[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Orders Of The Day
Licensing (Retail Sales) Bill
As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
Clause 1
Amendment Of Definition Of "Sale By Retail" In Licensing Act I964
I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 8, leave out 'to any one person'.
It would be wrong to say that the Bill was subjected to protracted scrutiny on Second Reading. Indeed, this is the first occasion on which this excellent measure, which is the child of my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay), has been debated on the Floor of the House.Is my hon. Friend aware that the Committee discussed the Bill for three sittings and it was suggested in some quarters —quite wrongly, and the suggestion was rejected by you, Mr. Speaker —that we were filibustering? We considered serious amendments. We examined some of them at great length. We think that the Bill has now been fully considered.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I have studied the reports of Standing Committee C with great care. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) was a member of the Standing Committee, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), who is partly a parent of the Bill.
Our debate takes place on the 87th birthday of the Emperor of Japan and on the 46th birthday of the deputy Foreign Secretary. I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Reigate and for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) have already been in touch with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, raising with her issues about double summer time which were considered by the House last evening. I do not want to be led astray down those paths, however. As well as' the two birthdays to which it is right that the House should pay tribute, we should note that our debate on the subject of drink takes place in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Father of the House. The House should not despair, however, because seated on the Treasury Bench is the Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household —my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones). He is visiting us at the start of a weekend which appears for him to have begun already. He is in his place because he has a deep interest in alcohol I have an interest in alcohol, but it is not quite the same as that of my hon. Friend the Vice-Chamberlain. I see that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is in his place.No, I am not.
He is not sitting beside the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). That would be quite wrong. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West was a member not of Standing Committee C but of that Committee which considered the Housing Bill. You may wonder, Mr. Speaker, why I am bringing the hon. Member for Newham, North-West into the debate —
Order. We are considering the Licensing (Retail Sales) Bill, not what went on in the Housing Bill Standing Committee, interesting though that may have been.
We need to know who is in the Chamber.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was a member of the Standing Committee. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison).
I do not know why my hon. Friend should wish to give way to me. I have no wish to intervene in the debate, so overcome am I by my hon. Friend's eloquence.
I do not want to be led astray, particularly with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the Chair.
Especially when the hon. Member is moving the amendment.
That is true. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, will have studied closely the Bill and the amendment. The amendment seeks to leave out the words, "to any one person". When I was discussing the series of amendments with some of my hon. Friends I wondered whether the words, "to any one person" were really necessary.
I dislike very much even raising a doubt about whether the draftsmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) could in any way be defective. It is possible, although the clause was considered most carefully in Committee, that the point that I draw to the attention of the House on Report was overlooked. I say that to my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East and to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who has brought with him a massive volume of paper and books that are not readily available to BackBenchers.This particular book is not so readily available to Back Benchers because I have nicked it from the Library and it was the only copy.
That book was written by my noble Friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone who has been engaged in a very erudite correspondence through The Times —with which I am in respectful agreement —with Lord Jenkins, who used to sit close to where the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is seated, and who used to be in the same party as the hon. Member. Lord Jenkins of Hillhead has been engaged in a correspondence in The Times—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman reads The Times —about the powers of another place. It will be interesting to see, when the Bill reaches another place, whether the amendment is rejected or withdrawn. It is quite possible that the amendment will be considered in another place.
Will my hon. Friend say whether he believes, in the light of the Under-Secretary of State's presence on the Front Bench, the amendment arises out of some conspiracy or some cock-up?
The amendment was tabled by me. It is perfectly true that none of my hon. Friends has added his or her name to the amendment. I think that it would have been in order for the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) to add her name to this first amendment. Madam Deputy Speaker confirms that that is so. It would not have been possible at this stage for the Minister's father to add his name since he is a member of another place.
My hon. Friend mentioned the Minister's father. Would it be appropriate for us all to congratulate him on the excellent interview that he gave on television last night in which he spoke for the British people?
Order. I doubt whether that relates to the amendment before us.
I entirely agree with the ruling that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have given. We want to know, either from my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), who had a great deal to do with the parenthood of the Bill —I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East will not think it discourteous of me when I say that they were joint parents of the Bill —
There are usually joint parents.
My hon. Friend is quite wrong about that. How many letters now start off, "I am a one-parent family"?
Obviously the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) is prepared to give way to anyone this morning, even to me. Although it can end up as a single-parent family, at the point of conception two parents are usually involved, unless it is a virgin birth.
As my hon. Friend —I almost referred to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) as my hon. Friend. Indeed, we had many happy discussions about the Housing Bill. However, I should not be led astray by the hon. Gentleman.
Will my hon. Friend give way?
What do you think, Madam Deputy Speaker?
It is not for the Chair to determine whether an hon. Member must give way. The hon. Member has given away a great deal of time this morning.
9.45 am
I shall give way to my hon. Friend and if my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate should seek to intervene I shall certainly give way to him.
My hon. Friend referred to the number of one-parent families. Is he aware that more than 20 per cent. of births are illegitimate? Would he consider that as being related to the availability of alcohol?
Order. The hon. Member's interventions do not relate to the amendment.
I believe that the Bill will be improved and its comprehensibility advanced if we omit the words "to any one person" because they are superfluous. My hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East will acknowledge that those words are not necessary and that the clause will be made clearer if those words are omitted. I expect that to be the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East, and I expect that the Minister, when he advises the House, will agree that the amendment is a modest improvement to this excellent Bill.
I always hesitate to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) because for four glorious days in 1983 I served as his Parliamentary Private Secretary and I have always held him in the greatest respect.
Although I have no particular objection to the amendment, as it does not affect my Bill, I believe that when my hon. Friend the Minister addresses the House we shall find that the amendment will have consequential effects on the major licensing Acts that have been passed. Therefore, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne might find it wiser to withdraw the amendment, but perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if we were to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister about thatI have to say that I had not expected to speak so early in the debate. It occurred to me that this kind of amendment, striking at the root of parliamentary draftsmanship, about which hon. Members from both sides of the House would like to speak.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) has raised the matter and I have been challenged, as it were, by his former Parliamentary Private Secretary. I fear that I shall not rise to that challenge in quite the way that he would have done had he continued with his speech a little longer. There is no doubt that the question that has been raised so clearly by my right hon. Friend —I am sorry, I mean my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne; I cannot think how such an omission has occurred —is a matter of some importance. That is because there is a nasty tendency on the part of those who draft legislation to increase the volume of words that appear in the Bill. Consequently, it is important that when a certain phrase appears in a Bill of this kind we should be in a position to justify it. Otherwise, out of an abundance of caution, we shall find the language of the Bill being multiplied, with phrase being piled upon phrase, and becoming verbose. In the end, we have to ask what it means
Precisely.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman supports me. He will remember that on a number of occasions in Committee, when I have had the privilege of serving with him, he has tried to add phrases that have no meaning, but on this occasion I see that we are as one. Incidentally, that also applies to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). He has given me some nasty moments, for example, on money resolutions.
That is one of life's modest consolations.
If it is one of life's modest consolations for the hon. Member for Bradford, South, I have to say that it was one of my embarrassments, but I hope that I rose to the occasion with good humour and charm. In any event, the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and I, and, I think, the Vice-Chamberlain Household, Lord Tinky-pooh and various hon. Members are anxious to know —
Did I hear my hon. Friend refer in a somewhat disparaging way to a member of Her Majesty's Household? At the beginning of the debate, did I not remind my hon. Friend that today is the 87th birthday of His Majesty the Emperor of Japan? Were not the words that fell from my hon. Friend's lips anticipated earlier by the marvellous Mr. W. S. Gilbert?
That is the problem. I was reminded about the glorious birthday of the Emperor of Japan, and that put the unhappy words "Tinky-pooh" into my mind. I withdraw them, because it is disparaging to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) and, no doubt, to the Emperor of Japan. Therefore I withdraw them on that ground as well.
Does my hon. Friend realise how closely the Bill is related to the Emperor of Japan?
Order. I believe that such references were ruled out of order earlier.
I was about to refer to the Deputy Foreign Secretary because you had ruled, Madam Deputy Speaker, that she could have added her name to the amendment. I draw that fact to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister.
It is true that my hon. Friend the Deputy Foreign Secretary could have done just that. Had she done so, it would have been a great advantage because she occupies a much more distinguished place in the Government than I do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not know how to reply to the sedentary interventions behind me, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I feel sure that you would not wish me to do so. Nevertheless, had she added her name to the amendment, the House would have had the benefit of a speech from my hon. Friend the Deputy Foreign Secretary and she would have been able to bring her international experience to bear upon it.
And her intellect.
And, indeed, her intellect. We should have had both a precise analysis of the legal questions and the experience of my hon. Friend the Deputy Foreign Secretary, who would have drawn upon comparisons with Germany, France, Italy and—
Is it not the case that, had she done so, she would not have remained Deputy Foreign Secretary for very long?
I do not know about that. It is not for me to speculate on the future of my hon. Friend the Deputy Foreign Secretary, but I should have thought that the House would have been better informed—
My hon. Friend the Minister seems to be somewhat confused over titles. Understandably, but wrongly, he referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) as his right hon. Friend. I share his view that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne should be my right hon. Friend, but he has just done a grave injustice to the Deputy Foreign Secretary by calling her his hon. Friend. He should know, as I know, that she was made a Privy Councillor about 18 months ago. No doubt he would wish to add his congratulations to her.
I most certainly wish to add my congratulations, but I think that they may be a trifle belated. I have to say that I am overcome by shame. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not, on the whole, overcome by shame, but on this occasion I feel that the point that has been made is particularly sharp.
Is not my hon. Friend's error compounded even more by the fact that our right hon. Friend is the only other Lady, apart from the Prime Minister, who is a right hon. Member of the House?
My hon. Friend is rubbing salt into the wound. All that I can do is to grovel, and I do so in a way that I hope is much more meaningful than the way in which others grovelled in this House a few days ago. I have committed a grave sin. I can only apologise to my hon. Friends and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), who is not here today. I have a feeling that if I continue in this vein, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall be in serious trouble with your good self.
On a point of order. Madam Deputy Speaker. There is no post known to the law as Deputy Foreign Secretary. May we know to whom my hon. Friend the Minister is referring?
I do not think that that has anything whatever to do with the legislation that is before us. We ought not to go down that path.
It is a tribute —
Why has my hon. Friend not paid tribute to our right hon. Friend the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine)? Was not mention made at the beginning of the debate to the Father of the House? Did we not say that our proceedings would be strengthened if only he were to arrive?
I am afraid that I had not noticed that my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point had come into the Chamber, but that is a fact upon which we should comment. Very few hon. Members know or care more than he does about legislation that relates to alcohol. I think that I speak on behalf not only of the Treasury Bench and my hon. Friends but of the hon. Members for Erdington, for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs Golding), when I say that we very much welcome the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point. His presence denotes the possibility that this legislation will be examined in somewhat greater detail than might otherwise have been the case. That is inevitably good, especially on a Friday morning when we have the time to explore these matters in some detail. On behalf, therefore, of all right hon. and hon. Members who may be in the Chamber, or who are shortly to arrive, I welcome my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point and hope that he has a very full contribution to make to the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) raised a point of order about the term "Deputy Foreign Secretary". He was right to do so, but it is a tribute to the reputation of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne that the description that he applied should have been treated by hon. Members as a definitive description. Strictly speaking, he was not right, but, as on many occasions, he sets the tone that this Chamber is anxious to follow.My hon. Friend could be misled by the fact that the BBC constantly refers to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) as the Deputy Foreign Secretary. We all know that the BBC never makes a mistake.
It is perfectly true that our understanding of the facts may occasionally be perverted by the BBC, and it is undoubtedly true that—
Order. These proceedings are by no means tedious but they are quite irrelevant.
You may remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, that about 10 minutes ago I said that if I pursued my then current line I should be ruled out of order by you, but just as I was turning to the point with which I now wish to deal—the words "to any one person"—I was sidertracked by the very welcome arrival of my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point. Should that phrase be in the Bill? We began from the proposition that we should not include words that are surplus to the meaning of the Bill. Are those words surplus to the meaning of the Bill, and do they damage its effect?
We are getting into trouble with titles this morning. To help us make up our minds about the amendment, will my hon. Friend say whether he has consulted the parliamentary draftsmen about whether the amendment would preclude a pregnant lady from purchasing liquor?
10 am
That possibility was not in my mind when I first considered the amendment. Although it is capable, by extension, of applying to persons not present in the corporeal world, perhaps my hon. Friend is stretching the point further than I would wish. I shall discuss the matter at an appropriate moment with the parliamentary draftsmen and explore possible further refinements of the law to make the position crystal clear. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) for raising that drafting point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne looks as though he is about to leap to his feet. Does he wish to intervene?No.
We have just witnessed a unique event. I invited my hon. Friend to intervene, but he declined. I always welcome new experiences.
I revert to the interesting, if somewhat detailed, question whether the phrase, "to any one person" should appear in the Bill. There are two reasons why it should not. First, there is the question of its impact on related legislation. The House will be aware of the provisions of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979, particularly section 4(4). The definition of "sale by retail" in the Bill follows broadly the provsions contained in section 4(4) of the 1979 legislation, where the wordsappear. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne is a lawyer. I was a lawyer and hope never to be one again. We understand the importance of consistency in legislation. If I were to make one serious point—I hope to make many serious points—I would suggest that it is desirable to have the same definitions in relevant and related legislation. For that reason, I find the amendment difficult to accept."at any one time to any one person"
My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point of principle about the way in which the country is run. In view of his contribution to a recent debate, is he suggesting that when a Government have made a cock-up and legislation is on the statute book, it is inviolate for all time and cannot be amended by subsequent wiser thinking? That would suggest that a measure passed in 1982 would stand for ever. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) made a valid contribution. It is wrong to say that because words have been enshrined in legislation, or that because in the past some buffoons accepted them, we must accept them for all time.
I am a wiser person than I was two nights ago. I believe that the phrase that I used was a trifle inelegant, so I shall not repeat it. My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh, however, is right. If an error was made some time ago, we are not bound by it thereafter. We are entitled to consider legislation and decide whether the error should persist I do not believe that the 1979 legislation is defective in its definition. I am, therefore, anxious to maintain consistency between relevant and related legislation.
I am sure that my hon. Friend would like to comment on whether the voters of Eastleigh, North took this amendment into consideration when yesterday they increased the Conservative majority from 228 to 511. The Labour party's vote decreased dramatically.
I suspect, although I cannot speak authoritatively, that the answer is no. I imagine that the voters of Eastleigh, North had in mind the Government's successful policies and the great leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Those facts are more self-evident than the true but less self-evident merits of the Bill.
The Government are neutral about the passage of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) was right to draw to the attention of the House our remarkable victory. I think that it had more to do with the overall success of the Government and the defects of the Opposition than the merits of this important piece of legislation.And a good candidate.
And, indeed, a good candidate. As you, Madam Deputy speaker, will know, the Conservative party is extremely careful to select only good candidates. I wish that the same could be said of other parties. I am aware that I am trespassing, Madam Deputy Speaker. You need not rise, because I know that I am at fault. I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I would apologise to those Opposition Members who should have been selected had they been present.
My second reason why the words "to any person" should not appear in the Bill is that they do not deleteriously affect paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of clause 1, but they have a prejudicial effect on paragraph (e) because they would dilute the control encompassed in clause I. They would enable people to band together to buy quantities of alcohol, the effect of which would be that such sales would be treated as wholesales and would thus be exempt from the licensing regime. It was right that the phraseology of clause 1 should be challenged, but for the reasons that I have given I do not commend the amendment to the House.In view of what my hon. Friend the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Having listened to the Minister on amendment No. 1, I shall not move amendment No. 2.
I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, leave out line 12. Line 12 of clause 1 states:This Bill is a small but excellent measure and it will give added protection to children who can be misled into buying alcohol from the back of a lorry. It will be warmly welcomed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), the Father of the House. It will also be welcomed by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), the Vice Chamberlain. I think that my right hon. Friend the Father of the House will agree that not every canteen or mess sells alcoholic drink. My right hon. Friend is a deputy lieutenant of his county and has also been a soldier. I have never been into a mess where alcoholic drink was not served, but, there are canteens and messes, however rare, where it is not. Indeed, I believe that that is increasingly the case. My hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) drafted clause 1 on the assumption, which I do not believe is valid, that alcohol is served in every canteen and mess."to any canteen or mess."
I assure my hon. Friend that many canteens throughout the country in many industrial premises quite rightly do not sell alcohol because it is recognised that people have to return to work having eaten in those canteens.
My hon. Friend reinforces the point I was making. I believe it to be the view of my hon. Friend the Vice-Chamberlain that it would be no bad thing if there were more canteens and messes, within and without the House, where alcohol was not served. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Durant) has many soldiers living in his constituency. Unlike the Vice-Chamberlain, he is allowed to have a drink. Indeed, in the past I have given a drink to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West, but I have never given an alcoholic drink to the Vice-Chamberlain. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point will not think that this is an incorrect recollection on my part, but I believe that in a canteen or mess I have given a glass of sherry to my right hon. Friend. Does my right hon. Friend wish to intervene?
I am listening with intense interest to this debate. I listened to the high quality speech from my hon. Friend the Minister, which is what we expect from him, and to the contributions from my hon. Friends.
I was once the chairman of a working party—I think it was the first working party in the country—that looked into the question of alcohol in the place of work. We came to the conclusion—it was widely accepted by industry, the medical profession and the country as a whole—that alcohol and work were a mismatch. In fact, a high proportion of industrial accidents and an inordinately high incidence of absenteeism from work were caused by the imbibing of alcohol during some part of the working day. I am glad to say that, by and large, employers and trade unions agreed. I should like to pay tribute to the contribution made by the trade union movement. In fact, a distinguished member of the Trades Union Congress was a member of the working party. As a result of that, there have been considerable improvements. There is also the growing problem of young people and alcohol. Youth leaders up and down the country are urging the provision of bars and canteens where young people can take a non-alcoholic drink to refresh themselves. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne is dealing with an extremely important point and I will listen to the rest of his speech with the greatest interest.I was not sure whether my right hon. Friend had caught your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and was making a speech or whether it was an intervention. Certainly, that brief intervention has whetted the appetite of the House and I hope that it may be possible for you to call my right hon. Friend later in the debate.
10.15 am My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point, with his long experience of canteens and messes as a former soldier, in his quasi-judicial role as a deputy lieutenant of his county, and as a member of the Privy Council, which, as my right hon. Friend knows, has quasi-judicial origins, has added support to the amendment. It is true that he was not able to bring himself to sign the amendment, but he has done something much more important. He has come to the House on the last Friday in April, on the very day when he could have been at the Japanese embassy signing the book on the Emperor's birthday. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) is giving a luncheon party today in order to mark her 46th birthday. All I know is that I have not been invited to that party, nor do I know whether it will take place in a canteen or a mess. I hope that my right hon. Friend's newly made constituency of Castle Point will continue to return him for many years. He is not with the Deputy Foreign Secretary, but has come to the House, whose Father he is, to support the amendment. For those reasons I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East and my hon. Friend the Minister will agree with the amendment. The glittering political career of my hon. Friend the Minister may be injured if he disagrees with our right hon. Friend the Father of the House and, in view of the added weight given to this amendment, I hope that he will feel it right to acquiesce.I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) has been putting words into the mouth of our right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). I listened carefully, as I always do, to the intervention of our right hon. Friend and I was not clear whether he was supporting the amendment or simply making some extremely valid points, which have been helpful to the House, about the dangers of alcoholism at work and the detrimental effect of alcohol being drunk in the workplace. I felt that his remarks were supported widely on both sides of the House and that it was an intervention with which we all agreed.
However, with the greatest respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne, that does not necessarily mean that our right hon. Friend was suppporting his amendment. I had hoped that it would merely be a probing amendment so that we could have the sort of enlightened debate, such as we have had already this morning, on the subject of alcohol in canteens and messes. I urge the House to reject the amendment if, after hearing from the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne does not withdraw it. It would be an embarrassment to the Ministry of Defence, our hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces and messes throughout the land. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne is a distinguished officer in the Territorial Army and I am sure that he would be the last person to wish to cause such embarrassment. Therefore, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.In interpreting the word "canteen", my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), spoke almost entirely about military canteens. When I intervened, he referred to industrial canteens as well. Inevitably, one makes such an interpretation when it is associated with the word "mess", but there are many industrial canteens in factories and offices in the City of London, Westminster and this building. It is appropriate, as I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) will agree—as he did in his brief but lucid intervention—that people who are to return to work having had a meal in a canteen should not consume alcohol. It is a danger not only to themselves, especially if they work on industrial machinery, but to other workers.
The Chamber is a place of work as well. It could be argued that it is just as dangerous for Members to go into the Bars here, return in a drunken state and participate in the passage of legislation as it is for someone in a factory to drink and then operate a piece of machinery. The hon. Gentleman should be equal in his treatment.
I am not sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would accept the suggestion that any right hon. or hon. Lady or Gentleman ever returns to this place in a drunken state. I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will take the opportunity to correct that interpretation.
Will my hon. Friend give way?
I should like first to deal with the intervention of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West.
May I point out that I have not been ruled out of order by the Chair. To prevent the hon. Gentleman from trying to provoke further debate, I should like to say that I made no allegations about an individual Member. Perhaps it would satisfy the hon. Gentleman if I said that Members return here suffering from a very heavy lunch.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for clarifying the matter. I share his view that it is important that in all circumstances, whether in this place or elsewhere, but especially when safety is involved, people should be able to work to their maximum efficiency and not endanger anyone. One could reasonably presume, and hope, that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office—the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) —if she is having the birthday party to which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne referred, would return to work not influenced by any alcohol that she was able to acquire in a canteen, mess or club or for the purposes of her trade. No doubt my right hon. Friend will be able to convey her congratulations to the Japanese on the birthday of the Emperor of Japan. I understand that this evening the Japanese embassy will celebrate the Emperor's birthday. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will have been invited to that.
I wanted to ask my hon. Friend earlier whether he would comment on the advice given by the late Lord Attlee to a new Member of Parliament, that he should, first, specialise and, secondly, that he should keep out of the Bars.
Most ignored his advice.
I note that, as ever, the hon. Member for Newham North-West makes a sedentary intervention, observing that it was universally ignored advice. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was not suggesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) or my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point ignored that advice so rightly given by the great Lord Attlee. I note that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West does not wish to comment. I am sure that the advice is not universally ignored, although it may be ignored by quite a number.
I return to my original point, as you would wish me to do, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek clarification on the amendment. Are we talking purely about canteens and messes in military establishments, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne spoke at length, or are we speaking in general about canteens? Clarification is needed by all those responsible for running non-military canteens. I referred earlier to the by-election in Eastleigh, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State responded. There were similar results in Durham and Hammersmith which were not good news for the main Opposition party. This amendment, or previous amendments, may well have been in the voters' minds when they pondered before casting their votes yesterday.I had no intention of speaking to this amendment, until I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). It seemed that he lacked the sort of background knowledge that I have had, having been a boy sailor and junior sailor. Some of the messes into which we were allowed did not serve alcohol, and that was always a great regret because we never learnt at a young enough age to control the problem, and later in life we perhaps compounded it. Rather than pass the amendment, we should first decide why we all want to be Holy Joes all the time, telling people what they should and should not do, and consider the matter in relation to canteens.
Having been a director of personnel in a company with five works canteens, all of which served alcohol, I do not recall many instances when people were the worse for wear, except perhaps on their birthdays. The Emperor of Japan is no doubt celebrating his birthday today. Perhaps you are not aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that when I was a young lad in the Navy there was a tradition that on one's birthday one was allowed to get blind, stinking drunk and was never in trouble for it. When I was a young man in the Navy, sailors were real sailors and drank rum, unlike sailors today, who are technocrats who drink lemonade. The Navy currency was that each measure was made up of a sipper, two sippers were one gulper, two gulpers were half a tot, and two halves were a whole tot. A young lad knew how many friends he did or did not have on his birthday by the number of times that he was invited to come round and have a sipper, a gulper or half a tot, or a bosum pal might even give a friend his tot. That did not make the whole British Navy any the worse. In many ways it made it better. We did not lose too many wars or battles as a consequence. Sometimes we lose sight of these important little aspects of' our life when we introduce measures such as this. It should he noted that men like to drink. They like their pint of beer. I have even known ladies who enjoyed a gin and tonic. A young couple can go to the works canteen, have a pint and a gin and tonic, and indulge in intimate conversation spread over some time, rather than have to rush clown to the car park, try to get the car out, knowing that the space will be gone when they return, and drive 30 miles to a pub. It is wise to say these things when dealing with this legislation. They enable the matter to be put in its proper perspective. It will be a sad day when we do what has been done in some places and ban all alcohol. I am afraid, though, that I might have liked to ban alcohol last Sunday when I managed finally to get into a compartment at Wembley Park after the football match and was squeezed like a sardine. Someone, who perhaps had been drinking a little too much, happened to throw up in the compartment. The problem was compounded by the fact that the Holy Joes of the GLC and London Transport had banned smoking, and I could not light up to offset the fumes from that offensive action. The more we legislate to ban things, the worse they become. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne will withdraw his amendment.
I think that it will be to the benefit of the House if I proceed fairly quickly. There seems to have been a misunderstanding about the nature and scope of the words "canteen" and "mess". They are, in fact, narrowly defined in section 201 of the Licensing Act 1964, which states:
That is further defined as meaning, in effect, a military canteen. "Mess" means"'canteen', except in part X of this Act and in the expressions 'canteen licence' and 'licensed canteen', means a canteen in which the sale or supply of intoxicating liquor is carried on under the authority of the Secretary of State".
It is therefore a mistake to suppose that the word "canteen" is apt to include the ordinary canteens with which hon. Members are more familiar. It has a narrower meaning. Against that background, let me deal with the substance of the amendment. All sales of alcohol are sales by retail and are thus subject to the licensing regime unless they are exempt, and the Bill sets out the categories of transaction that should be exempt. One of those exempt categories is "canteen or mess". The amendment would mean that those who run a canteen or mess could get their supply of alcohol only from licensed wholesalers, unless they were purchasing in quantities which constituted wholesale quantities, which, in loose jargon, is purchased in bulk. That has two unfortunate consequences. First, it probably diminishes the range of suppliers who can supply to a canteen or mess. Secondly, it might persuade the secretary of a mess or canteen to order a crate of gin when a bottle would do just as well. On the basis that the amendment narrows the range of supplier and that it is at least capable of increasing insobriety, I advise the House not to accept it."an authorised mess of members of Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces".
In view of my hon. Friend's answer, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Order, for Third Reading read.
10.32 am
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I believe that the Bill that I have piloted through the House represents a significant contribution to the reduction of alcohol abuse in this country. It tackles in particular, the dreadful problem of under-age drinking. I do not believe that there is an hon. Member who has not discussed with anxious parents, teachers, social workers or other interested parties the problem of school children consuming large quantities of alcohol. By making illegal the sale of alcoholic drinks, for example, off the back of lorries, to under-age drinkers—especially at carnivals and pop festivals—the Bill makes a significant move in the direction in which the country and the House wish to proceed: we want to ensure that it is as difficult as possible for young people to consume and abuse alcohol. There has been one unfortunate aspect of the Bill's passage through the House. The House and the country have acknowledged that this is a significant Bill. Hon. Members on both sides of the House were upset, therefore, by the attitude of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and the supporters of his private Member's Bill who, earlier this year, tried to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), myself and other sponsors of this Bill, as well as hon. Members on both sides of the House who served on the Standing Committee, were in some way trying to delay the proceedings of this Bill and thus of the Bill which was introduced by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill. They tried to suggest that this Bill was irrelevant—a gross insult to everyone who is trying to tackle alcohol abuse. Then they had the impertinence and cheek to persuade their zealot supporters—the ayatollahs who parade under the banner of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children—to write to churches and newspapers in our constituencies suggesting that we were filibustering. First, as Mr. Speaker pointed out in a ruling on the Floor of the House, that was most certainly not so, and it was an insult to the occupants of the Chair. Secondly, it was an insult to all those hon. Members who are anxious that the Bill should proceed. It should be put on record again that that disgraceful incident did no credit to the hon. Members involved. Today, we see proof of the Bill's importance. My highly respected right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), who is also a strong supporter of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill—I hasten to add that he took no part in the disgraceful episode—has the House and acknowledged our work on the Bill. I hope that in future hon. Members who have been fortunate enough to draw a relatively high position in the ballot and who choose to introduce legislation that is perfectly in order, as is their right, will not be harassed as my hon. Friends and I have been harassed by outside groups aided and abetted by certain hon. Members.My hon. Friend may have clarified the point that I intended to make with his reference to our right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). He used the terms "zealots" and "ayatollahs" when referring to those who supported the actions—which I regret—in support of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). Perhaps he will make it clear that he was not referring to all that Bill's supporters, of whom I am one.
I am happy to make that clear. I would put my hon Friends the Members for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) and for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), who I know takes a similar view on the subject, in exactly the same category. I cannot put the hon. Member for Mossley Hill and certain other hon. Members on both sides of the House, who I am not prepared to name at this stage, in the same category and I certainly cannot include in it a large number of the Bill's supporters outside the House who parade under the banner of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children and Life, who behaved in a despicable way and have been suitably censured by the Chair.
I am delighted that the Bill is proceeding through the House. It is a significant measure. I hope that it will gain its Third Reading and proceed to the other place, that it will return unamended to us in July and that it will be on the statute book by the end of the year. I believe that it will help and do good. It is a modest but significant reform of our licensing laws.
10.38 am
As the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) knows, the Opposition wholly support the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman does the House a favour by reminding us of the events that surrounded the start of the Bill's Committee stage. A number of us who served on the Committee were subjected to the most intense pressure by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) who made the most astonishng and false accusations about us and against us—not in this place but by letter circulated all round our constituencies, and directed especially at ministers of the Church. That led to a great deal of anxiety. I have a Catholic abbey in my constituency and I like to believe that I have good and friendly relations with those who work there, although we do not always agree on the issues that we discuss. It was right and proper that, after a deal of pushing, the hon. Member for Mossley Hill wisely withdrew his accusations and caused letters to be sent to those to whom he had originally written.Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it was particularly offensive to select him for such criticism as he was appointed to the Committee in his capacity as Front Bench spokesman for the Labour party rather than as a volunteer? Does he further agree that the same applied to my position as a Minister, so it was wholly reprehensible to suggest that either of us had any choice in the matter?
I am grateful to the Minister for making that important point. It was certainly implied, if not stated, that places in the Committee were self-selected for the malevolent and improper purposes ascribed to us by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill. I am delighted that we managed to dispose of that episode, although, like the hon. Member for Berkshire, East, I greatly regret that it ever started.
The Bill is a small but none the less important measure. I suspect that there is agreement throughout the House on the immense and growing problem of alcohol abuse among young people. I do not pick on them deliberately, but one of the most alarming factors in the rise in alcohol abuse is the increase among the very young. A recent survey shows that children of 10 and 11 are regular drinkers and that there is regular heavy drinking by 13 to 15-year-olds. Anything that we can do, as the Bill does, to focus the spotlight on that problem is certainly to be welcomed. It is a pity that the press does not give the same attention to alcohol abuse as to drug abuse. The problem of drug abuse is extremely important, but a hundred times more people are affected by alcohol abuse. For reasons about which we had better not speculate, however, it is extremely difficult to get the media to take an interest in alcohol abuse. Perhaps it is felt that sustained boozing is more acceptable than sustained drug abuse. I hope that that is not so, as abuse of anything is bad for anyone. The hon. Member for Berkshire, East has done the House a service. I hope that the Bill will receive its Third Reading and have a fair wind through the other place.10.43 am
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) on having secured a high place in the ballot and piloted the Bill as far as Third Reading. It is a short and in some ways modest Bill, but it is extremely important. Sometimes it falls to those who succeed in the ballot to introduce measures that will have a lasting effect for good on our society. I believe that that can truthfully be said of this Bill. It was clear from the proceedings in Committee and from my hon. Friend's speech in moving Third Reading that this is a matter about which he cares deeply.
My hon. Friend will have the satisfaction of knowing that when the Bill reaches the statute book—like him, I wish it a speedy journey through another place—and its provisions become operative, it will give protection to some of those currently exposed to exploitation by people seeking to sell alcohol to the young. My hon. Friend will be able to look back with great satisfaction at his introduction of the Bill and the skill with which he has piloted it through the House. I congratulate him again. I am sure that the Bill will be of great value to our country.10.44 am
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) on his success so far with the Bill, which I am sure will be passed into law very soon. The temptation of impulse buying is a problem in a wide range of situations. By reducing the opportunities for impulse purchasing of alcohol the Bill will help the whole community
As a community, the publicans of this country are a highly responsible group in their efforts to deal with under-age drinking.Hear, hear.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support. We all welcome her presence as she has played a major role in educating people into better diet and therefore better health.
The publicans of this country are highly responsible people who recognise that under-age drinking is a major social problem. They also realise that if they are found guilty of selling drink to persons under age they risk losing their licence and livelihood. I believe that we should consider further the availability of alcohol not just from the backs of lorries but in supermarkets. The availability of alcohol in supermarkets at prices with which publicans cannot compete is a major problem. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department replies to the debate he will deal with that point and give an assurance that the Government are examining it extremely closely. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East will be thanked by a large number of people as a result of the Bill. As a parent of two young children, who in a few years' time may be tempted, I thank him. I am sure that he will also be thanked by many other parents and by social workers because the Bill deals with a grave social problem about which we all feel very strongly.
10.47 am
I echo the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) on introducing the Bill. I hope that it will have a fair wind and progress into law as quickly as possible.
I also echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) about the sale of alcohol. I might perhaps disagree with the comments of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), as I interpreted them, on the consumption of alcohol by the young. Personally, I have no objection to the consumption of alcohol by the young in a family situation, so long as they are brought up to appreciate the effect of very limited quantities. The danger of allowing young people to consume large quantities of alcohol as soon as they are 18 is that they have no previous experience of it and therefore tend to abuse it. The Bill seeks to tackle that problem by dealing with sales which do not take place in controlled circumstances. Inevitably, that is where the greatest dangers arise. At present, alcohol can be bought from the backs of lorries at carnivals, gymkhanas, and so on. It is in such circumstances that people are tempted to consume a large amount rather than to learn slowly the dangers of abuse. In so doing, they may put at risk not just their own lives but those of others. I share also the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South about the easy availability of large quantities of alcohol in supermarkets where it is not controlled in the way that it is, for example, in the family home or in a public house or club. It is too easy for people —some of whom may be under age—to buy alcohol in large quantities by taking it off supermarket shelves to the checkout. The checkout girl herself may be under-age. It is difficult for her to refuse, to call a supervisor, or to say to the person, "I am not going to sell you this large quantity of alcohol." Like my hon. Friends and, I believe, Opposition Members, I support the Bill. I believe it will close a loophole in the law regarding the sale of alcohol and help to prevent abuse. We wish to see a realistic and sensible consumption of alcohol. We all hope that our society can progress to that. This measure will go a small way to achieving that end.10.51 am
I join hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) on his energy and skill in getting the measure through, at least to its Third Reading. As he and other hon. Members have said, I have a considerable interest in the Bill, as it is substantially the same measure as I introduced in the last Session of Parliament, so I take some pride in at least a shared parentage.
The Bill has an interesting history and teaches us much about the best approach to tackling the abuse of alcohol, which does, unfortunately, occur in our society. The Bill was promoted originally by the Wine and Spirit Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to which I occasionally offer parliamentary advice, in consultation with the Brewers Society and the Scotch Whisky Association, with helpful and constructive advice from the Home Office. I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department for the help that his Department has given with the measure, both in the last Session and in this. The Bill is an example of the trade's desire to ensure that its products are not abused by a minority of members of our community, and that those products should not be sold to those who are under age. The trade is prepared to support, and in this case initiate, legislation that will prove effective in promoting what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) called "sensible drinking". For thousands of years the moderate drinking of alcohol has played a significant part in civilised societies throughout the world. Alcohol is used for hospitality, for celebrations, in religious ceremonies and as an integral part of an enjoyable meal. There is also considerable evidence that, when taken in reasonable quantities, it improves health rather than worsening it. About 40 million people in the United Kingdom, consume alcoholic drinks of one kind or another—which is about 95 per cent. of the adult population. Almost all do so in moderation, and benefit accordingly. The United Kingdom has a relatively low per capita consumption of alcohol. It is the lowest among EEC countries. There have always been some individuals who misuse alcohol, and certain people who sell it in such a way as to encourage its misuse, but, the highest figures given official credence show that a very small minority of people who drink develop alcohol problems. The figure is a little over 1 per cent. In the United Kingdom there is extensive legislation to control the quality of alcohol and key aspects of its use. The trade bodies to which I have referred support all reasonable legislation to ensure that that is so. In a free society, responsibility for the proper use of alcohol lies ultimately with the individual, but society as a whole has a responsibility to promote its proper use. Parents, teachers and others who guide children and young people, the Government, public agencies, employers, trade unions, voluntary organisations, and sellers of alcoholic drinks should act responsibly and uphold the law. The drinks trade wishes to promote sensible drinking and to ensure that its products are not misused. The efforts of the trade are two-pronged and relate to research and education. The industry is not interested in participating in the numbers game. Anti-alcohol lobbies frequently feed the press with manipulated and misleading statistics, carefully selected to gain popular support for policies which, for example, would prevent any relaxation of licensing hours and penalise the vast majority of moderate drinkers by heavy taxation. The drinks industry should not be drawn into that kind of phoney war. Instead, its efforts should be, and are, directed at funding the necessary research to find out why some people develop a drinking problem and towards educating those who are recognised to be susceptible. The drinks industry makes grants and donations to over seven major organisations associated with research into alcohol misuse. It has also provided funds for research into various aspects of alcohol misuse to six institutions, nine universities and four hospitals. The efforts of the drinks industry to prevent abuse of alcohol follow similar lines to the Government's policy and are directed at target groups. Young people need to be educated on the strength of different drinks, on how alcohol is absorbed and eliminated from the blood stream, and on the harmful effects of excessive consumption. For this purpose, the Scotch Whisky Association, for example, has produced a booklet, "Alcohol and Man", which is available to all schools, and has also produced films and videos on the subject. There is an Alcohol Advisory Centre booklet, "A Do-It-Yourself Guide to Sensible Drinking for Young People". The Wine and Spirit Asssociation of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has produced a useful video for youth leaders. It is only by educating young people in this way, as they begin to come into contact with alcohol, that they will learn to drink sensibly and appreciate the harm of excessive drinking. The drinks industry is keen to promote research into the problem of drinking and driving. The Brewers' Association has produced a booklet for all people who drive, giving the essential facts about which every driver should be aware. The Wine and Spirit Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has recognised—I think ahead of the Government—that too few organisations appreciated the need to consider the relationship between alcohol and work, and to develop a coherent policy. The association has produced "Alcohol Policy Guidelines for Companies", which advises them on how to develop a rational policy by which employees with an alcohol problem can be identified and treated.What representations did my hon. Friend make to the Chancellor of the Exchequer before his last Budget, proposing that there should be much greater—[Interruption.]
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are on Third Reading. As a very experienced parliamentarian, he knows that Third Reading is concerned only with what is in the Bill.
I made representations to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer before his last Budget and I am glad that he accepted most of them. However, I advise my hon. Friend that they were not directly related to this matter.
It is vital that when those in the professions involved are able to detect alcohol dependency, they are trained to identify and treat the problem. The Scotch Whisky Association gives an annual grant to the Medical Research Council to train doctors, nurses and other members of the health care professions for this purpose. The Wine and Spirit Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland publishes a booklet, "Drinking and Alcohol—Questions and Answers". It contains information for adults on all aspects of alcohol, and sets out the beneficial and detrimental effects that it can have. Those research and education initiatives, together with this legislation, are vital in finding a solution to the problems of alcohol abuse. The answer lies, not in the manipulation of statistics, but in the recognition that while the majority of people indulge in only a harmless drink, a tiny minority abuse alcohol and must be helped. It is essential that all interested groups work with the drinks trade to find a solution to the problems, rather than indulge in an orgy of statistical manipulation. Within the framework of education and research, the drinks trade recognises its responsibility to detect any loopholes in the law, and the Bill is a case in point. It represents part of the industry's commitment to solving the problems of alcohol abuse and to promoting sensible drinking. By the Bill, the drinks industry, together with my right hon. and hon. Friends, is making a laudable initiative to prevent alcohol abuse.
11.2 am
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) on introducing this modest measure. Indeed, he referred to it as a small Bill. However, the length of a Bill, no more than the length of a speech, does not denote its merits or strengths. It has been said that for speeches to be memorable they do not need to be interminable, and neither do Bills need to be overlong to be meaningful.
I wonder whether the Bill is entirely correct. None would argue with its aims, but we must not continually give the impression that drinking is wrong. I am sure that many hon. Members were sad to hear today of the death of Lord Brockway. Until very recently he could be seen having a drink with his old colleagues in the Pugin Room. He was using alcohol, not abusing it; it was a means of enjoyment. Other people who used it in that way included Mannie Shinwell and Winston Churchill. We must be careful not to inhibit all drinking. Although the Bill is good in many ways, I have one major criticism of it, and I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East is not in the Chamber to hear it. As in many areas, Parliament has the means to do certain things, but fails to use them. Penalties for breaking the law should be so severe that no one would dream of doing so. Why do so many people abuse the litter, speeding and parking laws? It is because they know that if they are caught, they will not face too great an embarrassment. If those who sell liquor to youngsters under the legal age limit faced swingeing fines and the confiscation of their entire stock, they would soon insist on seeing a birth certificate before selling alcohol to anyone who might be under age. Such heavy penalties would, in some ways, obviate the need for some of this legislation. The Government have been namby-pamby with offenders, and that has caused many of the problems. If they increased the penalties available to the courts, more people would obey the law. We should use the Bill as a vehicle for that. I hope that the Bill reaches the statute book, but I fear that it will not prevent the timorous from saying, "Shall we or shan't we prosecute? Did they know that they had sold alcohol to someone under age?" If the retailer faced severe fines, he would take the necessary steps to ensure that the law was obeyed. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) said that the checkout girls in a supermarket could not judge whether to sell alcohol to youngsters. The law should be changed so that only someone over a given age—perhaps 40—could work at a checkout—Steady on.
That should be the law where alcohol is sold.
Such extreme age limits are not necessary. The lower age limit for selling alcohol should be set at the age limit at which people are allowed to buy alcohol. My hon. Friend's proposal would not allow me to work at a checkout—
Order. I remind hon. Members that the question of age limits does not arise under this Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward), with his activities with a funny little ball, is somewhat of a Peter Pan. However, I hope that he appreciates the serious, underlying point that it is for the proprietors of supermarkets and other stores to ensure that those taking the money for alcohol are fit, proper and responsible. If the law comes down on that proprietor, he should not have the let-out of saying, "I am in the hands of my staff."
Although it is right to introduce this legislation, the Government must also consider the penalties and controls so that, ultimately, we can prevent the far too many young people who are on the streets with bottles and cans of alcoholic liquor from indulging in anti-social behaviour. The Bill will not prevent that. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot be definitive when he answers, but I ask him to give a thought to how the penalties can be stiffened to ensure that people do not profit by selling alcohol to youngsters.11.7 am
I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) and for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) on introducing the Bill and carrying it through its parliamentary stages.
The Bill's main purpose is to bring under the licensing regime the sale of alcohol from the backs of lorries and similar points of sale. It would, therefore, help the House if I reminded it of how the licensing regime is conducted. All sales of alcohol through retail outlets are subject to the licensing laws, the most important aspects of which are the restrictions on supplying the under age and on the hours of sale, and the various offences that relate to the manner of sale. The significant aim of the Bill is that all sales of alcohol should be treated as retail sales, and thus subject to the licensing laws, unless they fall within the scope of the exemptions set out in clause 1. Paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of clause 1(1) prescribe various exempted sales, whereas paragraph (e) deals with quantity. If the nature of the transaction is such that it falls within paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) or if the quantity falls within paragraph (e), it is an exempted quantity or sale. Paragraphs (a) to (d) are probably what most people would describe as wholesale transactions—that is to say, a sale to another trader for the purpose of his trade, a sale to a registered club for the purposes of the club, a sale to a canteen or mess, or the sale to the holder of an occupational permission. Each such transaction is probably properly regarded as—I use a loose word—a wholsale transaction, to which it would not be right to apply the full rigour of the licensing laws. Paragraph (e) deals with quantity, to exclude what is defined as "wholesale quantity" from the full rigour of the licensing law. That provision is enshrined in the Bill because of the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (M r. Forth). In Committee, he was concerned about the fear that was expressed by organisations such as the Majestic wholesaling company that their activities would be caught by a prohibition which, in effect, was designed to catch back-of-lorry merchants. They felt that that was unfair, and the Committee was persuaded of that view, the Government's position being one of neutrality. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire moved the amendment that is now enshrined in paragraph (e). It protects genuine wholesalers dealing in substantial quantities, provided that they trade from their ordinary business premises, as defined in the Bill. That exemption was understandable, and it won the support of the Committee. During this debate, questions have been raised about sale by and to under-age persons. I shall answer those points briefly, because I am anxious to keep within the scope of a Third Reading debate. It is important to bear in mind that the Bill is to be treated in conjunction with the Licensing Bill has nearly completed its parliamentary process. In the Licensing Bill, the Government were conscious of and tried to meet several points that have been made by hon. Members in this debate. Wholesale sales of intoxicating liquor to or by persons under 18 on wholesale premises—to use a shorthand reference, the Majestic Warehouse—are covered by the provisions in clause 17 of the Licensing Bill. In particular, it is an offence for a wholesaler thus defined to sell intoxicating liquor to a person under the age of 18. Moreover, it is an offence for a wholesaler to allow a person under 18 to make a sale of intoxicating liquor unless that sale has been specifically approved by the wholesaler or by a person over the age of 18 acting on his behalf. Some of my hon. Friends' anxieties are met by clause 17 of the Licensing Bill, which has nearly completed its parliamentary process. Another group of anxieties have been expressed by my hon. Friends. In broad terms, they relate to the sale of alcohol in supermarkets. The point was most forcibly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward). I commend to him the provisions of clauses 16 and 18 of the Licensing Bill. Clause 16 greatly tightens the control in section 169 of the principal Act, the Licensing Act 1964. The law has been tightened up on sale to under-age persons. That provision applies to off-licences —for example, supermarkets—in precisely the same way as it applies to on-licences. I commend that clause to my hon. Friend. Clause 18 is also relevant to my hon. Friend's anxieties. That clause also provides—very much in the same terms as clause 17 does in the context of wholesale distributors—that the sale of alcohol by an under-age person should be effectively supervised and approved. By the interaction of the two pieces of legislation—that is to say, the one now before us and the one that is passing through the House —we have tried to meet the kind of anxieties that have so understandably been raised in the House and in Committee. My hon. Friends who have promoted the Bill are greatly to be congratulated. The Bill will significantly tighten the sale of alcohol. It brings into the licensing regime disorderly and ad hoc sales of alcohol. Such sales were previously outside the scope of the Licensing Act. That was undesirable, primarily because it resulted in the disorderly sale of alcohol and was in no way controlled by legislation. Of course, in turn, that led to the supply of alcohol to under-age people, or at least it provided the opportunity for that, which the House would deprecate. Having regard to those considerations, I warmly commend the Bill to the House. I hope that it will receive its Third Reading, and I congratulate my hon. Friends.Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
Community Health Councils (Access To Information) Bill
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Clause 2
Access To Information Relating To Members Of Community Health Councils Etc
11.17 am
I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 18, at end insert
Clause 2(1) provides:'; and(d) whether or not the member has any financial interest in the affairs of any health authority served by the council to which the member has been appointed.".'
Then there are three paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). I should like to add a fourth paragraph, (d), as set out in my amendment. This is an important amendment. We all know that those who serve on public bodies, in any shape or form, and have a financial interest in industry, or whatever, should declare any financial interest. After all, for right and proper reasons, hon. Members must declare their interests in a register."A Community Health Council shall maintain a register containing the name and address of every member of the Council and of every committee appointed by the Council whether alone or jointly with another Council and stating in the case of each member of the Council".
My hon. Friend, who is a new Member, would not wish to mislead the House. We do not have to register our interests; if asked, we do so voluntarily.
I thank my hon. Friend for that correction. Nevertheless, whether or not it is compulsory, it is right and proper that hon. Members should register their financial interests and the register should be open for public inspection.
Exactly the same principle applies to this amendment. Community health councils exist to serve local communities and to represent them and their interests. Members of a community health council are, as the name implies, drawn from the local community, which is as it should be. Otherwise, the health authorities which serve the community could become remote from the members of the community. Many members of the community know nothing about their health authority. Indeed, authorities, divided as they are into regions and districts, can appear to be far away. For example, the offices of my regional health authority, which covers my constituency of Walthamstow, are based in Paddington. None of my constituents wishing to get in touch with it would think that it was based there; they would expect it to be based locally. Indeed, the offices of my district health authority, although based a little more locally, are some considerable distance away in a place not well served by public transport. Community health councils have been set up to represent the interests of local people. They serve these vital interests. I was about to say all too frequently, but I shall amend that. Now and again local people have cause for complaint and it is right and proper that they should have a body of citizens who can put those complaints to the relevant authorities and ask for action. Clause 2 states:That is right and proper because local people must know who their representatives are. It makes life much easier for them and in many ways for the authorities, both regional and district, to be able to look at the register and see who the members of the community health council are. The clause goes on to say that the council"A Community Health Council shall maintain a register containing the name and address of every member of the Council".
It is important that those serving on the community health council should declare any financial interest they may have in the affairs of any health authority. Bearing in mind the immense sums spent these days on the National Health Service, it is important that those with a financial interest in the affairs of health authorities should have to declare it publicly through the medium of the register. The sums are of the order of £22 billion a year—"shall maintain a register … of every committee appointed by the Council".
Twenty three billion pounds a year.
The sum is £23 billion a year. That is an immense amount and all too often people and hon. Members do not realise that. It is only too easy to say £23 billion. It is only six syllables and it does not sound an enormous amount. One should think of all those noughts and remember that they are being spent not just once, but every year, and they are increasing. When such huge sums are involved it is only right and proper that local people should have a say in how the money is spent. Indeed, they will want to be assured that their representatives do not have any pecuniary interests.
I know a man whose company is busy putting up advertisements for various medical products in NHS hospitals. For example, if he wishes to advertise baby foods, where more appropriate than in the waiting room where expectant mothers are congregating? He is getting right to his target market. He is not directly taking money from the NHS; he is providing a supplement to it to ensure that when expectant mothers finally have their babies they have a good idea of what sort of products are available for feeding their babies so that, I hope, they have strong, healthy families. Obviously, with huge sums in the system, there must be opportunities for speculation. A member of a community health council will have access to all sorts of information about the goings on in his local area, in which I include districts. If he has some sort of financial interest in the affairs of the health authority, that could be greatly to his advantage. We should not put temptation in his way. That is not to say that merely because members have their names on a register, temptation will automatically be removed, but that would act as a good, strong, firm check on any action which could perhaps transgress or infringe the rules. My amendment seeks to provide that the register shall state whether the memberThat means that a member does not have to register his interest until he has been appointed. That is right. Someone may have been asked to join a community health council and it would be absurd to require him to register any financial interest before being appointed. Once he has been appointed his financial interest can be seen and taken into account. I think that I am right in saying that any hon. Member wishing to speak in a debate on a matter in which he has a financial interest, although he has declared his financial interest through the register, must state openly in the House that he has that interest. That is right. My amendment does not mean that merely because someone has put his name on the register, he should not declare his interest in the community health council's proceedings. The paragraphs all form a coherent clause 2. Paragraph (a) states that for each member the register must contain"has any financial interest in the affairs of any health authority served by the council to which the member has been appointed."
It is hoped that bodies which appoint members will know in advance or will at least ask the provisional appointee about his financial interests. It is important that the process is started from the beginning. There is no point in taking a cuckoo into the nest, and suddenly realising that he is the chairman of the regional health authority. I realise that that is not likely, but the point of the law is to be certain. Paragraph (b) states that for each member the register shall state"the name and address of the body which appointed him".
That is clear, and I have covered it in my remarks. Paragraph (c) provides that the register shall state:"whether or not he is a member of that body".
I have some difficulty in understanding what that means. It appears to be a non sequitur. The latter part of clause 2(1) provides:"in the case of a member appointed by a voluntary organisation (within the meaning of the National Health Service Act 1977), that he has been so appointed."
which meaning has to be carried to each of the paragraphs. In regard to paragraph (c), therefore, the clause reads:"and stating in the case of each member of the Council"—
Some of those words are redundant. I have to consider the meaning of clause 2 and establish whether amendment No. 4 adds to it what I hope it adds. It would ensure that all members of community health councils are there solely to represent the interests of the local community. They should be able to be single-minded in their deliberations and representations and have no possible form of financial speculation niggling away in the backs of their minds. Service for the community is what CHCs are about and I hope that it will be strengthened by the amendment."stating in the case of each member of the Council…(c) in the case of a member appointed by a voluntary organisation (within the meaning of the National Health Service Act 1977), that he has been so appointed."
11.30 am
I have listened carefully to the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) in support of his amendment. He is a personable young Member, eager to serve the House and his community. I am sure that he accepts that the only offence that I hold against him is that he replaced one of the most admirable hon. Members of this House—Eric Deakins—and will have a great deal to live up to to meet the performance and service that that former colleague brought to the House.
On first hearing, the hon. Gentleman's arguments appear reasonable. I urge the House that, on closer examination, the amendment is not at all necessary. The purpose of it appears to seek to ensure that financial impropriety by members of community health councils is prevented—an admirable aim, but it is not necessary in this case. I want to make some adverse comments on the arguments as to the advisability, as the hon. Gentleman sees it, of the amendment. In the first place, CHCs are not established to serve health authorities, as is implied in the amendment. Their function is to represent the interests of the Health Service and of the public in the districts for which they are established. Secondly, it would be difficult, to follow the argument that the hon. Gentleman advanced, to identify anybody who does not have a financial interest, in the broadest sense, in the affairs of a health authority, either as a consumer of services, or as a supplier of goods and services, or as an employee or even as a taxpayer. The third argument is whether the answer on the register as to financial interest is yes or no. This is what the hon. Gentleman wants included. It is not at all clear how that information would be used or how it would affect the status of members. The fourth point in rejection of the amendment is that community health councils are not strategic decision-taking bodies. They do not control the allocation of NHS resources as I think might be suggested in the hon. Gentleman's argument. In view of my adverse comments, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. I hope—dare I say I suspect—that I shall receive the Minister's support for my rejection of the amendment.I congratulate the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) yet again on getting his Bill this far. As I said in Committee, the Government have an interest in seeing that legislation that reaches the statute book is satisfactory. The amendments that we discussed in Committee did not cover the area of work that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) has brought up. The amendments that we discussed then were purely technical. They did not affect the substance of the Bill.
I understand that the Bill is designed to provide greater access to the work of community health councils than is currently provided by the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960, and that it strengthens the rights of members of the public to attend CHC meetings and inspect agendas, minutes and background papers, copies of which can be provided for a reasonable fee. In an eloquent and succinct presentation, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow discussed the role of the membership of CHCs and rightly said that, if they are to function properly, their membership must be correct and they must be seen to be working above board. In that respect, I have much sympathy with what he said. Before I comment in detail on the amendment, perhaps I could pick up some of the points that my hon. Friend made, confirm some of them and put them in context. My hon. Friend was right about the growth in health care. It means that the efforts of watchdog bodies such as CHCs to ensure that the growth in money and staffing goes to patient care are that much more important. Expenditure on the Health Service has risen to £23·5 billion this year, mainly because of the additional money required for the pay review body agreements. They have given 15 per cent. extra to our nurses and 8 per cent. extra to our doctors. A sister's basic scale will now start at a higher level than the top rate of the previous scale. Our senior staff are about to experience some substantial increases in pay. The net result is that spending on the NHS this year is yet again the second largest element in Government spending—it is second only to social security. It has been larger than defence and education for some time, although in respect of defence there is perhaps not a consumer as there is in the NHS. The Health Service involves a substantial number of people, many of whom are perhaps not best placed to argue with the producers of the service when they need it, so the role of CHCs is important. There is also growth in the private sector. We should remind ourselves that CHCs examine the state sector, but I have no objection to their taking an interest in the private sector in so far as it impinges on health care needs in a neighbourhood. A lot more staff have come into the NHS recently. We have 60,000 more nurses—whole-time equivalents—more doctors, more physiotherapists and more occupational therapists. Indeed, we have more of just about everything, and yet many health care plans are predicated on more people entering the service. One of my worries is that that might not be quite so easy to achieve. We have previously recruited heavily among school leavers, but the number of school leavers is now dropping. That is presenting problems where the job market is active, as it is in London and my hon. Friend's constituency. It will be important for consumer watchdog bodies to be aware that we cannot simply expect to recruit large numbers of staff as we have in the past, for they simply will not exist. That is particularly true of young girls. Therefore, it follows that some patterns of care and treatment and some patterns of work in the NHS may have to change. The role of the more mature workers in the NHS will become relatively more important. The implication of that is that there will have to be more in-service training and perhaps a switch from the intensive efforts on initial training to in-service training, such as has occurred in teaching and education. I hope that our community health councils will note that changing pattern and will not expect our staff to look exactly the same in future as they have in the past. The main role of the CHCs are in representing patients' interests and seeing the patient as a consumer. Certainly there are many more patients now in whom they should take an interest. In recent years we have been looking after an in-patient load of about 6·5 million a year, taking account of the fact that some people are likely to be readmitted. As lengths of stay shorten, particularly in psychiatry, people will seek help if they have acute bouts of difficulty. That is not a bad policy; in fact it is a good policy and has been pursued for some time. Even if we take into account that there may have been some readmissions, it is certainly clear from research studies that the number of patients being looked after is far higher than it used to be. That means that the pattern of work is changing and the volume of work in some specialities is rising very fast, particularly in orthopaedics. The pattern of work between the hospital services, the community services such as the domiciliary health visitors and district nurses, and the work loads of GPs are tending to shift and the role of the community health councils has become more complex. We do not expect that health care will cost any less in future; it will continue costing us more. We do not expect that in future we will be able to manage with fewer staff. We shall continue to need to use our staff very heavily and seek ways of rendering their efforts and their skills even more productive. I expect that we shall have to look after more patients in future. Later today we are to have a short debate about the health authority in Eastbourne. On much of the south coast the proportion of people over the age of 65 has risen to a quarter of the population and is rising fast. For that reason we are obliged to look at patterns of care and service which are a particular reflection of the increased needs of our rising elderly population. That is a problem in Walthamstow, in Warley East and in Derbyshire, South, but it is a particular problem in some parts of the country where large numbers of elderly people have chosen to settle and spend what they thought would be their last few years, but have become their last decades.My hon. Friend said that the problem of the rising proportion of the population who are elderly is moving away from what one might describe as retirement resorts. That is an important matter. Whereas previously it was assumed that there were concentrations of elderly people only in such places as Bognor Regis, Littlehampton and Eastbourne, in many parts of the country well over one in five of the population are of retirement age, and in some cases more than a quarter of the population are elderly people who are concentrated not only in retirement towns but in constituencies such as mine where people have chosen not to move away from their native communities.
Will my hon. Friend note that that phenomenon occurs not only on the geriatric coast but in northern industrial towns such as my constituency where so many young people are moving away to find work elsewhere leaving behind the older population who are less mobile and create just as many problems as they do in Eastbourne?
Both my hon. Friends have made serious and important points. I must confess that I hope to do my best in the time that I hold this post to increase the proportion of elderly people in Britain. If I am successful in persuading people that by sensible modifications of their lifestyles in early and middle age they may thereby reduce the risks of preventable disease which stands at a high level in this country, it will not only be in Eastbourne where 25 per cent. of the population is over 65, it will be all over the country. In many parts of the country there is a rising number of people over 85. That offers us exciting opportunities.
Perhaps we should ask our CHCs to take that into account and ensure that at least some of their members are drawn from the older age groups so that the needs of this group are not ignored. People do not lose their wits or their citizenship when they reach retirement age and it is important that the services are responsive to their needs. 11.45 am One aspect of the improvement going on in the Health Service to which the community health councils have contributed in their watchdog role, is the fact that we have much greater life expectancy. That means that the typical patient is no longer a young person. The typical patient is an older person and a women—in other words, an old lady. In the past women have tended to be a little acquiescent in their responses to care and treatment. As the patterns of demography and patient care have shifted in the directions that I have described, the role of a watchdog body becomes more important. The National Health Service is a huge organisation which employs 1·25 million people. It employs more people than any other organisation in this country. In fact it is the third largest employer in the world. I understand that it is third only to Indian Railways and the Red army. In any large institution the producers tend to have a very large say in the pattern and development of service. lf we want to know what to do about medical services we tend to ask doctors—Order. I should be obliged if the hon. Lady would refer rather more to the community health councils, which are what the clause is really about.
I apologise. At the end of that sentence I intended to show exactly how it relates to the debate.
If we wanted to develop services in pharmacy we would ask a pharmacist, and if we wanted to develop services in nursing we would ask nurses, if we wanted to develop services in optical work we would ask opticians. In other words, there is built into any major organisation the supposition, the implication and the inevitability that when we want to change a service we should ask the producers of that service. In future, we need to ask those who use the service what they think. This is a small Bill, to which our official approach is neutral. We would not have introduced it ourselves, but we do not object to it—other work offered to us later intends to redress that balance. Just as it has been said in the past that war is too important to leave to the generals, I would say that the medical health of our people and the circumstances that we are discussing are so important that we cannot leave them only to the producers.The Minister has spoken about listening more to the users of our National Health Service. Did she see the fascinating opinion poll in The Independent yesterday which revealed that 29 per cent. of Conservative voters think that things are getting worse in the National Health Service and that 65 per cent. of the total population said the same?
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) should address that question to the people who commissioned the poll. When another organisation which is concerned about the role of the consumer in the NHS—the National Association of Health Authorities in England and Wales—commissions its poll every May or June, it finds that 88 per cent. of people who use the Health Service say that they were satisfied or very satisfied with it. I suspect that it has a lot to do with the way one asks the question.
We hope that by developing our services and by developing an increasing responsiveness to the needs of consumers and potential consumers we may be able to get better value for money and satisfaction in some of those services. In the end, our overall objective must be better health, not just better opinion polls. The problems of ensuring the interests of the consumer in health care are not quite the same as they are for cornflakes or chocolate. Health care is not an everyday product. In this area, the producer, the doctor, the optician or the dentist, has all the knowledge on his side. The consumer is at a considerable disadvantage. He is often in no position to argue because he—or, more likely she—is frightened or unwilling to complain and may find that he does not even know how to answer questions, let alone understand them, even though he may be in a great hurry to get something done. That is why community health councils were set up in 1974. Their role has been discussed and in 1981 it was reaffirmed in health circular HC81/15. It was reaffirmed again in 1985, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) who confirmed that the status of community health councils would not be changed during the lifetime of that Parliament. I am glad to confirm that view. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow commented at length on the membership of the community health councils. It would be helpful to remind the House that the regional health authorities appoint the community health councils, and that about 50 per cent. of the nominations come from the local authorities, although not all of them are councillors. Many of them will be people who have connections with the local council but who are not councillors. Their membership can be extremely valuable. The rest come from voluntary organisations and other interested bodies, including such august bodies as the Socialist Medical Society. Some of them make a worthwhile contribution. However, the community health council is intended to be composed of lay people. Our statutory instrument of 1985 made that absolutely clear. People are disqualified from appointment as members of a community health council if they are members of a regional health authority or of a district health authority. They cannot be members of both. They are also disqualified from appointment as a member of a community health council if they have been dismissed otherwise than by reason of redundancy from any paid employment with bodies that include a health authority, the Dental Estimates Board, the National Radiological Protection Board and an area health authority. There are strict rules about who can be a member of a community health council. We do not mind in the least if the members of a community health council are professionally qualified, but their job on the CHC is not to represent any professions. It is important that that should be so. Their job is to look after the interests of patients. There are other people on other bodies whose job it is to represent the professions. For example, on a teaching district health authority—the kind that I chaired in Birmingham from 1982—there are people who are nominated and appointed at the request of the teaching university. There is a nurse member, a consultant member and a general practitioner member. It is on the district health authority that we expect the professionals to make themselves heard, if they so wish, as representatives of their professions, not as members of the community health council. It is also important that the membership should bear in mind exactly what are and what are not their responsibilities on the CHC so that they may discharge their work well. They have wide responsibilities which we expect them to exercise. They do not have to work entirely within the National Health Service. For example, a community health council in the city of Birmingham during the time that I was health chairman decided to investigate why patients were complaining bitterly about out-patient waiting times, particularly in the maternity hospital. There were a number of good reasons for that, some of which have been put right, although the others have not. One reason was the difficulty of getting to the new maternity hospital. The CHC negotiated with the transport authority and managed to arrange that buses should run into the main hospital complex and right up to the door of the maternity hospital, so that pregnant ladies could get off the bus and walk inside. That was of considerable benefit to them. Many community health councils have also become directly involved with employment linked to consumer needs. I have seen the work being done in east London. The community health council has joined with the district health authority to employ link workers and facilitators. It felt strongly that many local people, particularly the women whose English is inadequate, were having great difficulty in understanding the medical advice that was given to them. I thought that that work was excellent. I saw what was being done in the east end, met the community health council and was very impressed. Many CHCs are signing up with us for the Look After Your Heart campaign and for conferences on particular aspects of health care in their neighbourhoods. The people in east London whom I met were organising a conference on the health needs of the ethnic minorities and helped to reawaken my interest in haemoglobinopathy, from which some members of the minority communities suffer. Partly as a result of the discussions during my visit, we were able to launch the sickle cell anaemia and thalassaemia cards a couple of weeks ago. Most important of all, the community health councils have an important statutory right, almost the right of veto. That is why it is important that their activities should be open to public scrutiny and that is why I have not resisted the Bill. It is also why my hon. Friend's amendment is unnecessary. The statutory responsibilities clearly set out what the members are expected to do. I hope that my hon. Friend will therefore understand that I cannot commit myself to supporting his amendment. The right of veto is set out clearly in the 1985 statutory instrument. If there is a major change in health care in a neighbourhood, the district health authority has to issue a consultative paper and consult the local people. That does not necessarily mean closure, but usually it involves a major closure, or a shift of service, or a transfer of service between one hospital and another. There have been occasions when CHCs have protested to me about a change that they consider to be a major change under the statutory instrument. I have shared their view and have told the district health authority that it must consult the community health council, which has the right to suggest alternatives to the proposal. Those alternatives must be considered by the district health authority. If the district health authority sticks to its original view, or to a view with which the CHC does not agree, and the regional health authority confirms what the district health authority wants but the community health council still objects, the matter must come before Ministers. That is a very important right, though not quite a veto because the responsibility remains with Ministers. However, it is the right to force consultation with Ministers. We take that right very seriously, with the result that I frequently meet members of community health councils to listen to their views on various proposed changes. There was a good example recently. I went back to the district health authority with the community health council's proposals, and I believe that we have managed to persuade the DHA that the CHC was right. That occurred in Liverpool where major changes are taking place. The city of Liverpool has 10 hospitals within a mile of the city centre, but the population is declining quite fast. Nevertheless, there are serious health problems that need to he addressed. A marvellous new £44 million hospital was built recently. The DHA now wishes to move some of the services on to that hospital site. That leaves it with the problem of what to do with the older and, very often, rather tatty facilities that it has in the city centre. One proposal involves turning Myrtle street hospital into a minor injuries day centre, thereby serving the city centre as a minor accident and emergency department. The proposal was that it should be open until 8 o'clock in the evening. The community council told me that it felt that the injuries centre, which is currently open all night, provides during the late hours an excellent, sensitive and caring service to the children of the inner city, some of whom are seriously at risk of being hurt by their parents. They drift in during the evening to seek help from the nursing and other staff, either because they are in fear of going home and being hurt or because they feel that they need sanctuary. The members of the community health council told me that they regarded the service as invaluable and that it would be tragic for it to be lost for the sake of a few thousand pounds. I listened to what they and their Members of Parliament had to say, came to the conclusion that they were right and communicated my views to the district health authority. I told the district health authority that the community health council had contacted local GPs who were willing to provide some of the services. On that basis, we were able to agree that the Myrtle street day centre should remain open much later. I left it to the community health council, local GPs, consultants and the district health authority to decide what time it should close. 12 noon Not all community health councils are good. It bothers me that some of them oppose everything as a matter of course. That is a pity, because much of what we are all trying to do is intended to improve the Health Service. We now have the largest ever capital hospital building programme and we are slowly replacing grotty buildings in Warley, Walthamstow and Derby with new ones fit to take us into the next century. I hope that community health councils—particularly in areas where the Health Service has been neglected but is now rapidly coming up to scratch—will realise that they are not Her Majesty's Opposition. Their job is to represent the interests of consumers, who may be better served by the construction of new buildings, getting rid of grotty old properties and trying to keep to budgets rather than trying to break them. Not everything in health care can be a priority, and a community health council that realises that fact is serving local people better than one that opposes everything as a matter of course. The role of community health councils does not conflict with that of district and regional health authorities or family practitioner committees, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow mentioned. I suspect that sometimes the role of community health councils becomes confused. The regional health authority is the strategic planning authority. We provide it with money for hospital and community services—the system is different in Scotland. We allocate money directly to family practitioner committees, which cover services that are not provided by hospitals, particularly those relating to independent contractors, family doctors, dentists, opticians and local pharmacists. The regional health authority allocates money and delegates responsibility to district health authorities, which run local and hospital services and community services such as district nurses and chriopodists. District health authorities also contribute to planning. District health authorities normally cover a population of 200,000, although in London the figure tends to be smaller. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow feels that the DHA is not situated centrally in his constituency. In Derbyshire, the district health authority covers 500,000 people in an area ranging almost from Manchester down to Birmingham. There are only two district health authorities, two community health councils and a single family practitioner committee. However, I reckon that it offers a jolly good service. The fact that some of my constituents must travel 20 miles to the headquarters of the district health authority is a matter that we must accept. We envy the concentration of services in London. The amendment confuses the roles of community health councils and health authorities. It talks about serving health authorities, but a community health council is not established to serve a health authority. Its function is to represent the interests of the public. The Bill serves a purpose because it is intended to open the activities of community health councils to the public in certain significant and small ways. The amendment mentions "any financial interest". The word "any" is dangerous in legislation as the courts always interpret it in its broadest possible sense. I suspect that it would be almost impossible to identify someone who does not have any financial interest in the affairs of a health authority, partly because almost all of us are consumers of the National Health Service, partly because many of us are suppliers of goods and services—the National Health Service is the largest employer in the country and many of us have family connections with people who work for it —and partly because as taxpayers we are all interested in it. The average family, not only people who pay income tax but those who pay VAT, contributes £1,600 a year to the Health Service. The wording of the amendment suggests that the only answer to the question that it poses would be yes or no. It is not clear how the information that it seeks would he useful or what difference it would make to the status of members of community health councils. I do not know whether the amendment would result in people who have a financial interest or those who do not have a financial interest being excluded. In the light of the comments that I made earlier, my hon. Friend might accept that, as we are all taxpayers and have a financial interest in the National Health Service it would be wise to think that only people with a financial interest should be members of community health councils.I shall give an example to help my hon. Friend the Minister. My father died two years ago, in a National Health Service geriatric hospital in Inverness. The care and treatment that he received was quite outstanding. If my mother, who still lives in Inverness, were a member of a community health council and a director of a company supplying services to the regional health authority—and perhaps, therefore, to that hospital —would it not be right that she should have to declare an interest?
As a general principle, we would always expect members of public bodies to say whether some aspect of their personal or business lives might influence the opinions that they are offering. My hon. Friend is going too far, as the good lady that he mentioned would have a strong interest in ensuring that the local health service was cost-effective and efficient, that it delivered health in response to the health needs of local people and that it was available when she needed it. In that regard, other interests would be affected.
Should anybody serving on a public body such as a community health council or a district health authority have a financial interest in the outcome of a discussion—particularly if there was to be a vote—we would expect him to declare it and take guidance from the chairman about whether it was sufficiently relevant for him not to vote or be present. The community health council does not take such decisions, except with regard to its right of veto and to delay any major changes in the health authority. Its role is to take decisions about somebody else's decisions. It does not run a hospital or employ staff directly, except in very small numbers. Its main job is to make representations about the interests of consumers. I do not see any overriding need to legislate along the lines that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow has suggested. Community health bodies are not strategic, decision-making bodies and do not control the allocation of National Health Service resources. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary.I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) had a wry smile on his face when the Minister congratulated him on the Bill and made it clear that she was not opposing it. It will be within his memory, as it is within mine, because I was here on the same Friday, that a Government Whip on the Treasury Bench shouted "Object" and blocked progress. That led to my hon. Friend getting up on a point of order and venting his anger. Better one sinner who repenteth—
My hon. Friend must not go too far. I very rarely vent anger in the House. I occasionally vent disagreement.
My hon. Friend did it, so he will know what he was doing.
The Minister paints a picture of the NHS with which few members of community health councils could agree. Apparently there are no waiting lists, no closed wards, no cancelled operations, no shortage of specialist nurses, no shortage of midwives and no shortage of training opportunities. Indeed, this is heaven. I can tell the Minister, if she needs telling, that my local community health council has a much more realistic view. In the Good Hope hospital, which the Minister will know, which serves people in my constituency and in the constituency of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown), a Government Whip, a ward was closed temporarily about 10 months ago, and remains closed. I was interested in what the Minister said about the value that the Government attach to community health councils. Presumably, as soon as the hon. Lady leaves the House, she will get in touch with the South Manchester health authority. She will probably know that the South Manchester health authority agreed, on the casting vote of the person in the chair, to close immediately geriatric and rehabilitation wards at Burton house at Withington hospital, and psychiatric beds at the same hospital. There is nothing new about that. However, it was done without proper consultation with the community health council. Because of what the Minister said and the tales that she told about Liverpool, I expect her now to get in touch with that health authority and make known her displeasure at its lack of proper consultation with the community health council. I hope that in her usual quiet and persuasive manner she will persuade the authority to undo that decision until there has been adequate time for consultation. I do not know whether the Minister wants to rise to give me that assurance, or perhaps I can take it on the nod. That is how I shall take it.The hon. Gentleman should never take my nods on the nod. We are in touch with all Manchester health authorities. In fact, I had the pleasure of meeting a small delegation led by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) this week, and we have been in touch with the three Manchester health authorities more recently. They have a statutory obligation not to overspend, and I have no doubt that they will also bear in mind the recent ruling in the courts that because a change may be temporary, that does not rule out any possibility of consultation.
I am grateful to the Minister for that. They have a statutory duty not to overspend, but they also have a statutory duty to consult. The recent court decision underlines that point. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) will be delighted when he reads the Minister's words on Tuesday.
There is an even simpler argument against the amendment of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) than that put by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East and the Minister. The purpose of the Bill is to open up the proceedings of community health councils and their papers to members of the public. I would hope that that is totally unexceptionable. If that is the case, and if the hon. Member for Walthamstow has worries about the misuse of a position on a community health council by one of its appointed members, the amendment will not stop that. If somebody is looking for naked commercial advantage from the proceedings of a CHC, he, or she, under the terms of the Bill, has only to sit at the back of the room when the council is discussing an item out of which he or she may see an opportunity to make a bob or two. I find myself in the embarrassing position of agreeing with the Minister's arguments against the amendment. Also, it is not often that my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East and I are able to agree. I hope that on that basis, the hon. Member for Walthamstow will take all the advice that has been offered in such a free and kind manner and see the wisdom of withdrawing his amendment.12.15 pm
I have listened with the greatest care to all the advice that has been flooding in for the past hour or two. As the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) referred to my predecessor in Walthamstow, Eric Deakins, I hope that I shall be allowed to refer to him briefly. On the occasions when I met Eric Deakins, I always thought that he was a pleasant man. Indeed, on one occasion when we were both invited to address a large gathering of teachers who set up a howl of rage and execration as soon as I entered the hall, it was a great relief to see the friendly face of Mr. Deakins smiling at me from the platform. It is now a matter of history that the good people of Walthamstow preferred a Conservative candidate to a Labour one.
Not for long.
We shall see.
As I said, I have listened carefully to what has been said. Huge amounts of money are being spent on the Health Service. Indeed, £23·5 billion is now being spent on the NHS, which I think I am right in saying is about three times more then when we came to power in 1979. Community health councils doubtless have a great deal of influence, especially in these days of putting more services out to tender to get better value for money and to provide even more funds to be ploughed back into the NHS. Nevertheless, having listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Minister has said, her usual charm and perspicacity have persuaded me to withdraw the amendment, and I beg to ask leave to do so.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Order for Third Reading read.
12.17 pm
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Now that we have at long last come to this happy stage of the Third reading, I do not want to detain my colleagues for too long from the later-in-the-day constituency engagements. The Minister has played a notable role in that. I have heard some extraordinarily lengthy pronouncements on a number of Third Readings, but I think that today's must take the biscuit. I want briefly, because of the interesting history of the Bill, to enlarge slightly on how it came about. My hon. colleague the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) was responsible in the previous Parliament for introducing this Community Health Councils (Access to Information) Bill which he thought was an admirable little measure, and of course I shared that view. But the Prime Minister, towards the fourth year of that Parliament, decided that things were a bit sticky for the Government and that they had better go to the country before they got worse. She went to the country, and, unfortunately for us and the people of Britain, won the election. [Interruption.] I am glad that I have the agreement of the majority of hon. Members in the Chamber. One of the unfortunate results of that victory was that this minor Bill fell, before it got to the Lords, on the dissolution of that Parliament. Although I have been here now for many many years and have put my name forward for most of the ballots over those years, I have never once been drawn earlier than 14th. I cannot remember what I did with that effort. In the first ballot of this Parliament I drew the 19th place. It was clear that, with that number, I was unlikely to be able to introduce a major matter of personal or public interest that would ever land on the statute book. I was fortunate enough to engage in discussions with members of the Public Bill Office. Out of that sagacious exchange came the suggestion that I should support an admirable little Bill that had fallen in the previous Parliament and stood a good chance of getting on to the statute book in this Parliament. That was how my support for and introduction of the Bill came about. The Bill's purpose is explicit in the title. I need not enlarge on that too much, but perhaps for the record I should say that this legislation would require all meetings of the community health councils and their committees to be open to the public, and that is admirable. The Bill would require them to publish agendas—again, that Is admirable—and permit the public to inspect and copy reports and the background papers to those reports, and permit meetings and documents to be closed to the public only for specified genuine reasons. I am delighted that I have the broad agreement of the House and the Minister's support in introducing the Bill and furthering its advance on Third Reading. Because of the Bill's rather strange history, I should say that when I discussed the advancement of the Bill in Committee I was advised by parliamentary counsel that the earlier version had certain technical errors that should be put right. We pursued those errors in Committee and put them right. Parliamentary counsel's arguments were based on the understandable reason that the Bill applied the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, to comunity health councils. Legislation of this kind, which picks up bits of Bills by reference to earlier Acts, tends to be untidy, especially as the Local Government Act was not intended to cover community health councils. Minor modifications to that Act were necessary to accommodate the different nature of community health councils. The Department of the Environment, which takes the lead interest in the Local Government Acts, drew attention to some "drafting infelicities", which I think is the phrase, and parliamentary counsel suggested amendments that secured technical improvements to the Bill in Committee. They affected neither the substance nor the objectives of the Bill. As I have made clear, this is not a major piece of legislation. It is a tidying-up, good little Bill that provides public access to the proceedings of CHCs and their reports. I am sure that I shall have the Chamber's support. I very much commend the Third Reading, with the earnest hope that none of my colleagues will hold us too long in further discussion on this issue.
12.23 pm
I cannot allow the Third Reading of this important Bill to pass without uttering a few comments, starting with congratulations to the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds). I mentioned in Committee that when I was a child he used to frighten me. I listened to "Journey into Space"—
Now the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend have swopped places.
That is a line for the gossip columns this Sunday.
I used to clutch my father's hand while listening to that dreadful science fiction rubbish, as I now realise it to be, and there was the sainted voice of the fine actor that the hon. Member for Warley, East was once, and I suspect still is, scaring the life out of the nation's children. It was a very long time ago. On those occasions and in his sensible, intelligent remarks today he has done much better than he has when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been at the Dispatch Box and he has felt obliged to use his actor's training to try to shout her down. On those occasions, he does his erstwhile profession a disservice.The Minister is being naughty because she is provoking me into further utterances which I had hoped not to have to make. I am not interested in her comments on my previous profession. I was an extremely distinguished actor and I still am. I still have those talents, but of course I do not abuse them in this Chamber. I simply use them to a limited extent.
If the hon. Lady thinks that my interventions when the Prime Minister is speaking are made simply from a wish to create a small performance, she could not be more wrong. I profoundly disagree with the Prime Minister's philosophy and thinking and consequent damage that she has done to the community of Britain.Order. Will hon. Members please return to the Bill.
The community health councils to which the Bill refers were established in 1974. They operate under current legislation—the National Health Service community health council regulations 1985, some of which I quoted earlier, and the current circulars HC81/15 and HC85/11. Their duties are to represent the interests of the public in the Health Service in their districts. They are not by themselves strategic bodies or decision-making bodies. They do not run any parts of the Health Service, although one or two have decided, commendably, to use some of their allocation of funds to employ staff in a role that helps to facilitate the relationships of patients to the Health Service, especially when there are some communication problems. I commend that, although we would not want them to expand that role to the point where they were trying to vie with the district health authority which perhaps should have been fulfilling that role in the first place.
The community health councils have certain rights. A CHC has the right to relevant information from the local district health authority and the family practitioner committee. I sometimes wish that the CHCs spent more time looking at the work to which the family practitioner committee relates. The bulk of our patients see their GP rather than have contact with the hospital. That is one of the best parts of our system. Our GP system acts as a gateway system. It is one reason why we have better health and more effective use of health care money than many other countries. The CHCs have the right of access to district health authority premises. They have asked for rights of access to private sector establishments and homes. I am minded to resist that because I want them to exercise their statutory duties as regards district health authority premises. I have noticed with interest that in some parts of the country, especially where there has been a growth in the private sector for residential care and nursing homes, the community health council has been able to obtain the co-operation of the owners of those homes. In one place—I think it is Blackpool—a consumers' guide to the homes has been drawn up stating what is available and what is not. Local people, especially in areas where there is a large proportion of elderly people, perhaps even very elderly people with elderly children trying to look after them, have found such publications extremely useful. That is a fruitful aspect of work where CHCs can make progress. As I said, the CHCs have a right to be consulted by the district health authorities on proposals for substantial developments or variations in local services, and that right extends to family practitioner committees; the CHCs must be consulted by the FPCs on proposals for substantial change. The CHCs also have the right to meet their district health authorities and family practitioner committees once a year, and the Bill refers to such meetings. That is extremely valuable. It is to be hoped that that will be the minimum, especially in areas where there is much substantial change. It was deemed wise by my predecessors to write it into legislation that the community health council has the right to an annual meeting and the right to be consulted by the local family practitioner committee about changes in the provision of general practice and pharmaceutical services. In the next couple of years, as the reforms outlined in our White Paper on the primary health care services, "Promoting Better Health", are introduced, the community health councils may well be directing rather more of their attention to the services outside hospitals, especially those provided by local doctors. I hope so; they have much that is valuable to contribute. There are 194 community health councils—rather more than the number of district health authorities, partly because since the reorganisation in 1974 it has been regarded as wise in some parts of the country, especially in London, to amalgamate some of the smaller health authorities that were losing population very quickly. We have just done that by amalgamating Brent and Paddington and North Kensington district health authorities to create the Parkside health authority. None of the boundaries of the community health councils have changed, so there are slightly more of them. In 1986-87, the community health councils spent a total of £7·2 million, which works out at about £37,000 per community health council. That has tended to increase slowly, but it has kept roughly in line with inflation. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, who was then Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security gave a commitment on 29 April 1985 that we would retain community health councils for the life of this Parliament. That was reaffirmed by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health at the annual general meeting of the Association of Community Health Councils of England and Wales on 3 July 1986. We have no proposals to change in any substantive way the work that the community health councils do, although we recognise that there my he some benefit in the minor changes proposed in the Bill. While we would not have chosen to legislate on CHCs, we feel that the Bill does no harm. Perhaps the hon. Member for Warley, East should not attribute to me quite such ecstatic support as he suggested, but the Government are neutral, and we would not seek to oppose the Bill. It has been suggested that the Bill's provisions are onerous for small bodies such as community health councils. I do not agree. Apart from anything else, the community health councils have budgets of £37,000 on average. Provided that they are well-organised, it is quite within the CHC's resources to implement the Bill's provisions. The CHCs themselves advocate openness and are bitterly critical of lack of openness elsewhere. Therefore, provided that they sincerely wish to be as open as possible with the public they serve, they will not need bureaucratic mechanisms to comply with the Bill. I had better repeat that the community health councils must comply with the provisions of the Bill within existing resources. Having said that, I await the decision of the House on Third Reading.12.33 pm
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) will take no offence if I say that modesty is not one of the traits normally associated with him. However, he is being far too modest in describing the Bill as modest. He may have noticed that his is a 90p Bill; that is the price that members of the public pay for it. The Bill with which we started the day was a 45p Bill and the one that we shall be discussing very soon, I hope, is a £1·60 Bill. My hon. Friend need not be too modest because he has pitched it about right and his Bill is clearly exceptionally good value for money.
My serious point touches on the Minister's remarks about community health councils having to carry out their-obligations under the Bill within existing resources. It relates to the provisions for councils to charge a fee for copies or extracts of various documents. If the councils decide that it is proper to make a charge for documents, I hope that they will relate that charge to the ability of the person making the inquiry to pay. The House will recall that as recently as a week ago we were debating ability to pay. It is important that we should not let unreasonable charges be an impediment to people obtaining documents to which it is proper for them to have access. Perhaps may put it this way. So far as I know, no councils charge members of the public for copies of council minutes and I should deprecate such a practice very much. I hope that, by and large, community health councils will find no need to impose any charge.Before my hon. Friend sits down, may I ask him just to back me in saying that although I cannot refer to my colleague the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) as the only begetter of the Bill, I think we should remember that it was originally his and that he has had assistance since then in getting his Bill, with my help, on to the statute book? I would be very grateful if my hon. Friend would just make a word of commendation.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It often happens that a Bill falls by the wayside for one reason or another and is then picked up by someone else. As my hon. Friend has said, that is basically what happened in this case. Perhaps one should take a more relaxed view of these matters—if it is nice to have one father, it must be even better to have two. I congratulate my hon. Friend. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Third Reading and that a general election will not stop it reaching the statute book.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.