Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 10: debated on Thursday 22 October 1981

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

House Of Commons

Thursday 22 October 1981

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

Orders Of The Day

Education Bill

Lords amendments considered.

4.2 pm

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is traditional in the House that when we consider matters of great importance, such as the Education Bill, which has been through all its stages in the House, a Minister should be on the Front Bench to speak on it. Other hon. Members are in their places waiting for this debate.

I beg to move, That the debate be now adjourned until a Minister is present.

I am not prepared to accept the motion at this stage. I am sure that another Minister can speak on the amendment.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (


I apologise sincerely to the House that at the beginning of the consideration of the Lords amendments to the Bill the appropriate Minister is not present. I readily acknowledge that it is a discourtesy to the House. Ministers will clearly be in their places in a few moments.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to enlighten the House as to why you gave your ruling? I am not challenging you; I am simply asking for an explanation. It is extraordinary that a matter should come before the House and the Minister concerned is not here when it is called.

I never give reasons for rulings. It might be extraordinary, but it is not unprecedented. It happened in the previous Parliament, so I have dealt with it before.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (


I apologise for my slightly late arrival. Debate on the Bill has been good-tempered so far and I trust that my lateness will not in any way spoil that.

Clause 1

Meaning Of Special Educational Needs" And Special Educational Provision"

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 12, leave out "suffers from" and insert "has"

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

This is a drafting amendment. It was included to avoid misunderstanding over the wording of clause 1 (2)(b) and to avoid giving any possible offence to disabled persons. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will accept those explanations.

First, the Lords considered that the term "suffers from" was antiquated and also that it could possibly offend disabled persons who did not regard themselves as "suffering" in that sense. Secondly, as the clause stands, there could be a risk that an unpleasant person—I am sure no hon. Member would ever be that—may say that unless an individual had "suffered from" a disability a local authority could not help him. Many people who have special educational needs may not be "suffering" a disability but may have a handicap that they would like the authority to cater for.

For those reasons, I hope that the House will agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

I listened with interest to the Minister. However, the amendment does not meet the points that were made both in this Chamber and in another place. The complaint voiced in both Houses was that a person should not have a learning difficulty by virtue of the inadaquacy of the building itself. The fact that a person in a wheelchair cannot get into a building does not mean that he has a learning difficulty. The difficulty is getting into the place of learning and not the learning itself. That point was reiterated in this House and in another place.

The matter was summed up in an amendment moved by Lady Darcy de Knayth in another place. It said:
"A child with a disability is not to be taken as having a learning difficulty solely because the buildings and other premises of ordinary schools are unsuitable for the needs of the child or because the child has not been provided with the aids, equipment and other help he needs because of his disability to make use of the educational facilities provided in schools, within the area of the local authority concerned, for children of his age."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 July 1981; Vol. 422, c. 467.]
That point was accepted by their Lordships on both sides of the House and was pressed strongly upon the Government. In reply, Baroness Young stated that she would consider the matter further, and the amendment was withdrawn on the basis that further consideration would be given to the matter.

This amendment does not meet the criticisms. It simply changes one word. I accept the narrow interpretation that no one should be given a means test on whether he is suffering. That in itself is to be welcomed. However, the substantive point made in both Houses was that no one should be regarded as having a learning difficulty because of the nature of the building. Children or adults may be capable of taking a Ph.D examination but may not be able to enter a school or college because there is a step outside, the corridor is too narrow for their wheelchair or they are deaf and there is no loop system. There may be many reasons all of which create difficulties for people in obtaining the required learning, but difficulties in no way related to a learning difficulty.

We are worried by the earlier comments of the Minister when he said:
"If such children cannot be accommodated in a normal school it becomes a special educational need."—[Official Report, 10 June 1981; Vol. 6, c. 444.]
That is not an acceptable definition. The child does not have a special educational need. The building requires to be adapted to the needs of the child.

Sweden has excellent policies on disablement. One publication states that a disabled person is handicapped because of the relationship between that person and his environment. The environment causes the handicap, although the individual may be disabled. Unless the Bill is changed, we shall be accepting the handicap caused by the environment.

The amendment does not meet the substantive criticisms made in both Chambers. The Government undertook to reconsider the matter, but have come forward only with this amendment. They have missed the opportunity and possibly deliberately avoided dealing with a matter that should be dealt with in the Bill.

The difficulty is that we must either accept or reject the amendment. May we suggest a middle course to the Minister? The seventh amendment that we shall be considering talks of bringing in the Bill by statutory instrument. Could we not use that instrument to make good the promises that we believe were given in this House and in another place?

To summarise the debate on this most important topic, we feared that many students would be denied access to normal education—the Warnock report was concerned with integrating students into the one system, if possible—not because of their disability but because of the structure of the educational institution. The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) mentioned steps and the width of doors. In a nutshell, the Government's response was that they would meet us fully if the money was there for local authorities to adapt the premises. They fear putting measures in the Bill that require expenditure, and that is why the Minister was cautious.

Regulations will be used to bring the measure into effect. Even at this late stage, will not the Government consider including in them the proposal that local education committees should regularly collect information on why pupils cannot attend normal educational establishments?

The hon. Gentleman is widening the debate far beyond the scope of the amendment. I was tolerant with the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) and I wish also to be tolerant with the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), but there are limits. He is going much further than even the statutory instrument is likely to go.

I shall come back immediately to the very small amendment that their Lordships propose. Given the undertakings that we believed had been given it is a considerable disappointment.

You have been kind enough, Mr. Speaker, to allow me to make my points. I hope that the Minister will respond positively.

I do not believe that the amendment was put down for the reason mentioned by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley). The matter was brought up on 19 October to meet a specific point, which did not concern access to buildings, although I appreciate the importance of that. I recall another Bill recently proposed by the Opposition on the same matter.

The amendment is concerned purely with defining educational need. The hon. Gentleman may argue that there is an educational need if the facilities of the school do not allow the individual to get to or about it properly, but no Bill could enable children with all sorts of disabilities to attend any school in the United Kingdom. The cost of equipment for deaf children, children in wheelchairs, and so on, would be so great that even the Labour Party in its most glorious moments would not say that the money could be made available. We shall continue to remind local authorities that the facilities in a school cannot be used unless the individual can get to them, but chat is not why the amendment was proposed.

4.15 pm

We are up against a fundamental problem that we have faced in the House for many years. I am glad to see the Secretary of State in his place. We have argued the matter for many years. Access to a building is not enough. When inside the individual must be able to use it and live with it, which requires educational equipment, toilets and other facilities. The amendment does not go far enough.

The amendment is not intended to meet the points that are being raised. I recognise the problem. Indeed, I recently spoke at an Open University conference about access to buildings, which is important. The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) is right in saying that it is important to be able to use the building once the individual is inside. The amendment was put down on 19 October purely to ensure that there was no chance of the wording being seen as a casual slight to the handicapped, and also so that no litigious person could sue the local authority for not helping someone who was not suffering from the disability at the time.

The amendment can only be of help, and I ask the House to approve it.

The amendment should be welcomed. We are considering a matter of definition. The change from "suffers from" to "has" improves the definition.

The Under-Secretary of State said that no legislation could guarantee a place in a normal school for every child with a special educational need.

There is no chance, under whichever Government, of equipping every normal school so that children with every sort of disability can attend. "Selection" is not a popular word on the Opposition Benches when discussing education. However, authorities that desire to integrate children with special educational needs into normal schools know that no one school can absorb every child with a severe handicap.

I am grateful for that helpful intervention, which enlightens the House and abbreviates what I have to say. The fact remains that beyond the point at which the hon. Gentleman and I would agree that we want to promote integration so far as it is possible to do so, we recognise that it is not possible to guarantee a place for every child in an integrated classroom or school.

The real test of this definition and of the Bill is whether it does anything to impede children who would have no educational difficulties of integration from being able to gain from integration. We are talking about the definition of a learning difficulty as specified in clause 1. The problem is that clause 2 contains stipulations that restrict the right of access of the individual child and his parents and gives powers to local education authorities to interpret the definition in such a way as to make access unnecessarily restrictive.

The argument has been put at all stages of the Bill, including during its progress through the other place and during the thorough Committee consideration here, that the reason for including that definition, given the further qualification in clause 2 was that it was not possible to hope that the kind of resources that would be required to extend the definition and to extend the access could be forthcoming either in the light of present financial difficulties or, indeed, at any other time. Since then, however, there has been an announcement from the Government—it was made on 27 July by no less a person than the Prime Minister herself—that £60 million is to be made available to improve the education of young people over 16.

It will be within the recall of the House and of hon. Members who have taken a particular interest in these matters that one of the target areas of the Warnock committee on special educational needs was the improvement of educational access and educational and training facilities for 16 to 19-year-olds. The Bill does not effectively cover that requirement or go in any way to meet it, yet this sum of £60 million is to be made available without specifying its purpose or target, the young people who are intended to benefit or the manner in which local education authorities should spend it.

As the Government are accepting this Lords amendment and are prepared to accept adjustments to the definition, no matter how small or apparently semantic, I should like to know whether they are prepared to be equally constructive in their approach to the qualification, and restrictions that are applied to the definitions in the rest of the Bill, to divert the money that they have offered for an unspecified purpose and to use those resources to satisfy one of the targets set by the Warnock committee.

If that were done the Opposition could accept with greater generosity the Government's view that they are integrationists and that they are anxious and willing to accept amendments to the definition of learning difficulty that will permit them to move towards acceptance of the target areas that Warnock had in mind, that is to say the under-fives, improvement in teacher training and the improvement of provision for youngsters of 16 to 19.

I realise that no help will be forthcoming from those who favour voucher schemes as a means of financing these matters. However, there is £60 million not yet earmarked. Will the Under-Secretary of State say whether it is likely to be spent to assist disabled, handicapped and other youngsters with learning difficulties or difficulties of access to enable them to enjoy the full benefits, which we are told is the intention behind the Bill?

I have a funny feeling that the Government, in a cunning way, have given the game away. The Bill uses the phrase:

"he suffers from a disability"
and the amendment says
"he has a disability".
Throughout the Committee stage I tried to convince the Government that where a child has a disability but can gain access to the building, intelligent use of technology to overcome the handicap means that it no longer remains a disability. I am inclined to say that I accept the amendment. I shall, however, expect the hon. Gentleman, with his command of the English language, to use his influence in the drafting of the regulations so that the will of the House is clearly understood, because he changed—

To change the wording from "suffers from" to "has" implies that it is definitive and cannot be helped. It is an attempt to use soft words. It is pussy-footing. If this had happened 40 years ago, it might have been true. The word "crippled" would have been changed to something softer. In making this concession, the hon. Gentleman has given way to my argument. If there is access, and if within the school there is the technical equipment, the disability is overcome in the sense that the child can be educated and can compete equally. I welcome the amendment.

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a brief comment. I shall not argue with the hon. Member for Eccles, to whose knowledge of the subject I bow. I shall not throw myself on his mercy. I shall only say that it seems to me, as it seemed to Baroness Young in another place, that the Bill is improved. I understand that there was no Division in the other place, where it was accepted on both sides. One cannot push the argument too far. In many cases I could have stated that what we were considering was literally a drafting amendment. I should like, however, to think that this is more than a drafting amendment and that it indicates an attitude of mind on both sides of the House. I must not get dragged into the question of resources, which I am sure the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock)—

Before the hon. Gentleman makes an effort to answer the points that I made, may I say that I agree that this is much more than a drafting amendment. On the basis of the argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), if an individual suffers from an ailment, that is a matter of medical information and proof. It may or may not inhibit his education, but he suffers from it. If he has it, and if the severity of it is diminished or abolished by proper technological amendment to the premises, that change is found not in the wording of the Bill or in the sensitivity of the drafting of the Bill, but in the meaning of the Bill in terms of resources that an individual can command to be present in an educational institution so that he need not have a disability in respect of that building. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that interpretation?

I agree entirely with that interpretation. Hon. Members on both sides of the House look forward to the time when more resources are devoted to this issue. I am sure that when that happens that will give pleasure to both sides. Meanwhile, we cannot let the matter rest. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me about that. He is an active individual, who goes around busily everywhere. We cannot rest on our laurels. The hon. Member for Eccles might agree also. We must do something. The Bill increases parental choice. It encourages integration into a normal school so far as possible. It seems to me that those two great aims of the Bill are worthy of commendation from both sides of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5

Assessment Of Special Educational Needs

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 5, leave out lines 3 to 6 and insert

"assess the educational needs of the child concerned.
(4A) Where a local education authority decide to make an assessment under this section they shall notify the child's parent in writing of their decision and of their reasons for making it."

4.30 pm

Amendment No. 2 has been included to make it clear that a parent must be notified if it is decided to make an assessment of his child. Hon. Members said time and again in Committee that parents should be notified of what is happening. We have tightened up the Bill so that there is no possibility of clause 5(4)(b) being misunderstood. Parents must be notified if a local authority decides to make an assessment of their child. The amendment fulfils the spirit and the letter of the Bill in accordance with the wishes of hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Amendment No. 3 also increases parental rights, which is one of the basic purposes of the Bill. We have never put through a Bill affecting the handicapped that has included so many parental rights. Some hon. Members would have liked to go further and, although I am not necessarily encouraging them to do so, I would not be surprised if they raised that subject on a later amendment.

The amendments further strengthen parental choice. Clause 7 provides that a local education authority should notify parents of their right of appeal against the special provision specified in a statement. A parent may appeal and should know that he is able to appeal if he wishes to disagree with what is specified in the statement.

That is an additional power for the parent. It ties in with the right of appeal to the Secretary of State under clause 5 when a local education authority decides that it is not required to determine the special educational provision to be made. Just as there is a right of appeal if special provision is made in a statement, there must similarly be a right of appeal if a local education authority decides not to make a statement.

Amendment No. 5 makes it clear that parents have a right of appeal when a statement is made. We have accepted the spirit of Lady David's amendment in another place. Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 go together. A parent may appeal against a statement if he does not like it and will receive notification that he may also appeal against a local education authority's decision not to make a statement.

For the sake of the record and to demonstrate again the unanimity on the objectives, I should say that we strongly commend the Lords amendments.

I wish to raise a couple of points related to amendments Nos. 4 and 5, but so that I remain in order I shall direct them to amendment No. 5.

Last night I addressed a meeting in my constituency organised by the Commission for Racial Equality. Concern was expressed about the position of ethnic minority groups who have certain anxieties, some of which I share, about the appeal procedure. Having considered in depth how appeals are to be conducted, I consider that much well-intentioned bureaucracy is involved and I wonder whether everybody will be able to find a way through.

I note that the amendments allow the possibility of another person being present when the parent makes his or her appeal, but I am particularly interested in those whose first language is not English and, for example, West Indian parents who, although their children may have been born and bred here, may riot be able to cope with the problems involved in appeals.

I should like an assurance from the Minister that such people will be safeguarded, not just by being given the opportunity of being represented, but by being helped positively to obtain representation.

The difficulty is that, given the problems involved in filling out forms or being seen by someone from the local education authority, some parents may be inclined just to accept what they are told. I should like positive intervention, with parents being recommended to go to a local law center or get the help of someone from the multiethnic inspectorate to advise them on their appeal.

I appreciate the interest of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) and I understand that most authorities are aware of the problem that he has rightly raised. My constituency has a heavy immigrant component and I am certainly aware of the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

I believe that it has become the normal practice, which debates in the House can help to develop, that when parents do not speak English and the problems that we are discussing become almost an external exercise for them, any local authority worth its salt ensures that an interpreter is available. Indeed, he must be more than an interpreter, because he must understand what is involved. He should be almost an adviser.

The other problem to which the hon. Gentleman referred may affect other parts of the community as well as those that he specified. Understanding bureaucratic procedures is not a problem only for ethnic minorities. Many people are baffled by bureaucracy. Indeed, many hon. Members who have to battle with bureaucracy are baffled by it and have to get outside help to show them the way through the stuff.

The difficulty arises over specifying who should help parents in their appeals. Hon. Members who were privileged to serve on the Standing Committee on the Bill will remember our attempts to ensure that the definition in the clause covered the handicapped, but did not extend to, for example, those for whom English was a second language and who would rightly resent being included in that definition.

Advice will be given to local authorities. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has taken a keen interest in that aspect and I can tell him that we shall have to work out how full a statement should be and how much information should be included in it. I assure the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North that, if we can find a way of advising local authorities that what he wishes to see should be done, we shall do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 3 agreed to.

Clause 7

Statement Of Child's Special Educational Needs

Lords Amendment: No. 4, in page 6, leave out lines 7 to 14 and insert—

"shall serve on the parent of the child concerned—
  • a copy of the proposed statement; and
  • a written explanation of the effect of subsections (4) to (4C) below.
  • (4) If the parent on whom a copy of a proposed statement has been served under subsection (3)(a) above disagrees with any part of the proposed statement he may, before the expiry of the appropriate period—
  • make representations (or further representations) to the authority about the content of the proposed statement;
  • require the authority to arrange a meeting between him and an officer of the authority at which the proposed statement can be discussed.
  • (4A) Where a parent, having attended a meeting arranged by a local education authority under subsection (4)(b) above, disagrees with any part of the assessment in question he may, before the expiry of the appropriate period, require the authority to arrange one or more meetings under subsection (4B) below.
    (4B) Where a local education authority receive a request duly made under subsection (4A) above they shall arrange such meeting or meetings as they consider will enable the parent to discuss the relevant advice with the appropriate person or persons.
    In this subsection— "relevant advice" means such of the advice given to the authority in connection with the assessment as they consider to be relevant to that part of the assessment with which the parent disagrees; and "appropriate person" means the person who gave the relevant advice or any other person who, in the opinion of the authority, is the appropriate person to discuss it with the parent.
    (4C) In this section "appropriate period" means the period of 15 days beginning—
  • in the case of a request under subsection (4)(b) above, with the date on which the statement mentioned in subsection (3)(b) above was served on the parent;
  • in the case of a request under subsection (4A) above, with the date fixed for the meeting arranged under subsection (4)(b) above; and
  • in the case of representations, or further representations. under subsection (4)(a) above—
  • with the date mentioned in paragraph (a) above; or
  • if one or more meetings have been arranged under the preceding provision of this section, with the date fixed for the last of those meetings."
  • I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

    The amendment brings us back to an issue—I shall not say that I feel nostalgic about it, although the autumn leaves are falling outside—which we dealt with in the spring. It relates to the amount of information that is given to parents. I shall come straight to the point and not beat about the bush. It is the question of whether parents should have total access to the records.

    Last night when I got home I read through all that we said in Committee on the subject. The argument went back and forth. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) spoke a great deal. Today we have only two "e"s. In Committee we had three "e"s—Ely, Eccles and Exeter. Now we are down to two. I do not know whether events elsewhere have taken certain hon. Gentlemen away, but we are down to two-thirds of the "e"s on this occasion.

    At the end of the previous debate we were discussing the subject of the named person. I believe that it was the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) who withdrew the amendment on that occasion. There was much discussion on both sides about whether the named person was the person who could actually have access to all the material and submit it to the individual so that the individual was not prevented from having any of the information that he desired. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter told us what he did when he received two letters from officials in his constituency, one which was marked "Private and Confidential" and one which was open to the winds of time, and of the difficulties that were involved.

    In the meantime, the Bill has gone to the Lords and there has been further thought, as a result of which this amendment was tabled. I do not expect everyone to agree with it, but I shall give the reason for it. The intention was to go as far as possible to allow the parent to have maximum information.

    Before I come to the amendment, I wish to repeat where I stand and where I believe the Government stand. I accept that there is a difference of opinion on the matter. It is an issue on which good men can divide with passion on each side. In a society where we want everything to be as open as possible there is danger in keeping anything back. I remember the tale that was related by the hon. Member for Birkenhead of what happened in the East End of London. It was about a mother who was called slothful and who was dying of some form of cancer, or something of that nature. The opening of the records would reveal a mistake that could be carried on. We appreciate that.

    However, there are arguments on the other side. If there is to be .open access to records, information will not be written down. This consideration has always influenced me. In many cases open testimonials went out of use in the teaching profession, although people pretended to use them, took them up and then paid no attention to them. References came in, and when they were not allowed, I shall not say that there were secret phone calls, but by accident contact was made between people who had never spoken before and certain topics were discussed. A kind of black economy of information builds up.

    If everything had to be written down and made available, we all know that many professionals would object to private statements, as they saw them, being passed around for all and sundry to see.

    4.45 pm

    So what does one do? Does one move to the named person? Incidentally, this is the longest debate that we have had on the Bill without the named person raising his head. What does amendment No. 4 do? When parents disagree with any part of a draft statement—I underline the words "any part of a draft statement"—they have the right to require the local education authority to arrange a meeting with a local education officer, and if the parents are not satisfied with that meeting, at which they can ask "What does this part of the statement mean and why is it put in?", they can have further meetings with a person or persons, the professionals qualified to discuss considerations arising from the statement.

    Largely, they are the people who have written the statement. They can see the adviser of the local authority, the first contact, and they have 15 days after that in which to object. If they are still dissatisfied, they can inform the adviser that they want to see the professionals concerned and arrangements must be made for someone on the professional side to meet them and give them more details. In that case, again, they have 15 days. I mention the 15 days because that subject was discussed on Report. The 15 days goes from the last meeting.

    I am sure that by now we all know our Warnock. We have regularly thrown quotations from it at one another. It is a sign of old friendships. The preservation of some form of non-open access, however small, is not something that we put in. Warnock itself had problems in this connection. The report says on page 56, 4.23:
    "A second type of personal folder is needed for the results of professional consultations and sensitive information given in confidence about a child's social background or family relationships. This should be a confidential folder. It would not be complete without significant medical information provided by the health authority."
    We seem to have gone much further than that towards open access. Once there are two files, no one knows what goes into the second file. There is the statement, and the parent can challenge it by seeing someone from the local education authority, and he can go further and cross-examine the people in making it. As far as possible, frank and fair information shall be passed on.

    The Department is considering what sort of guide rules should be put down for the statement. In my view, general guidelines are necessary as to the content, if the Bill is to achieve what we hope. It will contain full information on the child's medical, psychological and educational needs and other advice as to how those needs are to be met. So on one side we have the medical, psychological and educational needs, and on the other side how those needs can be met.

    At that stage the parent can put his views, ask for interviews, go to local appeal, and finally to the Secretary of State. A whole battery of arrangements is available. There is the local authority with the tribunal, then there is the appeals tribunal, and then direct appeal to the Secretary of State.

    Several points arise from the debates that we had on the Floor of the House and upstairs in Committee. The statement will be a comprehensive document. Once the parents have received that comprehensive document, they will have the right to question and probe the professionals on the advice that they were given.

    There is one important aspect here that I wish to stress. Last night when I read our debates on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, I noticed that reference was made to a lawyer. I believe that it was put to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), when he was speaking to one of the amendments on Report. An Opposition Member—I should not be surprised if it were the hon. Member for Birkenhead, if my memory serves me right—raised an important issue. He asked whether, if my right hon. and learned Friend was stating a case in a court of law and he lost the case because of secret information being given to the judge and jury at the last moment, when he thought that he was doing well, he would think that that was fair and just. My right hon. and learned Friend said that we would continue to look into the matter.

    In this case the information that goes from the local education authority to the tribunal must be available to the parent. No secret information can go to the tribunal which is not available to the parent. The statement of the local authority to the tribunal as to why the statement has been written that way and why, as part of the statement, it has recommended special educational provision, in whatever educational establishment it has, must be available to the parent.

    We have gone as far as we can—or as far as we believe we should go. There is a difference of belief about open access. We have gone much further than was recommended originally in Warnock. We have gone much further than we said we would go in Committee and on Report.

    On that basis, I trust that the House will agree with the Lords amendment.

    I welcome any increase in the availability of access to records. We have made much heavy weather of this matter in the past, perhaps unnecessarily. I do not doubt that there are cases in which it is necessary to keep great confidences, but they are far fewer than we sometimes think.

    From my experience as a probation officer, I know that largely we used to keep from people information about the background of children who were up for adoption. Practices changed in the 1970s, and we began to tell adopting parents far more about the background of the child they were adopting. We then found that all our horrendous fears previously did not materialise. They related to the sort of case of a child born to a mother who had convictions for prostitution, when we felt that that information should never be passed on to adopting parents. Parents are now commonly told of such backgrounds, and, to my knowledge, that never causes problems. Sensibly handled, it is far more productive to deal with matters in that way than to have them discovered later by accident, or whatever, which can be devastating.

    This matter is particularly important because so many statements about human behaviour are judgmental. Some are based on fact. To some extent one can draw up facts about what particular form of behaviour is being practised and is causing problems, but many statements are purely judgmental. In those circumstances it is important that information is available to the parent so that it can be challenged when behaviour is different, for cultural, class or other reasons. For that reason alone, I would welcome a far wider access to information on background.

    The whole question of confidentiality of reports is vexed. I suppose that with this amendment we have gone nearly to the point of full disclosure. Therefore, I give it a guarded welcome. There ought now to be an improvement in the relationship between professionals and parents. The amendment opens the way to what will ultimately, inevitably, become full access to reports.

    My hon. Friend the Minister was accepting the principle of access, but, in the end, denying us that final full availability for the parent. Nevertheless, if a parent has an unsatisfactory interview with an over-protective or obstructive professional, mistrust will increase, or suspicion will develop. If a parent speculates about what is in a report—there could easily be judgmental matters in it about which he or she would be very concerned—and is not allowed to see it, unnecessary distress can be caused.

    In the long run, I feel that we shall finish up by providing full access to reports, as is done in the United States of America. The American system works extremely well. On 30 July a group of seven professionals in deafness in the United States attended the debate in the other place. Afterwards they wrote to Baroness Young, the Minister of State, on this matter. I should like to quote from their letter of 18 August:
    "We are professionals in the field of deafness and since the United States' education laws concerning the confidentiality of records were referred to we would like to share our perception of the experience of our country on this matter.
    The benefits of open records have outweighed the possible hindrances and many of the concerns expressed have not proved to be problems. Our experience has been that open records have been in the best interest of the child for the following reasons:"—.
    we should remember that these are professionals saying this—
  • Parents have become more involved in the education of their child. They have become more responsible for the total development of their child and participate more fully in this outside the classroom;
  • A relationship of trust has developed between parents and professionals, and,
  • Information in files is substantiated by facts. Care is taken to express clearly the meaning and implications of technical data so that it is understandable and useful to both parents and professionals.
  • We are expressing our views as individuals working as professionals in the field of deafness."
    I believe that denial of access to reports is an infringement of parents' rights and can prevent them from fulfilling their duties of ensuring that their child receives a suitable education. They will certainly not know, for example, whether to appeal against a decision under clause 5. There is a small element of risk in openness but it is far outweighed—as is justified in the letter that I have just read—by the risks of secrecy and the risk of distrust growing up between professionals and local education authorities and the parents, and the risk of children being assessed on the basis of inaccurate or unsubstantiated reports.

    The amendment does not give parents the absolute right to see reports, although there is nothing to prevent the professionals from giving all the information to parents. This is a move in the right direction, nearly to the point at which full access is provided. I feel that we shall get full access at some stage and that most people engaged on the Bill feel that it will be an advantage. I welcome the amendment, but I do so very guardedly because it denies that final access which I should like to see.

    I welcome the amendment. Last week I went back to my old school for speech day. I was sitting on the platform, minding, I thought, my own business. I was slightly taken aback when the headmaster said that he had consulted the files that had been kept on me by my school when I was a pupil, and he said that he thought that he ought to read out the relevant information to the company so gathered. He was a kind man. Clearly, he read out only part of the information. However, what I thought was interesting was that these were files which I did not know had been kept. I did not know that they were still in existence. The two pieces of information that were most relevant about my schooling were not contained on the files. It seemed to me to reinforce all the points that we made in Committee and on the Floor of the House about the dangers of having files to which people do not have access.

    Before we get too carried away about how major the change has been with the Lords amendment, perhaps I could concentrate the attention of the House on what is listed in the amendment. Subsection (4B) talks about enabling the parent
    "to discuss the relevant advice with the appropriate person or persons".
    There is nothing in the amendment that says that the parent will have access to information. Bearing in mind our discussions in Committee and on the Floor of the House, that seems something of a disappointment. For example, the right hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), in responding to the debate, was very clear about the dilemmas that we face on this issue and to which the Under-Secretary referred in his opening comments. On 10 June the right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
    "We welcome the widest possible provision of information but we must accept the fact that there may be occasions when the professionals do not feel that they are in a position to give that information."—[Official Report, 10 June 1981; Vol. 6, c. 477.]
    "Information" was the operative word there, not advice. Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider that point.

    I also ask the Minister to consider the point made by his noble Friend Baroness Young when their Lordships were considering this amendment. She said that a number of people would give full advice but that some would withhold information for the reasons that the Under-Secretary stated in his opening comments. However, she went on to say:
    "and many could be encouraged to do so."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 July 1981; Vol. 423, c. 796.]
    How will the Government make people change their attitudes and how will they encourage them to respond and to give further information? Will that be one of the issues contained in the regulations? When I listened to the Minister, I learnt something new—that if all the procedures fail and parents go to a tribunal, they will have access to all the information that the tribunal has for consideration of that case. That is an important statement.

    Where will the force for that statement come from? I hope that it will not just consist of a mention in Hansard. Will the Government also consider including that in the regulations?

    5 pm

    A circular of guidance will be issued concerning the application of this shortly-to-be-enacted Bill. The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) mentioned the ethnic minorities. We shall be able to cover that in the circular of guidance. The circular will make it clear that such help should be given to non-English speaking pupils. Another issue that is more difficult—but which we shall consider—concerns those who speak English but who are baffled by the procedure, of which there is a great deal. Mention was made of contact with voluntary societies for advice.

    I do not wish to go into the argument about the exposure of full information, or full-frontal exposure, because splendid and brilliant interventions would follow. I should then have to go away and think and give a reply after deep thought and prayer. However, we must take the professionals with us. That is important, because if we do not do so we shall not have the information on which to make a proper statement.

    I am informed, for example, that on checking a child could be found to have a hereditary handicap which meant that the man the child thought to be his father was not. It may be asked how many times such incidents occur. I accept that exceptions can always be found with which to shoot one another down. However, I had to defend myself by raising such a point. An example that is less significant, but equally important, concerns the case in which a child's problems arise from a current marital difficulty. I was impressed by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and by his line of thought. The hon. Gentleman would say that the disclosure of that information would bring such a matter out into the open. I still remember and turn over in my mind the illustration that he used in Committee. I am speaking not just as a Government spokesman. We should go as far as possible, but there are difficulties as regards the professionals and as regards odd cases. However, the arguments that I heard in Committee moved me.

    Reference has been made to discussing the "relevant advice". Such relevant advice is obviously based on information. The parent has every right to probe and to ask why the advice was given. In Committee, we discussed the fact that parents have a right to be present at such investigations. They do not just come in at the end. The House has ensured that parents are included at a much earlier stage than previously.

    When we issue the circular of guidance and consider the framework for the statement, we shall reflect on how far we can advise local authorities. The emphasis of the House was that maximum information should be given. There is no difference between hon. Members about that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) will agree, we have come a long way, if not the whole way. We shall see what we can do to continue to stress the needs of the ethnic minorities. The acceptance of the Bill and its support from those who believe that parents should be able to gain the maximum disclosure must depend on whether local authorities accept not only its letter but its spirit. We shall do all we can to communicate that.

    Will the Minister further clarify the point about the circular of guidance? Is he thinking of including in the document phrases such as "in normal circumstances the Secretary of State will expect all information to be given to the parents"?

    As far as I know there is no draft of the document. Therefore, I am merely thinking aloud. However, I do not think that the Secretary of State would have any objection to including that statement.

    If we are to ensure that members of ethnic minority groups are not unfairly put into special educational categories, is it not implicit that we must collect statistics and analyse them?

    I had thought that the hon. Gentleman and I were getting on well. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is part of open disclosure. Historians will agree that it is funny that when a society suddenly moves towards greater disclosure in one direction, it should shut the door in another.

    I once innocently gave a false piece of information to the House. I am sure that no one would deliberately give such information to the House. The information related to the attitude of the National Union of Teachers the collection of statistics. The debate in which the information was given occurred some time ago, but the hon. Gentleman has given me an opportunity to put the record straight. Many teachers object to the collection of statistics. They say that things become more obvious.

    The argument about statistics goes backwards and forwards. The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North as an ex-probation officer and I as an ex-head teacher are well aware of that. I said that the NUT opposed the collection of statistics. However, I received a pleasant and cheerful letter from the NUT pointing out that, whatever some of its members might say, its policy was that the collection of statistics and the maximum amount of information were advantageous. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman raised that point today as it has enabled me to put the record straight. I have felt guilty about it ever since then.

    Question put and agreed to.

    Lords amendment No. 5 agreed to.

    Clause 10

    Duty Of Health Authority To Notify Parents Etc

    Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 8, line 23, at end insert—

    "(2) If, in a case falling within subsection (1) above the authority are of the opinion that a particular voluntary organisation is likely to be able to give the parent advice or assistance in connection with any special educational needs that the child may have, they shall inform the parent accordingly."

    I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

    The amendment is a product of discussion in the House. I note that the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) is watching me with hawkish eyes. Time and again he raised the question of introducing, wherever possible, other authorities to help. The amendment fulfils promises made in the House to the effect that health authorities should be required to put parents of handicapped children in touch with voluntary organisations. Much discussion took place on that subject.

    I shall remind the House of the origins of clause 10. It has now been strengthened. It was introduced on Report following an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Eccles and by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). It was an improvement which was supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House and one to which 1he Government were pleased to give their support.

    The clause places upon health authorities a duty to notify parents of children under the age of five if they suspect that a child has special educational needs. I share the keen interest of the hon. Member for Eccles. I repeat he promise that I made earlier, that we will ensure that post-legislative guidance makes it clear that this duty applies from the earliest possible age. This is a matter that he hon. Member raised earlier.

    Since the Bill left this Chamber, the Government have added a further provision to clause 10 to take account of he view pressed on the Government in both Houses, that parents of handicapped children frequently benefit from help and support from voluntary organisations.

    I am sorry that the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) is absent this afternoon. He was eager to see this added to the Bill and he tabled amendments in Committee and on Report with that goal. The amendment that we are now considering does not contain the element of prescription which was originally pressed on the Government. Health authorities will be faced with a variety of circumstances which relate to both child and parents. This is an incredibly difficult and sensitive area and health authorities must be allowed a degree of flexibility in how they discharge their duties if the provision is to have the desired effect. A uniform bureaucratic approach enshrined in the legislation would not be wholly helpful in this case. However, we readily acknowledge that voluntary organisations have a valuable role to play and we hope that the House will agree that the amendment lays the foundation for increased co-operation and support from voluntary organisations. I know that they welcome this challenge.

    The Bill has been strengthened. I know that some people would like to see it strengthened further, but it is surprising just how far we have gone, particularly since provisions now apply from birth, not from the age of two or five.

    I agree with the amendment, although I have certain reservations. Reference has been made to the three "e"s. It is rather interesting that clause 10 was introduced on Report by myself, the hon. Member for Eccles, and the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam and that an amendment similar to amendment No. 6 was moved by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud). I am sorry that the hon. Member for Isle of Ely is not here to respond.

    The Minister has gone a long way towards meeting my requirements, and I should like to give him a clue word—neonate. In clause 10, legalistic people have used the jargon
    "under the age of five years"
    I believe that the authorities will read this and say that it means "under the age of five". We are referring to the neonate and sensory imperfections of speech, hearing, sight and possibly of muscular weakness to which attention must be given early so there will not be double handicap. The Minister has an opportunity to go down in history. I know his Department and civil servants want to help him. When it comes to drafting statutory instruments, guidelines or whatever a Department does in connection with area health authorities or local authorities, it must be clearly understood that we are talking about the point of birth and handicap and instant aid at that time.

    I turn briefly to another theme. I am parliamentary adviser to the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association. I am an ex-Service man. I believe that if an ex-Service man loses a limb medical attention and nursing are important. However, after a traumatic experience it is also important for somebody with experience to give help. advice and comfort and to offer aid for rehabilitation.

    The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) had that in mind when he attempted to amend the Bill. I should have preferred the amendment moved in another place by Baroness D'Arcy de Knayth to be carried, but it was not. I should like a duty to be placed on the Minister to ensure that parents in distress receive advice from those best able to give it—the voluntary associations. May I have a firm assurance?

    5.15 pm

    Nothing delights me more than to give a firm assurance to the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter Jones). I see no reason why I cannot give a firm assurance I give a firm assurance.

    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 20

    Interpretation And Commencement

    Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 14, line 2, after "order" insert "made by statutory instrument"

    I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

    I am sorry that the last amendment has less blood in it than some of the others, but with their ingenuity hon. Members can always find something to talk about on any amendment. However, this amendment is a technical amendment par excellence.

    The Government's intention always has been that commencement orders should be made by statutory instrument, as they were in relation to the 1980 Act. That enables commencement orders to have the widest possible circulation and the world at large to have a reference point for when the provision becomes operative. I am sure that the House welcomes that and I commend it to the House.

    Many of us have spent a long time on the Bill and it has been improved. I acknowledge that some would have liked to go further. Much has been done to integrate children in normal schools, to extend parental influence and to give them more information about what is going on. Those matters are important.

    I appreciate the help that we have received in strengthening the Bill and ensuring that the guidelines have as many teeth as possible.

    I shall give way. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is with us for the ultimate celebration.

    Since the Minister has been so generous to everybody, can he give a firm commitment that the Government will make enough resources available to carry out the legislation?

    I understand that the amendment deals with the commencement order. It is reasonable to argue that the legislation cannot be commenced unless the money is there.

    I do not wish to confuse the House by speaking about resources at this stage. Much though I welcome the comments by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), I shall not be tempted to deviate from your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

    The Bill is non-partisan. The arguments have been about resources, not the Bill's provisions. We are delighted that we have got so far with it. The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) said that I would go down in history. I hope that the Bill is the beginning of an improvement in the treatment of children with special needs throughout the education system.

    Question put and agreed to.


    5.20 pm

    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (


    I beg to move,

    That this House takes note of the two European Community Documents No. 5682/80 for a Council Directive amending for The fifth time Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of dangerous substances and preparations, and of European Community Document No. 9953/80 for a Council Directive on The protection of workers from the risks due to exposure to chemical, physical and biological agents at work (asbestos) and t he updated explanatory memorandum of 8th May 1981 and two memoranda dated 15th October 1981; and welcomes the Government's intention to seek agreement on a harmonised practicable and enforceable policy to minimise the risks to health from exposure to asbestos.

    The House has had to wait a long time for this debate. I was anxious that it should take place before the Summer Recess, but at least the delay has allowed me better to inform myself about this difficult and important matter. In July, I visited TBA in Rochdale, a branch company of Turner and Newall Limited. The latter is one of the largest manufacturers of asbestos textiles in the world. I saw for myself how those problems are handled within industry. I am glad to see in his place the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), who also visited the firm on that day. I had thought that he would be putting his weight behind the candidate in Croydon today, so his appearance symbolises the importance of the subject for those who live and work in his constituency.

    We are impressed by the great efforts that are made at lust repression at every stage of the manufacturing process and with the monitoring techniques used. It is interesting and gratifying to see the part played by the work force, who, certainly in that factory, come forward with valuable and constructive suggestions for changes in work practices to reduce further the risk of exposure.

    The draft directives that we are discussing are closely related. They are in furtherance of the action programme on safety and health that was agreed between member States in 1978. I remind the House that other proposals are envisaged to reduce the contact of food and drink with asbestos and to minimise exposure to asbestos in the general environment. Those proposals should be looked at its one package.

    Complete harmonisation of policy within the Community would be a great prize. It is right that we should aim for it. We want a uniform policy that seeks proper protection for workers. It is far from ideal if some countries have more lax controls than others and, at the expense of the health of their workers, gain a competitive advantage. It would not be right for British manufacturers to lower their standards and subject their workers to the serious risks from which they have been protected for some time. We have no intention of doing that.

    Therefore, much of the amendment is entirely misconceived. Some people may think that there is a risk of lower standards with blue asbestos—crocidolite—because certain countries have insisted on maintaining the right to continue to use that most virulent of fibrous material for the manufacture of large diameter pipes, seals and gaskets. The marketing and use proposal is for a general prohibition on the import and use of blue asbestos, but each member State will decide whether to exclude those goods from the overall ban. Industry in Britain has operated a voluntary ban on the import of crocidolite since 1970. The Advisory Committee on Asbestos recommends a statutory ban and we have every intention of enforcing it—[Interruption.]. I hear some weird noises from the Opposition Front Bench. I do not understand why there should be a note of surprise in the noises for the reasons that I have explained.

    I do not foresee any difficulty in bringing about the ban on raw materials, but there are practical difficulties in preventing entry of the material in manufactured goods. How does a Customs officer check whether a gasket in the middle of a very sophisticated machine is made of crocidolite? The problem is receiving close attention at Community level. We want to ensure that any controls agreed are workable and effective.

    The main topic for discussion is the import of the raw material for use in manufacture in Britain. Under the draft directive, countries can opt out of the ban for specific goods. We have no intention of opting out. We have no interest in making large diameter pipes of crocidolite, which has not been used in Britain for 10 years.

    The noises that the Minister heard were noises of satisfaction. We also seek reassurance. It was good news that the Minister could assure the House that the statutory ban was to be enforced. Will he lift the veil a little and say when we may expect the ban?

    I shall come to that point later. The present voluntary ban is entirely observed. There is no rush to have a statutory ban. When the directive comes into force, the voluntary ban will be replaced by a statutory ban.

    I wish to clarify a matter that has caused some confusion. Article 4 of the workers directive provides that, wherever possible, the use of crocidolite should be avoided. Article 9 provides that the concentration of blue asbestos fibres in the air at work shall not exceed 0.2 fibres per cubic centimetre. I am assured that the intention of all parties is that there should be no conflict between the two directives, and in due course it will be clearly stated that articles 4 and 9 are without prejudice to the general ban in the marketing and use directive.

    The limit value will be relevant only, first, when a member State has exercised its right under the marketing and use directive to exempt asbestos pipes and so on from the prohibition—a right that has to be reviewed by the Commission after five years and a right which few countries may exercise because of the burden of complying with the stringent limit value—and, secondly, when dealing with insulating materials made of crocidolite and people are employed in the removal of it.

    It might be helpful if I make a few points about each of the directives, starting with marketing and use. A ban is proposed on certain items containing chrysotile—white asbestos—or amosite—brown asbestos. The list of banned articles includes paints and plastic floor coverings.

    The CBI fears that some member States may try to use the directive prohibiting products to win a commercial advantage for their substitutes. We must bear that point in mind. We wonder whether the ban is necessary for some of the items on the list—for instance, thermal and acoustic materials, on which the ACA proposed a ban in its first report, and paints. Asbestos is bound in, and it is only when paint is removed—for example by sanding—that there are any significant fibre emissions. In any event, asbestos is used by paint manufacturers in Britain to a limited extent only. Perhaps the most difficult area is that of floor covering. We are in close touch with the industry on both the contents of the article and the timing of its implementation.

    Obviously, when we hear of the tragic results of exposure we are tempted to say "Ban the lot". We can sympathise, if not agree, with the resolution passed at the Labour Party conference and with the second part of the amendment on the Order Paper calling for a complete ban on the use of all sorts of asbestos. I must make it absolutely clear that the unique properties of asbestos that originally led to its widespread use have made it difficult to replace with suitable and cost-effective substitutes. After all, such substitutes might eventually be shown to have similar risks to health as asbestos.

    I agree with the Advisory Committee on Asbestos which, in its final report, stated:
    "As a general principle the control of any useful but hazardous material is preferable to the ultimate sanction of prohibition. It is very easy to say that a dangerous substance or process should be banned and to hope that that will solve the problem. In our view this is a gross over-simplification of a complex equation of interlinked factors. It ignores the possibility that prohibition of a particular substance may directly result in an increase in health or safety risks, for example from fire, which the use of that substance currently prevents or reduces. It also ignores the implications of statutorily enforcing substitution by materials or substances which at present appear to be suitable but may at a later date be found to constitute a risk to health. The social and economic consequences of the possible closure of factories using the original material or process need to be taken into account."

    I am sure that that last point will not be lost on many Opposition Members who, while recognising the fearsome dangers caused by those substances, recognise the importance to employment of those factories still using asbestos in their manufacturing processes.

    The report continues:
    "There should be a ban when it is clear that (a) there is evidence of serious risk and (b) the present controls or any future controls have not provided or are unlikely to provide a satisfactory degree of control."
    I agree with that view, as do the Government.

    I wish to deal with the worker protection directive. The object of the exercise is to reduce and control exposure. The question is whether we should legislate to cover the chance of exposure, however remote. Should we try to define what is or is not exposure within the meaning of the directive? I ask that question because currently all the provisions of the draft directive will apply to all workers exposed directly or indirectly to any sort of asbestos for any length of time and to any degree. Is it practical and sensible to require the full panoply of the law—medical examinations, health records and so on mentioned in articles 14 and 15—for a person who may be assembling ready-cut asbestos cement sheets on a building site for only a fraction of his working day or working week? For that reason, in consultation with representatives of employers, workers, scientific and medical interests, the Government are examining whether a clearer concept of controlling personal exposure to asbestos dust may be devised.

    I turn to the limit values set out in article 9 of the worker protection directive. I have already mentioned 0.2 fibres per cubic centimetre for blue asbestos. We originally aimed for a different and lower limit of 0.5 fibres per cubic centimetre for amosite, but it is felt that, on present evidence and with present usage, 1.0 fibre per cubic centimetre for both amosite and chrysotile is not an unreaonable start.

    We shall need to review limit values if there are technical or medical developments. Whereas harmonised change might be obtained only with some difficulty through the normal Community procedures, I remind the House that provisions within the framework of the directive allow us to act alone if we feel that changes should be made, but other countries are not prepared to join us. I repeat, therefore, that if we reached the conclusion, in the light of new medical evidence, that amosite presented a much greater risk than white asbestos, and if we could not persuade the other European countries to join us, we could act and apply a lower limit value such as that originally suggested by the ACA.

    Another and more difficult problem is that of achieving consistency in monitoring. In 1978, on the advice of the advisory committee, a central records laboratory was established with the avowed aim of reducing variations in the counts of asbestos fibres. The laboratory has produced a set of guidelines to achieve more consistent counts. They are being considered by the Health and Safety Executive and discussed with other member States in the hope of developing a method for use in the draft directive.

    Hon. Members may be aware of some fascinating developments in automatic counting. The HSE is currently evaluating a range of automatic and semi-automatic counting devices, one of which—the Vickers M88—which was developed with financial support from the European Commission, is capable of processing 50 to 60 samples per day by a single operator. That must be compared with manual counting procedures where a single operator is restricted to about 10 samples a day, and even then he can so easily make a mistake.

    Individual medical examinations are mentioned in article 15. It is a sad fact that, by the time evidence of the disease becomes apparent as a result of medical examination, it is usually too late to arrest its progress. It is right that workers should know as soon as possible if their health has been, or is liable to be, affected, and a medical examination may be helpful to an individual in identifying the time from which he is entitled to compensation, but, although medical examinations can provide valuable epidemiological data and are an important part of preventive medicine, they are no substitute for dust measurement and control. They are no substitute for more information on possible health risks, for better instruction, training and general health surveillance, or for the search for safe substitutes.

    All those elements are at present in each of the draft directives, but the comments that we have received to date have confirmed our view that the blend is not yet right. We are grateful to the Scrutiny Committee for its consideration of the proposals and the evidence received. I have read with care the proceedings of the Lords Select Committee. I look forward to hearing the views of the House.

    5.40 pm

    I beg to move, to leave out from "15th October 1981" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:

    but notes in particular that the provisions of the Directive are incompatible with the recommendations of the final report of the Health and Safety Commission's Advisory Committee on Asbestos which, inter alia, calls for 'a statutory ban on the import of raw crocidolite to prevent its reintroduction into the United Kingdom and that this should be extended to the import of products containing it providing the practical difficulties can be overcome', and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to enter into immediate discussions with other member countries with a view to the early revision of the terms of the Directive so as to bring them into line not only with the recommendations of the Advisory Committee but also with the aim of seeking to eliminate the further use of asbestos in all its forms throughout the Community."

    The Minister has done his best to encompass a difficult, complex and extremely important subject. I am grateful for some of the initiatives that he has taken. He has dealt with many of the complicated issues, but he will understand that we shall not be ready to say that we are satisfied with what he said until we have adequately studied the text.

    There is no doubt in my mind that this issue is of paramount importance. A cancerous disease is a horrific affliction. In some circumstance working with asbestos might be the guarantor of contracting cancer. The Minister will agree that a microscopic fibre lodged in the lungs can he fatal. If the asbestos worker did not find his lungs hardening as asbestos took its hold, he or she risked malignant tumours in the lungs, in the pleura and in the pertoneum. Crocidolite, or blue asbestos, has been universally isolated as a major risk for such cancers. It takes many years for the symptoms to reveal themselves. Therefore, the industry, Parliament and the nation should never forget the danger of this remarkable substance.

    By 1965 the total number of known cases of mesothelioma of the pleura was 160. However, it took an average of 33 years for the symptoms to manifest themselves with equal examples in both sexes. It was a terrible risk not only for the production workers in the asbestos mills, but for their wives who washed contaminated overalls and were frighteningly vulnerable. The risk was also present in the streets in the lee of the factories. Boilermakers, ship repairers, dockers, railway carriage builders and the widely based laggers of pipes suffered—sometimes most grievously.

    The key moment in this rather dark and dismal history was the 1966 Hebden Bridge, Acre Mill, disclosure of truly appalling consequences. Clearly, there was a lack of even basic precautions. The ensuing asbestos regulations of 1969 superseded the 1931 asbestos industrial regulations.

    I recollect that my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker), when he was given responsibility for health and safety, went to Hebden Bridge to meet some of the victims. The setting up of the advisory committee on asbestos was the result of that visit. It was on my right hon. Friend's advice that the former Member for Sowerby, Mr. Madden, referred the issue to the Parliamentary Commissioner. It was in that way that the allegations of neglect were investigated. My right hon. Friend has asbestos workers in his constituency. He has never neglected developments in the industry affecting his constituents.

    After the Hebden Bridge disaster, a series of important statements were made by Ministers and a series of debates were initiated by hon. Members. I recollect the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr Cryer). The hon. Members for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) and for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) also initiated debates.

    Our amendment reflects the anxiety of many knowledgeable people in the industry. At Brighton recently the Labour Party conference voted overwhelmingly for a policy to end the import of blue asbestos and to take steps to phase out its use throughout the country

    Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his last point? He referred to blue asbestos. Does the amendment refer to other forms of asbestos as well?

    Ultimately, the Labour Party does not want to see the use of asbestos at all. There is no time limit. The emphasis has been placed on phasing. The TUC's industrial welfare officer, Mr. Peter Jacques, has informed the European Commission that the TUC believes that there should be explicit legal requirement to prevent the importation of blue asbestos and that this should be extended to include goods containing blue asbestos. Mr. Jacques has presented a much lengthier set of details to the Select Committee on European Legislation &c than I have read out.

    The official Opposition endorse the standpoint of both the Labour Party conference and the TUC. The Minister clarified a number of matters concerning the issues that I have raised. He said that there will be a statutory ban. In an intervention my right hon. Friend rather bluntly asked "When?" The Minister fended off the requirement to give a detailed answer to that question. However, it is an important question which we shall continue to ask him. We are putting our position firmly and decisively on the record. I remind the House that our amendment calls for a statutory ban throughout the Common Market. It reflects the genuine worry of the TUC. The TUC and other such organisations witness the overall situation throughout work forces.

    The Government have brought two draft directives before us. The first involves public exposure to dangerous substances through the market place. The second concerns the work place, the protection of workers and the ill effects suffered by those working with asbestos. There is a dangerous inconsistency. It may be argued that the two directives do not take the same line, particularly on the use of blue asbestos.

    The first directive—docurnent 5682—as I understand it, introduces the principle of a ban on certain manufactured goods—notably pipes and steels. The second directive recommends a scheme for notification and temporary authorisation of the use of blue asbestos. It is essential that we amend article 4(3) in the draft directive 9953/80 so that we bring the two texts into line. One directive is weaker than the other, and that is an inconsistency of principle.

    The workers to whom I have spoken fear that products containing blue asbestos will creep into the United Kingdom, with serious health hazards. The men and women who work in the asbestos industry have mounted a lobby today, as they are entitled to do. Indeed, I attended a meeting with them in Room W1. It is only right that their interests should be protected. They suspect that powerful Belgian and German interests are holding up complete harmonisation on blue asbestos. This will not add to the already tarnished reputation of the multinational companies. Progress has been rather slow on the draft directive on the safety of workers in the asbestos industry. Why did the Government allow the Commission to put through the negotiations on the directive on the marketing and use of asbestos? Surely the Minister understands that the draft directive on the protection of workers, which contains more detailed provisions, should have had priority. It will help the House if the hon. and learned Gentleman will tell us why the directive is couched in terms that are more applicable to mining and manufacturing than to construction and demolition. It is a serious anomaly.

    There are hundreds of laggers throughout the country. Some of them are in the Chamber listening to the debate. As the leaders of the General and Municipal Workers Union have said, stripping out old asbestos lagging exposes workers to the deadly blue asbestos. After the Hebden Bridge disaster there was increased identification and removal of blue asbestos. A large market opened up for asbestos-stripping companies.

    As recently as January 1981 the Health and Safety Commission's chairman, Mr. Simpson, told the Select Committee on European Legislation &c. that the directive was defective when applied to construction and demolition. If the Minister catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, I hope that he will respond on that issue, which I consider to be a key factor in the debate. The Minister should know that there are many laggers who need a detailed answer rather quickly. Lives are at stake.

    Neither the Minister nor the House should overlook the Health and Safety Commission's wish that safeguards should be provided to ensure that the controls are more stringent than those laid down by the directive. I read that in paragraph 29 of the report of the Select Committee in another place, which is an extremely useful document. It points to the potential difficulty that is created because the draft directive comes under article 100 of the Treaty of Rome, which is concerned with the removal of barriers affecting the functioning of the EEC. By implication, the Common Market is not coming out very well on these details and issues. The men to whom I spoke today told me bluntly that they feel that there is a certain levelling-down rather than a levelling-up. They consider that the Government should be able to provide some answers.

    The Minister referred to substitutes. That is a difficult subject, because there is no known wisdom. The Government should tell us the action that they are taking on asbestos substitutes. Pilkington Bros. asserts that it has a substitute. It says that glass reinforced cement could be processed by existing asbestos cement production machinery with only minor modifications. It concedes that the extra cost of the project would be about 10 to 15 per cent. but it asserts that the new product would largely eliminate respiratory health hazards.

    Have the Government monitored both the development of and the claims for new products? Have they an agency that is doing that or which might consider doing it? When I visited the asbestos cement factory at Widnes—TAC—I met senior shop stewards and leaders of the Transport and General Workers Union and of the General and Municipal Workers Union. I think that they are present today. They told me that they had seen the loss of many jobs in the industry locally. They do not want to see the loss of any more jobs.

    I advance the argument further. The Select Committee in another place decided that commercial considerations were relevant. The shop stewards to whom I talked were angry when they learnt that commercial pressures would tend to favour member States with the least stringent standards. That is a serious consideration for the British work force when it knows that mass unemployment is growing.

    After two and a half years, the Government have failed to make any comments on substitutes. We are entitled to know the Government's thinking. The work forces and representatives of factories throughout Britain are terrified by the prospect of losing more jobs. Mr. Robert Trotter, the general secretary of the Amalgamated Textile Workers Union, said:
    "We feel that the more successful the trade union movements are in the developed nations in bringing about proper safety legislation on the handling of asbestos rather than on meeting these controls the more manufacturers will opt out of their obligations to the health of their employees by transferring their production to countries where the control on the handling of asbestos is non-existent."
    I tried hard in the time available to me to follow the details that the Minister provided, especially on limit values. I think that he said that they were 0.25 cc on blue asbestos and 0.55 cc for amosite. He added that should a review of the limit values be required in the years ahead because of technical changes he would assert the authority of the United Kingdom's Government.

    Under the directive it is proposed that there should be the same limit value for both white and brown asbestos. That value will be 1 fibre/cc. We originally put forward a differential between brown asbestos and white asbestos suggesting 0.5 per fibres/cc for brown asbestos and 1 fibre/cc for white asbestos.

    That is the next best thing to the Minister sending me a copy of his speech. If he had done that, we would have had an even more informed debate.

    I shall ask some more questions on the topic on which the Minister has intervened to get them on the record so that he might write to me with detailed answers if he is not able to provide them immediately. First, what news is there of the Health and Safety Executive's evaluation of automatic counting devices? I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that we desperately need a reputable method of counting. When will Her Majesty's Alkali Inspectorate advise the Health and Safety Commission on the emission of asbestos dust from the work place and the means of its control?

    The Health and Safety Executive has begun a survey of asbestos workers. I think that that was because of recommendation 4 of the report of the Advisory Committee on Asbestos. The Minister might be able to give us some relevant details. The Health and Safety Executive has been conducting research in varied non-occupational environments into the airborne concentrations of asbestos. Does the Minister have any information on that?

    I should like to refer to the human side of some of these technical matters. The GMWU asserts that asbestos diseases amongst insulation workers were killing more than half of those who had been heavily exposed, that is, those with 15 to 20 years in the industry. It also asserts:
    "Stripping out old asbestos lagging exposes workers to the more deadly 'blue' asbestos, which can cause cancer without heavy exposure; exposures to white or brown asbestos can cause cancer at levels that do not cause asbestosis … preventing asbestos disease, especially the cancer, requires very high standards of safe working, which can make thermal insulation work a very expensive job."
    I am told that £1½ million or more might be the cost to strip a small power station, and that it might cost £500,000 to strip a council estate. Therefore, the way would be open to a flood of cut-throat cowboy operators who could do a cheap job in a few days without Health and Safety Executive inspectors being aware of their operation.

    The laggers have today asked me to ask the Minister what he is doing so that there will be a licensing system to help to save some lives. What assurances will he give that there will be sufficient factory inspectors to ensure compliance with the various regulations? We believe that more cash is needed so that we can enable the responsible authorities to catch the cowboy operators, who in some instances might accurately be called merchants of death. It is no exaggeration to say that some workers have been cheated of their lives. The laggers whom I met today are angry at their predicament.

    Will my hon. Friend ask the Minister what precautions were taken in the House of Commons during August, when a large corridor close to the room that I inhabit was apparently stripped of asbestos? What arrangements were made to warn any of us that that was happening? Can we be sure that fibres are not floating around there?

    I cannot give an answer to that. I look forward to the Minister's assurances. I should like him to say categorically that there are no such dangers in the House. I expect that he has consulted his ministerial colleagues so that he can give such an assurance on such a predictable subject today.

    There have been expenditure cuts. Is the Factory Inspectorate shielded from such cuts? How many factory inspector posts have remained unfilled following retirements? I refer particularly to inspectors concerned with asbestos. With regard to the mooted round of public expenditure cuts in the immediate future, will the Minister give us an assurance that there will be no cuts in this vital area of health and safety?

    We believe that the Health and Safety Executive should mount a massive publicity campaign to emphasise the dangers of asbestos. Such a campaign must widely publicise the results of the enforcement campaign. More people would be alerted to the hazards of asbestos if details of prosecutions were released systematically. It is a scandal that fines for the transgressors are so small. The Government should come forward with proposals for heavier fines. Is there any prospect of that?

    We fear that the directive might lead to products containing blue asbestos creeping into the country. The men who came to see me today have said that. The Opposition are not satisfied that the directives on the market place and in the work place are complementary. There appears to be an inconsistency of principle. We contend that the Government have been dilatory in bringing forth the directives.

    Jobs are at stake. The men in the Lobby today told me that they did not want to lose any more of their jobs. They are from areas of high unemployment. I think that the Minister will accept that the issues that we are debating, technical though they may be, are issues of life and death. We in the House have a national duty to maximise the protection of workers and of the environment.

    I am haunted by the fact that it takes many years for the fateful symptoms to manifest themselves. When we established the 1969 asbestos regulations, workers who thought that they were fully fit already carried the seeds of an illness that would kill them. Workers might be lulled into a sense of false security by medical examinations alone. One microscopic fragment inhaled by an unfortunate employee can lead to death. Therefore, the work force in Britain requires a determined and profound response by the Government. In no way should the Common Market impede an attempt by the Government to have a defensible policy.

    6.7 pm

    The Minister expressed pleasure at seeing me in my place, but surprise that I was not in another place by the name of Croydon. I assure him that as the only argument there is about who will be second and third, I did not see much point in being there to argue about that.

    I thank the Minister for his speech, which was helpful I thank him also for his visit to my constituency in July, to which he graciously referred. I assure him that we were delighted to have him in the constituency.

    The substance of my remarks will be about the production process in the asbestos industry rather than about some of the sections of the industry to which the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) referred. I found his speech highly inflammatory and somewhat of an exaggeration of the dangers that exist, certainly for the wider public, as I hope to demonstrate.

    The Minister referred to a factory in my constituency. It is the largest asbestos textile plant in the world. It employs over 2,000 people in the production and marketing of asbestos-based products. As the Minister told the House, the company concerned—TBA Industrial Products Ltd.—has a long record in this area. It has a proud history in safety working in asbestos. It has a proud history not only of enterprise and industry, but of excellent industrial relations. It has a proud history and experience of exporting to all parts of the world from its productive units—particularly, in the context of my speech, the productive units of Rochdale.

    I find it difficult to relate the attitude of the Opposition to the speech of the hon. Member for Flint, East, because he said constantly that the workers were anxious that there should be no more unemployment in the industry. Let it be absolutely clear that if the official Opposition's amendment were to be carried, thousands of jobs would be lost as a consequence.

    I intervened in the hon. Gentleman's speech to ask him to clarify whether he was referring merely to blue asbestos, but, with respect, he did not clarify the matter. He referred to the banning of blue asbestos, but the amendment does not refer merely to blue asbestos. It calls for the banning in this country of all asbestos. Let it be absolutely clear that that would cause the loss of thousands of jobs in the country generally, and hundreds in my constituency. I found the hon. Gentleman's speech, therefore, to be out of line with his plea that there should be no further redundancies in the asbestos industry.

    I referred a few moments ago to the proud history of TBA Industrial Products Ltd. in enterprise, exports and industrial relations. It also has a long and proud history of deep interest in the safety of the workers in the industry and in the consumers of the industry's products. That interest has been expressed in practical terms. Millions of pounds have been invested in safety and the safe working of the raw material used in the industry.

    The company has never been afraid to discuss with anyone the safety aspects of the products and the raw material. The employers have not shown the sort of petty-mindedness that would confine discussion to one political party. If any hon. Member of this House, whatever his views or his politics, is sufficiently interested and open-minded to wish to see an asbestos plant in operation, TBA Industrial Products Ltd. at Rochdale will be very happy to arrange a visit. Safety in industry should be far above party politics and should be the concern of every hon. Member.

    In the asbestos industry, there are two areas to consider. The first is the safety of the employees working in the industry. The second is the safety of the user—the consumer—of the industry's products.

    Over the years the risks for the worker in the industry have been considerably reduced. I emphasise the word "reduced", because they have not been eliminated. But one must ask whether it is possible to eliminate all risks from most processing industries, not simply asbestos.

    At TBA Industrial Products Ltd., of the 216 cases of asbestosis certified since 1931, only 13 of those involved commenced work in the industry after 1951. The other 203 all commenced work in the industry before 1951. So the trend is clearly in the right direction.

    I asked whether it is possible to eliminate all risks from industry. It is worth noting that in the coal industry 500 men a year are still diagnosed as suffering from pneumoconiosis. The asbestos industry compares very favourably, therefore, with the coal industry. I am not suggesting that the figures are acceptable or that we should not strive to reduce them, but in all productive capacity there can be danger to health. Indeed, I was tempted to remind the hon. Member for Flint, East when he was making his onslaught that every time someone crosses the road he is in danger of being knocked down by a bus. One cannot imagine reaching a point at which all risks in industry will be eliminated, but in the asbestos industry every effort has been made—and will continue to be made—to reduce the risk to the absolute minimum.

    As for the risk to the consumer, the Simpson committee—which had a wide membership, including eminent members of the medical profession, and sat for approximately three years—arrived at the unanimous conclusion that
    "The public at large are not at risk".
    It is necessary to say that time and time again, because the manner in which the subject was dealt with by the Opposition spokesman could cause a great deal of scare and alarm among members of the public.

    Asbestos is part of the earth's surface. The danger from it arises not as it lies dormant, but when it is processed in a manner that gives off minute particles of dust that can get into the lungs. The domestic use today of asbestos is minimal, and the industry is constantly striving, through its own capital investment, to find alternative materials and safer ways of working. Great credit is due to the industry for the efforts that it has made and is making. It is difficult, however, to imagine that the use of asbestos will ever be eliminated. The Minister referred to that aspect in his speech. The fibres of asbestos have unique properties because of their resistance to high temperature, abrasion and to certain corrosive chemicals, liquids and gases. Asbestos is often used in conjunction with rubber, plastic and cement in many important arduous and high performance applications, including friction materials, seals, protective clothing, fire-resistant boards, and so on. Let no one underestimate its importance, or fail to understand that, properly used, asbestos protects and saves lives. That is a point that its critics always fail to make.

    It is accepted and recognised that asbestos products, if not handled correctly—and even when handled correctly—can cause disease. It is proper, therefore, that the House should concern itself with that aspect of production.

    The EEC directives must be supported in principle. I welcome the Government's assurance that they will be supported. However, there are one or two details in the directives with which I should now like to deal.

    I deal first with crocidolite. Blue fibre is far and away the most dangerous asbestos fibre. Much to its credit, the United Kingdom industry has operated a voluntary ban—I stress that it is voluntary—on the import of blue-based products since 1969. It is ahead of the House and of the EEC directive. If the use of crocidolite were allowed in some EEC countries, that would certainly constitute unfair competition for United Kingdom industries, because there are cost advantages in processing blue as opposed to white chrysotile fibres, especially, I understand, in matters of drainage.

    The Simpson committee recommended that blue fibre should be banned. The EEC directive allows certain applications of it. I welcome the Minister's assurance on this, but I stress my hope that our Ministers will press for the banning of blue crocidolite. If they are unable to achieve that, I hope that they will pay serious regard to the method of enforcement of such directives and to such exceptions as are permitted.

    The experience of many of us, particularly with the multi-fibre arrangement in textiles generally, has shown that there are ways of getting around EEC directives. I hope, for example, that attention will be paid to countries outside the EEC which may be able to export to the EEC by back-door methods. I hope that any rules will be applied to imports into the EEC as well as to home-based manufacture within the EEC.

    With regard to article 3 of the DGV, if the regulations are to apply, an asbestos worker or a person exposed to asbestos in the form of white chrysotile should be more clearly defined. We welcome the Minister's assurance that the Government are seeking a clearer definition. As he said, there are people handling this substance on a limited scale, and there are products containing asbestos in which the fibres are bonded or locked in so that there is no dust and very little danger. If the proposed regulations were all-embracing, even workers handling products which are bonded or locked in would be included in the definition. A clearer definition is therefore vital.

    I suggest a definition along the following lines: "Exposure to asbestos is experienced by those whose work involves more than four working hours in a 40-hour working week, such that their time-weighted average for exposure is greater than 0.1 fibre per millilitre of air". The Minister can read all that in Hansard tomorrow. I should make it clear that the industry is constantly striving to reduce the fibre content in the air. The present United Kingdom standard is two fibres, and 98 per cent. of production is now below that level. The Simpson committee recommended one fibre, and 85 per cent. of United Kingdom processing is now below that level. Again, therefore, the record stands investigation.

    Article 4.1 refers to substitutes. I urge, however, that any legislation or directive should not oversell substitutes. Any substitute considered as such should be regarded as potentially dangerous if, as in asbestos, the fibrous dust is in the range of 5 microns diameter and more than 3 microns in length. Safety, as well as technical performance and cost, should be a consideration in substitute selection. How tragic it would be if, in 20 years, our successors were faced with similar health problems caused by substitutes introduced today.

    Articles 9 and 10 refer to the sampling of asbestos dust in the air. The limit standard of 1 fibre cc for chrysotile fibres as specified in article 9 is fully supported. As I have said, the United Kingdom is all but there already, and in many instances well ahead. I urge caution, however, with regard to the sampling period proposed. The industry, like the Simpson committee, believes that the standard sampling time should be of four hours' duration and that the one-fibre limit should be applied over that period. If, however, work activities make it impracticable or inappropriate to collect a sample over a four-hour period, a shorter period should be allowed. The shorter period, however, should be treated as representative of the longer period, with the one fibre per millilitre standard still applying—again, incidentally, as recommended by the United Kingdom advisory committee.

    Article 10, which calls for an action limit of 0.5 fibre per millilitre over a sampling period of four hours or less, is based upon a false assumption and will, I hope, be resisted. The industry welcomes and supports the recommendations in articles 14 and 15 regarding medical examinations and records and again is already implementing them.

    I welcome, as the industry does, the proposal to restrict smoking in asbestos areas. Anti-smoking campaigns among employees would probably do more than any other single factor to reduce the incidence of asbestos-related lung cancer. I hope that everything possible will be done to publicise that fact. I remember the then managing director of TBA Industrial Products Ltd. telling me many years ago that he almost had a strike on his hands because he tried to ban cigarette machines from the factory. Clearly, a great deal of education is needed in that area.

    The last point to which I wish specifically to refer concerns directives 3 and 4 on harmonisation. There can be no doubt that a critical factor in the implementation of proposed regulations is the urgent need—and I stress that it is urgent—to ensure harmonisation with member States in methodology, monitoring and counting fibres to agreed international standards of the organisation dealing with it, or at least to EEC standards or to both. This is vital to ensure uniformity of implementation of safe methods of control.

    I repeat the need, too, to be extremely vigilant over imports to the EEC from non-EEC countries which do not have such controls. These may well include developed nations and not only underdeveloped nations.

    Harmonisation is vital. I understand that this has not proved easy, even within the United Kingdom, so within the wider EEC it will be even more difficult. But it must be achieved, for otherwise there will be unfair advantages to the United Kingdom's competitors. The job of our Ministers in the EEC discussions is to ensure that that does not happen.

    This is an important debate. Safety is an important matter. The United Kingdom has done more to achieve safety standards in asbestos working than has any other country. We are teachers in this regard, and we should be proud of that fact, but that does not mean that we should relax our vigilance and concern. I hope that in addition to myself other Opposition Members will have the courage to praise the industry for the work that it has done and for the fact that it leads the world.

    Risk to the health of workers in the asbestos or any industry must be minimised and we must ever strive to eliminate it. It is also essential that the same vigilance, concern and fight for perfection are carried on and sought after within the EEC.

    The Simpson committee played a major part in seeking those high standards, and I am grateful to it for doing so. I particularly commend the continuing work of Miss Sandra Newton, whom I know the industry holds in high regard and esteem. I hope that the message from this debate will be clear:first, that we seek and demand maximum safety for all concerned with the industry, secondly, that we seek those standards by regulation through the EEC; thirdly, and this I stress, that there is no danger from asbestos to the public at large; and, fourthly. that United Kingdom industry is to be highly commended for leading the world in safety techniques and concern.

    I welcome the EEC directives in principle and I commend them to the House. In so doing, I urge that, above all else, harmonisation and enforcement should be our principal aim at the meetings to follow. I shall support the motion. I should have been happy to support the amendment had it confined itself to blue asbestos, but as it calls for the banning of all asbestos in Britain, and as that ban—

    The hon. Gentleman must not generalise and summarise in that fashion about the words of the amendment. For his benefit I shall read them. The amendment

    "calls upon Her Majesty' s Government to enter into immediate discussions with other member countries with a view to the early revision of the terms of the Directive so as to bring them into line not only with the recommendations of the Advisory Committee but also with the aim of seeking to eliminate the further use of asbestos in all its forms throughout the Community".
    That is rather different from the hon. Gentleman's assertion that it is a complete and categorical ban.

    With respect, that sentence precludes me from voting, for the amendment, because I do not believe that we can ban asbestos completely. I certainly know that if we did so it would cost hundreds of jobs in my constituency. For that reason I shall vote against the amendment and for the motion.

    6.34 pm

    I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this important debate. I must first declare a constituency interest, because in Watford there is a firm called Cape Universal Claddings which employs 170 people, mostly from within my constituency. My interest is not only in the preservation of their jobs and continued job prospects but in their good health, care and safety at their place of work.

    The hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) referred to the work that was done by the former Member for Sowerby, Mr. Max Madden. The House will be aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Thompson) is present, but, for reasons that are well known, he will be unable to take part in the debate. However, he follows these matters closely and discussed them with me only today.

    Most of the technical points that I wish to make have already been made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) in a helpful, serious and constructive speech. As I agree with the hon. Gentleman, I shall not burden the House by making those points again.

    That enables me to concentrate my remarks on the United Kingdom asbestos cement industry, which is of particular interest to my constituency. This industry employs 6,000 people directly and about 40,000 indirectly in handling the finished products. I have a submission, prepared by the joint union-management liaison committee of the Asbestos Association, which I commend to everyone who takes an interest in these matters.

    Here I pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Rochdale about the Opposition amendment. None of us has the experience of the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) in drawing up composite motions. Certainly, Conservatives are a bit naive about such things. But it seems perfectly clear that an amendment which has
    "the aim of seeking to eliminate the further use of asbestos in all its forms throughout the Community"
    is a fairly clear statement of intent. It is also a fairly clear threat to my constituents whose jobs in the asbestos cement industry depend on the continued use of this excellent mineral. I am surprised that the Opposition should table that amendment, particularly as the union-management liasion committee, which totalled 13 members, contained no fewer than eight union members, principally from the Transport and General Workers Union and the General and Municipal Workers Union.

    A particularly important role was played by Mr. Arthur Pettifer, who has been a senior shop steward for the Transport and General Workers Union for 16 years. I am surprised that the committee's views do not seem to have filtered through to the Opposition Front Bench. However, I do not make too much of that.

    There are significant differences between the directive before us and the recommendations initially made by the Health and Safety Executive. There are four principal differences—first, the scope and application of the directive itself; secondly, the proposed limit values and methods of measurement; thirdly, the difference in the proposals for health surveillance; and, fourthly, the difference in the proposals for substitutes.

    The Asbestos Association accepts the principles contained in this directive, but is extremely worried about the effect that its implementation would have on the asbestos cement industry. I would go as far as to say that, if the directive were to be implemented in its present form, we could well be left with no asbestos cement industry to regulate.

    The manufacturing process for asbestos cement products is not especially risky, first, because 95.1 per cent. of the product is made up of water and cement and, secondly, because the asbestos fibre used is solely white asbestos. There is no use of blue asbestos not only in this procedure but in any asbestos product in this country. Thirdly, the manufacturing process is almost totally wet. I make no further comment about that, other than to say that certainly in asbestos manufacture, if not in politics, to be totally wet is a great advantage. It reduces the possibility of dust and prevents it from floating about.

    Fourthly, the fibre is encapsulated and partly chemically bonded into the cement. I stress again, as did the hon. Member for Rochdale, that there is no medical evidence whatever of risk from these products in the handling and transporting of them or—more important—for members of the public who live or work in buildings that contain asbestos cement products.

    I do not want to expand on the remarks already made by the hon. Member for Rochdale about the excellent record of the industry—management and work force—in working for higher levels of health safety. On the two occasions that I visited Cape Universal Claddings in my constituency I was very impressed by the way in which the shop stewards and the trade union movement worked hand in glove with the management on health safety. Sometimes trade union representatives press the management to go further and sometimes the pressures come from the management. There is no doubt that the final outcome is an industry with an impressive record on health safety. It is running far ahead of the rest of the world, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out.

    I come now to the main provisions of the directive, which are seen by the asbestos cement industry as a real threat to its survival. Three of the 20 articles in the directive—Nos. 3, 5 and 7—have potentially serious consequences for the continued manufacture and usage of asbestos cement products.

    Article 4, dealing with the use of crocidolite, could also have a serious effect on the United Kingdom asbestos cement industry. Article 3, when read in conjunction with articles 5 and 7, embraces all aspects of processing and use of asbestos cement products. Moreover, it includes areas where there is no evidence whatever of asbestos-related disease. It is difficult to see how these guidelines could be applied to building sites and be properly enforced and monitored. The combined effects of these articles would lead to a reduction in the use of asbestos cement products in which the fibres are firmly bonded into cement.

    Article 5, when read in conjunction with articles 3 and 7, would certainly lead to a reduction in asbestos cement products. The article further compounds these difficulties by imposing additional and unnecessary administrative burdens on Government enforcing agencies. In the United Kingdom, a three-year study of the asbestos question, culminating in the final report of October 1979, has already provided the most detailed records and documentation on asbestos fibre usage that exists anywhere in the world. I should have thought that notification of new manufacturing projects or significant changes in asbestos fibre usage would be a more useful and understandable requirement than the rigmarole in article 5.

    The provisions in article 7 of the directive are acceptable in themselves, provided that they refer only to areas and operations where raw asbestos fibre is handled or asbestos-containing products are processed, cut, sanded or drilled so that respirable fibres cannot be released into the atmosphere. However, if this article is read in conjunction with articles 3 and 5, enforcement will be extremely difficult and, in any case, would lead to a progressive decline in the use of asbestos-containing products.

    Article 4 is long and detailed, and I shall not read it out. Paragraph 1 refers to substitutes, and, here again, I reinforce the comments of the hon. Member for Rochdale. Safer substitutes should always be considered, but I believe that the industry would want to stress that that should not give rise to greater risks than the small risks already existing in the use of asbestos. Equally, other factors need to be considered. Will the substitutes give a product with satisfactory technical performance, life and cost? The hon. Gentleman told the House in detail about the qualities of asbestos, which should also be borne in mind.

    Paragraph 2 deals with the application of asbestos fibre by means of a spray process which should certainly be prohibited, That is a matter on which the trade unions and management in this submission have no difficulty in agreeing.

    The hon. Member for Rochdale has already discussed the use of crocidolite asbestos, which has not been used in the United Kingdom since 1970. Because of the known health risks, the fibre may become the subject of a further statutory ban in the United Kingdom. However, the House should be aware that Continental European asbestos cement manufacturers use it in the manufacture of piping, in particular, and this enables them to produce pipes at higher output rates and lower cost. As a result they have a product that is more competitive than can be produced by manufacturers here.

    The proposed retention of crocidolite means that the one remaining United Kingdom asbestos cement fibre manufacturing facility will continue to be obliged to produce and sell products, both at home and abroad, at prices that are significantly higher than those of Continental manufacturers. This trading imbalance is particularly severe in the competitive markets in which those companies have to operate. We have already lost one factory in the North-West, with the loss of 250 jobs, and the one remaining factory, which I believe is in Kent, must be under threat. The trade union-management submission on this matter strongly supports the ban on blue asbestos.

    I add one rider to that. I fear that not only are we suffering competition abroad from European manufacturers who use blue asbestos, but products manufactured in Europe with blue asbestos are being imported into this country, therefore making nonsense of the responsible attitude that our industry takes to the product.

    Many consequences would arise from the unamended enactment of articles 3, 5 and 7. I am convinced that their combined effect, if unamended, would result in a progressive and rapid decline of the United Kingdom cement manufacturing industry, where jobs have already been reduced from 9,500 in 1977 to the present level of 6,000. The consequence could be the further cumulative loss of those 6,000 jobs, nearly 1,500 of which would be in areas that are already sustaining excessively high levels of unemployment, such as the Midlands and the North-West. I would not in any way welcome additional unemployment in my constituency.

    The thrust of my remarks is to defend the 170 workers in my constituency. I am fortunate to represent a prosperous part of the South, and I acknowledge that the problems in my constituency are to a great degree multiplied the further north one goes. However, the residual unemployment effects on user industries could be even greater.

    The unamended enactment of article 4 would continue the limited sanctions on the use of crocidolite which directly affects our manufacturers who cannot compete. It would also continue to cause grave concern to many of us who suspect that the products are being imported, making nonsense of what our industry is trying to do.

    I end by saying how surprised I am to find the Opposition—particularly someone as well informed and well connected in the trade union movement as the right hon. Member for Doncaster—putting forward an amendment that would take jobs from my constituents and many others. I can only charitably assume that it has been done in error and hope that by the end of the debate the Opposition will withdraw this damaging amendment.

    6.50 pm

    I, too, shall limit my remarks to the asbestos cement industry. In my constituency we have only one such factory, which involves about 250 jobs, but in addition we have many users.

    The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) set out the objections to the EEC directive which have on more than one occasion been expressed by the management and unions. Both sides of the industry are prepared to accept the Simpson committee recommendations in full and implement them immediately. Some are already in operation.

    I and my hon. Friends have asked several times when the Government will bring forward regulations to implement the report, but we have had to wait until now to debate the control of the industry. The recommendations should have been implemented earlier and formed the basis of the EEC directives. Britain should have strongly presented her views to the Commission and influenced the controls to regulate the industry.

    The combination of articles 3, 5 and 7 may create difficulties, not so much for the manufacturers as for users. Article 7 will affect users on building sites. I am not talking necessarily of large construction sites or the stripping of blue asbestos, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) referred. Asbestos sheeting is often used as roofing material, perhaps by a farmer in re-roofing his buildings. The articles lay down conditions that will be impracticable for the small user to follow. They will also be extremely difficult to enforce, because of the limited number of factory inspectors, who already find it difficult to ensure that many building regulations are observed. With these limitations, the potential small user may be tempted to substitute other materials such as plastic coated steel, although it is more expensive. That will certainly create difficulties for the industry.

    Orders should be increasing at this time of year, but they are not. There are already employment difficulties in the industry. We have been given figures of 6,000 in the manufacture and 40,000 in the use of asbestos cement material. Anxiety about employment has been forcefully expressed to me by the union side in my constituency. In Thurrock over 13 per cent. of the work force is unemployed. Over 6,000 people are unemployed—the first time that we have hit that figure for a long time. I should not like to see even a small proportion of the 250 jobs in the factory disappear.

    The Minister mentioned the need for controls on users of asbestos to be practicable. He said that he would pursue that in negotiations on the draft directive. I hope that he will make that clear to the unions and management and further discuss with them what forms of control they would like. Both sides of the industry want controls on the use of a potentially dangerous material.

    The Government accept the limit proposed in the directive of 1 fibre cc. Parts of the industry have already accepted 0.5 fibre cc. I hope that the Minister will not only encourage other EEC countries to adopt the lower limit, but will enforce it here in advance. We should take the lead.

    I hope that the Minister will tell us what steps he proposes to take to protect the industry and will undertake to contact the management and unions to ensure that jobs are protected and that every effort will be made to control the health and working conditions of workers in the industry and users of the material.

    6.58 pm

    Few people are unaware of the dangers of asbestos if used incorrectly or with inadequate safety standards. A large number of workers and others who have been in contact with asbestos suffered serious ill health and even death because insufficient was known of the dangers. That was partly due to the delay between the contact with asbestos and the appearance of the disease. Few who have read the newspapers or watched televison can now be unaware of the situation.

    Unfortunately, at the same time, there has been considerable public misunderstanding which such organisations as the Asbestos Information center have done their best to clear up. Asbestos has almost become one of those feared words that drive people into veritable terror. Some people, I think, believe that one has only to touch asbestos or perhaps merely look at it to be struck down at a later date. Only a minority perhaps appreciate that it is necessary to breathe the fibres into one's lungs for dangers to show themselves subsequently.

    Asbestos has unique qualities. This explains the difficulty of providing substitutes. The great strength of the fibres in relation to their weight and size can be equalled by very few other materials. Considerable expense is involved but the companies themselves are in the forefront of research to find acceptable substitutes.

    There is no one substitute for all applications. Although it is possible now to provide alternatives for some applications that are adequate and reasonably cheap, it will take quite some time before acceptable alternatives for others are available. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) pointed out that asbestos is a material that can save lives. If it is necessary to produce an alternative material that is so expensive that people cannot afford it or are unwilling to pay for it, we are not making any advance.

    The whole House, like the industry, should welcome these directives. They provide practical protection for both workers and users. I believe that companies manufacturing products that contain asbestos take a responsible attitude. One of these companies, the BBA. Group at Cleckheaton in my constituency, is among the best not only in relation to worker protection but also in relation to medical help given to retired employees. The company has spent many hundreds of thousands of pounds on the introduction of equipment to protect workers every day. The company is not unique. Britain's standards of safety and the requirements laid down in regulations put us in the forefront in Europe. This enables us to adopt a strong position in relation to the EEC directives.

    I would go further. Harmonisation is very much in our interests. British companies should not be allowed to be at a commercial disadvantage merely because they are willing to adopt higher standards in the interests of their workers and the public generally than their counterparts in other countries.

    Hon. Members have pointed to the need for clear definitions. I shall not go over the ground again. However, the directives as they stand today give scope for member States and companies within those member States to argue that the intentions behind the wording can be evaded. It is important in negotiations to ensure that no one is able to avoid obligations merely because the wording is loose. The directives refer to decorative substances. For example, many substances which have a decorative purpose also have other purposes. They have a protective purpose. There is a need, as the directives stand today, for them to be tightened up. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will pursue the matter vigorously.

    It is suggested that the directives will permit concessions for some member States, perhaps to encourage trade between them. There have been suggestions that individual member States should be allowed what are called derogations. I hope that we shall fight this possibility. I believe that concessions included merely for commercial reasons are unacceptable. Any exceptions should be allowed only for health reasons and not for reasons of commercial advantage for one member State or another.

    We should not underestimate the dangers. Equally, provided we are satisfied that the dangers are overcome, we must be careful not to indulge in what I would describe as overkill. I can perhaps define this as unnecessary regulations or, perhaps even more aptly, prohibition, rather than practical controls. Overkill can be damaging. The price may deter people from equipping themselves with alternative materials even though asbestos materials or products containing asbestos provide an adequate substitute without any real danger.

    The Opposition must come to terms with the fact that jobs are very much at the heart of the matter. The Opposition seem to be arguing about the time scale when they say they are not urging an immediate ban. If, however, the aim is a total ban sooner or later, it has to be recognised that plants will close and jobs will be lost. Representing a constituency in the North of England in an area where unemployment has been rising rapidly, I should be very much opposed to a loss of jobs.

    Good progress is being made in finding substitutes. Immediate safety advantages from the use of alternatives are one reason. There are, however, other factors impelling manufacturers to research new products. The Mintex company is part of the BBA Group and manufactures brake products. New cars have to be lighter for energy reasons and for weight saving reasons and brakes therefore need to be smaller. With the need for brakes to be made more efficient, the solution is often to find alternative products to asbestos. It has to be remembered, however, that the present generation of cars will continue to run with brakes that require asbestos replacements for some considerable time. Even if all new cars were to have brake linings that did not rely on asbestos, there would be cars running on our roads for many years that would continue to need brakes with asbestos components.

    There is no possible way in which a move can be made quickly to substitution in its entirety. Research is moving forward but most alternatives cost between 25 and 50 per cent. more than existing products.

    The hon. Gentleman has referred to Mintex. I should like to refer to a passage in an interesting book called "Asbestos Killer Dust" written by a lecturer in health and safety who says:

    "As early as 1969, Mr. D. Hatch, Ferodo,"
    the well-known brake lining manufacturer among other things
    "said 'It cannot be said that the use of asbestos in disc brake pads remains a technical necessity, and it is in this field of friction materials that some departure from resin-asbestos based composites could occur in the next few years on technical and performance grounds'."

    The author goes on to query why that has not happened in all the years that have elapsed from 1969 and suggests that it is because of lack of pressure on the industry to do what Mr. Hatch of Ferodo forecast.

    The right hon. Gentleman's opening remarks relate to what I was saying. There are alternatives and scope to introduce them.

    I know from personal experience that the company is spending a great deal on research and has no reason to drag its feet. It is necessary to provide an alternative that is acceptable to motorists, can be incorporated in new vehicles as well as second-hand vehicles—because the replacement market is important—and is as adequate in road safety terms as existing materials.

    I have not had the opportunity to read the report to which the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) referred, but I will do so and will discuss the matter with Mintex. However, I know that the company has no reason to resist progress.

    I wish to put to my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary a couple of principles that should be borne in mind during the negotiations with our EEC partners. The first concerns timing. Under no circumstances should the United Kingdom introduce legislation before other EEC States do so. The date of implementation of regulations in this country should conform to the dates agreed in the EEC directives. The proposed dates are acceptable and would gave a reasonable time for necessary plant modifications to be carried out.

    Secondly, it is essential that we have controls that are adequate to protect workers who do not blatantly disregard the rules, but it should be recognised that if we unnecessarily impose controls or prohibitions on various types of asbestos that are more rigid than those imposed elsewhere in the EEC—my hon. and learned Friend suggested that we might do that—we would be put at a serious cost disadvantage which could adversely affect job security.

    I do not suggest that we should pay insufficient attention to health and safety considerations, but it is impossible to achieve perfection in anything. There is asbestos in the air that we breathe in the streets. Some people want to go for a total ban, but I suggest that we have to go for what is practicable and that it would be unreasonable to go further than what the directives regard as satisfactory for workers and the general public throughout the EEC.

    I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Thompson) for the interest that he has taken in this matter, and particularly in the infamous Acre Mill site in his constituency. His predecessor, Mr. Max Madden, also took a great interest in the subject and did a great deal for his constituents, but even he accepted that other materials could present dangers. There are dangers in alternatives such as glassfibre and we do not know as much about them as we know about asbestos. We must beware of jumping out of the frying pan into the fire and we should act with caution.

    The hon. Member for Rochdale referred to imports into the EEC from countries with lower standards for their asbestos-based products. I echo his remarks and will not go over that ground again.

    The draft directive DG III on marketing and use has undergone a change from the original concept of controls to the concept of ultimate prohibition, and the number of product groups involved has risen from three or four to 12. There seems to be a trend towards the progressive elimination of asbestos, without adequate regard being paid to the amount of risk or the significance of the material in manufacturing. That is an important point for my hon. and learned Friend to bear in mind during the negotiations.

    The Opposition would go for an ultimate ban on asbestos, but they must recognise that it would do enormous damage to this country if we acted on our own. It would inevitably be damaging to jobs. The Opposition cannot have it both ways, as the Labour Party conference would wish. If they want to go down that path they ought at least to admit where it will lead.

    I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on supporting the directives and I wish him well in the negotiations.

    7.16 pm

    I should like to take up some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller). The debate is almost a re-run of the arguments that I have heard during my campaign to ban polyurethane foam.

    As parliamentary adviser to the furniture workers I ran a campaign on their behalf on the dangers of nasal cancer. During that campaign I heard the argument that because of the employment implications and so on it was impossible to do anything. It seems that every time we learn that something is dangerous, reasons are found for doing nothing about it and the most that we get is platitudes and a pretence that everything is all right. I note that those who assert that everything is all right never actually work in the industry concerned. This debate has been no exception.

    I was a member of the European Parliament Committee that was responsible for dealing with these directives, and I am happy to see that the arguments and rows that we had at that time have culminated in a much stronger recommendation. I like to think that I played some role in the stiffening of the proposals. A whole array of experts gave evidence to us and argued passionately that something should be done about asbestos. I find it odd to listen to hon. Members suggesting that we should not do too much. The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) said that 250 people were unemployed in his constituency, but there are 6,000 unemployed people in my constituency as a result of Government policy. The hon. Gentleman ought to understand that they have become unemployed without even touching asbestos.

    We cannot afford the luxury of doing nothing about the problem. Ministers and others say that action will be taken, but they accept that we should continue to use asbestos. I have no interest to declare except an interest in people's health. I say to those who are being misled into believing the Government's version that a different story is told by someone who has contracted asbestosis.

    I have heard no hon. Member declare an interest in having had to fight an asbestosis claim on behalf of a constituent. I have had that duty, and it is an appalling experience. Hon. Members have said that firms are doing all that they can to protect workers, but I fought against such firms, which were trying to distance themselves from the misery of workers who had contracted asbestosis.

    I shall tell the story that I told the European Parliament when I argued that the directive was insufficient and would not have catered for the case that I was arguing. The man was a lagger, of whom there are still many. After 14 or 15 years in the industry he began coughing and bringing up fibres in the sputum. Finally, Professor Lawther at St. Bartholomew's hospital was able to identify asbestosis. The argument then began over what to do about it. He was still being employed, and therefore he got no compensation. He then developed an ulcer in his stomach and was operated on. The operation went well and he began to recover. However, during the recovery period he kept on coughing and bringing up sputum containing fibres. After a while he began to get a little better, but he had a bad coughing fit and died.

    I lost the argument because I could not show any connection between the fact that for month after month he had been suffering badly with his chest and coughing as a result of having asbestosis, and the fact that he had had an operation on his stomach for something else. Because of the lack of the knowledge of the argument, and because the only thing that was looked at at the time was the stomach—the reason for the operation—the death certificate said that that was the cause of death. In fact, there was no evidence that that was the cause of death.

    I maintain to this day that there was clear evidence that that man died from asbestosis, but society, his employers, the medical profession, and everyone else disagreed, with the exception of Professor Lawther, who, together with some of his distinguished colleagues, worked hard to help me to show that there could have been the element of asbestosis. The difference is that that man's widow would have been much better off today than she is if I had won the fight to show that the cause of the man's death was asbestosis.

    I started my speech by referring to the enormous damage to health that workers had suffered, and I accept the sincerity of the hon. Member, but I put it to him that companies have paid out many millions of pounds in compensation. At the same time, they have to recognise that there are cases in which the relatives of people who have, unfortunately, died believe that there is a connection between the disease and contact with asbestos. The companies do not insist that the connection be proved. All that they require to be shown is that that connection is probable, that it is likely. Thus, although there may be cases about which the hon. Gentleman feels dissatisfied, I put it to him that the companies have not been lax in fulfilling their responsibilities to society. They fully accept that many people have suffered damage as a result of the operations that they have carried out.

    I was trying to illustrate the problem that one has. The fight is not so obvious or self-evident as one is led to believe from some of the contributions this evening, implying that if a person contracts asbestosis, somehow everything will be all right. It will not. It is a battle. There is resistance among firms to accept that, but my own experience has proved it to me. I merely warn people that they should not be misled too easily into believing that now that the disease has been identified there is no problem if people get it. That is not so. It is a battle all the way.

    That brings me to the next point. I hold the view that health and safety are above the party political battle, but I am being led to the conclusion this evening that I am in a minority of one. The amendment in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends seems to me to be in line with everything that is in the directive. The main burden of the argument in the amendment lies in the words:
    "with the aim of seeking to eliminate the further use of asbestos in all its forms throughout the Community".
    Article 4(1) specifically says:
    "Asbestos shall be replaced by suitable safer substitutes when these are available".
    That is exactly what the amendment says. I see nothing incongruous about what is said in the amendment and what is in article 4(1), unless one is trying to nit-pick. I cannot see how one can quarrel with it.

    Although the burden of my remarks has been on the cement asbestos industry, I have attempted to interpret the views that were put to me, not by the management of any particular firm in my constituency, but by a committee set up to study these matters, on which the majority were trade union officials and people who take health and safety matters very seriously, but who at the same time hope that the industry that gives them employment will survive.

    I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the amendment is incompatible with the survival of that industry, because it specifically calls for a ban on all asbestos products, whereas the directive is a sensible and obvious effort to move towards substitutes. That is obvious, and no one disputes that.

    In that case the hon. Member will vote against the directive, because what is in the amendment is contained in the directive—unless he is trying to nit-pick and say that there is a word in one that is not in the other. When I discussed the matter with the commissioners, that is exactly what they were saying, and exactly what they meant, and it is now in the directive.

    We should not be silly. We are attempting to say that there is a danger. That is common cause. We have all accepted that. We are arguing about whether we should do something about it seriously or move only a step at a time. The hon. Gentleman says that it is right to stop the use of blue asbestos, but the decision that blue asbestos was dangerous did not arise because someone in the industry said "By the way, I am manufacturing some pretty awful stuff here and I advise everyone not to use it". That is not what happened. It was used up to the very last minute—as long as they could get away with it. Moreover, they would go on using it to the very last minute. At no stage did I hear the manufacturers of blue asbestos say "We are manufacturing a dangerous product and we want it banned". They could have stopped it any time that they liked.

    I have lost the train of the argument. The fact is that the ban on blue asbestos that has been in existence in this country since 1969 is a voluntary ban imposed by the industry. It is not a mandatory ban or a statutory ban. It is a voluntary ban imposed by the industry, and that does not seem to be in accordance with what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

    The hon. Member is right, that he is not following my argument. The industry did not discover that it was bad. That was discovered by other sources, particularly the Health Service, and by groups of people who spent time studying it. It was only when they could do nothing other than accept it that the manufacturers had to accept the voluntary ban. I should have made it a statutory ban. I have never thought of it as being voluntary. It ought to be a statutory ban, and under the directive it will be. That is right. I have no doubt about it. Clearly, we reach the stage of saying "Yes, we shall ban this" only when people are driven to it and cannot move in any other direction.

    There is a similar argument about polyurethane foam. We are going down the same route. Eventually its use will be stopped, but it will take a long time and many people will die and much misery will be caused before someone finally says "Either it is a voluntary ban or it is a compulsory ban". At any rate, that is when its use will be stopped.

    Article 6 of the document relates to a subject on which I had something to say in 1978:
    "Special measures shall be taken during the removal of asbestos from existing buildings."
    I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) to ask the Minister what steps were taken in the Palace of Westminster to implement article 6 in that respect. In August, when I was working in the House, I learnt only very late in the day, when I could not get through the corridor adjacent to my room, that the reason for closing the corridor and carrying out work there was to remove asbestos. Since that led directly into my room, with only a door between the corridor and the room, I ask the Minister—I hope that he will reply tonight—to tell me what special measures were taken in the Palace of Westminster for that corridor beside my room, No. 1, above St. Stephen's during the removal of asbestos from that area. It is not much good approving the general drift and argument of a document tonight when deliberately, only six weeks ago, we made certain that we did not oblige ourselves to implement it voluntarily. I am anxious to hear the Minister's reply on how he views that situation and what was done, and why I was not informed. Why was I not subjected to the special precautions, along with colleagues who share the room? I am a little worried about blue asbestos. Paragraph 2 of the briefing document submitted by the Department of Employment states:
    "As at present drafted the marketing and use of blue asbestos and products containing it would be prohibited. However this prohibition would not prevent the use of such products which had already been marketed before the Directive comes into force."
    I recall having discussions about this matter. There will be an enormous hassle if products that come in from member countries contain blue asbestos. The argument will be whether they were produced before or after the vesting day, whenever that will be. What does the Minister think about that? How can one go in for a long argument when very often the stuff arrives through various routes and not directly? Does the Minister feel that allowing that exemption, which
    "would not prevent the use of such products which had already been marketed before the Directive comes into force",
    is tenable? Should we not argue that the first part of the paragraph is the right course—that such products should be prohibited? There would then be no argument or dubiety about it.

    On the matter of consultation, in the days when I was dealing with this issue, when I returned to this country and tried to talk to people who were knowledgeable in these matters I was surprised to find how few were being consulted. There are very few such people. Two of Professor Lawther's colleagues had been consulted and were aware of the matter. I could not contact Professor Lawther today, but I contacted one of his colleagues. They did not know that we would be discussing this matter tonight. They do not recall being invited to talk about it. Professor Lawther is not available until next week. I intend to contact him when he is available to ask him whether he has been consulted. He is one of the most eminent people in this field.

    Paragraph 11 of the original explanatory memorandum says:
    "Consultations have been started with representatives of the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress. trades associations, local authorities and other interested organisations."
    I should like to know whether Professor Lawther and his unit at St. Bartholomew's were included. The Minister had better hurry, because in this unique unit in St. Bartholomew's we have had a group dealing with environmental health, under Professor Lawther, for many years. It is true that he is now approaching retiring age. towards the end of this year, but we are now, in a cost-cutting exercise, getting rid of the whole unit. It has made a remarkable contribution in the whole sphere, including asbestosis, yet we seem to be able suddenly to get rid of it. Apparently we do not seem to want its views, even though others in the rest of the world seek them.

    Some of Professor Lawther's staff are being redeployed in other areas. I think that one eminent colleague of his is joining the Department of Health and Social Security. This has been a unique unit which, by common consent, has done a remarkable job. These people were the forerunners and pioneers of many of the techniques and technologies of dealing with the atmosphere and the environment. Will the Minister re-examine this matter to see whether it is a wise decision that the funding of that unit should cease and that it should be broken up? It involves an expertise which will be very hard to assemble again.

    I think that the general principles enshrined in the directive are right, as I thought in 1978. Whenever we can, we must identify any materials that are dangerous. We should be prepared to take action on them, whatever the cost. If their use involves people's lives, as I have said so many times in the House in relation to polyurethane foam and nasal cancer, I ask all those who covet this principle to evaluate the price that we are placing on human life. That is what people must do. If one argues that one can live with materials which are dangerous and which one knows will cause death or injury, society is entitled to expect the cost that one is putting on life to be evaluated.

    I do not believe that there is any price that I am not prepared to pay. Life is much too valuable. If we have to continue to find substitutes for dangerous materials, I want that done urgently, and I want the dangerous materials to be taken out of circulation as soon as is practicable. I do not accept that there is some reason, either financial or, as we now hear, unemployment, why men, women and children do not have a higher price put on their lives. The fact that this will cost a bit of money cannot be a justification for putting lives at risk.

    7.39 pm

    I am glad to have this opportunity to take part in the debate. I shall be brief, as the debate has almost come to an end. I should like to address my remarks to the speech made by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown). In much of what he said he made it clear that the industry has been irresponsible about the dangers of the materials used.

    That was the general burden of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Having learnt of the dangers of the material from medical evidence and from the work of trade unionists, the industry has voluntarily taken action to ban the use of blue asbestos, as safety measures have not yet been discovered. That is an example of responsible action in the light of present medical knowledge.

    The debate deals with two fundamental points for which we are responsible. It concerns the balancing of safety against jobs and the balancing of British standards against those of the EEC. The Simpson report is British and it sets higher standards for our industry than those recommended by the EEC directive. It is vital that the House should be clear about that. British industry is taking steps that we can be pleased and satisfied with and that set a standard that we can fight for in amending this directive. It has not been suggested by any hon. Member that there is no danger in using asbestos or that the balance between safety and jobs should be unrealistically weighted towards jobs. However, the Opposition amendment, which seeks ultimately to ban the use of all types of asbestos, does not take account of the development of controls on asbestos production that can make the operation much safer.

    I listened carefully to the example given by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald). From articles 3 and 7 it is clear that there is a danger that the definition of asbestos and asbestos production and use will cause problems for the users of asbestos products. The roofing industry offers an example. The small user of asbestos roofing products would be constrained by a range of safety regulations that would be extremely expensive and irrelevant as the danger of asbestos dust in that industry is minimal. The directive would have a negative effect on the use of the product in Britain and in other member States. When we deal with EEC directives it is extremely important to bear down on their direct and practical implications for British industry. It is often argued that EEC directives constrain activity in Britain and that our arrangements may be better than those practised in the EEC. We have a clear example of that danger. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will give an assurance that he will make a robust case and ensure that Britain's commercial position is not put at risk.

    Does my hon. Friend accept that the world is full of dangerous and toxic substances? If they are misused and mishandled, danger arises. We are indebted to the research unit at St. Bartholomew's hospital, which has done a great deal of work. However, does not my hon. Friend accept that we should not be using cellulose to spray cars because of the danger of lung disease, or mining coal for the same reason, if we were to follow the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown)? It is simply a question of sensible use. The only problem is that it has taken a long time to realise that asbestos may lead to the chronic disease of asbestosis. Does my hon. Friend accept those views?

    I am happy to accept those views. The point about the coal industry is particularly good. There is no doubt that we shall continue to need, mine and utilise coal. It is generally accepted that there is a risk to those working in the industry. However, the more medical research that is done, the better we shall be able to control those risks and the more reasonable it will be to use those products, providing that they have a use and that the balance between safety and production is reasonably satisfactory both to us and to the medical profession.

    If Britain is to maintain its competitive position in the commercial battle it is essential that the same controls over the use of blue asbestos should apply to all other member States of the EEC. Britain's industry has voluntarily shown the way.

    7.47 pm

    I hope that hon. Members feel that the debate has been worth-while. I am sorry if hon. Members take what I am about to say as being rather ungracious, but it should be said. It is the old story of a good Opposition opening speech being made by a good chap in support of a silly amendment. I hope that the Opposition will not be silly enough to press it to a Division.

    The amendment can be divided into halves. As I explained earlier, the first half of the amendment is entirely misconceived. When we legislate to bring ourselves into conformity with the directive there will be a statutory ban on the import of blue asbestos. As regards the second half of the amendment, hon. Members have pointed out the sheer absurdity of talking in this day and age of a complete ban on the use of all forms of asbestos throughout the Community. We should like a ban on blue asbestos throughout the Community. Apart from the exceptions that are still being requested by certain European countries—on large diameter pipes, seals and gaskets—there will be a complete ban when the directive comes into force.

    It has been said that the two directives do not take the same line. The hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) argued that article 9 should be amended. I do not concede that that is correct. A limit has still to be put on blue asbestos because if there are to be any exemptions, as claimed by some European countries, on large diameter pipes for example, there must be some control over their manufacture.

    I was asked why we did not allow the worker protection directive to be dealt with first. The answer is simple. Unfortunately, timing is not in the hands of the Government. The timing is a matter for the Commission. The Commission thought it right to bring the marketing and use directive forward first. I can assure hon. Gentlemen that since we assumed the Presidency we have made it plain that these directives should move in tandem because they form a part of one package and must be read together.

    I was asked why sufficient emphasis was not placed on the dangers that confront people who have to deal with asbestos lagging. When hon. Gentlemen read articles 3 and 5 of the worker protection directive they will see that protection is offered to such workers. The difficulty is that we do not want a directive that contains too much detail and imposes obligations that are impractical to enforce.

    I was asked by the hon. Member for Flint, East whether I had any news about the assessments being made by the HSE on automatic counting devices. All that I can say at this stage is that evalution is proceeding. The HSE recognises how important it is to go forward with that work.

    I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) on his speech. He made some important points. He stressed, rightly, that if the amendment were carried and the policy in the amendment put into effect, thousands of jobs would be lost. This is far too serious a matter for the Opposition to use as a political football. We are discussing very serious matters. Opposition spokesmen know that it is serious so it is silly to table an amendment that has no basis in practicality.

    I have been reluctant to interrupt the Minister but he should remember that Lord Carver once reminded the House that our machinery functions better when a little oil is put on it rather than vinegar and acid. I warn the Minister that if he keeps jeering at our amendment and our approach, we might be tempted to make a few speeches.

    When saying that the first part of our amendment is redundant, the Minister should bear in mind that it was not until he came to the House this evening that we knew that the Government intended to introduce legislation to make the ban on crocidolite statutory. He should not jeer at us for not knowing what we could not have known in advance.

    Can the Minister explain how different our amendment is from the report of the EEC Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, which in its 1977 report said:
    "every effort should be made to develop safe substitutes for asbestos and that as these substitutes become available, the use of asbestos should gradually be phased out; where safe substitutes already exist, the use of asbestos should be forbidden."
    The author of that report said in his—

    Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman but I called him not to speak but to intervene.

    I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to avoid making a speech but I was provoked. I am not making a speech but I wish to ask the Minister a question. The work hazards group of the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science made a submission to the House of Lords Select Committee. That is a responsible, serious and well-informed organisation. It said:

    "It is these facts that have led the American and Swedish Governments to effectively ban the use of asbestos."
    If the Minister regards that as nonsense, perhaps he will say so.

    I do not regret having provoked the right hon. Gentleman into activity, because I know of his intense interest in this matter. I do not doubt the genuineness of that interest. However, I thought that the amendment itself contained some vinegar and acid—certainly more vinegar and acid than common sense.

    Whatever happens in America or Sweden, asbestos provides many jobs in Britain. To call for the complete ban of asbestos is fantasy. It will not do to say that the Opposition had no knowledge of our intention to ban blue asbestos until they came to the House today. The directive provides for the banning of blue asbestos.

    I am talking about a statutory ban. When we implement the directive we shall implement legislation. If we implement the directive, we shall be banning the import into Britain and the use in Britain of crocidolite.

    I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman wants me to go through my opening speech again. He can read it in Hansard. He will see that it is as clear as light that the effect of implementing the two directives is that the British Government would have to ban the importation of blue asbestos.

    The House agrees that the Minister made a fine opening speech. However, he is now letting himself down and proving to be a little rattled. Why does he make such a song and dance about the jobs issue? Why does he exaggerate it? He says that the amendment would create a loss of jobs. He is proposing that the House should support a directive which states that asbestos should be replaced by

    "suitable and safer substitutes when these are available."

    The answer is contained in the words which the hon. Gentleman has just read. The amendment does not call for the introduction of substitutes when they are available. It calls for a ban on the use of asbestos.

    The hon. Member for Rochdale was right to say that one cannot eliminate all risk and that one has always to assess the degree of risk and balance against it the cost and other consequences of trying to eliminate the risk. Asbestos is no different in that respect from many other substances.

    Earlier, I read to the House a passage from the Advisory Committee on Asbestos. I commend that passage to the House. It illustrates better than I can the importance of keeping some sense of balance. Sometimes in the debate that sense of balance has been lost. For instance, the report emphasises that talk of a ban ignores the possibility of a prohibition which might directly result in an increase in health and safety risks. The obvious example is fire, where asbestos has proved itself a valuable preventive agent.

    The hon. Member for Rochdale asked whether the Government would ensure a proper enforcement of the ban on blue asbestos throughout the Community. That is not the only area in which we have difficulties within the EEC in ensuring that others play by the rules. The Government are conscious of the need to ensure that, if harmonisation is achieved and when it is put into practice, it is done fairly and people abide by the rules.

    The hon. Gentleman was right to refer to the problem of no definition of exposure in the worker protection directive. I concede that the wording needs to be tightened. If it is left as it is, it introduces the whole rigmarole of notification and medical examination. As I said earlier, we might be dealing with a worker who handles asbestos for only a minimal time. The hon. Gentleman complimented Miss Sandra Newton. I am grateful to her for all her help in preparing for tonight's debate.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. GarelJones) referred to the representations of the Asbestos Association. As I have read them, his remarks did not come as a surprise to me. My remarks about article 3 apply to what my hon. Friend said about the representations. The scope of the directive appears to be too wide, because no effort had been made to define exposure. The same points apply to article 5 and notification. A detailed notification scheme may be extremely difficult to enforce. We do not wish to make the mistake of including involved provisions in a European directive, knowing in our heart of hearts that it would never be enforceable.

    My hon. Friend was right to say that, if blue asbestos is used in the manufacture of pipes on the Continent, it gives those countries an unfair commercial advantage. I can only remind him that we have suffered under that unfair commercial disadvantage since we decided voluntarily in 1969 to ban blue asbestos. There is one important point. The directive imposes a tight limit value on blue asbestos. History shows that one reason why industry felt that it was not too difficult to accept the voluntary ban was that prior to its operation it had to accept that the correct limit value of blue asbestos was 0.2 fibres/cc. If Continental countries now have to operate under those same stringent controls, there may be fairly speedy changes in their manufacturing processes.

    Does my hon. and learned Friend have a copy of that submission? If so, perhaps he would pass it to the Opposition in the hope that they might withdraw their amendment.

    I have given up my attempts to get the Opposition to withdraw the amendment. We shall have to wait and see what happens. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) said that she wanted the Simpson report to be implemented without waiting for the directives to come to fruition. Although I recognise the strength of that argument, harmonisation is a great prize. If we can persuade European countries to accept the strict standards that Britain has accepted, and in that way prevent unfair competition from those countries, we shall win a valuable prize.

    The hon. Lady referred to the impracticability of some of the provisions in article 5 of the worker protection directive. We are aware of the need to avoid legislation that might prove unenforceable. She referred to the serious unemployment in Thurrock. I am sure that she will follow that through and vote against the amendment if it is pursued.

    The hon. Lady asked whether I would be in contact with both management and unions in the asbestos cement industry. I promise her that, if they wish to see me, I shall be glad to discuss with them all the matters that we have discussed tonight, in greater detail and in a way that we do not have time to discuss them tonight.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller) implored me to ensure that no legislation came into force in Britain before it did so in other member countries. That is a reasonable request, which I shall bear in mind. Currently, article 20 requires that each country implement the worker directive by 1 January 1985.

    My hon. Friend also implored the Government not to go further than the EEC directives. I did not suggest that we should do so. That was contemplated only in the case of brown asbestos. I suggested that, if new scientific evidence showed that brown asbestos was more dangerous than white asbestos, we should be honour bound to reconsider our decision to have the same limit for brown asbestos as for white asbestos. Originally, we intended to have two separate limits.

    The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) accused the Government of giving reasons for doing nothing. I cannot imagine anything further from the truth. We are discussing the progress of negotiations towards Britain's acceptance of obligations under two European directives. We are trying to persuade other European countries to accept the high standards that we have accepted, which would be of great benefit to their workers and to British industry, which would not be subjected to unfair competition.

    The hon. Gentleman was rightly taken to task for suggesting that it was only at the last moment, when manufacturers realised that they could not get away with not complying with a voluntary ban, that they agreed to a ban on blue asbestos. As has been pointed out to him on a number of occasions, his remarks are absolute nonsense. The manufacturers entered into a voluntary arrangement in 1969, when there was no legislation.

    That is not strictly true. The voluntary ban on blue asbestos imports began in 1969. The regulations in force at that time did not provide for such a ban—[Interruption.] I should be glad to allow the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) to make another speech, providing he dresses it up as a question so that he remains in order. If he does not wish to do so, I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion, with no acid whatsoever.

    The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch asked what special measures were taken to comply with article 6 for the removal of asbestos in the Palace of Westminster. I do not suppose anyone addressed himself to article 6, which is not in force. I shall make inquiries of the proper authorities about what happened.

    I was asked about the exception in the marketing and use directive for products already marketed. I cannot envisage how the directive could do otherwise than provide for goods already marketed. To take the matter to an absurd extent, someone could have bought an article made of asbestos, sold it to someone else, who in turn sold it to someone else. We cannot impose a ban that requires the present user of an article made of asbestos to burn it. There is no practicality in the suggestion that there should not have been an exclusion in the draft directive of goods already marketed.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) applauded the responsible attitude of manufacturers. I do likewise. I applaud also the responsible attitude of trade unionists and those who work in the factories where asbestos is used.

    We are conscious that EEC directives can constrain activities in Britain when our own arrangements might be better. However, I repeat that prizes can be won from harmonisation. I think that there are large prizes to be won in the area that we are discussinng.

    We are discussing something that is close to the theme that runs throughout health and safety legislation—what is reasonably practicable. We have tried in our negotiations at the EEC to play a part in harmonising safety regulations in the use and marketing of asbestos. We think that we have made considerable progress. However, much more has to be done. We are grateful to those who have contributed to the debate. I shall read carefully not only what I said but what others have said.

    Question put, That the amendment be made:—

    The House divided: Ayes 52, Noes 113

    Division No. 309] [8.12 pm


    Archer, Rt Hon PeterHughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
    Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)Jones, Barry (East Flint)
    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)Jones, Dan (Burnley)
    Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)Kerr, Russell
    Booth, Rt Hon AlbertKinnock, Neil
    Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)Lamond, James
    Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)McCartney, Hugh
    Campbell-Savours, DaleMcDonald, Dr Oonagh
    Carter-Jones, LewisMillan, Rt Hon Bruce
    Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
    Crowther, StanMorton, George
    Cryer, BobPowell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
    Cunliffe, LawrenceRees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
    Dalyell, TamRichardson, Jo
    Davidson, ArthurSkinner, Dennis
    Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)Soley, Clive
    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
    Dormand, JackStoddart, David
    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
    Eadie, AlexWainwright, E.(Dearne V)
    Eastham, KenWalker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)
    Ennals, Rt Hon DavidWelsh, Michael
    Foster, DerekWinnick, David
    Foulkes, GeorgeWoolmer, Kenneth
    George, Bruce
    Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)Tellers for the Ayes:
    Harrison, Rt Hon WalterMr. Allen McKay and
    Homewood, WilliamMr. Frank Haynes.


    Alison, Rt Hon MichaelBright, Graham
    Ancram, MichaelBrinton, Tim
    Aspinwall, JackBrooke, Hon Peter
    Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)
    Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)Budgen, Nick
    Benyon, Thomas (A'don)Butcher, John
    Berry, Hon AnthonyCadbury, Jocelyn
    Bonsor, Sir NicholasCarlisle, John (Luton West)
    Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
    Bowden, AndrewClark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
    Boyson, Dr RhodesClarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
    Braine, Sir BernardCockeram, Eric

    Colvin, MichaelNeedham, Richard
    Cope, JohnNelson, Anthony
    Cormack, PatrickNeubert, Michael
    Costain, Sir AlbertNewton, Tony
    Crouch, DavidNormanton, Tom
    Dean, Paul (North Somerset)Onslow, Cranley
    Dickens, GeoffreyOsborn, John
    Dorrell, StephenPage, John (Harrow, West)
    Dover, DenshorePage, Richard (SW Herts)
    Dunn, Robert (Dartford)Penhaligon, David
    Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)Pollock, Alexander
    Fairgrieve, Sir RussellPrentice, Rt Hon Reg
    Faith, Mrs SheilaProctor, K. Harvey
    Fenner, Mrs PeggyRaison, Timothy
    Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
    Fletcher-Cooke, Sir CharlesRoberts, Wyn (Conway)
    Forman, NigelRoss, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
    Garel-Jones, TristanShaw, Giles (Pudsey)
    Glyn, Dr AlanShelton, William (Streatham)
    Greenway, HarrySims, Roger

    Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
    Grylls, MichaelSpeller, Tony
    Gummer, John SelwynSpicer, Jim (West Dorset)
    Haselhurst, AlanStainton, Keith
    Havers, Rt Hon Sir MichaelStanbrook, Ivor
    Hawkins, PaulStevens, Martin
    Hawksley, WarrenTaylor, Teddy (S'end E)
    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)Thompson, Donald
    Howells, GeraintTownend, John (Bridlington)
    Hurd, Hon DouglasTownsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
    Jopling, Rt Hon MichaelTrippier, David
    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elainevan Straubenzee, Sir W.
    Kershaw, Sir AnthonyViggers, Peter
    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)Waddington, David
    Loveridge, JohnWall, Sir Patrick
    Lyell, NicholasWaller, Gary
    Macfarlane, NeilWatson, John
    Major, JohnWells, Bowen
    Marlow, AntonyWheeler, John
    Mather, CarolWickenden, Keith
    Maude, Rt Hon Sir AngusWilkinson, John
    Maxwell-Hyslop, RobinWolfson, Mark
    Mellor, David
    Mills, lain (Meriden)Tellers for the Noes:
    Moate, RogerMr. Alastair Goodlad and
    Murphy, ChristopherMr. David Hunt.
    Neale, Gerrard

    Question accordingly negatived.

    Main question put and agreed to.


    That this House takes note of the two European Community Documents No. 5682/80 for a Council Directive amending for the fifth time Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of dangerous substances and preparations, and of European Community Document No. 9953/80 for a Council Directive on the protection of workers from the risks due to exposure to chemical, physical and biological agents at work (asbestos) and the updated explanatory memorandum of 8th May 1981 and two memoranda dated 15th October 1981; and welcomes the Government's intention to seek agreement on a harmonised practicable and enforceable policy to minimise the risks to health from exposure to asbestos.

    Citizens Band Radio

    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[ Mr. Gummer.]

    8.23 pm

    I am sure that the House will be delighted to know that citizens band radio will be legalised in 10 days' time. Thus, a Conservative Government have given our citizens the freedom of the air that they have been denied for so long. That is in direct contrast to the previous Labour Government who, just before the general election, said of CB radio:

    "we remain, on balance, opposed to its introduction in this country."—[Official Report, 14 December 1978, Vol. 960, c. 311.]
    Since then Labour Members have been helpful and cooperative on the CB committee, which is of course an all-party committee.

    We should all record our gratitude to the motoring organisations, the National Farmers Union and other organisations that have supported our cause. Above all, we should congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, my hon. Friend the Minister of State and his PPS on all the work that they have done to make this change possible. The new service will not only bring pleasure to millions of people, but will save life and strengthen the economy in various ways—for example, by saving petrol on the roads and by enabling farmers to talk on the air to their tractor drivers, which is something that they have never been able to do before.

    I should like to continue that paean of praise, but I regret that I must say that, although we welcome the new service, many feel strongly that the specifications and restrictions imposed will emasculate CB radio for no good reason. I shall start by telling the House what the parliamentary CB committee has been doing since our last Adjournment debate on this subject on 6 February. Then I propose to sum up some of the major objections to the specifications of the system which is about to be introduced.

    On 26 February this year the Home Secretary made an announcement that he would authorise CB radio on 27 MHz FM and on 230 MHz. On 28 April the announcement was made that the frequency sub-bands would be 27.6 MHz to 28 MHz FM with 40 channels and the power of 4 watts. The immediate reaction to that announcement was one of dismay because there was no commonality with European frequencies.

    On 15 May the Minister answered a question on those complaints. At first he said that there was no European standard today and that the Conference of European Posts and Telegraphs, which is the European organisation, recommended 27 MHz AM and FM with 22 channels and 0.5 watt power, and therefore said that our system would have more power and more channels. The Minister confirmed that only FM would be allowed in future. He said that he would consider a change to the European frequencies if and when the European standard was agreed.

    On 20 May, after a meeting of the CB committee, I wrote a letter to the Minister of State querying the Government's decision to authorise only FM and pointing out that that had already caused major resignations on the national committee. On behalf of the parliamentary committee, I requested that we had tests on comparable AM and FM sets and that those tests should be witnessed by us with both urban and rural backgrounds. We had heard that the manufacturers were allowed only three sets for testing and, indeed, for advertising, and that they felt sore about that. There were not enough, and they asked for something to be done to increase this number.

    On 4 June a further letter went to the Minister of State refuting some of his earlier arguments. First, we said that Continental countries allowed CB sets, subject to prior notification in their countries, provided that their frequencies did not interfere with those countries' frequencies. But the frequencies just announced for Britain would interfere. Those sets would have to be taken out by the Customs, which would cause delay and much annoyance.

    Secondly, we referred to the channels and the power. The Minister of State had said that we were getting more power and more channels. In fact, he was not correct. France now allows 40 channels and 4 watts. Germany, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden allow a power of 5 watts. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Norway, Portugal and Sweden allow both AM and FM sets. We repeated that it was very important that the United Kingdom should have a common frequency with Europe. We also repeated the request for comparative tests between AM and FM sets.

    We then had our first meeting with the Home Secretary. Prior to that meeting, representatives from the CB world—aircraft modellers, mobile radio, radio amateurs, paging services and others—held a meeting and decided that they could agree on the allocation of frequencies among the various organisations. We then went to the Home Secretary and found that he was adamant about FM because he was worried about interference with television sets, but he repeated that he would consider the whole subject of frequencies.

    Just after that, on 13 June, I wrote to the Home Secretary summing up our views. The frequency allocation was on the following lines. The CB people wanted 26.9 to 27.4 MHz, but they were being allocated 27.6 to 28 MHz. The mobile radio people wanted 30 to 40 MHz. The paging systems also wanted 30 to 40 MHz. The aircraft modellers wanted 27.6 to 28 MHz, which has now been allotted to the CB people. However, we believed that it would be possible to fit in the requirements of all these organisations in the spectrum, but that had not been done.

    For the first time, we raised the whole question of the derating of aerials—which is extremely important and is causing many problems at the moment—and again repeated our request for a rapid change to European frequencies.

    At a later meeting, many colleagues in the parliamentary committee agreed that it would perhaps be wise to accept FM, provided that we could see the tests, see that the sets were roughly equivalent and that the European frequencies were used. We felt that insistence on both FM and European frequencies would so antagonise the large number of people who already had AM sets that the new legal system would be difficult to introduce.

    We said at that time that when the committee was first formed, 18 months earlier, it was estimated that there were 30,000 illegal 27 MHz AM sets operating in the country. We now have good reason to believe that the figure is between 750,000 and 1 million. This increase has taken place in 18 months. We also expressed strong dissatisfaction over what we believed to be obstruction by some Ministry officials.

    In his reply in August, the Home Secretary said that he had had 18,000 complaints of interference with television transmissions in the first six months of this year, and he was obviously very worried about it. He therefore maintained his decision with regard to FM, the frequencies and aerial derating, but again said that in due course he would consider changing to the European frequencies in the longer term.

    That brings the House up to date with the activities of the parliamentary CB committee from the time of the last debate until this one, and I should now like to sum up the various arguments that still exist.

    One regrets having to mention Ministry officials, but it is essential to do so because there is strong feeling on the part of hon. Members on both sides of the House. There is a widespread belief, both inside and outside the House, that some Ministry officials are opposed to CB. I believe that this is only the tip of the iceberg. I understand that there is a major row brewing between the Ministry and the mobile radio operators. This may be developed in the House at a later date.

    I should like to give two examples of the kind of attitude about which I have been talking. A meeting was called on the subject of specifications for the new CB sets. The letter went out on 16 April for meetings on 26 and 28 April. I remind the House that Easter was on 19 April. In other words, 10 days' notice was given over the Easter period. In addition, the representatives of the national committee and of the parliamentary committee were excluded, and no discussion was allowed on frequencies.

    The other example is a slightly different one. The Minister's advisory committee was set up, and its first meeting was called for 10 September, but well before then the Home Office had already issued more than 1,500,000 licences and specifications. I was abroad at the time. I understand that considerable opposition was expressed at the meeting to the Home Office views, but that was not made clear in the minutes.

    To show that was so, I should like to quote two paragraphs from a letter sent to me by the representative of the National Federation of Women's Institutes. The lady, who explains that she attended the meeting as a non-technical expert, states:
    "However, I should like to make one or two general points. The first is that the Chairman, in his summing-up, did note that there was no consensus and not to mention that there was general objection to MPT 1320"—
    that is the Ministry's specification—
    "as the final word on CB in this country, would be to mislead the Minister".
    She continued:
    "Secondly, two key points on interference are not referred to",
    and she gives details of those two points.

    I should say at this juncture how much we all regret the sudden death of the chairman of the advisory committee, Sir Eric Eastwood.

    Ministers are busy men. Their officials made it quite clear that the views expressed by the parliamentary committee, the national committee and members of the advisory committee would be rejected, as indeed they were. Many were reminded only too forcefully of the television series "Yes Minister". I leave it at that. With regard to the argument between FM and AM, the Home Office maintains that FM gives considerably less interference. We tend to agree, but I believe that the difference may be only marginal. If evidence can be produced that it is more than marginal, that would certainly satisfy me. I point out to the Minister, however, that in six months, of 17 million people in this country who have television sets, only 18,000 complained of interference. Yet, we believe that there are more than 1 million CB sets operating illegally on 27 AM. If so, interference at 27 AM must be marginal, as 18,000 out of 17 million is scarcely a high percentage.

    I also emphasise that 55 countries out of 61 allow 27 AM or SSB, so we are very much in the minority in legalising only FM. Can we really say that 55 out of 61 countries are all wrong?

    We were promised that there would be equal performance between the illegal AM sets that have been operating and the new, legal, FM sets. We want to see tests of these, but no tests have yet been made. We have a responsibility to our constituents who have raised this matter. I admit that our doubts in this matter are enhanced by the Minister's own report, entitled "Interim Report on Subjective Comparative Tests of Modulation Methods for Private Mobile Radio", which purports to show that AM and SSB provide a better service than the narrow band—I emphasise the word "narrow"—FM.

    It is also said that the Civil Aviation Authority has alleged that CB operators have caused interference with the landing of planes. Yet the American Federal Communications Commission reported that with 25 million licensed CB operators there had been only 12 complaints, none of which was serious. I understand that the CAA now maintains that AM causes less interference than FM. It is reported in the press as saying:
    "We have not yet had any reported instances of ILS or UHF communications being interfered with by CB radio".
    I think, therefore, that this is something of a canard. I do not blame the Minister for this in any way, but it had been put about, incorrectly, that CB would interfere with aircraft landings.

    With regard to frequencies, I remind the House that the accepted European frequency, although not yet a European standard, is 27.925 MHz to 27.405 Mhz. The frequencies being legalised in this country in 10 days' time are 27.60125 Mhz to 27.99125 Mhz, specified down to the last decimal place. That will give the United Kingdom a unique frequency, which inevitably means fewer supplies and more expense. The Minister and the Home Secretary have spoken of a change to European frequencies some time ahead. The idea has got around that it will be in about two years, because that is the time when the paging systems take their new frequencies.

    If there is to be an eventual change to European frequencies, it is important that those frequencies be built into the new sets now being legalised. Otherwise, we shall be saying that the 1 million enthusiasts now illegally operating 27 AM sets have to throw those sets away, buy the new FM sets on the new frequencies, and then, in two years' time, throw those sets away and buy new sets on the European frequencies. That is asking far too much. I believe that this is a fundamental question.

    I also understand that action is being taken against Britain in the European Court for building artificial barriers to trade under article 10 of the Treaty of Rome. I do not believe that there will be very much trade. All British manufacturers have expressed to many hon. Members their unhappiness at the specifications that have now been announced. There is a Japanese chip, and the first legal sets from Taiwan are now coming into Britain. However, I am also told that illegal imports of 27 AM sets continue through the Isle of Man. Apparently, the House of Keys has not signed section 7 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act. That is perhaps a loophole at which the Minister might look.

    I turn to aerials. Although what I shall say is slightly technical, I think that it is fairly obvious. The authorised power of the set will be 4 watts, but under the specifications the aerials are to be limited to a height of 1.5 metres to give an emission of 2 watts. Once again, this is unique among the 61 countries that have CB radio. In my opinion, that is nonsense, because the interference is caused by the set, not by the aerial. This regulation will make most existing aerials and stocks of aerials in Britain illegal and would include 95 per cent. of the aerials in the world. In my opinion, the maximum length of an aerial should be 2.25 metres. That should be shown on the specifications.

    The second problem is that, according to the specifications, the height should be not more than 7 metres from the ground. If it is more, the power of the set must be reduced by 90 per cent. That surely means that most people will put up aerials as high as they legally can—to just under 7 metres—which will cause difficulties for all concerned, particularly if the aerials are mounted on chimneys. In any case, I wonder how these regulations will be controlled. Shall we really have policemen walking around with tape measures to measure the height of aerials? That is absurd. It would be much better to ban linear amplifiers, which are responsible for interference.

    The Government's success is somewhat tarnished by failure to consult and debate. There has been much discussion but it has always been felt that the officials at the Home Office never really wanted to listen and that they have ridden roughshod over all CB enthusiasts, technical experts and manufacturers. The result is that complaints abound from virtually all users of the radio spectrum.

    I therefore make four suggestions. First, the Home Office should initiate a study of the allocation of the whole spectrum of radio frequencies so that there can be an allocation by independent experts. Secondly, the tests of AM and FM sets, which we have been requesting for the past four months, should be made so that we can reassure our constituents that they will get the same kind of performance from the new legal sets as that to which people in other countries are accustomed. Thirdly, the date for the change to European frequencies should be announced at the first possible moment. Fourthly, an allowance should be made for these new European channels to be included in all the newly manufactured legal CB sets.

    I conclude by saying to the Minister in CB language that some of my hon. Friend's Lord Snooties have been bongo. This has led to gobbledegook which in turn will lead to scofflaw unless we are careful. However, I hope that the Minister will keep his nose between the ditches and smokey out of his breeches.

    8.45 pm

    We place on record our gratitude to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Sir P. Wall) for the way in which he has kept this lobby together on behalf of hon. Members and people outside the House during these difficult months. I might not agree with him on many issues, but on this one I agree wholeheartedly.

    In my part of the country, as in most others, the CB lobby has been formidable. Over the past two years the largest meetings that I have addressed were those of CB enthusiasts. One thousand people were present at the last one, which illustrates the intensity of feeling.

    Throughout the decision-taking procedures of the Home Office and the Minister of State there has been inadequate consultation with elected representatives of the people. Although the hon. Member for Haltemprice feels that we should not attack Home Office officials, I willingly do so this evening. They were highly obstructive when we tried to express our views; so much so that many hon. Members have been embarrassed in front of their constituents.

    It is clear that there is considerable resistance among some Home Office officials to the service that CB enthusiasts have demanded. In pursuing that approach all that they have succeeded in doing is delaying the introduction of the service and increasing by 500,000 the number of sets being used illegally.

    I know of people who own equipment that has cost several hundred pounds. They were obliged to buy it because of the Government's failure to respond to the demand and to the need to take an early decision. If, even over the last few weeks, people have bought AM equipment, it is only because the Government did not take a decision earlier.

    Officials, who are not accountable to the House as hon. Members are, have advised the Minister to set the licence fee at £10 and to take a decision that will inevitably rebound on the Government. The average CB enthusiast will lose his set, because he will not be able to convert at a reasonable price. We are told that conversion costs will be anything between £30 and £50. Not only will he have to buy a new set, but he will then be required to spend £10 on a licence.

    In my experience, the majority of people who use this equipment are unemployed. It is a way for them to pass their time. Certainly in my part of the country many unemployed people are CB enthusiasts, and the £10 licence fee will be prohibitively expensive. It will act as a disincentive—particularly to young people—to switch to the new frequencies which, the decision having been taken, the whole House must support if we support the law. But it will be possible for people to comply with the law only if the Government set conditions with which they are able to comply. The £10 licence fee will prove a mistake.

    The second area in which the Home Office has been remiss is in the time span that it has allowed for the introduction of the new frequency, having set it so recently. When the original frequencies were established, many domestic manufacturers were called to the Home Office to discuss the possibility of a British manufacturing capacity being created to produce the sets. Assurances were given to Home Office officials and presumably to the Minister of State that there would be a British manufacturing capacity.

    Six months ago I told the Minister of State in the House that that would not happen and that there was insufficient time for British manufacturers to respond, because the decision on CB frequencies had been taken too late. We have been proved right. Today there is no United Kingdom manufacturer of CB equipment, yet next year there will be a CB market worth £30 million, as some people change their equipment and others buy it for the first time. It will be imported from Taiwan, Japan, America or South Korea.

    By pursuing their arrangement the Government have created conditions in which British manufacturers are unable to respond to the demand. That is detrimental to our balance of payments and incenses electronics companies. I have had calls from people in the industry. Had the timing been different, they would have laid down plant, introduced the chips and built the product.

    The Department of Industry pleads for people to go into advanced factories in the regions. Money could have been allocated, industry would have responded and an advance factory could have been used to develop the product. People in unemployment queues would have had an opportunity to build the equipment. However, all the standard CB equipment will be imported.

    The Home Office also failed to respond to our requests about EEC channels. As the hon. Member for Haltemprice said, if there is a two-year delay those who are now required to buy new equipment will after two years have to discard it and buy yet more equipment. That is a disincentive to convert to the new equipment. Many with AM equipment will refuse to switch to the intermediate equipment pending the introduction of yet further frequencies.

    The Minister of State has not fully taken account of the problem. In the past six months Parliament has discredited itself. The mistake is not exclusively the Minister's. He was fully occupied with the British Nationality Bill and did not have time to give the matter the necessary consideration. As a result, we have to sell our constituents an idea in which we do not have much faith. The situation arises from the inability of the Home Office to understand that in areas such as this, where we are so accountable, the relationship between Members of Parliament and their constituents is most important and should be at the heart of their considerations and recommendations to Ministers.

    8.53 pm

    I am not unused to being unpopular. I hope on this occasion that I shall get to the door without being lynched. I listened to the two previous speeches with astonishment. I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that the CB lobby is powerful. That is why I am taking part in the debate, although I had intended only to listen.

    I am not against CB radio. Many young people in my constituency are extremely interested in it. However, the difficulties should be carefully considered before already crowded wavebands are interfered with.

    Some time ago I asked the Home Office what it would cost the National Health Service if the suggested frequencies were offered to CB radio. One estimate that I obtained, not from the Home Office but elsewhere, was that it would cost over £5 million to move to other frequencies the bleeping system that doctors use in hospitals. I wrote to the Home Secretary saying that if this were the case I would be interested to know where the money would be found, especially in view of the fact that the National Health Service is already under considerable attack. It took some months to get a reply and this question was not answered. The sort of changes proposed are presumably those that the Home Office does not expect will interfere now with the paging systems that are used in hospitals.

    In my constituency, where there is considerable unemployment, people regard television as one of their main forms of entertainment. They have complained to me about interference. Those people do not pay a £10 licence fee. They will soon probably be asked to pay a £50 television licence fee. Many of them do not have very large incomes.

    The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Sir P. Wall) made great play of the fact that only 18,000 complaints have been made in under six months. Many hon. Members know that those who sit down to write letters on specific problems are not always all the people concerned. They are a cross-section of those who have got mad enough to put pen to paper. This means that many other people are worried about the matter. In my constituency, people living close to the motorway have had to suffer television interference that included a great deal of obscene language. I am astonished that I have to reprimand the hon. Member for Haltemprice who does not appear to be as concerned as I think he should be about those people in their own homes.

    I am equally concerned. Will the hon. Lady appreciate that there are a large number of cheap, illegal AM sets, brought in from Japan and America, which cause trouble? With the new frequencies, although we disagree with many of the details, this will ensure that sets do not cause anything like the interference of illegal sets today.

    I agree that if people comply with the law the problem will not exist. However, the hon. Gentleman will know that, although I am a bird of little brain, this type of communication is an industry in which I am reasonably well versed. I believe that there may be some difficulty in getting people to comply with the law. If all these people own illegal sets and find difficulty replacing the sets, I want to know from the Minister how he will police the changes that he will introduce and how he will ensure that people comply with the law.

    In my own home, a number of people are equipped with bleepers—not, I hasten to add, because they are never on duty in their hospitals but because, when they get a certain number of hours off duty, they like to be able to come home. The effect of some of these sets on doctors' bleepers carried in the pocket can be noticeable. This is bad enough if the doctor is within range of hospital. There have been occasions when the bleeper was not being used officially but happened to be in the house. We have picked up signals from illegal equipment. If this interference happened in a hospital when the doctor was urgently needed to deal with a patient in intensive care, there could be dangers.

    Not once has anyone in the debate said that the Home Office had a responsibility to look at all the implications. I do not have to speak for the commercial paging services. Like all private enterprise, they are more than capable of protecting their own corner. I am, however, deeply concerned about those who work in the National Health Service. If the proposed changes had gone through, they would have faced considerable expense and difficulty and serious day-to-day problems.

    The Minister should make it clear that when he monitors the use of these changes he will bear in mind the whole subject of the emergency services. Their frequencies must be clear. I refer to all emergency services, including the ambulance and fire services. They must not be subjected to a powerful, vocal and, if I may say so, well-funded lobby that will encourage people to move into new, expensive and good toys sometimes without thinking of all the implications.

    Will my hon. Friend address herself to the question that I had to consider some months ago? I was not well versed in this matter, but I had attended some large meetings similar to those that she has described. There is a question of principle involved here.

    Since the Government were willing to accept some form of frequency it seemed to me that they were accepting the principle. I get the impression from my hon. Friend that she is arguing against the whole idea of CB. But the Home Office had acceded to the introduction of FM and it was argued that we might as well have AM too.

    My hon. Friend mentioned interference, but that is caused anyway, irrespective of the frequency, unless equipment is properly suppressed. It is no longer a question of principle. Now that the Government have acceded to FM they might as well go all the way and accept AM.

    It is not that simple. I would have been prepared to argue about the principle, but I am realistic. If people want to use this form of entertainment, they will do so, but that should not be a licence for them to interfere with others' pleasure or to cause difficulties for the emergency services. The question of frequencies is central to the argument. The donation of the wrong set of frequencies would not only make it difficult for the emergency services to operate but would exacerbate existing difficulties.

    Since this is my day for saying unpopular things, I should like to make another point. I am disturbed by the growing practice of hon. Members openly attacking civil servants who cannot reply. I know that many civil servants consistently vote Conservative, I have arguments with the Home Office and the Minister has had evidence that I can be fairly plain speaking from time to time, but I believe that, on the whole, the British Civil. Service is manned by men and women who go into the service not because they think that they will earn a lot of money but because they have a firm commitment to a particular type of service to the community.

    It has become fashionable to knock civil servants. The Government, through their open attack on the Civil Service and its unions, have in many instances undermined the faith of civil servants in their jobs and in the attitude of the community to the fact that they were prepared to do a difficult and unpopular job. When I was young, civil servants received lower wages than some others, but they were accorded a certain respect. It now seems popular for hon. Members to suggest that civil servants are worthy of neither respect nor responsibility. I do not hold that view.

    I am happy to argue with individual civil servants about their political views, and I will continue to do so, but it is my experience that civil servants in even the most reactionary Departments and even when we are governed by the most reactionary Ministers make a conscious and deliberate attempt to consider all sides of a question. The answers that civil servants come up with are not always universally popular, but it is wrong for hon. Members consistently to attack civil servants who cannot answer back.

    If in the next year it is plain to the emergency services in particular that the growth of CB radio will make it difficult for them to carry out their work efficiently I shall come to the House and ask for changes in the legislation. Until that time I hope that the Minister will give me a guarantee that he will look closely at the matter. Much though I admire the growth of new technology and believe that the young have the right to all sorts of new and interesting developments to keep them entertained and enable them to communicate with one another, I do not believe that anyone has the right to follow his own personal interest at the expense of the good of the community as a whole.

    9.5 pm

    The Minister of State, Home Office (


    I suppose that I should start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Sir P. Wall) for initiating this debate. That is the custom of the House. However, I am not sure that I thank him from the bottom of my heart, because of the way that the debate has gone, but it was right for him to ask for an Adjournment debate this evening. At the very least, we have had a spirited debate. It has not been one of those late night Adjournment debates when everyone has been fast asleep. There has been a certain amount of cross-fire in the debate.

    I cannot accept all my hon. Friend's arguments. Nor do I accept the arguments of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). In my view, his speech was rather discreditable. He devoted some time to complaining about the lack of consultation with elected representatives. The normal manner in which consultation with elected representatives takes place is to ask to see Ministers, and I recall no occasion when he asked to see Ministers and they refused to see him. It is wrong for him to have spoken in the way that he did on the matter.

    It is also absurd to complain about the delay in the introduction of the service and then complain that we did not give enough time for British manufacturers to enter the field. The hon. Gentleman should make up his mind. He believes one or the other. The two are contradictory.

    I said that the decision on frequency was taken too late and that British manufacturers were not given the opportunity to design equipment and meet the requirements of the market. If the decision had been taken a year or more ago the sets that will be sold over the next six months would all be British. That is important.

    The decisions were not taken earlier because there was a great deal of consultation. It is nonsense to complain about a lack of consultation. There was extremely full consultation. These was a consultative document and there was a period during which the country as a whole was entitled to send in its views about the proposal. We responded to that consultation document by making important changes, but throughout the whole period we showed that we were prepared to consult. As a result, it inevitably took longer than it would have done if we had steam-rollered the process through without consultation. In that way we could have made the announcement earlier. As I say, the hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.

    We were impressed by the need to get the matter right, to have consultations, but also to get on with it. I acknowledge that a large number of illegal sets have been in operation. The longer we delayed, the more that was likely to spread. For the hon. Gentleman to say that we should have had a longer delay while we allowed the British manufacturers to get into position is a travesty, so repudiate what he said.

    I come now to the more serious arguments and describe how the matter has developed. In my view, what is coming into service in 12 days' time will be desirable and beneficial. I am prepared to say to the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) that it is extremely important that citizens band should not harm other important services in our society. I make no bones about the fact that this has been one of the problems that has faced us throughout. We have devoted much attention to making sure that CB is not allowed to thrive at the expense of other important services.

    As I think the hon. Lady understands, one of the reasons why we chose the particular sub-bands on 27 MHz FM was to avoid doing harm to the hospital paging services. It is an extremely difficult job fitting all the applicants, the demands for use, into a crowded spectrum in a way that does no damage. Essentially, in this difficult operation we have tried to get it right. We have tried to get the right sort of balance to give people what they want and give them a chance to have a bit of fun. At the same time, however, we have had to do it in a way that is compatible with respect for the other important users of the radio spectrum.

    It is easy to criticise what we have done and to say that we have got it wrong. After the complicated and sometimes acrimonious discussions that have taken place, I sincerely believe that we have come up with the right answers. I am not saying that at every stage everything has gone as smoothly as it might have done. It has been a difficult operation to conduct, because there have been all sorts of pressures.

    As the House knows very well, the operation has been conducted against a very spirited public relations campaign. It is a campaign that has sometimes been unconventional in the way in which it has approached these matters. I do not mind that. The essence of this is a lighthearted form of fun and a good deal of unconventionality. However, I say firmly and clearly that I believe that my officials have conducted themselves with extreme responsibility. They have had a difficult job to do. They have been working under great pressure, and I cannot, and do not, accept the accusations that have been made against them.

    I do not mind if hon. Members blame me. I and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary are the Ministers responsible, and we are fair targets. I am perfectly prepared to accept blame, but I do not accept the criticisms that have been made in a wild and intemperate way about my officials, who have been working very hard on a very difficult job. Having got that off my chest, I should like to go on to talk about the approach that we have taken and to explain what we have been about and what we are trying to do.

    As my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice said in opening the debate, it is eight months or so since we debated citizens band radio in the House. I echo the tributes that have been paid to my hon. Friend and his parliamentary colleagues for the way in which they have brought this matter before the House. They have taken a great deal of time and trouble. We have had our ups and downs, and our arguments at various points, but it is right that my hon. Friend and the other members of the parliamentary group should have followed this subject very closely.

    As the House knows, it was just after the last debate that we announced that we would introduce a service operating in both the 27 MHz and 934 MHz bands. I hope that the 934 MHz band will not be forgotten, because I believe that for professional users particularly it has some real value. As I say, we are about to see the CB service finally launched in Britain. I am delighted that that should be so and that, as my hon. Friend has said, it should be brought in by a Conservative Government.

    The essence of the problem the whole way through has been interference. Just over a year ago we would have expected to receive about 35,000 complaints a year of interference from all sources to radio services. Over the past year 30,000 additional complaints of interference have been made to British Telecom, which its engineers, after investigation, traced to illicit 27 MHz AM CB.

    Complaints of that kind have been running at no fewer than 1,000 per week—and, of course, there must be very many more cases of interference that do not lead to a complaint being lodged. The majority of these cases relate to television or broadcasting reception. When transmitters are operated close to television receivers in built-up areas—and CB is the only service that operates like this—interference occurs due to the phenomenon known as breakthrough. Tests and research in Holland and Ireland and in this country show scientifically that amplitude modulated CB is particularly liable to cause this.

    For my part, I am receiving hundreds of letters from members of the public complaining about the harm done by illicit CB and saying harsh things about those who encourage it. Last year my correspondence on this subject was overwhelmingly in favour of CB. Now at least half of it is made up of bitter complaints from the general public about CB's effect on their ability to watch television, listen to the radio or play their hi-fi equipment free from interference. It is in no one's interest to see a backlash against the idea of CB but that is what the illicit users and their supporters are close to creating. In the special circumstances of CB, AM is harmful. Its undesirable characteristics cannot be eliminated and in most cases its harmful effects cannot be cured even by filters on television sets.

    Nor can we overlook the interference that is being caused to emergency services. Here the mechanism is different. In some cases it is caused by harmonic emissions, as when the fire brigade emergency channel was blocked in Manchester, or fire service communications at a fire were interfered with in Grimsby. In others, the consequences flow from the fact that the CB users have simply arrogated to themselves frequencies that lawfully belong to other services throughout the country, such as hospital paging. Against that background we were in no doubt that there had to be three priorities. First, we had to have a modulation system that was far Less likely to create breakthrough than AM. That is why we choose FM, just as those countries that have introduced or modified CB systems most recently—France, Holland, Germany and Ireland—have done. Secondly, we had to create a viable alternative service. We are therefore permitting 40 channels in the 27 MHz band and a transmitter power of 4 watts, as CB users had made plain they wanted. I hope that hon. Members will note that this is much more than is permitted in any of the major industrial countries of Western Europe.

    Finally, we had to introduce the new service quickly and economically. That meant that we could not simply pick up those CB channels used either in whole or in part in most of the rest of the world. These are already used by other services, and they simply cannot exist on the same frequency. And to relocate a service we have to find new spectrum for it, which is never easy; allow time for new equipment to be developed, manufactured and installed; and give time, too, for the displaced user to absorb the costs of the move.

    In the case of the National Health Service, for example, we would be talking of several million pounds. Those who say that the model control or the hospital paging interests can be moved quickly and painlessly are, generally speaking, those who neither have to live with the consequences of that decision nor pay for it.

    I had an estimate of —5 million, but that was nearly six months ago. Does the Minister have a figure that he can give the House?

    I cannot give a more precise figure than "several million pounds".

    We have been accused of being dilatory, but again it is important to realise how much had to be done. It is not much over a year since we published our discussion document. We reacted to the public's response to that: we had to find new frequencies; carry out work to establish the effect on other services, particularly the emergency services; discuss and settle on specifications for equipment; and settle a licensing system and its operation with the Post Office.

    We have consulted widely, and wherever possible we have taken representations made to us into account. We have not been able to please everyone; but at the end of the day I believe firmly that we have struck the best possible balance between a viable CB service and the protection of others and we have done so without consuming any additional public resources.

    Several points have been raised which I shall try to answer. Mention was made of tests of the alternative system. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice asked for them, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary wrote to him in August and asked him exactly what he wanted to see. My hon. Friend may have been away after that date, but my right hon. Friend gave him a clear invitation to set out what he wished to see. For no doubt understandable reasons, my hon. Friend was unable to take up that invitation.

    The circumstances of the Isle of Man have been a problem. However, an Order in Council extending section 7 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967 to the Isle of Man came into operation on 17 August. It enables the Isle of Man authorities to make an order to prohibit the manufacture of 27 MHz AM CB apparatus for sale in the United Kingdom and we understand that they are planning to make such an order.

    We also had a discussion on the position vis-á-vis the EEC. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice said that we had been taken to the European Court. I understand that the Commission has received a complaint about our plans for CB radio which has to do with fair competition. The Commission has no remit over radio regulations. It has been in touch and, as requested, we have replied setting out the background to our proposals. I can say no more than that.

    Hon. Members have mentioned antennae or aerials. As with other aspects of the system, antennae have been kept simple. The licence requires, with 27 MHz apparatus, only a single element rod or wire antenna not exceeding 1.5 metres, with a base-mounted loading coil. That is similar to many of the antennae used with illicit equipment. When correctly installed it will give an effective radiated power of about 2 watts. That will yield an adequate range while avoiding an unpredictable but potentially substantial increase in interference to other radio users.

    The most serious individual hazard is to the instrument landing system of the National Air Traffic Service, for which the margin of safety has to be very high indeed. The interference, and hence the risk to life, associated with the proposed specification aerial combination could be accepted by the Civil Aviation Authority, albeit reluctantly, because it could be calculated. Relaxing the specification as we were asked to do would introduce an additional risk, which is unquantifiable at this stage, but potentially by a factor of 20 or more. We felt, therefore, that it was right, and the only proper thing to do, to err on the side of caution. We had to have regard to the views of the civil aviation world.

    We are also accused of saddling this country for ever with a system incompatible with those in the rest of the world. That it is incompatible with other systems I accept and I have tried again tonight to show that our decision in all the circumstances was reasonable and logical. But first let me remind the House that CB radio is a short-range personal radio communication service. That is how it is regarded throughout the world, and indeed the major CB user groups in this country accept that. It is not a way of talking across boundaries or across the oceans.

    If that is what one is trying to do, there is already a well-developed network of telecommunications, or, if one wishes to use radio, one can become a licensed radio amateur. Thousands of people do so every year. They have to demonstrate a certain technical ability. The value and success of this process can be seen by the very small number of complaints of interference caused by amateurs.

    We must never forget that, although many of the leaders of present CB organisations are interested in and knowledgeable about radio, the vast majority of the hundreds of thousands who will use legalised CB will not be. They wish only to communicate and it is all the more vital, therefore, that we provide them with a framework that will allow them to do so without harming others.

    The purpose of compatibility is not to talk from country to country. If we want to take equipment with us abroad, we have to reflect on the fact that at present Dutch equipment and German equipment are very close—although eight times less powerful than ours—but that the French equipment is not compatible with either, and Italian with none of the three. The September issue of the International Telecommunication Union telecommunications journal contained an interesting account of CB around the world. It said:
    "At present there are no international regulations for this service and there is considerable disparity between the respective national regulations, some allowing a very free use, others placing strict limits on power, type of antenna, type of modulation, number of channels etc., and yet others excluding the service entirely."
    The article then shows in tabular form what is permitted around the world. I commend it to anyone who believes that common standards already exist. I know of nothing to support the frequent claims that European standardisation is imminent. It has not been achieved over the past decade and I know of no fresh initiatives at this stage. I hope that the day will come when there is a common European system. We would certainly wish to take part in that, and that is why we have said unequivocally that it will be our objective in the longer term to adopt the relevant European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations specification and to play an active part in any move towards real harmonisation. We are not at a stage when we can do more than that.

    The service is about to get off the ground.

    I have received a number of complaints that the system will affect model aircraft and ships. Is there anything in that argument?

    That will be resolved by allocating another point in the radio spectrum to the model users.

    The Irish Government have given a two-year amnesty on existing sets. In Britain many people have sets that will be illegal in 10 days' time. Will the Home Office reconsider granting an amnesty?

    We are not prepared to grant an amnesty because, apart from giving succour to those who have been breaking the law and causing interference to others, it will encourage them to believe that AM will be allowed in this country. An amnesty would give the wrong impression. Customs officials have accepted that the owners of sets that have been imported illegally and on which duty has not been paid will, on a payment of £5, be regarded as having paid off Customs duty and VAT if they are converted to the approved specifications. That is a worthwhile offer, but it is not an amnesty.

    The House will recall that a draft specification of the proposals for CB was available in May to all who asked for it. It was published formally on 24 June. In September my right hon. Friend used his existing powers to permit the manufacture or import of equipment conforming to the 27 MHz specification, and a few days ago we permitted its distribution. To those who allege that we have penalised British industry I can only say that the specification was designed not to penalise anyone but to produce equipment suitable for this country. All manufacturers had the same information and equipment as is now available in this country. Nor should we forget the 934 MHz service. Here we are ahead of the world and it is worth while.

    We have consulted the advisory committee about the content of regulations on interference caused by the legal service, and we await its report. Even the best designed equipment creates some interference and we have to ensure that that is tolerable. Broadcasting, civil aviation, and safety of life services rely on us to ensure that they are properly protected. When we receive and have studied the advisory committee's report, we intend to bring forward regulations under section 10 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act. That is not essential for the service at the outset, and in the interests of speed we have gone ahead.

    Like my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice I pay tribute to Sir Eric Eastwood, the chairman of the advisory committee, who recently died suddenly. I know that he chaired the committee with humour, knowledge and skill. His death before he was able to submit the report was a great loss to the area of electronics and radio.

    I am grateful for the explanation that my hon. Friend has given, but can he tell me whether there is any possibility of allowing the new legal sets to cover the CB frequencies so that people do not have to buy new sets?

    We cannot now change the specification, but I shall consider my hon. Friend's point carefully.

    It is nonsense to suggest that there has been universal condemnation of the legalised system. Some would-be users would prefer something different. Some organisations would prefer no CB at all. But a balance has to struck, and the technical press is now making it clear that we stand on the threshold of a viable and exciting service.

    Recently we received a message from a British company which has involved itself in the CB field. It said:
    "I would like to inform you that we have now done extensive tests with our CB units to the new specifications. I would like to state categorically that we have been unable to induce any interference whatsoever.… We have found the specification far superior to any other European or Third world systems. The aerial that has been chosen also works superbly and complements the new specification. All in all the British Government is offering a fantastic service for the UK public".
    It is pointless to hark back to the past and all the arguments. A week or two ago the CB user organisations, in consultation with my officials, worked out a simple and helpful code of practice designed to allow the CB user to gain the maximum from his hobby. That was a good example of the sort of co-operation that we have sometimes seen and will continue to need. CB offers something new. It offers interest, pleasure and usefulness. It offers freedom. I take particular pride in the fact that it is a Conservative Government who have introduced it.

    Drug Abuse (Glasgow)

    9.30 pm

    Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to raise an important issue at rather short notice. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland for agreeing to reply to the debate. I know that he has had a busy week—not entirely successful, but busy. Rather than thanking him, perhaps I should apologise for dragging him to the House yet again. However, when the business of the House finishes early, it provides an opportunity for Back Benchers to raise issues that they could not otherwise raise.

    I wish to discuss a report published last week by the Glasgow university sociology department. It was written by Jason Ditton and Mr. Kevin Speirits on the subject of drug addiction, especially heroin, in Glasgow. I shall return later to the content of the report. To illustrate its importance to Glasgow I wish to describe the reaction to it.

    As many hon. Members know, the report was the subject of a lengthy programme on "Nationwide". It was not limited to Scottish television. The whole nation saw it. It received considerable press coverage and comment. It has caused much anxiety among the public in Glasgow and the West of Scotland. As a result, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queens Park (Mr. McElhone) has arranged a meeting tomorrow with the chief constable of Strathclyde to discuss the issue. He has also arranged a meeting next week with the Secretary of State for Scotland. Those meetings will be useful and important. However, it is right that the issue should be publicly aired on the Floor of the House and that the Minister should be given an opportunity to give the Scottish Office reaction to it in this Chamber and not by way of a later press release.

    The major findings of the report are worrying. They have not been denied by the Government, the police authorities in Strathclyde, or the social work department of the Strathclyde region. The report claims that, after a steady but small rise in drug addiction in Glasgow since the early 1970s, it shot up by 388 per cent. in the first six months of this year. The report estimates that there are 1,000 heroin addicts in Glasgow a city that has not previously been seen as a major center for such drug abuse. It has been known as a center for alcoholism and for glue sniffing among youngsters.

    Press reaction to the report claimed that the estimate of 1,000 addicts might be conservative. An article in the Sunday Standard last week said that its investigations showed that the figure was probably double that in the report—2,000. Its estimation was borne out by Strathclyde region's principal addiction officer, Geoffrey Isles, who said that he believed the true figure to be double that in the report.

    The report's figures are borne out in other respects by other elements. For instance, 30 Glaswegians have been arrested in the first six months of this year. That may not seem many arrests when set against the 1,000 addicts, but that is the same number as for the whole of last year. There has been a large increase.

    In his annual report the chief constable of Strathclyde, Mr. Patrick Hamill, said that there were indications that supplies were increasing and that he would ensure that greater efforts would be made by his police force to deal with the criminal fraternity which supplies and encourages this evil trade.

    The figures in the report are supported by indications from other areas. In addition, the report states that new addicts are younger than those who were addicted in the past and that drugs are coming from a source different from the usual ones. Of course, they are being bought on the black market.

    one of the report's authors, has told me in conversation—this is not in the report—that the addicts come largely from working-class backgrounds. In the past this type of addiction has tended to be in university towns where there are large student populations and among children and young people from a more middle class background than Mr. Ditton's report suggests. Mr. Ditton suggests that that is so in Glasgow. In illustration the report gives quite harrowing case histories of heroin addicts. For example, there was a 19-year-old youth who was spending £16 a night on his addiction. He ran into trouble with the criminal fraternity because he owed it about £350. There was another example of a person spending about £200 a week. Again, both the report and the press reporters referred to addicts they had met who were spending up to £350 or £400 a week on their addiction. That created enormous problems for them.

    Therefore, it appears that in Glasgow we have a large problem of drug addiction. This has suddenly come to light. It has been highlighted by this report. To many of us, including myself and other Glasgow Members living in or around Glasgow, it is a surprise. We have always been aware of the problems of alcoholism. We have been increasingly aware over the past few years of the problems of glue sniffing and the many difficulties that they are creating in many areas. However, I do not think that many of us have been so aware of the growing problem of heroin addiction.

    Those are the major ingredients of the report. However, it also rightly considers why the problem has arisen. It makes recommendations on how the problem should be tackled.

    The report gives two main reasons for the increase. It hints at a third reason why it has happened. The report reveals that the slow but gradual rise in addiction—not only in Glasgow but elsewhere—began with the change in the heroin control policy of Governments in the late 1960s. Until then Britain saw addiction as a medical problem. Doctors were able to prescribe heroin of high purity gradually to bring addicts off it by a process of slowly reducing the doses.

    The Government rightly wished to impose some controls and slowly to reduce the amount of drugs that could be prescribed in that way. However, in the end they stopped it altogether. The report states that this is one reason why drug addiction has increased. That is because the addict is pushed on to the black market for his supplies. He is pushed towards criminal elements to obtain his supplies and it is to the benefit of those elements, having encouraged youngsters in the use of cannabis or milder drugs, to push them on to hard drugs, because the profit margins are that much higher.

    There are indications in the report and in reports published in the press that in Glasgow the pushers are saying to young people who may be in a circle in which drugs are used by some, "Try it out. You can have it for nothing." They allow them to take it for nothing on two or three occasions. Following that they allow them credit. They say, "You can have it now and you can pay us later." By that stage the young person is hooked and then the pushers begin to demand money.

    When that happens, many young people are driven towards crime to find the money to pay for their drugs. There is now no reason why addicts should register themselves as addicts. There is no benefit for them because they will not obtain drugs on registering. Only those who are desperate and feel that they have to be cured are prepared to place themselves on the register. There is no reason why addicts should do so, generally speaking, unless they can get drugs through prescriptions.

    The result is that addicts do not register. This is why I said that reports of 1,000 or 2,000 addicts in Glasgow are estimates. We do not know how many there are, because there is no need for them to register. We cannot implement controls or produce solutions until we have hard facts. Addicts are not likely to register unless they feel that there is some point in coming forward.

    Secondly, there have been changes in the drug supply on the world market. I shall not spend long discussing that, because I do not think that the Minister has any control over the world supply of opium or heroin. Nevertheless, it is one reason why there has been a great upsurge in the availability of drugs from other countries. In the past, drug dealers could sell all the drugs that they could get. The supply was not limited. In fact, the supply was far too high. It always has been far too high. The dealers could sell all their supplies for high profits in London or to other countries. They can now get enough to expand their operations outwards. There are indications that this is happening in Glasgow. The dealers are supplying to a much larger area, including Glasgow. The expansion has taken place and there is an immense problem in Glasgow.

    The third reason, which has been more than hinted at by Mr. Jason Ditton, Mr. Isles the chief addiction officer in Strathclyde and myself, is the despair that is felt by many young people in Glasgow. In some ways this is the major reason. Young people, especially from working-class families, recognise when they leave school, or before they leave school, that there is little or no hope of obtaining employment immediately or for some considerable time. They feel increasing despair. Increasingly their mothers and fathers are unemployed. They live with their Parents in depressed social conditions. The weaker of them turn towards drugs and addiction as a release from what is increasingly a miserable no-hope life. This is where the Government must bear some responsibility for what has happened. The report states that three major steps could lie taken. First, the police must act to ensure that the pushers do not carry out their trade. Despite what some people think, I have a high regard for the police force in Strathclyde, and I hope that the press will publish that fact. The police are now at strength and have worked hard to try to solve the problem. However, the report says that the problem cannot be solved by punitive action. I agree with it. It will not be solved by punitive action alone.

    However successful the police are in arresting the pushers, it is difficult for them to reach either the middlemen or the "bankers" as they are called—the people who buy the drugs in London, bring them to Glasgow and distribute them. Those people make sure that there are few connections between them and the pushers, the people whom the police can arrest. Therefore, however many pushers the police arrest, in the end there will always be more pushers available to those top people to use instead. Therefore, while I want the police to continue the work that they are doing, to work as hard as they can, to arrest and to keep the problem under control, it cannot be solved in that way. The report makes that clear.

    Secondly, the report says that more money must be available to establish clinics with specially trained staff, so that the addicts feel that there is a place where they can go where they will receive genuine help. At present, Strathclyde region, along with most other local government areas, is having to cut back on its social work programmes. This is a social work job. I hope that the Minister will give a commitment that he sees the need for clinics with trained staff to be established in Glasgow as the first step towards solving the drug problem.

    The third cure that is given is the most controversial. I am not sure that I wholly go along with the report. That is the return to free prescriptions of heroin for registered addicts. I do not go along with that the whole way because it can be, and was in the past, open to abuse by some doctors. Therefore, that return must be carefully controlled if we are to use it.

    However, the effects of not returning to free prescriptions of heroin are there to be seen. I have highlighted one of them. Until addicts feel that they can go to an authority and obtain their drug, they will not register. Therefore, it is impossible for us to know the size of the problem. If we do not know who the addicts are, we cannot help them and try to cure them. Some addicts go because they feel desperate, or their families feel so desperate that they advise them to go, but large numbers do not.

    "While the supply of heroin is in the control of the black market where high prices are being charged for low quality heroin, according to the report—the heroin is adulterated by substances such as talcum powder, and £15 and £16 is being paid for small amounts—the problem of unemployed youngsters obtaining the money to buy it is extremely worrying. They have not the money so what do they do? They turn to crime in order to obtain the money with which to buy their drug. That results in an increase in the number of cases of breaking into chemists' shops and other places where drugs can be found. It also means that there is an increase in muggings and other violent crimes through which people concerned hope to obtain money to buy their drugs.

    The link between crime and addiction will grow stronger unless somehow or other we can get the addict out of the hands of the pusher and into the hands of the authorities, who can begin to deal with the problem. Unless that can be done, the major criminals will have a yet bigger market for their product and a bigger opportunity to exploit the drug addicts, who in turn will find it increasingly difficult to break away.

    In addition to the major health problem which results from addiction, if the addict is not taking proper heroin, administered by medically trained people in controlled circumstances, other risks to his health may arise.

    For the reasons that I have given, there is a case for the Government to look very seriously at the report. I said that I had reservations about it. I should like to see a reintroduction of the prescription of these drugs of addiction, but within drug clinics alone. I am not sure that I would want to see prescription returned to general practitioners, because there are risks in that. I would prefer a return to a system under which addicts can register at clinics, have their drugs administered by properly qualified medical people, and have their dependence gradually reduced. The aim must always be to get them away from their addiction. That is the main purpose, and that is what we are trying to achieve.

    I hope that the Minister will be able to convince his colleagues within the Scottish Office and at the Home Office that there must be a change in policy concerning drugs if we are to cure what has become a very difficult problem, particularly in Glasgow. But I should like to emphasise that there is in Glasgow not only a problem of heroin addiction; we have the alcoholics, the glue sniffers, and the people who are on softer drugs. I have no knowledge that drug addiction of this type is a great problem in my constituency, but glue sniffing is an enormous problem.

    I do not believe that these forms of addiction and the rise in them is due to some fatal weakness in the character of the Glaswegian. I think it is due to the social conditions in which people are living. The Government's real responsibility is not just to change the law on addiction and to give Strathclyde region more police. The Government must change their economic and social policies to ensure that young people can once again feel that they have a place and a part to play in the society in which they live. They must be given hope. Unless they have hope, some of them will continue to turn to the various forms of drug abuse.

    9.54 pm

    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) on raising such an important subject. It is a pity that more hon. Members were not here to listen to his speech.

    In Glasgow we used to think that problems associated with addiction to hard drugs such as heroin and morphine occurred only in New York, Los Angeles, and to a small extent in London. But now we find that the problem is not confined to those cities. We have the problem in our own city of Glasgow. In particular, we have addiction to heroin—a substance which causes a human being to become completely dehumanised, eventually resulting in death.

    I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned the registration system. In more than 22 years' practice in Glasgow I never had to prescribe for one person in that respect, so small a problem was it in my native city. We now have not only heroin addiction but, as my hon. Friend has said, glue sniffing and other problems.

    Glue sniffing is indeed a serious problem. The sniffing of these vapours which immediately affect the brain causes hallucinations, making young people imagine that they can fly like Batman. It is thus the cause of a number of deaths in Glasgow and in other areas and of enormous problems for the families involved.

    As I am sure the House knows, at one time the taking of opium was quite commonplace in this country. In Victorian times, it was indulged in by a great many people and did not seem to cause any great problems. At least, there is no tabulation of statistical evidence to suggest that problems were caused. I am not making a plea for the taking of opium; I merely make that observation in passing. If there is a lesson to be learned from that, it is perhaps that it is the pushing of the drug which causes many of the problems, and the crime syndicates which arise as a result.

    Of course young people take drugs for a number of reasons—for kicks, for relief from the kind of monotony to which my hon. Friend referred. I do not know whether any hon. Member present has experienced the effects of an injection of morphine. Many years ago, when on holiday in Italy, I had a pretty serious gastro-intestinal bug, which caused excruciating pain. I therefore had to have an injection of morphine from the local doctor, who gave me a large dose—about three times the amount that I used to prescribe to patients. Within about 10 minutes I would not have cared if the hotel had caught fire. If somebody had come in and said that the whole place was in flames, I should simply have laughed. That is the kind of euphoria that the drug induces in the recipient.

    Is not it a fact that a good deal of the arson that we have suffered recently has been directly or indirectly related to drug taking?

    Yes, I agree. It causes all sorts of problems, and arson is one. That is perhaps one of the manifestations of drug taking which shows itself in the victims.

    My hon. Friend mentioned an addiction which is prevalent in Glasgow, in all our big cities and, I think, in most parts of the world—addiction to alcohol. Alcohol is also a poison. If the statistics can be validly compared, alcohol addiction or the excess taking of alcohol is probably the cause of more crime and difficulty than any other drug. We therefore have to bear the charge of a great deal of hypocrisy in allowing alcohol but not other drugs.

    At this point, while I am entirely on the side of my hon. Friend in believing that there should be close scrutiny of hard drug taking and a clamp-down on the pedlars—on the bankers, the people who make vast fortunes out of this trade—I am perhaps treading on more difficult ground in wishing to dwell for a few moments on the cannabis problem.

    My attitude towards cannabis—

    It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]

    When I am approached by constituents, who take advantage of the fact that I am a medical practitioner, asking why I do not push for the legalisation of cannabis when alcohol is allowed, my stock answer has been that alcohol has been with the human race for thousands of years. We know all its difficulties and manifestations. We are aware of everything that can happen as a result of alcohol taking, but we do not know the same about cannabis.

    Although some people argue that cannabis causes no problems, there may well be problems. However, I am beginning to have doubts about whether I should continue to adopt this adamant stand on cannabis. I say that because there is the possibility that by not allowing access to cannabis we may be pushing young people to the point where they say, "Well, if cannabis is illegal we might as well go for the big one and try heroin". I am not saying that we should legalise cannabis. All I am suggesting is that perhaps we should delve a little deeper into the question to discover whether, if there were a relaxation of the cannabis laws, there would be an equivalent reduction in the taking of hard drugs.

    I know of the argument that it is by starting on soft drugs that some young people progress to hard ones. I do not believe we shall stop that in any case. There could well be an argument at least for re-examining the cannabis laws.

    Once again, I hasten to stress that I am not suggesting that there should be any immediate relaxation in the cannabis laws. I am merely saying that the situation should be examined in case there is a relationship between cannabis and a reduction in the taking of the real, dangerous and serious drugs.

    This report from Glasgow university, which identifies heroin as the most dangerous culprit, is a serious indictment of our society. Heroin is the most dangerous culprit in the whole spectrum of drug taking. I wholeheartedly support the three propositions put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart.

    I would not be quite as reticent about the third. We should reconstitute this register. As he said, it might be a good idea to bring it under greater control rather than give the responsibility, as previously, to the general practitioner, because from time to time there have been gross infringements of the doctor's privilege of prescribing for registered addicts.

    It would be a good idea to reinstitute the register, perhaps with greater safeguards, in addition to the two other measures suggested by my hon. Friend. This will be an increasingly difficult problem, and I cannot, in all conscience, be optimistic about it, either in Glasgow or elsewhere. First, there is too much money to be made by unscrupulous people for them to let go of such a lucrative trade. Secondly, with mental and physical strains becoming more common in our society, it is likely that the drive towards taking these dangerous drugs will increase. There are also other dangerous drugs that people take in large quantities. Barbiturates are prescribed only exceptionally, but there was a day when they were prescribed freely. I used to do so myself, and I did not have any problems. Valium is prescribed with great regularity and in enormous quantities, and many other drugs have hallucinatory and other deleterious effects on the human frame. We should institute a high-powered investigation into the whole problem of drug taking, covering every aspect and including all drugs—from the softest drugs that are acceptable, such as alcohol and Valium, to those that are not acceptable, such as morphine and heroin.

    It has been a privilege to support my hon. Friend and I am glad that he raised this subject tonight.

    10.7 pm

    The House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) for grasping the opportunity to raise this subject.

    My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) knows the problem well at first hand as a medical practitioner. My credential for speaking on the subject is that I attempted twice under the Ten-Minute Bill procedure to introduce a Bill on the testing of drug addiction. It did not get very far. My concern arose from my experience when I was the late Richard Crossman's Parliamentary Private Secretary of going with him to the heroin addicts center in East London. It was the most appalling sight—including death itself in various forms—that I have ever seen. I saw 13, 14 and 15-year-olds mooning around, incontinent, and without proper control over their limbs. It even shocked so hardened a man as Sir George Godber, who was then the chief medical officer at the Department of Health. Were I in favour of capital punishment—which I am not—the first group for which I would advocate it would be the pushers of heroin for profit—people who wreak absolute destruction in families simply for profit.

    Well briefed by Professor Arnold Beckett of the Chelsea college, and supported not only by three former Secretaries of State for Health and Social Security—Mrs. Castle, Mr. Crossman and Mr. Douglas Houghton—but by distinguished Conservatives, the late Dr. Colonel Sir Malcolm Stoddart Scott, Miss Mervyn Pyke and other colleagues, I put forward a Bill. It is true that it proposed a limitation of freedom that was considered to be unacceptable. On consideration, it was clear that at that time the House would not have it.

    However, I return to the central question. It is unreasonable to ask the Minister to give a view on such a delicate subject at this time of night on the second Adjournment, but, after consideration, will he write to us about random testing? Unless there is early indentification, the addiction can go too far. The professional qualifications of my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride are greater than mine, and I believe that he would confirm that unless one identifies a heroin addict at an early stage the individual is lost.

    My second point concerns glue sniffing. Under the leadership of Nigel Fordyce, the West Lothian district council formally approached me about its considerable concern. It arises not only out of such cases as a miserable teenager killing his grandmother while under the influence of glue. In our district, as in many others especially around Glasgow, glue sniffing is becoming ever more serious. My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart gave the reasons and I shall not repeat them.

    Six months ago my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey)—we greatly regret that he is ill and is unable to be with us—who has a longstanding interest in the subject, raised the matter as a central issue when many of us believed that it was only peripheral. The Secretary of State told us that research was being carried out into additives to glue or the effectiveness of taking more rigorous measures at the point of sale.

    Mistakes can be made, but it beggars belief that on occasions youngsters can buy glue and the person serving them does not have a fairly shrewd idea of the purpose. If there is any suspicion, it is deeply irresponsible of adults to sell teenagers glue that can do them great harm. I know of the hallucinations that can result. From work in the Manpower Services Commission I know of a boy sent to the National Trust. With all the good will in the world, employers cannot take on glue sniffers. One does not know what they will do next. How can one be reassured about such things as fire-raising when these people are not in control of their senses? That is why in West Lothian we believe that the need to deal with the subject is urgent and important.

    on behalf of the West Lothian district council, is writing to the Scottish Office. We hope to have discussion in the first instance with Scottish Office officials who are concerned about and sensitive to the issue. We shall see where we go from there. In the meantime, we await the Minister's reply with interest.

    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (


    I, too, am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) for the opportunity to discuss this important matter. I am also grateful to him for his consideration of my position, Having had a successful week so far, I see no reason why I should not respond on behalf of the Government.

    The report by Dr. Ditton and Mr. Speirits was published last Thursday. It was featured on BBC television and in the newspapers. I am bound to say that this in itself is not a measure of the significance of the report. With all due respect to the British Broadcasting Corporation, the Sunday Standard, the Glasgow Evening Times and other newspapers that have featured it, the report did not produce any significant new information that was not already known to the authorities and to the Scottish Office about the position in Glasgow,

    I would refer in particular to the report on 1980 of the chief constable of Strathclyde published in May this year which said, on drugs:
    "The large reduction of 26.9 per cent. in cases of drug abuse and 31.1 per cent. in the number of persons arrested for drug offences hides what police and medical authorities believe to be disturbing trends. Firstly, heroin abuse doubled over the year and although the 1980 figure of thirty is still comparatively small, the situation is being monitored with concern. Secondly, while the price of heroin and cannabis has risen dramatically there are indications that the market is expanding and supplies increasing."
    The chief constable goes on to say:
    "My policy will continue to be that of concentrating our efforts to deal with the criminal fraternity behind this expansion who supply and encourage this evil trade."
    I have read that section of the chief constable's report because I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to be reassured of the seriousness with which the authorities in Strathclyde—not only the police but also the health authorities and the social work department—are playing their part to try to come to grips and deal with the problem. They have also set up a co-ordinating body to make sure that this work continues as effectively as possible.

    In the report Dr. Ditton and Mr, Speirits note that the two drug clinics in the Glasgow area experienced a 388 per cent. rise in new cases of heroin addiction in the first six months of 1981. In effect this represents a total of 66 cases which they extrapolate for the whole of 1981 to produce the figure of a 388 per cent. increase over 1980. These figures must be interpreted with caution. It is easy to produce large and alarming percentage figures when the absolute number used as a basis is very small. The number of new cases registered in 1980 was 21.

    The figures must also be interpreted with caution because even the dramatic rise in reported cases of heroin addiction may not be due to a real increase. It is possible that sources of illicit supply have diminished, thus making it necessary for addicts to register at the clinics in order to obtain a methadone substitute. In other words, there may be an increase in self-notifying addicts, but only more detailed study could ascertain whether this is the case.

    The report comments on procedures that have been followed in this country since 1968 and tends to blame these procedures, at least to some extent, for the increase in the number of addicts and the number of criminals or pushers who take the most wicked advantage of the unfortunate addict. The hon. Member for Cathcart was critical of the present procedure, although he qualified his criticism by saying that he had not gone overboard for the recommendations made in the report. I think that he was perhaps critical of the procedures relating to registration.

    The report's most significant proposal for the NHS is the recommendation that pure heroin should be freely supplied to addicts on demand by means of an NHS prescription issued by any doctor. As I am sure the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) is aware, that suggestion contradicts informed medical opinion on the subject and is put forward without any basis of evidence that such a course might be successful in controlling the level of heroin addiction.

    The treatment regimes being carried out at the two Glasgow drug clinics at the Eastern district hospital and the Southern general hospital, are fully in accord with well-established medical practice in other parts of the United Kingdom, particularly London where there is a much greater number of heroin addicts.

    I do not pretend that the present procedures are perfect, but I repeat that the police, the NHS and the social work departments in Glasgow co-ordinate their activities and share a deep concern and the common objective to help addicts and to hound pushers.

    Perhaps at this hour I should excuse the hon. Member for Cathcart for feeling obliged to relate any deprivation or criminal offence in any part of the country to the Government's policies. However, I suggest that that is a little too easy from a political point of view and that it can be dangerous to seek to make excuses for those who are victims of misfortune or are at the mercy of others, such as drug pushers, who are taking advantage of them for personal profit.

    The problems to which the hon. Member for Cathcart rightly drew attention are not peculiar to Glasgow, Scotland or the United Kingdom or to any particular set of economic circumstances or any political creed. I hope that he will appreciate that the matter had a much broader perspective and that the problems should not be narrowly judged or confused with the situation in the country at large.

    I hope that the Minister will appreciate that social problems inevitably create such difficulties. They may not be the only reason for drug addiction, alcoholism and glue sniffing, but if we put those three problems together we see that Glasgow has a problem which, if not unique, is certainly worse than is faced in any comparable city in Western Europe.

    I hope that the Minister will not dismiss these problems and say that they have nothing to do with economic and social conditions, which are made considerably worse by Government policies. I hope that he will not be too easily dismissive of that aspect.

    I have gone out of my way not to dismiss the problem lightly, but I cannot accept the narrow criticism that the problems of Glasgow have sprung up suddenly in the past couple of years. If one wishes to analyse the political connection with the social problems in Glasgow one must consider how the city has been governed over the past quarter of a century.

    The report suggests that changes should be made in the procedures that have operated since 1968, but I remind the House that the report was no more than a pilot study over two or three months and, by nature, the contents, although important, must be of limited value.

    Ministers are considering the matters seriously, but not in a panic, because, as I suggested earlier, the report has received a great deal of publicity—perhaps more than the depth of the study, though not the problem, may have deserved. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend and my colleagues in the Scottish Office are taking the matter seriously. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, the Secretary of State is meeting him and various other Glasgow Members of Parliament next week to consider in more detail the report and, more importantly, the current situation in Glasgow, taking into account the latest views of the chief constable, the director of social work, the health board and others who are dealing with this problem daily as part of their duties. As I have already said, they are dealing with the matter most earnestly and with considerable effect.

    The hon. Member for East Kilbride has much experience of the problems and the difficulties that we are discussing—I do not mean in a personal way, of course, but professionally. He rightly drew attention to the dangers of soft drugs and glue sniffing, as well as the drink problem. He will be the first to recognise that drink, not least in Glasgow and the West of Scotland, causes many difficulties, not just of a social nature, but affecting industry.

    It is true that the drink problem and all the related problems are well recognised in Glasgow. Thanks to a move initiated by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) when he was Secretary of State and continued by my right hon. Friend, we have now apparently solved one drink problem, and that was the regular Saturday afternoon punch-up at Parkhead, Ibrox and elsewhere in Scotland, which has been proved to be due, more than anything else, to the drink that was carried in, either in people's pockets or in their stomachs, and that affected them during the course of what was supposed to be a Saturday afternoon's sports entertainment.

    For the benefit of the foreign press, I suggest that the Minister makes quite clear that by drink he means alcohol. Drink could be anything.

    This may be a Scottish peculiarity, but to me a drink certainly does not mean a cup of tea. If anyone invited me in for a drink and offered me a cup of tea, I should be rather disgusted.

    The hon. Gentleman referred to the pushers and the crime syndicates that are at the root of the problem. I am sure that he and his hon. Friends would be the first to agree that the police are ably and energetically pursuing these criminals to the best of their ability and, as we have seen from the chief constable's report, with continuing success, backed up by the important work that is done by the health department and social work departments in helping the addicts themselves.

    The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), whom I am pleased to hear in voice this evening—I said that we had not heard him for some time in the House, and that is a great shame—made several points, including one about random testing. I assume that he means random testing of addicts in clinics. I do not know for sure, but I guess that that might take place, but, as he suggests, I shall make sure that my hon. Friend who is responsible for such matters will write to him and give him the latest position. The hon. Gentleman then mentioned the matter raised by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) in a debate about six months ago, when my right hon. Friend undertook to advise him about research in adding additives to glue to reduce the damage that glue sniffing causes and taking steps to control the sales of glue.

    I agree, at least on the face of it, that it seems strange that youngsters are still able to go into shops and freely avail themselves of this dangerous product, as a result of which they find themselves suffering hallucinations and other effects of that kind. I have noted what the hon. Gentleman said, and I give him an undertaking that my right hon. Friend or my hon. Friend will write to him on these matters and try to reassure him, not just on the essential point raised-—

    The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

    Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.