the issue of witchcraft, the Leader of the House will have been pleased to note that Mr. Speaker has given me an Adjournment debate on Friday on the conduct of the Prime Minister's private office. In view of early-day motions 228, 253, 272, 273, 286, 622 and 627, which Minister is in a position to answer?
[That this House notes in the book, Campaign, by Rodney Tyler, the Selling of the Prime Minister: from behind the doors of Downing Street and Conservative Central Office—A unique inside account of the Battle for Power that the author on page 1, chapter 1, paragraph 1, sentence 1, states 'It was an extraordinary turnaround in fortunes from the moment on 27th January 1986 when Mrs. Thatcher secretly confided to a close associate that she might have to resign …' and on page 3 that 'On the eve of the crucial Westland debate she herself shakey enough to doubt her future' though some around her later sought to dismiss this as late evening anxieties of the sort that had disappeared the following morning). It is certainly true that if Leon Brittan had chosen to, he could have brought her to the brink of downfall, by naming the real culprits inside Number 10. Instead, he chose to remain silent', and calls on the Prime Minister to give a full account of what transpired between 3rd January and 27th January 1986, at Number 10 Downing Street, in relation to the selectively leaked Law Office's letter concerning the Westland Affair.]
[That this House notes that the Member for Aldershot on page 136 of his book Heseltine: the unauthorised Biography, states in relation to the Westland Affair that 'John Wakeham issued an order of the day which contained the trite, if effective message, that it was time for all good men to come to the aid of the party. We did and calls on the Leader of the House, The Right Honourable Member for South Colchester and Maldon, to explain when he first knew the role of the then Trade and Industry Secretary, The Right Honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, in the matter of the disclosure of a selectively leaked Law Officer's letter.]
[That this House notes that in his book Mrs. Thatcher's Revolution, published this week by Jonathan Cape and Co., Mr. Peter Jenkins writes, on page 200 'Brittan himself refused to enlighten the Select Committee on any point of substance. However, he is reputed to have told close friends subsequently that not only has she known perfectly well what had happened but that, on the day following the leak, had expressed her satisfaction to him at the way things had been handled. However at that time, the downfall of Heseltine had not been achieved.…He (Mr. Brittan) might point the finger at her (Mrs. Thatcher). Potentially he now had the power to destroy her'; and calls on the Prime Minister to give the House a full account of her conversations with the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Right Honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, over the period from 3rd January and 27th January 1986, in relation to the selectively leaked Law Officer's letter concerning the Westland Affair.]
[That this House notes that in The Thatcher Years—A decade of Revolution in British Politics, published by BBC Books, Mr. John Cole, on page 170, considering the selectively leaked Law Officer's letter in the Westland Affair, writes 'why did he (Sir Robert Armstrong) not give her a quick interim report when he discovered that the leak was an inside job, authorised by her office? Why did Leon Brittan not tell her? Or the private secretary concerned? Or
350
his chief, who site in the same room? Or her press secretary? And why did she never ask?; and calls on the Prime Minister to inform the House of the answers to these questions.]
[That this House notes that, in the book 'Not with Honour—The Inside Story of the Westland Scandal', on page 142, Magnus Linklater and David Leigh write that 'Instead, following Havers's complaint, she spoke privately to Brittan about the leak. Although this is something the Prime Minister has failed to disclose, to widespread disbelief, the evidence comes from an authoritative source, who told us: "The Prime Minister knew about the leak. She was pleased it had been done. There was a meeting between Brittan and her after the complaint from Mayhew. Only the two of them were present…Brittan assumed she knew of [the leak's] origins. You must draw your own conclusions." One of Brittan's friends adds, "Nobody thought it was a problem. The complaints were out of the public domain and any inquiry was expected to be a formality. Leon wasn't worried at all about it."; and calls on the Prime Minister to give a full account to the House of the meeting between herself and Right honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, referred to therein.]
[That this House notes that in an article by Mr. Paul Foot in the Daily Mirror, dated 28th January, a Ministry of Defence official, Mr. Paul Newbigin, is quoted as having admitted witnessing the shredding and incinerating of the log book of HMS 'Conqueror'; is concerned that if this statement is true, the Ministry of Defence is guilty of having established an entirely bogus investigation into the disappearance of the log book when the facts of its deliberate destruction were already known; further notes the parallel between this case and that of the leaked Solicitor General's letter in the Westland Affair, when a similar investigation was launched despite the availability in advance of all the salient facts; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Defence to set up an immediate inquiry with the genuine purpose of furnishing Parliament with a full explanation of this bizarre series of events.]
[That this House calls for a debate on the conduct of honourable and right honourable Members of the House, considering the position of back bench members who resort to unparliamentary language and Heads of Government who misuse Law Officer's letters and then display lack of conduct about what they have done.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman support my letter to the Prime Minister, which states that on this occasion only she can give an authoritative answer? Would she, therefore, be prepared to come to the House herself?
Will the Leader of the House also explain on what point of law and at what cost the Government took the decision to insult the Scottish Appeal Court and appeal to the House of Lords in relation to Cavendish?
Mr. Wakeham: I have a suspicion that if I were to attempt to answer the hon. Gentleman—I have no intention of doing so—I would stray wider than you wanted, Mr. Speaker, from the business for next week, which includes, as the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, an Adjournment debate on Friday, in which he will doubtless speak and in which a competent Minister will give him an adequate answer—but I doubt very much whether it will be the Prime Minister.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. For the sake of accuracy, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) should know that he was successful in the ballot; I did not "give him" an Adjournment debate.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: When may we expect a statement on the Government's response to the unilateral changes made by the Parliament of the Irish Republic to the extradition arrangements between our two countries?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot give my hon. Friend the answer, but I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Mr. Greville Janner: Will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary for a statement on the allegation in today's Independent that the Government have now accepted that DNA blood testing is indisputable proof of people's parentage? People such as Jack Tar Singh in my constituency, therefore, were clearly wrongly refused entry to the country and kept away from their families, and the Government behaved disgracefully in that respect.
Can this statement also include an explanation of how it can apparently happen that a convicted terrorist is allowed to live in this country while decent, honourable people, who are entitled to live here, are kept out?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. and learned Gentleman has raised two separate points, both of which relate to the Department of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I do not think I can give him a detailed answer, but I shall refer his points to my right hon. Friend.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members will not be tempted to raise two points, in view of what I have said today.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: On the subject of a bit of French witchcraft, will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on the proposition from President Mitterrand, as reported in today's press, that the Channel tunnel should be called after a French gentleman named Jean Monet? Will my right hon. Friend organise an early fight back on behalf of English names and a competition to that end? As a first entry, and in memory of those who are good at digging themselves into holes, how about the "Dave Nellist Channel tunnel"?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes a helpful suggestion, but there is nothing that I can usefully say on that subject at the moment. However, I shall refer it to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: The visit of Mother Teresa to the Prime Minister was mentioned earlier. Will it be possible to have a debate on the plight of the homeless, particularly those in London? Mother Teresa said that she was deeply moved that so many people had only a cardboard box for a bed. Surely we should have an opportunity to discuss this important matter?
Mr. Wakeham: There is a Bill going through the House which relates to housing matters. It is highly relevant to this matter, and I cannot promise a separate debate in the immediate future, however important the subject is.
Mr. John Stokes: In view of the unsatisfactory state of affairs over the hijacking in Algiers, and the unwelcome news that the terrorist Proll will soon be entering the country, may we have a debate on how to combat international terrorism?
Mr. Wakeham: This is an important subject and one on which I should like to have a debate, but I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate in the immediate future.
Mr. David Clelland: Will the Leader of the House ensure that sufficient time is set aside during the debate on the poll tax to discuss the importance of the Government amendment affecting the finance of local transport? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this amendment threatens further to disrupt transport in the metropolitan areas, especially in Tyne and Wear, which had a transport system that was the envy of the world until the Government began interfering with it?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that I can be faulted for having provided five days for discussion on the Local Government Finance Bill, which by any standards is pretty generous. The selection of amendments and decisions on how the debate is conducted are not matters for me.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Can my right hon. Friend find a way for the House to discuss the important decisions being taken in Washington this week, in which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is taking part? The international monetary system crucially affects our domestic economy, and it is necessary for us, soon after he returns, to discuss the issues which my right hon. Friend has been addressing in Washington.
Mr. Wakeham: I have agreed that I shall refer this matter to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. The Finance Bill was published today and the Second Reading will enable some of those matters to be discussed. I recognise my hon. Friend's request, and shall refer it to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
Mr. David Winnick: Before we proceed to the Report stage of the poll tax Bill next Monday, will it be possible to have a debate on whether there should be a referendum on this one subject, in view of the feelings in the country? Will the Leader of the House bear in mind also the possibility of having a secret ballot in the Cabinet? All the reports reveal that, without the involvement of the Chief Whip, there would probably be a majority in the Cabinet for dropping the poll tax.
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman's obsession with conspiracies is well known. I assure him that there is a united Cabinet—I was going to say, and a pretty united party—on this issue. We have plenty of time to discuss these matters, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will clarify any misunderstandings. I expect that the Bill will proceed very satisfactorily.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Since this is the fourth business questions in a row in which the Leader of the Opposition has done his disappearing act, will my right hon. Friend arrange through the usual channels for the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) to have a chance at the Dispatch Box, or perhaps the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)?
Mr. Wakeham: It is traditional for the Leader of the Opposition to ask for the business statement; that is a long-established practice. When he is not able to be here, he is always very courteous and tells me so, and I know that he has a lot on his plate at the moment. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) then stands in. I will not say that he does a better job than the Leader of the Opposition, but he has done a very adequate job.
Mr. Elliot Morley: Is the Leader of the House aware that some local authorities have been waiting for more than a year for a decision from the Home Office on the granting of concessionary television licences to new sheltered accommodation? In view of this delay, which is claimed because of a court case brought by the local authorities against the Home Office, should there not be a statement to the House by the Home Office on whether it will tell the local authorities when those licences will be granted?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot add anything to what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle). I recognise that there is concern about this matter in some areas, and I have promised to refer it to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend urgently consider having a debate on the control of gipsies and other travelling people? Many people in my constituency are frustrated that the law does not seem to enable them to move people on from unauthorised sites when they invade privacy. Will my right hon. Friend ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to reconsider the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to consider the provisions of the Public Order Act 1986?
Mr. Wakeham: Certainly, as a Member for an Essex constituency, I recognise that there are difficulties in the working of that legislation. I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate in the immediate future, but he may find an opportunity in an Adjournment debate to raise some of the issues. I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. Max Madden: As the vast majority of the people of Bradford, including large numbers of single and married pensioners, stand to lose under the poll tax, the Leader of the House will understand the interest in the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Hampshire, West, which offers some mitigation of the Bill's worst aspects. Can the Leader of the House say when the amendment is to be moved? Do the Government intend to accept it and, if not, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for special protection for the hon. Member for Hampshire, West and his supporters from the ravages of the Patronage Secretary and the Whips over the weekend?
Mr. Wakeham: The Member concerned is my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), but that is a minor point. The selection of amendments is not a matter for me; nor is the attitude that the Government will take to the amendment, which is a matter for the Minister responsible for the Bill. However, if I had a crystal ball, I would think it quite likely that the amendment, if selected, would be debated on Monday.
354
While I have no idea what view the Minister will take, having looked at the amendment myself I can see some fairly obvious defects in it.
Mr. David Martin: Will my right hon. Friend consider giving the House an early opportunity to debate the recent North report on the review of road traffic law, not least to reflect the public concern, which I share, about the inadequacy of penalties for drinking and driving and killing while so doing?
Mr. Wakeham: I am very concerned about this myself, as my hon. Friend will know, because I have some responsibilities for these matters within the Government. The Government are studying the report at the moment and we shall come forward with our conclusions on it, I hope fairly speedily. We can then consider whether we should have a debate.
Mr. Skinner: Will the Leader of the House invite the Secretary of State for Energy to make a statement about the importation of South African coal into Britain, which reduces the number of job opportunities throughout the coalfields in Scotland, England and Wales? Will the Leader of the House draw the attention of his right hon. Friend to the fact that the South African coal directors were due to come over to Britain and tell him that the House would call upon him and ask that neither he nor any of his Ministers meet those South African coal directors who will put further jobs in jeopardy—
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Too long.
Mr. Skinner: —and, far from the Government being involved in sanctions, they would be inviting more South African coal into Britain—coal that would have blood on it?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept very much of what the hon. Gentleman says, but I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. John Greenway: I welcome my right hon. Friend's earlier comments about the establishment of a Procedure Committee, but will he find time, in our busy schedule, for a debate on the conduct of the House? The country at large is deeply shocked and offended by recent events in the Chamber. Is it not time that we addressed this matter, as a House, before further dishonour is brought upon this place?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that there is concern and I share that concern. This is a matter that the Select Committee on Procedure, which I hope to establish soon, can consider, but whatever the penalties and whatever the arrangements made, they will not compensate for a lack of self-discipline and common sense on the part of hon. Members.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the reply that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) about an early debate on homelessness? Is it not clear that all those who saw Mother Teresa on television must have been moved by what she said about the London homeless sleeping in cardboard boxes and her equating that with what happens in India? Is it not a disgrace that in this great country of ours—a very rich country—we have people living in cardboard boxes at night? Is it not clear that the Government should arrange an early debate

355
so that we can discuss this matter—rather than leaving it to a Bill which will do nothing about the problem—and express our opinions on this vital question?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that this is an important issue, but I do not see any opportunity for a debate in Government time in the immediate future. It is a matter to which we can return when we have a further opportunity.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: Given the continued occupation by Turkish troops, for 14 years, of the Republic of Cyprus—a Commonwealth country for which we have specific treaty obligations—may we have a statement on the progress made last week during the visit to Turkey by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister towards a settlement in relation to the partition of the island?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise a statement on the matter, but I will certainly refer the point raised by my hon. Friend to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

Community Charge Registration (Strathclyde)
3.59 pm
Mr. Norman Buchan: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the community charge registration procedures at present being followed in Strathclyde region and this morning's court judgment in relation to it."
Against the background of the extremely complex tax that has been imposed and the equally complex registration form that has been put out, it is widely recognised that a great many questions have to be asked and I suspect that that is the reason for allowing 21 days for the form to be completed. In Strathclyde region, however, the registration officer has chosen to use a system in which canvassers leave cards calling for the form to be filled in for collection three days later.
A constituent phoned me last week in deep anxiety. His mother had a stroke some weeks ago and his stepfather is also ill. When he went to see them on Sunday, they were anxious about the form and he helped them to fill it in. As they did not know which of them would be the "responsible person", he properly assisted them, and the form was sent back on Sunday night. Monday was a holiday, but on Tuesday the canvasser returned with the form and the letter but with no answer to their question, although the form drew attention in note No. 1 to their right to ask such questions.
That kind of fear and harassment, as it is perceived, is happening throughout the Strathclyde region. A case was therefore taken to the sheriff court in Glasgow seeking an interim interdict. In her ruling—
Mr. Speaker: One minute more.
Mr. Buchan: In her ruling, the sheriff said that the collection cards had no legal basis whatever and, somewhat bizarrely, she was unable to grant an interdict because they had no statutory force.
For that reason, and because we have only 21 days, it is important that Parliament should pronounce, because for technical reasons a judge could not make a decision on the matter. The matter is specific because it affects not only my constituents but the constituents of every Member in Strathclyde region.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the community charge registration procedures at present being followed in Strathclyde region and this morning's court judgment in relation to it."
I have listened with interest and concern to what the hon. Gentleman has said on the matter. As he knows, my duty in considering whether to grant a Standing Order No. 20 debate is to decide whether it should receive precedence over the business set down, in this case for this evening. I regret that I cannot find the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Scottish Business (Selection)
4.1 pm
Mr. Donald Dewar: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am most grateful to you, and I am conscious of the pressure of business. I wish to raise two matters connected with the selection and calling of the Standing Committee which is to consider the School Boards (Scotland) Bill.
As you may know, Mr. Speaker, the Committee was selected yesterday and has 18 members. One slightly curious factor is that we welcome the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) to the consideration of Scottish business. I mention that merely in passing. The important point is that, under Standing Order No. 86(2)(i), the Committee must include 16 hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies. As in the past, that has been achieved by selecting nine Scottish Members from the Conservative Benches, six from the Labour Benches and one who I believe is a Liberal.
One of the Conservative Members is the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn), who is well known in the House but who, sadly, through circumstances entirely beyond his control, will be unable to take part in the business of the Committee at least for some considerable time. I should make it absolutely clear that I imply no possible fault on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman. None of us can cater for illness. Indeed, it is appropriate to wish the hon. and learned Gentleman a very speedy recovery. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] He is a long-standing friend of mine and very good value in the House, although his contributions are perhaps better appreciated by the Opposition than by his own party. We all wish him a speedy recovery.
It is extraordinary, however, that we are reduced to appointing to a highly sensitive and controversial Committee a Member who, at least for a considerable time, will be unable to take any part in its proceedings. I understand why this has happened. It is because there must be 16 Scottish members on the Committee. It is a comment on the Government's weakness in Scotland—a comment which is eloquent in itself and distressing in its implications.
I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, first, as to whether it is possible to direct the Committee of Selection or to amend the present selection in some way so that the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross can be taken off the Committee, which I am sure would be a relief to him, and some other Scottish Member could be added. I make no comment about which Member it should be, but it would be possible to find that 16th member from any one of four areas of the House—the Conservatives, the Labour party or one of the two smaller parties.
I do not wish to be partisan about that, but it is in the interests of the House that there should be 16 Scottish Members in a position to fulfil their duties on the Committee, which the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross clearly cannot. It is a mark of the totally unsatisfactory way in which Scottish business is being run that we have been put into this position.
The second point that I wish to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, is perhaps a technical one, but it has significant implications. The Second Reading of the School Boards (Scotland) Bill took place on Tuesday this week. The Committee of Selection met yesterday and some of the
358
Members appointed to the Committee on the Bill knew of their appointment only this morning, when they received their cards in the post. Unless Scottish Members stay down here on Friday especially for the purpose, which is unusual, they will have only one day in which to put down amendments for a Committee next Tuesday. I appreciate that there is no statutory rule about this, but it seems a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs on such an important Bill.
The final point on which I seek your help, Mr. Speaker, concerns the fact that hon. Members knew of their appointment to the Committee because they received a card summoning them to a meeting of the Committee next Tuesday. I have before me the card sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg). The card is timed 11 pm last night and I understand that my hon. Friend received it in the post this morning. I may be wrong, although I have made every proper inquiry that I can, but I believe that at the time when the cards were received no Chair had been appointed for the Committee. I understand it to be a rule of the House that it is the Chairman's prerogative to decide when the Committee first meets.
It seems to me, therefore, that the Committee was summoned—by whom, I know not—at a time when no Member had been appointed to the Chair, that the Committee was thus wrongly summoned and that the meeting called for Tuesday must therefore be incompetent. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule accordingly. If the cards were not validly issued. Tuesday's meeting cannot be validly called and I ask you to rule to that effect. In my view, if a Chair has since been appointed it would be quite wrong for new and perhaps valid cards to be issued now at such short notice for a meeting on Tuesday. I therefore ask for your protection, Mr. Speaker, and an assurance that the Committee will not meet on Tuesday.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) was kind enough to give me some knowledge of the points that he intended to raise, which has enabled me to look carefully into the matter.
As for the appointment of a Chairman to the Scottish Standing Committee, I understand that there was some difficulty in contacting another Member, which resulted in a delay in my making the formal appointment of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox). That has now been done, and the summoning of the first meeting has been validated. When that meeting should be is not a matter for me. I suggest that in the first instance that matter should be pursued through the usual channels.
The possibility that one Member appointed to the Committee may not be able to attend it should be drawn to the attention of the Chairman of the Committee of Selection.
Mr. Dewar: First, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for those remarks. I take it from what you say that I am right—you have clearly said that I am right—in my presumption that the Committee has not yet been called because the only cards issued were issued at a time when it was not possible to call the Committee. Therefore, I think that it is clear that we do not know when the Committee will meet at this stage.

359
I repeat for the benefit of the Leader of the House that, given that the Committee has not been called, it would he insupportable to try to call it now for Tuesday. That would be unacceptable.
This is a matter of some seriousness. The House should be careful about how it conducts its business. I am sorry that the matter has been personalised as a result of the unfortunate circumstances of my good friend the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn), but when we could clearly meet the 16 Scots requirement by other methods, I would take it amiss if we went along with an arrangement whereby someone was appointed as a blank, through circumstance, to make up numbers. That would mean that the proper scrutiny of Scottish legislation was not being carried out and would be something of an insult to the process of statutory scrutiny in Britain.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that I can add anything further to what I have already said. I hope that the matter will be resolved.

Orders of the Day
  Health and Medicines Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  Health and Medicines Bill
    Clause 7

      DENTAL SERVICES
      4.11 pm
      Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I beg to move amendment No. 60, in page 6, line 19, leave out 'and'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 59, in page 6, line 27, at end insert:
      '(c) The Secretary of State shall be required to provide dental inspection for pupils in attendance at schools who have opted out of local education authority control'.
      No. 61, in page 6, line 27, at end insert:
      '; and
      (c) the following paragraph shall be added following subsection (2) (services the Secretary of State has power to provide)—
      '(3) The Secretary of State shall report annually to parliament on the state of Dental Health and on trends in the incidence of dental disease in each health district, indicating in each case whether the corresponding health authority provides a school dental service.'.'.
      Mr. Fearn: Amendment No. 60 is merely a paving amendment. Amendment No. 59 makes it clear that the dental inspection service should be available in all maintained schools, not merely those under the control of local education authorities.
      It seems to be the case that the Government's left hand does not know what their right hand is doing and that the Secretary of State for Social Services is not talking to the Secretary of State for Education about the Bill's effect. By moving an amendment to reimpose the duty in this case we are offering the Government an opportunity to admit that they have made a mistake.
      Amendment No. 61 is important and is designed to allow Parliament to monitor the effect of the Government's change of policy. We fear that the effect of removing the present duty upon the Secretary of State will be that the dental health of children will deteriorate, or at least will not improve as fast as would otherwise be the case.
      By keeping a close eye on what is happening we shall be able to see if that is so. I am working on the assumption that if the Government, or any future Government, discover that the policy is, as we fear, having a damaging effect, they will take action to reverse it.
      I would like an assurance from the Minister that such action would be taken should there be any damaging effects. If I receive that assurance, I shall not seek to divide the House.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): I recognise the interest and concern of the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) and his colleagues in the community dental service, which we welcome.

      361
      Clause 7 amends existing legislation, as the hon. Gentleman has said, to remove the Secretary of State's duty to provide dental inspections and treatment for schoolchildren and replaces it with a power to enable the Secretary of State to provide those services. It also introduces an equivalent provision for Scotland. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises, the debate takes place against the background of a dramatic improvement in the nation's dental health, and, in particular, in the dental health of our children.
      The discussion document on primary health care set out the need to reconsider the role of the community dental service. Its historical role of providing routine treatment for schoolchildren had once been vital at a time when general dental practitioners were struggling to cope with the demand for their services some 40 years ago in the face of rampant dental disease.
      But the responses that we received to the discussion document agreed that emphasis on that role was no longer so appropriate, given the welcome increases over the years in dental manpower and the improvements in our population's dental health. Recent surveys show that the majority of schoolchildren already attend their own dentists for check-ups and the clause is intended to eliminate the undesirable situation where two services are duplicating provision for the same group.
      Nevertheless, we see an important continuing role for the community dental service. There are areas, even in those health authorities where general dental practitioners are in good supply, where children are not receiving the best dental care. As we announced in the White Paper "Promoting Better Health", there is a need for increased effort in screening and providing treatment, help and advice in those areas. Therefore, the clause retains the power for inspections and treatments to be carried out where necessary.
      4.15 pm
      In line with our objective of providing better health, the clause also gives an explicit power to provide dental health education, where the law is rather vague at the moment. We also see a need for the community dental service to monitor the dental health of the general population, not just of children, and to provide services for groups that have difficulty in gaining access to dental care, such as the elderly or the mentally handicapped, who often have considerable difficulties in obtaining the care that they need from their general dental practitioner.
      We shall also expect the community dental service to run group prevention and health education programmes for groups of the population, again, other than just for children. There will not be a cut, but we expect to see a major shift of emphasis by the community dental service to reflect the pattern of need in the community now and in the future, not just the pattern of 40 years ago.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: Over the years I have repeatedly raised issues that are the concern of the British Dental Association. What is the BDA's attitude to the Government's attitude on this?
      Mrs. Currie: I was just coming to that. The British Dental Association has announced that it supports our objectives for the community dental service. It stated its view that they could be achieved without legislative
      362
      change, but the advice that we have received is that that is not so. If we did not make the change that we have in this clause, we would find ourselves as a Government, on the one hand retaining legislation requiring routine dental inspection and treatment of schoolchildren, and, on the other hand, issuing guidance instructing health authorities to ignore their legal duty by redirecting resources away from that routine treatment of children towards other groups who now have genuine difficulties in gaining access to dental treatment. That dispute with the BDA is a technical one and our discussions with it on this matter have been completely amicable.
      Apart from that, we are in close accord with the profession and we shall be discussing with it further the exact terms of guidance to be issued to the health authorities on the future role of the community dental service. I am confident that we shall agree on the outcome of those consultations.
      As the hon. Gentleman has said, amendment No. 59 attempts to make it a legal duty that children in opted-out schools be given dental inspections. If the intention was simply to ensure that such children are covered by the general legislation on state schools, I would have complete sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. However, I can reassure him that the Education Reform Bill, which is now going through the other place, is the appropriate vehicle for the discussion of that provision. It already contains a section in schedule 10 which ensures that such schools will continue to be covered. On that basis, the amendment is unnecessary.
      I share the views expressed in amendments Nos. 60 and 61 about the need for an annual report and full information. However, an annual report on the state of the nation's dental health is already published in the report of the chief medical officer. The data on dental health analysed by regions are collected every other year and are published in the general household survey. I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman, who is the spokesman on health matters for the Social and Liberal Democratic party, receives a copy of both, but they are in the Library and always have been.
      The fact that we collect and publish that information in the way that I have described demonstrates that we agree with him. I can assure him that we use the data in precisely the way that he has prescribed and I am sure that that will meet with his approval.
      Mr. Fearn: Having received an assurance that it will still be monitored and that children in deprived areas will fall into a routine, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 8

      CHARGES FOR DENTAL APPLIANCES AND TREATMENT
      Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 7, line 7, leave out clause 8.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment No. 62, in page 7, line 13, after 'descriptions', insert
      'provided that the manner of recovery shall not include the withholding of dentures or dental appliances from the person for whom they were prescribed'.

      363
      Amendment No. 63, in page 8, line 17, after 'descriptions', insert
      'provided that the manner of recovery shall not include the withholding of dentures or dental appliances from the person for whom they were prescribed'.
      Amendment No. 12, in page 9, line 13, leave out subsection (7).
      Government amendment No. 38.
      Mr. Cook: The amendment seeks to remove the most offensive clause in the Bill, relating to charges for dental examinations.
      Routine dental examinations have been free since the inception of the National Health Service 40 years ago. Clause 8 will mean that National Health Service dentists will become a shade more expensive than solicitors, who, in general, give their advice free.
      I appreciate that hon. Members on both sides of the House find the clause offensive. I am modestly encouraged by the press, who have promised me that there will be a revolt of some 20 Conservative Members at the conclusion of the debate. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Where are they?"] Let us not be partisan. We are seeking grappling irons to throw across the Chamber to Conservative Back Benchers.
      Yesterday, we had a revolt of only 10 Conservative Members. The press has promised me that matters will be even better than tonight on Monday, when from 10 last night to 20 tonight, we can hope that the number will be 40. That is a pleasing geometric progression that I hope will be borne out.
      My only surprise is that apparently the Secretary of State does not intend to join us in our Lobby tonight. On the same day as the Secretary of State's Department produced the Bill, it also produced a White Paper which recorded:
      "the Government attaches great importance to the promotion of good health and the prevention of ill-health."
      The clause, which provides charges for routine screening, is in flat conflict with that stated commitment to the prevention of ill-health.
      It is now four months since the White Paper and the Bill were published. The first question that the Secretary of State has to answer is where in Britain we can find any organisation committed to dental health that supports the proposal and that during the past four months in which the proposals were under debate has been convinced by the Government's argument. If the Secretary of State has to admit—as I suspect he will—that those four months have failed to convince a single organisation of the merits of the proposals, I have to put it to him that the sensible and courageous course would be to pack in and forget this lonely and friendless measure.
      There are two reasons why the clause has failed to win friends. First, routine dental examination has to be the basis of any preventive approach to dental health. That statement is so obvious that it does not require elaboration. It is safe to say that all hon. Members have lost their milk teeth. We know that the earlier caries can be detected, the less amount of tooth needs to be destroyed for filling and the less chance there is of teeth being removed.
      It is worth stressing and elaborating the extent to which dental examination is important screening, not only for dental health but for general health. My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) had a tumour removed from his mouth following referral after a
      364
      routine dental examination in which it was discovered by the dentist. In some cases, such a referral can be life-saving.
      It is worth recording that dental and oral cancer is now almost as common as cancer of the cervix. Last night, the House properly and fully debated arrangements for routine screening for cancer of the cervix. Treasury Ministers know that we have our differences with the Government's record on that matter, but at least the Government have admitted the need for systematic screening for cancer of the cervix.
      It would be perverse if, the very next day, the House were to pass a proposal that threatens one of the most effective means of screening for a form of cancer almost as common as cancer of the cervix. Indeed, free dental examinations are possibly the most effective way of screening for oral cancer. A study by the Bristol dental hospital discovered that there were more referrals for oral cancer to the hospital from dentists than from GPs and that the referrals from dentists were at an earlier stage in the cancer. That is a vital point, with which my hon. Friend agrees. With his experience, he is well placed to guide the House.
      It is vital that oral cancer is detected at an early stage, because the opportunity for surgical intervention in the mouth is limited by its character. The only chance of success in operations is if the operation comes at an early stage.
      Other systematic diseases can be detected by dental examination. Mouth ulcers can indicate the onset of severe diseases such as Crohn's disease or now, tragically, AIDS. I find it odd that we should be placing an impediment on routine health screening, thereby losing one opportunity, however limited, for the early detection of AIDS.
      There can be no doubt about the importance of the dental examination. I assume that the Secretary of State will agree. He would be in some difficulty in favouring a preventive approach to health care if he did not support the importance of the dental examination. The Secretary of State has an invidious task to discharge in maintaining that he accepts the importance of the dental examination, but that he can introduce a charge on that examination without discouraging people to attend for it.
      That brings me to the second reason why the clause is so friendless. The proposition is such patent nonsense that it cannot seriously be submitted that we can introduce a new charge for dental examination without it affecting the people who attend for that examination.
      Some patients will find it difficult to afford the fee. The exemptions from charge for dental charges are much more limited than the exemptions for prescription charges. People on incomes just above the poverty line will find that they are liable for the full charge of £3 for a dental examination.
      It is ironic and troubling that the people who will be affected are the same people who, in the past fortnight, have been affected by the cuts in housing benefit. Yesterday, during the debate on social security changes, I referred to constituents on an income of £72 a week who had lost £11 a week in housing benefit. I am advised that it is unlikely that that couple will qualify for exemption from dental charges. They will have to pay for any future routine dental examinations, and it is obvious that will be a significant deterrent to those on a diminished income from coming for a routine examination.

      365
      Other patients may be able to afford a dental examination, but simply will not see the sense in paying for it. If they do not feel that there is anything wrong with their teeth, they will not see the importance of having an examination.
      I am surprised that I need to point that out to a Government who are so infatuated with market economics. The Secretary of State came to office with something of a reputation as a pioneer of enterprise capitalism, pushing forward the frontier of the market. The Secretary of State will know that one cannot believe in a market unless one accepts that the pricing mechanism works. In other words, an increase in price must lead to a reduction in demand. Nobody with the Secretary of State's faith in the market can really expect us to believe that he thinks that he can increase the charge for dental examinations from zero to £3 without a very serious reduction in demand.
      Nor is it necessary for us to reason that proposition only from abstract economic theory; we can prove it from the empirical evidence of history. During the past eight years the Government have persistently increased the charges for routine dental treatment. Yesterday, I noted that comparisons of the record with the last Labour Government were very popular with this Government. Let me remind them of one particular comparison.
      In 1979 the maximum charge for routine dental treatment under the Labour Government was £5. The similar charge in 1988 is £115. After this Bill, the charge will be £150. That is an increase of 3,000 per cent., somewhat in advance of the rate of inflation. In the course of those nine years, the biggest leap came in 1985. In that year, the maximum charge for routine dental treatment leapt from £14·50 to £115.
      It is instructive to note what happened to the demand for treatment in the subsequent year. The number of fillings completed in the subsequent year was down by 5 million, the number of root treatments was down by 140,000 and the number of treatments for gum disease was down by 1 million. Those figures went down not because the incidence of gum disease and caries went down but because fewer people presented themselves to the dentist because they were deterred by the charge. The only treatment that increased in that year was the number of extractions, for which the charge is relatively cheap. In other words, patients lost teeth that previously would have been saved.
      4.30 pm
      If the increase in 1985 had that effect, we can expect with confidence that an increase from zero to £3 will also result in a reduction in the demand for dental examinations. That reduction can also be numbered in millions.
      What is to be achieved by that lost opportunity and those lost teeth? It is to achieve a revenue saving from this proposal of £50 million. This is not a Government who are strapped for the odd bob or two. We saw only last month just how well financed the Government are. They do not need to sell the principle of free preventive screening for such a paltry price. They do not need to put at risk the dental and oral health of those who will be put off from
      366
      coming forward because of the charge. Perhaps most importantly, the House does not need to let them do it. Together we can stop them.
      Opposition Members are accustomed to voting against the Government. We have had quite a bit of practice since the general election. All we require in order to stop this piece of friendless nonsense is for Government Back Benchers, who know it is wrong and that it will adversely affect the dental and oral health of their constituents, to join us in the Lobby.
      Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: It is really a very simple question: do we want to encourage people to have more dental examinations or do we want them to be discouraged from having dental examinations? It is as simple as that.
      When I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends in debate whether they believed that imposing charges would make it more or less likely that patients would offer themselves for examination, not surprisingly, I did not receive any convincing answer because they knew as well as I do that when a charge is imposed it will make it less probable, not more probable, that people will offer themselves for examination.
      The second question is, is it desirable that people should offer themselves for examination? The answer to that is equally clearly yes. It is desirable in the interests not only of dental health but of early treatment for other diseases that become apparent only when there is a proper dental examination. Moreover, it is an examination that general practitioners, despite their very extensive training, are not trained to undertake. That is why I shall vote for the amendment to remove the clause.
      Mr. Fearn: I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 62 and 63, which make it clear that the manner of recovery of charges shall not include the withholding of dentures from patients who need them. That would be a cruel and unusual punishment for poverty. We do not like any of the new charges anyway and we shall be voting against them in any Division tonight. It is particularly distasteful that the Government seek to impose a charge for dental inspections, which will militate against the maintenance of the good dental health of the population.
      Working on the assumption that we shall not overthrow the Government's majority in the cause of civilised behaviour on this occasion, as has been the case so often lately, it would at least be a gesture for the Government to concede that they do not need a power to withhold dentures from a patient who needs them until he or she has scraped together enough money to pay the charges.
      Mr. John Greenway: I have a great deal of sympathy for those who argue that phasing out free dental examination is not the right step to be taking at this time. However, I ask those who are thinking of joining the Opposition in the Lobby to reflect on the discussions that have been taking place in the dental profession for some months about the need for a new system of remuneration for dental practitioners. I dwelt on that point at length on Second Reading.
      If all the diseases that a dentist looks for when undertaking an examination are as important and far-reaching as has been made out, the question we should be addressing is what contractual relationship a dentist should have with his patient. Clearly, the present

      367
      remuneration system that rewards a dentist, regardless of who pays the charge, with a paltry sum of £3·90 for an examination is ludicrously inadequate.
      There is another reason why that is so. In the past, when the dental rates study group has considered what fees to apportion to the various items of treatment that dentists carry out, the examination fee has always received little additional money. The reason is that dentists would be adequately remunerated through the treatment that was necessary. Thankfully, in this day and age, we see improving dental health. It is improving to such an extent that patients who have the good sense to go to their dentist regularly need little, if any, treatment. I can tell the House that many practitioners are increasingly finding that, after a routine examination, their patients require no treatment.
      That is why the General Dental Service committee has proposed to the Department the need for a new annual registration contract. That contract would replace the present dental examination and screening arrangements. I warmly commend that scheme to the House. The argument should not be about what charge there should be per dental examination and who should pay it, but about what structure of remuneration we require.
      There is not time in this debate to go into that aspect more deeply. However, can I tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that I support what the Government have in mind. I can also tell him that I have lobbied for the contract throughout the dental profession and there is great support for it from many forward-thinking dental practitioners. I am disappointed that formal discussions on the new contract have not yet commenced. I believe that we should pursue the new contract arrangement, which the White Paper sets out, with all urgency, so that if, as I believe will be the case, the House votes to phase out a free dental examination, there could be an opportunity for us to phase out the free examination and introduce the new annual registration contract at the same time. That would send a clear signal to the public that regular attendance is what the Government want to see and to encourage.
      On Second Reading, I made reference to a study that was being carried out on the subject of "Barriers to the receipt of dental care". That study—a very small one, based on just over 100 families—has now been completed and it indicates precisely those points which discourage attendance that I outlined to the House some four months ago. In particular, it shows that many people, despite the fact that they would be entitled to free examination and even free treatment on exemption if they went to the dentist now, do not attend because there is no perceived need to see a dentist.
      The second thing which the White Paper stresses, and which during the Second Reading debate my hon. Friend the Minister of State said that he would take urgent action upon, is the need to launch a dental awareness campaign. I understand that discussions are already well advanced on a new scheme to be launched in the west midlands later this year. We must pursue that with real vigour.
      I say again to the House what I said on Second Reading—that, if the money which the Government raise from the phasing out of free examination is used to encourage more people to visit the dentist and to help dentists to establish bigger and better practice premises, this measure will indeed be worth while.
      Dr. Lewis Moonie: There is a kernel of reason in what the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has been saying. However, accepting that the reduction in the number of treatments required is leading to a potential reduction in the dentist's income, I find it scarcely conceivable that the present system will be improved by bringing in a charge that will discourage people from visiting a dentist at all.
      There are many irritating shortcomings in this Bill, and one or two glaring faults. This is one of the latter, for several reasons. I think that it is generally accepted as a principle of preventive medicine that all those at risk of the condition that we are trying to prevent should be encouraged to take advantage of the screening and treatment facilities that will prevent it. We know that dental health is improving in our young people in this country, and I am glad of that. I am sure that the Government will not have the cheek to claim credit for it, although they may well do so, but I do not think that many people outside their own ranks would believe them.
      The improvement is due to many factors: to a general improvement in hygiene, changes in diet, the addition of fluoride to water and better screening in schools. It is gratifying that nowadays we have classes of children in secondary schools where one would be hard put to it to find a mouth with the fillings and extractions that were common 25 years ago when I was at school. Now, the broad smiles that we can give owe much more to the care of the dentist than to our own care of our teeth.
      It is a principle that people should not be denied access to dental facilities, and it is not for the benefit of dental health alone. As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has so rightly said, there are many other conditions involved which dentists, by reason of their long professional training, are qualified to pick up. Oral cancer is certainly the most serious of these. It is a hideous condition, almost always involving major surgery on the mouth and throat if there is to be any chance of survival, and still carrying a very low long-term survival rate, and that with a gross handicap.
      It is not only a matter of oral cancer. The dentist can pick up a pre-cancerous lesion in the mouth, called leucoplakia, which is commonly associated with pipe smoking and irritation in the mouth. The Minister is nodding. Fortunately I do not have it. Leucoplakia is a condition which can be detected early and the patient can be advised as to its seriousness, and with the removal of the irritant stimulus it can be treated or reversed. Screening therefore offers us the chance not only to detect a cancer that will require major treatment to alleviate but to detect the pre-cancerous state and therefore prevent all the discomfort that that state could bring, and possibly death.
      There are many other serious conditions that may be manifested through symptoms and signs in the oral cavity, including the very common one of anaemia, which may well be picked up, and some serious kinds as well as the common iron deficiency type. So it surely is a basic principle that we should be encouraging people to take advantage of the excellent screening facilities which are available in this country rather than trying to discourage them.
      4.45 pm
      I said that there was a kernel of truth in what the hon. Member for Ryedale said. In the present situation, in which dentists are increasingly finding that the work that

      369
      they are doing in order to maintain their income is becoming more and more complicated and difficult to find, there is certainly a case for reviewing the way in which they are remunerated. Perhaps it should be changed to the way in which general medical practitioners are remunerated, with a capitation fee.
      We have heard very little about the possibility of actively encouraging people to take advantage of dental screening. It tends to be opportunistic. If a person goes into a dental surgery that person is likely to be called up again at regular intervals, and that is a good thing, but there is no primary call-up system. Perhaps we should be looking at something like that.
      It is possible for us to achieve a society in which we perhaps approach perfect dental health at very little additional cost compared with what we are now spending. That should be our ideal and our aim. Alas, this clause does nothing to improve dental health. It will discourage those most in need of the advice and treatment that a dentist can give them to stay away. For that reason, all hon. Members should join us in opposing it.
      Mr. Roger Sims: The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) speaks with authority and I believe that he makes a powerful case.
      The White Paper, which has been mentioned on several occasions, refers at paragraph 1.15 to a number of the measures which the Government propose to introduce, including
      "a new contract for dentists which will encourage prevention and promote the quality of treatment provided".
      In chapter 4 of the White Paper a more detailed explanation is given as to how that is to be achieved. But in paragraph 2·13 of the White Paper we read:
      "As a result of improvements in the nation's dental health greater emphasis is now being given to regular dental examinations, preventive treatment and advice and proportionately less to interventive dentistry. Dental examinations are an increasing proportion of dentists' work."
      It then goes on to say:
      "The Government believes that it is reasonable for patients to contribute towards the cost of this part of the dental services"
      and, of course, that is what subsection (7) of the clause does.
      I am sure that there is no dispute about the value of the dental check-up. Members will have received abundant evidence from the dental professional organisations and possibly from individual dentists. The issues were discussed in detail at the Committee stage of the Bill. A check-up detects diseases, including oral cancer. It enables there to be a general check on the general state of oral and dental health of the patient, with an opportunity to halt decay at an early stage and for the dentist, or possibly the hygienist, if he has one, to give advice to the patient on general dental care. It must be right to encourage people to have dental check-ups.
      In Committee and in letters to hon. Members the Minister of State has set out the exemptions to charges. He has also explained the proposed charges and how they will fit into the general context of the revised scale of charges for treatment. I accept that he has an argument, but the nub of the case is surely the fear which has already been voiced—whether the imposition of charges will deter people from having check-ups.
      370
      In Committee the Minister of State indicated that he was not persuaded that it would do so. We simply have to draw on our knowledge of human nature. I imagine that most of us go regularly to our dentists. I venture to bet that we do not go for a check-up with great enthusiasm and that if we can find a good reason for putting it off for a week or so, we do so. Surely the knowledge that we are likely to be charged for a check-up will hardly encourage us to go. If that applies to hon. Members, how much more will it apply to those who rarely go to the dentist but should, and indeed to some people who have never been at all? Surely there can be few more effective deterrents to them than to know that a charge will be imposed for a check-up.
      The White Paper speaks of a new contract for dentists which will encourage prevention. Here the Government are proposing a new contract for patients which will discourage prevention. It is not irrational that those with reasonable means should pay a proportion of the cost of the dental work which needs to be carried out, but the hurdle that we have to surmount in improving the nation's dental health is to get people to be checked in the first place. Here we are proposing to make that hurdle higher.
      No doubt my right hon. Friend will argue that the charge will raise money. So it will. But sooner or later the National Health Service will have to meet at least part of the cost of treatment or serious dental troubles which could have been dealt with much sooner and more cheaply if the patient had not been discouraged from having a dental check-up.
      There are many very good provisions in the Bill, but it is marred by this proposal and the proposal which we shall discuss later in regard to eye tests. As I read it, the effect of amendment No. 10, which has been proposed by the Opposition Front Bench, would be to remove clause 8 completely from the Bill. That I am not minded to do because I approve of aspects of it. If amendment No. 12, which would delete subsection (7) referring specifically to charges, is put to the vote I will need a great deal of persuading not to support it.
      Mr. David Hinchliffe: Having listened to the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and other Tory Members, I am sure that many of them are sincere in their opposition to clause 8. While I welcome their opposition, I believe that their views are limited and that they are naive about what the Government are attempting to achieve through the clause.
      We discussed clause 4 at 1 o'clock this morning, when many Tory Members who oppose clause 8 were probably drinking their Horlicks or were in bed. Clauses 4, 8 and 10 are all about delivering a fundamentally different system of health care. That must be understood. These clauses are not piecemeal provisions, but are part and parcel of a clear Government plan to bring to an end a fundamental principle which has underpinned the National Health Service since its inception in the 1940s—the right of people to free health care when they need it, regardless of their ability to pay.
      These clauses should be considered alongside the funding crisis in the Health National Service, which is recognised everywhere in society with the exception of 10 Downing street. My central point is that the crisis is contrived and deliberate. It is geared to creating conditions in which people will accept the need for wholesale changes of the kind envisaged in clauses 8 and 10. Clearly, the

      371
      Government wish to introduce a market system of health care. Hence the introduction of the charges proposed in clauses 8 and 10.
      How has the crisis been contrived? First and foremost, the National Health Service workload has been increased by the Government's economic and social policies, which have vastly increased unemployment and poverty. This week we are all aware of the real difficulties that people are facing. Government policy has exacerbated housing problems and brought about massive increases in homelessness. The problems have a knock-on effect, resulting in earlier illnesses and deaths, which create more demands on the National Health Service. Numerous studies prove the point conclusively. I shall draw attention to just one. A recent study published by Professor John Fox of the City university showed that unemployed men and their wives have mortality rates 20 per cent. higher than those of people in work.
      The second issue that has helped create a crisis is the constant obsession of the Tory party with reorganising the management of the National Health Service. The then Sir Keith Joseph, when he was the Member for Leeds, North-East, introduced area health authorities in the 1970s. Subsequently, his successor replaced them by district health authorities. Then we had the management nonsense introduced by the Griffiths structure which caused the problems in my health authority which I outlined early this morning.
      Thirdly, as part of the contrived crisis, we have had the deliberate stimulation of private practice by the Government. The Government argue that private practice brings extra resources to the NHS. The truth is completely the opposite. The doctors who staff and run the commercial medical facilities are by and large the same people who are the consultants within the National Health Service. If they are not working in the National Health Service, NHS waiting lists will increase. The knock-on effect is that people see the need to pay to go privately and to queue jump to bribe a consultant so that they may have earlier access to treatment.
      Government policy has deliberately set out to create a public expectation of having to pay. The clause follows on from the creation of that public expectation. The Government have created a public belief that we cannot afford a National Health Service. I reject that. The proof that the crisis has been contrived came in the Budget. The Budget proved that we could afford to pay for the National Health Service and that we could afford to fund the £2 billion cumulative under-spending by the Government. What did the Government choose to do? Did they choose to invest more in the NHS? No; they gave the money to people who already have plenty.
      Clause 8 paves the way for the wholesale introduction of payment for health care. It is part and parcel of the destruction of the National Health Service, on which the Government are intent. It is part and parcel of the Prime Minister's attempt to eradicate Socialism. The Government may succeed in getting clauses 8 and 10 through, but they will never succeed in destroying people's strongly held belief that a Socialist approach to health care is the only approach that makes sense.
      5 pm
      Mr. Patrick Cormack: I do not subscribe at all to the concluding remarks of the hon.
      372
      Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). To suggest that the National Health Service should be equated with Socialism would make Beveridge turn in his grave, as he is doubtless doing now, but I want to appeal briefly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to my right hon. Friend to reconsider this measure.
      I do not believe for a moment that my right hon. Friend is hell-bent on destroying the National Health Service. That is manifestly absurd. I believe that, together with his ministerial colleagues and the Prime Minister, he is right to look at the whole structure of the National Health Service and perhaps consider whether those who have benefited the most from the recent Budget should pay more. All these things should be open for examination. There are no sacred cows. When a review is undertaken, it should be done thoroughly. But the proposed review has not yet taken place. We are considering this afternoon the issues of prevention of disease and the plight of those who are least able to help themselves and to afford the necessary care. Whenever there is a doubt, the benefit should be given to the less well-off. I also happen to believe in the old adage that prevention is a hundred times better than cure. It is also a lot cheaper in the short run and in the long run.
      There is nothing to be ashamed of for any Minister to say "Yes, we will reconsider. We have got that particular thing wrong." It is a brave and courageous man who is able to change his mind. I hope very much that my right hon. Friend will announce this afternoon that there has been a change of mind, because I see nothing to be gained either for the nation's health or for the Government's health by persisting with this wrong-headed proposal.
      Every remark that I make now could equally be applied when we discuss eye tests. I shall not seek to catch your eye then, Sir, because all these observations apply to both issues. I very much hope that when we vote the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) will not seek a Division on the amendment that would delete the whole clause, because quite a number of us could not go with him, but if he seeks a Division on amendment No. 12 I shall be in the Lobby with him, unless my right hon. Friend concedes totally. I hope and believe that many of my hon. Friends, who take as much pride as I do in the contribution that the Conservative party has made over the years to the National Health Service, will be with me too.
      Mr. Robin Cook: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am always happy to seek consensus in the House, and I am happy to give an undertaking that we shall not needlessly divide the House twice. At the conclusion of the debate I shall endeavour to withdraw amendment No. 10 and to divide on amendment No. 12.
      Mr. Cormack: That is a most helpful intervention and I am very glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman.
      In conclusion, I shall amplify a point that I made a moment ago. We on this side of the House have much to be proud of in the National Health Service, as do Members in all political parties. It is a National Health Service which successive Governments since the war have developed from the blueprint of a great Liberal. We acknowledge that; we all should. There is no attempt by this Government to destroy what has been created, which is one of the things of which we in Britain have most cause to be proud in the 20th century. That it needs reviewing is beyond dispute; that there are problems within the Health

      373
      Service no one can question; but until a review is complete and we have decided what shape the Health Service should take in the 21st century we have a duty in the House today not to impose extra burdens or to deter. If we do not deal with this clause we shall impose extra burdens where they should not be imposed, and we shall deter people from helping to safeguard their own health, and the country's economy in the process.
      Mr. David Winnick: I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) when he says that the Government's review of the National Health Service should not be a matter of great concern to us. I believe that the review is likely to lead to Government proposals to privatise much of the NHS. But I certainly agree with the bulk of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I, too, take the view that anything that makes people more reluctant to go to the dentist is wrong. There has been a welcome increase in dental treatment and dental health altogether in the past few years.
      I have some figures that I received from the Library, which I believe are correct. Whereas in 1976 there were about 26 million courses of dental treatment, 10 years later there were 32 million, although there is an indication of slight decline in the past 12 to 18 months in the numbers receiving dental treatment. That may be due to dental charges. Nevertheless, that substantial improvement in the numbers receiving dental treatment is surely much to be welcomed. I see that the Secretary of State nods his head in agreement.
      Certainly, for those on limited incomes who will not be exempted from the charges, there will be greater reluctance to go to the dentist. Not everybody is over the moon about going to the dentist, as the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) said earlier. Not everyone considers that the treat of the year. Therefore, it is pretty obvious that people who do not go regularly to the dentist would find it difficult financially in many cases, although not all, to meet the charges. They may find an added reason and incentive not to go.
      The Secretary of State may well argue that £3 is a modest enough sum. It is not modest enough, however, for many people on limited incomes with family responsibilities. I am concerned that the charge of £3, if it goes into the Act and is not objected to strongly enough today in the Division, will be greater in 12 or 18 months' time. It is quite likely that any increase will be well beyond the rate of inflation. That has happened to prescription charges and several other health charges.
      The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. John Moore): Perhaps I can assist the House with facts, because the hon. Gentleman is a friend of mine. He might like to look at clause 8(4) where he will see the degree to which costs are contained and controlled.
      Mr. Winnick: I understand that the Secretary of State is in some political difficulties—I am not being malicious—and if he says he is a friend of mine, although we are friends, I must say that being a friend of mine may not help the right hon. Gentleman in his current political troubles. If I say that I wish him well, I am sure he will take that in the spirit it is given.
      374
      It is all very well to say that the sum is set out in the regulations, but the Secretary of State knows very well that the Government could bring in amending legislation, which would increase the sum well beyond the rate of inflation.
      Mr. Robin Cook: Before matters proceed and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) gives too many concessions to the Secretary of State, I should say that clause 8(4) provides that regulations shall be made, but does not specify what may be in those regulations. As I understand it, the Government are proposing a charge of £3 on the basis that that would be 75 per cent. of the present cost of a dental examination. But nothing in the Bill prevents them from uprating that percentage to 100 per cent. and making a £4 charge.
      Mr. Winnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is perfectly clear, going by what happened to prescription charges and their level when we left office, and now, which my hon. Friend remarked on when he moved the clause, that this Government are determined to put up health charges substantially, way beyond the rate of inflation. Therefore, we cannot be confident—no one can be—that in two or three years' time, and certainly before the end of this Parliament, the sum will not be £4 or higher.
      I am one of those people who do go for check-ups every six months. I have been going to the dentist regularly since my late twenties and if I have any regret it is that I did not have regular check-ups at an earlier age. If my teeth are not perfect, and they are not, they are certainly far better than they would have been if I had not gone for six-monthly check-ups in the past 25 years or so. As that has helped me, I want to encourage as many other people to recognise the necessity of dental check-ups.
      It gives me much pleasure, understandably, when on a six-monthly visit the dentist gives me the marvellous news that I do not need further treatment. I am over the moon because, although I always have an injection, I do not look forward to the treatment. As I am convinced that six-monthly check-ups have meant that my teeth are in a much better state of health than they would otherwise have been, I want to encourage as many people as I can to have them.
      It worries me that a substantial number of people—they may well be in a minority—do not recognise the necessity of six or even 12-monthly check-ups. To the extent that this measure makes people more reluctant to go to the dentist, it is a retrogressive step. It should be objected to strongly and the measure should be dropped from the Bill.
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I support the Government because this is a modest clause which will encourage people to value their Health Service.
      Last year when the Government originally suggested dental charges for examination and treatment people wrote to me saying, "We were not aware that check-ups were free because every time we go to our dentist he charges us." It came as a surprise that a check-up was free and that it was the treatment that they were paying for. Therefore, we must first bear in mind that people have not been deterred from having a check-up because they were under the impression, as I was until I came to the House, that they paid for it.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Bennett: No. I should like to develop my speech.
      The logic of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is that we should not have any charges whatever. If we are to charge for treatment, it does not seem logical to object to charging for check-ups. If charges deter people, there should be no charges, yet—
      Mr. Cormack rose—
      Mr. Michael Carttiss rose—
      Mr. Bennett: No, I shall not give way. The logic is there and my hon. Friends must follow it through. If charges deter people, hon. Members should be opposed to any charges, but I have not heard that put forward by anybody and I do not believe that that is the case.
      The small sums involved, and they are small, must be considered in terms of the relative values people place on other things.
      Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Bennett: No. I want to be brief and give my hon. Friends a chance to speak.
      A charge of £3 is equal to two packets of cigarettes; it would not fill an average family motor car to drive more than 50 miles; and it is less than most people pay to buy a meal for one in a Chinese takeaway. Yet Opposition Members hypothesise that £3 is such a large sum that it will deter people from having a check-up.
      Mrs. Peacock: It is to some people.
      Mr. Bennett: The exemptions in the Bill for people on income support and those under the age of 19 deal with my hon. Friend's point. For the average person in work £3 is not a lot of money. Anyone who sees what people spend every day of the week in a supermarket, and what people spend in public houses and on holidays, and who considers that 60 per cent. of the population have a video recorder, yet believes that £3 for a check-up every six months will deter, is not living in the same world as my constituents and me.
      An important principle is that those who can should pay towards their health care. The problem with our Health Service in the past 40 years has been that, because it is free at the point of contact, people do not value their health or the Health Service. If we had small charges—I would go as far as to say that we should have charges for visits to the doctor for those who can afford it—it would make people value the Health Service and health care, and it would ensure that our doctors and dentists were more orientated towards the customer.
      If anything puts people off going to the dentist, it is not charges, but the times when dentists are open and our natural fear of dental treatment. I do not believe that £3 will deter people from visiting their dentist and I welcome this modest sum which will help people appreciate that their health is worth paying for.
      5.15 pm
      Mrs. Rosie Barnes: I wish to make my stand on this issue clear. I have done so in the past and it must he repeated until the word is finally heard.
      We are debating the principle that the NHS should be free at the point of use. There is no logic in having an NHS which provides free check-ups for some parts of the
      376
      anatomy but not for others. We must ask ourselves whether this is an organ-by-organ charging system. If it is teeth and eyes now, what is next on the agenda? What is the logic in charging for check-ups for eyes and teeth but not for other organs? As far as I can see, none.
      It has been clearly demonstrated that charging for check-ups acts as a disincentive for people to go for essential tests. The poorer members of our society, for whom a few pounds is the cost of their children's meals for the next couple of days, are far less likely to spend the money on these tests if the alternative is basics, such as food.
      It is clear that tests on eyes and teeth prevent diseases. Many diseases are detected which a patient has no knowledge that he is carrying. It is fallacious to say that patients or their general practitioners can make good the gaps that charging for these tests will create. In particular, eye diseases—like other hon. Members I will not seek to be called again because the principle is the same for both eyes and teeth—such as glaucoma, which has no symptoms until it is irretrievable, will cause more blindness if the measure is passed.
      We should seek increased, not reduced, screening. If we believe in primary health care, some facilities which are at present available only in the private sector, such as Well Woman screening offered by BUPA, should be considered for the NHS. It makes sense for health, so it makes sense for human beings. It also makes sense in cost terms, because early detection not only means that diseases are cheaper and easier to treat, but that people are not off work for months on end. Moreover, deaths can be prevented, so families are not thrown on to the resources of the state for their future maintenance.
      To start charging for check-ups and examinations is completely at odds with the commitment to increase primary health care. It will deny people access to the first inroad to primary health care.
      Mr. Jerry Hayes: First, I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), on the courteous and skilful way in which they moved and piloted the Bill through its Committee stage.
      In my view, for what it is worth, the Health arid Medicines Bill is an excellent piece of legislation. It is all about preventive medicine, screening, encouraging people to go to the doctor and about doctors screening those people who are most vulnerable—
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: But.
      Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) has taken the word out of my mouth—but why do we have to have a measure that many Conservative Members believe will be a positive deterrent to people visiting their dentists? All of us who have contact with dentists will know that dentists can diagnose over 120 different diseases of the oral cavity, including cancer, leukaemia and AIDS. We know that this country, like many countries in the Western world, will be faced in the near future with what might be described—I do not exaggerate—as an epidemic of the AIDS virus. 1f the proposal goes through, it will be a positive deterrent for the diagnosis of that disease.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke made a courageous speech defending the proposal. I commend

      377
      him for so doing, although I do not agree with him. He put to the House the simple proposition that, if people can afford to pay for treatment, they should do so. I agree with that. I believe in the free market. For what it is worth, I believe that if people go to the dentist and the dentist tells them that they require a certain treatment, they should pay for it if they can afford to do so. The same applies with the optometrist and the optician, but let us get people into the dentist's surgery in the first place. We all know how difficult it is to persuade people to go to the dentist. [Interruption.] I have heard my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State intervening from a sedentary position and will be happy to give way to her if she wishes—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend says that there is nothing that she wants to give me. [AN HON. MEMBER: "My hon. Friend is the lucky man."] I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is a strong believer in preventive medicine, but I am not sure whose day she has made.
      I advise my hon. Friends, and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke, that the evidence is overwhelming in relation to what has happened when charges have been imposed. With your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall give the figures.
      In 1981, a report of the British Dental Association made it quite clear—[Interruption.] If the Under-Secretary of State keeps fluttering her eyelids at me, it is not surprising that I have lost my place. In 1971–72, when there was an increase in charges, the number of courses of treatment decreased by 7 per cent. In 1977–78, they decreased by 4 per cent. and they decreased by 4 per cent. again in 1984–85. My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will say, "Just a moment, the volume of treatments as a generality decreased." In fact, the number of courses of treatment decreased. In my respectful submission, that is particularly significant.
      In 1987, 2,600 oral cancers were discovered, many by dentists. Many doctors do not receive training in oral anatomy. They do not have that skill or understanding. I am sure that many Opposition Members who are members of the medical profession will accept that view, and I have received several letters from doctors accepting it. I challenge anyone to dispute it with facts and figures. By and large, doctors will not be able to diagnose the cancer until too late.
      Many of my hon. Friends will know, and many members of the medical profession will understand, that there is a high mortality rate with oral cancers. Therefore, it is vital that they are diagnosed early. Dentists have the opportunity of screening millions of people who, by and large, are well. Many people visit a doctor only when they feel ill. By that time, it may well be too late. A moment ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) said that that would cost the Health Service a great deal of money in the long term.
      I do not want to go into the Opposition Lobby against the Government. [Interruption.] I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State laughs at that. I believe that the Government and my right hon. Friend genuinely believe and care about the Health Service and do not want to dismantle it. His record and that of the Government are second to none. However, we would be foolish to deny that there are problems and to add to those problems by
      378
      ruining a perfectly laudable piece of legislation by slapping on people a charge that would positively deter them from being treated.
      Mr. John Home Robertson: If the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) wanders around a dentist's surgery with as much agility as he wanders around the Chamber when he is delivering speeches, it will be difficult for his dentist to get near him to administer any treatment. Nevertheless, I agree with him. He and a number of his hon. Friends are quite right—prevention is better than cure. The best way of preventing dental disease must be to ensure that people attend their dentists and have any problems diagnosed.
      It was distressing to listen to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) a moment ago. We are used to him being wheeled in to defend the indefensible. If he goes on like this, he could well end up as a Parliamentary Private Secretary. I last heard him defend the Government on the School Boards (Scotland) Bill, which is a long way from Pembroke. However, here he is again. He said that it is right that people should be required to pay for their basic treatment. I suppose that it is just about as logical as saying that there should be a poll tax, and I suppose that he supports that. Perhaps he will suggest that his constituents should have to pay for corresponding with him or for going to his constituency surgery. That may be an appealing thought—
      Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I never thought of that.
      Mr. Home Robertson: Well, the hon. Gentleman has got the idea now.
      I should like to preface my remarks by saying something nice about the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security—
      Mrs. Currie: No.
      Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Lady says "No", but I shall say it anyway. She had a signal achievement some months ago when she persuaded the Government to ban the manufacture or sale in this country of oral tobacco products, such as Skoal Bandits. Having taken a private Members' Bill through the House to ban the sale of such products to youngsters, I am delighted that the Government have achieved that. The hon. Lady did that because she recognised the serious danger of that type of product to oral health. I wonder how on earth she can square that action with the matter that we are debating today. On the one hand, the Government are taking dramatic interventionist action to prevent trade in that kind of poison, but on the other hand they are introducing a charge that will deter people from attending their dentist to have regular examinations to prevent precisely the same diseases from spreading in this country.
      I agree with hon. Members on both sides of the House that it is important that we protect this principle, in order to try and improve dental health. Nowhere is it more desperately needed than in the country which I help to represent, Scotland. As my hon. Friends the Members for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) and for Livingston (Mr. Cook) will know, dental health in Scotland is about the worst in the whole world, for a whole range of reasons: because of people's diet, because of their lifestyles and because they do not attend the dentist's surgery as often as they should.
      It would be relevant to put on record some reference to a report that was laid before the Government by the

      379
      Scottish Health Service Planning Council—a Government body. I am referring to the SHARPEN—Scottish Health Authorities Review of Priorities for the Eighties and Nineties—report, which was submitted to Ministers last year. It says, among other things:
      "While the oral health of the Scottish population has improved progressively over recent years it is still considerably worse than it might he and throughout the whole community compares unfavourably with England and Wales."
      Quoting from memory, I understand that over one third of our population in Scotland have none of their own teeth. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that abysmal figure. The situation in our country is dreadful and action is needed to do something about it.
      5.30 pm
      If I may quote again from the report, it says:
      "The regular take-up of dental services should be encouraged by every possible means".
      How on earth will that be achieved by this measure?
      The final paragraph of this section of the report says:
      "The proportion of the costs of dental treatment met directly by patients should not increase disproportionately. Nor should they reach a level which discourages regular routine dental care. In the general dental service clinical examination and advice including advice on prevention, diet and oral hygiene should continue to be available to all patients free of charge."
      That is what the Scottish Health Service Planning Council told the Scottish Office last year. It was a specific recommendation aimed at dealing with a serious problem which affects far too many of our people in Scotland. We are beginning to make some headway in improving dental health in Scotland. Why on earth are the Government now suggesting, for a paltry financial gain, that we put all that at risk?
      The Minister's hon. Friends are right in the warnings that they are giving him about this. I go further than the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). I sincerely hope that there is not a Division on this. There appears to be a clear consensus tonight that the Government have made a mistake. Everyone can see that, and there would be no shame in the Minister's withdrawing this part of the Bill at this stage. The whole House could then go forward constructively.
      Mr. Peter Griffiths: Governments, like individuals, are always faced with the question of deciding priorities, accepting costs in the seeking of advantages. When we debated this subject in Committee I started with the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes). I listened carefully to the response of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health when he explained the purpose of the proposal. That is something that has not been picked up in this debate. The Minister pointed out that this was not, as the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) said just now, for a small increase in Government finances: every penny of the money that is raised from these inspection charges and the inspection charges which are to be discussed later will be added to an even larger sum of over £500 million, to be used solely and entirely for improvements in primary health care in the National Health Service. That is the key.
      I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), who suggests that a £3 charge is not a deterrent. It is to some and, in a working-class constituency like mine, it will undoubtedly deter some
      380
      people. But it will not be a deterrent to those who do not have to pay, to those who already attend their dentist privately, to those who do not go to the dentist at all or to those who can comfortably afford to pay the charge. A small number of people will find it a burden. I know that and I would not be able to support the Government on this part of the clause, as I told my hon. Friend the Minister in Committee, unless I was given the absolute assurance that the money so raised would be devoted to something more useful.
      I disagree with the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) who said that there was something wrong with a system of priorities—I think that she called it an organ-by-organ approach. There is a case for such a system. I do not believe that the National Health Service is to spend £50 million on keeping free dental checks for that very small group of people who will be deterred, because it is such a small group and because there are other things that are so much more important. We would all have our own list of priorities.
      Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Individuals do not count?
      Mr. Griffiths: I do not agree with the comment that individuals do not count, which I hear from the Opposition Front Bench. I am suggesting that each one of us would have his own list of priorities. But I am persuaded, after listening to the Minister's assurance, that the best way ahead would be to allow the Government to use this Bill as a vehicle for the general improvement of primary health care—and one of the costs of that will be this part of this clause. I do not welcome it, but I accept it and shall support the Government in the Lobby.
      Mr. Dalyell: May I ask the Secretary of State a factual but pertinent question against this background? I am probably the only hon. Member on the Opposition Benches who has experience of the Department of Health, albeit as a lowly parliamentary private secretary to Dick Crossman from 1968 to 1970. If I recall events of 20 years ago, it is simply to ask whether the practice has changed. I well remember that time and in those days. if any proposal was put forward, there would certainly be discussions with Sir Alan Marre, or whoever was the permanent secretary, and the officials. But absolutely crucially important was the view of Sir George Godber. as he then was, and Dr. Henry Yellowlees—but particularly Sir George Godber as chief medical officer.
      I understand perfectly well that the House of Commons cannot reasonably ask to be told what civil servants have said to their Ministers, but I think the House is entitled to ask the rather different question: what has the chief medical officer, in his professional capacity, said about any proposal for a change such as this, to levy charges for dental examinations? I ask in general terms, therefore, what is the view of the chief medical officer of this proposal and, in particular terms, whether he has expressed a view on whether dentists will come to rely not so much on their clinical judgment as on their perception of the depth of their patients' pockets?
      There is a real human problem here. Dentists are decent people but they are also realistic people. Very often they will make decisions out of kindness which will mean that a patient whom they think cannot easily afford treatment

      381
      will not have to pay out the £150—the argument against which was deployed by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook).
      My question, however, concerns the precise advice that has been received from the chief medical officer and his colleagues. After all, we have here a Department that has turned down the technical advice of its own committee on AIDS. The Department's committee was overturned. Has the chief medical officer, by any chance, been overturned on this matter? Parliament at least has the right to know what the chief medical officer has said about this proposal.
      Mr. Cartiss: There was a certain amount of levity earlier, which was particularly provoked by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes). This is quite the most miserable and petty idea that the Government have introduced. My feeling about my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench is that they tend not to be sufficiently Right-wing in their policies. On this issue, they have made a grave mistake. I very much hope that there is still time to reconsider the proposal to introduce charges for dental check-ups.
      I respect the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett). I believe that he speaks for a number of my colleagues—no doubt this will be a continuing debate—when he says that he would like charges to be introduced for other checks. This proposal should not be allowed to go through without expressions of concern from those who, in every other respect, support and welcome the way in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is promoting sound policies, ensuring a mammoth investment in the Health Service. If we fail to express our concern about the impact of these charges for the sake of this tiny sum of money, my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke and other hon. Friends, for perfectly sound and logical reasons, given their outlook, may be putting forward next year and the year after charges for other examinations.
      I do not take the view that, for five years after a general election, a manifesto must be regarded as being written on tablets of stone. On a number of occasions my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have been able to persuade me to enter the Lobby enthusiastically because, although I may have had reservations about some aspects of what they were doing, it was in the manifesto.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) argued that this is a sound proposal because it will make available a complete package that will improve primary health care. If that was such a good idea when my right hon. Friend suggested it in the autumn of 1987, it was a jolly good idea in May 1987, when it could have been included in our manifesto and put forward. I have no concerns or anxieties about the social security system. We passed the Social Security Act 1986 and had the election in June 1987. If this proposal was such an important and vital feature of the Conservative party's approach to primary health care it should have been in the manifesto and we should have knocked on doors saying "This is what we shall do."
      5.45 pm
      As times change, Governments must respond and come up with different proposals that were not in their manifesto. Every party has done so, and it is an inevitable
      382
      part of a five-year parliamentary system. If this proposal were coming forward two or three years into this Parliament, I would say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had decided, after examining all the issues, that this was the right thing to do. I cannot understand how it suddenly emerged as a crucial feature of the Conservative party's approach to primary health care in October or November when we did not say in May or June to the voters that this is what we wanted to do.
      On that basis alone I am unable to support the Government on this proposal. Most reluctantly, I shall join Opposition Members in the Lobby because on this issue they are right. One of the problems with the Government is their unwillingness to recognise the force of argument and the concern that exists. That has been my profound view over the five years that I have sat in this Chamber. I have sat silent, with enthusiasm for some measures and not so much enthusiasm for others. We are talking about peanuts in a massive programme of investment for the Health Service.
      I can do no better than conclude my remarks by observing, please think again. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who did not flutter her eyes at me but left the Chamber, are doing a first-class job. Conservatives throughout the country and many people who do not support our party are proud of what they are doing, despite all the media hype about problems in the Health Service. Why spoil that for this piddling, miserable proposal? I should want to say the same—I probably will not be able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker—about the eye test charges.
      I can do no better than echo the words of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes), who identified, as did other hon. Members in Committee, a range of matters that can be highlighted by dental tests. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North said that he knows that some people will be deterred and will find it a burden. If that is so—I believe it to be so—no hon. Member can possibly fail to support the amendment.
      Mr. Archy Kirkwood: My main reason for speaking in the debate stems from the remarks of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths). One of the most interesting issues that emerged from the speeches of the hon. Members for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) and for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss)—the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth made a particularly courageous speech, and I commend him for it—was the support they all gave to the need for preventive dental measures. Prevention has received a general welcome and an encouraging degree of cross-party support. Prevention should not become a party political issue; it is too important to be dragged down into the Punch and Judy antics of party politics.
      But the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North has sold his support far too cheaply. He seemed to be saying that he has allowed himself to be persuaded by the Government because they have said that money realised by charges will be translated into other preventive sectors. That is not a good argument, because the cost-effectiveness of charging £3 for a check-up is open to serious question. If the immediate saving is £50 million, the total cost, in the fullness of time, to the Government in picking up the cost of subsequent dental treatment, even though they are only

      383
      partially funding it, will still be far more than £50 million. For that reason, if for no other, the argument that swayed the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North is false. I hope that he will reconsider his position. The position he adopted earlier prior to being persuaded by the Secretary of State was sounder.
      The subject before the House is important. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has agreed to shift the focus of his attack to amendment No. 12 this evening—it goes more to the heart of the argument.
      I wish also to pick up something said by my constituent, the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), whose interests I always seek to advance in the House. He made an important point that applies to Scotland, where particular problems arise for people on the margins of benefits and low income earners, who will be most affected by the proposal. It will have a very severe impact, especially in the central industrial belt in Scotland. The traditionally bad diet and unhealthy lifestyles in that area are responsible for some of the problems that manifest themselves in the relatively poor statistics on bad dental health north of the border. So this argument is apposite to Scotland.
      The point made by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) was also important. If we allow the Government to introduce this change, what element of the Health Service will be next on the agenda for charges? That is a worrying feature of the charges. A point that had not occurred to me before listening to this debate was the likelihood that these charges will in future be treated by the Treasury just like any others. If extra revenue has to be raised from the health budget in future, the Treasury will not differentiate between money that has been allocated for improvements in preventive medicine and other general revenue, and the charges for the check-ups will spiral in the same way as general charges have in the past. That is inevitable, and it is another reason why the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North should reconsider his view unless the Secretary of State gives us a guarantee that that will not happen.
      The increase to £3 is a serious one to some of my constituents and will certainly deter a significant proportion of those who visit the dentist. It is a good idea to encourage people to go to the dentist—
      Mr. Graham Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you inform us about the practice of passing notes to right hon. and hon. Members on the Front Bench? The odd discreet note is to be welcomed, but there is a flow of paper. I realise that the Secretary of State and his Ministers may not be fully conversant with their briefs, but would you tell us what the practice normally is?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I see nothing out of order; it is perfectly normal practice.
      Mr. Kirkwood: In any case, I was about to end my remarks.
      Far from moving in the direction of imposing charges for dental check-ups, there is an economic case for giving people a positive financial incentive of, say, £3 to have their teeth checked once every six months or so. On a cost-benefit analysis, I believe that would pay dividends in the long run, and would show that the Government have got this aspect of the Bill very wrong.
      384
      Of course we can argue about whether people who can afford to pay should make a contribution to other, more general medical treatment, but as Conservative Members in this debate have eloquently said, there is no case for making this insignificant saving, which will make significant and damaging inroads into what we are all trying to establish—a future system of health care which is properly funded and which will encourage people to engage in preventive medicine rather than waiting until treatment is necessary, by which time important dental symptoms and oral conditions may have been missed and cannot consequently be treated properly.
      This proposal to introduce a charge is a retrograde step, and I hope that Conservative Members will not only make speeches against the Government but will encourage their colleagues to follow them into the Lobby against the Government and in support of the amendment.
      Mr. Sam Galbraith: I have been most impressed by some of the speeches by Conservative Members tonight—in particular, that by the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), who made a reasoned and considered speech about prevention, in which I know he takes an interest. It is difficult for me to add much to what he said, so I shall make only two brief points about what is involved here.
      I hope that the Minister will not start talking about who first introduced charges to the National Health Service. We had an agreement in Committee not to do that any more. I admit that I did it first, but I have kept to the agreement since then. An important principle is involved: the difference between charging for treatment and charging for a screening process. Now, for the first time ever, we are going to charge for screening.
      I hope, too, that the Minister will not say that we need to target screening and that it is no use having blanket screening. If he has a brief saying that, he should put it aside, for two reasons. Targeting is not applicable in this case. Dental disease occurs at all ages, and unless one identifies a specific disease—that is not the case here—targeting screening is not relevant to the dental examination.
      I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) about other diseases, particularly cancer of the mouth. He mentioned the study from Bristol. The important point about that is that the diagnoses were made earlier. That is the important thing about going to the dentist. People go to a general practitioner because of some major problem, but a higher proportion of cases in the Bristol study were picked up at stage one, rather than stages three or four, as is common at a general practitioner's. That is the important point about having the screening test, in which diseases are picked up. It is no good saying that patients have other symptoms and diseases that will take them to the doctor. They often think they have a dental problem and go to the dentist first. If that is prevented by a charge, there will be a delay in the diagnosis.
      Finally, the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) seemed to say that £3 was not much—merely the price of driving a car a certain distance. I do not think he realises how much it is to many people who do not pay charges. Even I did not realise how much it meant to many people until I became a Member of Parliament. Many of us lead

      385
      slightly closeted, ivory-tower, academic lives, but to a large number of our constituents £3 is a lot of money, and it will act as a disincentive to treatment.
      I end by congratulating the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) on what he said. It would not be a sign of weakness to concede this matter, but rather a sign of strength. As the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) said, one of the problems of this Government is that they produce Bills which they regard as being written on tablets of stone and seem to regard it as a sign of virility to change nothing in Committee. That is a sad reflection on our democracy, and, as the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South said, it would be a sign of strength to reconsider this matter. If the Government do not, I hope that as many hon. Members as possible will join in the Lobby tonight.
      Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I hope that it will not be necessary to divide the House on this issue. It is clear from the strength of argument of all parties that there is a consensus. The arguments propounded by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) reflected the view of the public when he spoke of these measures as being seen as penny-pinching and petty. He echoed the views of the public and of the professions who are most directly involved in dentistry and optical work. They have argued strongly that these parts of the Bill should be withdrawn to enable them to continue with their vital work.
      A basic principle is at stake in the amendments. All of us have grown up to see the National Health Service providing equality of access to a service of equal standards. This measure means that a tax is imposed on access to dental treatment, and later on access to optical tests. The Secretary of State may well raise the question of exemptions. The issue is not the people who will be exempted from these charges; it is the people living on the margins of poverty. The £3 charge can mean a difference for many poor families. They see that amount as a way of saving something for school meals and clothing for their youngsters, and this measure will prevent them from taking the opportunity of a free dental examination. That will have many knock-on effects.
      6 pm
      This group of poor families is the most vulnerable. People who live on the margins of poverty often skimp on what we may regard as basic essentials, such as toothpaste, but they do not see them as essentials. The diet of people living on the margins of poverty can be badly affected by their income. They are the people whom the Secretary of State should ensure has access to free dental examinations. They must be considered, and I therefore hope that the Secretary of State will concede these points.
      After the Health and Medicines Bill was published I spoke to many of the dentists in my constituency. There was a sense of outrage and they spoke at length about the various diseases that can be detected by a simple dental examination. During the week in which I spoke to those dentists, one dentist had diagnosed a throat cancer in an early dental examination. That is a significant point. The Government argue that more emphasis must be placed on primary health care and preventive medicine, but these charges will prevent people having access to that.
      386
      As the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) said, if the Government concede this point, it will be seen as a strength. It will do a great deal to restore public confidence in where the NHS is going and in the Government's attitudes. It will do a great deal to boost the morale of the professions. There will be loud applause all round if the Government concede this point. The Government should forget the penny pinching and concede that there are valid, widely accepted arguments against these charges.
      Mr. Moore: Amendment No. 38 is a direct response to the activities of the Opposition Front Bench, and I acknowledge the activities of all members of the Committee. In Committee the Opposition tabled an amendment with the same purpose as amendment No. 38, to exempt all 16 and 17-year-olds from all dental charges. For technical reasons we could not accept the Opposition's amendment as drafted, although we undertook to consider it and come forward with an amendment. I am happy to fulfil that undertaking. Amendment No. 38 is effectively identical to the Opposition's amendment except for the technical redrafting. I know that the Opposition would wish me to acknowledge that.
      The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) has tabled amendments which are linked. Amendment No. 63 relates to Scotland as opposed to England and Wales. Under the regulations governing the general dental services a dentist has the right not to proceed with or complete a course of treatment where the patient is liable to pay a charge or the full charge has not been paid. Most of us would consider that fair and reasonable. After all, dentists are professional people who must balance their books and run their businessess like anyone else. If they provide a service and have reason to believe that payment may not be forthcoming, they have a right to discontinue the provision of that service.
      In practice, dentists often rely on good will and do not insist on full payment in advance or they take an initial part payment and collect the balance on completion. The amendments would force them in some cases where dentures or other appliances are involved to carry through the course of treatment to the end, even when they have every reason to believe that they will not receive the proportion of the fee which is payable by the patient. The dentist can only either write off the loans or go to the trouble or expense of recovery through the courts. The NHS cannot make up the loss in these circumstances.
      Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 would create considerable difficulties for dentists and cause unnecessary friction between them and their patients. I do not believe that the amendments would serve a useful purpose. If a patient needs dentures and they have been prescribed, all he has to do to receive them is to pay the appropriate charge if he is not exempt or entitled to help on low-income grounds. I hope that the hon. Member for Southport will not press the amendments.
      I should like to respond specifically to the fair point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The White Paper on primary health care was endorsed by the chief medical officer. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the specific dental charges sections, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13 and 2.14, on promoting health.
      Mr. Dalyell: Is it a fact that the Government's proposals have the full and unambiguous approval of the chief medical officer and his advisers?
      Mr. Moore: I apologise again for my inability to make a loud noise. The White Paper on primary health care, which unambiguously endorses these points, was endorsed by the chief medical officer.
      I shall do what my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) did, and very well, when he sought to put the debate in context. The debate's context is how we try to allocate priorities for more spending on the family practitioner services. We should start with that point because it is an important feature which surrounds the nature of this proposal, the controversiality of which I do not for one moment doubt, having sat throughout this debate on Report, let alone the debate during the past few months.
      The family practitioner services have already had an increase in real terms expenditure of about 43 per cent., or £1·5 billion, in the past nine years. I do not think that anyone would disagree with that; it is endorsed by both sides of the House. That amount compares with public expenditure increases in a similar period of 14 per cent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North rightly pointed out, last autumn my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary announced, in the public expenditure proposals, substantial increases in real terms for the period up to 1991. It is within the context of these family practitioner services that we must consider the general dental service. That service has had its gross expenditure increased by 37 per cent. in real terms, with the Government's gross expenditure increasing in the same period by 20 per cent. in real terms. The Government committed £521 million last year.
      I have referred to the White Paper on primary health care, "Promoting Better Health", which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health introduced on 25 November 1987. I read with great interest all the Standing Committee Hansards, especially the comments of the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) in support, in a bipartisan way, of many of the aspects of the White Paper. The House will be aware of the Government's ambition, which is shared by many hon. Members on both sides of the House, above and beyond the public expenditure programmes, to spend more on family practitioner services.
      The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) asked us, rightly, to address the question of the extent to which those aims should be financed by maintaining or changing the present balance between public expenditure and charges within the general dental service and beyond the planned public expenditure. It is a legitimate point that any Government in looking at their priorities should consider on top of the already planned proposals for increases. It is crucial, in that context, therefore, to understand what has been happening in dental health and why; then we can understand why the Government believe that their proposals are fully justified.
      The view is almost universally held that dental health has been undergoing major improvements. Valid points have been made about variations in Scotland and elsewhere but the pattern for the United Kingdom as a whole has been one of steady improvement over the past few decades—under Governments of all political parties. Let me give one or two examples which are germane to my
      388
      argument. In 1973, 29 per cent. of five-year-old children were free of dental decay. By 1983—a decade later—the figure was 52 per cent., showing an amazing and very welcome improvement. Let us take a different date for adults. In 1968, 37 per cent. of adults had no natural teeth. By 1985, that figure had gone down to 22 per cent. Both those examples show a clear pattern of improvement, although I accpt that there are considerable regional variations, which I shall go into in a moment.
      Let us also consider the courses of treatment given. The number of courses of treatment, for all ages, has risen by 19 per cent. since 1979. However, what is particularly important is that courses of treatment given to those over the age of 65 have risen by 92 per cent. Another critical factor which has not been mentioned so far—
      Mr. Robin Cook: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Moore: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would allow me to finish my point first. A further factor illustrating the change in the nature of Britain's dental health is that since 1979 the number of dentists has risen by 20 per cent.
      Mr. Cook: In his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) the Secretary of State stressed that the proposals in the White Paper had been specifically approved by the chief medical officer. I wonder whether he could give us some guidance. Since he made that observation, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) and I have been trying to find the reference in the White Paper to charges for dental examinations. So far we have been unable to find any such reference. Can the Secretary of State guide us as to where we may find it?
      Mr. Moore: With pleasure. The hon. Gentleman will find the precise reference on page 9, at paragraph 2.13. Let me deal with the changing pattern—
      Mr. Barry Jones: I have sat through the debate, although I have not attempted to take part. Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and perhaps also to the recent intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), could the Secretary of State say where in chapter 4 of the document "Promoting Better Health" that reference is to the chief medical officer having given his full support to charging?
      Mr. Moore: I do not think that it is normal practice to include such a reference. The hon. Member for Linlithgow, whose memories go back to the days of the late Richard Crossman, will no doubt know whether that practice has been followed in every White Paper produced by every Government Department. I have specifically answered the question asked by the hon. Member for Linlithgow. We do not include such information when we write White Papers. [Interruption.] As I said, the chief medical officer endorsed it; I could not have been more specific.
      Let us consider changes in treatments. That is an important subject especially in relation to a factual error earlier in the debate, which I must correct. The number of extractions has fallen by about 13 per cent. over the past decade and the number of fillings by 21 per cent. Both those developments reflect the pattern of improvement in dental health. Meanwhile, the number of crowns fitted has

      389
      risen by 83 per cent. and the number of bridges fitted by 535 per cent. That is a clear indication of the changing pattern.
      What are the reasons for the improvement? Clearly, it would be quite improper if those of us who visit dentists did not compliment them on their activities first. But another point that emerged repeatedly in Committee was that half the nation does not visit the dentist regularly—a point referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). As hon. Members know, many other critical factors are involved in improved dental health. The first is better diet, although the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) referred to Scotland's particular problems in that regard. The reduction in the amount of sugar consumed has been a key factor in the improvement of dental health.
      Mr. Cormack: I appreciate the way in which my right hon. Friend is seeking to reply to the debate and I sympathise with him. Would he not agree that inspections may also have played a significant part?
      Mr. Moore: I shall be coming to that very point in a few moments, and I appreciate my hon. Friend's genuine sympathy.
      I have referred to better diet and reduced sugar consumption. Better information is also a critical feature. There is now better information on dental hygiene, on methods of brushing one's teeth and looking after them, and the information given to children is especially important. A crucial factor that has not been mentioned so far is fluoride. I am talking not just about fluoridation but about fluoride in toothpaste. About 90 per cent. of all toothpaste purchased today contains fluoride and most of us are exposed to fluoride in that way. We have a nation of better-informed people taking better care of themselves.
      It is very important that hon. Members on both sides of the House should understand that all these improvements have been happening at a time when the percentage of the general dental service paid for by charges has been increasing. The Opposition have disagreed with that pattern over the past few years. The reality is that in 1978–79 20 per cent. of the overall revenue for the general dental services came from charges. By 1986–87 that figure was 30 per cent. That represents a substantial increase in the proportion paid for by charges rather than by the taxpayer. Nevertheless, throughout that period there has been a significant improvement in dental health.
      Let me again put the proposals in context. This year, the proposals, including examination charges as well as the proportional charge increases, would take the percentage of care paid for by charges from 30 per cent. to 32 per cent., thus reducing the taxpayer supplement to the general dental service from 70 per cent. to 68 per cent. This is the basis on which we should view the increased public expenditure proposals for primary health care and the increased proportion that the Government propose should come from charges for the general dental service.
      Two key questions have emerged from this afternoon's debate in addition to my remarks about improvements in dental health. The first, which my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has consistently asked, is "Do we have evidence to suggest that charges will deter?" The second concerns the extent to which we are
      390
      helping those who cannot afford the present pattern or a changed pattern of charges. But the critical question is that relating to deterrence. I start by reminding hon. Members who have not had the opportunity to read what I found to be an extremely good set of Committee Hansards of what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health said :
      "Unless the deterrent argument can be made to run much faster and further than I believe it can, most of the arguments about the effects on the detection of other forms of ill health fall, because they depend on the proposition that large numbers of people will cease to come forward for examination or treatment."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 9 February 1988, c. 620.]
      Let me examine some of the questions about the deterrent effect of charges. They are valid questions because they reflect the worries surrounding this debate. First, I should remind the House that in 1968—I agreed that I would not say who did what when increasing charges for dental services—came the first increase in routine dental treatment charges since charges for dentures were introduced in 1951. Since 1968 a pattern of increases has been established, and sometimes those increases have been major. Against that background, we can study the pattern of courses of treatment. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) and others, there has been no year since 1968 in which the number of courses of dental treatment has not increased, and I shall deal with both the short-term and the long-term impacts in a moment.
      The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) made one or two remarks about changes in the number of fillings. I appreciate that it is sometimes difficult to get the exact facts, but let me tell him those facts of which I am informed. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that after the increase in charges in 1985 the number of fillings fell, though by 6 million and not by 5 million. As a result of improved dental care, however, the figure has been declining for many years. The number of extractions did not rise. The number of extractions has been declining steadily since 1979—a total decline of 13 per cent. from just over 4 million to under 3½ million. Moreover, treatment for gum disease rose by 5 per cent. in the year following the 1985 increases in charges.
      The hon. Member for Livingston is right to say that short-term changes occur in the pattern of demand from time to time.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Moore: Let me finish this point and perhaps obviate the need for hon. Members to ask questions and further delay the debate.
      Despite some sedentary interruptions, I have tried not to refer to the massive increases in charges of 35 per cent. in 1976 and 27 per cent. in 1977, but even following those increases there was still an increase in take-up of courses of treatment. The pattern of overall increase with occasional short-term interruptions has meant a steady average increase of 2·7 per cent. per year. That is clear from the data that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health and I have available, and nothing that was said in Committee sustains any argument to the contrary.
      Ms. Harriet Harman: The Minister has talked about the deterrent effect of charging for treatment, but charges for examination are being introduced for the first time. Secondly, does he agree with the British Dental Association and all other independent experts that an

      391
      increase in charges is followed by a slowing down in the increase in courses of treatment and the graph never actually catches up to the position that would have been achieved if the rate of increase had not been checked by the steep increase in charges?
      Mr. Moore: As I have said, I do not believe that that case is sustained either by the arguments put in Committee or by the data that I have studied.
      Mr. Hayes: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about treatment volumes, but every time charges have risen—in 1971–72, 1972–73, 1977–78, 1978–79, 1984–85 and 1985–86—although treatment volumes have continued to rise, the treatment per course has gone down. That is a British Dental Association statistic. My right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health accepted that. The argument is about the rate of recovery.
      Mr. Moore: Like my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health, I have studied all the data carefully. Although the long-term trend line shows short-term fallbacks, and it would be wrong to ignore market reaction, there are also years in which the increase is greater than the overall trend. producing a sustained increase of about 2·7 per cent. per year. Those who do not accept that argument seem to ignore the fact that that has occurred despite massive increases in charges in some years—as high as 35 per cent. under the Labour Government.
      Mr. Galbraith: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Moore: I should like to continue as we are getting short of time.
      With regard to the second point made by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), all our experience relates to free examinations and in many ways confirms the weakness of the argument that a modest charge will be a deterrent. Although examinations have been free of charge, only half the nation avails itself of the service. As was properly pointed out in Committee, the variations occur by region and social class and have far more to do with factors other than the theoretical possibility of a charge. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale said, the Tidman and Brown study is extremely relevant in this regard.
      I was fascinated to read the 19 March editorial of the British Dental Journal, which cited a study entitled, "Barriers to the Receipt of Dental Care". The key point, which is not unfamiliar to most of us as lay people, is fear. The editorial preferred to use the word "anxiety", but it referred to a whole series of factors, beginning as follows:
      "A generalised dislike of going to the dentist …
      Fear of pain.
      Fear focused on an aspect of treatment.
      'Guilt' embarrassment …
      The possibility of receiving poor or unnecessary treatment."
      Only then does it mention the potential cost. I do not suggest for a moment that cost was not a factor, but for most people it was not the major factor.
      Members who did not have the privilege of being on the Standing Committee may not realise that a 75 per cent. charge for examinations on a proportional basis will mean that for some of the more modest treatments the charge with the examination will remain the same or even be
      392
      lower than at present. I accept that the numbers are modest, but they are still significant for those who avail themselves of regular dental care.
      The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden did not wish me to mention this, but I cannot resist pointing out the actual sum involved. It is a very modest amount for those who are not exempt. I do not deny that £3 has value and is difficult for some people to find, but that sum once or twice a year must be compared, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) pointed out, with expenditure by the average family of more than £8 per week on alcohol, £4·55 on tobacco, more than £2 per week on toiletries and about £20 per year on toothpaste. Moreover, a large number of people will still be exempt from any charges at all. All the current exemptions will be maintained—for all children under 16, for young people aged 16 and 17, for students under 19, for expectant or nursing mothers and for people on low incomes, not just those on income support and family credit but those just above that level due to the special low-income scheme covering an additional £200,000 on application.
      With 38 per cent. of the population exempt, I do riot believe that a shift in charges increasing patient contributions to general dental services this year from 30 per cent. to 32 per cent. will deter people from seeking treatment.
      Dr. Moonie: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Moore: No, I am trying to conclude my remarks.
      We shall continue to protect those who cannot afford the very modest examination charge and we shall release additional resources beyond the increases in public expenditure already agreed. That increase will be spent in primary health care. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North was particularly concerned about this. The increase will be used especially in dental health to encourage prevention, to increase resources for fluoridation, to improve vocational and postgraduate training for dentists and on a new programme to promote dental awareness, especially among the young. However difficult decisions about priorities may sometimes be for Parliament, I hope that on the basis of what I have said the House will accept the justification for the Government's very solid proposals.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Robin Cook: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to respond to the debate. I shall do so briefly, because I appreciate that there comes a time when the House wishes to come to a decision and it can be exceedingly brusque to those who stand in the way at that moment.
      We have had an interesting debate. To those sitting on the Opposition Benches it has been revealing to observe the extent to which the Government's Back Benchers are prepared to come out openly in support of this measure. In the course of the debate, eight Conservative Members have spoken. Of those eight, five came out flatly against the proposal for charges on dental examinations. I am rather pained that so many of them had to express such reluctance at joining me in the Division Lobby. but I appreciate, and commend them on, their courage in overcoming that natural distaste.
      Of the remaining three Conservative Members, one, if I may say so to the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr.

      393
      Greenway), made a speech of sustained agnosticism, at the end of which I found it difficult to know quite where he stood in relation to charges. But two out of eight—one in four—came down in favour of charges for dental examinations. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) had the candour and courage to say that he was, broadly speaking, in favour of charging for just about everything, including visits to general practitioners, and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) had the intellectual rigour and honesty to say that these charges will act as a deterrent—to a minority, yes, but nevertheless they will act as a deterrent to some people who will be put off from presenting themselves for a dental examination. Those were the friends of the proposal.
      The Secretary of State, reasonably and understandably, sought in response to widen the debate to take in a discussion on the state of the nation's dental health. Of course it will be welcome in all quarters of the House that the nation's dental health is in an improved state. There are a number of different variables for that—diet, better standards of dental hygiene, community education in schools, and, most obviously of all, probably the single largest influence, the fluoridation of our water supply.
      But the key question is not whether the nation's teeth are in a better state than before; the key question to which we must address ourselves in the debate is whether charges for dental examinations promote or detract from a further improvement in the state of dental health.
      The Secretary of State grounded his argument against charges being a deterrent rather heavily on what happened in 1986. The figures that I have for 1986 are markedly different from the figures that the Secretary of State quoted. Mine come from the Dental Estimates Board. Its account for the year from April 1985 to April 1986 shows that the number of fillings did fall, from 33 million to 28 million—a drop of 5 million—and that the number of treatments for gum diseases fell from 2·4 million to 1·5 million—a reduction of well over a third. That was a reduction, but well ahead of trends. In each of the three years in the past 20 years in which there has been a substantial increase in dental charges, there has, in the following year, been a substantial drop in the graph of upward increases in treatment courses. That is what the Secretary of State referred to in his speech as a market reaction.
      We can expect a market reaction to charges being brought in for dental examinations, and I for one do not believe that preventive medicine of this important character should be exposed to a market reaction. Yesterday we debated the Government's proposals for cervical cancer screening. Does anybody imagine that we would take seriously a Government who proposed a fee for screening for cervical cancer? Would the hon. Member for Pembroke be prepared to rise in his place to justify such a fee on the basis that he justified these charges—on the ground that it would encourage women to buy the services more? Of course not.
      If any Government were benighted enough to propose a charge for cervical cancer smears, that Government would be laughed out of court by the Chamber because everybody, but everybody, would appreciate that such a charge would deter people from coming forward and
      394
      would flatly contradict the idea of that screening being a preventive process. Precisely the same argument applies to charges for dental examinations.
      If we are serious about making that a screening process to encourage the nation to have a healthy set of teeth, we must recognise that that service must be available free and we should not bring in any charges that will deter anybody, even if they are a minority.
      On that basis, we wish to move to a vote. I accept the point raised by those who have taken part in the debate, that it would be more appropriate to divide on amendment No. 12 than on amendment No. 10. Therefore, with the leave of the House, I seek to withdraw amendment No. 10, and will move amendment No. 12 formally.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment proposed: No. 12, in page 9, line 13, leave out subsection (7).—[Mr. Robin Cook.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 206, Noes 287.

      Division No. 258]

      [6.35 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Allen, Graham

      Dykes, Hugh

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Eadie, Alexander

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Eastham, Ken

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Fearn, Ronald

      Barron, Kevin

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Battle, John

      Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

      Beckett, Margaret

      Fisher, Mark

      Bell, Stuart

      Flannery, Martin

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Flynn, Paul

      Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Foster, Derek

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Fraser, John

      Blair, Tony

      Fry, Peter

      Boateng, Paul

      Fyfe, Maria

      Boyes, Roland

      Galbraith, Sam

      Bradley, Keith

      Galloway, George

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      George, Bruce

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Buchan, Norman

      Graham, Thomas

      Buckley, George J.

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Caborn, Richard

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Grocott, Bruce

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hardy, Peter

      Cartwright, John

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Clay, Bob

      Hayes, Jerry

      Clelland, David

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Haynes, Frank

      Cohen, Harry

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Henderson, Doug

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Corbett, Robin

      Hinchliffe, David

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Home Robertson, John

      Cox, Tom

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cummings, John

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Howells, Geraint

      Darling, Alistair

      Hoyle, Doug

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)

      Illsley, Eric

      Day, Stephen

      Janner, Greville

      Dewar, Donald

      John, Brynmor

      Dixon, Don

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Dobson, Frank

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Doran, Frank

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Kennedy, Charles

      395

      Killedder, James

      Pendry, Tom

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Pike, Peter L.

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Knox, David

      Prescott, John

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Leighton, Ron

      Radice, Giles

      Lewis, Terry

      Randall, Stuart

      Litherland, Robert

      Redmond, Martin

      Livingstone, Ken

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Livsey, Richard

      Reid, Dr John

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Richardson, Jo

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Robertson, George

      McAllion, John

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Rogers, Allan

      McFall, John

      Rooker, Jeff

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McKelvey, William

      Rowlands, Ted

      McLeish, Henry

      Ruddock, Joan

      McNamara, Kevin

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McTaggart, Bob

      Sheerman, Barry

      Madden, Max

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Madel, David

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Short, Clare

      Marek, Dr John

      Sims, Roger

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

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

      Martlew, Eric

      Soley, Clive

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Spearing, Nigel

      Meacher, Michael

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Stott, Roger

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Straw, Jack

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Turner, Dennis

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Vaz, Keith

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Wall, Pat

      Morley, Elliott

      Walley, Joan

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Mullin, Chris

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Murphy, Paul

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      O'Brien, William

      Winnick, David

      O'Neill, Martin

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Worthington, Tony

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Parry, Robert

      Patchett, Terry

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Mrs. Llin Golding and

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Mr. Frank Cook.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Bowis. John

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Allason, Rupert

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Brazier, Julian

      Amos, Alan

      Bright, Graham

      Arbuthnot, James

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

      Ashby, David

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Atkinson, David

      Burns, Simon

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Burt, Alistair

      Baldry, Tony

      Butcher, John

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Butler, Chris

      Batiste, Spencer

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Cash, William

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Body, Sir Richard

      Chope, Christopher

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Boswell, Tim

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Colvin, Michael

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Conway, Derek

      396

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Key, Robert

      Cope, John

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Couchman, James

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Cran, James

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Knapman, Roger

      Curry, David

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Davies, Q. (Stamp'd & Spald'g)

      Knowles, Michael

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Lang, Ian

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Latham, Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Dover, Den

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Dunn, Bob

      Lightbown, David

      Durant, Tony

      Lilley, Peter

      Eggar, Tim

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Evennett, David

      Lord, Michael

      Fallon, Michael

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Farr, Sir John

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Favell, Tony

      McCrindle, Robert

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Forman, Nigel

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Forth, Eric

      Maclean, David

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Franks, Cecil

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Freeman, Roger

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Gale, Roger

      Malins, Humfrey

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Mans, Keith

      Gill, Christopher

      Maples, John

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Marlow, Tony

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Marshall, John(Hendon S)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Mates, Michael

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Gorst, John

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Gow, Ian

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Mellor, David

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Miller, Hal

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Moate, Roger

      Grist, Ian

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Ground, Patrick

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Grylls, Michael

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

      Neale, Gerrard

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Needham, Richard

      Harris, David

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hayward, Robert

      Neubert, Michael

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Heddle, John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Page, Richard

      Howard, Michael

      Paice, James

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

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Pawsey, James

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Portillo, Michael

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Price, Sir David

      Irvine, Michael

      Raffan, Keith

      Irving, Charles

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Jack, Michael

      Rathbone, Tim

      Jackson, Robert

      Redwood, John

      Janman, Tim

      Renton, Tim

      Jessel, Toby

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Riddick, Graham

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      397

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Rost, Peter

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Rowe, Andrew

      Thurnham, Peter

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Ryder, Richard

      Tracey, Richard

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Tredinnick, David

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Trippier, David

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Trotter, Neville

      Scott, Nicholas

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Viggers, Peter

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Walden, George

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Walters, Dennis

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Ward, John

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Squire, Robin

      Warren, Kenneth

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Wells, Bowen

      Stanley, Rt Hon John

      Wheeler, John

      Stern, Michael

      Whitney, Ray

      Stevens, Lewis

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

      Wilshire, David

      Stokes, John

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Sumberg, David

      Wolfson, Mark

      Summerson, Hugo

      Wood, Timothy

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Woodcock, Mike

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Yeo, Tim

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Mr. Robert Boscawen and

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment made: No. 38, in page 9, line 16, at end insert—
      '(8) In paragraph 2(4)(a) of Schedule 12 to the National Health Service Act 1977 and paragraph 2(4)(a) of Schedule 11 to the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 for "16" there shall be substituted "18"'.—[Mr. Moore.]

    Clause 9

      THE DENTAL ESTIMATES BOARD AND THE SCOTTISH DENTAL ESTIMATES BOARD—CHANGE OF NAME AND EXTENSION OF FUNCTIONS
      Mrs. Currie: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 10, line 5, leave out
      'in the exercise of this power'
      and insert 'conferring such a right'.
      The amendment is consequential on our acceptance of amendments in Committee, and I trust that it will be acceptable to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 10

      GENERAL OPHTHALMIC SERVICES AND OPTICAL APPLIANCES
      Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 10, line 26, leave out subsections (1) and (2).
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Government amendments Nos. 31 and 33.
      Amendment No. 14, in page 12, line 44, leave out subsection (4).
      398
      Government amendments Nos. 32 and 34.
      Mr. Cook: Amendment No. 13 seeks to remove from the Bill the provisions for charges for the eyesight test. There is a degree of common ground between this debate and the debate that we have just concluded about charges for dental examination. I shall take as read the position on the general principles. [Interruption.] I have had occasion to mention that the Tea Rooms in this building are provided for people to gossip and that the Chamber is where we debate important matters. I wonder whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would draw that to the attention of hon. Members.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct. Will hon. Members who wish to make conversation do it elsewhere. and will those who remain in the Chamber allow the hon. Gentleman to move his amendment?
      Mr. Cook: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      There is much common ground between this debate and the one that we have just concluded. I shall take as read the general principles that underlie both debates. The clause provides for another reduction in health services which are free at the time of use. For that reason. it is objectionable. The clause also provides a charge that will discourage people from attending for a screening process. It is being put forward by a Government who proclaim their commitment to preventive medicine. It is impossible to square that paradox.
      I shall not rehearse the debate on the general reasons for rejecting the clause. Instead, I shall concentrate on the specific and substantial damage that the measure will cause. First, it is misleading to describe an eyesight test merely as an eyesight test. It involves a full eye examination: an examination of the back of the eye for systemic disease as well as for eyesight. Indeed, the objectives of the examination are laid down in regulations issued by the DHSS. They prescribe the diseases that have to be looked for.
      In the previous debate I asked the Secretary of State what evidence had emerged since Second Reading that would support the case that the Government are making for charges. I have to say to the Minister for Health, who I understand is to respond to the debate, that evidence has emerged since Second Reading that is appropriate and relevant to the clause, but it buttresses the powerful case against introducing a charge for such tests.
      The first piece of evidence, and perhaps the most powerful, is provided by the survey carried out by the British College of Optometrists. It carried out a survey of 1,500 optometrists in the first week of January this year. That is a massive survey and it covered an enormous sample 70,000 eye examinations. From that survey it emerged that in the five working days of that week 6·1 per cent. of those examined were referred to a general practitioner or hospital for further examination for a medical condition. A total of 2·5 per cent. of examinations resulted in a notification to a general practitioner of a medical condition which the optometrists believed should be reported. In other words, 8·6 per cent. of the sample revealed some sort of medical condition, not immediately related to eyesight, that was worthy of further medical investigation.
      To put that figure into perspective we should bear in mind that 12 million eye examinations take place each

      399
      year. If 8·6 per cent. of those examinations require referral, that means that over 1 million people are referred to their doctor or hospital for a further medical investigation as a result of the routine screening.
      Some of the medical conditions discovered during eye examinations are serious. The two most common to emerge in the survey were cataracts and glaucoma. Both those conditions can result in total blindness. One can be operated upon and the other can be treated, but both can be irreversible if left untreated for too long. It is an interesting fact that the majority of cases of glaucoma are detected not by GPs but by optometrists using the routine NHS eye examination.
      It is perverse to suggest that that screening operation is likely to be done better by GPs who remain free; or who remain free for as long as the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) is content to allow them to do so. It is not the case at present that GPs carry out that screening better than optometrists, and it is not likely to be the case in the future, as, by and large, GPs do not have the same experience as optometrists and are unlikely to have the equipment that is available to optometrists. The examination is vital and can result in the identification of serious medical conditions.
      The question that remains is whether the charges in this case will deter people from coming forward for examination and preventive screening. I believe that they will. On this occasion I am happy to say that I have substantial and influential supporters for my contention that charges for eye examination will deter people from coming forward.
      First, I should like to pray in aid the Prime Minister. She wrote a letter in June 1980 to an optometrist in London concerning the then proposal by the Government to charge for eye examinations. That proposal was abandoned at the time. The letter stated:
      "The Government have decided to drop this proposal in response to strong representations that such a charge in a service that has a preventive function would be wrong in principle and could deter patients from seeking professional advice."
      Those are the words of the Prime Minister, the senior Minister of the Government, who now, eight years later, are coming forward with a charge for that very examination.
      The question that I have to ask the Minister—I hope that he will be able to answer it—is why did the Prime Minister consider that charges for eye examinations in 1980 would be a deterrent, when in 1988 we are told that they will not be a deterrent?
      A suggestion was made by a spokesperson from Downing street which was quoted in the newspaper that revealed the Prime Minister's letter. It said:
      "Most people are better off nowadays. If people spend so much on luxuries, surely they can afford £10 for an eye test."
      Let us examine that proposition and see whether it convinces us. I believe that the charges in this case will be an even greater deterrent than the charge for dental examinations. They will be a greater deterrent for three reasons. First, such examinations are likely to be more expensive. Optometrists are currently paid £9·30 for every eye examination. If they are to recoup that income in full, they will have to set a charge of about £9 or £10. Therefore, the charge will be substantially greater than that currently proposed for dental examinations.
      Secondly, the client group to whom the examination is most relevant is the elderly. As one grows old, one's eyes
      400
      degenerate. The optometrists survey to which I referred earlier discovered that half of all referrals were people over the age of 60. Yet the exemptions for people who have an income too low to pay are drawn in such a limited fashion that, of the 9 million pensioners in Britain, 6·5 million will not qualify for exemption. Those 6·5 million will have to find the full £10 for the examination, although they may well be the people who have just lost £10 of housing benefit as a result of the changes that we have seen this month.
      Thirdly, those who require eye examinations are likely to require them periodically. As one gets older and one's eyes start to fail, one needs to have one's spectacles adjusted regularly. Such people should have their eyes tested regularly to ensure that their spectacles are appropriate for the condition of their eyes. The elderly, who are least likely to be able to afford the £10 charge, are in the invidious position of having to go more often and pay that charge.
      Diabetics are another group of people who ought to go regularly for an eye examination. To their credit, officials at the DHSS are seeking to encourage greater screening for diabetic retinopathy. This condition can result in blindness among diabetics. It requires regular examination to ensure that retinopathy is not developing from the diabetic condition. Diabetics are not exempt from the £10 charge. They will have to pay that charge every time they present themselves for examination. There is every reason why every hon. Member would wish a diabetic to attend for a full eye examination as often as possible because with that condition, as with others, sight can be retained by treatment, but that treatment can be successful only if there is an early enough intervention.
      7 pm
      I stress that the decision whether to go for that examination will inevitably be taken by people who have no idea at the time how important that examination might be to them. Of course, any member of the public, however poor, who believed that the examination could result in his or her sight being saved would scrape together, borrow,, find, beg or steal the £10 to pay for that examination, but: it will not appear that way to many people. Many of them will not be aware until too late that, by passing up the chance of an examination because they did not want to pay £10, they have seriously jeopardised their eyesight—perhaps worse.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish)—who will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the course of this debate—has with him the details of a constituent who developed a problem with her eyes, went along for a full eye examination and, as a result. was referred immediately to the local hospital and was treated within days for secondary cancer from breast cancer. She had no idea, as she considered whether she would go for an eye examination, that her life was at risk and would be saved by that examination. Indeed, she has, said that she is doubtful whether she would have gone for the examination at that time had she been obliged to pay £10 for it.
      How many more people will respond perfectly rationally to the price signal, will not present themselves for an examination and will suffer the tragedy of discovering when they do eventually go for an examination that it is too late for their life or too late for their sight?
      There is an irony here, and it is that the Government are expecting individuals to show prudence by investing, and

      401
      investing early, in an eye examination and spending a substantial sum as a preventive health measure. They expect individuals who may not be in a position to make an informed decision to make that prudent investment. Yet the Government themselves are not prepared to show a similar prudence by investing in a free screening facility that is excellent value and of proven quality.
      I want to conclude by looking at what good value it is. It is reckoned that the cost of blindness to the state is some £3,500 per person per annum. That figure was last used by Professor Yudkin in the British Medical Journal. That is a substantial sum per annum. I hope that my hon. Friends will forgive me if I put a cash figure on such a deep personal tragedy as the loss of sight, with all that that implies for the loss of witness of life and the life that then has to be lived in darkness, but that may be the best way to get through to the Treasury Bench.
      Taking the cost of screening as £9·30 per patient, we can calculate that the total cost of screening 1,000 patients would be £9,300. If the survey to which I referred at the beginning of this speech provides an accurate guide—and it was certainly a very comprehensive, large-scale survey—the examination of 1,000 patients would produce 60 patients to be referred to doctors or hospitals for conditions such as glaucoma, cataract and retina—
      Mr. Galbraith: Retinopathy.
      Mr. Cook: I am most grateful. I knew that my hon.
      Friend would be a great asset in this debate. I rest on his guidance. Possibly he could check Hansard for me when I have concluded my speech.
      Of those 60 cases, many of them with serious conditions that threaten blindness, it is far too modest to suspect that one in 10 would have their sight preserved as a result of that referral to medical attention. If only six were saved from going blind as a result of that examination, the annual saving to the state would be £21,000—over double the cost of paying for the screening of the 1,000 patients in the first place. It is a bargain. Only a Government obsessed with counting the petty cash of public expenditure would be prepared to put such a bargain at risk. This is the last chance that the House of Commons has to save the Government from their own folly. Many hon. Gentlemen on the Government Back Benches know that it is folly. It needs only a sufficient number of them to show the vision and courage to join us in saving the Government from their own folly and saving an excellent free Health Service for our constituents.
      Dame Jill Knight: It will be no surprise to my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that I feel impelled to speak in this debate. Indeed, I have travelled many thousands of miles to do so. I rise particularly to support amendment No. 13.
      I can understand the need to find more money for the Health Service, even if it is to be moved to be spent in a different part of the Health Service. There are many needs, and I acknowledge them all and would wish money to be spent. So I can understand the Government's view that they should find more money for the Health Service. But the proposition now before us will cost the Health Service far more that it will save. I can understand the Government's view that primary medical care, on which they are to spend a lot of these dubious savings, as I
      402
      understand it, and preventive medicine, are of great importance. But clause 10 as it stands will be a powerful instrument against early diagnosis of a number of diseases, and early diagnosis is surely the core of preventive medicine.
      I can understand the soundness of the economic theory that people who can afford to pay for medical aids should be asked to do so, but such people are already paying for glasses and other appliances, such as contact lenses, that they may need. We are dealing not with the principle of their paying for something that they need but with whether they should pay for the check to find out whether they need it. It has always been a fundamental concept of the National Health Service that medical examinations must be free. If those examinations indicate that some appliance, such as glasses, contact lenses or dentures, as we were discussing earlier, are necessary for the patient, fair enough; we have conceded that they should be paid for. Most people who originally thought, happily and with misty eyes, looking through rose-coloured spectacles, that we could make health service free have accepted that if appliances are needed they must be paid for. But the argument advanced in the earlier debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) was absolutely shot to pieces by hon. Members on both sides of the House, because if we once say that the principle of free testing for anything is to be breached, what is the reason for stopping anywhere? That is what worries us.
      I have no doubt whatsoever that a very substantial number of people will he deterred from having their eyes tested. On the Government's figures, a quarter of pensioners will be eligible for free tests. That leaves three quarters who are not eligible. I have to admit that I have never accepted the theory that every gentleman over 65 or lady over 60 is automatically a pauper; there are some who are very wealthy, but I do not think that three quarters of pensioners fall into the category. Many are on a very difficult line between managing and not managing and for them that £10—and we know that it has to be at least £10—is going to be a very powerful deterrent. And, as the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said, this comes just at the time when they need to have their eyes examined more often than at any other time in their life. They will find it very difficult to work out where the £10 is to come from out of their budget. After all, 78 per cent. of people between the ages of 78 and 85 have major eye diseases and obviously need to have their eyes tested very regularly. I am worried about those pensioners.
      I am also worried about the parents of growing children. The children will be safeguarded, as they should be, but I am talking about the parents themselves. I have read all the debates and nothing I have seen has convinced me that I am wrong when I say that parents will put the needs of their children above paying for their own eye tests. I would have done it myself. We all would, if we were short of money when our children were growing up. A parent will say, "I may not need to have my eyes tested. They may be all right. It will cost £10 and Johnny needs a new winter coat." That is where the money will go. The parents will not go to have their eyes checked and early signs of the onslaught of such things as heart disease, cancer and diabetes will be missed.
      It is all right for hon. Members. We are in receipt of a salary and we do not mind paying. We will pay even though we do not like the principle of the free test being

      403
      eroded. I am making a plea not for us but for the people who will find it extremely difficult to pay. Because the early signs of some diseases will he missed, the whole operation will cost far more than it will save in the long run because it is much more expensive to treat these things at a later stage.
      Nothing I have yet heard convinces me that I am wrong when I warn about the implications of the clause for ophthalmic departments in hospitals. This is serious. A person will go to his doctor and say "I am having headaches." The doctor will tell the patient that his eyes should be tested and that he can go to the high street and pay the optometrist £10 or £11, or he can go to the hospital and have it done for nothing. It stands to reason that people who find it difficult to get the money together will go to the hospital. There is no way that the Government can tell doctors that they are not to send these patients to hospital. That is not on the cards. It cannot be done. People have a right to have their eyes tested in hospital.
      Again I come to the point about the extra cost of the proposal. Whereas the Government have been paying optometrists £10 to test a person's eyes, if the person goes to a London hospital it will cost at least £35 for each test. I am using a conservative estimate. Some people have given me higher figures, but at the moment in London the Government pay £10 to the optometrist and will pay £35 at least to the hospital. Outside London the cost is slightly less. As I understand it, it is in excess of £27 or £28. That is the lowest figure I have heard. I am trying to be fair, but that means that we are bound to pay more in the long run.
      Again, the most conservative estimate of the current waiting list for care in the eye department of a hospital is nine months. If this goes through, I warn the House that we shall all get shoals of letters from constituents complaining that they have to wait two or three years to have an eye test. Crowding in hospitals has led the people in charge of some hospital eye departments to write to some of us already. Their worries about the extra people who will come to their departments are severe. We should understand this.
      I read with interest some of the speeches made in Committee. On 16 February my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health said:
      "Regular checks of, for example, blood pressure or urine samples arc a far more reliable way of diagnosing the conditions—especially diabetes …—than is the occasional eye test. In any event,"—
      he said cheerfully—
      "people go to their opticians much less frequently, if at all, than they go to their doctors."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 16 February 1988; c. 733.]
      I wonder whether that is so. I was interested to see that my right hon. Friend was challenged to produce figures but I did not see any figures.
      7.15 pm
      If a person goes for an eye test, something positive is done. Many of the people who go to their doctors and who, I am sure, are in the lists of patient attendances may be going simply to have their inoculations updated. That counts as a visit to the doctor. So do a host of other things. Many people need glasses from the time they are children. We all know children who have to wear glasses. Those people have to go regularly to the optician throughout their life. Do they really go more often to the doctor than to the optician? I have tried to remember, and I think that the only time that I have been to my doctor in the last 20
      404
      years has been to have a jab, whereas I have been to the optician to have my eyes tested far more often. People who wear glasses for reading or for distance vision have to go regularly to the optician.
      My right hon. Friend's statement was mirrored by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security in a most important contribution:
      "We would not seek to deny that opticians may detect signs of diabetes or hypertension during the sight test,"—
      that is magnanimous because they do it all the time—
      "but primary responsibility for the diagnosis and treatment of all medical conditions rests with the patient's GP. The GP has a better opportunity to detect such conditions than the optician has. Doctors normally see about three quarters of the patients on their list within a 12-month period."
      I wonder whether those are the same patients or whether some of them have gone along to have jabs, as I did.
      It stretches my credulity to impossible lengths to imagine that if someone takes a child with, for example, measles to the doctor there will automatically be a test for diabetes. What doctor takes a urine sample for a wrenched ankle, a broken arm, a tummy upset or flu? There will be many complaints from general practitioners if they have to carry out blood and urine tests on patients in those categories. It is unrealistic to think that doctors would do that.
      Later in Committee, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said:
      "We wish to use our funds to encourage GPs to do that kind of screening more effectively in future."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 16 February 1988; c. 751–752.]
      The GP should not be asked to do all this screening at the same time as he is dealing with a condition which has nothing to do with eyes. The optometrist, who has trained for three or four years, and sometimes more, is looking at the eyes alone. Because he knows what he is doing he can detect early signs of trouble. The doctor will not do that if he is examining another part of the patient's body.
      The idea that doctors should test eyes should be exploded here and now. It is different if the doctor is an ophthalmic medical practitioner, but the ordinary GP knows less about eyes than the trained optometrist. That may come as a shock and surprise to the Government, but it is true. The ordinary GP has not specialised in eyes because he has many other parts of the body to look after. If the Government suggest to the British Medical Association that all GPs should carry out this screening free instead of it being done by optometrists, there will be a loud outcry. Doctors are not trained to do it. If they are going to do the same job as optometrists they will have to train, and to buy a great deal of very expensive equipment. I gather that it costs at least between £3,000 and £4,000. Doctors do not have that equipment in surgeries at present. If a doctor is told that he must test eyes it will be no more practical than the suggeston that charges will have to be made for hospital eye checks. It is not realistic to suggest that.
      I resent, on behalf of trained optometrists, the suggestion that they do a really rather unimportant job. They provide us with a cheap and very cost-effective means of doing a very good job on eyes. We should not write them down. After all, only about five years ago, the Government introduced the rule that optometrists should do refractions and give the prescription to the patient. who

      405
      could then trot off down the road to a boutique and get some snazzy glasses at reasonable cost. At one stroke, one means of an optician earning money was cut off.
      Here we have cut off his other source of income. The Government will say, "We are not stopping him asking for money." But suppose that patients do not turn up or a prescription is taken elsewhere, or, as happens in very many cases, the test does not reveal any need for spectacles? Who will pay then? I think it is unrealistic to say, first, that an optician may or may not get his money from spectacles, and then to say that he may get money from patients, but not from the Government, to do his job of testing eyes.
      Clearly, the Government do not want to have late diagnosis of disease when it could be done early. Obviously, the Government do not want to pour out more money on the Health Service, yet get a worse service for it. And surely the Government are not intending to flood hospitals with patients who could be dealt with perfectly well elsewhere, for a great deal less money. I cannot believe that the Government need to place new money worries on people who already have problems making ends meet. Those who need to have regular tests will have problems.
      In the previous debate, the hon. Member for Pembroke said that £3 was the cost of a few cigarettes. We are talking about at least £10, so I wonder what new figures we shall hear. But let nobody in the House be in doubt but that people will find it very difficult to pay to have their eyes tested. I do not believe that my right hon. Friends are guilty of all these things: of intending to flood hospitals, or to pour out money only to get a worse service. Nor do I believe that they are trying to place money worries on people. Yet that is exactly what they are doing. All those points will be covered by clause 10, unless it is amended.
      I cannot quite understand why this matter has not been thought through, or why difficulties about its implementation have not been foreseen. Should the clause be accepted, we shall have a great deal of trouble on our hands. I shall be first in the Lobby to vote for amendment No. 13 tonight.
      Mr. Barry Jones: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). The hon. Lady's well-informed speech was supported by considerable experience, and has been of much help to the House in considering this serious matter.
      I should like to follow the hon. Lady by drawing to the attention of hon. and right hon. Members a letter that I have received from a consultant physician at Chester royal infirmary. The hospital, just the other side of the Welsh border, cares for many of my constituents. The consultant says:
      "While I welcome many of the initiatives, for example, retirement of GPs at the age of 70, I am on the other hand very concerned about the plans for introduction of a charge for an NHS sight test with opticians."
      He went on:
      "It was reported in The Times on 26 November 1987 that charges for dental examinations and sight tests would raise £170 million for 'development of the Health Service' and the 'promotion of better health'. Such a statement is a strange paradox when the major thrust of the White Paper is towards preventive medicine to provide better health care."
      He says:
      "Eye disease due to diabetes has to be detected before development of symptoms…to enable provision of effective
      406
      treatment. Strenuous efforts are being made to provide such screening and yet the hospital service can only cope with, at best, around 50 per cent. of such patients at risk of losing their vision. Most general practitioners declare that they do not have the necessary expertise to carry out such a task."
      That was a central point of the hon. Member for Edgbaston's contribution. The consultant emphasised it strongly. He continued:
      "Opticians are therefore ideally placed to carry out this task. It was therefore unfortunate that on the morning of 25 November 1987 I was invited to speak to the local optical committee and received their enthusiastic support for opticians in the area in carrying out screening for diabetic eye disease. Later the very same day such plans were effectively shattered by the proposed introduction of a charge for sight testing."
      He goes on to say:
      "Hopefully such charges will not be introduced but if this should happen I would like to make a plea for an exemption from a sight testing charge for patients with diabetes. Obviously this will result in other patients with as yet undiagnosed conditions…for instance glaucoma and high blood pressure, going undetected with inevitable serious consequences on occasions."
      That consultant is not embroiled in the party political scene, but he felt so strongly that he made this case to me by letter, which I have also put to Ministers.
      One principle is undeniable. Free sight testing is a cheap and effective method of preventive medicine. If a charge is introduced, I believe that the White Paper's emphasis on preventive health care will be undermined, as other hon. Members have said in relation to dental charges. The Government's stance in the White Paper will be contradicted. The proposed measure will not help any of my constituents.
      I say to the Secretary of State and his Ministers that their proposals to put a charge on eye tests is a serious error of judgment. I also advise them that it will damage the Government politically. It puts them in a very unfavourable light at a time when they are struggling on various political fronts. The measure debated today is far from helpful, even in the interests of the long-term life of the Government. It is also morally wrong to put a charge on eye tests a month after massive Budget handouts were given to the richest in our society. This is an unjust proposal and I hope that the Government will think again.
      Mr. Sims: In the course of our earlier debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, several of my hon. Friends said that they would not seek to catch your eye in this debate because they felt that the arguments were much the same. I apologise for rising again, but I hope that I shall not be unduly repetitious. Indeed, some of the arguments are much the same, except that in this instance they are rather stronger than those put forward in the case of dental health.
      As the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) said, the thrust of the Government's health policy is prevention. Indeed, the White Paper is specifically entitled, "Promoting Better Health", and the third of the Government's six objectives laid out in the foreword to the documents reads:
      "to promote health and prevent illness."
      The proposals to make charges for dental and eye checks seem incompatible with those admirable aims.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside that the proposals seem politically inept. The controversy that they have aroused has diverted attention from the

      407
      many good points in the White Paper and the Bill. It is unfortunate that we have been diverted by those two issues.
      7.30 pm
      The value of an eye test is not disputed. Anyone who read the material provided to us by the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) will have learned what is involved in an eye test from the, examination of the skin surrounding the eye to the eye surface and the retina. If hon. Members had had the opportunity, as I have, of seeing a detailed examination being carried out by the college, they would have been most impressed, as I was, by its scope and detail and what it can detect. There is ample evidence that a wide range of problems which merit reference to a specialist can be revealed by a test—not only glaucoma and cataract, but symptoms of other problems such as diabetes and hypertension.
      As a result of an eye test, it was discovered that a member of my family was suffering from hypertension, which is what you, Mr. Speaker, and I would call high blood pressure. The condition was treated and is under control, but had it not been revealed by the test the consequences might have been serious.
      My right hon. Friend the Minister will argue that by withdrawing free tests we are saving money which can be spent elsewhere. I suspect that he will also point out that we are not imposing a charge in the Bill but are simply enabling optometrists to levy one if they wish. Various figures have been suggested; £10 is a popular one. I had my eyes tested only a month or two ago and I spent 30 or 40 minutes with a well-qualified gentleman who used expensive and sophisticated equipment. At the end of the examination I said to him, "Have I had £10-worth?", to which he replied, "You have had about £25-worth," and I believe that he is right.
      Whatever the figure, the question is: will such a charge be a deterrent? As I said earlier, any charge, particularly of this sort of magnitude, is bound to deter, especially elderly people on smal incomes—the very people who most need a test.
      Would money be saved by this measure? In the short term it would, but in the long term certainly not. The extra cost to the NHS of treating some of the conditions to which I have referred which will have been allowed to develop but which could have been detected earlier by an eye test will be enormous and far greater than for dental matters.
      I shall not embarrass the Minister by voicing my assessment of his qualities, but he is wrong on this issue. I shall vote for amendment No. 13 to remove this power from the Bill. It will undoubtedly be said by the media and in the Whips' Office that I have voted against the Government. Perhaps in response I can read a brief quotation:
      "Our policies rest on six principles: First, we will give greater emphasis to the prevention of avoidable illness and the promotion of good health—to make the NHS more truly a health service and not merely a sickness service."
      My hon. Friends will recognise those words from our party's election manifesto, on which the Minister, I and others fought and won the general election. I supported that policy then, and I shall support it tonight with my vote.
      Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I feel sad about what is happening in this Chamber tonight. The
      408
      condition of glaucoma appears to be genetically transmitted within my family, so it helps to concentrate my mind on precisely what we are debating here this evening. When my grandmother died it was not from that condition, but it went with her to the grave. I remember well her final years and what it meant in my family, and I cannot understand why the Government wish to press on in this way.
      We on the Labour Benches cannot claim any monopoly of compassion and in the context of objectively debating these matters it would be wrong to do so. I cannot understand what thought processes go through Ministers' minds when they conclude that this is in the public interest and, indeed, would safeguard the position of those who may ultimately find that they have this condition.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said to me earlier, this goes against everything that he has ever stood for, and I understand exactly what he means. I sense that many Conservative Members who, recognising that none of us can claim a monopoly of compassion, also wish to say that tonight, but they may feel from a sense of loyalty that they are required to vote with the Government. Yet they are not in the Chamber and will not hear this debate. They will walk into the Lobby and support the Government. The Minister knows the antagonism that the measure is creating and the strong feelings that many of us have and must contain.
      Some weeks ago I wrote to the Minister responsible, Lord Skelmersdale. Indeed, I wrote to the Secretary of State the other day and added a footnote in my hand, saying that this was wrong and that he misunderstood what the debate was about. My letter to Lord Skelmersdale included a letter from a consultant at the West Cumberland hospital, and the Minister replied, trying to reassure me and the consultant of the merit of the Government's position. I sent the consultant ophthalmic surgeon, Mr. Cubey, the Minister's letter and Mr. Cubey replied:
      "I am writing again so soon because I am sure that you will be interested to know that already within three days of having received your letter enclosing Lord Skelmersdale's views, I am able to refute those views categorically by a concrete example.
      I have examined for the first time today a 73 year old man who is a constituent of yours. He had not seen an optician for many years but felt that he should perhaps have some reading glasses and therefore consulted an optician just two weeks ago. The optician found in him signs of early glaucoma of which the patient was totally unaware and which were totally unrelated to his reasons for seeking the optician's help. The optician advised the man's General Practitioner that he should be referred to Hospital, and I saw him at the Workington Infirmary this morning. I confirmed that he has early glaucoma and I have started him on treatment aimed at preserving his sight.
      I asked the patient whether, if he had thought that he would have to pay a fee of £10 for his sight test by the optician"—
      I presume that that is if he were not going in for glasses—
      "he would have been deterred from consulting the optician. His reply was unequivocal. He said that in those circumstances he would not have consulted the optician."
      That is an admission that someone would not have consulted an optician because of the charge. The assumption made was that the charge would be £10. I have discussed this with my hon. Friends. Indeed, the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) referred to a completely different figure. We are now talking not about £10 but about £20, £25 or even £30. Does the Minister accept that if such charges are introduced they will act as a disincentive?

      409
      The letter continues:
      "It is therefore clear that in those circumstances his glaucoma would have gone undetected for a considerable time"—
      that is an assumption; it might not be true, but I think that it could be in this context—
      "with irretrievable damage to his sight."
      That person is a 73-year-old man.
      The letter continues:
      "I asked the patient if he would agree to me writing to you about the details of his case".
      The letter goes on to comment on matters of personal detail and then states:
      "I have quoted this case in some detail in order to demonstrate the false assumptions made by Lord Skelmersdale.
      It is clear from this case, and this could be multipled many times over in this constituency alone, that Mr. Pitts Crick's fears about the detection of glaucoma are not groundless.
      The 'primary purpose of the NHS sight test' may indeed have always been 'to establish if a person needed glasses and if so to what prescription', but an essential purpose of it also is the detection of eye diseases or abnormalities—indeed opticians expose themselves to litigation if they fail to detect these.
      It may well be 'that the Government is doing nothing to change the way sight tests are actually conducted', but the proposed restriction of free NHS sight testing will reduce the number of sight tests conducted and hence the number of cases in which for example early glaucoma is detected.
      Lord Skelmersdale apparently believes that it 'need not be so' that people would be 'deterred from seeking sight tests on cost grounds'. Here is one clear example of such deterrence. People on low incomes may be deterred by ignorance or by the complexities of having to claim exemption from the sight testing fee.
      The recommendations that 'anybody with health worries should in any case consult their family doctor' misses the point altogether, which is that glaucoma, for example, is symptomless until quite advanced, and therefore the sufferer has no cause for concern about it and no indication that he should consult his family doctor until an optician recommends this as a result of his NHS sight test."
      A consultant ophthalmic surgeon is telling me that what is being done is wrong and is pointing to the dangers. Surely that must influence ministerial judgment.
      I turn to another aspect of the matter. I understand that a court case is going on. I believe that it relates to the British Ophthalmic Lens Manufacturers' and Distributors' Association. I have not done my homework in this area, but I have been informed of it tonight. I understand that it has brought some action, which may be sub judice so I cannot talk about the merits—but perhaps I am wrong—about the right of persons who sell spectacles to sell them without a full eye test. I know that there are shops around the country—I am told that there is one near my constituency in Whitehaven—where a shopkeeper sells spectacles without a formal eye test. It seems that a person enters the shop, looks at a card on the wall and then, based on the identification of certain letters, is able to establish what kind of spectacles are required, and proceeds to purchase them.
      7.45 pm
      I advise the Minister that persons such as the gentleman to whom Mr. Cubey referred in his letter could enter such a shop—perhaps the Minister could clarify this because I should like to know what the position is—
      The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton)rose—
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Perhaps I could finish the point.—and buy his spectacles without having undergone a full eye test, thus slipping through the net for establishing whether glaucoma exists. If that is the case, Ministers must make it clear during tonight's debate.
      Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman will realise, I am not aware at the moment of a court case such as he has described, but as he has suggested that there may be such a case, I must obviously choose my words cautiously. I understand that the provisions in the legislation that introduced the voucher scheme were that spectacles can only be provided against a recent prescription, by which is meant a prescription which would entail an eye examination less than two years old.
      Mr. Hayes: Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman. I am not aware of any court case but I have been lobbied and know that many hon. Members of all parties have been lobbied by a company whose name I shall not mention, which wants to sell glasses in shops without a proper eye test. I feel that that is dangerous.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sure that the Department's officials will follow up what I am saying tonight to find out whether what I have said has any foundation. I was informed of this just one hour ago by the principal optician in West Cumberland who told me of the existence of this retailer. Perhaps there is a case in the European court—it might not be—but he has referred to an action in some court. I am sure that advice is now being taken from civil servants. The matter should be clarified during tonight's debate.
      The second issue that I want to raise is the question of what pensioners will do. As I understand it, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) referred to the fact that three quarters of pensioners would not be entitled to the voucher—
      Mr. Newton: In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, it would be sensible for me to clear up the matter straight away. What I had asked for from my officials was what I said on precisely this point in Committee. I repeat it:
      "The law is that spectacles can be sold against a prescription that is up to two years old. There is scope for argument about whether two years or some other period is right, but there must obviously be some such provision."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 11 February 1988; c. 660.]
      I then repeated the fact that it is not lawfully possible to sell spectacles other than under those provisions.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: The firm that gave me the information this evening is Philip Heal of Workington. I am sure that officials will wish to follow that up.
      As I was saying, three quarters of pensioners would not necessarily be supported in the payment of the charges. Pensioners are a group of people particularly susceptible to the condition of glaucoma. I should have thought that detection of the condition is very much dependent on their regular visits to opticians to secure a test. If the charge is not to be £10, if it is to be perhaps £15, £20 or £25 because opticians would know that they are not likely to be selling spectacles, and if a hospital is some distance from where elderly people live—as is the case in parts of my constituency—and with their problems with the resources that they retain, they may well visit opticians less frequently to secure that test.

      411
      Unless the Minister can give an absolute guarantee to the House tonight that pensioners will secure tests as regularly as they have done in recent years, he has absolutely no right to press the provision on the House because not to give that guarantee is to accept that pensioners will become a more exposed group of people.
      Finally. I am sure that the Secretary of State is listening to what I am saying and I advise him that I am not speaking out of any sense of unreasonable criticism of his position. Yesterday he had a very difficult day in the House. We all understand why, and we do not necessarily blame him. These are collective decisions taken by the Cabinet, and he had to sell a brief to the Commons, a very difficult brief indeed to sell. But there comes a time in life when one must realise that what one is doing is not necessarily correct. He knows that in the event that this is pushed to a Division tonight he will win—and he will win because people will vote who have not heard this debate and who may well not have considered this matter in as great a depth as many of us over the past few months, nor corresponded as much with others as some of us have done.
      The Secretary of State is in a position not to press this tonight. He is in a position to accept the tenor of the debate, based on the expression of very strong opinions on this subject. In the light of what happened yesterday, I ask him genuinely to reconsider the position. We have but minutes before the Division. Unless he makes some concession, this amendment will not go through. If so, the damage will be done and it will be he who is held responsible. I am sure that he would not wish to carry that responsibility for the rest of his political life.
      Sir Philip Goodhart: My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) and for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) have made powerful speeches with which I wholly agree. I wish to add only two brief points.
      The first relates to road safety. There has recently been much discussion about bringing daylight saving time in this country into line with that in Europe, and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has argued powefully that the extension of daylight saving, so that we have lighter evenings, will prevent thousands of accidents on the roads, since many drivers with slightly defective eyesight find it particularly difficult to see at dusk and become accident-prone. In the interests of road safety, we ought to encourage more drivers to take eye tests more regularly, and anything that prevents this is a small step in the wrong direction.
      Secondly, it is plain that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, for whom I have the greatest admiration, needs some money and some excuse to get off the hook on which he has impaled himself. I believe that the European Court of Human Rights has provided us with both an excuse and some additional funds. We have argued in the past year in front of the European Court that value added tax should not be charged on opticians' dispensing fees. We lost that case and, as a result, some £25 million of extra money will be flowing into the Treasury from opticians.
      We did not want that decision from the European Court. We can, in practice, set it aside by reducing, even by eliminating, the charges proposed. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take this excuse and change his mind.
      Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: My first duty is to congratulate the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) on her considered speech, which she delivered with conviction. The House should ponder carefully what she had to say, and the Government should act on her good advice.
      In the few brief minutes that I would like to detain the House, I wish to address my remarks to the effect which these changes, particularly the imposition of eye test charges, will have on pensioners. The Federation of Ophthalmic and Dispensing Opticians estimates that over 6 million pensioners will no longer be eligible for free tests under the National Health Service; and, according to its estimates, that is at least two thirds of all pensioners. As the House has already heard, a recent survey of people over 70 in an inner-city area showed that only 50 per cent. had had their sight tested in the previous two years. What we ought to be doing is persuading more pensioners to attend for tests rather than dissuading them because the tests will have to be paid for.
      A survey by the British College of Optometrists shows that over half the referrals for treatment or further investigation were in the over-60 age group, particularly for glaucoma, cataracts and certain other conditions. Elderly people are often insufficiently motivated to seek help, and tend to regard deteriorating eyesight as inevitable. So they need particular encouragement and support.
      We know that it is the elderly in our society who place the greatest demand on our Health Service. The over-65 age group and particularly now the increasing number of over-75s need more medical treatment proportionately than any other age group. Advances in medicine have enabled people to live longer but we have not really begun to cope with the resulting increase in demand on resources.
      Hon. Members on both sides agree that we should treat our elderly people with honour, with respect and with compassion, so that they can enjoy their twilight years without the added burden of worrying about the cost of their health.
      The Government will no doubt ask, as did the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) in the earlier debate on dental charges, what is a few pounds for a test? Pensioners have fared badly in recent years, and I would like to give an example. A fairly typical pensioner in my constituency will have modest savings; she will be on a state pension; she will have a heart condition; and she will have failing eyesight. If the hon. Member for Pembroke were present for this part of the debate, I would tell him that she would be insulted if anyone were to say that she touched drink or sullied her lips with a cigarette, and she thinks that videos are luxuries for rich people. So we are talking about ordinary pensioners.
      In 1987, the local health authority in the county of Gwynedd, because of pressure on the ambulance service, stopped transporting patients to routine hospital clinics. So my constituent, who lives on her own 20 miles from the district hospital, had to cancel her heart test because she could not afford the taxi fares to attend the local hospital, and there is insufficient public transport in our area. Earlier this month that constituent also lost her entitlement to housing benefit, so immediately became worse off to the tune of £7 per week. If this Bill is enacted, she will budget her income and find that she cannot afford the eye test that she desperately needs.

      413
      What the Government must consider is the cumulative effect of these changes in health provision and housing benefit. It is not simply a case of a £10 test for eyes or a £3 test for teeth: it is the cumulative effect, the punishing effect, on their budgets. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House will support me when I ask the Government to reconsider this cumulative effect of their policies on not only my constituents but the constituents of every hon. Member. I have illustrated the reality of living as a pensioner on a tight budget. That is why I and other hon. Members appeal to the Government for a change of heart on this issue.
      8 pm
      Mr. Peter Fry: I have not yet intervened during the debate, although I did so on Second Reading when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was speaking.
      This matter was eloquently raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). It has caused me and many Conservative Members considerable concern. The case has been well made about the problems of people being deterred from having their eyes tested. I do not want, therefore, to go over that argument again. I shall do what the Secretary of State asked us to do in the previous debate about charges for dental checks—put the proposal in context. First, I shall put it into its financial context.
      In the last debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) asked why charges were necessary. We all know why they are necessary—my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench could not get money from the Treasury to make the increases that they wanted in the family practitioner service. The only way in which they could obtain an agreement was to introduce charges. We know the realities of power and how they work, but that does not make it right. If every £1 milllion that were spent would endanger the economic well-being of the country, I could understand that argument, but we know that the reverse is the case. There is amply money to provide for what the Government want to do with the family practitioner service without making these charges.
      The great danger is that when the Bill is enacted it will be remembered not for the hundreds of millions of pounds that have been put into the family practitioner service but as the Act that introduced charges for eyes tests. That is the wrong king of epitaph for the Bill.
      The second matter that I should like to discuss follows the speech of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones). There is a danger that the Government have completely misunderstood the problems of many pensioners. I am talking not about pensioners on income support or those who pay income tax, but about the considerable number of pensioners who are in between. That section of our elderly population are being kicked and kicked again at present. They have to pay the extra gas and electricity price increases and the water rates and contribute to their rates. Now they will have to pay £10 to have their eyes tested. That is the context in which this proposal should be judged.
      I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is inhumane, and I have the greatest admiration
      414
      for him. However, he must realise that this proposal, put in the context that I have just outlined, is a dangerous one, which will do great harm and cause much suffering.
      Far from furthering the Government's reputation as a Government who care about the nation's health, the Bill will be seen cynically as the one that introduced charges for people who could not afford to pay for eye tests.
      As the proposal does not make much financial sense—it has been generally agreed that its long-term costs are likely to be higher than the short-term savings—and as we are seeking to hit again that section of the community that is the most defenceless, and given the political effect of what the Government have done, they should think again. Unless my right hon. Friend the Minister of State can give some heavy assurances, I shall be joining my hon. Friends in the Opposition Lobby.
      Mr. Dalyell: It is my experience that Governments should always be aware of the long-term consequences of what they are doing when their supporters who know most about a particular subject decide to speak out against their decisions.
      For many years, some of us have listened to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), who, if she will forgive me for saying so, has a deep personal interest in this subject and knows much about it. When she makes such a moving and well-informed speech, please let us appeal to Ministers at least to go to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and say, "This is the collective view of a serious House of Commons; can you not do something about it?" I was glad that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was in the Chamber earlier.
      I shall ask one question, as I did in the last debate, on dental charges. I am conscious that perhaps I asked not so much the wrong question as the right question wrongly worded. The Secretary of State treated me courteously and I have no complaints. I asked whether the chief medical officer had endorsed the Government's view on dental charges. Further, I should like to ask a different question. Have Sir Donald Acheson and Dr. I. S. Macdonald, who is the chief medical officer in Scotland, given medical advice on this subject? If so, what was the precise nature of the medical advice that they gave? I see that the Secretary of State is saying something to his right hon. Friend the Minister of State, but the House is entitled to hear the factual medical evidence. This matter is not the same as an argument with civil servants. The chief medical officer, as a technical, professional and independent representative, is surely entitled to have his advice made known to hon. Members who are interested; it is a different matter whether it is accepted.
      I want to know what has changed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) for recollecting some assurances that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), the then Secretary of State for Social Services, gave. He said:
      "we also believe that the access to a free sight test is important in detecting serious eye disease."—[Official Report, 20 December 1983; Vol. 51, c. 295.]
      I am entitled to ask what has changed. That former Conservative Secretary of State took the same view as every Labour and Conservative Minister has since 1945, and he made those remarks in Parliament, in public. What precisely has changed to make the Government alter their view? What has Sir Donald Acheson, in his capacity as a doctor and medical adviser, said? The House is entitled to know.
      Mr. Hayes: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is so right. What I, my hon. Friends and my constituents cannot understand is that since 1980 the Government's stated policy from the Dispatch Box has been that it would be completely wrong in principle to abolish or remove exemptions for the free sight test. What has changed? The House should be told.
      We all know that all that has changed are the bilateral negotiations between the DHSS and the Treasury. Normally I would not wish to intrude on private grief, but this is not private grief, because 6·5 million pensioners will have to pay. Those pensioners are not on income support, and they will not he assisted. We know that pensioners and elderly people must have their eyes tested regularly, because their eyes are changing all the time.
      What about diabetics and people with glaucoma? Diabetes is the largest single cause of blindness in people of working age in the United Kingdom, yet we know that 70 per cent. of that blindness could be prevented if only—this is the key—it is diagnosed early. The same applies to glaucoma sufferers. Glaucoma, as the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) movingly told us, causes blindness and death among many. Sixty per cent. of that blindness and suffering could be prevented. The Health and Medicines Bill is a watershed in primary health care, but what are we doing? The answer is the very thing that will act as a deterrent to primary health care and deter people from going to their optometrists and opticians.
      This is not only a stupid decision; it is a wrong one. Will any of my hon. Friends support the Government tonight? Will anyone stand up and say that this is a marvellous idea and endorse it wholeheartedly, going through the Division Lobby with a spring in his step? Of course they will not, because they know in their heart of hearts what the reality is. The electorate forgive the Government quite a bit. They forgive us for messing around with their taxes, their jobs and even their rates, but if we start messing about with their health and their eyesight, there will not be much forgiveness for the Government.
      I urge my right hon. Friend to think carefully about this decision. Those of my hon. Friends and I who will vote against the proposal will not defeat the Government tonight, but I sincerely hope that we shall give a clear sign elsewhere.
      Mr. Henry McLeish: During my brief time in the House few issues have seemed to transcend political differences. There are ideological differences about the market, but this is not a discussion about the market—it is about the rights and wrongs of a specific proposal and the impact it will have on millions of people throughout the country, regardless of how they vote. More importantly, it will have an impact on their health.
      This charge goes to the heart of preventive health care. Many eloquent speeches by Conservative Members this evening have identified the principles at stake and shown clearly that, if there is a necessity to save money, it will be swamped by the needs for health care provision of people who will not receive this excellent service from opticians when they need it and before certain diseases develop to the point at which much greater and costlier health care is required.
      Already this week specific cases have been used—especially yesterday in the social security debate—to highlight what are often distressing practical points. Today, my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr.
      416
      Cook) referred to a letter that I had received from one of my constituents. When we deal with subjects that are sensitive and emotional, two or three lines from a letter will often more adequately sum up a case than endless speeches from either Government or Opposition Members.
      The letter comes from a Mrs. Celia Ralph, who lives in my constituency:
      "Dear Mr. McLeish,
      I would like my name to be added to those who are opposing charges being made for eye tests.
      I count myself very fortunate that I can, in fact, write this letter to you to-day. In mid-July '87 my eyesight changed dramatically. My own doctor could pick up no change in the eye, and he then was going off for a two week holiday. Being quite concerned, and not knowing where to go next, I consulted my optician, who realised that something was terribly wrong. Next day I saw a specialist at the Victoria hospital who diagnosed secondary tumours from breast cancer on both eyes. This is seemingly quite a rare occurrence and all of my doctors at the Western General in Edinburgh had nothing but praise for my optician. I've had radio-therapy and chemo-therapy since, which fortunately has stopped the growth meantime.
      The question to be asked is, would I have gone to my optician so quickly, if at all, if I had to find £10 for the examination. My visit to him saved not only my eyesight, but my life."
      8.15 pm
      Many hon. Members on both sides have said tonight that this is a matter of right and wrong, and few issues come down to that. I earnestly appeal to the Minister to take this matter seriously. It is not an ideological issue that we can kick back and forth. This Chamber is a combative forum, and we use it as such to best advantage, but this is a night for quiet reflection on a serious issue. A consensus has emerged from the debate and I sincerely hope that it will be reflected in the Lobbies.
      Mr. David Nicholson: This is the first occasion in my short time in the House on which I have found myself seriously at odds with the Government. My late father-in-law, who had regular eye checks, either as a result of an accident or of incompetence, did not have glaucoma diagnosed early enough to save the sight of one eye. He was a conscientious man who would probably not have been deterred by the charges from having tests, although he was on a low income, but I fear that, as other hon. Members have said, hundreds or thousands of people in our constituencies would be deterred.
      I wish to quote from a letter from a constituent who has been a strong supporter of our party for many years. Many people in our constituencies and elsewhere have worked hard for our party for many years, but are appalled by this measure. She says:
      "but for regular eye tests my husband's glaucoma would not have been discovered in its early stages. He had no cause to suspect that anything was wrong."
      In previous debates and conversations Ministers have emphasised the need for the revenue from these charges. Whatever concessions my right hon. Friend may produce this evening, he cannot go against that requirement in any significant way. I do not see why new resources for the National Health Service—I am not speaking only of inflation-proofing—must come from this source. The British economy is not now, thank God, in the hands of the IMF. We are not in the position of 1976, or even of 1980, when we were over-spent, over-borrowed and over-taxed.

      417
      I am something of an iconoclast about the minutiæ of economic theology, but just assuming—and I do not—that the Treasury needs the money, I suggest two ways of meeting the requirement. I do not believe that my right hon. Friend the Minister can make the concessions this evening, but if, as I suspect, the clause runs into trouble in the Upper House, this will give him time to prepare.
      One suggestion is a rather crude solution; nevertheless, I commend it for consideration. If Ministers are convinced that opticians need not pass on these charges, why not prohibit them from doing so? At the very least, will my right hon. Friend give a pledge that he will closely monitor opticians' practice, and if, either generally or in areas such as rural areas in which competition is low, they charge £10 or so, will he take powers to prevent that? That would help to diminish my opposition to this measure.
      The second alternative was suggested to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). It is that all holders of current driving licences should be obliged to have a sight test every three years, for which they would be charged the going rate. That would achieve three things. First, there would probably be more sight-testing among such people than there is now, which would be good for preventive medicine and the Treasury's income. Secondly, it would be good for road safety. Thirdly, people in households who own a car could generally be considered—I appreciate that there will be rough justice for some—able to pay. All others, particularly the elderly whose income, health or eyesight did not permit car driving, would have the eye tests free, as they do now.
      The clause is symbolic of two tendencies which I fear and regret in present politics. First, there is the view that new resources—new resources in real terms—for the NHS can or should come from the extension of charges. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) referred to this, and in the previous debate my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) obliged us by saying that he believed that there should be charges for visits to GPs. I would never say never to that, but we need carefully to consider going down that route. There was no consideration of or consultation on this measure before it was announced last autumn.
      Secondly, almost without intending it, and indeed almost without expecting it, in the past few weeks my party has drifted into a temporarily regressive fiscal regime. I refer to the combined effect of the Budget and some of the social security measures, especially housing benefit, which came into effect on Monday. The elderly, many of whom out of tradition and loyalty are our supporters, are distressed by this temporary situation. I say "temporary" because I believe that my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State can put those matters right.
      This measure is symbolic of that approach, which is why I cannot support it. I regret having to disregard the advice which, no doubt, my right hon. Friend the Minister will offer, but although the voice at the end of the debate will be the gentle and reasonable voice of my right hon. Friend, the hands which have introduced such a discordant measure into this otherwise excellent Bill—a measure that militates against the preventive medicine which the rest of the Bill promotes—have been the hairy old hands of the Treasury.
      Mr. Richard Holt: We have had an excellent debate, although I have listened in vain for any words from any part of the House in support of the Government's proposals. I make my short contribution from a special and privileged position in that I am a diabetic and, as such, I speak for many thousands of people who can and will be put at risk if this piece of legislation is passed.
      The Government have made a mistake. It is a good Government who can recognise that they have made a mistake and withdraw it before it is too late. In the five years in which I have been a Member I have never spoken or voted against the Government, but this evening I shall, because I feel strongly that diabetics are being done a disservice by the Government's proposals.
      It is possible, just possible, that my right hon. Friend the Minister will say that he will make a concession to diabetics, but I put it to him that that is rather like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. More often than not a person discovers that he is a diabetic as a consequence of his eye tests rather than the other way round. If a person is deflected from having an eye test he does not find out that he is a diabetic until perhaps it is a little too far down the road.
      I am lucky; diabetes was detected in good time, so it will not materially affect me during the rest of my life. But many people are not in that lucky position. If they must make—this point has been eloquently put by hon. Members—the choice between buying a pair of shoes for their children and having an eye test, which cannot cost less than £10 and almost certainly will cost a great deal more, they may suffer diabetes with all the attendant consequences.
      I am concerned at the principle which the Government have announced and introduced in this way. Yesterday we had another excellent debate on cervical smears. How long will it be before the Government decide that it is a good idea to charge ladies for having cervical smears? When the Government do that, where do we end?
      The Government should listen to those who are their most loyal and best supporters on these Back Benches and should not proceed with this piece of nonsense legislation, which will not do the reputation of the Government, the Minister or the Conservative party any good. I urge those Conservative Members who have not heard the whole of the debate not to go slavishly into the Division Lobby to support the Government. I do not regard this as a political issue. It is a conscience issue which should have been given a free vote. I hope that hon. Members will join me in the Opposition Lobby.
      Mr. Churchill: I and other Conservative Members expressed our grave concern at this proposal when it came before the House on Second Reading in the hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would see his way to reconsider his ill-advised proposals, which we all realised did not originate from him or from within his Department.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has admitted in a parliamentary reply to me only this week that he can make no estimate of the number of people who are likely no longer to have eye tests because of the imposition of these charges. He has assured the House that in his judgment it will not be a significant number, but none of us can possibly know what will be the drop in take-up of eye tests.

      419
      In a matter as serious as this—many of my hon. Friends have explained this to the House and I touched on it on Second Reading—we are talking not just of people's eyesight but of the many diseases that can be detected in time, allowing positive action to be taken to protect the health and sometimes the lives of individuals. I am not prepared to see my constituents' health and lives gambled with in this way. The way in which the Government have tried to bulldoze this measure through is unacceptable, taking no account, as it does, of the strong representations made to them by their hon. Friends.
      Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman said that the proposals did not come from DHSS Ministers. Some of us think that it is unlikely that they came from Treasury Ministers. It is not the Treasury's nature specifically to say, "You shall have such and such measures on eye tests." The Treasury does not operate in that way. From where did the proposals come?
      Mr. Churchill: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am inclined to think that the Treasury takes a close interest in the budgets of spending Departments. This measure has nothing to do with health but everything to do with the penny-pinching attitude enforced by the Treasury on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and, I regret, accepted by him. It is a mean-spirited measure which is unworthy of the Government. With great regret, because there is so much in the Bill that I applaud, I feel impelled to vote against this measure.
      Mr. Newton: I do not think that in response to the question asked by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) I can add anything to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in the previous debate on dental charges.
      I want to remind the House of the basic position on the Government's proposal. It is not a matter, as the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) sought to imply in a debate yesterday, of seeking to abolish NHS sight tests, any more than we abolished help with spectacles some two years ago. The proposal is to confine that test in much the same way as help with spectacle vouchers, in a scheme which I believe is widely recognised to have been successful, to certain groups, including those on low incomes, and to use that money—I say this without any sense of shame—for other purposes in developing what we believe to be more significant aspects of our primary care services, with an even more important prevention role. I shall return to that later.
      No less than one third of the population—one person in three—would remain entitled to NHS tests. They would include all children, all members of families on family credit, all those on income support and all those who are registered blind or partially sighted. One in three of the population would remain entitled.
      Sir Raymond Gower: Can my right hon. Friend explain the distinction between the exemptions in this case and exemptions in the case of prescription? Would it not take a lot of the sting out of the proposals and answer much of the criticism if those exemptions were extended to eyesight tests?
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Newton: The distinction goes back a very long way, to the arrangements introduced in relation to spectacles and prescriptions by the Labour Government in 1951 when charges were initially introduced into the Health Service.
      It has also been acknowledged—this picks up a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) and a number of other hon. Members—that there is no intention to impose a particular charge for tests for those who will no longer be entitled to an NHS test. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) fairly used the figure of £9·30, which is paid to some ophthalmic opticians, although there are others who, for rather curious historical reasons, receive £10. The £10 figure is simply intended to reflect what the DHSS currently pays for a sight test carried out by some of those who do sight tests.
      I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme and a number of other hon. Members that we cannot by definition know what, if any, the charge would be for private sight tests in future, because that would be for the market to determine. However, in the light of our experience of the market for spectacles, following the ending of free NHS spectacles and the introduction of vouchers, it seems to me to be overwhelmingly likely that the competition will keep any charge to a modest level.
      I am strengthened in that view by the fact that any regular reader of the optical press will find advertisements that offer to pay ophthalmic opticians more for conducting sight tests than the DHSS will pay. One such advertisement offers a fee per capita in excess of £10 per sight test. Another, which relates to Tyne and Wear, Northumberland and County Durham, offers two optometrists a salary package in excess of £35,000, which can include a fully furnished luxury flat, company car, pension and private health insurance,
      "coupled with an excellent working environment in modern, well-equipped practices."
      A profession that can widely offer such salary packages and offer to pay people for doing sight tests more than they will be reimbursed by the DHSS must contain scope for a considerable amount of downward competitive pressure on some of its activities.
      Mr. Churchill: Is my right hon. Friend suggesting that the extravagant salaries and perks to which he has referred are now to be borne largely by pensioners and others who do not qualify for the exemption? Is it not even now possible for the Government to reconsider a blanket exemption for pensioners from the charges, as they are the ones who have to go back again and again for sight tests?
      Mr. Newton: I shall say something more about pensioners in a moment or two.
      First, however, I acknowledge that much of the debate has turned on the question whether there will be a significant deterrent effect for that part of the population—I emphasise again that it will not be those on the lowest incomes—who would be expected to pay any charge that might be levied. I accept, as I have throughout our debates on the proposals, that that is not a point that I could, or would, dismiss out of hand.
      Apart from anything else, it cannot be a matter of certainty; it has to be a matter of judgment based on

      421
      experience. However, we have highly relevant experience in the form of what has happened in the market for spectacles. The hon. Member for Livingston pressed me to explain why there had been a change in the Government's position of eight years ago. One of the things that has significantly changed since then is that we have introduced a different policy in respect of the NHS spectacles market which has proved to have had a significantly successful effect on the optical market, and we have sought to build in part on that experience.
      Mr. Robin Cook: May I press the Minister on the point fairly and pertinently raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)? My hon. Friend reminded the House that a previous Secretary of State said five years ago that the Government
      "believe that the access to a free sight test is important in detecting serious eye disease."—[Official Report, 20 December 1983; Vol. 51, c. 295.]
      Will the Minister make it clear to the House whether the medical advice from his chief medical officer varied from the advice received five years ago? Has the chief medical officer of health revised his advice on the basis of experience in spectacles?
      Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in that respect. In any event, I shall gladly undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman, but I am not in a position, apart from anything else, to be sure of the precise basis on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, then the Secretary of State for Social Services, made those remarks eight—or was it five?—years ago.
      Dame Jill Knight: With the greatest reluctance, I must press my right hon. Friend, because this is a matter of supreme importance, to say whether the advice has changed, or whether the situation has changed. Why has the measure been introduced?
      Mr. Newton: I hope and believe that I have already answered that question by reference to the change that was carried through the House which led to the introduction of the NHS spectacle voucher scheme and the ending of the old NHS spectacle regime. That change, which was completed in 1986, has given us significant new experience of the operation of competition in that market and has left us better placed to assess the consequences of the changes that we propose.
      Mr. Cormack: My right hon. Friend is replying with his customary courtesy. However, can I press him on this? Is the Government's best and highest medical advice that charging will not be a deterrent and that it will be in everyone's best interests? There should be a simple answer to that question, and my right hon. Friend ought to be able to ascertain that information from a certain quarter during his reply.
      Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear the chief medical officer's attitude to the proposals in the White Paper as a whole, which seek to develop our primary care services as a whole and which the Government argue will contribute to a significant improvement to the health of the nation as a whole. It is as a whole that it is right for the policies to be considered.
      422
      There is one highly significant piece of evidence from our experience of the scheme that has operated in relation to spectacles and spectacle vouchers since July 1986 which enables us to make a judgment about the possible deterrent effects referred to in the debate. According to a survey conducted by the economists advisory group for one of the optical bodies of those who are entitled to vouchers for their spectacles—by definition broadly the same groups as will continue to be entitled to NHS sight tests, including those on the lowest incomes—some three quarters willingly pay significantly more than £10 on average above the voucher values for their spectacles.
      When the survey was conducted, the lowest voucher value was just over £14. At that time, people generally paid more than £15 extra on top of that for their spectacles and the sums ranged as high as £20 and more for some of the higher spectacle voucher values. People have willingly been paying significantly more for their spectacles, in addition to the voucher values, than any sum that has been mentioned as a possible charge for eye testing.
      Mr. Terence Higgins: My right hon. Friend relies heavily on the comparison with the situation in relation to spectacles, but if we rely on the forces of competition there will be real dangers. At present, the expression "eye test" is rather vague. Much of the debate has centred on the detection of glaucoma and so on. I understand that at present many eye tests do not cover that aspect, because the opticians involved are not capable of doing so. If we rely on the forces of competition, it is likely that the test will consist purely of the eye test, without the extensive medical coverage that is required. Is there not a danger that, as the price is driven down, the quality of the test will deteriorate?
      Mr. Newton: I hope that I am not doing my right hon. Friend an injustice, but I think that he may have missed my speech yesterday, when the House agreed to insert new clause 15 with the precise purpose of allowing the Government to take powers to determine the content of the eye test to ensure that an eye examination remains part of the test. In fact, somebody has challenged the need for such an examination to be carried out under the present regime, so the validity of the present situation has been called into question. We have made it clear that we intend to ensure by regulation that the test includes the eye examination to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) attaches importance.
      Mr. Higgins: I understand that at present the eye test does not always include that kind of check, because some opticians do not have the necessary equipment.
      Mr. Newton: I shall deal with that point in my comments about diabetics. My right hon. Friend is right in saying that there is a difference of view about what a full examination entails and that at present not all opticians have the necessary equipment to carry out what is known as tonometry, with the result that the necessary pressure tests are not always carried out. That is the present situation. The professional requirements do not necessarily entail carrying out such tests, but I shall return to that point.
      I will deal with some of the specific concerns against the background of my judgment that, on the figures that I have given, the alleged deterrent effect is most unlikely to occur. However, I accept that that must be a matter of

      423
      judgment against the background of experience, and I do not intend to use that judgment as a means of avoiding considerations of the specific concerns expressed in the debate.
      With regard to low incomes, I have already said that people on income support or family credit will remain entitled to a free NHS sight test. That group will include, we estimate, a quarter of all pensioners. Indeed, the number will have increased as a result of recent changes in the social security system and in particular the higher pensioner's premium. In low-paid working families, more than 750,000 adults in such families will continue to be entitled to free sight tests. That number is estimated to have grown by nearly 500,000—in other words, it has more that doubled—as a result of the change from family income supplement to family credit. Those are important and significant figures.
      In the light of the points made in earlier discussions and in today's debate, we intend to introduce arrangements to provide help for those with incomes just above those qualifying levels. The precise arrangements will need to be worked out, and if necessary we shall seek to amend the Bill in another place to achieve that purpose.
      Mr. Fry: How many more pensioners are likely to be covered by the additional relief that my right hon. Friend has just announced?
      Mr. Newton: It will be some tens of thousands. As we have not yet been able to work out the details, and as the calculation will involve some complexity in the light of the new arrangements, I cannot give more detail than that.
      8.45 pm
      We share the concern about glaucoma that has been expressed by Members in all parts of the House. Everyone wishes glaucoma to be detected at a stage when it can be effectively treated. At present, when an optician detects signs of glaucoma, the patient is referred to the family doctor. In almost all cases, confirmation of the diagnosis and subsequent mangement and care are provided by the hospital eye service. That will remain the position. As the debate has made clear, however, the process is broadly opportunistic and covers only people who visit an optician, usually because of some problem with their eyes. By definition, therefore, the symptomless glaucomas which have given most cause for concern in the debate are least likely to he picked up by what is an accidental rather than a systematic screening process.
      Where the eye examination involves only ophthoalmoscopy, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing pointed out, the condition may not be detected at the earliest possible stage under the present system. Tonometry and visual field tests can provide earlier detection, but are not always undertaken by opticians. One of the ways in which we shall seek to carry things forward in the light of the resource changes proposed in the White Paper and the Bill is to discuss with the profession which tests should be included in the definition of the eye test with the aim of achieving further improvements in the testing process. I believe that that will help the concerns of the House.
      We have also been discussing how to tackle the problem of identifying those at higher risk of suffering glaucoma. As there is a strong hereditary element, people over 40 who are children, brothers or sisters of people with glaucoma are at increased risk of themselves developing the
      424
      condition. We are therefore considering whether and how—I believe that it should be possible to move in this direction, although it will not be as easy as I should like—if necessary by using additional resources, arrangements can be devised to ensure that, whenever glaucoma is identified in a patient, positive steps are taken to ensure that members of the family who may be at risk are identified and their attention drawn to the need for an eye test. I believe that that would do more to improve real screening for glaucoma in good time than anything in the present arrangements.
      As I have said, almost all those who already have or are found to have glaucoma are treated by the hospital eye service, although there may be circumstances in which the doctors managing the case will wish to involve an optician. Free sight tests will therefore be available for patients with glaucoma who are referred to an optician by the doctor.
      Diabetes has been mentioned as a special area of concern in perhaps more speeches than any other single issue. There are really two separate issues here. Until I heard certain comments in the debate, I thought that it was common ground that sight testing was neither a sensible nor an effective means of screening for diabetes. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State quoted the director of a regional retina service as saying:
      "it is exceptionally rare for diabetes to be detected by the observation of retinopathy in a person who is otherwise not known to be suffering from the disease."
      The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), with his own particular medical expertise, intervened in my hon. Friend's speech to say:
      "We have already accepted that the method for diagnosing diabetes and hypertension is not fundoscopic examination of the eye."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 16 February 1988; c. 751–2.]
      Mr. Galbraith: We also accept that it was a useful addition. It was not a primary method of screening or of diagnosis. Secondly, a regular check-up for diabetics is important in order to look for the retinopathy.
      Mr. Newton: I want to say something about that as well. But in relation to retinopathy and hypertension, general practitioners should play a more active role in screening their patients for such conditions, and they should make good arrangements—for example, through regular diabetic or hypertension clinics, which many good general practitioners already do—for their continuing care. That is precisely one of the objectives that we are pursuing in the discussions now taking place with the medical profession about the restructuring of its remuneration and allowances, using the additional resources which the Bill will enable us to make available. I have no doubt that that represents a more effective use of those resources than the maintenance of universal NHS eye tests.
      The second issue is the need for regular screening of the eyes of diabetic people, however diagnosed for diabetic retinopathy. The importance of that has already been acknowledged by the Government in the three-year study that is currently being undertaken, and that is due to end next year, to evaluate the most cost-effective way of screening for that condition. We shall, of course, consider what further steps may be appropriate in the light of its results.
      Meanwhile, we have listened carefully to what has been said during the discussion on the Bill, including by many of my hon. Friends and others tonight. We recognise that

      425
      diabetics have a special need for regular eye checks for the detection of retinopathy. Diabetes itself is usually managed by the patient's family doctor or by a clinic if that is desirable. However, some doctors may wish to refer their patients to an optician specifically for those regular eye checks. We wish to support that practice, so we shall make arrangements in the regulations which will provide for free sight tests for diabetics who are referred for an eye check by their GP or clinic. That could potentially benefit some 750,000 people a year.
      I hope that those of my right hon. and hon. Friends and others who have spoken in the debate will think that the steps that we have taken in relation to people on low incomes, those with glaucoma and diabetics, constitute a proper and reasonable response to the points that they have raised. They will together reduce the savings which would otherwise have been expected from the measure by some £7 million to £8 million, and, as I have said, extend by at least 750,000 those entitled to NHS sight tests.
      I recognise that those steps cannot entirely meet the views of those who argue against the proposals, simply because we are talking about examinations rather than treatment. But to them I have to say that, whether expenditure on health is labelled as prevention, treatment or cure, it is important that we use it to the best effect. Our proposals to redirect some part of the expenditure in this area from its present purpose to others, and in particular to the systematic development of the quality, scope and preventative nature of our family doctor services, will enable us to do more, not less, to promote the heath of the nation.
      Mr. Robin Cook: Eight Conservative Back Benchers have spoken in the course of the debate. As it happens, that is exactly the same number as in the previous debate. Those of my hon. Friends who were present at the end of the previous debate will recall that the scoreboard was five out of eight against the Government's proposals and two out of the eight in support of it.
      I have to report that, having kept my scoreboard throughout this debate, of the eight Conservative Back Benchers who have spoken, all eight were against the proposal. There was not a speech in the entire debate, until the Minister for Health rose to speak at the Dispatch Box, in support of the proposal for charging for the eye examination. There has not been an intervention in any speech in the course of the debate in support of charges for the eye examination.
      This parliamentary debate has been important because it has exposed the fact that this particular proposal cannot be sustained and is supported only by the Minister who came to the Dispatch Box to defend it. Nobody else came to the Chamber to support the proposal tonight. That demonstrates the importance of the Report stage in the examination of Bills. If parliamentary consideration and examination mean anything, this proposal, after the examination and debate that it has received tonight, should be thrown out.
      I want to say a few words about what the Minister said in reply to the debate. The intervention in the Minister's speech by his right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) was well-merited, in that the first half of the Minister's speech based the Government's proposal on their experience with the charges and competition which
      426
      they have introduced in the spectacles market. That was wholly at variance with the gravamen of the debate that preceded the Minister's reply. The gravamen of that debate was about people who had suffered from serious systematic diseases such as glaucoma, cataracts and diabetes, which is almost irrelevant to whether they require eye tests to determine whether they need spectacles.
      To the suggestion that competition may bring down charges, I have to say that it is possible. It is possible that as a result of competition not every optometrist will charge £9·30. It is also possible that, as a result of competition, prices will go up. In America there is competition for this type of eye examination and the prices are very high indeed. Indeed, a Conservative Back Bencher spelt out what remarkably good value the eye examination is for £9·30, with half an hour's time of a highly-qualified technician using extremely expensive equipment. If they were to put a charge on their service that represented the full market cost of that half hour, they would be charging well above £9·30.
      Yes, it is possible that competition could bring down charges. Let us suppose that competition is so intense and successful that it halves the charge. We would still be talking about an eye examination charge of £5. Who in this Chamber is prepared to say that that will not be a deterrent to some people who are on the margins? Moreover, it will only halve the charge at the expense of lower income to optometrists from eye examinations. That will have two consequences.
      The first consequence is that the optometrist service will contract. It will be centralised in the areas of urban population. I warn Conservative Members that it is their constituents rather than ours who will be likely to suffer most from that withdrawal of services from centres of urban populations.
      Secondly, it will inevitably drive optometrists—indeed, the Minister came near to saying that this was the intention of the competition—to look more and more for their income and profit to the sale of spectacles rather than to eye examiniations and the provision of a full examination of the inner eye.
      Do hon. Members believe that in that competitive environment in which optometrists are more and more obliged to look for commercial sale of their spectacles that we shall have optometrists who are prepared to take the time, and with the experience and qualifications, to detect the kind of rare case referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), in which a woman with secondary cancer was diagnosed because she presented herself for an eye examination and whose life was therefore saved?
      I am well aware that the House wishes to move to a Division, but I want to return to the telling intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). He asked what had been the medical advice offered to the Government by the chief medical officer. We can certainly hear what the advice has been from the House tonight. Every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate has expressed concern about the medical consequences of the charge; the medical consequences of the deterrent effect of that fee being introduced. I find it very difficult indeed to credit that the medical advice that the Government may have received from the chief medical officer could have varied from the advice that the Minister has heard in the House tonight. The Minister said that he relied upon what the Secretary of State said in response to the earlier debate.

      427
      In response to the earlier debate the Secretary of State said that the chief medical officer had endorsed the White Paper as a whole.
      All Opposition Members, at any rate, have experience of putting our names to composite resolutions. We know what that means. Inevitably on every occasion one swallows something that one would dearly have liked to leave out. The question remains: what was the chief medical officer's advice in respect of the charges for eye examinations? What advice did he tender to Ministers on whether such a charge would deter people from turning up? What advice did he offer them on the one screening method which currently produces three times as many diagnoses of glaucoma as any other screening arrangement? The Minister said that he would write to me telling me what that advice was. Unfortunately, that letter will arrive after the Division tonight.
      There is a way round that predicament. Frankly, if the Minister was listening to the debate tonight, and if Treasury Ministers were interested in taking the temper of the House of Commons, the response of the Minister would be clear. He would accept the amendment and withdraw the proposal. If the Minister can justify the proposal in a way in which he has been unable to justify it tonight, he can always reintroduce it in the other place. If he is going to say that we must wait until another day to find out what was the medical advice on which the proposal was based, I have to say to him that no self-respecting House of Commons can tolerate that offer. We shall, therefore, press the amendment to a Division and we hope that all hon. Members who have heard the debate and who share our deep trouble and concern about the consequences of the proposal will join us in the Lobby tonight.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 206, Noes 280.

      Division No. 259]

      [9.00 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Churchill, Mr

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Allen, Graham

      Clay, Bob

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Clelland, David

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Cohen, Harry

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Barron, Kevin

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Battle, John

      Corbett, Robin

      Beckett, Margaret

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bell, Stuart

      Cormack, Patrick

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Cox, Tom

      Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

      Cummings, John

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Darling, Alistair

      Blair, Tony

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Boyes, Roland

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Bradley, Keith

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

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

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Day, Stephen

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Dewar, Donald

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Dixon, Don

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Dobson, Frank

      Buchan, Norman

      Doran, Frank

      Buckley, George J.

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Caborn, Richard

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Eadie, Alexander

      Canavan, Dennis

      Eastham, Ken

      Carttiss, Michael

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Cartwright, John

      Fatchett, Derek

      Chapman, Sydney

      Fearn, Ronald

      428

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Marek, Dr John

      Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Fisher, Mark

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Flannery, Martin

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Flynn, Paul

      Martlew, Eric

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Foster, Derek

      Meacher, Michael

      Fraser, John

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Fry, Peter

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Fyfe, Maria

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Galloway, George

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      George, Bruce

      Morley, Elliott

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Mullin, Chris

      Graham, Thomas

      Murphy, Paul

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      O'Brien, William

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Grocott, Bruce

      Parry, Robert

      Hardy, Peter

      Patchett, Terry

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Pendry, Tom

      Hayes, Jerry

      Pike, Peter L.

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Prescott, John

      Henderson, Doug

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Radice, Giles

      Hinchliffe, David

      Randall, Stuart

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Redmond, Martin

      Holt, Richard

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Home Robertson, John

      Reid, Dr John

      Hood, Jimmy

      Richardson, Jo

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Howells, Geraint

      Robertson, George

      Hoyle, Doug

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Rogers, Allan

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Illsley, Eric

      Ruddock, Joan

      John, Brynmor

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Kennedy, Charles

      Sims, Roger

      Kilfedder, James

      Skinner, Dennis

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

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

      Knox, David

      Soley, Clive

      Latham, Michael

      Spearing, Nigel

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Leighton, Ron

      Stott, Roger

      Lewis, Terry

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Litherland, Robert

      Turner, Dennis

      Livsey, Richard

      Vaz, Keith

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Wall, Pat

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Walley, Joan

      Loyden, Eddie

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      McAllion, John

      Wareing, Robert N.

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      McCusker, Harold

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      McFall, John

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      McKelvey, William

      Winnick, David

      McLeish, Henry

      Worthington, Tony

      McNamara, Kevin

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      McTaggart, Bob

      Madden, Max

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Madel, David

      Mr. Frank Haynes and

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Mr. Allen McKay.

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Amos, Alan

      Alexander, Richard

      Arbuthnot, James

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Allason, Rupert

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Ashby, David

      Amess, David

      Aspinwall, Jack

      429

      Atkinson, David

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Baldry, Tony

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Batiste, Spencer

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Grist, Ian

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Ground, Patrick

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Grylls, Michael

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Boswell, Tim

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Bottomley, Peter

      Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Harris, David

      Bowis, John

      Hayward, Robert

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Heddle, John

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Hind, Kenneth

      Bright, Graham

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Howard, Michael

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

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

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Burns, Simon

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Burt, Alistair

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Butcher, John

      Irvine, Michael

      Butler, Chris

      Irving, Charles

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Jack, Michael

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Jackson, Robert

      Carrington, Matthew

      Janman, Tim

      Cash, William

      Jessel, Toby

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Chope, Christopher

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Key, Robert

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Colvin, Michael

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Conway, Derek

      Knapman, Roger

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Cope, John

      Knowles, Michael

      Couchman, James

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Cran, James

      Lang, Ian

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Curry, David

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

      Lightbown, David

      Devlin, Tim

      Lilley, Peter

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lord, Michael

      Dover, Den

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Dunn, Bob

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Durant, Tony

      McCrindle, Robert

      Eggar, Tim

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Evennett, David

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Fallon, Michael

      Maclean, David

      Farr, Sir John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Favell, Tony

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Forman, Nigel

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Forth, Eric

      Mans, Keith

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Maples, John

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Marlow, Tony

      Franks, Cecil

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Freeman, Roger

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gale, Roger

      Mates, Michael

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Gill, Christopher

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Mellor, David

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Miller, Hal

      Gorst, John

      Mills, Iain

      Gow, Ian

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      430

      Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Moate, Roger

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Squire, Robin

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

      Stanley, Rt Hon John

      Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

      Stern, Michael

      Moss, Malcolm

      Stevens, Lewis

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

      Needham, Richard

      Stokes, John

      Nelson, Anthony

      Sumberg, David

      Neubert, Michael

      Summerson, Hugo

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Page, Richard

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Paice, James

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Tracey, Richard

      Pawsey, James

      Tredinnick, David

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Trippier, David

      Portillo, Michael

      Trotter, Neville

      Price, Sir David

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Raffan, Keith

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Viggers, Peter

      Redwood, John

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Renton, Tim

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Riddick, Graham

      Walden, George

      Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Walters, Dennis

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Ward, John

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Rost, Peter

      Wells, Bowen

      Rowe, Andrew

      Wheeler, John

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Whitney, Ray

      Ryder, Richard

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Wilshire, David

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Wolfson, Mark

      Scott, Nicholas

      Wood, Timothy

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Woodcock, Mike

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Yeo, Tim

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Mr. Robert Boscawen and

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Fearn: I beg to move amendment No. 66, in page 11, line 37, at end insert—
      '( ) Subsection (4)(b) shall apply, in the case of a person suffering from a prescribed medical condition, both to the inspection or course of treatment during which the condition is diagnosed and to subsequent inspections and courses of treatment while the condition continues to be diagnosed or suspected'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 76, in page 14, line 6, at end insert—
      '( ) Subsection (1C)(b) shall apply, in the case of a person suffering from a prescribed medical condition, both to the inspection or course of treatment during which the condition is diagnosed and to subsequent inspections and courses of treatment while the condition continues to be diagnosed or suspected'.
      Mr. Fearn: These amendments are designed to ensure that patients with prescribed medical conditions are not

      431
      charged for examinations for the entire period during which they suffer from those conditions. Thus, the whole procedure, or series of procedures, when the condition is first diagnosed is exempted from any charge and this exemption continues until the end of the episode of care during which the patient is finally cleared of any suspicion of still suffering from the condition. Unless this interpretation is made clear and is entrenched, the promotion of good health will be put at risk.
      Again, as with dental charges, we take particular exception to the proposal to charge for eye examinations and we have voted against it, but, as the Opposition amendment failed a few moments ago, we shall expect support for the view that our interpretation of the period of exemption from charges as set out in amendments Nos. 66 and 76 is the correct one.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Newton: Our understanding of the effect of the amendment is that a prescribed medical condition is one of the criteria which may be used to define eligibility for NHS sight tests. The amendment would ensure that the sight test at which the prescribed condition was found and subsequent tests were NHS tests.
      The only comment that I can make on this slightly arcane point is that there is already power to extend NHS tests to those suffering from prescribed medical conditions. In my previous speech I said something about diabetics. The amendment would simply provide that the test at which the condition was found could also be an NHS test. However, if the person is having a test, it seems likely that he has not been deterred by the private fee.
      I said earlier that we would make changes in the arrangements for diabetics and those at risk from glaucoma. I shall examine what the hon. Gentleman has said against what is on the Amendment Paper. If it turns out that we need a provision of the kind proposed in the amendment, I shall be prepared to consider it later. I am not at present persuaded, partly because I think that there is confusion about the purpose and purport of the amendment.
      Mr. Fearn: It would appear from what I hear that the Minister accepts the general theme that I have put forward. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendments made: No. 31, in page 12, line 12, leave out
      'The services provided under this section'
      and insert
      'Regulations shall define the services for the provision of which arrangements under this section are to be made and the services so defined'.
      No. 32, in page 14, line 29, leave out
      'The services provided under this section'
      and insert
      'Regulations shall define the services for the provision of which arrangements under this section are to be made and the services so defined'.
      No. 33, in page 12, line 35, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'section'.
      No. 34, in page 14, line 41. leave out 'subsection' and insert 'section'.—[Mr. Newton.]

    Clause 11
      SIGHT-TESTING
      Amendment made: No. 35, in page 15, line 1, leave out clause 11.—[Mr. Newton.]
    Clause 13

      LIMITS ON REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES
      Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I beg to move amendment No. 85, in page 16, line 25, leave out clause 13.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, we will take the following amendments: No, 77, in page 16, line 36, at end insert—
      '( ) It shall be the duty of a Family Practitioner Committee to report to the Secretary of State any instance when. it considers that the amount allotted under subsection (97)(1)(b)(ii) above is insufficient for the purposes prescribed, and to make known to the public in its locality the content of such report'.
      No. 78, in page 17, line 2, at end insert—
      '( ) It shall be the duty of a Health Board to report to the Secretary of State any instance when it considers that the amount allotted under subsection (85)(2)(a) above is insufficient for the purposes prescribed, and to make known to the public in its locality the content of such report'.
      No. 79, in page 17, line 7, at end insert—
      '(5) Each Family Practitioner Committee and each Health Board shall have the duty to satisfy itself, after consulting such bodies as appears to it to represent the interests of the public in its locality within the National Health Service, that the payments made pursuant to this section are available without discrimination in all parts of its locality and to all practitioners in contract with it and covered by any such allotment'.
      Mrs. Ewing: In view of the time, I intend to be brief. I was not a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill but I have read the debate in Committee on clause 13. Many of the details were well aired in the debate. However, it is right at this stage that hon. Members who did not have the opportunity to participate in that debate should search further to find out whether the Government have advanced their thinking on these issues.
      I want to refer to statements by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. She referred to doctors who
      "were worried that the new system has not been explained sufficiently to allay their fears. This is partly because some of the details…are still to be worked out."
      I wonder whether the Government have worked out further details. She also said:
      "My first and most important reassurance is that we firmly anticipate spending a great deal more on the services than currently."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 23 February 1988; c. 870.]
      Can a specific figure be offered by the Government now, particularly in view of the fact that later in that debate the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said that she was hoping that funds would be raised from the implementation of clauses 8 and 10? We have had a concession from the Minister for Health that there will be a reduction of £7 million to £8 million as a result of his statement. Will that affect in any way the money which comes in?
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State also indicated that it was not the Government's expectation that the clause would come into effect immediately. It seems strange to include in the Bill a clause which is not to

      433
      be implemented until negotiations are complete. Surely we must be given a final date which will be applied to the negotiations.
      We put our general practitioners in the front line of medicine. We turn to them in times of crisis and indeed of health. How can we expect them to expand and improve primary care and preventive medicine, yet put cash limitations on their ability to do so? If we expect our GPs to take a pro-active role, we must take account of their financial needs. It is wrong to place cash limits on GPs in the clause, rather than look at the service and the needs of patients.
      It is clear that general practitioners have been very cost-effective in their application of the funding available to them. I will quote from a letter that I received from Grampian local medical committee, because that is my local medical authority. The committee is deeply concerned about the implications of the clause. The letter says:
      "We would emphasise that such cash-limiting is not necessary, as the service we provide is widely recognised as being extraordinarily cost-effective—the cost of the availability and services of the General Practitioner being around £28 per patient per year, which includes all the expenses of running a practice."
      For a Government who talk of cost-effectiveness, I do not think that I could find a better example of a cost-effective service than that provided in Grampian at a cost of £28 per patient per year.
      Because of other financial pressures being exercised on the National Health Service, and presssure on the Grampian health board budget, several practices, mainly in health centres, are already withdrawing treatment room nurse provision. Arrangements are being negotiated so that the GPs will meet part of the cost, the whole cost previously having been borne by the health board. Against that sort of background, I ask the Government to withdraw the clause until we have sorted things out and know in our own minds exactly what to do. They should give our general practitioners the vote of confidence that they so obviously deserve.
      Mr. Sims: I am anxious not to protract the proceedings, but I am sure that I am not the only hon. Member who has had letters from GPs within his constituency. They are concerned that the effect of the clause will be to restrict the extent to which patients consult them. I am sure that that is not intended, and it would be helpful if the Minister could give appropriate assurances when replying to the debate. Indeed, perhaps at some stage what is known as a "Dear Doctor" letter can be sent clarifying the situation so that these misunderstandings can be removed.
      Mr. Andrew Welsh: In my constituency, people are very fortunate in the high quality and standards offered to them by the general practitioner service throughout Angus. I have had the opportunity to visit practices in Montrose, and I was very impressed by their use of technology, and modernisation assisting in patient care, to ensure an efficient and caring service.
      My purpose in speaking is to draw to the Government's attention the views of such working general practitioners. These practical and qualified men and women are
      434
      concerned about the Government's proposals. I shall be using their words, and I hope that the Minister will respond to them.
      The substance of clause 13 implies a concept of cash limiting the funding of primary care services, and it is that to which these general practitioners are opposed. Montrose practices are typical of those in Angus, and elsewhere in Scotland, in that forward-looking practices are extending their functions in preventive medicine to include cervical and other screening procedures and the care of the sick at home in the community. In national terms these services are cost effective because they relieve hospitals of additional burdens. If cash limits are imposed on primary care, such initiatives will be abandoned. My doctors believe that it will revert to a "national sickness" service.
      The unique contractual relationship within the NHS means that general practitioners have a direct incentive to extend and improve services, retaining, in their own interests, the need to be very cost effective. There is an entrepreneurial attitude in Montrose, which its GPs believe should be supported by the Government rather than be hamstrung by cash limiting.
      General practice in the United Kingdom is experiencing a renaissance of technological development, an extension of function and an improvement in services for patients. Notwithstanding that, the cost to the state is lower than in any other country in the Western developed world. The profession is willing and has the capacity to do much more in primary care, but that attitude will be to no avail if cash limits are imposed.
      The doctors in another Montrose practice state:
      "Primary care is cost-effective at present, with patients entitled to open access to Primary Health Care services, with no limits on the number of consultations."
      Despite that open-endedness, the primary health care system is cost effective, making this unlimited access available at the cost of about £28 per patient per year in total for expenses and paying for the general practitioner. Those doctors believe that cash limiting is an attempt to bring the hospital cuts into the sphere of general practice, and there will be cuts if the clause is passed.
      Hospital cuts have led to longer waiting lists which have increased the work load on GPs; for example, because patients require attention for pain relief and drugs while waiting for admission. Earlier discharge from hospital means that GPs treat more people with drugs which otherwise would have been provided from hospital, thus adding to the work load and costs of general practice.
      Rationing primary health care is not a desirable option and any attempt at rationing in this sphere would impose limitations on patient access to primary health care. My doctors believe that cash limits are not necessary. In general, practice costs are largely reimbursed on the basis of national average cost levels and GPs control their costs tightly to maintain their practice income. This in turn ensures that average cost levels are maintained in future years. Therefore, doctors have a personal incentive in controlling costs, resulting in national saving.
      The Government want GPs to develop their service to patients, but to do that they must have sufficient quality staff. Doctors state that it is obvious from their surgeries that ancillary staff offer great benefits to patients, for example, in easing the arrangements between patients and hospitals, ambulances, social work departments, the DHSS, employers, the district nurse and the health visitor,

      435
      and by making available in the surgery treatments which would normally mean a patient having to travel to hospital. The benefits cover the whole spectrum of staff, from practising nurses to administrators, secretaries and receptionists. The direct reimbursement scheme pays only part of those salaries and GPs shoulder the remainder, so they have a powerful incentive to be cost effective.
      The doctors of Montrose have attractive premises in the town, but they state that with cash limitations even planned projects will now be made more doubtful, let alone new projects. Limitations on the existing cost-rent scheme threaten them, but further cash limiting would torpedo them altogether.
      "This direct reimbursement scheme also has powerful incentives to cost-effective development, for although the scheme yields a return on capital invested in practice premises, the GP still has to put up the capital and bear the burden of increased running costs of new or improved premises."
      Those are the words of working GPs who deal not only with the theory, but with the practice, of medicine. The Government's proposals will threaten directly their work and efficiency. I support my hon. Friend in opposing clause 13 and I hope that the Minister will listen and respond to the genuine voice of the medical profession.
      Mr. Fearn: I support amendment No. 85. We do not believe that the case for imposing cash limits has been made by the Government. There is no evidence that across the country GPs plan to be unreasonable in their demands to take advantage of what the Government clearly see as a potential loophole in the Bill. On the contrary, GPs will be reasonable and will not employ more staff than they need to look after their patients. However, it is certain that the Government will not concede this point. Accordingly, amendments Nos. 77 and 78 place a duty on a general practitioner committee or a health board to make a public report to the relevant Secretary of State if they believe that their allocation for these purposes is insufficient.
      The amendment assumes that family practitioner committees will be responsible. If they need to report they will reflect the inadequacy of Government provision. Any responsible Government would welcome such a report and take action to remedy the unsatisfactory state of affairs. We cannot see any justification for the Government refusing to accept the amendment.
      Amendment No. 79 places a duty upon FPCs to ensure that, if a limited sum is available, it is distributed in a non-discriminatory manner. It would be entirely inappropriate if an FPC benefited part of its area at the expense of other parts. The amendment also strengthens the hands of FPCs in their planning functions. It will help FPCs to strengthen services in deprived parts of their areas. The fact that they can plead that statutory duty is likely to overcome the resistance that they might encounter. That can only benefit the service. In other words, FPCs can become more active in aiding the development of services. It will no longer be sufficient for FPCs simply to react to events. I hope that the amendments, like some of my others, are not too clever for the Minister.
      9.30 pm
      Ms. Harman: I rise briefly to support amendment No. 85. There is universal opposition to cash-limiting the family doctor service. Representations have been made to Members of Parliament, including no doubt to members of the Government, from worried general practitioners around the country. I challenge the Government to name
      436
      one single independent reputable organisation that supports the cash-limiting of GP services. I am talking about anybody the Under-Secretary of State can mention who supports clause 13, not about people who have made statements of general support for the White Paper. Nobody supports clause 13 and its cash limits.
      General practitioners are absolutely right to be fearful. It is clear that the Government now intend to wield the axe over GP services in exactly the same way as they have chopped hospital services.
      I hope that the Government will not insult our intelligence tonight by saying that they are introducing cash limits so that they can spend more than they currently spend. We were not born yesterday. It is unbelievable to think that in introducing a clause entitled,
      "Limits on reimbursement of expenses"
      the Government are introducing the clause to enable them to spend more. It is nonsense to say that a cash limit will improve and develop services. A cash limit is there simply to limit cash. It will stifle the development of services.
      GP services do need developing. We want to see the benefits of new technology harnessed for the benefit of patients. New technology in communication and in diagnostic equipment should be available to GPs. We want to see GPs work as part of an enhanced team with nurses, health visitors, midwives, chiropodists, physiotherapists and other health professionals. We want to see GPs' premises improved so that they provide pleasant waiting and treatment areas with easy access for parents with small children and for disabled people. We want to see GPs develop their work on screening and prevention and provide, at local level, diabetic clinics, ante-natal services and counselling on diet and smoking. There is no chance of those developments taking place if, instead of saying to family doctors, "Let us discuss how we can improve services", the Government say, "Go away and cut costs."
      It is not as if at any time in Committee the Government pointed out that there has been an inefficient use of resources. Family practitioner committees are already obliged to, and do, take into account value for money. If anything, we would criticise them for having erred on the side of caution and for not pressing hard enough or fast enough to develop and improve GP services. It is clear that the Government intend to squeeze GP services. They want to use the dissatisfaction that that creates in patients as an excuse to bring in commercial, American-style health maintenance organisations. That would be a catastrophic mistake.
      The family doctor service is not perfect, but it is a good base and provides a good framework on which to build. The problem is that the Government do not want universal public provision of primary care services. This is the first step on the road to undermining those services.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary has been kind enough to inform me that she issued a press release earlier today, announcing an initiative on practice nurse training. I welcome the fact that the Government are taking this initiative but I feel that it is not a serious measure because of the sum of money and the number of nurses involved. The training initiative has, we are told in the press statement, attracted only £150,000 of Government money. That addition to nurse training must be looked at against a background of a cut of £40 million in nurse training provision between 1979 and today. The figure of £40 million comes from a parliamentary answer from the Minister. We are told that the training initiative is to cover

      437
      500 nurses; but that must be looked at against a background of a cut in the intake of student and pupil nurses of 12,550 between 1979 and now. That figure again comes from a parliamentary answer from the Minister.
      I hope that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will acknowledge that, although the Government now say that they are promoting practice nurse training, this is a very measly start from a Government with a shameful record on nurse training. I hear the Parliamentary Under-Secretary muttering that I do not understand the figures. I understand only too well that what the Government have done, in practice, in nurse training is cut programmes to ribbons. Yet they are trying to give themselves a bit of a public relations puff by announcing £150,000 to cover 500 nurses. The wool will not be pulled over our eyes in that respect.
      Mrs. Currie: The system for paying general practitioners is, like that of the other family practitioner professions, based on the cost-plus principle which was established at the inception of the National Health Service. That is, the payments that they receive are intended to cover expenses and to provide on top a net income for every GP. Based on the return to the Inland Revenue, expenses incurred in providing general medical services are paid back to the profession in full. That is, if the tax man accepts it as a legitimate expense, we accept it.
      Some of these expenses are paid back to the individual GP, and that is known as direct reimbursement. The remainder is reimbursed on an average basis through standard rate fees and allowances—that is, indirectly reimbursed—and general practitioners' net income is also delivered through fees and allowances. I am sure that the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn), who was an assistant bank manager, has understood all that.
      Clause 13 will enable directly reimbursed expenses to be subject to a cash limit, but expenses not directly reimbursed in full will nonetheless be reimbursed indirectly through fees and allowances.
      The total spend on family practitioner services in Britain is over £5,000 million, and by 1990–91 we hope to have increased it by some £600 million. I cannot tell the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) exactly how much will come under clause 13 because at least part of it will be the subject of discussions with the profession, but that is the sort of sum of money that we are talking about; and the directly reimbursed element of that sum amounts to £455 million in 1987–88. These are Great Britain figures.
      Our proposals, as set out in the White Paper, would involve cash-limiting barely half of that. In other words, the proposals would cover less than 5 per cent. of the total spend on these important family practitioner services, and over 95 per cent. would continue to be run in exactly the same way as they are now.
      Our intent, as was recognised in Committee, is to give family practitioner committees and health boards a chunk of money to help them concentrate premises improvement funds where they are most needed, particularly, for example, in the inner cities, and we also want them to help doctors everywhere to improve their practice teams, with a far wider range of staff than is currently possible. We are very concerned to improve the practice team. I share that view with the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh).
      438
      As the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) said, I was very glad to announce earlier today that we are making an extra £150,000 available immediately to increase sharply the number of training opportunities for practice nurses. The detailed arrangements are a matter for discussion with the profession, but I expect to see rapid action as the money is available now. We hope that £50,000 will be used to create distance learning materials, including videos, which will help practice nurses all over the country, particularly those in rural areas such as the constituences of the hon. Member for Moray and Angus, East and my own, the sort of nurses in rural areas who cannot always get to meetings or training courses.
      In addition, the bulk of the money will be used, I hope, to pay the course fee. If the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham wants to understand the figures and the amounts, perhaps she would like to listen to this. I hope that the bulk of the money will be used to pay the course fee for practice nurse training courses. Indeed, we expect more such courses to be set up as a result of that money. We foresee 500 nurses being able to take advantage of the extra money this year. If those courses are satisfactory, we hope to do the same next year. After that, clause 12, which has gone through all its stages without comment, will come into operation and will enable those fees to be paid.
      The difference between that money and the money about which the hon. Member for Peckham was speaking is that it is used simply to pay course fees. The money about which the hon. Lady was speaking includes salaries.
      I have told the officials concerned that I am particularly keen to improve training for practice nurses to take cervical smears, and I hope that the hon. Member for Peckham will at least say thank you for that.
      We have been asked why we should not continue with the current set-up. The present ancillary staff scheme was introduced in the mid-1960s. Some 20 years on 24,000 family doctors in Great Britain are employing over 36,000 practice staff. Of that figuree, 16,000 are receptionists and 11,000 are secretaries, but the number of practice nurses is only 3,000. In Scotland, 3,000 family doctors have only 170 practice nurses for a population of 5 million, which is completely unsatisfactory.
      We consider the present system to be far too restrictive because it does not encourage the recruitment of other health professionals such as chiropodists, counsellors and physiotherapists, and it prevents the payment of people such as doctors' wives, which I regard as iniquitous. We shall change that.
      With regard to practice premises, we feel that the present system is unsatisfactory. Many examples of bad surgery premises were given in Committee. That system is used at present simply because there is a strong incentive for the doctor to do nothing, which answers the question of the hon. Member for Angus, East.
      The present system is old-fashioned because it does not link spending with health needs and we shall do something about that in the near future. We think that cash limits will be useful as they will concentrate minds and enable priorities to be sorted out. I therefore reject the amendments.
      Mrs. Ewing: If the Minister was seeking to reassure me, she has singularly failed to do so. I believe that there are various principles at stake in the amendment.

      439
      The Minister spoke of cash-limiting the total amount given. That would be detrimental to general practices throughout the United Kingdom. A principle is involved, because if half of the total amount is to be cash limited, as time goes on the amount cash limited will increase more and more.
      I refer the Minister to what the British Medical Association said about clause 13. It said:
      "Indeed it carries the potential to threaten patients' equality of access to services in the future."
      Nothing that the Minister said showed that she will guarantee equality of access or protect the rights of general practitioners. Therefore, I feel that I have no option but to press the amendment to a vote.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 182, Noes 304.

      Division No. 260]

      [9.42 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Fisher, Mark

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Flannery, Martin

      Allen, Graham

      Flynn, Paul

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Foster, Derek

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Fraser, John

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Fyfe, Maria

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Barron, Kevin

      Galloway, George

      Battle, John

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Beckett, Margaret

      George, Bruce

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Graham, Thomas

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Blair, Tony

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Boyes, Roland

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Bradley, Keith

      Grocott, Bruce

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hardy, Peter

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Haynes, Frank

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Henderson, Doug

      Buchan, Norman

      Hinchliffe, David

      Buckley, George J.

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Caborn, Richard

      Home Robertson, John

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Howells, Geraint

      Clay, Bob

      Hoyle, Doug

      Clelland, David

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Illsley, Eric

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      John, Brynmor

      Corbett, Robin

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Cox, Tom

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Cummings, John

      Kennedy, Charles

      Dalyell, Tam

      Kilfedder, James

      Darling, Alistair

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Leighton, Ron

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Lewis, Terry

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)

      Litherland, Robert

      Dewar, Donald

      Livsey, Richard

      Dixon, Don

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Doran, Frank

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Loyden, Eddie

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      McAllion, John

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Eadie, Alexander

      McCusker, Harold

      Eastham, Ken

      McFall, John

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Fatchett, Derek

      McKelvey, William

      Fearn, Ronald

      McLeish, Henry

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

      McTaggart, Bob

      440

      Madden, Max

      Robertson, George

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Marek, Dr John

      Rogers, Allan

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Martlew, Eric

      Ruddock, Joan

      Meacher, Michael

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Short, Clare

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Skinner, Dennis

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Morley, Elliott

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

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Soley, Clive

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Spearing, Nigel

      Mullin, Chris

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Murphy, Paul

      Stott, Roger

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      O'Brien, William

      Turner, Dennis

      O'Neill, Martin

      Vaz, Keith

      Parry, Robert

      Wall, Pat

      Patchett, Terry

      Walley, Joan

      Pendry, Tom

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Pike, Peter L.

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Prescott, John

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Winnick, David

      Radice, Giles

      Worthington, Tony

      Randall, Stuart

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Reid, Dr John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Richardson, Jo

      Mr. Andrew Welsh and

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Mr. Archy Kirkwood.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Alexander, Richard

      Carrington, Matthew

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Carttiss, Michael

      Allason, Rupert

      Cash, William

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Amess, David

      Chapman, Sydney

      Amos, Alan

      Chope, Christopher

      Arbuthnot, James

      Churchill, Mr

      Ashby, David

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Atkinson, David

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Colvin, Michael

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Conway, Derek

      Baldry, Tony

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Cope, John

      Bellingham, Henry

      Cormack, Patrick

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Couchman, James

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Cran, James

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Curry, David

      Body, Sir Richard

      Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Boswell, Tim

      Day, Stephen

      Bottomley, Peter

      Devlin, Tim

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Bowls, John

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Dover, Den

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Dunn, Bob

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Durant, Tony

      Brazier, Julian

      Eggar, Tim

      Bright, Graham

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Evennett, David

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

      Fallon, Michael

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Farr, Sir John

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Favell, Tony

      Burns, Simon

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Burt, Alistair

      Forman, Nigel

      Butcher, John

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Butler, Chris

      Forth, Eric

      441

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Lord, Michael

      Franks, Cecil

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Freeman, Roger

      McCrindle, Robert

      Fry, Peter

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Gale, Roger

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Gill, Christopher

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Maclean, David

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Goodlad, Alastair

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Madel, David

      Gorst, John

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Gow, Ian

      Malins, Humfrey

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Mans, Keith

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Maples, John

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Marlow, Tony

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Mates, Michael

      Grist, Ian

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Ground, Patrick

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Grylls, Michael

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Mellor, David

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Miller, Hal

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Mills, Iain

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

      Moate, Roger

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Harris, David

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

      Hayward, Robert

      Moss, Malcolm

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Heddle, John

      Neale, Gerrard

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Needham, Richard

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Neubert, Michael

      Hind, Kenneth

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Holt, Richard

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Howard, Michael

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

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

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Page, Richard

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Paice, James

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Irvine, Michael

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Irving, Charles

      Pawsey, James

      Jack, Michael

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Jackson, Robert

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Janman, Tim

      Portillo, Michael

      Jessel, Toby

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Price, Sir David

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Raffan, Keith

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Redwood, John

      Key, Robert

      Renton, Tim

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Riddick, Graham

      Knapman, Roger

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Knowles, Michael

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Knox, David

      Rost, Peter

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Rowe, Andrew

      Lang, Ian

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Latham, Michael

      Ryder, Richard

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Lightbown, David

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lilley, Peter

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      442

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Tredinnick, David

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Trippier, David

      Sims, Roger

      Trotter, Neville

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Viggers, Peter

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Squire, Robin

      Walden, George

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Stanley, Rt Hon John

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

      Stern, Michael

      Waller, Gary

      Stevens, Lewis

      Walters, Dennis

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Ward, John

      Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Stokes, John

      Wells, Bowen

      Sumberg, David

      Wheeler, John

      Summerson, Hugo

      Whitney, Ray

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Wilshire, David

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Wood, Timothy

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Woodcock, Mike

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Thurnham, Peter

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Mr. Robert Boscawen and

      Tracey, Richard

      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 20
      COMMENCEMENT AND TRANSITIONAL
      Amendment made: No. 36, in page 19, line 40, leave out '11' and insert '[Sight-testing];'.—[Mr. Newton.]
    Clause 21
      NORTHERN IRELAND
      Amendment made: No. 37, in page 21, line 5, leave out '11' and insert '[Sight-testing]'.—[Mr. Newton.]
    Schedule 2

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 19, in page 24, line 8, at end insert—

      '1968 c. 46.

      Health Public 1968.

      Service Health

      and Act

      Section 63(3).'

      No. 30, in page 25, line 14, leave out from beginning to '11' in line 15 and insert 'sections 10 and'.—[Mr. Newton.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Newton.]
      Mr. Dalyell: The issue that arises is whether the House of Commons is entitled to know the technical, professional, medical advice of the chief medical officer. Understandably, hon. Members want to vote quickly so I shall leave it at that, but surely the House of Commons has a right to know what Sir Donald Acheson, and Dr. Macdonald—or whoever occupies their positions—have to say on contentious issues such as eye testing and dental charges.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 185.

      Division No. 261]

      [9.55 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Durant, Tony

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Eggar, Tim

      Alexander, Richard

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Allason, Rupert

      Evennett, David

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Fallon, Michael

      Amess, David

      Farr, Sir John

      Amos, Alan

      Favell, Tony

      Arbuthnot, James

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Forman, Nigel

      Ashby, David

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Forth, Eric

      Atkinson, David

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Franks, Cecil

      Baldry, Tony

      Freeman, Roger

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Gale, Roger

      Batiste, Spencer

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Bellingham, Henry

      Gill, Christopher

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Body, Sir Richard

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Gorst, John

      Boswell, Tim

      Gow, Ian

      Bottomley, Peter

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Bowis, John

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Grist, Ian

      Brazier, Julian

      Ground, Patrick

      Bright, Graham

      Grylls, Michael

      Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Burns, Simon

      Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

      Burt, Alistair

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Butcher, John

      Harris, David

      Butler, Chris

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hayward, Robert

      Carttiss, Michael

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Cash, William

      Heddle, John

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Chope, Christopher

      Hind, Kenneth

      Churchill, Mr

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Howard, Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

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

      Colvin, Michael

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Conway, Derek

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Cope, John

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Couchman, James

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Cran, James

      Irvine, Michael

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Irving, Charles

      Curry, David

      Jack, Michael

      Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

      Jackson, Robert

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Janman, Tim

      Day, Stephen

      Jessel, Toby

      Devlin, Tim

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Dover, Den

      Key, Robert

      Dunn, Bob

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      444

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

      Knapman, Roger

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Rossi, Sir Hugh

      Knowles, Michael

      Rost, Peter

      Knox, David

      Rowe, Andrew

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Lang, Ian

      Ryder, Richard

      Latham, Michael

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Scott, Nicholas

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lilley, Peter

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Lord, Michael

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Sims, Roger

      McCrindle, Robert

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Maclean, David

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Squire, Robin

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Madel, David

      Stanley, Rt Hon John

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Stern, Michael

      Malins, Humfrey

      Stevens, Lewis

      Mans, Keith

      Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

      Maples, John

      Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

      Marlow, Tony

      Stokes, John

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Sumberg, David

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Summerson, Hugo

      Mates, Michael

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Mellor, David

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Miller, Hal

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Mills, Iain

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Moate, Roger

      Thurnham, Peter

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Tracey, Richard

      Morris, M (N'hampton S)

      Tredinnick, David

      Morrison, Hon Sir Charles

      Trippier, David

      Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

      Trotter, Neville

      Moss, Malcolm

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Neale, Gerrard

      Viggers, Peter

      Needham, Richard

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Nelson, Anthony

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Neubert, Michael

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Walden, George

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Waller, Gary

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Walters, Dennis

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Ward, John

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Page, Richard

      Warren, Kenneth

      Paice, James

      Wells, Bowen

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Wheeler, John

      Patnick, Irvine

      Whitney, Ray

      Patten, Chris (Bath)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Wilshire, David

      Pawsey, James

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Portillo, Michael

      Wood, Timothy

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Woodcock, Mike

      Price, Sir David

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Raffan, Keith

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Redwood, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Renton, Tim

      Mr. Robert Boscawen and

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Mr. David Lightbown.

      Riddick, Graham

      445

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Doran, Frank

      Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Allen, Graham

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Eadie, Alexander

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Eastham, Ken

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

      Fearn, Ronald

      Barron, Kevin

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Battle, John

      Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

      Beckett, Margaret

      Fisher, Mark

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Flannery, Martin

      Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

      Flynn, Paul

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Foster, Derek

      Blair, Tony

      Fraser, John

      Boyes, Roland

      Fyfe, Maria

      Bradley, Keith

      Galbraith, Sam

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Galloway, George

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      George, Bruce

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Buchan, Norman

      Graham, Thomas

      Buckley, George J.

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Caborn, Richard

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Grocott, Bruce

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hardy, Peter

      Cartwright, John

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Clay, Bob

      Henderson, Doug

      Clelland, David

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Cohen, Harry

      Home Robertson, John

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Corbett, Robin

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Howells, Geraint

      Cox, Tom

      Hoyle, Doug

      Cummings, John

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Darling, Alistair

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Illsley, Eric

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      John, Brynmor

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Dewar, Donald

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Dixon, Don

      Kennedy, Charles

      446

      Kilfedder, James

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Randall, Stuart

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Redmond, Martin

      Leighton, Ron

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Lewis, Terry

      Reid, Dr John

      Litherland, Robert

      Richardson, Jo

      Livsey, Richard

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Robertson, George

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Loyden, Eddie

      Rogers, Allan

      McAllion, John

      Rooker, Jeff

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McCusker, Harold

      Rowlands, Ted

      McFall, John

      Ruddock, Joan

      McKelvey, William

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McLeish, Henry

      Sheerman, Barry

      McNamara, Kevin

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McTaggart, Bob

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Madden, Max

      Short, Clare

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marek, Dr John

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

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

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Soley, Clive

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Martlew, Eric

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Meacher, Michael

      Stott, Roger

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Straw, Jack

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Turner, Dennis

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Vaz, Keith

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Wall, Pat

      Morley, Elliott

      Walley, Joan

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Mullin, Chris

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Murphy, Paul

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

      O'Brien, William

      Winnick, David

      O'Neill, Martin

      Worthington, Tony

      Parry, Robert

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Patchett, Terry

      Pendry, Tom

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Pike, Peter L.

      Mr. Frank Haynes and

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Mr. Allen McKay.

      Prescott, John

PETITION

  Mr. Vasili Shipilov
  10.6 pm
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: I beg to ask leave to present a petition signed by 250 members and friends of the Heath evangelical church in my constituency.
  The petition refers to Vasili Shipilov, who is the subject of early-day motion 796, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe).
  Vasili Shipilov is an unofficially ordained orthodox priest in the Soviet Union. He was first detained at the age of 17. He is now aged 65 and has spent 47 of the past 48 years in psychiatric hospitals or prisons. He is still in detention. It is hard to believe that such ghastly treatment can go on for so long.
  The petition asks the House to encourage my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to do all possible to secure Mr. Shipilov's release from detention. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will readily accept the position. I know that he is aware of Mr. Shipilov's situation and that he will continue to do all possible to press for his release from detention.
  I am sure that the petition will find the support of many, if not all, right hon. and hon. Members, and I give it my full support.
  To lie upon the Table.

National Health Service (Bradford)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]
10.8 pm
Mr. Max Madden: I am pleased to have this opportunity to introduce a brief debate on the National Health Service in Bradford. Last December., I was also most grateful to have the opportunity of introducing a debate on poverty in Bradford which showed clearly the direct links between poverty, especially unemployment, large-cale dependence on benefits, poor and over-crowded homes and ill health.
I am sad to say that Bradford has become known as a low pay city by reputation to a large number of people by virtue of the extensive low-pay of people in full-time employment. I am sad to say that Bradford is also a poor-health city. More babies die in Bradford than in most other cities. There is a high incidence of heart disease and illness associated with poverty, particularly tuberculosis and dysentery which, sadly, are commonplace.
There are 25,000 unemployed men and women, and one third of the population depend on benefit. There are so-called poverty zones in Bradford where men, women and children are caught in a vicious spiral of deprivation and decline, producing a sub-culture of alienated and apathetic people who have very little hope for themselves, their families, for others in the community or for the community itself. Above all, those people need worthwhile, well-paid work, job security and confidence to plan for a better future for themselves and their families.
Too many people are trapped in the despair of years of unemployment, desperate hardship and increasingly extensive debt. In many cases their confidence of ever getting a decent job and keeping a decent job with decent pay is shot through. Too many people are fed up with temporary job programmes and training programmes and go back on the dole or to part-time and low-paid work.
If private investment is to come to Bradford, it must be encouraged by public investment being pumped into that city by Government. Sadly I have to report to the House that if all the money available under the latest initiative—the so-called city action programme—were spent in Bradford, it would represent less than £1 per head for every person in the district. The best way to prevent illness in Bradford is to remove or substantially lessen the burden of poverty which grips our city. More work is the key, with more and better homes, better community services and a better community environment.
Earlier this year, Bradford suffered a major blow when Bradford health authority announced NHS cuts of more than £2 million. Last month, that package of cuts was revised downwards to £1·4 million after extensive protests throughout the district. Inevitably, it will affect the standard of patient care and patient services. We are confronted with the closure of a maternity ward at St. Luke's hospital, and the transfer of some family planning services from excellent NHS clinics to general practitioners. We are also confronted with cuts in cancer screening and community nursing and the cancellation of a rheumatology consultant appointment for young disabled people. Fewer people living outside Bradford will be able to receive treatment which traditionally has been available in the city.

449
All that is to bring the authority into balance next year. The bulk of the cuts are being introduced only for financial reasons, because DHSS Ministers say that the authority is not allowed to go into deficit.
Health authorities are subject to central control and the chairs of regional health authorities are widely perceived as reliable, safe political agents of the Government. Just how that has come about can be seen by the cavalier and the discourteous way in which Mr. Royston Moore, a senior Conservative politician, has been treated. He was the chair of the Bradford health authority for some time and I understand that he was telephoned only days before the March meeting of the health authority and told that he would not be reappointed. He was not even informed who his successor was to be. That is a disgraceful way for such a senior public servant to be treated by the DHSS. Sadly, it has become fashionable for the DHSS and the Government to treat senior public figures in that way.
The Prime Minister, a mother, tells us and the public that the National Health Service is safe in her hands. In that case, how can she stand back and allow a maternity ward in Bradford to close? How can she allow excellent family planning advice to be denied to large numbers of women of all ethnic origins who want that advice to be given by women and who are extremely reluctant to attend male doctors? How can the Prime Minister stand back and allow £1·4 million to be taken away from the NHS in Bradford this year with the possibility of more being taken the year after?
"Grapevine", the official newsletter of the Bradford health authority, had a new year message in January this year under the banner headline:
"A happy new year to all our Readers."
The message from the district general manager, Mr. Mark Baker, said:
"It has been a long hard autumn. Since September we have been trying to wriggle out of our most serious financial crisis ever. In addition to the much publicised ward closures, we have had to stop building programmes, equipment purchase, restrict the use of agencies, save energy, freeze management posts and many other things in order to save money. So far, although we have closed beds, clinical services have largely been spared.
It is not clear yet how badly off financially we will be next year. Indications are that we will start the year with a deficit of at least £1 million despite all our efforts this year, and maybe as high as £2 million.
Managers alone cannot solve the problem, nor is the Government going to change its policies on Health Service funding overnight. If we are to continue developing services, and avoid painful closures, everyone must help. Use up old stocks rather than ordering new; save paper in case notes and in communications, save energy by turning off lights and heaters. Above all, think about the cost of what you do. The simplest of tasks involving machines or other equipment has a cost to it. If everybody helps, jobs and services will be more secure."
That is the reality of the new year message to the staff of Bradford health authority.
I urge the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) to consider a number of positive suggestions that I should like to put to her. They are ways in which the Government could make a direct contribution to relieving the financial pressures of Bradford health authority and which would remove entirely the need for the cuts package this year and the threatened cuts package next year.
First, I understand that the pay award report is with the Prime Minister. I urge the Prime Minister and the Minister
450
to understand that if the pay award is fully funded it will give Bradford an extra £660,000 this year. I hope that the pay recommendations will be accepted in full. A total of 500 staff have been made redundant from Bradford health authority in recent years. In fact, staff morale is so low that a working party has been looking into the reasons for that low morale for some time. In 1987 a report from that working party said:
"The Authority's Working Party on Staff Morale has at several meetings discussed a concern that low pay is contributing to the low morale of certain groups of employees in the Health Service."
That is no surprise because the working party also discussed the pay levels of
"ASC groups 1 and 2, Clerical Officers and Nursing Auxiliaries."
It said:
"For each of these groups average gross earnings were below the EEC low pay figure' of £116 per week."
The conclusion of that working party in its report was the following:
"The Authority records its concern about continuing levels of low pay for various pay groups in the NHS, which are felt to contribute to problems of staff morale within the Service, and to difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff."
I say to the Prime Minister and to the hon. Lady who will reply tonight that, if it is seen to be necessary for the Government to give substantial pay increases to judges, the police, the military and others whom they wish to recruit, retain and motivate, it is similarly vital that all those who work in the Health Service should be treated in the same considerate and generous fashion.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South is very free with her advice. Most of it is met with derision by my constituents. If she really wants to stop people, especially young people, smoking and drinking alcohol, why does she not ban tobacco firms and brewers from advertising their products in sponsoring sporting events? If she really wants to stop taxpayers' money being wasted in the National Health Service, why does she not bring the drugs industry into public ownership?
If the hon. Lady wants to give the Bradford health authority extra money, why does she not exempt the authority from rates, which would give it an extra £1 million this year? I understand that private nursing homes are exempt from rates. Why then is the National Health Service liable to rates? I also suggest, since we shall be debating the poll tax next week, that the NHS should be exempt from the poll tax.
Why are not the Bradford and other NHS authorities throughout the country exempt from water and sewerage charges, which also represent a substantial burden on those authorities at the present time?
Why can the Government not provide extra funding for maternity, family planning, cytology, and community nursing services and a new, urgently needed consultant rheumatologist to deal with the young disabled?
This week's social security cuts add enormously to the poverty in Bradford and will intensify ill-health. Only this week, I was told about a young widow with five children who, as she is in receipt of widowed mother's allowance, is not eligible for free school meals. She will now have to pay an extra £15 a week for the school meals which her five children take each day. There are 9,500 children in Bradford who will lose the right to free school meals as of this week.
Credit must go to the Labour-controlled Bradford council, which has sought to relieve some of the hardship

451
that the cuts in social security will bring many men, women and children in our city by supplying school milk, which the Government stop them supplying free, at 1p a day, so that it can continue to be given to children under the age of nine at school. The council has also cut the price of school meals to help those who are losing out under the social security cuts.
There is no way that the charities of Bradford or of the rest of the country can replace the DHSS payments that used to be made for all sorts of urgent necessities to very poor people. It is indeed sad that we are this week taking a step back in history into poor relief, with deserving and undeserving poor.
Pensioners resent being told by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South that they should sell their homes so that they can go private. She has conveniently overlooked the fact that, if they sold their houses and acquired more than £6,000 in the process, they would, as a result of her Government's social security changes of this week, lose all rights to benefit.
Many of my constituents do not have one holiday a year, let alone two, and certainly could not provide themselves with sufficient funds to go into private health care by giving up a second holiday. If they have a front room to decorate, certainly forgoing the decoration of that room would not provide them with the funds necessary to go into private health care. The Government need to understand that the people of Bradford depend on the National Health Service. They want more to be spent on improving and expanding the service and on preventive medicine. Bradford's NHS needs extra money which could easily be provided if the Government had the political will, understanding and compassion to do it.
I hope that this short debate will add to the pressures which are being put on the Government by every community for a change of political will and policy. We know that the money is available and that there is no need for cuts in the NHS in Bradford or anywhere else. I look forward, as do the vast majority of my constituents, to a change of policy, more understanding and more compassion from the Government for the real needs of people in Bradford and throughout the country.
10.25 pm
Mr. Pat Wall: I am pleased to support my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). Bradford's district health authority covers an area of 54 square miles and is compact and densely populated. The majority of its 350,000 population live within three miles of the city centre. The population is expected to grow by 38,000 by the end of the century. The authority says in its strategic plan for 1987–94 that there is a close correlation between the incidence of illness and social and economic circumstances. It is that fact above all which makes the £2 million cuts outlined by my hon. Friend a central issue.
Of the 17 health districts in the Yorkshire region, Bradford has the second highest incidence of poor housing and the highest incidence of overcrowding. In the social index, Bradford is the worst of the 17 district health authorities. For every 100 middle-aged men who die of heart disease in the rest of the country, 140 die in Bradford. A new-born Bradford girl can expect a life two and half years shorter than her average sister in England and Wales. In inner Bradford, infant mortality is 17 per
452
thousand, compared with a national average of below 10 per thousand. In the Bradford city area, there are over three cases of tuberculosis per thousand; in some areas of the city, there are nearly 10 cases per thousand.
My hon. Friend has listed some of the cuts which must take place to meet the £2 million deficit which the health authority faces. I should like to mention one sphere which he did not take up but which should be close to the heart of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie)—smear testing for cervical cancer. We believe, as I am sure the hon. Lady does, that all women aged 20 to 65 should be tested regularly. A scheme was introduced in Bradford in July 1986, but only for women aged 35 to 64. It will take a further five years to complete the first call-up. The interval between testing and results is seven weeks, and the interval between smears is five years. The cuts mean that the health authority has to make a choice between extending the age range or lowering the interval between tests to three years. Neither funding nor laboratory capacity will allow the health authority to carry out both.
The city of Bradford is proud of its pioneering work in the treatment of cancer by chemotherapy. I have family reasons to be grateful for the developments which have been made in the city. One effect of the cuts is that outsiders will be refused that treatment. In our turn, we will be refused treatment by other health authorities. I have had letters from Manchester university about orthopaedic surgery and from Leeds about the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease.
To conclude, I support the point made by my hon. Friend about the urgent need for the Government to meet the pay needs of nurse and health workers, rather than increase the burden on Bradford health authority. A Government who can afford to give £2 billion in one stroke to the richest 3 per cent. of our population can well afford to meet the needs of health care in the Bradford districts.
10.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on raising this debate. I am sorry that what he said was such a standard rant, and that he did not find it possible to approve of anything that we are trying to do, unlike his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) who at least recognised our efforts in relation to cervical cancer.
Indeed, when it comes to prevention, despite the rather unkind remarks from the hon. Member for Bradford, West, it might help if he and his hon. Friend were able to encourage his constituents to take some notice of some of the things that we have been saying. We have strong evidence to show that if people changed their lifestyles some of the problems that have been mentioned, particularly in relation to heart disease, could be reduced.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West put some important points to me. I am shortly to carry out the ministerial review for Yorkshire region, and I will ensure that all of those matters are discussed with those responsible. Not least, I want to raise with Yorkshire regional health authority, and perhaps I can give notice of that to it tonight, the very poor neonatal and infant

453
mortality figures that hon. Members have mentioned. share the hon. Gentleman's concern. They were the worst in England in 1986.
I do not think that it is a problem simply associated with the hospitals. The solutions probably lie outside with the family practitioner committees and with the community services; but I intend to get something done about it, for the sake of the women of Bradford and their babies. I will also take up with Yorkshire region the points that have been made about the cervical cancer programme.
There have been significant overall increases in national health funding in this country. We have the second largest programme of expenditure of total Government money after social security. I am sure hon. Gentlemen will note the figures. So far this year, we have about £22 billion to spend. Perhaps after my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has finished her deliberations there will be more than that; we shall have to see.
We allocate our money for hospital and community health services to the regional health authorities. The gross revenue spending of the Yorkshire regional health authority, which is responsible for Bradford, was £583 million in 1982–83. This year it is £851 million. That is a 46 per cent. increase in cash terms and a more than 4 per cent. increase in real terms, which is slightly higher than the national average.
The authorities decide how to allocate the money to the district health authorities. There is not a set formula for doing so. They try to take into account many factors, such as those mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. As a result, Bradford's funding has also increased at this time, with the result that its initial recurrent allocation for this year is nearly £71 million, which includes a development fund of about £500,000. The authority is also to receive substantial additional sums for improving services for specific service developments, £60,000 for AIDS funding, a joint finance allocation of £940,000 and pump-priming funds of £1·5 million spread over three years. To assist the district to develop its community-based mental handicap and mental illness services, there will be about £700,000 in 1988–89. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will agree that those are also important areas, alongside the acute services.
Bradford will also receive £280,000 from the central waiting list initiative, which is a significant amount. It has a substantial cost improvement programme of £2·7 million, or 3·8 per cent. of the revenue budget. It is the highest in the Yorkshire region. £500,000 of that will come from competitive tendering savings, which I am sure hon. Gentlemen will not like, but it is true, and about £1·4 million will come from a recently agreed package of measures, about which hon. Gentlemen have spoken, and which I shall refer to shortly.
Bradford has also appointed a commercial manager with the aim of generating net income of £50,000 in the first year, rising to £120,000 next year. We regard that as a very exciting development. As clause 4 of the Health and Medicines Bill passed without a vote late last night, we hope that we shall make progress on that initiative before very long.
Last year, as has been said, Bradford health authority found itself having to make adjustments for in-year
454
pressures, which amounted to about £400,000. It was helped by the additional funds announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health in December, and Bradford's share was £460,000. That health authority, like all others, has a statutory obligation not to overspend. It is not a question of the Government being unkind to it. We all have a statutory obligation not to overspend, me included.
Clearly, it is prudent against that background at the start of the financial year for the health authority to review budgets in the development programme to ensure that it does not start programmes which it cannot finish or face last-minute adjustments which could be damaging to patient care. Most of all, as it has an ambitious development programme, it is essential to ensure that all developments are affordable.
I understand that various measures taken will not affect patient care, for example, maternity services. Since 1980 two small post-natal wards have been closed at St. Luke's hospital without undue pressure on remaining beds. The birth rate has fallen now, despite the remarks made about the family planning service, and early discharge after delivery is now established good practice. Bradford tells me that it feels able to close a further ward, B3, without in any way compromising patient care. In the event of unexpected demand, additional beds could be reopened at the Royal infirmary maternity unit. The saving on this is £120,000 which is achieved without any loss of quality of care and throughput.
Mr. Madden: Will the Minister confirm that the maternity ward, B3, at St. Luke's was closed in 1987 and had to reopen within 48 hours because of increased need? Will she acknowledge that it is unsatisfactory to centralise maternity services at Bradford Royal infirmary because there are inadequate support services and it is a long distance for many of my female constituents to attend the BRI rather than St. Luke's?
Mrs. Currie: I hope that the hon. Gentlemen will allow me to ensure that those points are considered. When I do the regional reviews I ensure that we have maternity services and care for women firmly on the agenda. I shall ensure that those points are drawn to the attention of the health authority.
The transfer of mental handicap patients from Green Lane hall hospital to Westwood, which was begun in March, is also of some interest. These patients have already moved to substantially upgraded accommodation at Westwood and I think that their quality of life has improved. Again, the change will release £120,000. There are several other similar examples.
There have been substantial improvements in the services, despite what hon. Gentlemen have said. Between 1982 and 1986 the acute in-patient cases treated increased by 13 per cent. to much higher than the England average and day cases increased by 48 per cent.—a growth rate on a par with the rest of the country.
I have mentioned service developments planned for this year. These include the pump-priming projects related to the provision of mental handicap and mental illness services in the community, the opening of two new geriatric wards, staffing for three new mental health centres, medical and surgical equipment, and a range of other developments.

455
Best of all is the redevelopment of Bradford Royal infirmary and St. Luke's hospital phase 1. Work is planned to start soon at St. Luke's. The total cost will be £33 million. The worst of the existing ward accommodation at St. Luke's will be replaced. The result will be a modernised hospital service in Bradford, caring for its population well into the next century. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will support that scheme and recognise that it is a major replacement of old facilities, many of which have given cause for considerable concern. We are interested to see how that progresses.
456
On that basis, I hope that hon. Gentlemen will realise that I am interested in what they have said and will ensure that these points are given due attention.
The motion being made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-two minutes to Eleven o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  National Union of Students
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what subjects he discussed at his last meeting with representatives of the National Union of Students.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has had no recent meeting with the National Union of Students. I met officers of the National Union of Students on 29 February at their request to listen to their views on the question of National Union of Students membership raised by early-day motion 449.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Companies' Accounts (Registration)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Attorney-General if he has communicated with the Director of Public Prosecutions regarding the prosecution of any company for failure to register their accounts.

  The Attorney-General
  I have not done so. Ordinarily, prosecutions for such offences are brought by my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  Courts (Televising of Proceedings)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Attorney-General what consideration is being given to the televising of proceedings in British courts; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  There are at present no plans to
  televise proceedings in courts in England and Wales.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the latest evidence of the impact of crime prevention schemes.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) on 14 March 1988 at column 420.

  Interpol
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last visited Interpol; and what assessment he made of its present operation.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend has not visited the Interpol General Secretariat, but the Government have no doubt that Interpol plays an essential part in international police co-operation.
  198
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much the United Kingdom has contributed to Interpol for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom's membership subscription to Interpol in each of the last 10 years has been as follows:

  £

  1987

  440,487

  1986

  322,416

  1985

  251,266

  1984

  251,047

  1983

  279,416

  1982

  259,000

  1981

  211,516

  1980

  232,285

  1979

  179,496

  1978

  184,669

  Psychiatric Patients
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward legislation to give full voting rights to all patients in psychiatric hospitals.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. A voluntary patient in a psychiatric hospital is already entitled to vote in all elections provided he is included in a register of electors. He may register as an elector in respect of any address with which he has been associated apart from that of the psychiatric hospital itself. He may choose to vote in person or to apply to vote by post or by proxy. These provisions do not apply to a patient detained under an enactment relating to persons suffering from mental disorder. We have no plans to change these arrangements.

  Prisons (Wales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is considering building any new prisons in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The forward building programme includes a new prison at Wrexham.

  Recommendations have been made in a study commissioned by Clwyd county council into possible sites for prisons across the county as a whole. These will be assessed alongside other possible sites which have been identified in the north-west of England.

  No other Welsh sites are at the moment being considered or are in the programme.

  Drug Misuse
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last attended a meeting of the Pompidou Group on Drug Misuse; and what plans were discussed for co-operation with similar groups elsewhere, such as the Andean Parliamentary Drugs Commission.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Pompidou Group Ministers meet every two or three years to set a programme of work for officials to take forward. My right hon. Friend attended the most recent ministerial meeting which was held in London in January 1987 under the chairmanship of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), then Minister of State, Home Office.

  There is no formal arrangement for co-operation between the Pompidou Group and the Andean

  199
  Parliamentary Drugs Commission. There are, however, frequent exchanges of views between representatives of the Group's member states and their counterparts from similar regional groupings elsewhere.

  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is being done to improve working relations and co-operation between the Pompidou Group on Drug Misuse and each of those parts of the European Community Commission involved in drug misuse-related matters.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  With a view to developing a consistent European approach to drug-related problems, in 1986 the Pompidou Group invited the Commission to participate in its activities. A Commissioner attended its ministerial conference in January 1987, and Commission staff take part in its periodic meetings of officials and experts. It is for the Commission to decide upon its representation at such meetings.

  Drug Trafficking
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what links have now been established between drug trafficking and illegal arms trading.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no direct evidence in this country of such links, but remain alert to the possibility both at national level and in international discussions.

  Michael Ryan (Shootings)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Thames Valley police as to how many of the persons(a) killed by and (b) injured by the late Michael Ryan were struck by bullets fired from (i) an M1 carbine, (ii) an AK56 rifle and (iii) a pistol; and how many were struck with bullets fired from more than one weapon.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of Thames Valley police that none of Ryan's victims was struck by bullets from an M1 carbine. Of those who were killed, seven were struck by bullets from a 7·62 Kalashnikov rifle only; eight were struck by bullets from a pistol only; and one person was struck by bullets from a 7·62 Kalashnikov rifle and a pistol. Of those who were injured, one person was struck by bullets fired from a pistol, two were injured by glass or metal other than bullets and in the other 12 cases it is not known what weapon caused the injuries.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Thames Valley police as to the distance between the late Michael Ryan and each of his victims when they were injured or killed by him.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of Thames Valley police that 12 of Ryan's victims were within 10 yd of him when they were killed or injured and the other 19 were over 10 yd away.

  Conferences (Policing Costs)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Derbyshire of a breakdown of the costs for 200
  policing the National Union of Conservative and Unionist Associations Central Council held in Buxton on 18–19 March.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of Derbyshire that he has notified the county treasurer that the additional costs of policing the meeting are £185,039. This covers police officer and civilian overtime, accommodation and subsistence for police officers, additional equipment, communications, transport, and aid from other forces provided under section 14 of the Police Act 1964.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional funds are being made available to the Derbyshire police authority to cover costs arising from policing the National Union of Conservative and Unionist Associations Central Council held in Buxton on 18–19 March.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Under the arrangements for police specific grant at 51 per cent., and for block grant, the Government contribute well over half the costs of policing in Derbyshire.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has obtained any estimate for additional policing costs projected for the 1988 Conservative party annual conference.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the chief constable of Sussex that the Sussex police authority has approved a budget of £1·4 million for the estimated additional cost of policing the Conservative party conference in October 1988. The Government meet a sizeable proportion of the costs of all policing in Sussex through normal police funding arrangements of police grant at 51 per cent. plus block grant.

  Union Flag
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to prevent political parties from using the Union flag at demonstrations and conferences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No.

  Traffic Wardens
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish in the Official Report the London boroughs within each of the areas listed in his reply of 31 March, Official Report, column 682, in respect of traffic wardens.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information is as follows:

  No. 1 Area (North):

  Waltham Forest

  Redbridge

  Haringey

  Enfield

  Islington

  No. 2 Area (East):

  Hackney

  Tower Hamlets

  Havering

  Barking and Dagenham

  Newham

  No. 3 Area (South East):

  201

  Southwark

  Bromley

  Greenwich

  Lewisham

  Bexley

  No. 4 Area (South):

  Lambeth

  Merton

  Croydon

  Sutton

  No. .5 Area (South West):

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  Hounslow

  Kingston

  Wandsworth

  No. 6 Area (West):

  Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Ealing

  Hillingdon

  No. 7 Area (North West):

  Camden

  Harrow

  Barnet

  Brent

  No. 8 Area (Central):

  City of Westminster

  Greater London Co-ordination Centre
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his reply of 31 March,Official Report, column 682, if he will give details of any expert advice from outside his Department which caused him to reject the case for primary legislation made by the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority in order that the Greater London Co-ordination Centre could be maintained on a permanent basis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend took account of views which the Health and Safety Executive expressed to the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority. The views of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis were also taken into account. Additionally, my right hon. Friend consulted Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Fire Services.

  Firearms (Police)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of operations in which firearms were issued to police officers in England and Wales in 1987; in how many of those operations shots have been fired by police officers; how many police officers are currently qualified to carry firearms; and what were the equivalent figures for(a) 1986 and (b)

  Mr. Hurd
  [pursuant to his reply, 24 March 1988, c. 186.]: I regret that the reply was inaccurate. The correct reply is as follows:
  The number of operations in England and Wales, against criminals or those known or believed to be armed, in which firearms were issued to police officers in 1987 was 2,185. This was 10·92 per cent. fewer than in 1986 and 31·29 per cent. fewer than in 1983. Police officers fired shots in seven, or 0·003 per cent., of those operations. The number of such operations in which shots were fired by police officers in the preceding four years was three in 1983; six in 1984; seven in 1985; and one in 1986. As at 31 December 1987 a total of
  202
  7,349 police officers in England and Wales were qualified to carry firearms. This was 12·46 per cent. fewer than at the end of 1986 and 43·66 per cent. fewer than at the end of 1983. The latest figure represents 5·99 per cent. of the total police strength in England and Wales.

WALES

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received calling for the abolition of the regional health authorities in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  None. There are no regional health authorities in Wales.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his latest estimate of the saving to the Exchequer as a result of the changes in housing benefit this April.

  Mr. Portillo
  The changes save £650 million when compared with what the old scheme would have cost next year. This comprises £150 million in public expenditure and £500 million in rate rebates which are not classified as public expenditure.

  Marginal Tax Rates
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate how many people will face marginal tax rates of over(a) 40 per cent., (b) 50 per cent., (c) 60 per cent. and (d) 70 per cent. as a result of the interaction of the tax and social security systems, in 1988–89.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Rhys Williams) on 25 March at columns 243–46. This gives the numbers of working heads with combined marginal tax and benefit withdrawal rates above 50 per cent.

  We estimate that 45,000 families with children and 25,000 couples and single people without children have combined rates between 40 and 50 per cent.

  Regional Secure Units
  Mr. Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services which health district have secure hospital accommodation available within their own district.

  Mrs. Currie
  Central information indicates that at the end of 1986 the following district health authorities had secure accommodation in one or more of their mentalillness or mental-handicap hospitals and units. Latest available information relating to permanent regional secure units was provided in my reply to my hon. Friend on 12 April 1988 at columns 111–12.

  District health authorities listed by regional health authority

  Northern RHA

  Northumberland

  East Cumbria

  Gateshead

  Durham

  Newcastle

  North West Durham

  203

  Yorkshire RHA

  East Yorkshire

  Wessex RHA

  Scunthorpe

  East Dorset

  Wakefield

  West Dorset

  East Hampshire

  Trent RHA

  Southampton and SW

  Leicestershire

  Hants

  Doncaster

  Salisbury

  Rotherham

  Swindon

  Bath District

  East Anglian RHA

  Norwich

  Oxford RHA

  West Berkshire

  North West Thames RHA

  Northampton

  South Bedfordshire

  East Hertfordshire

  South Western RHA

  North West Hertfordshire

  Exeter

  South West Hertfordshire

  North Devon

  Barnet

  Ealing

  West Midlands RHA

  Brent

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  Riverside

  Mid Staffordshire

  North Staffordshire

  North East Thames RHA

  South East Staffordshire

  Southend

  North Warwickshire

  Hampstead

  South Warwickshire

  Waltham Forest

  North Birmingham

  Walsall

  South East Thames RHA

  Eastbourne

  Mersey RHA

  Dartford and Gravesham

  Crewe

  Maidstone

  Macclesfield

  Bexley

  Warrington

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  South West Thames RHA

  Southport and Formby

  West Surrey and North East Hants

  North Western RHA

  Mid Surrey

  Lancaster

  East Surrey

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and

  Chichester

  Ribble Valley

  Mid Downs

  Burnley, Pendle and

  Croydon

  Rossendale

  Kingston and Esher

  North Manchester

  Wandsworth

  Rochdale

  Merton and Sutton

  Mentally Ill Patients
  Mr. Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has as to the main difficulties experienced by other countries as a result of reducing hospital accommodation for the mentally ill and encouraging a shift to care in the community for these patients.

  Mrs. Currie
  There are four main lessons to be learnt from the experience of other countries in reducing hospital accommodation for mentally ill people and encouraging a shift to care in the community.

  Major changes take time to implement effectively. Present changes are evolutionary and not revolutionary. A change towards less in-patient care and more care in other settings has been under way for many years in this country; some signs of this change can be traced back to the 1930s. The steady reduction in the number of patients resident in mental illness hospitals and units reflects that change and the development of new treatments and styles of care. The closure of some hospitals consequent to this changed pattern of care requires careful assessment of existing and likely future needs and reprovision of necessary services locally prior to closure. This is a process that should not normally be hurried.

  Changes are brought about most effectively when planned jointly by all care agencies concerned, whether
  204
  statutory or not, and should take account of the views of mental illness sufferers and their families. Changes are most effective when there is strong local commitment to making the change work.

  Measures need to be taken to ensure that, as secondary mental health care staff move into the community, their main focus of activity continues to be those people who are severely disabled by mental illness. Some countries have reported an undue movement of staff-time towards dealing with people who, although suffering from mental distress, are not severely disabled at the expense of the more severely disabled. Ministers are very conscious of this potential problem and are keeping closely in touch with research on the subject.

  Particular attention needs to be paid to ensuring that patients with longer-term disabilities who are being treated in the community are regularly reviewed and continuity of care ensured so far as possible.

  Industrial Disablement Pension and Housing Benefit (Nottingham)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many individuals in the Nottingham, North area receive industrial disablement pension; how many of them currently receive housing benefit; and how many will lose part or all of that housing benefit from April.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that the information is not available.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people will(a) receive reduced housing benefit and (b) lose their entitlement to housing benefit in Houghton and Washington from April.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that the information is not available.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy to estimate by constituency the number of pensioners now receiving housing benefit who will lose rights after the change in the social security system in April.

  Mr. Portillo
  No. We hold no data that would enable us to do this on a constituency-by-constituency basis.

  Benefits
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what investigations or inquiries he has made into the financial effects of his recent changes in social security benefits into the following categories of persons who were in receipt of supplementary benefit(a) widows with children of school age, (b) registered disabled persons under pensionable age and (c) mentally handicapped persons.

  Mr. Scott
  Overall estimates of the effects of the income-related benefit changes are contained in "Impact of the Reformed Structure of Income Related Benefits," published last October. It is not possible to break down these estimates further into the categories requested. Further information about the effects of the changes will become available in due course through our monitoring arrangments.

  Vaccine Damage
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what criticisms were made to his Department regarding the validity of the conclusion of the National Childhood Encephalopathy Study that the risk of brain damage from whooping cough vaccination was approximately one in 300,000 doses of the vaccine.

  Mrs. Currie
  The National Childhood Encephalopathy Study's (NCES) estimate was that the number of previously normal children with evidence of persistent neurological damage one year after vaccination with the diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTP) vaccine was one in 310,000 injections.

  The chief criticisms of the NCES conclusion were contained in a report prepared by Professor Gordon Stewart, which claimed that the NCES figure was an under-estimate. Professor Stewart's findings were fully considered by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), which advises the Health Departments on all aspects of immunisation. The JCVI and other authorities accepted the NCES conclusion as the best estimate available, and it is acknowledged in the 1983 edition of the memorandum, "Immunisation Against Infectious Disease."

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what internal material relating to whooping cough vaccination was made available to the defendants and plaintiffs in the whooping cough vaccination case; if his Department will discuss the decision of the court with corresponding departments in other countries with a statutory vaccine damage payments scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  As part of the proceedings in the case of Loveday v. Renton a summons for discovery was issued against the Department by the plaintiff's solicitors seeking an order to disclose certain categories of documents. An agreement was reached as to which documents should he disclosed and under what conditions. These conditions included undertakings by the plaintiffs solicitors in order to preserve the confidentiality of the documents and to prevent their use for any purposes other than the court proceedings.

  We are currently considering the implications of the judgment in this case for the statutory scheme of payments under the Vaccine Damage Act 1979, and will make a further statement as soon as possible.

  Melagenina
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will provide the necessary funding for testing the effectiveness of melagenina in the treatment of vitiligo.

  Mr. Newton
  No. Any medicinal product such as this lotion must be subject to a product licence before it may be marketed in the United Kingdom. Applicants for product licences need to supply sufficient data to the licensing authority to enable them to assess the products safety, quality and efficacy.

  Control of Medicines (Report)
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress he has made in considering the Evans/Cunliffe report on the control of medicines which he published on 26 January.

  Mr. Newton
  Dr. Evans and Mr. Cunliffe found that"the overall record of medicines control in the United Kingdom is a good one and its reputation stands deservedly high"
  and concluded that the DHSS
  "record in protecting the public without inhibiting therapeutic innovation and progress is second to none."
  They also noted that the Department has
  "handled the growing burden of licensing work with commendable increase in efficiency."
  At the same time they made a number of criticisms of the organisation and working practices of the medicines division, and also commented on the room for improvement by the pharmaceutical industry in the submission of licence applications. They made 54 recommendations. We have consulted the Medicines Commission on key proposals and I can now set out the conclusions we have so far reached.

  I accept Dr. Evans' and Mr. Cunliffe's recommendation that the responsibility for the control of medicines should remain in DHSS and that the Medicines Control Agency, as it will be known, should be under the charge of a single director. I also accept that the work of the agency should be organised in functional teams and that these should be supported by suitable information technology. The actual structure of the agency will not be determined until after the director has been appointed.

  I accept in principle the recommendation that the whole cost of the agency should be met from licence fees and we will now discuss this with the trade associations. It will be necessary to establish arrangements to show the industry that the cost of the agency is no more than is required for the tasks it has to carry out. I do not, however, propose to accept the recommendations for a budget committee on which the industry would be represented. As Dr. Evans and Mr. Cunliffe pointed out, the Department must remain independent of the industry in carrying out its licensing work. It will more easily be seen to be so if, instead of setting up a committee on which both parties were represented, the Department arranged meetings with the industry as required to explain the basis for the levels of fees it proposed and to discuss the management performance of the agency. These arrangements will in no way impinge on the agency's independence of the industry in carrying out its responsibilities for controlling medicines.

  The first priority must be to appoint the director and I am taking action to this end. My intention is that the main managerial and financial changes should be made well in time for the financial year 1989–90. In the meantime the Department is pursuing the other recommendations in the Evans-Cunliffe report.

  I am grateful to Dr. Evans and Mr. Cunliffe for their report. I believe they have shown ways, in their words, "to make a good system better" and of enabling the Department to cope with further increases in licensing and other work on the control of medicines. Improvements in the management of the work will benefit patients and will further our objective of promoting investment by research-based pharmaceutical companies in this country.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  BBC External Services
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is planning to take any action with regard to the licensing regulations which prevent the BBC external services from seeking additional funds from advertising or other sources.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have no plans to do so. It is open to the BBC to propose changes to the licence and agreement, but any change in the present funding arrangements of the BBC external services would require very careful consideration, particularly in relation to the BBC's editorial independence and the character of external services' broadcasts.

  Gibraltar
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in the light of statements made by the new Chief Minister of Gibraltar regarding negotiations on the future of Gibraltar, he will make a statement on the progress made so far in the discussions held between British and Spanish officials on the specific areas referred to in the Brussels declaration.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Following my right hon. and learned Friend's last meeting with the Spanish Foreign Minister, agreement was reached on joint declarations on Gibraltar airport, the proposed ferry service to Algeciras and the need to take steps to improve the flow of traffic by land between Gibraltar and Spain. Her Majesty's Government remain fully committed to the Brussels process.

  Panama
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any advice has been issued to British commercial undertakings in Panama in respect of payments of local fares and charges; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Our advice has not been sought by British commercial undertakings in Panama and none has been given.

  Turkey (Prime Minister's Visit)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional costs were incurred by the British embassy in Turkey associated with the recent visit by the Prime Minister.

  Mr. Eggar
  Costs incurred by the British embassy in Ankara were £805.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of Bangladesh regarding the persecution of the tribal people in the Chittagong hill tracts of Bangladesh; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have on several occasions raised with the Bangladesh Government at the highest levels the concern felt in this country for human rights in 208
  Bangladesh. My noble Friend the Minister of State, the Lord Glenarthur, did so most recently with the Bangladesh high commission last month.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Textile and Clothing Exports
  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, in view of the challenge from China to United Kingdom textile and clothing industries, he will make it his policy to adopt a firm stance in the renegotiation of the European Economic Community/China textile agreement due to take place in the current year, and in particular to ensure that China is treated no more favourably than other dominant suppliers.

  Mr. Atkins
  Preparations for the renegotiation of the EC/China bilateral textiles agreement later this year are at an early stage. My Department is in touch with the United Kingdom textile and clothing industry to obtain its views on United Kingdom priorities for the negotiations, and these will be taken into account when we consider the stance to adopt in the European Community's preparatory discussions. Our position will, of course, recognise the significant place which China now holds as a textile and clothing supplier to the Community market, as well as other relevant factors; for example, the fact that it is a state-trading economy and also a developing country.

  Restrictive Practices
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list all industries and professions which have been the subject of a referral by the Government to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, as part of the process to eliminate restrictive practices, since 1979.

  Mr. Maude
  Agreements subject to the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 are not referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, but are registered by the Director General of Fair Trading, who may refer them to the Restrictive Practices Court.

  The Fair Trading Act 1973 gives both the Director General of Fair Trading and Ministers powers to make monopoly references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Ministers may also make general references under section 78 of the 1973 Act, and references as to restrictive labour practices under section 79 of that Act. The Competition Act 1980 gives the Director General of Fair Trading powers to refer anti-competitive practices. A list of all such references made to the commission since the beginning of 1979 is as follows:

  Monopoly references under the Fair Trading Act 1973

  Full title of reference

  Year of reference

  Supply of Tampons

  1979

  Full line forcing and tie-in sales

  1979

  Supply of Liquefied Petroleum Gas

  1979

  Inner London Letter Post

  1979

  Supply of Concrete Roofing Tiles

  1979

  Supply of Ready-Mixed Concrete

  1979

  Wholesale Supply of Motor Car Parts

  1980

  Supply of Films for Exhibition in Cinemas

  1980

  Supply of Pitches for Holiday Caravans in Northern Ireland

  1981

  209

  Full title of reference

  Year of reference

  Supply of Contraceptive Sheaths

  1981

  Supply of Animal Waste

  1982

  Supply of White Salt

  1983

  Supply, maintenance and repair of Postal Franking Machines

  1983

  Supply of Tampons

  1984

  Supply of agency services by travel agents for tour operators in relation to the marketing and supply of foreign package holidays

  1984

  Supply of the services of managing greyhound tracks

  1984

  Supply of Steel Wire Fencing

  1984

  Supply of Marine Radio Navigation Receivers

  1985

  Supply of Pest Control Services

  1986

  Supply of Beer

  1986

  Supply of the services of advertising in magazines for Campers, Climbers and Walkers

  1987

  Supply of Credit Card Services

  1987

  Supply of Codeine

  1987

  Supply of Gas to Contract Customers

  1987

  Supply of Artificial Lower Limbs

  1987

  Advertising rules of Osteopaths

  1988

  Advertising rules of Civil Engineers

  1988

  Reference under Section 78 of the 1973 Act

  Broadcasting and Public Performance Rights in Sound Recordings

  1988

  Reference under Section 79 of the 1973 Act

  Restrictive Labour Practices in Television and Film Making

  1988

  Anti-competitive practice references under the Competition Act 1980

  TI Raleigh Bicycles

  1981

  Sheffield Newspapers Ltd.

  1981

  London Electricity Board

  1982

  Ford Motor Company

  1984

  British Broadcasting Corporation and Independent Television Publication Ltd.

  1985

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list all those professions currently under examination by the Government as part of the process to eliminate restrictive practices.

  Mr. Maude
  The Director General of Fair Trading has a statutory duty to keep commercial activities under review, and this includes the behaviour of the professions. The Government, in developing their policies, give a high priority to competition. We have also stated in the recent Green Paper, "Review of Restrictive Trade Practices Policy", (Cm. 331) that exemptions from the current restrictive trade practices legislation, including those for professional services, will not be automatically carried across into the new legislation, but will have to be justified afresh.

  Steelworkers
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further representations have been made to the EEC Commission regarding outstanding payments of iron and steel European readoption and benefit scheme benefits due to Sheffield steelworkers made redundant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My officials have made a number of further representations at a senior level, and have made the Commission well aware of the consequences which its delay is having on applicants under the iron and steel European readoption and benefit scheme. Regrettably the Commission has still to take a decision on outstanding applications for approval of aid under the treaty of Paris.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Community Education Council
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make a statement on his planned 1983 changes to the remit of the Scottish Community Education Council;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the future role and level of grant of the Scottish Community Education Council.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The council was set up in 1982 with the remit of advising the Secretary of State on all matters concerned with community education and promoting the development of community education.

  After six years it is appropriate to review this remit, and I have concluded that there will be less need in future for the exercise of the council's advisory function. On the other hand, there is scope for developing its function as a resource centre, with the aim of recovering a higher proportion of production costs from income other than grant.

  The new council which takes office in April will oversee this redirection of effort and deal with the practical implications. I have accordingly decided to make available to the council grant at last year's rate for the period 1 April to 30 June (£141,600) so that it can assess the position. Future levels of grant will be determined in the light of the council's needs, having regard to its new remit and its corporate plan.

  Education Reform
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to introduce legislation to allow schools to opt out of the state education system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government have made it clear that there will be no proposals for opting out in the current session. The School Boards (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced on 16 March, contains no such provisions, and we do not anticipate any change to the Bill for this purpose.

  The Government have also consistently made clear that we do not rule out provisions for opting out in future. However, no decisions have yet been taken about future legislation.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list in the Official Report the total amount of grant allocated by his Department to the Scottish Community Education Council in each of the past five years;

  (2) when he expects to announce the total Scottish Office grant to be allocated to the Scottish Community Education Council in the financial year 1988–89.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Grant paid by the Scottish Education Department to the Scottish Community Education Council has been as follows:

  £

  1983–84

  334,000

  1984–85

  346,050

  1985–86

  356,000

  1986–87

  542,000

  1987–88

  566,000

  211
  As to grant for 1988–89, I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 12 April to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood).

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the present arrangements for publicising the case for patients to undergo cancer screening in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Cervical cancer screening in Scotland is presently mainly undertaken as part of the normal medical care of women attending ante-natal clinics, post-natal clinics and family planning and well women clinics. A substantial proportion of all tests are carried out by general practitioners some of whom operate a call/recall system for their own patients. Women are advised about the test by general medical practitioners or other professional staff.

  I announced on 10 December 1987 that a comprehensive cervical cancer screening service is to be made available to all women in Scotland between 20 and 60 years and the Scottish Health Education Group will mount a suitable publicity campaign at the appropriate time.

  I also announced on 20 October 1987 our intention to establish centres throughout Scotland to provide a comprehensive nationwide breast cancer screening programme for all women between 50 and 64 years by 1991. The first four centres, in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee, will come into operation during the course of this year. Again SHEG will be preparing publicity material for this programme.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Housing Executive
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the capital and revenue expenditure by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in each of the years since its inception.

  Mr. Needham
  The capital and revenue expenditure by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in each financial year since 1972–73 is as follows:

  Capital £ million

  Revenue £ million

  Gross Total £ million

  1972–73

  28·5

  27·0

  55·5

  1973–74

  64·4

  34·0

  98·4

  1974–75

  44·9

  53·4

  98·3

  1975–76

  70·8

  66·4

  137·2

  1976–77

  106·8

  87·8

  194·6

  1977–78

  109·6

  105·4

  215·0

  1978–79

  102·8

  133·8

  236·6

  1979–80

  97·5

  171·3

  268·8

  1980–81

  110·7

  199·2

  309·9

  1981–82

  119·9

  241·0

  360·9

  1982–83

  177·4

  248·4

  425·8

  1983–84

  177·2

  269·4

  446·6

  1984–85

  174·2

  308·6

  482·8

  1985–86

  171·9

  327·9

  499·8

  1986–87

  151·3

  341·2

  492·5

  1987–881

  149·8

  349·8

  499·6

  1 Provisional

  Generating Capacity
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when a decision will be taken on the next phase of generating capacity in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  It is not possible to give a firm date for decisions on new generating capacity. The Government are currently considering revised proposals from Northern Ireland Electricity and Antrim Power Company Limited and will take decisions as soon as possible.

  Police Stations (Repairs)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will list the police stations which have needed rebuilding or major repairs after bomb damage in each year since 1979, indicating the cost, when work began and when it was completed or ceased due to Irish Republican Army threats, and which stations which were damaged do not at present have work in hand to repair them;

  (2) on which new police stations in Northern Ireland work was brought to a halt by Irish Republican Army threats during each year since 1979; if he will indicate when work (a) ceased, and (b) restarted; what was the contract price for each station; what were the sums paid for work actually carried out; and when he now expects the work to be completed, together with the completion cost.

  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 12 April 1988]: The information is as follows:

  RUC stations seriously damaged by bomb and mortar explosions and whether reinstated

  Year and Stations seriously damaged

  Whether reinstated

  1979 Kinawley

  Yes

  Newtonhamilton

  Yes

  1980 Plumbridge

  Yes

  Clogher

  Yes

  Warrenpoint

  Yes

  1981 Clogher

  Yes

  Newtonhamilton

  Yes

  Rosslea

  Yes

  1982 Woodbourne

  Yes

  1983 Andersontown

  Yes

  Carrickmore

  Yes

  1984 Kinawley

  Yes

  1985 Newry

  Yes

  Plumbridge

  Yes

  Enniskillen

  Yes

  Ballinamallard

  Yes

  Toomebridge

  Yes

  Ballygawley

  Yes

  Castlederg

  Yes

  Carrickmore

  Yes

  Shantallow

  Yes

  Tynan

  No

  1986 Coalisland

  Yes

  Cloughmills

  Yes

  Birches

  No

  Lisburn Road

  No

  1987 Newtonstewart

  Yes

  Kinawley

  Yes

  213

  Year and Stations seriously damaged

  Whether reinstated

  Loughgall

  Yes

  1988 Dunmurry

  Yes

  The Police Authority has not yet taken a final decision on the reinstatement of Tynan, Birches and Lisburn road. It would not be in the public interest to disclose the cost of reinstating individual stations, details of future plans for specific sites or the estent to which work has or has not been interrupted by IRA threats.

TRANSPORT

  A19 (Litter)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department takes to ensure the efficient removal of litter from the A19 between Middlesbrough and Sunderland.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The requirements of the Department for routine maintenance of the A19 trunk road is contained within the Department's document, "Code of Practice for Routine Maintenance".

  The section of the A19 between Middlesbrough and Sunderland is maintained on behalf of the Department by three agent authorities: Sunderland metropolitan borough council, Durham county council and Cleveland county council. They have all been seen to be observing the code as far as the question of litter is concerned.

  In accordance with general policy, litter receptacles are not provided in the lay-bys on the A19. The public are advised to take litter home. This general policy appears to work well. There is no evidence of significant dumping. The Department arranges for litter clearance where it may be seen there is a hazard or nuisance. Particular problems are dealt with subsequent to reports from several sources, including our agent authorities, the police, motoring organisations and the travelling public.

  The code requirements adopted by the Department's maintaining agent authorities and district councils as appropriate on the A19 trunk road, include:

  (a) sweeping the trunk road annually;

  (b) removing hazardous material, litter and debris as soon as possible as reported by routine maintenance personnel, the police, motoring organisations and the public; and

  (c) scavenging and cleaning of lay-bys and the removal of wind-blown litter and abandoned cars, if necessary, by district councils supplemented by reports from several and obvious sources.

  The Department's regional office staff are aware of the conditions on the A19 trunk road and react to circumstances as necessary.

  Bus Lanes (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has of the number of bus lanes installed and removed in London since 31 March 1986.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I understand that six new bus lanes have been or are in the process of being installed in London since 1 April 1986 and that five have been or are being removed. A copy of the Department's recent advice note on bus lanes is available in the Library—I shall send the hon. Member a copy.

  Motorway Accidents
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list motorway injury accidents under each of the following categories: (i) total number, (ii) vehicle types involved, (iii) by weather conditions and time of day, (iv) whether there was motorway lighting and (v) by age of drivers.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Road accident statistics for Great Britain are published annually by the Department, the latest full figures available are for 1986, as follows:

  (i) Motorway injury accidents

  Number

  Fatal

  202

  Serious

  1,093

  Slight

  3,867

  Total

  5,162

  (ii) Number and type of vehicle involved in motorway injury accidents:

  Number

  Mopeds and scooters

  25

  Motorcycles

  296

  Cars

  8,176

  Buses and coaches

  84

  LGVs

  714

  HGVs

  1,531

  Others

  67

  Total

  10,893

  (iii) Motorway injury accidents by weather conditions and time of day:

  Number

  Fine

  3,975

  Raining

  910

  Snowing

  115

  Fog

  93

  Daylight

  3,550

  Darkness

  1,612

  (iv) Whether there was motorway lighting:

  Daylight

  Darkness

  Lit section

  1,755

  721

  Unlit section

  1,795

  891

  Total

  3,500

  1,612

  (v) Age distribution of drivers involved in accidents on motorways:

  Per cent.

  18 to 30 years

  35

  30 to 40 years

  25

  40 to 50 years

  21

  50 to 60 years

  12

  60 to 70 years

  5

  Over 70 years

  2

  Speedboat Accident (Looe)
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will hold a public inquiry into the circumstances of the speedboat accident off Looe on Tuesday 5 April; and if he will make a statement on the
  215
  alleged delay between the official notification of Her Majesty's coastguards, Brixham and the calling out of the Fowey lifeboat.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I learnt with regret of this accident in which two young men lost their lives. I have made arrangements for one of my Department's surveyors to investigate and report on the circumstances of the accident. I cannot comment further until I have received the report.

ENERGY

  Uranium Supplies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has received any recent communication from the European Economic Community Energy Commissioner regarding the current appraisal by EURATOM of the adequacy of the uranium supply agreements or contracts with non-European Economic Community member states, including Australia, Canada, the United States of America, Namibia and South Africa.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No. The only such assessment of which I am aware is that regularly contained in the annual report of the Euratom Supply Agency. I have arranged for a copy of the 1987 report to be placed in the Library of the House when published.

  Nuclear Power (Exhibition)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to nuclear power to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, arrangements have been made with the Authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall on Wednesday 3 May.

  IAEA (Operational Safety and Review Team)
  Mr. Sackville
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when and where the International Atomic Energy Association's operational safety and review team mission to the United Kingdom will take place.

  Mr. Parkinson
  At the IAEA general conference last September, I invited the agency to send an OSART team to visit one of our nuclear power stations.

  The CEGB has now offered Oldbury for the OSART visit, which is planned for the summer of 1989.

PRIME MINISTER

  Harland and Wolff Shipyard
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will pay a visit to Harland and Wolff shipyard in Belfast.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Scotland
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next intends to pay an official visit to Scotland.

  The Prime Minister
  I visited Scotland on 30 March.

  Ryton-on-Dunsmore
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to make an official visit to Ryton-on-Dunsmore, near Rugby.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Engagements
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 April.

  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 April.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 April.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 April.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 April.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 April.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 April.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 April.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 April.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Canada and United States of America (Official Visit)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her reply of 22 October,Official Report, column 847, if she will now provide a breakdown by category of the cost to public funds of her visit to Canada and the United States of America.

  The Prime Minister
  Bills for some of the costs of this visit have not yet been received. The total cost to date is £83,564, which can be broken down as follows:

  Total to date

  Travel costs:

  £74,404

  Other costs:

  £9,160

  Turkey (Official Visit)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total cost of her visit to Turkey; how many officials accompanied her; what was her method of travel; and who was the carrier.

  The Prime Minister
  Final figures for the cost of my visit are not yet available. An estimate of the total cost is £24,000. I was accompanied by three officials and nine support staff. I flew by RAF VC10.

  Official Entertainment (Cost)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total cost of official entertainment associated with the Office of the Prime Minister in 1987–88.
  217
  The Prime Minister
  Final figures for 1987–88 are not yet available. The latest estimate of the total cost is £9,739.

  Official Residences (Costs)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will provide the final figure for 1987–88 for(a) the cost of maintaining and running 10 Downing street and additional costs at Chequers, (b) the grant-in-aid to the Chequers Trust and (c) the costs on a consistent basis and expressed at constant 1984–85 prices.

  The Prime Minister
  Final figures for 1987–88 are not yet available. The latest estimates of the figures requested are:

  £

  (a) cost of maintaining and running 10 Downing street and additional costs at Chequers1 2 3

  5,278,618

  (b) the grant-in-aid to the Chequers Trust

  224,000

  (c) figures at (a) and (b) in 1984–85 price terms4

  (a) 4,593,956

  (b) 194,946

  Notes:

  1 The figures include costs at both 10 Downing street and Chequers; the information is not available by location.

  2 Salaries and wages, notional pension liability, administration costs, the costs of office services and the grant-in-aid to the Chequers Trust are included. The salary of the Prime Minister is excluded.

  3 This total is calculated on a consistent basis with the total for 1986–87 given in sub-paragraph (a) of the reply to the hon. Member on 23 October 1987, at column 846. If office services costs are excluded (to produce a figure consistent with those at sub-paragraph (c) of that reply) the total for 1987–88 is £4,774,143 (£4,154,914 at constant 1984–85 prices).

  4 Constant costs have been calculated using the Treasury's GDP deflator for 1986–87 rebased to 1984–85.

  Official Expenditure
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total cost to public funds of all her offices, duties, accommodation and expenses in the year 1987–88.

  The Prime Minister
  Final figures for 1987–88 are not yet available. The latest estimate of the total cost of all my offices in 1987–88 is £5,312,0161.

  Note:

  1 Salaries and wages, notional pension liability, administration costs and the grant-in-aid to the Chequers Trust are included. My salary as a Cabinet Minister is also included. My pay and allowances as a Member of this House are excluded.

  Voluntary Bodies (Grants)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list the total amounts paid in grants by Government Departments to voluntary bodies during the financial year 1986–87; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The figures are shown in the table. The total amount provided in 1986–87 represents a cash increase of 4·4 per cent. (in real terms 1·1 per cent.) on the level of provision in 1985–86. In the period between 1979–80 and 1986–87 the level of Government support to voluntary bodies has risen by about 221 per cent. (in real terms 92·4 per cent.).
  218

  Grants by Government Departments in 1986–87

  £

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  171,700

  Defence

  4,825,762

  Education and Science

  16,229,314

  Employment

  33,294,000

  Energy

  1,118,000

  Environment—direct grants

  3,612,417

  —urban programme

  76,011,000

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  880,626

  Overseas Development Administration1

  26,822,713

  Health and Social Security

  35,075,544

  Home Office

  19,541,336

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  726,743

  Northern Ireland Departments

  14,974,781

  Scottish Office—direct grants

  8,970,443

  —urban programme

  16,600,000

  Trade and Industry

  8,689,088

  Transport

  636,000

  Welsh Office—direct grants

  8,467,801

  —urban programme

  2,850,000

  1 During 1986–87 there was a decrease in requests from voluntary Agencies for grants in support of disaster, refugee and other emergency relief measures. That programme is, by its nature, reactive rather than planned. The other forms of support from the aid programme for voluntary agencies for their longer term development work increased substantially during 1986–87.

  Employment

  In addition, payments were made directly to voluntary bodies under various employment programmes:

  £

  Manpower Services Commission

  Community Programme

  480,000,000

  Voluntary Projects Programme

  8,250,000

  Youth Training Scheme

  125,000,000

  The MSC makes payments to voluntary bodies under other programmes, but these cannot be given in detail except at disproportionate cost.

  £

  Northern Ireland Office (Department of Economic Development)

  Community Workshops

  15,599,832

  Action for Community Employment Scheme

  28,489,008

  Community Volunteering Scheme

  654,718

  Youth Community Projects

  746,191

  Youth Help

  712,303

  Departments also made grants and payments to housing associations and societies; these are as follows:

  £

  Department of the Environment

  842,700,000

  Northern Ireland Office (Department of the Environment)

  41,571,238

  Scottish Office

  107,571,238

  Welsh Office

  56,600,213

  Grants made to voluntary bodies in 1986–87 by non-departmental public bodies include the following:

  £

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  41,866

  Commission for Racial Equality

  1,835,210

  Countryside Commission

  2,625,000

  Countryside Commission for Scotland

  342,491

  Health Education Council

  738,000

  Highlands and Islands Development Board

  666,895

  Nature Conservancy Council

  1,765,072

  Sports Council

  15,446,000

  219

  £

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  405,189

  Sports Council for Scotland

  2,454,891

  Sports Council for Wales

  1,576,465

  10 Downing Street (Staff)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the staff complement of No. 10 Downing street in 1987–88; and how many were registered disabled.

  The Prime Minister
  The total staff complement of 10 Downing street in 1987–88 was 67. None was registered disabled.

  Official Travel
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total cost to public funds of travel by the Prime Minister and accompanying officials in 1987–88.

  The Prime Minister
  Final figures are not yet available and cannot be provided in the precise form requested. The latest estimate of the total cost of my travel and that of my staff in 1987–88 is £826,712.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make it her policy to use British Rail trains for travelling on official occasions; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I regret that for reasons of practicality and security it is difficult for me to travel by rail on official business. I do so when a suitable opportunity arises.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Taxation Incentives
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effect of taxation incentives on the economy.

  Mr. Brooke
  High taxes discourage the effort, enterprise and initiative which are essential for a strong and growing economy.

  Capital Taxation
  Mr. Bevan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what responses he has received to his Budget proposals for changes in capital taxation.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what responses he has received to his Budget proposals for changes in capital taxation.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend's proposals have been well received.

  Income Tax
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the real increase in the yield of income tax from the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers since 1978–79.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Compared with 1978–79, the income tax liability of the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers was some £3 billion higher in real terms in 1987–88.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the income tax revenue received from the 220
  top 5 per cent. of income earners has changed in each year from 1983; and what is his estimate for the coming financial year.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The income tax paid by the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers in each year since 1983 is as follows:

  £ billion

  £ billion at 1988–89 prices

  1983–84

  8·5

  10·5

  1984–85

  9·3

  11·0

  1985–86

  11·2

  12·5

  1986–87

  12·1

  13·1

  1987–88

  13·2

  13·7

  1988–89

  12·5

  12·5

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the CBI on the tax reductions for top taxpayers announced in the Budget.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The CBI's Budget document called for cuts in the top marginal rates of income tax to improve incentives. Commenting on the Budget the CBI president said:"This is the Budget we have been waiting for. It will help maintain the momentum of Britain's economic recovery. It reflects CBI priorities…in particular it will provide greater incentives for all in British business."

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much he expects the income tax revenue from the top 5 per cent. of income earners to rise following the announcement in his Budget; and what proportion he estimates this will be of total income tax revenue.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The top 5 per cent. of taxpayers paid £13·2 billion income tax in 1987–88, 30 per cent. of the yield, while in 1988–89 the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers are expected to pay £12·5 billion, 28 per cent. of the yield. The calculation makes no allowance for any changes in taxpayers' behaviour as a result of the changes in the Budget.

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of total income tax he expects to be paid by the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers in 1988–89; and what was the equivalent figure in 1978–79.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of total income tax he expects to be paid by the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers in 1988–89; and what was the equivalent figure in 1978–79.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of total income tax he expects to be paid by the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers in 1988–89; and what was the equivalent figure in 1978–79.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  It is estimated that in 1988–89 the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers will pay 28 per cent. of total income tax. The corresponding figure for 1978–79 was 24 per cent. The estimate for 1988–89 is provisional.

  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received in favour of introducing an initial rate of income tax at a lower level than the proposed standard rate.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend has received very few representations on this subject.
  221
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the figures for personal income tax rates and tax takes for 1978–79, 1981–82 and 1987–88 and the projected figures for 1988–89 and 1990–91.

  Rates of income tax

  1978–791 Slice of taxable income (£)

  Rate of tax Per cent.

  1981–821 Slice of taxable income (£)

  Rate of tax Per cent.

  1987–88 Slice of taxable income (£)

  Rate of tax Per cent.

  1988–89 Slice of taxable income (£)

  Rate of tax Per cent.

  Lower rate

  1–750

  25

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Basic rate

  751–8,000

  33

  1–11,250

  30

  1–17,900

  27

  1–19,300

  25

  Higher rates

  8,001–9,000

  40

  11,251–13,250

  40

  17,901–20,400

  40

  Over 19,300

  40

  9,001–10,000

  45

  13,251–16,750

  45

  20,401–25,400

  45

  10,001–11,000

  50

  16,751–22,250

  50

  25,401–33,300

  50

  11,001–12,500

  55

  22,251–27,750

  55

  33,301–41,200

  55

  12,501–14,000

  60

  Over 27,750

  60

  Over 41,200

  60

  14,001–16,000

  65

  16,001–18,500

  70

  18,501–24,000

  75

  Over 24,000

  83

  1 Investment income surcharge was also payable for these years.

  Net income tax receipts

  Year

  £ billion

  1978–79

  18·7

  1981–82

  28·7

  1987–88 (latest estimate)

  41·4

  1988–89 (forecast)

  42·1

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the income tax burden on single pensioners with a gross income of up to £5,000 per annum and married pensioners with a gross income of up to £8,000 per annum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend has received a small number of representations, including an eloquent one from my hon. Friend.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total value of the reduction in income tax enjoyed by a person with a taxable income of £100,000 per annum(a) in respect of the arrangements made in his Budget Statement for 1988–89 and (b) in total during the period 1980–81 to 1988–89.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The reduction in the annual income tax liabilities of a married man with gross annual income of £100,000 would be(a) £13,498 from this year's Budget proposals and (b) £13,585 from all Budget changes from 1980–81 to 1988–89. The figures assume that the taxpayer is entitled to no income tax relief or allowance other than the married man's allowance, and compare income tax liabilities under the proposed tax regime for 1988–89 with those under the 1987–88 and 1980–81 regimes indexed to 1988–89 levels according to the statutory formula.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the real increase in the yield of income tax from the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers since 1978–79.
  222
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Information is given in the tables. Detailed forecasts of tax revenues are not published for years after 1988–89.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the real increase in the yield of income tax from the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers since 1978–79.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Compared with 1978–79 the income tax liability of the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers was some £3 billion higher in real terms in 1987–88.

  Economic Forecasts
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning possible overheating of the economy.

  Mr. Lilley
  None.

  Budget (Representations)
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on his Budget.

  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on his Budget.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin).

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what response he has had to his Budget statement; and what action he intends to take as a result.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend's Budget has been widely welcomed, at home and abroad, as a further step in the Government's programme of tax reduction and reform within a prudent financial framework. It continues the policies designed to defeat inflation and promote individual enterprise and effort which are transforming the British economy.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the operation of his policy of managing a floating exchange rate.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Government's policy on the exchange rate was set out in my right hon. Friend's Budget speech and in chapter 2 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report published on 15 March.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on his policy towards sterling exchange rates with other major currencies.

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on his exchange rate policy.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his exchange rate policy.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on exchange rate policy after the Budget.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend set out the Government's exchange rate policy in his Budget speech on 15 March at columns 995–1015, and in chapter 2 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report published on 15 March.

  Mr. Beaumont-Dark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect the exchange rate has on the performance of the economy.

  Mr. Major
  The exchange rate is a major factor in the determination of overall monetary conditions in the economy which are set out to maintain downward pressure on inflation. Increases in domestic costs will not be accommodated by exchange rate depreciation.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to meet the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss exchange rate policy.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend has regular meetings with the Governor of the Bank of England, at which they discuss a variety of subjects.

  Economic Growth
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average rate of growth in the British economy(a) for the last five years and (b) for the period 1974 to 1979.

  Mr. Major
  Over the last five years the average annual rate of growth has been 3·3 per cent., considerably above the 2 per cent. average from 1974 to 1979.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the last year before 1987 when real growth in the economy exceeded the rate of inflation.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the last year before 1987 when real growth in the economy exceeded the rate of inflation.

  Mr. Major
  The last year, prior to 1987, in which output growth exceeded inflation was 1964.
  224
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for how many years the rate of economic growth in the United Kingdom has averaged 3 per cent. or more.

  Mr. Major
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer the Economic Secretary gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell).

  Sterling Index
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he expects the sterling index to average in the coming year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Government do not forecast the exchange rate.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many officials are employed within the social security division of Her Majesty's Treasury dealing with matters related to pensions.

  Mr. Brooke
  There are eight officials currently working in the social security division of the Treasury, who deal with pensions and other social security matters.

  Third World Debt
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with other Finance Ministers regarding rescheduling of Third world debt; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General on 11 February to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) at column 334.

  BP
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any plans for further sales of Government shares in BP; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Treasury plans to sell its residual holding of BP cumulative preference shares in due course. It will also sell, at its discretion, its holding of BP ordinary shares in so far as this exceeds the number of shares required to satisfy outstanding share bonus entitlements.

  The Bank of England has undertaken not to dispose of its holding of partly paid BP shares before 29 April 1988, except at a price in excess of 120p.

  Business Investment
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast for the growth of business investment over the coming year.

  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast for the growth of business investment over the coming year.

  Mr. Major
  As the Chancellor stated in his Budget forecast, total business investment is expected to grow by 9 per cent. in 1988.

  Interest Rates
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of interest rates.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of interest rates.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of interest rates.

  Mr. Lilley
  Bank base rates are 8 per cent.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on his policy towards interest rates.

  Mr. Lilley
  Short-term interest rates remain the essential instrument of monetary policy, and within a continuous and comprehensive assessment of monetary conditions, they are set at the level necessary to ensure downward pressure on inflation.

  Louvre Accord
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet his counterparts who were party to the Louvre accord; and what will be discussed.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Group of Seven Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors met yesterday and issued a statement.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the rise in employment in the United Kingdom economy since 1983.

  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the rise in employment in the United Kingdom economy since 1983.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the rise in employment in the United Kingdom economy since 1983.

  Mr. Major
  Employment in the United Kingdom has risen by 1½ million since 1983.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much unemployment has fallen in the United Kingdom economy over the past year.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much unemployment has fallen in the United Kingdom economy over the past year.

  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much unemployment has fallen in the United Kingdom economy over the past year.

  Mr. Major
  Unemployment has fallen by 535,000 over the past year. It has now fallen for 19 months in succession since July 1986, by 679,000 in total, the largest fall since the war.

  Personal Incomes
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the effect of his Budget proposals on a man and wife over 80 years with an income in excess of £10,600 per annum.
  226
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The reduction in tax compared with 1987–88 will be as follows:

  Income

  Reduction in tax

  £

  £

  Per cent.

  10,600

  349

  3·3

  11,000

  363

  3·3

  12,000

  283

  2·4

  14,000

  279

  2·0

  Above this level of income the reduction will be the same as for a non-aged couple. Calculations assume that the wife has no earnings or pension in her own right.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the change in weekly income of a single parent, with two children, drawing supplementary benefit and child benefit, as a result of his Budget changes.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Budget is about tax, so will not have a direct effect on the incomes of those who do not pay tax. A lone parent on supplementary benefit is unlikely to be directly affected by the Budget changes unless he or she takes a job in the course of the financial year. But, on average, a lone parent can expect income support to be about £4 a week higher than the supplementary benefit payable before the introduction of the social security reforms on 11 April.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the weekly gain of a single person earning £400,000 a year as a result of his Budget tax changes.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the weekly gain of a single person earning £350,000 a year from his Budget tax changes.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the weekly gain of a single person earning £200,000 a year from his Budget tax changes.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer
  what is his estimate of the weekly gain of a single person earning £250,000 a year as a result of his Budget tax changes.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The table shows the gains from the Budget at each of the specified levels of earnings, assuming that there is no other income. The figures refer only to income tax and assume that the taxpayer is entitled to no income tax reliefs or allowances other than the single person's allowance. The calculations are made by comparing income tax liabilities under the 1987–88 income tax regime with those under the Budget proposal for 1988–89.

  Gross yearly earnings £000s

  Gain from income tax changes £ per week

  200

  656·54

  250

  848·85

  350

  1,233·46

  400

  1,425·77

  Monetary Aggregates
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the effect of exchange rate intervention in the last 12 months on the rate of growth of United Kingdom monetary aggregates.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the effect of exchange rate intervention in the last 12 months on the rate of growth of United Kingdom moneatary aggregates.

  Mr. Lilley
  The impact of intervention on M0 is offset automatically by the Bank of England's daily money market operations. There is no simple relation between intervention and broad monetary growth. The Government's policy is to fund all intervention; that is, sterilise it. The published figures for February 1988 indicate that all intervention and other borrowing has been fully funded in the 12 months to that date.

  Inflation
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of inflation.

  Mr. Lilley
  The increases in retail prices over the 12 months ending February 1988 was 3·3 per cent.

  Manufactured Goods
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the balance of payments deficit or surplus for manufactured goods in 1979; and what he expects this deficit or surplus to be in 1988.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the balance of payments deficit or surplus for manufactured goods in 1979; and what he expects this deficit or surplus to be in 1988.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the balance of payments deficit or surplus for manufactured goods in 1979; and what he expects this deficit or surplus to be in 1988.

  Mr. Major
  In 1979 the balance of trade in manufactured goods was a surplus of £2·7 billion. The forecast published at the time of the Budget was for a deficit on trade in manufactures of £8½ billion in 1988. The current account as a whole is expected to show a small deficit of £4 billion in 1988, less than 1 per cent. of GDP.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next proposes to have discussions with the European Community Council of Ministers about European monetary matters.

  Mr. Brooke
  The next meeting of the European Community's Council of Economic and Finance Ministers is expected to be held on 18 April. The agenda is expected to include the liberalisation of capital movements.

  OECD Countries (Budgets)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries have achieved a balanced budget or a budget surplus in the current year.
  228
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries have achieved a balanced budget or a budget surplus in the current year.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries have achieved a balanced budget or a budget surplus in the current year.

  Mr. Lilley
  As well as the United Kingdom, Australia, Denmark, Norway and Sweden are expected to achieve approximately balanced budgets in the current year.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details of the increase in revenue received following reductions in corporation tax since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The table shows corporation tax
  receipts in the years from 1978–79 and the rate of tax applicable to income in each year.

  £ million1

  Full rate per cent.

  Small companies rate per cent.

  1978–79

  3,940

  52

  42

  1979–80

  4,646

  52

  40

  1980–81

  4,645

  52

  40

  1981–82

  4,930

  52

  40

  1982–83

  5,679

  52

  38

  1983–84

  6,184

  50

  30

  1984–85

  8,341

  45

  30

  1985–86

  10,708

  40

  30

  1986–87

  13,495

  35

  29

  21987–88

  15,600

  35

  27

  31988–89

  19,800

  35

  25

  1 Including advance corporation tax.

  2 Estimated.

  3 Budget forecast.

  Workplace Nurseries
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has of the cost to the Exchequer of the introduction of tax relief for the expenses of workplace nurseries.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Firm estimates are not available but it is thought that the direct revenue cost of exempting the benefit of workplace nurseries from tax might be of the order of £1 million per annum.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the integration of national insurance contributions into the income tax system.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on this subject.

  Married Women (Taxation)
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what responses he has received to his Budget proposals for changes in the taxation of married women.
  229
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory).

  Take-Home Pay
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what pay increase a married man with two children on average earnings would need to maintain his real take-home pay unchanged between 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what pay increase a married man with two children on average earnings would need to maintain his real take- home pay unchanged between 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  After his income tax reductions, a pay increase of 2 per cent. would be more than enough to maintain his real take-home pay.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much in real terms he expects take-home pay for a married man with two children on average earnings to have risen between 1978–79 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I expect his real take-home pay to have risen by 27½ between 1978–79 and 1988–89, compared with about ½per cent. between 1973–74 and 1978–79 under the Labour Government.

  Pay-As-You-Earn Deductions
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to reduce the total amount of pay-as-you-earn deductions written off as irrecoverable.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Measures introduced in 1985 allow the Inland Revenue to assess and take recovery action for unpaid PAYE more quickly. Regulations now before the House introduce an interest charge where overdue PAYE is formally determined. The Budget proposals include a more general end-year interest charge on overdue PAYE, to come into force once the necessary computer facilities in the Revenue are operational.

  Pensions (Income)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the effect on the weekly income of a single pensioner with no private income or pension as a result of his Budget changes.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Budget is about tax, so will not have a direct effect on the incomes of those who do not pay tax. A single pensioner with no private income or pension is unlikely to be directly affected by the Budget changes but will have a 4·2 per cent. increase in state pension from 11 April.

  Business Taxation
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what responses he has received to his Budget proposals for changes in business taxation.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown).

  Personal Taxation
  Mr. leuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning the changes in the personal taxation regime announced in the Budget; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend's proposals for tax cuts and reform have been widely welcomed.

  Taxation Changes
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received arising from the taxation changes proposed in his Budget.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend's proposals for tax reduction and reform have been widely welcomed.

  National Health Service
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual cost incurred by the Treasury in raising and then distributing that proportion of financial resources which is designated by the Government to be spent on the National Health Service.

  Mr. Major
  There are no separate arrangements for collecting revenue to fund particular activities. In 1987–88 total central Government revenues from taxes arid national insurance contributions are estimated at around £144 billion. Most of these revenues are collected by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue. The administrative costs of the two Departments were £1·5 billion. Some £20·7 billion was spent on the NHS so, on a pro rata basis, the cost of collecting centrally-funded NHS expenditure was about £215 million. The costs of distributing the funds spent on the NHS cannot be separately identified.

  Manufacturing Industry (Investment)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he proposes to increase investment in manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Government's economic policies will continue to encourage capital investment by promoting an environment in which business can prosper.

ENVIRONMENT

  Lower Don Valley
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether all the finance proposed for the lower Don valley urban development corporation is new money; and if there will be no reduction in existing allocations of finance to Sheffield.

  Mr. Trippier
  The proposed urban development corporation would bring additional Government resources to Sheffield of about £50 million over the next seven years.

  Sheffield Urban Development Corporation
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what developments are already commissioned in the area covered by the Sheffield urban development corporation and what is their total development cost.
  231
  Mr. Trippier
  The Coopers and Lybrand report identified a number of proposals in the area of the proposed urban development corporation which it estimates could bring about £300 million investment into the lower Don valley.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning applications were received by Sheffield local authority in each of the last two years in the area covered by the urban development corporation; how many were rejected; and what was the average time for receiving planning permission in rejection.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information requested is not available as statistics on development control are not collected centrally for areas smaller than local planning authorities.

  Endangered Species Branch
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the cost to public funds of the endangered species branch of his Department; how many staff work in this branch; and how many import licences were issued by it in 1987.

  Mr. Ridley
  The current estimated cost is £537,136 annually. The number of staff employed is 23. The number of import licences issued in 1987 was 15,923, which represents about 60 per cent. of the work of the branch.

  System-built Houses
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what representations he has received from Liverpool city council concerning defective dwellings, particularly Boot and Boswell-type houses; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will meet a delegation from Liverpool city council to discuss the problems of defective dwellings of Boot and Boswell-type houses.

  Mrs. Roe
  We have received various letters from Liverpool city council concerning its housing defects obligations, including one from the city solicitor about Boot and Boswell houses.

  The Department's officials met council officers on 15 March for a full discussion. The council has also bid for a share of the £20 million reserve set aside nationally for 1988/89 for those authorities with particular HDA difficulties; decisions on the additional allocations will be made soon. In these circumstances we do not think that a delegation from the council is the best way forward. I will, however, write to the hon. Member with a copy of my officials' reply to the city solicitor.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each urban development corporation the amount of public money allocated for each year since its inception, and the percentage changes these sums represent.

  Mr. Trippier
  The grants-in-aid allocated to urban development corporations are given each year in the Supply Estimates. Subsequent amendments and eventual 232
  outturn are recorded respectively in the relevant Supplementary Estimates and in subsequent Supply Estimates.

  Concierge Systems
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report details of his Department's report on concierge systems.

  Mrs. Roe
  My Department published a report entitled "A Better Reception: the development of concierge schemes" on 21 March. The report examines different approaches to concierge arrangements in blocks of flats and lists nearly 40 local authorities who are experimenting in this way. The evidence at this early stage of development suggests strongly that they can be cost-effective in reducing crime and vandalism and in increasing residents' sense of security, as well as in improving the provision of day-to-day housing management services. I have arranged for copies of this report to be placed in the Library.

  Hampton Court Palace
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out in the Official Report the figures for the takings at Hampton Court palace for Easter weekend 1988 with the corresponding figures for Easter weekend in 1987, 1986, 1985 and 1984 and such previous years for which figures are conveniently available.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The information is as follows:

  Admission takings£

  Sales takings£

  Maze car park£

  Total £

  1988

  34,942

  10,573

  36,875

  52,390

  1987

  33,040

  8,397

  5,763

  47,200

  1986

  110,683

  3,426

  3,248

  17,357

  1985

  22,149

  6,439

  4,274

  32,862

  1984

  215,850

  4,305

  4,242

  24,397

  1 Closed Easter Monday 1986, following major fire.

  2 Closed Good Friday in 1984 and previous years.

  3 From 27 March 1988, entry to the maze is free to those paying to enter the state apartments (full price £2·80).

  Except for 1984 and 1986, all figures relate to Good Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday.

  Figures for years prior to 1984 not readily available.

  Downing Street (Decoration and Furnishing)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the cost of(a) decoration and (b) furnishing for 10 Downing street in 1987–88.

  Mr. Chope
  In the 11 months up to the end of February 1988, the latest available figures, expenditure during 1987–88 on furnishings and decoration in 10 Downing street was £14,836·15 for furnishing and £11,433·07 for decoration.

  Secure Car Service
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total cost of the secure car service in 1987–88.

  Mr. Chope
  The cost of providing a secure car service to Ministers and heads of Departments during 1987–88 was £2·37 million.
  233
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total cost for the Prime Minister's secure car service in 1987–88.

  Mr. Chope
  The cost of providing secure cars for the Prime Minister during 1987–88 was £107,380.

  Ministerial Vehicles (Parking Fines)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will(a) give the total amount paid by his Department in 1987 in respect of parking fines incurred by ministerial vehicles and (b) provide a breakdown by Government Department in terms of offence, fine, date and location.

  Mr. Chope
  The sum paid in parking fines in respect of Government car service vehicles in 1987 was £1,037 for 85 offences, a significant reduction on 1986.

  The details by Department are as follows:

  Fines

  Scottish Office

  36

  Welsh Office

  2

  Treasury

  2

  Department of Energy

  3

  Home Office

  6

  Department of Environment

  6

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  10

  Department of Employment

  4

  Department of Health and Social Security

  7

  Department of Transport

  2

  Management and Personnel Office

  2

  Northern Ireland Office

  1

  Department of Education and Science

  1

  85

  A further breakdown could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  London Marathon
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution his Department is making to the organisation of the 1988 London marathon; and what charges will be made to the organisers.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Government continue to give support and encouragement to the London marathon. This includes the use of a substantial part of Greenwich park and of routes in St. James's park. No facility fee is charged for the use of the royal parks, but the London marathon board is required to reimburse the net costs of additional works and facilities provided specifically for the event. Net costs in 1987 were £880.

  London Residuary Body
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will accept a nomination from the Association of London Authorities for membership of the London residuary body; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend is always prepared to consider suggestions for appointments but he sees no need at present to make further appointments to the London residuary body.
  234
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply of 22 October 1987, if there have been any changes in remuneration of members of the London residuary body and when the next review is due.

  Mr. Chope
  One member's remuneration was reduced to £13,084 from 1 April 1988 to reflect a reduced time commitment. The remuneration of the other members and the chairman has remained unchanged since 1 October 1987.

  The next review is expected to take place in the context of the 1988 general review of remuneration of members of public boards.

  New Homes (Docklands)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the median price paid for new homes on land owned by the London Docklands Development Corporation in 1987.

  Mr. Trippier
  This information is being collated. I will write to the hon. Member.

  Sports Sponsorship
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will break down the total business sponsorship of sport in 1986–87 by each sport;

  (2) what are the latest estimates of total business sponsorship of sport in the years 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88; and if he will give a detailed breakdown of how these estimates were made.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Sports Council's estimates of national business sponsorship of sport, by calendar years, are as follows:

  £ million

  1985

  128

  1986

  146

  1987

  164

  These estimates are derived from coverage in the press and television and other sources monitored by the Sports Council. They do not include local sponsorship, for which no estimates are available and are therefore likely to understate the true extent of sports sponsorship. They cannot conveniently be broken down into estimates for individual sports.

  Local Authority Tenants
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what questions his Department has agreed shall be put to local authority tenants, for the purposes of research into their attitudes towards a change of their landlord, being carried out by the British Marketing Bureau; what information his Department has agreed shall be given to local authority tenants about the implications of a change of their landlord, for the purposes of this research; and if he will lay a copy of the questions and the information in the Library;

  (2) (a) which local authority areas have been selected, for the purposes of research into the attitudes of existing council tenants towards a change of their landlord, commissioned by his Department from the British Marketing Bureau; and on what basis these areas were

  235
  selected and (b) how many local authority tenants have been interviewed in each area for the purposes of this research and on what basis these tenants have been selected;

  (3) (a) for what purpose his Department has commissioned the British Marketing Bureau to carry out research into the attitudes of existing local authority tenants towards a change of their landlord, (b) when this research was commissioned, and over what period it is being carried out, (c) to what use his Department intends the results of this research to be put; and when, how and to whom the findings will be made available and (d) what is the cost of this research.

  Mrs. Roe
  Tenants on a number of estates were invited to help identify factors important in a tenant's choice of landlord. The research, costing £11,750, is being carried out by the British Market Research Bureau to assist in the development and evaluation of policy. The consultants were commissioned in January 1988 to report at the end of May. Fieldwork involving two groups of 10 tenants took place in each of eight local authorities, between 21 March and 7 April. The local authorities varied in terms of size, type of area and authority. We are seeking the consent of the authorities concerned to publication of their names, and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman when their replies have been received. The research method involved group discussions, based on topics, rather than on formal questions, designed to stimulate discussion among tenants and to elicit their views about landlords. When we receive the consultants' report, we shall consider publication.

  GLC (Seaside and Country Homes)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress by the London residuary body in the disposal of the former Greater London council seaside and country homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  On 28 March the London residuary body sold the seaside and country homes to North British Housing Association, and completed an agreement reserving future lettings for elderly Londoners.

  Showman's Guild
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if officials of his Department have met representatives of the Showman's Guild to discuss planning problems; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Ridley
  [holding reply 12 April]: I know of the problems encountered by some show people in finding permanent sites suitable as bases to accommodate themselves and their families and to maintain their equipment. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) has been in touch with the local authority associations to ascertain the extent and nature of the problem, and my officials have met representatives and members of the Showmen's Guild for Great Britain. We are considering the material submitted by the associations and the guild.

  Hyson Green Flats, Nottingham (Sale)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will exercise his powers under section 236
  22(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 to require the National Audit Commission to direct an extraordinary audit of the accounts of the Nottingham city council in respect of the sale of the Hyson Green flats site for £3·7 million in the light of its market value of £10 million; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  No. I understand that the auditor is already investigating this matter.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is yet in a position to update his estimates of the impact of the community charge on individual households.

  Mr. Ridley
  [pursuant to the reply, 13 January 1988, c. 278]: The Government have now decided on the taper to be used in calculating entitlement to community charge rebates under the new system.

  Under the Government's existing proposals, all those receiving income support—the successor to supplementary benefit—will have their rates, or in future their community charge bills, reduced by 80 per cent. so they will pay only 20 per cent. of the community charge for the area in which they live. In addition, their income support will include an amount to help meet the 20 per cent. charges that they do have to pay.

  Those with incomes above the income support level will also be eligible for rebates of up to 80 per cent. according to their circumstances. In 1988–89, with domestic rates, the amount of their rebate is reduced by 20p for each £1 increase in their income. The Government have now decided that, when the community charge is introduced, rebates should be calculated on the basis of a lower "taper", of 15p for every additional £1 of income. This means that the amount of community charges of those on low incomes will rise more slowly as their incomes increase. Their rebate will be reduced by only 15p for every £1 rise in their net earnings above the income support level.

  This reduced taper will come into effect when the community charge is introduced—in Scotland in 1989 and in England and Wales in 1990.

  Four million people will receive the maximum 80 per cent. reduction. If a 20 per cent. had been used for the community charge, about a further 4 million people would have received reductions of up to 80 per cent. With a 15p taper, rebates will extend further up the income scale, One million additional adults will have their community charge bill reduced. About 9 million people will pay reduced charges, and about 5 million people with incomes above the income support level will have larger reductions in community charge than they would have had with the 20p taper.

  Of these 5 million, about three quarters are people who do not pay income tax.

  This improvement in the rebate proposals achieves a better targeted result than the new clause I proposal for a 50 per cent. community charge for those who do not pay income tax. But it does so by a simpler and much less bureaucratic route, with no anomalies, and one that avoids the earnings trap which new clause I would produce. It does not require an amendment to the Local Government Finance Bill.

DEFENCE

  Morocco
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the purpose of the recent Royal Air Force official visit to the Kingdom of Morocco.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It is normal practice, in the interests of good relations, to maintain links with a wide range of friendly countries, including the Kingdom of Morocco. The recent visit by the Chief of the Air Staff was intended particularl y to strengthen links between the Royal Air Force and the Moroccan air force and discuss matters of common interest.

  Devonport Dockyard
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people were made redundant at Devonport dockyard between 1 March and 6 April.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The primary responsibility for redundancy in the royal dockyards rests with the contractors. However, my Department will have paid compensation to 668 ex-Civil Service employees (500 industrials, 168 non-industrials) who left Devonport dockyard in the period 1 March to 6 April this year.

  Project Waterfront
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is Project Waterfront.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Ministry of Defence has no such project.

  British Army Equipment Exhibition
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the companies exhibiting products or services at the British Army equipment exhibition between 26 June and 1 July; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In line with previous exhibitions the list of companies exhibiting products or services at the British Army equipment exhibition 88 will be published on 26 June 1988.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to allow Amnesty International to have a stall at the British Army equipment exhibition in Aldershot between 26 June and 1 July; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No. The British Army equipment exhibition is an exhibition to allow United Kingdom defence industry to show its products. Amnesty International is not part of the United Kingdom defence manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the countries whose representatives have been invited to the seventh British Army equipment exhibition at Aldershot from 26 June to 1 July 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In common with all my predecessors, I do not intend to publish a list of countries invited to the British Army equipment exhibition.
  238
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many visitors are expected at the British Army equipment exhibition in Aldershot between 26 June and 1 July.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Based on previous exhibitions, a total of some 25,000 visitors are expected to attend BAEE in Aldershot between 26 June and 1 July.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the total cost for organising the British Army equipment exhibition between 26 June and 1 July; and who will perform the opening ceremony.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The cost of the British Army equipment exhibition, which we estimate will be £2·4 million, will be fully recovered from the participating companies. The opening ceremony will be performed by Secretary of State for Defence.

  Bangladesh (Military Training)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any military training is being provided by United Kingdom military personnel in Bangladesh.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The only military training provided by the United Kingdom is given by the three officers of the British military advisory team at the Bangladesh defence services command and staff college.

  Military Training
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the countries whose military personnel have received training within the United Kingdom or in the United Kingdom bases overseas in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The countries concerned are as follows:

  1987–88

  Algeria

  Australia

  Bahamas

  Bahrain

  Bangladesh

  Barbados

  Belgium

  Belize

  Bermuda

  Botswana

  Brazil

  Brunei

  Burma

  Cameroon

  Canada

  Chile

  Congo

  Cyprus

  Denmark

  Egypt

  El Salvador

  Federal Republic of Germany

  Fiji

  Finland

  France

  Gambia

  Ghana

  Gibraltar

  Greece

  Guyana

  Hong Kong

  India

  Indonesia

  239

  Iraq

  Iceland

  Ireland

  Israel

  Italy

  Jamaica

  Japan

  Jordan

  Kenya

  Kuwait

  Lesotho

  Luxembourg

  Malawi

  Malaysia

  Maldives

  Malta

  Mauritius

  Mazambique

  Nepal

  Netherlands

  New Zealand

  Nigeria

  Norway

  Oman

  Pakistan

  Philippines

  Portugal

  Qatar

  Saudi Arabia

  Senegal

  Sierra Leone

  Singapore

  Somalia

  South Korea

  Spain

  Sri Lanka

  St. Vincent

  Sudan

  Swaziland

  Sweden

  Switzerland

  Tanzania

  Thailand

  Trinidad

  Tunisia

  Turkey

  United Arab Emirates

  Uganda

  United States of America

  Yemen Arab Republic

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe

  1986–87

  Algeria

  Australia

  Bahamas

  Bahrain

  Bangladesh

  Barbados

  Belgium

  Belize

  Bermuda

  Botswana

  Brazil

  Brunei

  Cameroon

  Canada

  Chile

  Denmark

  Ecuador

  Egypt

  El Salvador

  Federal Republic of Germany

  Fiji

  France

  Gambia

  Ghana

  Greece

  Guyana

  240

  Hong Kong

  India

  Indonesia

  Iraq

  Ireland

  Israel

  Italy

  Jamaica

  Japan

  Jordan

  Kenya

  Kuwait

  Lebanon

  Lesotho

  Malawi

  Malaysia

  Maldives

  Malta

  Mauritius

  Mozambique

  Nepal

  Netherlands

  New Zealand

  Nigeria

  Norway

  Oman

  Pakistan

  Philippines

  Portugal

  Qatar

  Saudi Arabia

  Senegal

  Sierra Leone

  Singapore

  South Korea

  Spain

  Sri Lanka

  Sudan

  Swaziland

  Sweden

  Switzerland

  Tanzania

  Thailand

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Tunisia

  Turkey

  United Arab Emirates

  Uganda

  United States of America

  Uruguay

  Venezuela

  Yemen Arab Republic

  Yugoslavia

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe

  1985–86

  Algeria

  Australia

  Austria

  Bahamas

  Bahrain

  Bangladesh

  Barbados

  Belgium

  Belize

  Bermuda

  Botswana

  Brazil

  Brunei

  Canada

  Chile

  Denmark

  Ecuador

  Egypt

  Federal Republic of Germany

  Fiji

  Finland

  France

  Gambia

  Ghana

  241

  Greece

  Guyana

  Hong Kong

  India

  Indonesia

  Iraq

  Ireland

  Israel

  Italy

  Jamaica

  Japan

  Jordan

  Kenya

  Kuwait

  Lebanon

  Lesotho

  Malawi

  Malaysia

  Maldives

  Mauritius

  Mozambique

  Nepal

  Netherlands

  New Zealand

  Nigeria

  Norway

  Oman

  Pakistan

  Philippines

  Portugal

  Qatar

  Saudi Arabia

  Senegal

  Sierre Leone

  Singapore

  South Korea

  Spain

  Sri Lanka

  St. Vincent

  Sudan

  Swaziland

  Sweden

  Switzerland

  Tanzania

  Thailand

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Tunisia

  Turkey

  United Arab Emirates

  Uganda

  United States of America

  Uruguay

  Venezuela

  Yemen Arab Republic

  Yugoslavia

  Zaire

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe

  Greenham Common
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cases of trespass have been reported at Greenham common since January 1987.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 12 April 1988]: Eight hundred and twelve cases of trespass were recorded between 1 January 1987 and 7 April 1988.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Plant Testing and Seed Certification
  Mr. Hanky
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made on the review of plant variety testing and seed certification in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
  242
  Mr. MacGregor
  My right hon. Friends and I have now received a report from the team of officials set up to conduct this review. I am arranging for a copy of the report to be placed in the Library of the House.

  We welcome receipt of this report which makes a comprehensive study of the operation of the systems for plant breeders' rights, the national listing of plant varieties and seed certification in the United Kingdom. It concludes that the systems have served the industry well in the past but that change is now required to meet the needs of plant breeders, the seed industry, farmers and growers, and the processing industry. The report makes a large number of recommendations which would change procedures, increase cost effectiveness and efficiency, and alter the funding arrangements. In order to allow full consideration of these recommendations, we intend to publish the report straightaway and invite all interested parties to comment on its findings.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the cases of detected fraud within the common agricultural policy; and what is being done to halt this malpractice.

  Mr. MacGregor
  In the period from 1984 to 1987 inclusive there have been 31 cases of detected fraud in the United Kingdom under the CAP. Of these 17 were settled out of court and 14 were prosecuted, leading to three prison sentences and fines totalling £29,950. In addition, there were some 300 cases where action was taken to recover payments made irregularly.

  Rigorous checks are made by this Ministry, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce to deter and detect fraud under the CAP. I am also pressing other member states arid the Commission to step up co-ordinated action against fraud across the Community.

  Port Talbot Harbour and Channel (Spoil)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to reject the application to dump 11 million tonnes of capital spoil arising from Port Talbot harbour and channel in the Bristol channel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I am currently considering all aspects of an application to dump at sea dredged spoil from Port Talbot harbour and channel, including possible disposal sites. Applications for dumping of dredged spoil must be considered under the licensing provisions of part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. Licences are not issued unless careful scientific examination shows the operation to be acceptable in terms of its impact on the marine environment, the living resources that it supports and human health, and unless it conforms to the relevant international conventions. The practical availability of alternative methods of dealing with the spoil is also taken into account.

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

The Budget: Effect on Wage Claims
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What effect they expect the recent Budget Statement will have on wage claims and settlements in the near future.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the forecast issued by the Chancellor at the time of the Budget was for inflation to remain low. With the reductions in income tax announced in the Budget Statement, the increase in earnings required to compensate fully for inflation is likely to be around 2 per cent. at the end of 1988. Wage bargainers should recognise this favourable prospect in their negotiations.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, does he not agree that the measures outlined in the Budget will make the application of the Government's policies more difficult? Although the tax rebates or tax deductions for some individuals will be in excess of £10,000 a week, at the same time, according to the Minister's Answer, the Government intend to continue to exhort people at the lowest end of the wage scale—those who are on very minimal and low rates—to keep their wage claims as low as possible. Is that not a contradiction? Will it not exacerbate still further the divide between the two groups of people?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I regret that on this occasion I cannot agree with the noble Lord. The Government exhort people to have regard to the level of wage claims on the basis that those claims should in fact be earned. Over the past year or so, the underlying level of average earnings has gone up by some 8½ per cent. whereas inflation stands at some 3·3 per cent. So all have had a real increase of over 5 per cent. in their standard of living. Happily, productivity has improved during that period to such an extent that unit wage costs have only increased by 1·3 per cent. And last year, we actually earned the increases that we paid to ourselves.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that both the reduction in the standard rate of tax of 2p in the pound and the increase in the basic tax threshold of £300 for the married man will be substantial financial incentives to all wage and salary earners to keep their demands low?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am sure that if one lesson has been learned over the course of this decade, it is the general realisation that wage
1138
increases have to be earned and not simply paid for. I hope that that lesson will continue to be borne in mind.
Lord Peston: My Lords, would the Minister care to comment on the fact that the very low paid and those on social security have marginal rates of tax in the order of 97 per cent.? Does he not think that at some time there should be tax reforms which offer some incentives to those people?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. The whole purpose of the review of social services payments now being undertaken is to get rid of, or to eliminate, as many of those marginal rates of tax as possible.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the Minister quoted a figure for wage or salary increases earned by those who actually produce the goods and services. Is he aware that a recently published report has disclosed that those who belong to middle management received salary increases of some 12 per cent. and that those in the higher reaches of management had salary increases many times the multiple of those accorded to ordinary wage earners? Does he agree that by the exercise of a degree of moral probity it might be a good step if the so-called creators of wealth limited their increases to those that they recommend for ordinary working people?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the noble Lord must begin to recognise that the philosophies that lie behind his question were the cause of our decline in the 1960s and 1970s. It is only since we started to realise that we must first create the wealth before we can look at the distribution of it that we have seen the resurgence of the United Kingdom's economy. The actual average earnings percentage increase among all persons in the manufacturing sector was 8·4 per cent. and in the services sector 9·1 per cent. Both contribute to the creation of wealth.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that it does the country no good when ordinary people learn that some folk are a few thousand pounds a week, or a month, better off while other folk much lower down the scale get no assistance whatever? Is he aware that it does nothing at all for the moral fibre of this nation?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, once again I fear that I cannot agree with the noble Lord. I suspect that if he were to go out and ask people today, he would find that they recognise very clearly that the right kind of successful effort deserves a proper reward. The general satisfaction with the way that the economy as a whole has been performing has rarely been higher than it is today.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, bearing in mind that the Question relates to wage settlements, does the Minister recall that following negotiations a few weeks ago between Ford management and workers in which the full-time officers of the trade unions agreed to a settlement, that settlement was then overwhelmingly rejected by the workforce and further negotiations had to take place? Is the Minister

1139
aware that the substantial changes at the top of the scale in the Budget may make it more difficult in the near future for trade union negotiators who strike bargains at national level to sell them to the shop floor workers?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, was not referring to the union negotiations with Ford at Dundee but to those in the south at Dagenham. I am sure that the noble Lord recollects, as I do, that the negotiations were about whether they would have a three-year or two-year agreement. Rates of pay did not figure prominently in the rejection.

Film Industry: Policy
3.12 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards the British film industry, and whether any changes are to be proposed.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the Films Act 1985 offers a framework within which the commercial film industry is developing successfully. British Screen Finance Limited, which receives government funds under the terms of the Films Act, in just over two years has supported over 40 British feature and short films. In addition, 29 projects have received government finance under the development scheme managed by the National Film Development Fund.
The Films Act also effected a widely welcomed deregulation of the film industry. Our aim continues to be to encourage the industry to function competitively in an open and international market.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, does the Secretary of State accept that this country has some of the finest film makers in the world? Does he also agree that the effect of the facts he has given is to terminate government help towards the film industry? As the abolition of the National Film Finance Corporation, the Eady levy and the 100 per cent. tax capital allowances, among other things, have caused unforeseen circumstances in the film industry, does he agree that there ought now to be some fiscal incentives given to the film industry?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I suspect that the greatest fiscal incentive towards the film industry has been the recent tax changes which the Chancellor has been able to announce in the Budget. That is concerning the taxes on individuals. I am sure that all in your Lordships' House will join with me in congratulating all those concerned with the making of the film "The Last Emperor", which won no fewer than nine Oscars and which was British-funded without any help from the Government.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord comment on the report of the British Screen Advisory Council on the proposed change in
1140
broadcasting policies and the effect that it will have on films? It says that priority will be given to small-budget to medium-budget films—films that appeal to a television audience—and major UK films, one of which the noble Lord has just mentioned. An important sector that is already vulnerable will be inhibited.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am not certain how much government policy comes into that, but it is nevertheless true that, despite the fact that attendances at cinemas have increased substantially over the past three years, there is a continuing and ever-expanding demand for low-budget or medium-budget films for use on television and in other ways. That is known as the market; and I have little doubt that the demand will eventually be supplied by what the film producers make.
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead: My Lords, the Secretary of State has extended his congratulations on the remarkable success of "The Last Emperor" in winning nine Oscars recently in Hollywood. Perhaps I may ask him whether he agrees that it would redound more to the credit of this country, and to the support for the film industry of this country, if it were not a fact that that film was financed almost entirely by Continental bankers; and that neither the private nor the public sector contributed anything more than a fairly trifling contribution to its production.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, my information is that Hill Samuel was the body that put it together. It arranged the funding. I care little who puts the money in. It was British-funded to that extent. It is a matter for great congratulations. If it shows one thing, it is this. The industry is very resourceful. I am sure that it will find a way better than we can.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, can the Minister make any comment about the present position of Pinewood Studios? It has produced some of the finest British films of all time. It now appears to be largely American-orientated. Are there any moves afoot to encourage British film makers to make, in particular, educational films in these admirable studios?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, that is a matter very much for those concerned in running Pinewood Studios. In my original Answer I referred to the fact that British Screen Finance Limited had supported, with government assistance, over 40 British feature and short films over the past two years. That seems to me a great contribution. However, where they are made depends on the circumstances at the time. It may well be that costs in this country were too high for some of these films to be made here.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, does the noble Lord feel that the people of this country are capable of choosing their own entertainments and paying for them? In Northamptonshire people have far more fun from the Pytchley Hunt than they do from the film industry, and the Government do not subscribe a penny to them.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the tastes of the people of Northampton are not precisely my tastes, but I congratulate them nevertheless.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, will the Minister comment on the restrictive practices which exist between exhibitors and distributors in this country? That matter has been adversely reported upon by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and has also been taken up by the Government who have expressed an intention to bring forward legislation on the subject. What is likely to be the timetable? Will the Minister further agree that any more delay will prevent independent cinema owners from investing in new, comfortable cinemas in which people can watch the new and exciting films which we are led to understand will be coming from the British film industry?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, as this matter is a little wide of the original Question I am not sure that my information is correct, but I understand that we are still waiting for the report from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and therefore we must obviously wait to see what the detailed terms of that report are.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, surely my noble friend will agree that the two Davids are beyond compare—by whom, of course, I mean David Lean and David Puttnam? Would it not be possible to restore government grant to British Screen, as it is now called, at least to the level that it used to be under the old National Film Finance Corporation? It is only a matter of a few million pounds.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, unfortunately my noble friend gave me a slight shock at the start of his question. I believe that the passing of the Films Act 1985, which essentially deregulated the cinema in this country, has been responsible in part for seeing attendances at the cinema increasing from 53 million in 1984 to 74·8 millions last year. That figure is still going up. I believe that the help we are giving now through British Screen is probably the best targeted help that we could give to production. We should let the market show us the best way in which we can support the industry.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Secretary of State aware that I thought he would refer to the success of "The Last Emperor"? He is quite right that most of the finance came from Hill Samuel. Is he further aware that that was the 12th financial institution which the producer approached? He has said publicly that had that finance not been available the film would not have been made. Does the Secretary of State recall a statement made in the 1984 White Paper on film policy which said that the industry has an importance and influence both in our national life and internationally which is out of all proportion to its size? Does that still apply? Will he therefore not give further consideration to financial incentives?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I certainly do not take away from that statement at all, but the issue surely is whether or not government help will make it
1142
better. I believe that the level we have at the moment is the best, but I suspect that the noble Lord has another view.

Palestinians: Imprisonment by Israel
3.24 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will raise in the United Nations the imprisonment of increasing numbers of Palestinians by Israel.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, we have made clear, in the United Nations and elsewhere, our view that the Israeli authorities should respect international law and human rights standards in their administration of the occupied territories. We shall continue to take appropriate opportunities to do so.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he not agree and is he not aware that, in addition to imprisonment without trial, there now can be added deportation and collective punishment; that all these things offend the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights; and that there are very many, particularly young, Israelis who have expressed grave apprehension about their Government's activities in the occupied territories? Will Britain do a little more, perhaps with the United States, to influence even more the Israeli Government because they are creating a highly explosive situation which, unless we are very careful, could involve very many nations?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we deplore the illegal actions, such as to those which the noble Lord has referred, including deportations, collective punishment, house demolitions and all that sort of thing. Deportation is contrary to international law and will only create new martyrs to the Palestinian cause and fuel resentment.
I am quite sure that the noble Lord will also feel that we should continue to support Mr. Shultz in his efforts, and that is certainly what we shall do.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that, if the PLO were to recognise the state of Israel and to adopt the appropriate United Nations resolutions, there would be no need to imprison Palestinians?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I believe it is the concern of all your Lordships that we should seek a satisfactory conclusion to what has gone on there for many years. We believe that implementation of Security Council Resolution 242 remains the main goal to be achieved. As part of the proposal the Israelis should withdraw from the territories occupied since 1967 and meanwhile should administer its occupation in compliance with international law and human rights standards.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I warmly welcome what the noble Lord has said about the

1143
laudable efforts that Mr. Shultz is making in very difficult circumstances. Can the Minister say how Her Majesty's Government see the process of negotiation proceeding at the present time? Will he give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will give Mr. Shultz every assistance in the efforts he is making?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, of course we greatly welcome the new United States engagement. It is a vital ingredient. My right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary has made that absolutely clear. We are keeping in close touch with Mr. Shultz and we hope that he will continue his efforts. It is for the parties themselves to decide whether the United States initiative represents a sound basis for progress, but we certainly urge them not to reject or stifle this important opportunity for peace.
The Lord Bishop of St. Albans: My Lords, as someone who for the past two months has been living in East Jerusalem, I should like to express gratitude to the Minister for the way in which the Question has been answered. Are the British Government prepared to take up with the Government of Israel the case of Dr. Mubarak Awad, who is a highly respected Palestinian Christian advocating non-violent resistance to Israeli military occupation and who has been rewarded for his pains by the threat of expulsion from the land? I am wondering whether he would care to point out to the Government of Israel that it is only by retaining these people in the territories that they will have non-violent people with whom they can discuss the future of the territories.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I assure the right reverend Prelate that we have taken up with the Israeli authorities a number of individual cases. I cannot tell him whether that case is one of them but I shall certainly consider it.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the noble Lord has stated that the Government believe that Israel should abide by the United Nations resolutions. He has also stated that the Government support Mr. Shultz's present initiative. Can he say whether Mr. Shultz is urging Israel to abide by those UN resolutions? Can he also say whether Mr. Shultz is telling Israel that unless she abides by those resolutions he will reduce the flow of American military aid?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, perhaps that is a matter which the noble Lord should address directly to the country concerned. It is important that this country and this Government do all they can to support Mr. Shultz in the important efforts that he is making.
Lord Chelwood: Nonetheless, my Lords, is not Mr. Shultz unfortunately greatly inhibited by the fact that the United States Government firmly refuse to recognise the Palestinian people's right to self-determination? That is clearly recognised in the Venice Declaration by all the European Community countries.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that may be my noble friend's view. I have stated before that the PLO cannot expect to play a full part in negotiations until it accepts the United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, renounces violence and accepts Israel's right to exist.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister agree that before this highly explosive situation develops into a massive war in the Middle East, which will draw in other countries as well, the time has come for action? It is an appalling paradox that the United Nations which created the state of Israel is being totally defied by the state of Israel. We should back the Americans and Mr. Shultz and all other countries that want to see fair play and the abolition—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Molloy: This is the question—the abolition of all the injustices—
Noble Lords: Speech!
Lord Molloy:—being perpetrated upon the Palestinians, and those in the occupied territories should be removed so that we can move forward—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Molloy:—to a peaceful endeavour.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, if Mr. Shultz's activities are not "action" I do not know what is.

DTI Enterprise Initiative
3.30 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird The Viscount of Oxfuird asked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the response to the Department of Trade and Industry's enterprise initiative.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the response has been excellent since the January launch. Fifty-seven thousand requests have been received by phone or coupon for the enterprise initiative booklet, of which some 300,000 have now been distributed. We are on course to achieve the target I set in the White Paper of 1,000 consultancy projects per month.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he in a position to tell the House which of the development consultancies among those listed have been the most popular?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, these are still early days. Of the applications we are processing, just over half have been in marketing, some 12 per cent. in design, and some 18 per cent. in quality. Among the smaller amounts were for business planning and financial information systems which we have launched only recently. All are significant areas in which smaller and medium-sized British companies can profit to some advantage in improving the quality, design and marketing of their products.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I welcome the initiative. Can the noble Lord tell the House how consultants for small and medium-sized businesses are selected? By what criteria are they selected? Is he not aware that the business in general—and I speak as one who spends some time in consultancy—is not very commercially attractive to the large consultancy firms?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am not certain that it is not attractive to the large consultancy firms. It is certainly attractive to the specialist consultancy firms. As the original announcement made clear, we have appointed principal contractors in each of the areas. For example, the Institute of Marketing is the principal contractor for all the marketing consultancies; the Design Council is the principal contractor for the Design Council; and 3Is enterprise support is the principal contractor for those on business systems. Those firms are responsible for the lists of contractors and they contract with us. They are also responsible for supervising the results.
The department looks independently at the results of the consultancies. However, the first consultancies took effect only at the beginning of this month. The period until now has been used to organise and arrange them. As the months pass we shall watch closely to see the results.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the Minister give the geographical distribution of the inquiries? Will he say how many which are government-assisted are from the South-East and how many from the less-advantaged areas such as the North-East and Scotland?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, although these are early days I can give the example that as a proportion the application in the North-West considerably outnumbers the number of companies in existence there. I know that close to the noble Lord's heart is the cause of Scotland. Some 6 per cent. of the applications so far received come from Scotland. I am not sure of the number of companies in Scotland. I shall inquire. However, I do not believe that we are much out of line.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to press the Minister further on the criteria on which consultancy firms are to be charged. I understand that these are early days. But can we have an assurance that consultancy firms which are not properly qualified will be excluded by the department from consideration in these initiatives?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, not only by the department. They will have to be vetted first by the Design Council, the Institute of Marketing, by PERA and by the other main contractors. That is part of their responsibility as specialists. They must then be selected by the individual company which wants the consultancy. In most cases they are paying either half or one-third of the actual costs and they will be severe critics of the output. I have undertaken that we shall look at each complaint, if we receive complaints, about the output and the work of contractors. If such cases exist, then we shall, in that way, quickly compile a blacklist.

Business of the House: Debates, 27th April
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Hunter of Newington and the Lord Chalfont set down for 27th April shall each be limited to 2½ hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to each debate.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Foreign Marriage (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
Read a third time.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I believe that once again all noble Lords will wish to pay a tribute to the two Law Commissions whose recommendations are responsible for this useful little Bill. It does a great deal of tidying up.
I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will forgive me if I repeat something for the last time. It is that I have yet to see the justice and the logic of Clause 2 of the Bill under which a young Scots girl, domiciled in Scotland and coming here to marry, being under the age of 18, remains subject to Scottish law. Therefore, no parental consent is necessary. On the other hand, a young English girl going to Scotland will be subject to Scottish law in spite of her English domicile. In that regard there must be some mystery of justice which has escaped me. I wish to make abundantly clear the fact that I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is not recommending that by virtue of any national loyalty.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I note that in accordance with Clause 4 such marriage shall be solemnized and that the doors shall be open. Am I to understand that if the doors are closed, the marriage is invalid? It seems to be an extraordinary proposition and there may be an easy explanation. I believe that is a necessity quite out of line with the normal circumstances of a marriage.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as regards the application of Scottish law in England, I do not believe that the Bill affects the proposition. It allows a person domiciled in Scotland and who is married abroad under the provisions of the Foreign Marriage Act to be married in accordance with the rules of Scotland. I believe that to be very just. I believe it is right that hitherto the Scots person being married abroad under these provisions was required to conform to the English law. Although I know that many noble Lords will consider that to be a great

1147
privilege, it does not appear to me to be entirely fair. The Bill makes it not absolutely obligatory on a Scots person being married abroad to conform with the rites of the Church of England. Again, that appears to be manifestly fair.
As regards the detailed question put to me by my noble friend Lord Selkirk, I did not entirely understand the difficulty he raised. Perhaps he will allow me to return to the matter in correspondence with him.
On Question, Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Bill
3.38 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Power to act in relation to proposals for privatisation etc.]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, at beginning insert—
("(1) The purpose of this section is to ensure that water authorities in England and Wales and electricity boards and the Electricity Council in England, Wales and Scotland have the necessary statutory powers to enable them to fulfil proposals made to any of them by the Secretary of State in order to prepare for privatisation and, in the case of water authorities, for the possible creation of a National Rivers Authority.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that this amendment will commend itself to noble Lords in all parts of the House, especially my noble friend Lord Caithness. It is intended to help him overcome difficulties which arise in respect of Clause 1 and which were described by noble Lords at earlier stages of the Bill.
The difficulties are fourfold—and there may be others. Perhaps I may quickly describe the four main difficulties which I see in Clause 1. First, the Bill does not refer to the intention underlying it, expressed in ministerial speeches and in the first paragraph of the explanatory memorandum attached to the Bill as it originally came to us where it states that new powers are being granted to prepare for privatisation and for creation of a National Rivers Authority. Neither of those matters is mentioned in the text of the Bill, although privatisation is mentioned in the sidenotes to Clause 1. I should mention in passing that a sidenote is not part of the text of the Bill.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Hear, hear!
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am so glad to have the endorsement of my noble and learned friend. I shall have to come to the attitude that the higher judiciary may take to the Bill in a few moments.
The second difficulty that arises—and I referred to it, as did others in Committee—is that Clause 1(1) refers to the Secretary of State making proposals for the transfer of property or functions, but it does not state to whom the proposals may be made.
1148
Thirdly, I must invite your Lordships' attention to Clause 1(4), which is, in my experience, one of the strangest provisions that I have seen in a Bill or statute and I must read it for the record. It states:
"The powers conferred by this section in relation to any proposal shall be exercisable whether or not Parliament has given any approval on which the implementation of the proposal depends and shall be without prejudice to any power conferred otherwise than by virtue of this section".
That is extremely wide and somewhat vague.
Lastly, I refer to the use of the expression "a body corporate", which occurs first in Clause 1(2), which refers to:
"the transfer of anything from a relevant public utility to a body corporate".
The nature of a body corporate in this context is unspecified. However, in subsection (5) we find another provision which purports to explain what is meant by a body corporate, but that other provision is, so far as I know, also unprecedented. I will read it. Subsection (6) states:
"References in this section to a body corporate shall include references to a body corporate which has not been established or formed but which may be established or formed in pursuance of a proposal of the Secretary of State".
Therefore, that is not necessarily done by an Act of Parliament.
Our legislation should surely achieve three things: first, it should reveal the intention of Parliament—something which the higher judiciary are always pleading that legislation should do; secondly, it should be comprehensible to people who are bound by the legislation and indeed to all who have to use it, including the courts; and thirdly, legislation should be certain in its legal effect. Indeed, that is what parliamentary counsel claim that they are always striving to achieve.
However, I hope that I have already said enough to reveal to your Lordships that Clause 1 does not achieve those three objectives or any of them. One could go on describing the obscurities and difficulties created by Clause 1 but perhaps I may just add that it is likely to lead to proceedings in the High Court by people wishing to make sure that what is proposed by the Secretary of State to somebody or other, or done by a water authority or electricity board in a particular case, is lawful. When that happens—and, as I say, I believe it is very likely to happen—the court will then try to ascertain the intention of Parliament, but, under our rules of interpretation of statutes, the court will have to look at the text of the statute: the explanatory memorandum would not be admissible, nor would my noble friend's admirable speeches or those of his right honourable friend.
Therefore, I suggest that our intentions should be made clear, as I have attempted to do in Amendment No. 1. That has the advantage of not altering the powers already contained in Clause 1 but, by stating the purpose for which those powers are to be used, it largely removes the uncertainties and obscurities which I have mentioned.
Before I conclude, I must refer to Amendment No. 2, which is a worthy alternative attempt to achieve what my amendment achieves. Therefore, Amendment No. 2 also deserves consideration, because it has the same objective. I am not a professional parliamentary draftsman; I have done

1149
my poor best. I know that my noble friend, because he has been very helpful in discussing this matter, is anxious not to lose any flexibility which the clause now allows, and I can understand that. I should be glad to add some words which I believe may meet his main difficulty over this particular point. Perhaps noble Lords will look at the last line of my amendment, which refers to "the possible creation of a National Rivers Authority". If this amendment is otherwise found to be acceptable, I should be quite prepared at Third Reading perhaps, rather than by a manuscript amendment today, to add the words:
"or any other body corporate",
just in case the Secretary of State, in his wisdom, decides to change his mind and not have a National Rivers Authority as part of privatisation but to have some other form of body corporate. If that is done, none of the flexibility in Clause 1 would be lost and meanwhile, the intention of Parliament would be made clear.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him whether he has any indication from the Government that, if that final phrase is added to the amendment, it would then be acceptable to the Government?
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have had certain private discussions with my noble friend and he has reserved his position. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may support the spirit of this amendment in the hope that the Minister, while retaining total flexibility, which is crucial, will nonetheless take on board the experience of my noble friend Lord Renton in these matters of drafting for which everyone in your Lordships' House, on all sides, is always grateful so that Clause 1 can be made intelligible, or a little more intelligible than it is at present.
In essence, the problem—without repeating anything that has been said by my noble friend Lord Renton—appears to be that Clause 1 confers the power to act. One is then left to deduce the purpose of the power to act from complex means of implementation contained in the clause which are not readily intelligible. Certainly as regards subsection (4) they are open to the most serious objection.
Therefore, how do we get out of a situation which is pretty desperate, because, without overstating the position, Clause 1 as it stands (and no doubt will remain, perhaps subject to the inclusion of this amendment) is still there in turgid English without any precise legal effect and without any clear, positive intelligible intent? Indeed, as it stands, and probably as it will reach the statute book, it could qualify for first prize in any of the current Golden Bull competitions.
The merit of this amendment is that at least it does something, but it cannot cure the incurable. There it is, cast in its mould by the draftsmen, and we have to live with it, I assume. But cannot we try to do something to improve it? The merit of this amendment and why I support its spirit is that it tries, and it would succeed to a very large measure to do just that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for referring to my Amendment No. 2 and also for calling it a worthy attempt at drafting. There is nobody from whom I would rather have high praise than the noble Lord. I agree with him that both amendments attempt to achieve the same objective. I am content that both amendments should be considered together. Indeed, the noble Lord's amendment refers in the fourth line to,
"proposals made to any of them"
—that is, the water authorities and the electricity authorities. Therefore, I believe that if his amendment is agreed to it would also cover my Amendment No. 5. That would help to speed proceedings in your Lordships' House.
As I see it, the difference between the two amendments—the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will correct me if I am wrong—is that my amendment not only provides for the privatisation proposals but it also provides for related matters. The purposes that are related are a significant part of Clause 1(1). At Committee stage the Minister referred to the distinction between what he called the basic proposals—namely, the proposals for privatisation and the creation of the National Rivers Authority—as opposed to the related matters which are more concerned with the transfer of assets. This was said in the context of the Minister saying that modifications could be proposed by the authorities to the related proposals but not to the basic proposals.
In that sense, I marginally prefer my amendment simply because it covers all aspects of the proposals which the Government may make as regards Clause 1 and not just the proposals for privatisation. I believe it is a relatively sophisticated point. Since the noble Lord has already suggested an amendment to his own amendment, I do not think that we need detain ourselves too much with the detailed wording on the basis that I hope the Minister will see fit in his reply to agree to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and to undertake to put forward a suitable amendment at Third Reading. I gladly give way.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing attention to the difference in the wording between his amendment and mine, but I believe that in fact my amendment would cover related matters though not expressly saying so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall glady take that point on board. I believe that as a result of this debate we shall need an amendment at Third Reading. That amendment will have to be a conflation of the best of what the noble Lord is proposing and what we are proposing.
The matter is of considerable importance and it is one which is wider than those we have been discussing. The problem is that throughout Clause 1 there is an open-ended commitment forcing local authorities to co-operate in proposals which are not expressed clearly. They do not have to be in writing and they do not have to be addressed to any particular person. At one stage in Committee it was suggested that proposals had already been made in the series of White Papers that had been issued. As

1151
my noble friend Lord Williams said, in that case the deed is done and it could be continued after the end of this Parliament. It could be continued not only in the absence of approval by Parliament but in spite of the refusal of approval by Parliament. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, correctly said, the clause is drawn extremely widely. It needs to be brought within the scope of proper legislation so that it does not become a question of dispute in the courts.
I very much hope that the Minister will see his way to indicate the form of an amendment that he would put forward at Third Reading. If not, I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and myself will have to consider the form of an amendment that we would consider putting forward at Third Reading.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to support the spirit of the amendments of both the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord McIntosh. There is a degree of obscurity about Clause 1. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, has already referred to the fact that the marginal note is more illuminating than the clause itself. Furthermore, in the arrangement of clauses, Clause 1 is defined as,
"Power to act in relation to proposals for privatisation".
When one examines the wording of Clause 1, it does not refer to that. I believe that there is very strong reason, merely for the purposes of definition and clarification—leaving aside the question of whether one agrees with the objectives of the Government —to make clear what Clause 1 means. That is why I hope that these proposals will be very seriously taken into consideration by the Minister.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Renton in this amendment. He made a point which particularly appeals to me as a practical one—that even the Explanatory Memorandum has no validity in court. The point that I picked up at Committee stage was that the Explanatory Memorandum forecasts the creation of a National Rivers Authority. The Government have already done that informally by the publication of a sizeable document about it. It seems to me that if my noble friend intends to go ahead and create this body, which will be a very important body indeed—and the whole of his future proposals about privatising the water industry turn upon it—it is only common sense to put it in the Bill.
My noble friend's purpose clause does this admirably. My noble friend Lord Caithness was good enough to inform me and to keep me in touch with his communications with my noble friend Lord Renton, and I understand that the Minister is anxious that he might lose some flexibility if he defines his purposes to this extent. As my noble friend Lord Renton said, he could add at the end of the amendment words such as, "or any other body corporate". That would leave him with complete flexibility and it would still give on the face of the Bill what the noble Lord is contemplating doing. After all that is what legislation is all about.
In nearly 40 years between the two Houses I have seen a good many Bills but never before have I seen a Bill as vague as this one. It is a matter of common decency in legislation. My noble friend the Minister
1152
must have some obligation to produce a Bill which is a respectable one. Clause 1 is a terrible piece of legislation. I hope that my noble friend will give in to the blandishments which have been poured upon him from every side of the House and agree to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Renton, or indeed to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, which aims at very much the same thing. I hope he will agree to put down something similar at Third Reading.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, the last words in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Renton are, "a National Rivers Authority". At the bottom of page 9 of the Bill Schedule 1 refers to,
"a drain or private sewer".
Whichever authority is responsible for sewerage should be kept completely separate from anything to do with rivers and river purification. Because, unfortunately, sewage often creates pollution in rivers, the two bodies should be kept completely separate.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I have listened carefully to the comments of my noble friend Lord Renton and of other noble Lords who have spoken, just as I paid close attention to what was said at the Committee stage of the Bill. I am happy to deal with Amendment No. 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. My comments on my noble friend's amendment also appertain to the noble Lord's amendment.
I should like to make one small correction to what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said. He mentioned at one stage "local authorities" instead of water authorities.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am happy to be corrected. It was a slip of the tongue and I meant water authorities.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I quite understand. I thought that it might be better for the record.
I know that there is a feeling that the Bill is insufficiently clear about the purpose of Clause 1. I know that my noble friend is vigilant in pursuing the objectives of clarity in the drafting of legislation. Let me say at the outset that I have a good deal of sympathy with the objective of my noble friend. I have therefore looked most carefully at whether there is any way in which we can meet the concerns that he has just expressed so clearly and which several of your Lordships have expressed in support of the amendment and at earlier stages. The fact is that, although the purposes of the clause are expressed in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum which was attached to the Bill before the Report stage, and although the word "privatisation" is expressed in the side heading to Clause 1, I fully accept that neither the memorandum nor the side heading is part of the Bill. Neither therefore enables the courts to construe the meaning of a provision in an Act of Parliament.
I agree that I should like to be able to explain in a short concise provision such as the one drafted by my

1153
noble friend exactly what the purposes of the clause are to be. However, not for the first time—and nor probably for the last—I now enter an area which is difficult for me as a layman in debating with my noble friend, with his vast experience of legislation and his most distinguished chairmanship of the Renton Committee on the preparation of legislation.
I am advised that it would be possible, though in some ways undesirable, to express a purpose of this provision by reference to the word "privatisation". The main difficulty about this is that the word "privatisation" is of recent origin—indeed it has only just appeared in the latest supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary—and is not an exact expression. I do not, however, wish to dwell on that point. The main difficulty arises in relation to the body corporate, currently expected to be the National Rivers Authority. That is a body which does not exist, and cannot exist until the main legislation establishing it has received Royal Assent.
The NRA is an integral yet quite distinct part of our proposals for water restructuring and privatisation. However, in so far as it is a body which does not yet exist, it is by no means certain that a reference to it would produce the clarity which is the objective of my noble friend's amendment. If we were to take his amendment we would be committed to the title "National Rivers Authority" without any opportunity to reconsider that. We have no intention at present of changing the name, but we cannot be certain that it will necessarily be considered appropriate right up to Royal Assent of the main Bill. Indeed, your Lordships' House may decide to change the name, as the main Bill goes through.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the House is not satisfied with the name, would it not be possible to change the name by changing the provisions of this Bill when the main Bill goes through?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that adds to the complications. If one changes the name and the name is in the Bill without the amendment suggested by my noble friend, there would be a gap when our proposals could not be considered.
To return to the point, the water authorities would lose their powers under the legislation to facilitate the establishment of the new body. I am advised—and the House will recognise that here I am heavily dependent on advice—that we could not be clear about what the National Rivers Authority is if we were to introduce a reference to it in this Bill, without a lengthy explanation of the various powers and functions which it is to have. That explanation is one of the purposes of the main legislation which we are seeking to bring forward at the earliest opportunity. Even if we were to attempt an explanation of the functions, if those functions changed—for example, as the Bill passed through Parliament—then again the authorities would lose their powers, a point I have just made to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. It is partly to help us do that that we need the co-operation from the water authorities which this Bill would allow them to give us.
I am sorry to labour this point. Both we and the water authorities take the view that the Bill as drafted
1154
gives them the powers they need, to the extent that they need additional powers. Clause 1 provides in legal terms for the process of privatisation and reorganisation of the water industry by the creation of a National Rivers Authority. The essence of that process in legal terms is the transfer of property and functions from the relevant public utilities to another body corporate. Subsection (2)(c) provides in legal terms for the detailed proposals about the establishment of the NRA and the formation and flotation of the successor companies. Subsection (6) deals with the fact that the corporate bodies in question—the successor companies and the NRA—have yet to be formed or established.
We have already provided considerable certainty about the proposals to which Clause 1 relates. We have made clear policy statements both on water and electricity. These have set the scene to a considerable extent for the changes we have in mind. The provisions in Clause 1 should not therefore be regarded as being completely open-ended. As we develop our proposals further, we shall, as Ministers, be answerable to Parliament and we shall have to bring proposals before Parliament. That will be a further limitation upon these provisions.
My noble friend suggested that in order to increase the flexibility which he and I discussed between Committee stage and today he could add the words "or other body corporate". I acknowledge the help which my noble friend is trying to give me on this matter.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene on a matter of some substance. My noble friend is saying that on his advice the incertitudes of Clause 1 are clarified by proposals that the Government have made that are within the public domain. That may sound all right to a layman but it will not wash in a court of law. It is a total error of presentation on his advice. With the greatest respect to him, it does not meet the point of my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, or even the rather puny point that I was trying to make. It is plain wrong and his advice is wrong.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, perhaps I may come back later to the point that my noble friend has just made as I had intended to deal with it in due course. However, as I was saying, my noble friend Lord Renton kindly offered to help by suggesting an addition to the wording of the amendment, after the words "National Rivers Authority", of such words as "or other body corporate". I acknowledge the assistance that that would give me with regard to my concern for flexibility, but I believe that it defeats part of my noble friend's intention to help the higher judiciary—as he terms them—and does not remove the difficulty of identifying what the duties of the corporate body will be and what functions it will undertake. Those questions will be fully and precisely dealt with in the main legislation.
However, as I have said on many previous occasions, as soon as the proposals for both water and electricity have been implemented—that will be within the lifetime of this Parliament—those powers will become redundant. In conclusion, as regards this amendment and indeed Amendment No. 2, I am

1155
advised, and have accepted with some reluctance, that it would cast doubt on a fundamental part of our objectives—that of enabling the water authorities to prepare for the NRA. In addition, there are some difficulties with the concept of privatisation. However, notwithstanding that fact, I am also advised that the Bill as drafted provides the industries with all the powers they need and thus will enable the Government to advance two of our most important manifesto commitments.
I appreciate my noble friend's concern and desire to help. Indeed, I also appreciate the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. I am not sure that "appreciate" is the right word. None the less, I take note of what he said when he pointed out that my advice was wrong. Therefore, should my noble friend see fit to withdraw the amendment, it will enable us to consider the matter further. I promise him that I shall seek further legal advice from the ablest source. In any case, I wish to discuss his concerns with him between now and the next stage of the Bill's proceedings.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those last reasonably hopeful words. However, if I may say so with the deepest respect to those who have been advising him—some of whom I have met—I am quite convinced that he must obtain better advice. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for stressing the point.
My noble friend Lord Caithness said that everyone knows that there have been ministerial Statements. However, that will not assist him in the courts. I am deeply grateful for the formidable support that I have received from noble Lords on both sides of the House.
I should like to amplify an important point made by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, who did not mince his words. He rightly said that the Explanatory Memorandum will have no validity in court. In case some noble Lords may wonder why that is so, the answer is a simple one. The Explanatory Memorandum is attached only to the first print of the Bill as it is sent to each House. Thereafter, during the course of its passage through either House, the Bill may be amended and therefore the Explanatory Memorandum may no longer hold good. That is one reason—not the only one—why the courts will not consider it.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour for his help but I shall not be drawn by him into the thorny question—if that is the right adjective—of whether sewerage should be combined with other responsibilities. I shall duck that particular issue. Luckily, if I may say so, it does not arise on my amendment.
A noble Lord: Be careful what you duck in!
Lord Renton: My Lords, I return to the valiant effort of my noble friend Lord Caithness. I was glad that he was kind enough to say that he had much sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and with the one I moved. He put forward the argument that it would be difficult for the word "privatisation" to be used, in
1156
this purpose subsection when it is not yet defined by statute.
I do not accept that. The word "privatisation" is, as my noble friend has pointed out, already in the Oxford Dictionary. It has a pretty wide meaning of which the courts would take judicial notice, without having to refer to ministerial Statements. Further, it covers various parts of the process of privatisation which can of course—as everyone knows—be carried out in different ways. So the mere use of the word "privatisation" in explaining Parliament's intention with regard to the Bill creates no such difficulty. I am surprised that he has received contrary legal advice.
I turn now to the use of the words "body corporate". I accept that we shall not have the National Rivers Authority finally set up until there is main legislation. I also accept the fact that there may not in fact be an organisation called the National Rivers Authority, but perhaps some other body corporate. I have already suggested that that point is met and flexibility retained by adding the words "or any other body corporate" to the end of the amendment. I also say, in answer to that point, that the amendment already refers to the fact that there may not be a national rivers authority after all by the use of the word "possibly". Therefore, that issue is already covered in the amendment; but let it be covered again by the addition of those words on Third Reading.
I do not accept that if this purpose subsection were included there would have to be a lengthy explanation added to the text. I think that the suggestion was put as a piece of makeweight advice and should be immediately discarded. I say to my noble friend that not only should he tell his advisers to reconsider the matter but that he should also obtain better legal advice. Furthermore, with the knowledge of what has been said this afternoon, together with the report which will appear in Hansard tomorrow, I hope that he will take seriously the possibility of a purpose subsection along these lines when he considers the matter further. We shall, in any event, return to the issue on Third Reading. However, in the meantime, I hope that by withdrawing the amendment a good purpose will have been achieved. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
4.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 6, at beginning insert—
("( ) Subsection (1) below shall cease to have effect in respect of either water authorities or the electricity boards and the Electricity Council on any date on which Parliament withholds approval to legislation proposing the privatisation of either the water authorities or electricity boards, provided that the subsection shall cease to have effect in respect of either industry on the next dissolution of Parliament after this Act receives the Royal Assent where no such proposals have been approved in respect of that industry.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it would be for the convenience of the House if we considered Amendment No. 4 at the same time. The amendments deal with another of the deficiencies in

1157
Clause 1 to which noble Lords have already referred when discussing Amendment No. 1.
The debate which took place in Committee on Clause 1 not only advanced no distance towards elucidating its meaning in respect of the time period in which it is intended to operate but actually made matters worse. As the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said, it is bad enough that the clause should say:
"The powers conferred by this section … shall be exercisable whether or not Parliament has given any approval on which the implementation of the proposal depends".
That phrase ought to ring alarm bells in the ears of every noble Lord who is concerned with the sovereignty of Parliament and with the clarity of legislation.
The point is that the clause as drafted gives unlimited powers to the Bill, which would persist after the end of a single parliament in the event of a failure of the Government's political will or, indeed, the Government's inability, for any reason, to achieve their privatisation objectives, in such a way that there would have to be a further Act of Parliament by another government, perhaps of a different persuasion, to remove the effects of what is intended to be paving legislation. That cannot be satisfactory.
A government who have something in their manifesto must have the intention of completing the task within the period of one parliament. They cannot introduce paving legislation, which is designed for the achievement of a government's manifesto commitments and objectives, and allow for the possibility of that paving legislation persisting after an election if the government have not achieved their main manifesto objectives. In effect, a government are cluttering up the legislative programme of a future government to no good effect. It is not an acceptable use of parliamentary powers to have powers which persist in that way.
In response to the amendments moved in Committee by my noble friend Lord Williams, the Government said that the amendment would have caused delay in the first implementation of the powers which it is intended to confer. That may or may not have been the case. However, I think that I can claim, without fear of contradiction, that my amendments do not have that effect, and that the powers can come into effect straightaway, or as soon as proposals are put forward, without the delay that the Minister then feared.
The issue with which we are concerned in both amendments is that Parliament should work within the constitutional confines of a single parliament, and that in the end Parliament itself should be able to say, "We want to pursue this matter or not, and if we do not want to pursue this matter, then the paving powers immediately fall". I do not believe that I need to pursue the matter which was debated in Committee any further. Free-standing paving provisions in a Bill of this kind, to my limited knowledge, have no precedent in this form in legislation. It is thoroughly undesirable that the powers should be introduced in this way.
The problem would have been less serious if the Government had responded more warmly and constructively to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Since they failed to do so, and
1158
since it is still a matter for further discussion only and not for greater commitment, it is necessary that the time span of these paving powers should be brought under control. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, although I have a great deal of sympathy for the amendment moved by the noble Lord, I feel bound to make several comments about it which he may perhaps find rather less helpful. The first is that, as he has said, it would be much better to have something along the lines of his Amendment No. 2 or my Amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 3 is a fall-back to a weak position compared with the one that we should have had with either of our first two amendments. I believe that the noble Lord accepts that.
I have another difficulty which is somewhat technical. I only hope that I can accurately describe it to your Lordships. It is that we must envisage that between the Bill receiving Royal Assent and the dissolution of this Parliament a great deal of activity will have taken place in the use of the powers granted by Clause 1. That is the assumption that we must make.
We must assume one of two things—that at the dissolution of this Parliament the Government change their mind and, not having had any main legislation, decide not to have the main legislation on this matter in the following Parliament. I believe that that is unlikely. The other possibility is one which, of course, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would not expect me to relish, and that would be a change of government after a general election following dissolution. If the amendment moved by the noble Lord became part of the Bill, anything that was being done in pursuance of the Bill would have to come to an immediate stop even though some of it was only half done and even though half doing a particular thing might cause great confusion. So although it is tempting to say, "Let us in any event have a time limit", we must consider the consequences of suddenly having, so to speak, a guillotine on the exercise of the powers granted by Clause 1.
I could see that even another government coming into power and finding that position would find a state of great confusion which they might wish had been avoided. For that reason, I have a serious doubt as to the technical practicality of the result of the amendment.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, while I am of course impressed with the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I must say that right from the start the clause has caused most of us a great deal of concern. I entirely agree that if the amendments put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord McIntosh, earlier had been accepted, there would be less reason to press for some time limit; but without a clearer definition of the objectives, and with a totally unlimited time scale, I feel that we shall be passing legislation which will have been far too broadly drawn to be appropriate for its purpose.
I am convinced by the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the paving legislation, which is what this purports to be, should be drafted to demonstrate that it is paving the way for other legislation which will no doubt be quickly

1159
brought forward by the Government in pursuance of their objectives. Unless we can look forward to some acceptance of the principle behind the previous amendments, we should press now, or at a later stage, for some limitation on the time scale.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have to confess to the House that I fear I was a little over-hasty at an earlier stage. If your Lordships would look at col. 1262 of 17th March you will see that I commended the Opposition for the early time at which they had put down their amendments. Alas, that has not been continued at this stage.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, chided me for not being more helpful on the previous amendment. I thought that I was as helpful to the House as I could have been in view of the persuasive arguments that I heard from all sides.
I shall now speak to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. Noble Lords will recall that at the Committee stage we debated a number of amendments and various noble Lords expressed concern about the breadth of the powers conferred on the water and electricity industries by this Bill. Related to those concerns were anxieties that the Bill did not spell out the purpose for which the powers were being conferred. That is the subject of other amendments on the Marshalled List.
At the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, moved an amendment which would have imposed a time limit of 1st January 1990 on the exercise of the powers in the Bill. Indeed, he took that amendment to a Division and was defeated by 114 votes to 70. That timetable was impracticably short, as I believe the noble Lord himself recognised. I made clear in my reply to him the importance to the Government of getting on with the business of privatising these major industries. We have never envisaged that these powers would be needed for long, and once the main privatisation proposals are through the powers will of course be redundant.
The two amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, Nos. 3 and 4 on the Marshalled List, also set a time limit on the exercise of the powers in Clause 1. Amendment No. 3 provides that this limit would arise if Parliament rejected our proposals for the privatisation of either the water authorities or the electricity supply industry or at the next dissolution of Parliament, whichever of these events occurred first.
There are technical difficulties about this amendment which relate to the definition of privatisation and the relationship between privatisation and the establishment of the NRA. These are difficulties which we have already encountered in considering the first amendment and which I shall be looking at most carefully between now and another stage.
Putting these technical considerations to one side, however, the amendment would provide that if the main legislation on our proposals for either of these industries failed to receive the approval of Parliament and this occurred sooner than the next dissolution of Parliament, then the powers given to those industries by Clause 1 would be withdrawn. I can assure your Lordships that we are confident that our main legislative proposals when introduced will commend
1160
themselves to both Houses and that they will be carried through to approval.
It cannot, however, be entirely beyond the realms of possibility that the main legislation will not complete its passage through to approval, for example, because we ourselves chose to withdraw it in order to put right some unforeseen defect. But we would not want such an event to deprive the utilities concerned of the powers to prepare for the proposals which we nonetheless wish to carry forward.
The other element of Amendment No. 3, and the effect of Amendment No. 4, is to provide that the powers in Clause 1 should lapse at the next dissolution of Parliament. I feel that I should underline once again our firm expectation that the process of legislation will have been completed well before the end of this Parliament and that there will by that time be little still to be done to complete the implementation of our proposals. I have to say, however, that even so we should not be prepared to see the flexibility of the provision in Clause 1 cut back by the introduction of the time limit which these amendments propose.
As your Lordships know, this is a Government who have a full and challenging programme which they intend to put into effect during the term given them by the election last year. We all know, however, that Parliaments may have variable life times. The experience of the last 25 years has demonstrated that fact beyond peradventure.
We are committed to making the best possible progress with legislating and carrying out our proposals for the future of the water and electricity industries. We shall best achieve this object if through the Bill we give those industries the powers that they require and the flexibility in their application that we consider appropriate. These two amendments would reduce that flexibility, and my noble friend Lord Renton highlighted this. He showed that far from making difficulties for a future government, which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, indicated might happen, having no time scale would be a benefit to a future government. I must therefore hope that the noble Lord will withdraw these amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have seldom heard such a stumbling argument put forward with such confidence. The noble Earl seems to think that Parliament is the poodle of the Government and that, the electorate having expressed a wish by electing a government who include in their manifesto the commitment to privatisation of water and electricity, somehow that ensures that that will be achieved. The Minister has not even convinced expert opinion on his own Back Benches that he or his Government can draft Clause 1 of a paving Bill to provide for water and electricity privatisation. If they cannot do that, what confidence can we have that the Government will be able to draft the main legislation for the privatisation of water and electricity?
My noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, both at Second Reading and in Committee, pointed to the horrendous accounting difficulties that there will be in valuing the assets over a sufficient period to provide an adequate prospectus for the water and the electricity industries. This is particularly true for the

1161
water industry, part of whose assets are to be transferred to a National Rivers Authority. There was no satisfactory answer from the Government Front Bench to either of those points. There has not been one up till now, and there is no indication that the Government have even thought through, let alone found an adequate solution to, the problems which have been raised by noble Lords on this side of the House and the problems of drafting and clarity which have been raised by the noble Earl's own expert colleagues.
Under those circumstances, I am not in the least convinced by the argument put forward by the Minister. I do not think that he has in any way countered the point which I made, which is that there is a danger which must not be discounted that at the end of this Parliament there will be no completed main privatisation legislation; that there will be a government following a general election who will have different priorities and different ideas of what is proper but that the paving legislation which is now proposed will still be in existence and will have to be repealed. That is not a satisfactory situation and I do not believe that this House ought to allow it to continue in legislation.
However, the noble Earl has made certain criticisms of the wording of the amendment which I shall have to read very carefully before considering what to do at a later stage. In view of those criticisms, it is appropriate that I should beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 6, after ("proposing") insert ("to any utility referred to in this subsection").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think I can move this amendment very quickly. I hope that, since it was included in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, Amendment No. 1, and he did not criticise that aspect of Amendment No. 1, the noble Earl will accept the justice of this amendment. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, himself, having included a similar phrase in Amendment No. 1, will have no difficulty in supporting this amendment.
The argument here is that a proposal is not identifiable in any meaningful way to the courts, to the utilities themselves or to the general public unless it is actually made to somebody. I do not want to go over the arguments again about Ministers making proposals in their bath, but there is a valid point here. If a proposal is to mean something it must be expecting something of somebody or must be showing an intention to do something to or in conjunction with somebody. The obvious recipient of a proposal must be the utility referred to in this subsection. I hope therefore that since this aspect of Amendment No. 1 was not subject to any criticism, the Minister will have no difficulty in accepting Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I recognise the spirit behind this amendment, which in seeking to define more closely what are the proposals in Clause 1 provides that they should be proposals made by the
1162
Secretary of State to the utilities concerned. A recurrent theme of the response which I have made to points raised by your Lordships both today and at the Committee stage of this Bill has been our wish to remove uncertainty about the ability of the water and electricity industries to act in relation to our proposals, so that they can get ahead with their preparations.
Of course they must know what they need to prepare for. I can assure your Lordships that we have established a very close dialogue with both industries to explain our intentions to them, and indeed to receive their advice and comment on those intentions. That dialogue will continue as we move towards the main legislation and, if it is approved by Parliament, towards its timely implementation.
It is a dialogue of fundamental importance. Nonetheless, it would in my view be neither necessary nor appropriate to restrict the proposals referred to in Clause 1 to the confines of this dialogue. The White Papers of February 1986 on water, and February 1988 on electricity, and the policy papers on the National Rivers Authority, have been major expositions of our proposals—but they were not statements narrowly addressed to the industries concerned. They went to a far wider audience.
I would ask your Lordships as well to look ahead to the expression of our proposals in the legislation which we expect to introduce as soon as possible. That legislation will be presented to Parliament. It will not be addressed to the water and electricity industries. It may be that the legislation is amended during its passage through Parliament, with the result that it incorporates different proposals by the Secretary of State. The water and electricity industries will need to be able to act quickly in relation to such amended or new proposals, and to require that the proposals should be reported to the industries in a distinct procedure would be unnecessary and could well delay their response.
Nonetheless, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, did make a valid point about the connection with the amendment of my noble friend—Amendment No. 1. For that reason I should like to look at this amendment in connection with the first amendment. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord will withdraw this amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not convinced by the early part of the Minister's argument. But in view of the commitment that he made in his last sentence to consider the amendment in conjunction with his reconsideration of Amendment No. 1, I think it is appropriate that I should beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 6, after ("proposing") insert ("in a published form laid before both Houses of Parliament").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 6 I wish to speak to Amendment No. 7. We are ending up with a less and less satisfactory means of trying to get the Government to say what they plan to do and to protect the public in relation to what we understand to be the Government's own intentions.
But there is an important point of principle here as regards Parliament which was not dealt with when we discussed previous amendments. I do not conceal my view that Amendment No. 6 which states that the proposals should be:
"in a published form laid before both Houses of Parliament"
is preferable to Amendment No. 7 which states that they should be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. But if the Minister were sympathetic to Amendment No. 7 but not to Amendment No. 6 I should be very prepared to moderate my demands for parliamentary responsibility to that extent.
The issue here is of very great public importance. It is the issue of the right to know. It is not a purely theoretical issue. We have seen within the past two months a very regrettable example of negotiations and proposals which have not been made public and which have resulted in a conclusion which is in the view of many of us totally unsatisfactory. I refer of course to the takeover of Rover by British Aerospace.
The House will recall that when that happened the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry simply made an announcement that he was permitting discussions to take place and that he was preventing discussions from taking place with any other bidder for the Rover Group. Those discussions took place entirely in private and when the conclusion was reached without any other bidder having had an opportunity to put formal proposals the result was that the British Aerospace bid was accepted by the Government on behalf of Rover. The City and many of your Lordships felt that the deal was absurdly generous to British Aerospace.
That is the kind of result which one can obtain if one has secrecy in negotiations and if one maintains the inability of other interested parties to know what the negotiations are and to submit counter proposals to them. There is a serious danger that we might reach the same unsatisfactory result if negotiations are kept private in this way for the disposal of the electricity and the water industries.
The Bill is not concerned in itself with the detail of the final deals which will be struck for privatisation. That is a matter for the main legislation. However, we are concerned with the powers for the utilities which must inevitably involve expenditure on their part and which as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said in Committee involves in effect expenditure without any form of parliamentary control.
The purpose of the amendments is to impose some kind of parliamentary control and some kind of right for the public to know what is actually being negotiated so that things are not carried on entirely behind closed doors. I hope that the amendments will commend themselves to all of your Lordships who have a concern not only for public accountability but also for good business practice in negotiation. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, there is a little bit of a dilemma here. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that it is important when public
1164
property—because that is what many of these bodies are—is going to be the subject of proposals by the Secretary of State as regards the change of its status, powers and functions that the public should know what is happening. A bit of glasnost—I hope I pronounce it correctly—would not be a bad thing in matters of this kind.
On the other hand, it is a question of at what stage the public should be told. That is the dilemma. Under either of these amendments the information would have to be presented in a published form. I presume that means that it would be available on public bookstalls or at the Stationery Office or that some press notices would be issued. That is the most usual way of doing it.
Under this provision any proposal, however tentative it may be, would have to be revealed. I can imagine preliminary negotiations taking place on a preliminary proposal. I really cannot see why the Minister or any water authority should be obliged at that stage to have the matter laid before Parliament or put in the Libraries.
But when things have reached the stage at which there is virtual agreement in principle, then I think that the public should have a right to know what is happening. Although I do not think that my noble friend could accept either of these amendments, I should like to make a helpful proposal. My suggestion can best be attached to Amendment No. 7.
Frequently the Government give undertakings to provide information for Members of each House of Parliament by laying copies of something or other in the Library. The Library is full of such information which has accumulated over the years. Very often it is much less important information than would come out of this Bill and out of any proposals made. So if my noble friend were to say that he would consider having some form of information made available to the public at some stage when agreement has been virtually reached as to what is to be done, that would be commendable and I would support it; but it does not have to be written into the Bill. We do not normally write that sort of thing into Bills.
As to Amendment No. 6, there the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has hit on something which is sometimes written into Bills. But for matters to be laid before Parliament which are of a merely tentative kind and still subject to some confidential negotiation does not seem to me to be a desirable process at all. Therefore, although I believe it is good and important that the noble Lord has moved these amendments in order that we can get some information from time to time as to what is happening, I do not think that either of his amendments is necessary to achieve that purpose.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, while I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that the definition of the word "proposal" is a difficult one and that if one took it too far it might just be a broad idea which the Minister wanted to discuss with the chairmen of the relevant bodies, nevertheless we are talking here of two vital issues which are of grave concern to the nation and certainly of grave concern to both Houses of Parliament as the legislation goes through. So I

1165
would support the concept of some commitment to openness at the earliest possible opportunity. I would personally be satisfied with some such commitment from the noble Earl if he were prepared to give it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I understand that the intention behind Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 on the Marshalled List is to secure some greater certainty about what are the proposals in relation to which Clause 1 of the Bill confers powers upon the water and electricity industries, and in particular to ensure that those proposals must be contained in a published document or documents made available to Parliament.
Your Lordships will know, without the need for my rehearsing at length the history of our intentions for these industries, that we have made a number of policy statements to which I referred on a previous amendment for electricity and water. There has been considerable discussion of our intentions in both Houses of Parliament on the basis of these policy statements. While these statements have indeed documented the fundamental stages in the formulation of our proposals for these industries, your Lordships will be aware that we are now engaged in the work of preparing the necessary legislation and that we are in dialogue with the industries in that process.
We do not claim to have had perfect wisdom from day one in forming our intentions for these industries and we may well see the need to make further proposals, not least because of insights that emerge from this process of dialogue. We shall make any such further proposals publicly known in due course, and no later than when the substantive legislation is passing through Parliament. However, we shall want the water and electricity industries to be in a position to act in relation to any such further proposals without the delay that might be involved if those proposals had first to be set down in a published document and made available to Parliament. Their preparations for our proposals must flow smoothly and expeditiously. I believe that these amendments would seriously threaten disruption of our programme and would introduce uncertainty.
I was therefore pleased by what my noble friend Lord Renton said when he suggested that the Library could be the place to put documents and that indeed it was full of such information. I can tell the House that three major letters written following preliminary proposals and discussions on further proposals to the water undertakers have already been put in the Library. Indeed, it is our policy that when we write following negotiations to the water authorities and when we have reached an agreed stage, or when we have agreed as far as possible, we then put information in the Library. But if we were to put all our proposals in the Library or to bring them before the House I do not see how one could possibly continue any sort of negotiation. I just wonder how the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, would have conducted the job he had if every single negotiation he had with his own board or with the unions had first to be laid before Parliament.
We realise the need to be open and we realise there must be some confidentiality while the proposals are being worked out, but I can assure the House that
1166
when we have got to that stage and we write formally to the water authorities and to the electricity industry, we will put copies in the Library.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have two basic points to make in response to that. The first is that any difficulty about the definition of proposals is not of our making but has been caused by the Government in putting forward this legislation. The fact is, as became clear at earlier stages of the Bill, that there is no adequate definition of what the Government mean when they use the word "proposing" in the first line of the Bill and therefore there is no adequate definition of the proposals.
If there had been a definition it would have been possible for us to put down more precise amendments, which would have indicated at what stage it was appropriate for the public to have the right to know, to which I referred. Clearly something which is a matter of discussion around a table does not have to be put in a fully fledged published form at that stage. Nobody is suggesting that. If the Government had adequately defined the proposals in the first place we would not be in the difficulty in which we now find ourselves in drafting these amendments.
Secondly, the analogy with the negotiations of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, when he was at the National Coal Board is not a very sound one. What we are talking about here is taking assets which are at present the property of all our people—the water and electricity industries—and disposing of them to bodies corporate, privatising them, even though the Minister will not accede to the word being used in legislation. It is when the family silver is being sold off in order to pay for the groceries, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said at Committee stage, that the public has a particular right to know the proposals at as early a stage as possible, because the public, which is being deprived of its family silver, must have the opportunity to say, "Come on, this approach to disposal is not satisfactory to us", even at a stage where no firm conclusion has been reached.
We must be grateful for the small concessions which the Minister made in replying to the debate. He said that as soon as possible papers, not necessarily in a published form, would be made available in the Libraries. I accept those assurances, and they are certainly enough to make me say that I do not wish to divide the House on these amendments. However, I must stress that when it is our assets and the disposal of them that we are concerned with, as soon as the Government take a position in principle about how the assets are to be disposed of, that is the stage at which the public has the right to know—not at the stage where a commercial agreement has been reached with the water or the electricity authorities. I hope that will be borne in mind when the Government make their detailed policy available for disclosure.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for his suggestion of a more limited and less threatening form of words for our amendments. If we think, on considering his words and those of the Minister, that it is appropriate to redraft the amendments, we shall certainly do so for Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg—
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, in view of the undertaking that this information will be placed in the Library, which is the point that the noble Lord was really after in his Amendment No. 7, is it necessary to trouble all of us further on that point? I should think he has got what he is really after.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, unfortunately the undertaking was heavily qualified with comments concerning the stage at which the papers would be placed in the Library. I said that I would read what the Minister had said and what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, had said and see whether or not I am as reassured as he is. If I am, nothing will happen; if I am not, we shall introduce suitable amendments at Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aylestone): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 8 I should point out that the word in the first line should be "transferred".
5 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 7, after ("transferred") insert ("on an equitable basis, having regard to accepted accounting procedure").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise for the error in the amendment. The amendment follows a lengthy discussion at Second Reading and at Committee stage between the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in the first instance, and my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, about matters of accounting procedure which I am no more qualified to discuss than I am to discuss matters of law.
I notice, in reading Hansard of the Committee stage, that the Minister referred on 17th March at col. 1280 to the considerable difficulties which he anticipated if local water authorities and electricity authorities were forced to maintain an accurate balance sheet and profit and loss accounts according to established accounting procedures. I was particularly interested to hear the Minister yesterday make great play of the deficiencies of the West Yorkshire County Council in failing to keep an asset register of its properties. Surely, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If there are difficulties in maintaining asset registers for a county council and if that is deplorable, then surely it is deplorable that the same criterion should not apply to the water and electricity authorities.
At Committee stage my noble friend Lord Williams sought to establish that the transfers should be at a fair value. I appreciate that there could be difficulties about the meaning of "fair value". We are attempting to overcome some of the arguments put forward by the Government in resisting the idea of a fair value. We are now restricting that to a matter of accountancy practice.
I cannot see that there is anything unbusinesslike or counter to the spirit of the Bill in inserting that sort of provision. On the other hand, it is a necessary
1168
protection of the public that in such disposals of assets there should be not only proper accountancy procedures—whether that is done on an historic cost or a current cost basis is immaterial; it should be done in the same way for all such deals—but also that they should be on an equitable basis which protects the public interest. I hope that the amendment will not be thought controversial and will commend itself to the House.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the amendment requires the transfer of the property and functions of a utility to have regard to accepted accounting procedure. At Committee stage on 17th March I said that the starting point for the accounting procedure for any transfer would be that already existing in the water authorities. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, then suggested, that is historic cost accounting with an addition of current cost accounting.
Water authority accounts have been prepared for a number of years now using normal conventions under the Companies Act and following all relevant statements of standard accounting practice. That required the auditors of each authority to certify that the historic cost accounts give a true and fair view. The auditors have also been required to certify that the current cost accounts have been prepared in accordance with recognised accounting principles. The auditors have provided their certifications and have not sought to qualify them in any way.
Questions of details of the transfer are matters which are most appropriately addressed in discussions on the subsequent Bill which will make provision for the actual transfer. As your Lordships will remember from the privatisation of British Telecom, British Gas and others, no detailed proposals for the terms of transfer will be made until much nearer the time of transfer. There is no way that a utility can know now whether the proposals, when they eventually emerge, will satisfy the criterion set out by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. It puts the utilities in an impossible position of having to make a judgment which cannot be made. Potentially it puts the courts in a position of having to confirm or overturn the utility's judgment, having no principles in the Bill on which to determine what an equitable basis would be in that context.
Therefore, I must say to the noble Lord that it is premature to write such a provision into the Bill. Of course it is a consideration which must be taken into account later. That will be accomplished in the main Bill which will follow the present Bill as soon as possible. It is then that we should be looking at such matters.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I cannot accept that. It is true that the details of deals will be properly considered in the main Bill and will probably be properly concluded when the main Bill achieves parliamentary approval, if it does. However, the legislation provides specifically for the division of the functions of both water and electricity authorities. In the case of water authorities there is the division of functions between the successor bodies corporate and the National Rivers Authority. In the case of the electricity authorities, there is the division

1169
of responsibilities, functions and assets of the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Electricity Council, as well as the regional electricity boards.
In both cases, the division of responsibilities has enormous environmental implications which cannot be dealt with in the course of day-to-day negotiations of particular deals. The environmental consequences of any sort of energy production or indeed of the supply and distribution of water are thrown into the air, in the latter case by the provision for a national rivers authority.
The Government cannot leave it until the main legislation to give detailed thought to how that division will be made. There must be some assessment of the environmental impact of the division of responsibilities between the new bodies corporate who are responsible for water and the National Rivers Authority. Because the issue has already been raised and because the Government have made a decision in principle about that matter, they must come clean about what it means now. In order to tell the public and Parliament what it means now, the Government must find some way of putting a figure on the impact of the division of powers. That means that there must be some equitable solution on accepted accounting procedures.
I do not believe that the Minister's reply has in any way obviated the need for the amendment. I accept that there may be difficulties about the precise technical definition of "accepted accounting procedures". However, I hope that the House will not feel that all those matters can be left to the main Bill. At this stage of the Bill I can only invite the Minister to think again about what has been said in the hope that he will come back with a suggestion which is more effective at Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert ("or proposing any alteration to it for the purpose of the orderly and effective implementation of its functions").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has been produced after very careful reading of what took place at Committee stage and in recognition of the fact that the Government had some valid objections to the amendments moved at that time. It is certainly true that if there were complete freedom for the authorities concerned to propose any alterations they liked to any of the proposals which the Government put forward, one could envisage a state of anarchy in which negotiations could continue for ever without reaching a conclusion.
At Committee stage the noble Earl made a distinction between what he described as "the basic proposals"—although of course the word "basic" does not occur in the Bill—which are the creation of the public limited companies and the National Rivers Authority, and "the related proposals", which are the more detailed proposals concerned with the transfer of undertakings. He said that so far as concerned the related proposals it was possible for the authorities to put forward alterations to them but not to the basic proposals. In other words, they could not object in
1170
principle to the object of the Government in putting forward this legislation in the first instance.
I accept that it would be wrong for the authorities to object in principle to the Government's intentions and therefore to hold up negotiations. However, I put to your Lordships that the distinction made between basic and related proposals is impossible to sustain in practice. Looking at the attempts at main legislation, it is clear that the proposals are inextricably interlinked and it will not be possible for us to say that this one is a subsidiary matter which is subject to negotiation as distinct from a basic matter.
I am convinced that when we come to look at the main legislation and any amendments to it, every amendment that we put forward to seek to improve the detail will be described as a wrecking amendment which seeks to overturn the general principle of the Government's legislation. That has always been my experience in the past and I am quite sure that it will happen again.
Our proposal, which we believe is constructive, is an alternative way of approaching the matter. We are saying that rather than being in relation to the principle, the restriction on the power for the utility to propose alterations shall be that the alterations should be:
"for the purpose of the orderly and effective implementation of its functions".
I suggest to the House that in fact this is a drafting amendment which improves the ability of the Government to achieve their objectives in a way that the distinction made between basic and related proposals does not. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in moving this amendment the noble Lord has made his intention perfectly clear but I wish that the amendment itself were as clear. The difficulty arises in relation to the word "it" which could refer to "facilitating the implementation". Weight is lent to that interpretation because the amendment itself refers to effective implementation. So perhaps the word "it" could refer to implementation, or to the proposal for the transfer. The amendment moved by the noble Lord does not make clear which of those two possibilities is intended and I do not think that we ought to add ambiguous detail of this kind to the Bill.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has just said, we debated a similar amendment at Committee stage, when the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, sought to give the water authorities and the electricity supply industry powers to seek modification of our proposals for privatisation and restructuring. The House will recall the distinctions that I drew then between the two kinds of proposals on Clause 1. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for realising the strength of the Government's argument.
First, there are proposals for transfer as referred to in subsection (1)(a) which for the sake of clarity I shall refer to here as "basic proposals". These are our fundamental proposals, for example, to set up the NRA and a series of water and electricity utility companies. Then there is the second category of proposals, the "related proposals" referred to in subsection (1)(b) and subsection (2), which are

1171
essentially more detailed proposals and which relate to the various matters referred to in subsection (2).
A number of basic proposals have already been made by the Government and more will no doubt follow, but the essence of the basic proposals is that by the time they are made they constitute firm statements of the Government's intention to transfer property or functions to some other body. In the Government's view these are not matters on which it is appropriate for the industries to be given powers to seek to change the nature of our objectives. Of course in this Bill there are many areas where we contemplate that the industries may wish to change our mind. In the more detailed area of related proposals it is right that the industries should have the power to do so.
I recognise that in moving his amendment the noble Lord is trying to be helpful to the water industry. He says that the power to seek an alteration to government proposals—such as his amendment would secure—would ensure the orderly and effective implementation of the industry's functions. In our view, on the structure of the clause as it stands and in particular considering the definition of "related proposals" as in subsection (2)(b), the relevance of the kind of representations that the industries might make to attempt to persuade us to change our minds would be to our related proposals rather than to our basic proposals. For example, if the industries want to propose that the function should be discharged in a particular way in advance of transfer so as to facilitate transfer, that would certainly be open to them under the clause as drafted. That was the very point on which my noble friend Lord Renton put his finger.
However, I repeat that the basic proposals are something to which the industries and the Government must devote all their energies in the coming months and years, and the industries should not be diverted by attempting to persuade the Government to change their mind. On the related proposals of course the industries should and indeed are making suggestions and proposals to the Government which at the moment we are discussing. I believe that that is right and equitable.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not wildly impressed by appeals to the basic structure of Clause 1, which has already come under very serious attack from all parts of the House. However, I appreciate the point that has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that there is a possibility of ambiguity in my amendment, and under the circumstances I think it better to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.]
5.15 p.m.
Clause 3 [Provisions regulating the charges of all water undertakers]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 7, after ("liable") insert ("where the premises have been occupied, or water consumed, by persons with no right to occupy
1172
those premises, in circumstances where he could not reasonably have been expected to give notice of the termination of liability or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this has now become a probing amendment because, since I tabled the amendment—and perhaps it should have been put down later rather than earlier—I have seen the letter written to my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel by the noble Earl concerning the issue of squatters and their responsibility for paying water charges. It seems to me that in his letter the noble Earl was making a very valid point that, if there is a risk of squatters breaking into the house, so far as possible advance notice should be given to the water authorities that one is going away in order that the supply can be discontinued. In that way the supply is not made available to squatters and the charges will not fall on the householder.
The discussion on this point that took place in Committee concentrated on the occasions when occupiers (those liable to pay water charges) cannot anticipate that they will be away for a signficant period of time and therefore cannot provide the necessary notification to the water authorities. Examples which were given related to an occupier who had been taken unexpectedly to hospital.
The point that the noble Earl makes in his letter to my noble friend is that the relevant clause of the other Bill is concerned not with temporary breaks in occupation but with the permanent cessation of occupation. He argues that in the case of permanent cessation of occupation there ought not to be any difficulty in the occupier giving due notice to the water authority. If that is the case, and if that is all to which this clause refers, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment. However, I think that it would be helpful if the noble Earl set this matter out for the benefit of all Members of this House. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, could not have put his amendments down much later. However, I am grateful to him for the thought of the help that that might have given—even greater help than receiving them late last night.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may say that they were put down on Tuesday night. They could have been available to the noble Earl first thing yesterday morning.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, we were deep in discussion on local government yesterday.
The question of an absent occupier's liability for measured charges when his property is taken over by squatters was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, during the Committee stage of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has reminded the House, I subsequently wrote to his noble friend on 11th April setting out the position in more detail. I am happy to confirm to him that a copy of the letter is in the Library. However, as he so rightly says, it might be for the convenience of the House if I set the position out for the record.

1173
This is not a problem unique to householders who pay for water services by meter. Nor is it limited to water services. The same point arises with the other utilities. However, with regard to water, the best advice that I can give to any owner or occupier going away for a long period—besides making sure that the property is properly secured—is to ask their water undertaker temporarily to disconnect the water supply during their absence.
Under Section 79 of the Third Schedule to the Water Act 1945, customers must give undertakers not less than 24 hours' notice in writing if they wish their supply to be disconnected. Provided that this is done the customer is then no longer liable for water supply and drainage charges until reconnection is made, but he could still be liable for the standing and environmental services charges. A small charge would be made for disconnecting a supply, but it could be well worth an occupier's while to take this precaution. If squatters subsequently move into the property and reconnect the supply themselves the water undertaker has to take steps to recover the charges from the squatters. The undertaker may also decide to disconnect the supply again.
If on the other hand the occupier decides not to ask the undertaker to disconnect the supply before he goes away and subsequently discovers that squatters have moved into the property, apart from taking steps to evict them, it is still possible to ask for the supply to be disconnected. As before, the occupier would not be liable for any charges incurred after the date of disconnection but would still be liable for any charges up to that date. The recovery of those charges would be a matter of civil law between the occupier and the squatters.
If in any case the undertaker, having been asked to disconnect a supply, fails to do so, or does so in such a way that the squatters can reconnect the supply, the undertaker may be liable to the absent occupier for any damage arising out of the failure or omission. And, as I say, in such cases the undertaker could not seek to recover from the absent occupier charges for water supplied after the date by which the disconnection should have been made.
As I mentioned during the Committee stage debate, these issues go much wider than the scope of Clause 3(6) of this Bill, which is about liability for charges after a consumer with a meter ceases to occupy a property without giving the required two working days' notice to the water undertaker. In other words, this provision is not about temporary breaks in occupation. In a case where cessation of occupation is to be permanent we do not consider it is too much to ask the occupier to give two working days' notice, if further charges are to be avoided. Having given that full explanation, I hope that it helps the noble Lord.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that it was worth putting the amendment down in order to achieve that statement, for which I thank the noble Earl. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Provisions relating to meters etc.]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 6, line 35, after ("meters") insert ("including provision for the installation of meters which are easy to test").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 13 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 14.
I apologise to the House for having omitted the word "water" in my draft of Amendment No. 14. I did not wish to demand the regular testing of electricity meters where the technology, although far from perfect, is rather better established than for water meters. I am not suggesting for a moment that we should be proposing the testing of water meters every week, every two weeks or even every year. The design life of a piece of equipment such as a water meter can readily be calculated, usually by the manufacturer. It is almost always the life of the most vulnerable part. There should be no difficulty in establishing the reasonable interval at which regular testing should be carried on.
However, the Bill is concerned with the introduction of something which is in most cases new to this country: the preparation in effect for the compulsory metering of water supply as an alternative to water rates or the possibility of the compulsory metering of water supply. It will affect a very large number of people. Some will be happy to see it. Some will be happy to participate in trials. But some will be resentful and will resist the imposition of water meters. Under these circumstances it seems only reasonable that all efforts should be made by the water authorities which will introduce these meters, first, to provide meters that are easy to test, and, secondly to provide for the testing of them.
At Committee stage the noble Earl made a very helpful comment when he said that the water authorities were prepared to undertake—I think that the phrase was—a confidence check. I believe that that is a step in the right direction which should be welcomed. It is to his credit that the Government have succeeded in getting the water authorities to agree to that step, which will go some way to alleviating the fears of customers who are having water meters thrust upon them.
However, it would be helpful if we were able to go further and to agree that water authorities should do their best to make the meters easy to test and to provide for regular testing at an interval dictated by the design life of the equipment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I explained during the Committee stage of this Bill, in normal conditions modern water meters are reliable and accurate. When they fail it is usually because the piston inside the meter is jammed with particles of matter. This causes the register to stop moving but allows water to pass, though a reduced flow. This of course favours the customer. The flow may be reduced, but nothing is added to the meter reading.
Most tests of suspect meters reveal that there are problems with the plumbing; for example, dripping taps and leaking supply pipes. This can usually be proved simply by turning off all of the taps and

1175
checking whether the register on the meter is still moving.
Regular testing of meters in service will serve only to increase costs, which would need to be, one way or the other, passed on to the consumers as a whole. This would be particularly noticeable in the case of testing water meters because water services as a commodity are relatively cheap. So the cost of an annual test would be a significant addition to the current average annual water services charge of, say, around £100. I should add that government in consultation with the Water Research Centre and the Local Authority Co-ordinating Body on Training Standards are looking at ways of keeping the cost of testing meters to a minimum by simplifying the procedures to be used. This may reduce the cost to about £15 to £30. But, even so, we do not think that additional costs are justified in relation to the possibility of finding a faulty meter.
Nevertheless, as I shall explain when we reach Amendment No. 16 which is also to be moved by the noble Lord, the Government agree that customers should have full confidence in the accuracy and reliability of water meters and that there should be proper procedures for having them tested in use when the customer suspects that they are faulty and for adjusting bills where a meter is proven to be inaccurate. The Government intend to make regulations under Clause 5 and also under the weights and measures legislation covering these issues.
5.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that answer which I find very helpful. In the last year, and indeed during the last weeks, I have had experience of meters both freezing up and exploding due to intense cold and also jamming in the way the noble Earl described. This is a serious matter. Where meters are extensively used, the experience of trading standards officers from local authorities—this time I do mean local authorities—is that there is still a substantial level of complaint about water meters. I do not think the situation is as satisfactory as I am sure the Minister would like it to be, let alone the rest of us.
In view of what he said about the regulations and what is to be done under Clause 5, it is appropriate that I should thank him and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 7, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) require for the purpose of investigating consumer complaints about metering the creation of an independent water complaints body to be composed of such members as the Secretary of State may determine;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was put down at Committee stage, but perhaps through some misunderstanding about the grouping of amendments it was not moved. It deserves the consideration of the House which it did not receive in
1176
Committee. There are a number of ways in which we could achieve consumer protection in advance of the final form of the privatisation of water. I appreciate that it will be necessary for the Government, when they are producing their main legislation, to make proposals for consumer protection. I am sure that that is the reply the noble Earl will give in response to this amendment.
But changes are being proposed now which will affect the water consumer. I refer especially to the changes which relate to the trials of metering of water supply. I do not think it is premature to suggest that there could be an independent complaints authority. It need not be elaborate. It need not have all the paraphernalia that sometimes accompanies these organisations. It could be on a national basis in the first instance without a regional component. It could have representatives on it from local authorities, with the collaboration of experienced trading standards officers from the local authorities and with water authorities also represented or giving evidence to it.
This is not a dramatic amendment. Nor does it make any significant change to the Government's ability to achieve their objectives in legislation. I hope it will commend itself to the Government and to the House. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the handling of complaints about water services generally is obviously a very important issue, which we intend to develop further in the context of the main water privatisation Bill. At present, by virtue of Section 24A of the Water Act 1973, there are formal arrangements for the representation of consumers' interests. Each regional water authority's consumer consultative committee provides a forum in which customers' representatives discuss with the appropriate authority its policies and actions and their effects on consumers. For example, I understand that all of those water undertakers who have expressed a willingness to carry out a metering trial have already discussed the issue with the relevant consumer consultative committee.
I understand that many, if not all, water undertakers have established formal procedures for informing their consumer consultative committees of details of complaints and discussing what needs to be done. This procedure can deal with metering just as with any other issue. If customers receive no satisfaction from their local consumer consultative committee, they have the opportunity to take the matter up with the local government ombudsman.
As regards specific complaints about meter accuracy, regulations will be made under weights and measures legislation governing the metrological control of meters, which will give trading standards officers an important role in dealing with complaints about the accuracy of meters. In addition, in the case of metering trials, under Clause 4(4)(e) of this Bill, one of the matters to which the Secretary of State is required to have regard when considering a proposed scheme for approval is the provision made by the scheme for the handling of representations about the implementation, effect or operation of the metering trial scheme. This takes into account the special nature of the trials. Complaints about the proposed trials can be considered at this stage.

1177
As regards the future, I should not normally have thought it right to anticipate future legislation in a debate on this Bill. But since we have a clear intention to act in the matter raised by this amendment I hope your Lordships will bear with me while I do so very briefly. Our intention is to establish a formal system of consumer consultation based upon independent regional consumer service committees, appointed by the Director General of Water Services to be set up to regulate the water industry after its privatisation. The new committees will be able to take a firm, independent stance and speak with a single, strong voice. They will have powers to investigate complaints, recommend action to correct problems and to refer matters to the director general for enforcement if necessary. However, this is all a matter for the future which your Lordships will have the opportunity to debate in full once we bring proposals before your Lordship's House in due course.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. It was the kind of response I hoped he would make. We shall await with interest and without commitment the details of the consumer protection proposals which will come forward in the main legislation. It is helpful that he has been able to do this now, and it is appropriate that I should beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 16:
Page 7, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) provide for the powers of enforcement and regulation of metering equipment to be vested with the relevant trading standards authority.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope I heard the Minister correctly in his response to a previous amendment. If so, I think it may not be necessary to move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]

Licensing Bill
5.38 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Modification of permitted hours]:
Lord Kaberry of Adel Lord Kaberry of Adel moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 4, leave out ("five") and insert ("six").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is similar to one I moved at Report stage. After a reasonably lengthy discussion during which many views were expressed, I withdrew the amendment so that there might be further consideration of it. The amendment is to give private registered members' clubs the same hours on a Sunday to supply liquor to their members as licensed premises to which the public at large have access enjoy under the Bill.
I hope your Lordships will allow me a little while, especially in view of the discussions which took place on the previous Bill, to inquire what is to happen in the latter stages of the Bill. The Lord Chairman of Committees has recently sent to us all a short
1178
memorandum reviewing the findings of the Committee on the Procedure of your Lordships' House. It is stressed that in the closing stages of a Bill we must concentrate on what is provided in the Bill and not what the Ministers would have liked to see. We should not consider what they hoped it might be, nor what they hope may happen when the amendment to Clause 1, already passed by your Lordships, goes to another place for consideration.
With regard to Clause 1, in Committee your Lordships saw fit to pass an amendment giving licensed premises to which the public have access permission to open on Sundays from 12 noon to 3 p.m. and from 7 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. It gave the clubs an extra hour's opening time in the afternoon. Instead of opening from 12 noon to 2 p.m. they have permission under the Bill to open from 12 noon to 3 p.m. That is a total of six and a half hours.
In the latter part of Clause 1 private registered members' clubs may have permitted hours of opening within certain specified rules. One of the rules is that on Sundays, Christmas Day and Good Friday they may open within hours which fit in with rules set out in the clause. It provides that they open for a total of five and a half hours. However, if the members so decide and register the time with the clerk to the magistrates, the clubs may open from 12 noon to 3 p.m. Therefore, there is no question of permitting an extra hour within that period because they have the option of deciding to do so. However, if one takes three hours from five and a half hours, one is left with two and a half hours in the evening. Therefore, they can open at 7 p.m. as do the public houses. It often happens that the pub next door opens at 7 p.m. and closes at 10.30 p.m. but that the club must close at 9.30 a.m. Alternatively, the club may open at 8 p.m. and close at 10.30 p.m.
I am sure that the Government have not provided for that deliberately. I am sure that they would not wish to condemn the many thousands of members of highly respectable clubs. They would not wish to condemn them as second-class citizens who cannot be trusted with an extra hour provided by the the Bill to public licensed premises.
There is a large variety of clubs. There is the country club which specialises in providing food. There are political clubs; Labour, Liberal and Conservative. On the last occasion I did not declare my interest, but for the past 28 years I have been chairman of an association of some 1,400 Conservative clubs round the country. Ill-spent time has given me a good knowledge of a variety of clubs. I know that the clubs are an association of law-abiding people. Throughout all their rules they have one thing in common. It is that no one under 18 is admitted as a member and therefore there is no question of underage drinking.
Many clubs provide meals. I can give many instances of clubs round the country which have excellent kitchens and dining rooms. For example, I know of a club in North-West Wales which existed for 100 years in the same premises. Last year it purchased a hotel which had ceased to be used as such by its proprietors. It now has excellent kitchens and dining rooms. Bar snacks are served and there is

1179
a range of facilities which are not specified in the earlier part of the clause.
I hope that the noble Earl will not tell me that the extra hour for public licensed premises was granted in order that people may take their midday Sunday meal at greater leisure. The clause does not provide for that. It gives blanket permission to every licensed premises in the country to open for six and a half hours. In respect of clubs there is a special provision in the principal Licensing Act 1964, which is referred to in the Bill. Provision is made there for similarly grouped clubs to have an inter-affiliation card, or a pass card in the case of the members of the club and institute union. That enables the holder to visit, and be treated as a member, any similarly grouped club in any part of the country. It is well patronised.
As regards the association of which I am chairman, I know that each year over 500,000 people use inter-affiliation tickets to visit clubs around the coast during their holiday. They visit clubs nearby in the same county to mix socially with people with like-minded pursuits.
We are now providing that those self-respecting, decent folk are to be denied the extra hour which your Lordships have granted to the public at large. When a club stops supplying drink at 9.30 p.m. the club steward can say, "It is now Conservative Government club-closing time. They believe in equality and freedom and each one of you is free to leave the club to go to the pub next door for further liquid refereshment". That is what will happen and that is what we are being driven to. The whole issue is grossly unfair and most inequitable. I hope that your Lordships will support the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kaberry. For some 22 years I was the secretary of a club in Manchester. Although it carried a political name and was politically active it was owned by each individual member. The noble Lord is correct in saying that under the old licensing law, within the global figure of opening hours, there was a variation in the hours of Sunday opening. Clubs were able to make application dependent on the local licensing magistrate in their area. For instance, my club did not open from 12 noon until 2 p.m. on Sunday, as did most of the other working men's clubs in Manchester; it varied the hours from 12.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. Therefore, there was a certain amount of relaxation and the hours were applied differently.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Kaberry, has said, if extended hours are granted to public houses in a particular area and not to the clubs one could have a situation where, if clubs were closing earlier, there would be an overspill into some of the public houses, and that is not too desirable. Most of the thousands of working men's and political clubs are, in some areas, the social centres for the residents. When people become club-minded they often have little regard for the pubs in the area because often the club is the social centre for them and their families.
In most of the clubs in Leeds—an area which I was privileged to represent and which has a variety of
1180
working men's and political clubs—one finds that clubs give the least trouble. That is because the committees are very strict in dealing with members who are foolish enough to try to misbehave. Under the licensing laws every member of a management committee of a club is liable to prosecution if the rules of that club are broken, there is conflict with the law and a prosecution is launched by the police. The clubs are strictly disciplined. They look after themselves. It is very rare indeed in such clubs for the police to be called to enforce any sort of discipline.
There are clubs where, as with landlords, the licensing laws are contravened, and they have to pay the penalty. However, in the main clubs are part of the fabric of this country as it stands under the licensing laws. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Kaberry, has made his case. I believe it would be grossly unfair and biased if clubs were seen to operate at this slight disadvantage. Therefore, I support the noble Lord.
Lord Monson: My Lords, not only do I warmly support this amendment but I added my name to it, although due to some failure of communication my name does not appear on the Marshalled List. When replying to an identical amendment at Report, the habitual, impeccable logic of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, deserted him for a moment. He argued that there was nothing to prevent clubs opening between the hours of 12 noon and 3 p.m. on a Sunday, as the clause stands. That is perfectly true. However, if they were to do so they would have to close at half-past nine at night on Sundays, as has already been mentioned; namely, one hour before the pubs close. Members and their guests who are not ready for bed at nine-thirty, and most people are not, would inevitably repair to a pub, or even to two or three pubs, so as to be able to continue drinking. I believe it is generally accepted that people who go on pub crawls end up drinking a good deal more than those who remain in the same establishment all evening. Is that what the Government want? Surely not.
If, as one trusts they will, the other place agrees to the extra hour at Sunday lunchtime which your Lordships inserted into the Bill in Committee, it is reasonable to suppose that following the present pattern the other place is likely to want an extra hour for clubs as well so as to maintain the present parity. It is not 100 per cent. certain but I believe it is extremely likely. However, unless your Lordships support this amendment the other place will have no opportunity even to consider the matter. It is possible of course that it may reject it: if that is the case, so be it. However, it is surely right that the other place should at least be given the chance to consider the idea. I hope that if the Government do not agree, the noble Lord, Lord Kaberry, will insist upon this amendment.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, during the passage of this Bill I have on some occasions argued against making further outlets for alcohol and I have been concerned at some points that the greater accessibility was perhaps going too far. However, in this case I feel that the logic of having the same hours for pubs and clubs seems to be absolutely irrefutable.

1181
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Kaberry, who, as we remember, received support from all sides of the House at Report, has made a very strong case. We should prefer to see the more controlled environment of a club used by families on a Sunday than a public house. We know that there are strong safeguards against under-age drinking in the club environment. We also know that meals are served. Therefore, we do not see why families taking their Sunday meal at a club should not have that extra concession that those taking their meal at a public house will have.
One of the points of this Bill is to remove anomalies. In my view, this amendment removes an anomaly which is at present in the Bill. Therefore, that is one of the reasons why the Minister should accept the very strong logic behind the arguments of the noble Lord.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I am bound to say, "Oh dear, oh dear", because this is what happens, if I may say so, when your Lordships decide to tinker around with Sundays. My noble friend Lord Kaberry described this proposal in the Bill as "grossly unfair and inequitable", as did the noble Lord, Lord Dean. What is unfair and inequitable is the fact that your Lordships, with your Lordships' generosity and wisdom, decided to refute the Government's advice and table an amendment about Sundays in Committee. You decided to permit pubs to stay open on Sundays until three o'clock.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is that not what democracy is about, that a group of people who know something about a subject may know more about it than the Government? Are they not entitled to express their contrary opinion? If the Government are right all the time, what is the point in having general elections?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. Your Lordships can take any decision and the Government can only advise your Lordships. I was bold enough to advise your Lordships in Committee that the purpose behind this Bill was to get rid of some anomalies, to make life easier during the week and not to interefere with Sundays. The purpose of that was that we knew we would be in a very difficult position, which is what we are now in because in Committee your Lordships decided to allow pubs to be open for an extra hour at lunchtime on Sundays as a social convenience. Now my noble friend Lord Kaberry comes along and argues that because pubs can now open for six-and-a-half hours, clubs should also be allowed to.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that when we had a similar amendment at Report at that time my impeccable logic left me. I do not know whether my logic was impeccable, but it did not leave me. I shall try to explain to your Lordships why I believe that the logic is as good now as it was then. Of course I understand my noble friend's amendment and he has, as one would expect, expressed the matter very clearly, forthrightly and fairly. However, the fact is that when the Government tried to bring in this Bill, they did not want to interfere with Sundays.
1182
The whole purpose of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls was, as I understood it, as a convenience to enable people to enjoy their social gathering on a Sunday when they would like to take the opportunity of a midday meal. I think that my noble friend Lord Kaberry said that he hoped that we were not going to use that argument. However, that is precisely the argument I use, not because I think that that is the right thing, because I advised your Lordships not to do it, but that is what my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls said; namely, that he wanted people to enjoy their Sunday lunch in the pub until two o'clock.
The fact is that the rules which regulate the licensing hours of pubs are different from those of clubs. Pub licensing hours are fixed and club licensing hours are flexible. Clubs can choose, within limits, when they open. When the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, says that she cannot understand why people in clubs cannot have a drink with their Sunday lunch, of course they can. Clubs can now serve drinks between two and three o'clock.
My noble friend Lord Kaberry said that clubs are self-respecting places full of respectable people who are controlled and decent. I have no doubt that the ones that he frequents are. Whether or not they all are is a matter for your Lordship's opinion. However, when the noble Lord, Lord Monson, says that all the people who go to clubs will leave them as soon as they shut and go on to pubs—and he even said that they would go on to a pub crawl—I hardly feel that that equates with my noble friend's more salubrious description of the clubs which he attends.
Some of your Lordships believe that clubs provide a more controlled drinking environment than do pubs, and that the loss of parity between the hours permitted to them on Sundays will send more people into the pubs, which will be to the detriment of society. I am bound to say that I find that argument somewhat spurious. Clubs have the flexibility to open until 3 p.m. on a Sunday lunchtime if they wish. Presumably, if all their members head for the pubs at 2 p.m. and thereby demonstrate the demand for an additional hour at lunchtime the clubs will so arrange their hours to stay open until 3 p.m. If that happens they will lose an hour's drinking time in the evening.
What my noble friend's amendment really seeks to do is to permit clubs to have an extra hour's drinking in the evening. That is making a very different inroad into the Bill. The argument that without an extra hour club members will move to a pub, if that is the only place where they can drink, is not a very strong one, if I may say so. Of course, it can happen now because there is nothing to prevent a club from serving drinks from 5 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. if that is what members want. For example, bars at golf clubs may well want to open for drink earlier than 7 p.m. in order to cater for members leaving the greens. They are entitled to do that. However, if they do so those members who wish to continue to drink in the evening must move, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has described so graphically to us, from pub to pub and have a very good pub crawl until 10.30 p.m. That is what they will be obliged to do.
The simple fact is that clubs now enjoy a greater degree of flexibility to choose their Sunday hours

1183
than do licensed premises. If they wish to serve drinks until 3 p.m., they can do so under the present arrangements. Conversely, pubs cannot and that was the purpose of the amendment which was accepted by your Lordships at Committee stage. A number of your Lordships spoke against a similar amendment to that of my noble friend Lord Kaberry at Report stage. They saw it as another attempt to chip away at the character of Sunday. I am bound to say that I have a sneaking sympathy because the whole philosophy behind this Bill is that it should not interfere with Sundays.
Your Lordships decided—but perhaps I may remind the House that the decision was against the advice of the Government—to allow pubs to stay open for an extra hour for social purposes in the middle of the day. That is at a time at which clubs can also be open if they wish. I do not believe that it is reasonable for my noble friend Lord Kaberry, even in the excellent and persuasive manner in which he did so, to propose that clubs should be open and be permitted to open for an extra hour in the evening. That was the reason why we did not want to interfere with Sundays. It throws up a whole range of anomalies some of which have already appeared this evening.
6 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I wish him to be factually correct. He said quite clearly that clubs can now open until 3 p.m. on a Sunday. Am I not right in saying that that is only with the permission of the local licensing magistrates? Very often, in more cases than not, the magistrates do not grant such a licence. The overwhelming number of working men's clubs in this country open from 12 noon to 2 p.m. I said that the club of which I was the secretary for a great number of years had a variation from 12.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. but it was the only working club in Manchester that had such a concession. Can the Minister confirm that permission has to be granted by the local magistrates when the club is reregistered which, I believe, is now after every three years?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, is not entirely correct. The clubs do not need permission provided there is a gap of two hours. I see that the noble Lord shakes his head; but I believe I am correct in saying that.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I challenge the information which the Minister has because I had the job of reregistering the club. When the licensing laws of 1964 were invoked the local magistrates could give a licence for 12 months, three years or five years and that depended upon their judgment. Together with other club secretaries, I had the job of going down to register the club. I am perfectly convinced that I am right, unless the law has been altered meanwhile and no one has taken much notice.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think we are now totally out of order. Perhaps I may have the permission of your Lordships to speak yet again, but if your Lordships would prefer me not to do so I shall resume
1184
my seat quite happily. As I understand the position, subject to the requirement that clubs must not start serving alcohol before 12 noon, that they must take a break between 3 p.m. and 5 p.m. and may not serve alcohol for more than three-and-a-half hours after 5 p.m., registered clubs are free to set their own hours.
Lord Kaberry of Add: My Lords, perhaps I may take the noble Earl to a more convenient place adjoining this Chamber and explain to him the advantages of being a member of a Conservative club. At the same time, I shall tell him how angry the members are at the moment that this clause seeks to make them second-class citizens. There are no half measures about it because that is what the Government are doing.
The noble Earl said that the purpose of this Bill is to remove anomalies. He has just made one! Clause 1 is absolutely anomalous. The population is divided into two. People who frequent public houses to buy liquor in permitted hours are treated in one way; they are given six-and-a-half hours on Sunday. There is no dodging the issue because it is there in print. It is not what the noble Earl wishes to do or perhaps what may happen; that is what the Bill states. Equally, licensed clubs may only open for five-and-a-half hours despite the nonsensical idea that if they wish they can opt to open from 12 noon to 3 p.m. Equally, they can opt to open for three-and-a-half hours in the evening. However, three-and-a-half plus three, according to my arithmetic, does not make five-and-a-half. I am seeking to help the noble Earl. My amendment proposes six-and-a-half hours for clubs. I shall be very happy to take the opinion of the House.
6.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 49; Not-Contents, 65.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Kilmarnock, L.

Airedale, L.

Lawrence, L.

Attlee, E.

Lindsay, E.

Auckland, L.

Listowel, E.

Aylestone, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bauer, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mais, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Manton, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mayhew, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Monson, L.

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Morris, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mulley, L.

Erroll, E.

Nicol, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Falkland, V.

Pender, L.

Gallacher, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L

Harlech, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Hayter, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jeger, B.

Ullswater, V.

John-Mackie, L.

Underhill, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L. [Teller.]

Winterbottom, L.

Kennet, L.

1185

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Kitchener, E.

Annandale and Hartfell, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Arran, E.

Long. V. [Teller.]

Balfour, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Luke, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Belstead, L.

Marley, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Brentford, V.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Caithness, E.

Mottistone, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Munster, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Nelson, E.

Carnock, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Chelwood, L.

Orkney, E.

Coleraine, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Colwyn, L.

Perth, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Reigate, L.

Deedes, L.

Renwick, L.

Dundee, E.

St. Davids, V.

Elton, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Selkirk, E.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal L.

Haddington, E.

Halsbury, E.

Teviot, L.

Harvington, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trafford, L.

Hives, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hooper, B.

Ward of Witley, V.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Whitelaw, V

Ingleby, V.

Wise, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.15 p.m.
Clause 10 [Disqualified premises—garages]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 8, fine 40, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(4)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps I may speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9. At Report stage your Lordships decided to add, against government advice, a new clause prohibiting garages from receiving a justices' licence. These amendments to the new clause are intended only to ensure that the new clause fits logically within the structure of the Licensing Act 1964 and to clarify certain terms. The amendments do not affect the substance of the clause. Nor does the fact that we see a need to propose amendments mean that the Government have been persuaded of the merits of the clause. That is a separate matter which we wish to consider further.
The main effect of these amendments is to replace "sited within a location" and "primary purpose" with a reference to "premises or parts of premises primarily used as a garage". The term "sited within a location" is imprecise. It does not convey an accurate notion of boundary and could be construed as extending, for example, to an adjacent pub or off-licence that happened to be on a trading estate which might be regarded as a location. Equally, we felt that the words "primary purpose" were not adequately descriptive. I hope that my noble friend Lord Brentford will agree that our amendments convey his intended meaning with more precision. We have also added a definition of "use as a garage" which is couched in very similar terms to the wording of Clause 10.
Even as amended, there is still doubt about the precise interpretation of the new clause. The clause does not specify how the primary use of premises combining a shop and garage is to be determined. What constitutes primary use? Is it the size of the turnover of the petrol and motor side as opposed to what is sold in the shop? Is it the amount of space that is occupied? Is it the number of customers who buy petrol as opposed to the number who buy other things? Is it the number of transactions for the sale of petrol as opposed to the number of other transactions for the sale of other goods?
We have taken the view that if the new clause should become law it will be for local justices to decide what test to apply and how to apply it. It will also be for the local justices to determine what precisely constitutes the premises in any given case. Is it the total area of the garage, including the forecourt, repair workshop, sales room and shop? Or is it solely the building?
Where there could be a problem of interpretation is in the case of existing licensed garages. For some, it will not be immediately obvious whether the premises will become disqualified from holding a licence or whether they can lawfully continue as before. Much will depend on how they see their primary use, and some will need to take advice and to seek the views of the courts. Nevertheless, I think that as a result of our amendments the wording of Clause 10 is as precise as we can hope for.
The amendments tabled to Schedules 3 and 4 to the Bill are purely technical drafting points and are consequential on the amendments to Clause 10.
We have proposed these amendments in order to clarify the intention behind the clause which your Lordships chose to insert at Report stage. I am bound to make clear that the Government reserve their position as to whether the principle behind my noble friend's new clause is a suitable addition to the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 3 to 6:
Page 8, line 41, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections").
Page 8, line 42, leave out ("(3A)") and insert ("(4A)").
Page 8, line 42, leave out ("from") and insert ("for").
Page 8, line 43, leave out from ("are") to end of line 45 and insert ("primarily used as a garage or form part of premises which are primarily so used.
(4B) In subsection (4A) of this section, the reference to use as a garage is a reference to use for any one or more of the following purposes, namely, the retailing of petrol or derv or the sale or maintenance of motor vehicles.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, these amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I should like to put in a word at this stage to express my support for my noble friend's amendments. I have some general comments to make on the points he raised, although I am most grateful to him for the clarification which he has inserted in the amendments. However, as regards his diffidence, I should like to point out that the justices will still retain their discretion if it falls within the law. Should there be any doubt in their minds it seems to me that they would have no problem in refusing a licence.

1187
Since previous discussions on the matter, I have given some thought to the position with regard to garages that are already licensed and will cease to be licensed as a result of the amendment—assuming that it becomes law. I think it is perhaps an outstanding question.
There is one further point that I should like to ask my noble friend to bear in mind for the future. It concerns the issue which would arise if the bar on retailing were enacted. In order to avoid anomalies—something which the Government are quite rightly keen on—should there not be a bar on the wholesaling of alcohol in garages? Naturally that point is not one which should be covered at this time, but I wish to put it into my noble friend's computer mind so that he may consider it before the next opportunity arises to discuss the matter. As I have already said, I support the amendments in general.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 7:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Intoxicating liquor.
. In section 201(1) of the principal Act, in the definition of "intoxicating liquor", in paragraph (a), the words "of an original gravity not exceeding 1016° and" shall be omitted.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is of a technical nature. On the last occasion when the Bill was before your Lordships, on 31st March, I took the opportunity to explain at some length what lay behind the amendment and therefore I do not propose to repeat those arguments. However, I think it is sufficient to remind the House that we are discussing the manufacture and sale of low-alcohol and alcohol-free beers. Under existing legislation those products have to pass two tests under Section 201 of the 1964 Act. They have to undergo the test of gravity, called "original gravity", as well as that of alcoholic content. The origin of the "original gravity" criteria was in the late 19th century and arose as a result of excise laws. However, retail excise licences were abolished in the Finance Act 1967, so there is no relevance today to that part of the twofold criteria of "original gravity". Therefore we are left with the alcoholic content, which is measured by volume.
When I made the latter point at an earlier stage my noble friend Lord Arran, while conceding the points that I had made, said:
"It is important, for the sake of consistency and clarity, that the definitions stay in tandem".—[Official Report, 15/3/88; col. 1106.]
Of course that statement might be all right if the two definitions had relevance and indeed were in tandem; however, they are not relevant and not in tandem. The only true test is alcoholic content by volume.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, in her supporting contribution on 31st March of this year reminded us that the Budget provisions—the recent Budget—by virtue of the change in duty on beers actively encourage the drinking of non-alcoholic drinks. She said that the provisions were designed to encourage the production and wider sale of low-alcohol and non-alcoholic beers; that is, those beers with less than 1·2 per cent. of alcohol by volume.
1188
Previous to the Budget there were two levels but now it is to be evened out and such assistance to the industry is to be welcomed.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, reminded us of what the Masham report said and I am glad to see that the noble Baroness is in her place this evening. Broadly speaking the report—although I take it perhaps a little out of context—called for the industry to use its expertise to provide a wider range of low-alcohol and non-alcoholic beers for the community and to monitor the effects thereof.
On that occasion my noble friend Lord Arran accepted the logic of my argument but said:
"It seems to us that there is considerable danger that, by encouraging children to drink these products, we shall be developing their taste for beer and wine at an all too early stage in their lives".—[Official Report, 31/3/88; col. 902.]
I do not support his contention. The amendment that I have moved on two previous occasions has received wide support from many noble Lords in this House. It has also received the support of the manufacturing industry, the retail industry and was mentioned in some sections of the Masham report. Furthermore, by virtue of the Budget, it even has support in governmental areas.
Finally I suggest to your Lordships that this will be the last opportunity, probably for 20 years, that we shall have to reform the Licensing Act. The last such reform was in 1964 when there was a tinkering with the legislation. My suggestion is that your Lordships should sweep away this anachronistic legislation which is quite irrelevant to today's technology; we should remove the restrictions that inhibit investment in manufacturing industry and inhibit the wider production and availability of low-alcohol and alcohol-free beers. We should also encourage young drivers, and indeed other drinkers generally, to turn to low-alcoholic drinks. We must show enterprise and leadership to the industry in a positive and responsible way, which is in keeping with the spirit of the Bill.
I finish by saying that the spirit of the Bill was described by my noble friend the Minister on 18th February when he said:
"Three considerations lie behind the Bill. The first is that the habits, conventions and customs of society change with time, and it is only right and proper that Parliament should periodically up-date statutes in order to conform".
That is the first consideration. He then said:
"The second consideration, though, is the recognition that the misuse of alcohol is a serious problem with long-term consequences for individuals and societies".
Later my noble friend said:
"The third consideration that we have in mind is that we believe that people should have freedom of choice, unless there are over-riding reasons to prevent it for the benefit of society at large".—[Official Report, 18/2/88; cols. 797–798.]
I suggest that the amendment meets all three of those considerations with no disadvantages whatsoever. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I again support the noble Lord and his amendment. I agree with him that the Minister's reply on Report was baffling and difficult to understand. If he is going to refuse to accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord I

1189
hope that his answer will be more understandable. Surely anything which might help to steer the public away from high alcoholic drinks towards low alcoholic drinks must be right, encouraged and welcomed in every way.
I should be interested to hear the Minister's arguments if he is going to oppose the amendment, because many of the arguments put foward on Report were unacceptable to many noble Lords.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I too support my noble friend Lord Lucas. Unfortunately, I was away when the Report stage was debated at the end of March. RoSPA also supports the amendment because it will help to promote alcohol-free drinks. As my noble friend quoted what my noble friend Lord Arran said at col. 902 of Hansard I shall not repeat it. If the case rests as it was in March, the Government will be going against the recommendation contained in paragraph 73 of the national report, which states:
"We recommend that the alcoholic and soft drinks industries should make a concerted effort to promote these drinks as an attractive alternative to alcohol".
Paragraph 84 was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, on 31st March (col. 900). Furthermore, if the amendment were not accepted it would undermine the excellent work done by the youth services, which help with health and education and the prevention of an intervention in alcohol abuse, as set out in paragraph 109 of the report. It would also undermine the work of the alcohol-free bars, as set out in paragraph 82. For all those reasons, I support the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I hope that the Minister has had time to reflect. If he accepts, as I do, the motivation of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, but cannot accept it for technical, constitutional or legislative reasons, that will be sad. I have listened to all the arguments put forward on this matter. I have had the benefit of reading the excellent report of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. The amendment seeks to take account of the current social situation and to ensure that a wider and more acceptable range of drinks is available, which would be less alcoholic than if the amendment were refused.
The amendment will encourage people to put their money where their mouths are. They will have to take a risk and perhaps lose money. I and many noble Lords want to encourage a vibrant social life, but we are conscious of the terrible price sometimes paid by those who recklessly or fecklessly drink too much. The amendment tries to do something of which the whole House would approve. This is the last opportunity for the Minister to be helpful.
On the previous occasion when the amendment was opposed, it smacked of the feeling that it was opposed merely for the sake of opposition. There is no logic in opposing it. I do not think that it is right or just to do so. Someone somewhere is digging in his toes. I do not know whether it is the Minister or someone else who is saying: "We are not going to have it". Words are then produced on a sheet of paper that can be used to support the argument.
1190
The logic of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the general situation mean that the amendment is right. At the last stage the noble Earl, Lord Arran, I think soberly and fairly, said that the proposal would encourage children to acquire a taste for alcohol at a younger age than they otherwise would. That was not a good argument. They would have a substitute for the more heavily alcoholic beverages. The Minister and his advisers may be cautious to the extent of saying that they are not prepared to contemplate a proposal which might go wrong. But the Minister would have had the benefit of the views not only of Members of your Lordships' House but of those organisations which, with great respect to him and his advisers, have spent a great deal of time, and some money, anguishing over these matters.
At this stage of the Bill the logic is to accept the amendment with whatever recommendations the Minister has. There is another stage to come. If the amendment is accepted, it will go to another place. There may be other arguments. The Government may decide to have their way in another place. On the basis on what we have heard at all stages and in all speeches on the amendment I feel that the amendment is sound; it will be of social benefit to the country and to the Government's credit.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I too should like to support the amendment because attitudes in the country are now happily changing. It is a proposal which at some stage of the Bill most noble Lords have said that they wish to see. It is especially important for young people. Unfortunately, I was unable to be here at the Report stage, but I read it carefully in Hansard. I found it curious that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, gave as reasons for opposing the amendment that it was undesirable to give young people a taste for beers at an early stage.
The move to low-alcohol beers is an important social change in our drinking habits. Everything should be done to encourage that change. The market is now growing, but there is uncertainty in the minds of those who manufacture and sell the drinks because of the anomaly which was so lucidly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Everyone accepts that the provision in the original Act is an anachronism.
I agree entirely with the noble Lord who put forward this amendment. For the life of me I can see no reason why the Government cannot accept it, except for the reason given at Report stage by the noble Earl. I disagree with that because I think there is a misconception about attitudes. Surely it is preferable that a young person, even though he has a taste for beer, learns that it is better to drink beer and feel reasonable after it than that he should illegally drink beer which is stronger, become intoxicated and get an early taste for that. I think it has already been proved that that is so in our society. I strongly support the amendment on that basis alone.
Lord Monson: My Lords, once again there seemed to be a certain uncharacteristic lack of logic on the part of the Government at the Report stage of a Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has suggested. My noble friend Lady Masham and her committee want to wean people on to lower strength

1191
beers. By and large the House agrees, and so, one understands, do the Government. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would help this process. Yet the Government are, or at any rate were, resisting it.
As I understood it at Report stage, the Government were happy for young people to develop a taste for beer or near-beer with a relatively dry taste, but for some reason they were opposed to their developing a taste for beer or near-beer with a sweet taste, unless the sweetener were artificially added afterwards. I am bound to say that the logic of this totally escapes me, and I dare say it escapes most noble Lords as well. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will press his amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilion: My Lords, I too would like to support the amendment. There is nothing wrong with drinking; the danger is the alcohol, which is a very dangerous drug. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is trying to help promote non-alcoholic beers. The Government really want to be responsible but they are allowing pubs to open longer. Therefore, there will be more drinking because people will not stand there without a glass in their hands. If people can go on to a non-alcoholic beer and still enjoy it, surely that must be encouraged. I cannot see that the Government could think otherwise.
In addition, in the past few years many people have lost their licences. This has really made them take note and I think they are being more careful. They would prefer to drink a non-alcoholic beer than a glass of orange juice. Therefore, I cannot see why the Government will not accept this amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Masham does not know as yet that the Government will not accept this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, said that he could not understand the logic behind it. He said that all that Government Ministers do is stand up and read out from a piece of paper. I shall endeavour to refrain from doing that and probably get myself into more trouble by doing so.
However, there is a curious argument that runs here. Many noble Lords—and I can think of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Masham—throughout the whole of the Bill have been saying how terrible it is for young people to be encouraged to drink alcohol, and that there should be less alcohol for young people. What we want to do, they say, is encourage less alcohol drinking in young people. Yet nevertheless they come along and support an amendment which allows beer-like substances, even though they may not contain alcohol, to be sold to children.
I accept that there is a very distinct difference of view here. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said that low-alcohol beers should be encouraged. He is quite right in saying that they should be encouraged in opposition to high-alcohol beers. I think what the noble Viscount has in mind is that when people go to pubs they should be encouraged to drink low-alcohol
1192
beers instead of high-alcohol or full-alcohol beers, and that is totally acceptable. However, with a beer-like substance, the noble Viscount would be the first to consider that a beer which does not taste as if it is beer does not satisfy people. Therefore, the beer must taste like beer, even if it has no alcohol in it.
That substance without the alcohol in it but which nevertheless tastes like beer will, under this amendment be sold to children along with milk, coca-cola and lemon juice. Is that really what my noble friend Lady Masham wants? She is one of the people who are more concerned than most to see that young people do not get the taste for beer. Yet here she is encouraging young people to drink beer-like substances and to get the taste for it. Then when the children grow older, they will have the flavour of beer and they will go on to alcohol.
A noble Lord: My Lords, no.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Viscount says, no; I think he emitted the word "No". Perhaps I may be permitted to depart for a moment from the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, which was not to read from a piece of paper. I shall read from a piece of paper. It is not my brief but a piece from the Daily Mail of 10th April, only a few days ago. Some research was done at Reading University and the increased awareness of alcohol among the nation's 7 and 8 year-olds has been revealed in it. It says:
"Children not only frequently referred to outings to the pub at the weekends or evenings but included drunkenness in their adventure stories. A surprising number say they would go and get drunk in an ideal world where they could do as they liked … Teachers at the annual conference of the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers last week said that going to the pub, or waiting in the car outside, was a common occupation for young children".
That is the reason we believe that it would be wrong to accept the noble Lord's amendment, because it would enable the beer-like substances to be sold freely to young people.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps he would agree that at the present moment bottled shandy, which has an underlying beer flavour, can be sold to children of any age whatsoever, even those 2 or 3 years old, if they so wish.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may correct an impression which he or I may have given but which I hope Hansard will reveal as different. What I meant to say was that it seemed to me that someone somewhere, either a Minister or a civil servant, had said, "We oppose this". Thereafter, having agreed in principle to oppose it, what happened was that arguments were produced to support the opposition rather than arguments causing one to come to the conclusion that it was a wrong principle. However, the last thing I would accuse the Minister of is either being a cypher or merely a second reader of a brief.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, I should be most grateful if he would allow me to correct something. I did not utter

1193
the word "No". If I had uttered anything, I should have said "Not necessarily". I accept that it is possible that a percentage of young people, having drunk non-alcohol or low-alcohol beers, may well go on to the stronger stuff and suffer as a result. I suggest that it is likely that a significant proportion of those young people will have a more gentle run-in, if I may put it that way, to the activity of drinking and will enjoy the taste more than the immediate alcoholic effect of the drink.
That is what now happens to a lot of young people well under the legal age who immediately become intoxicated and suffer, not only in terms of their health but in terms of the trouble into which they get as a result. I think that on balance I would go for letting them acquire the taste from the non-alcoholic or low-alcoholic beers in the likelihood that that would lead to more civilised drinking than when they were able to drink the higher-powered beer.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, as the noble Earl talked about me—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt. I fear we may be getting out of order because most noble Lords have spoken once, and some have spoken twice. I nearly made the same mistake too. I do not wish to shut the noble Baroness up. That is the last thing one could possibly want, with any form of courtesy. I merely point out to the noble Baroness the danger. She could of course always say, "Before the noble Earl sat down", since I sat down about five minutes ago!
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down again, and with the permission of the House, I wish to say that I should not like to give the impression that I would want non-alcoholic beer sold with milk. That is wrong. I should like it sold in pubs and in places where people will be drinking beer. I want to encourage them to drink non-alcoholic beer rather than alcoholic beer, which is the dangerous beer.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrers for his response. I am more grateful however to all those noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment.
I say to my noble friend Lord Ferrers that I also have a copy of the publication to which he referred. It was not the Daily Mail but the Mail On Sunday. A young child in school asked about a wide variety of things might say, for example, that he wants to be a soldier and fight the enemy—whoever the current enemy may be. Should we therefore prohibit the sale of lead soldiers, tin tanks and the like in our shops? Children follow the example of grown-ups who have found the pub to be an attractive recreation area. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Ferrers said at col. 797 of the Official Report on Second Reading:
"Pubs are a great British tradition. They are not merely places to drink. They are meeting places for friends. They are debating chambers for rich and poor alike. They are social centres for small communities and they are refuges for weary travellers and tourists who seek refreshment".
Of course children have in their minds the outing that the family takes to the pub. They will write about this
1194
and see enjoyment and a certain grown-upness in expressing views.
The response of my noble friend Lord Ferrers has been solely—as indeed was his noble friend's response on 18th February—to do with young people. We are trying in this amendment to encourage manufacturers to provide more low-alcohol beverages. We are trying to encourage retailers to stock them and sell them for the young, for the old, for the infirm and for drivers to help change the pattern of drinking.
I do not believe that the Government have given a sensible enough answer to enable me to withdraw the amendment. I should like your Lordships to decide whose opinion they prefer.
6.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 47.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Listowel, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Longford, E.

Brentford, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L. [Teller.]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Colwyn, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Erroll, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mayhew, L.

Falkland, V.

Monson, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Morris, L.

Mottistone, L.

Halsbury, E.

Mulley, L.

Harlech, L.

Munster, E.

Hayter, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hooson, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Swinton, E.

Jeger, B.

Tordoff, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Underhill, L.

Kennet, L.

Wise, L.

Lawrence, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Kitchener, E.

Balfour, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Bauer, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Long. V. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Luke, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Caithness, E.

Merrivale, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Carnock, L.

Orkney, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Pender, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Davidson, V.

Renton, L.

Deedes, L.

St. Davids, V.

Dundee, E. [Teller.]

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Haddington, E.

Sudeley, L.

Hesketh, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hives, L.

Trafford, L.

Hooper, B.

Trumpington, B.

Joseph, L.

Ullswater, V.

Kenilworth, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.1 p.m.
Schedule 3 [Minor Amendments of the Principal Act]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 18, line 9, at end insert—
("1 A. In section 9(5) (saving for disqualification under other enactments of premises for receiving a justices' licence), the words "of subsections (2) and (3)" shall be omitted.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Repeals]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 21, line 14, at end insert—
("In section 9(5), the words "of subsections (2) and (3)".")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment, which has been spoken to already.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. I would only say that this is a fairly small Bill but we think it is a fairly important one and it sets out to tidy up one or two items in our law which we felt were now in need of modernisation. We have had a number of interesting speeches and a well-informed debate, particularly earlier about the problems of alcohol-related abuse—though I must say that the subject took a curious twist in connection with the last amendment we debated.
I am grateful to your Lordships for the part you have played in the progress of this Bill; and, if I may say so, for the highly informed and constructive contributions which have been made on the whole subject of alcohol and alcohol abuse. I hope that this Bill will be a useful addition to our law, and I think the best thing I can say, in moving that the Bill do now pass, as it is the end of this particular Bill in this particular House, to those of your Lordships who have taken part is, "Come and have a drink". Also, in view of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, perhaps I should add "strictly non-alcoholic".
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I would certainly not wish to prolong the debate, especially after the very kind invitation just made by the noble Earl; but perhaps I may say that this is an important Bill and I think its provisions were needed and will make a great deal of difference over coming into line with the habits, conventions and customs of society, which is one of the objectives mentioned by the noble Earl at the beginning.
With a further extension in the number of hours when pubs are open, this will mean that their owners will be able to invest more in making them agreeable places to visit rather than the "hard-drinking" places that they have so often been in the past. Therefore tourism will be increased and civilised drinking will also increase; and that is all to the good.
I am also happy that this Bill has given many of us the opportunity to put forward the more serious and sombre side of drinking and to present to the House
1196
the really very worrying increase in drinking by young people. In particular, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, spoke of this disturbing trend, and it is for that reason that some of us are still worried that the Bill does not provide adequate safeguards against alcohol abuse by young people. In spite of changes that are made, it will still be all too easy for licensees to serve drinks to under-age customers without themselves going in too great a fear of prosecution. After all, we know that at present half the 15 year-olds who drink obtain their drink from pubs, and the gravity of this situation worries us. For this reason I very much hope that the Government will monitor under-age drinking after the Bill has become law, to see whether improvements occur with the new provisions. I hope that, if that is not the case, they will seriously tackle the problem—a dangerous and disturbing problem—of under-age drinking.
Finally, we hope that the Government will accept our amendment prohibiting the sale of alcohol at garages when the Bill returns to the Commons. We feel the necessity for this to be done is strengthened by the publication this week of the North report, which takes a very strong line against drink-driving offences. Indeed it has recommended a number of very stiff penalties to try to deter people from the irresponsible and wicked tendency to drive when impaired by drink. I hope there will be a great deal of monitoring after the enactment of this Bill because, in spite of its civilising side, one must face the danger that it will increase alcohol abuse and therefore it must be carefully reviewed and monitored in the future.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I should like to add my particular thanks to the Minister for the customary courtesy and good humour with which he has conducted his side of the business. I should like also to say that I am very encouraged—I think other noble Lords will probably share my view—because although the Government have fought against some of the amendments with customary vigour, I sense a very encouraging wish on the part of the Government seriously to tackle the social problem of drinking in this country.
Attitudes are changing and, certainly over the past 12 months with the Wakeham Committee and the careful consideration of our amendments during the course of this Bill, we are moving into a happier era of understanding of the dangers of alcohol. It is to be hoped that that will be reflected in lower crime figures and much less damage to the health of people, both young and old. I should like just to confirm my appreciation of the way in which the Bill has been handled.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, perhaps I may say a very quick word and thank all noble Lords who were very complimentary about the report on young people and alcohol. I should like also to say that shortly in your Lordships' House we shall be having an education Bill. I hope that something can be inserted into the Bill to encourage health education because with the longer opening hours, the increasing violence in our society, the problem of parents having difficulty in controlling their children and also the schools having difficulty in controlling

1197
young people, there needs to be strong education to balance the problems of extra drinking with longer hours.
Therefore I hope that the Government will take a responsible view on this. I know they have many lobbies, and the drink lobby is a very strong one; but I can assure your Lordships that there is debate up and down the country in every county over the problems of alcohol abuse and young people. That will not go away, and I hope the Government will take it seriously.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate- Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (Inspections) (Privileges and Immunities) Order 1988
7.9 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur Lord Glenarthur rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th March be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order is made under Section 1(2) of the Arms Control and Disarmament (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1988, which received its Royal Assent on 9th February. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has considered the order and has made no comment, other than to draw the attention of Parliament to the Explanatory Note prepared for the committee by my department.
As your Lordships will recall, the Arms Control and Disarmament (Privileges and Immunities) Act is principally concerned with the granting of diplomatic privileges and immunities to observers and inspectors carrying out functions in the United Kingdom under the terms of the Stockholm Agreement. But it also provides for the extension, by means of an Order in Council, of such privileges and immunities to inspection personnel involved in other future arms control agreements. The Government made clear at the time that the INF treaty was one such agreement for which recourse to this provision of the Act was envisaged.
The aim of the order is to enable the British Government to fulfil the particular obligations which we have undertaken in respect of the verification of the INF treaty. The nature of these obligations, and the reason why they take the form they do, has been the subject of previous debates in your Lordships' House, and I shall not rehearse the background again this evening.
Needless to say the privileges and immunities to be conferred on Soviet inspectors and aircrew for the protection of their official functions when conducting INF inspections will cover only activities carried out in the United Kingdom. This is for the period from their arrival at the point of entry until their departure from the UK. The Order in Council also confers certain privileges and immunities on the equipment and aircraft used by the INF inspectors and aircrew. Naturally these privileges and immunities are no more extensive than those required under the Basing
1198
Country Agreement. They correspond directly to the privileges and immunities annex to the Basing Country Agreement, which in turn reproduces verbatim the relevant parts of the protocol between the USA and the Soviet Union. Nor do the privileges and immunities exceed those conferred by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
The United States Senate will vote on the ratification of the INF treaty within the next few weeks. It seems likely that the vote will be overwhelmingly in favour. We expect the United States and Soviet instruments of ratification to be exchanged during President Reagan's visit to Moscow from 29th May to 2nd June. The treaty will enter into force immediately thereafter. It is essential that the United Kingdom is able to fulfil its obligations in respect of the treaty as soon as it enters into force. This draft Order in Council will enable us to do so. I commend it to your Lordships, and beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th March be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Glenarthur.)
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, as the Minister has said, the order arises from the Arms Control and Disarmament (Privileges and Immunities) Act which we dealt with earlier this year. It is related to the INF treaty. It is a necessary and inevitable consequence, as without verification we would not have had the treaty. The order provides the nuts and bolts for that verification, and we therefore support it.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, the Minister's statement was understandably low key. The content is extremely encouraging. A remarkable advance in East-West relations is reflected in what he said. My noble friends and I are worried about the possibility of circumventing the INF treaty under the guise of modernisation. We have made that point before. But we find the Order in Council a very cheering matter, particularly for elderly people who remember the state of East-West relations many years ago.
The task of verifying the INF treaty is a comparatively easy one. One is verifying the absence of weapons. Indeed, the inspections to which the order refers will be a formality. Once the United States has declared that it has removed its missiles in accordance with the treaty, it would be extremely suprising if the Soviet inspection team were to discover a missile that had been left behind. That would be a source of considerable amazement to all concerned. Indeed, the inspection will be somewhat farcical—an enjoyable ceremony. However, we welcome it.
We are on the nursery slopes as far as verification is concerned. When we compare the difficulties of verifying the hoped for treaty on strategic weapons, we see that the problem is of an altogether different dimension. There is the matter of verifying how many strategic missiles should be allowed. There is the difficulty of agreeing the method of checking that number, of agreeing the number of warheads on each strategic missile and of checking that number.
I read with amazement—perhaps the Minister can confirm it—that agreement has been reached

1199
between the superpowers on those points. That is to say, they have actually reached agreement on establishing how many strategic missiles each side now has; on confirming, partly by on-site inspection, that the requisite number are being eliminated; on the continuous on-site monitoring of production facilities; and on short-notice inspections where cheating is suspected. All those matters are in a different dimension of difficulty when we come to the verification of a strategic arms agreement. It is a remarkable step forward if it is true, as reported, that the superpowers have reached agreement on those matters.
In the meantime, as regards the much easier and simpler verification proposals embodied in the treaty and to be validated by the Order in Council, my noble friends and I give the warmest support.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I agree with everything that has been said in approval of the order and of the treaty which it is designed to support. But it would be wrong of me to fail to mention once again the difficulty that I see in the future for this Government or another government in provision for national inspection only with no provision for British or alliance inspection.
The verification of the treaty is to be carried out on a national basis by the United States and the Soviet Union alone. We remember that the Government rightly maintain an independent nuclear strategic deterrent against a certain Soviet armoury. That armoury is changed by the treaty. The removal of SS.20s will reduce the size of the Soviet nuclear armoury in deterrence of which we maintain the Trident force and so on. It is therefore in our supreme national interest to know whether or not the SS.20s are being removed and destroyed in accordance with the treaty.
The same argument which has caused us to have an independent nuclear deterrent for the last 40 years now requires us to have independent verification possibilities of the reduction of the Soviet armoury. The Government have ignored that and they propose to leave the matter in the hands of the United States alone. We shall have to be content with what it choses to tell us. To say that is not to say that I think it is likely that the United States will lie to us. But sovereignty is at stake and the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and of other nations is infringed by the treaty.
I think that it is certain that in the long run the Government will have to face up to that problem. As my noble friend Lord Mayhew rightly pointed out, we are on the nursery slopes. We hope that treaty after treaty will come forward. Each will have its own verification machinery. If we allow bilateral national verification by the superpowers to go unquestioned in the present treaty, we shall make it that much harder to achieve alliance verification or even separate British verification in treaties further down the line where it may be more important.
This is the third time that I have made the point to the House and I shall be brief. On the last two occasions the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, took me to task for saying something which would make
1200
ratification in the American Senate less likely. This time, since I am speaking after him, he did not say it, but perhaps I may answer the argument by saying that I do not believe that the action which the Government ought to take should be taken in the next few weeks. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, told us that there are only a few weeks to the ratification debate. Action ought to be taken some time in the next year or two, preferably before the 50 per cent. strategic reductions come to occupy the centre of the stage. It is something which has to be faced. In saying that I do not intend to make ratification harder in Washington, nor do I believe that I am doing so.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and especially to the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, for his unqualified welcome of this order. As regards the other points, essentially they go rather wider than the very narrow issue with which the order is concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, is right. The INF agreement is a good agreement. It is a triumph for alliance solidarity and the strategy of negotiating from strength. One is bound to wonder whether we would be in such an encouraging position had one or two other ideas prevailed.
So far as START is concerned—and I hesitate to get involved too deeply in that question this evening—all I can say in reply to the noble Lord on what is, after all, a different issue and a complex one is that I confirm that we understand that the United States and the Soviet Union have reached agreement on warhead counting rules for strategic ballistic missiles. There are, however, many other problems still to be resolved. It is important that those problems and the question of verification be resolved if we are to see satisfactory progress.
I should like to make perfectly plain that there is no question of NATO circumventing the United States' obligations under the INF treaty. I do not believe that the noble Lord really thought that would be the case, although he indicates he thinks it is possible. I qualify that remark by saying that the treaty was intended by both the Soviet Union and the United States to bite on ground-based missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometres only and both NATO and the Warsaw Pact have the right to adjust or modernise other systems. I do not think that the noble Lord is right in making his suggestion.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has raised this particular point before, I simply say that the INF treaty is a bilateral treaty. I have given him this answer on more than one occasion, but once more will not do any harm. This treaty is a bilateral one between the United States and the Soviet Union. The missiles with which it deals belong to those states and to them alone. It would be wholly inappropriate for other states to be involved in the inspection and verification procedures. It would add nothing to our benefit and it would unnecessarily complicate the arrangements if inspectors from seven basing countries—East and West—were to join the inspections. Of course we are involved, and rightly so, in the arrangements for inspections in the United Kingdom.

1201
I believe that that answers the main points that have been raised. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I cannot let the Aunt Sally pass unanswered. I have not asked for seven basing country inspectors to go into the Soviet Union to inspect. I have been asking throughout for a NATO inspection, which could be done by one person designated by NATO for the alliance alongside the American person.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock.

  REFUGEES: EUROPEAN POLICY CONSULTATION
  REFUGEES: EUROPEAN POLICY CONSULTATION
  CHARITY LAW: REFORM PROPOSALS
  CHARITY LAW: REFORM PROPOSALS