The House will have seen my provisional selection of amendments. Amendments Nos 1 and 2 are separate points and should be taken separately, not discussed together as shown on the list.

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 1, leave out

`in the employment of a health authority'.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for separating these two amendments. They have nothing to do with each other, although they are both concerned with this important Bill. This is not Third Reading but I know, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow me to pay a quick tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) for this Bill. I should like to say more about that later.

In Committee we discussed health authorities and their relevance to the licence to allow properly qualified technicians to remove corneal tissue. There was some discussion, especially from my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) as to the intention of the Bill with regard to the words:

"in the employment of a health authority".

There was some question whether the technicians, who would be suitably qualified to carry out the task of removing corneal tissue, had to be within the public health service and, therefore, whether the private health service was excluded.

Many of us know that many private health organisations play a valuable role, not only in health generally but in transplantation of organs, especially American Medical International which has a unique record in the transplantation of kidneys. There is no reason on earth why private clinics could not gather the expertise, as many of them do now, in the area of corneal tissue transplantation.

The Bill's intention is to precipitate the removal of an increased number of corneas when the next of kin and the deceased want that to happen. If the body happens to be under a private health organisation, this clause might cause problems for those who want to remove the cornea for transplantation.

When explaining this point in Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister said that employees of private clinics are in the employment of a health authority, perhaps by the facility of an honorary contract. In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) mentioned the honorary contract concept and the fact that all doctors and properly qualified technicians would be under either a direct contract with a local health authority or an honorary contract. I believe that this is an unsatisfactory position. I do not like to hear of things such as honorary contracts merely to facilitate what I think is a desirable intention of the Bill. Therefore, I would like further clarification on this point. If the technician is properly qualified, working under the instructions of a properly qualified doctor, I cannot see why the clause is necessary.

We are not talking about people trying to fight for kidneys in the private sector or trying to claw their way to the front of a paying queue. I do not think that anybody believes that. All we are flying to do is ensure that the bureaucracy and difficulty currently involved in the removal of corneas is removed, so that much-needed therapeutic help can be given. I believe that this little phrase will cause confusion and should be removed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) was a valued member of our Committee, especially because of his personal experience of a corneal transplant following the excruciating illness that he had in 1979. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward), who had serious eye trouble, and was on the Committee, is also here. I very much welcome, and am grateful for, their support for the Bill.

I have some reservations about the amendment. I fully understand the motives behind it. It would extend the scope of the Bill to cover work carried out in the private sector. In principle, I do not oppose that objective. However, I believe that the amendment will remove an important safeguard.

As with kidney transplants, demand for eye tissue exceeds supply. Therefore, we must prevent any unethical methods by people trying to procure tissue for financial gain. All those in the professional medical organisations who have supported the change that I propose in the Bill have done so in the light of proper safeguards for the removal of corneal tissue carried out by properly trained technicians.

In Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes said, concern was expressed about the possibility of entrepreneurial activity in the procurement of eye tissue. We must be extremely careful to preserve the integrity of the transplant system, especially at this stage. Of course, the Bill as it stands does not squeeze out the private sector, where many removals already take place. These are carried out by ophthalmic surgeons, but in future I hope that they will be carried out by skilled technicians, approved by the surgeons. Health Service employees from the eye hospitals or trained in the new eye banks will be able to carry out their work in private hospitals or at private homes, wherever the donor material is available.

The amendment would not prove a great disaster, but it needs further consideration before it is included in the Bill. I leave it to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to offer the expert advice that we need to assist us in our decision, so I await his comments before deciding whether I can support the amendment.

I studied with great care the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). As my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) said, to whose assiduity and expertise we owe our presence here today, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes has personal and important experience, so we take careful note of any amendments that he tables to this excellent and much-needed Bill.

As we recognise, the objective of the Bill is to increase the supply of tissue for corneal grafting by removing the most significant constraint on its procurement. That is why the Government have no hesitation in supporting the main provision of the Bill, which is that staff who are not medically qualified should be permitted, subject to certain safeguards, to remove corneal tissue from cadavers. But the removal of organs from bodies, as I am sure the House agrees, needs to performed competently, safely and sensitively. Therefore, there is no doubt that there is a great need for adequate safeguards. One of those safeguards, to which we attach great importance, is that the members of staff who are permitted to undertake those procedures should be employees of health authorities.

I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes is concerned to ensure that corneal grafting is not excluded from private hospitals. I certainly accept that. We would wish to see that procedure undertaken in private hospitals, but there is no doubt that, under the operation of the proposals that we have in mind, that will be able to happen without the beneft of my hon. Friend's amendment. I hope that private hospitals that wish to perform that procedure will enter into agreements with health authorities or the United Kingdom transplant service in Bristol for corneal tissue to be supplied to them.

There would be no objection to that, provided that the supply of corneal tissue is sufficient to meet the health authorities' own needs. If private hospitals wish to make their own arrangements for the procurement of corneal tissue, either the tissue will have to be removed by a registered medical practitioner, as now—I do not envisage that presenting any difficulties—or they will need to enter into an agreement with a health authority for the use of health authority staff. I do not believe that that provision will be an unreasonable constraint on private hospitals.

9.45 am

As the House will know, we recognise the contribution made by private hospitals to health care. Although it is marginal to the huge volume of care that is provided under the National Health Service, we recognise the importance of its contribution, complementing the resources of the Health Service and demonstrating that people have a right, should they wish, to dispose of some of their income in that area.

I do no wish to turn this exercise into a party political exchange, but earlier in the week when I had the pleasure of participating in a debate on television with the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who is apparently determined to prevent people from spending part of their income on the provision of private health care, I was dismayed that that seemed to be the policy of the official Labour party spokesman on health. That is regrettable, and I am sure that that will be the view of most people.

I wish to ensure that we are committed to the existence of the Health Service, complemented by private health care. I do not, however, believe that the extension of the facility, as envisaged in the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes, would be necessary.

The requirement that the non-medical staff who will be permitted to remove corneal tissue be employees of the Health Service has implications beyond private hospitals. As employees of health authorities, those members of staff would be subject to whatever procedures the health authorities consider necessary. I am confident that health authorities will exercise those responsibilities wisely. As I have said, the procurement of corneal tissue needs to be undertaken competently, safely and sensitively. We would not wish it to become an entrepreneurial activity undertaken outside the control of health authorities.

Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes will accept that we have considered the issue carefully, that we believe that there would be sufficient freedom under the arrangements that we have in mind, to implement the changes that flow from the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter, and that we have the balance right between that freedom and the control that we still consider necessary in this important but delicate area. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes to withdraw his amendment.

I was not intending to speak in the debate, but I am a proud opponent of all forms of non-National Health Service provision, particularly as most of it is exceedingly heavily subsidised by the taxpayer and the NHS hospitals nearby.

I hope that the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) will accept the Minister's advice on the matter, because the amendment could have a knock-on effect. I am not suggesting that there is any likelihood of scandalous behaviour in a private hospital. But if there were to be one scandal involving what some people have described as entrepreneurial activity, or perhaps super-entrepreneurial activity, often known as theft, the whole of the corneal transplant scene might well be set back and people would be reluctant to agree to what they readily agree to at the moment. I do not wish to be contentious, but for those reasons alone I hope the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes will accept the advice of his hon. Friend and withdraw the amendment.

I am grateful to have had the opportunity of this small debate on amendment 1. This matter needs airing, because the objective of the Bill, steered so cleverly and with so much co-operation throughout by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), is intended to increase the numbers of corneas available for transplantation. I was fearful that perhaps there might be a limitation which, because of the way the clause was originally written, could be opened up by this amendment.

The character of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter and the high esteem in which he is held on both sides of the House encourages me to agree with what he said about the amendment. My hon. Friend the Minister has, in effect, given a guarantee of co-operation between health authorities and the private sector, and that allays one of my major fears.

We had some worries in Committee. As I said earlier, the fact that the health authority can employ on short term or honorary contracts technicians employed in the private sector was a messy way to proceed with the Bill. I now understand the reasons for the control and believe it is desirable. The private sector will not exploit a more ready supply of corneas. I trust the private sector. I know that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) dislikes and distrusts the private sector. However, an increasing number of trade unionists are turning to private health schemes, and it is also for them that I moved the amendment. However, bearing in mind the comments of my hon. Friends, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment. I am grateful for the consideration that has been given to it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move amendment No.2, in page 2, line 13 at end insert—

'(4B) Whenever the person lawfully in possession of a body is a health authority and the deceased person's relatives are asked by that health authority for permission for an autopsy to be performed upon that body, they shall at the same time be asked if they object to the removal of the deceased person's eyes for therapeutic purposes or for the purposes of medical education or research.'.

This is a different matter. When we went through the Bill in Committee we were mindful not only of bureaucracy but of the fact that because of the problems associated with the bereaved a number of corneas cannot be removed even though the deceased had wished them to be removed.

Perhaps I might outline my own experience. I cannot speak too highly of Moorfields hospital and the way that it cares of for its patients, many of whom are in extreme pain, because our pain is fairly unique. I was told that I was to receive a transplant cornea under the National Health Service and I was taken to the operating theatre and given a general anaesthetic. I came round some hours later and found that the operation had not taken place. The reason was that although a transplant cornea was available still intact in an eye, the eye was demanded for autopsy as part of a general autopsy into suspicious circumstances surrounding the death of the donor.

The deaths of many donors are not suspicious. They are, regrettably, caused by road accidents, and there is no need for an autopsy for which all the organs must be stored and investigated. However, in the case of my donor there was a need for further investigation. I was assured by medical staff that the autopsy was a matter of procedure and would not provide any extra information to the people carrying out the autopsy.

When coroners look into matters and receive expert advice, or carry out their own investigations, the detail they receive from the investigation of the organs can be vital in determining the cause of death. However, the information that they receive from the eye, if any, is not as important, and I seek to ensure that the wishes of those who want the corneas of their loved ones to be transplanted are carried out.

The period between the death of the donor and the time when the eye is available for the cornea to be removed can be so long as to damage the tissue. Fourteen hours is regarded as the maximum time within which corneas can be removed, and in the 14 hours following death many things happen. For a start, in the vast majority of cases the donor has unexpectedly lost his or her life. That is a traumatic experience for the family of the deceased. One has to trace the family after the deceased has been identified, and there are many matters to be taken into account.

It is sometimes a miracle that any organs are successfully removed for transplantation, but millions of people in Britain carry cards to show that the waste and futility of death should not be total, and that parts of their bodies, should they be of benefit to others, should be used for transplantation or for any other therapeutic or research purpose.

I admire the next of kin as much as I admire the deceased. They are suffering from their bereavement and for them it is an extremely difficult time. Such people may be considering the life of the person they have created, their own child, and they are being asked to sanction what might be regarded as a defilement of the body. However, instead of thinking that it is a mere body that will be destroyed in time, one should bear in mind that life can be enhanced by something in that body, and that adds comfort to the next of kin. I know from personal experience how next of kin can feel great benefit because something of their deceased, loved one will continue to give life and continue to add to the mystery of life.

A doctor often finds it the most difficult part of his job to speak to the next of kin. He often finds it extremely traumatic, both for him and for the next of kin. At that stage, the doctor having plucked up the courage, based on the special training he has received and the care and dedication that is inherent in those who take up that profession, it would be far better for him to ask the next of kin whether at the time of the autopsy they would like a certain part of their deceased loved one to be used in transplantation. That would help to increase the numbers. The amendment says:

"they shall at the same time be asked if they object to the removal of the deceased person's eyes".

As we said in Standing Committee, that is the right attitude to take. We are all put on this earth for a purpose, and what has been put on the earth should not be wasted at death. Therefore, the wishes of most individuals would be upheld if their bodies could be used for legal and limited transplantation unless the next of kin or the person himself objects, particularly if that person objects through the opting out process. That ought to be discussed on Third Reading.

Amendment No. 2 is especially interesting to me, as it considers how we obtain donor material and whether we should have an opting-in or an opting-out system.

I have been involved in the campaign run on behalf of kidney patients for a long time. It is extremely distressing that medical science has produced a remedy for a disease which, 20 years ago, was nearly always fatal but that young children and elderly people still die from kidney failure because there is a shortage of donors. The Esther Rantzen television programme recently tore at our heartstrings by showing pictures of agonised parents and doctors who, if kidneys had been available, would have been able to save children's lives.

10 am

The shortage of donor material, not a shortage of donors, has prompted the Bill. The amendment is prompted by a desire to increase the amount of tissue available. One of my first campaigns in the 1970s was for attendance allowance to be paid to kidney patients on dialysis. We achieved that. We then got more money for kidney units. The Government responded to that challenge with substantial increases in resources, backed up as usual by voluntary contributions and voluntary organisations. We now have a large new kidney unit in Exeter.

The Government then launched the donor card programme. Most of us carry kidney donor cards. I hope that all those present do, although I shall not challenge them. The result of that campaign has been a substantial increase in the number of transplant operations, but there have not been enough. I am afraid that the voluntary donor system is not good enough. We shall have to bite this difficult bullet and change to an opting-out system in which it will be assumed that organs are available unless people carry a card or their relatives say that the removal of organs is not desirable.

Such a change could free us from the haunting spectre of people dying, not because we cannot save them or because people are unwilling to donate vital organs, but because the system fails to produce the organs at the crucial time. The amendment takes us a little way in that direction, but I am not sure that progress should be piecemeal. I doubt whether we should change the Bill when other organs or tissues are not covered in the same way, although I shall listen carefully to my hon. Friend the Minister's advice.

I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) for giving us an opportunity to discuss an important aspect of transplantation policy.

I, too, am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) for tabling the amendment. It draws attention to an important source of corneal tissue which is all too often neglected.

I should like to draw a distinction between a coroner's autopsy and an autopsy that is undertaken on the initiative of a health authority. Whenever a coroner is worried about the facts surrounding a death, he has the power to order that an autopsy be performed, and neither the health authority nor the deceased person's relatives have the right to stand in the way. The amendment is not concerned with coroner's autopsies.

Autopsies may also be performed on the initiative of a health authority if, for example, doctors want to discover fuller information about the course of a patient's disease so that their understanding of it will be increased. Such autopsies can fulfil a useful function, but they can be performed only if the deceased person's relatives give their permission. As health authorities are already required to approach relatives in such circumstances, it would seem sensible for them at the same time to ask relatives whether they have any objection to the removal of corneas for transplantation.

The amendment proposes that permission should be sought for the removal of corneal tissue and

"for the purposes of medical education or research."

Will the Minister give an assurance that, when considering that request, relatives will be made aware of the more macabre and unfair aspect of the regulations relating to such activity—that those who donate their bodies to medical investigation forfeit entitlement to death grant as they no longer have a responsibility to dispose of the remains?

Order. That is going a little wide of the amendment. I am sure that the Minister will keep his reply within the terms of the amendment.

I am happy to follow your direction Mr. Deputy Speaker. I note the hon. Gentleman's point and do not doubt that my colleagues with responsibilities in the matter will have done so as well.

I hope that health authorities will ask relatives whether they object to the removal of corneas when asking for permission for autopsies. It provides a straightforward way in which the supply of corneal tissue can be increased. I hope that, in the event of the Bill becoming law, health authorities will profit, if that is the most practical way in which tissue can be procured.

I would not want health authorities to be required to do that, as my hon. Friend's amendment suggests. With some autopsies, the delay between death and the permission of relatives being obtained makes corneas unsuitable for transplantation. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes referred to the 14-hour maximum. I would not want relatives to be asked about corneal transplantation when there was no possibility of its being carried out.

Moreover, the deceased person's eyes might have been damaged enough to make that unsuitable, and asking about transplantation could only aggravate relatives' distress. The circumstances surrounding death might render such an inquiry more harmful than advantageous. I urge health authorities to ask relatives for permission to remove corneas when they ask permission to perform an autopsy, provided that the circumstances are propitious.

A balance must be struck. Moving in the direction which the amendment suggests—a legal obligation—is going too far. The Government share my hon. Friend's view about the need to increase the availability of all organs. We are doing everything that we can to promote the organ donor campaign and are considering the possibility of other initiatives. However, to lay down a legal duty on health authorities would be misguided and unnecessary, and I hope that my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

I plead guilty to trying to introduce an opting-out system by the back door, but I believe that such a system is desirable and will dramatically increase the number of organs available for transplantation. The fact that there are only 2,000 transplants in Britain each year, of which about 90 per cent. are successful, and that there are more than 500,000 deaths in Britain each year is a poor record. I am certain that many more than 2,000 people would be willing for their corneas to be used. I fully appreciate what my hon. Friend has said about the difficulty for a doctor at the time of autopsy.

I understand, as perhaps I did not appreciate fully before, what my hon. Friend said, that it could make the position worse if there were a statutory obligation to ask permission to take tissue at a difficult time for the next of kin. I would do nothing that would make their suffering at that stage even greater. On balance, I believe that it is better to leave the matter to the skill, care and consideration always shown by doctors in these circumstances, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move. That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Recent weeks have been extremely exciting for me and all others involved in disablement matters. Last Friday, the House completed deliberations on the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill, a major piece of legislation by any standards, especially as it was a private Member's Bill involving probably £100 million of new resources. As a sponsor of that Bill, I congratulate the Government on the major support they gave. Having been involved throughout consideration of that Bill, I can assure the House that the Government assisted with its drafting and. in the end, the financing of the measure. That Bill was top of the ballot.

My Bill today drew number 19 in the ballot, but as a lucky coincidence of being in the right place at the right time for once when it came up for Second Reading and slipping into the airstream, as it were, of the rather larger disabled persons measure of the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), this Bill received a vital Second reading on 17 January and moved up the snakes and ladders hoard into second place; we are now today putting it through Parliament. I should like to thank all hon. Members who helped make that possible.

The basic aim of the Bill is to remove a major obstacle to successful eye transplants in this country. The obstacle is not in the actual transplant area, but in the collection of suitable eye tissue needed for the operation. The amendments we have been discussing are designed to assist in that regard. We all know that this material is desperately needed to prevent loss of sight and blindness.

The cornea is the circular and transparent lens on the front of the eye, approximately 11 mm by 13 mm in size. When disease, degeneration or injury causes a loss of the normal tranparency of the cornea, light fails to get through to the retina and blindness occurs. So in corneal transplants we are talking about a graft of a 7 mm to 8 mm button of donor tissue being transplanted into a recipient hole in the eye.

It is a simple graft operation performed routinely in teaching hospitals and district general hospitals with special units. Some 1,500 to 2,000 grafts are carried out in the United Kingdom each year, with a 90 per cent. success rate. However, the supply of eye tissue donor material is not great enough to satisfy the waiting list for transplants, and some hundreds of people are anxiously waiting for the time they can have an operation to save their sight. The hold-up is not due, as it is in the case of kidney transplants, to a shortage of donors. It is due to a shortage of opthalmic surgeons, the specialists required under the existing law to perform the routine cornea removals from the bodies of the donors.

The Human Tissue Act of 1961, which we seek to amend, requires that the removal of organs from bodies for medical purposes can be carried out only by fully registered practitioners. That has undoubtedly been a perfectly proper requirement and certainly needs to continue for organs other than eyes or parts of eyes where a comparatively simple operation can now be carried out, as in other countries, by eye technicians properly trained and supervised.

Our hospital ophthalmic doctors, who are under great stress these days, cannot be available day and night to interview relatives and then remove eye tissue. In the United States and other countries considerable developments have occurred and eye banks are now a standard part of ophthalmic units, under the direction of a medical board and run by eye bank technicians. In the United States, in 1984, 24,000 corneal removals were carried out, 98 per cent. of them by such technicians. In Holland and other European countries, similar eye banks are now operating, and I have received letters from the United States and Holland supporting this Bill.

There is absolutely no opposition from medical organisations; indeed, they support the Bill and welcome a relaxation of the 1961 law so that an improved supply of corneal material can be available for transplantation. The national United Kingdom organisation promoting this change is the Iris Fund for Prevention of Blindness, ably led by its director, Susanna Burr, whom I thank most deeply for her inspired help for the Bill. The iris fund established the United Kingdom Corneal Transplant Service in 1983 with Department of Health and Social Services support and has financed it since then, although it hopes that the scheme will be taken over next year by the DHSS.

The service is based in Bristol, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward). In a letter dated 3 December 1985, the director, Ben Bradley, states:

"The demand for donor material is always increasing, and despite having recorded more than 900 cornea grafts since we started in October 1983, there are still 316 people on our cornea waiting list.

Your help in bringing the plight of these patients to the attention of the House will, I am sure, result in an increase in the number of corneas made available for transplantation."

Over the whole country, 4,000 eye grafts have taken place during the past two years in hospitals from Bristol to Edinburgh. As many as 1,500 extra transplants a year could take place if this Bill were enacted. The life of the eye tissue is very short—14 hours from removal to transplant, so the need for an efficient system is obvious. Until very recently, these short-lived eye materials have been kept alive for a maximum of four days by a conventional liquid preservation technique using the MacCarey-Kaufman solution, but most transplant operations are still carried out using fresh material—removed from the donor—within that short period.

However, a revolutionary advance has just been made by the Bristol eye hospital and the United Kingdom transplant service research team at Bristol university. Within the past week or two, a new technique for storing corneas for up to 30 days in an eye bank has resulted in the first two corneal transplants being carried out by Professor David Easty in Bristol using corneas stored in a special nutrient fluid. These organ cultured tissues can be re-checked over a period to make sure that they are suitable and in good condition, and also that their tissue material can be better matched with the patient's needs.

In those two operations, David Easty used one cornea which had been stored for two weeks in the United Kingdom transplant bank and one from Denmark which had been stored for a month. That represents a tremendous advance and helps, with the Bill, to produce a solution to this long-standing problem. Both patients have been discharged and are doing well.

Because such transplant tissue can be stored for up to a month, both the patient and the surgeon can plan when the operation will take place. That relieves the pressure on operating theatres and the patient's anxiety. Following the successful operations, Professor Easty said:

"This means that our eye banks can now provide an instant supply of material for emergencies."

Material will be readily available to save sight if major accidents occur. Eventually, by having a store of this tissue, there will be an end to waiting lists for corneal transplants and we shall be able to deal promptly and efficiently with major disasters. Through this legislation, we can increase and speed up the supply of corneal tissue provided by the eye banks. That tissue can be used to restore the sight of all those facing loss of vision and blindness. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood must be proud of the Bristol team's achievements. I hope that he will pass on our congratulations to all those involved.

I thank all those who have helped to pilot the Bill through Committee and Report. Some of those hon. Members who were active in the early stages were not able to be present today. They include my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), who, following an accident, was given a corneal transplant—as was my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley)—and my hon. Friend the Member for Walden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), who has suffered from an eye illness. I especially thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and his officials for their assistance in drafting the Bill. I hope that the House will now send the Bill to the other place so that it can quickly become law and end the waiting lists for eye transplants.

I welcome the Bill. There have been amazing developments in modern science and technology which will ensure that, when the Bill is enacted, cornea transplants will take their place among the other grafts and transplants which have become an acceptable part of the fight against illness and disease and the battle to make the afflicted healthy. I congratulated the hon. Members responsible for the legislation.

The faith of hon. Members and the Minister in the medical profession is touching. The Bill states:

"No such removal of an eye or part of an eye shall be effected except by—

(a) a registered medical practitioner".

I cannot imagine the eye or part of the eye being removed by anyone other than a registered medical practitioner, although the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) mentioned other people who could be involved.

The Bill states that the registered medical practitioner

"must have satisfied himself by personal examination of the body that life is extinct".

Sometimes, it is not as easy as one imagines to ascertain that life is extinct. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State is well aware of that. The absence of a fully detectable pulse or heartbeat does not necessarily mean that a person is dead. I assure the public that tissues are not taken from people who have not been certified as dead. People have expressed that concern.

We know the scaremongering about this issue. People should be encouraged to state clearly that they are willing to donate parts of their bodies. Eye tissue should be added to organs listed on the card carried by people who wish to donate.

I warmly welcome the Bill. I hope that, before long, these transplants will take their place with the others.

I support the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) has said, I have a personal interest in it. I believe that all hon. Members would willingly support the Bill if they were aware of its contents.

The legislation arises primarily from the advance of modern technology. The Human Tissues Act 1961 recognised the limits of technology at that time. Ophthalmic surgeons had to perform the operations to ensure that transplants were suitable for recipients, but that is no longer the case. Twenty-four years have passed and there have been substantial changes in medical technology. People with lesser skills—I do not want to denigrate them—can now perform these operations.

I pay tribute to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter not only in introducing the Bill but in working for the disabled. Last week, he was given an honorary degree by the Open university. That is a substantial recognition of his efforts on behalf of many people.

My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter said that the service is based in Bristol. The United Kingdom transplant bank is organised from Bristol. Research is undertaken by Ben Bradley and his team and by the staff at the Bristol eye hospital to benefit people suffering such tragedies. For those reasons, I take great pride as a Member from Bristol in supporting the Bill.

I have a direct interest in this issue because, when I was 17—regrettably, that was too long ago—I developed partial blindness, which recurred intermittently for the next four years, sometimes with total blindness. Fortunately, at no stage did that blindness continue for a substantial period. Obviously, it was disconcerting. I saw eye specialist after eye specialist, none of whom could tell me precisely what was wrong. Fortunately, when I was 22, the problem seemed to disappear and, for the next eight or nine years, I suffered no problems with my sight.

When I was 30, the problem recurred on a few occasions to a limited extent. Again, I suffered from either partial or total blindness, but, mercifully, it was for a fairly short period. Less than two years ago the eyesight in my left lower quartile deteriorated substantially. That had the dramatic effect of stopping me from being a rugby referee because it confirmed what all players believe about rugby referees—that they are blind. The problem continued and I visited a series of specialists at a number of hospitals, both in London and Bristol, for assessment of my eyesight difficulty. At the time I was also suffering from a nervous difficulty in my hand.

After undergoing a series of tests I was referred to the Burden institute at Frenchay hospital where I had a brain scan. I am in the unique position of being able to say that I am the only Member who can prove that he has a brain. The brain scan provided no further information about the cause of my problems. Ultimately, it was diagnosed that I had multiple sclerosis, a disease for which there is no cure. I was not over-frightened by that diagnosis. People live with far worse diagnoses than that. At this stage there is no known treatment or cure for multiple sclerosis. The virus was identified a few years ago. Work is being done at the moment, and people who suffer from it are given advice about the forms of diet and exercise that they might take.

Where an illness is not treatable or curable, one learns to live with it and accept it. Surely it is far worse to know that one will go blind, and needs an operation, that the technology is available and many people can carry it out by performing a transplant, but that legislation does not allow it. That is the point of the Bill. The technology is available. Just imagine if one were a surgeon or doctor, and had to say to a patient or his relatives, "We know what you are suffering from. We could cure it, but the legislation does not allow us to do so because it is too restrictive."

It is for that reason that I am such an enthusiastic supporter of the legislation. It broadens the opportunity for many more people to have an operation, for which the facilities and the expertise have been available for so long. For those reasons, I encourage the whole House to support this excellent and long-overdue measure.

It is difficult not to rise with a substantial degree of humility, having heard the expertise of those hon. Members on both sides, either through professional or personal experience, who have introduced the Bill. I hope that the Bill will pass expeditiously through the other place and on to the statute book.

I wish briefly to concentrate on the substantial technical developments which have occurred and make the Bill all the more important. We have come a long way since the early days of this century when the first transplant was performed by a doctor on his pet gazelle in Africa. In due course it was rejected.

Now we seek tissue types for corneal grafting. Often complex grafting is required, which makes the special identification of the right type of tissue through clinical work most important. The Bill will allow the more widespread collection of the right tissue types, relieving the pressure on those in advanced clinical work, resulting in providing the right tissue in the right place and supporting the technological developments in the eye banks.

It is important to recognise that at present ophthalmic surgeons must spend a geat deal of time collecting corneal tissues. Their clinical work has developed substantially, and the most important aspect of their work is probably the delicate issue of receiving consent. With today's legislation we can combine all three, and what is effectively the simple operation of collecting corneal tissue can now be handled by a larger number of people. For that reason, the legislation seems appropriate at this stage, especially with regard to the technical development of corneal tissue collecting.

When I studied the Bill and spoke to some eminent surgeons at St. Thomas's, I was sufficiently convinced that the process was not so highly technical that it would require the present legislation to remain unamended. It is a simple procedure. It has the advantage of taking place in an immuno-privileged site. That means that one can remove the eye and the relevant tissue and transplant it, without facing the problem of rejection, as is the problem with many other transplants. It also means that much more tissue typing can be undertaken after we have received more tissue. That is important for the development of the procedure. For those reasons, I warmly welcome the developments in the Bill.

One can describe the procedure simply to a layman as a nip in the covering of the eye, after which one hooks on to the muscles surrounding the eye, severs the nerve at the back and removes the eye. As the eye is such a sensitive part, that process may naturally worry people, especially compared with the removal of a finger nail or an operation on some less sensitive part of the body.

Nevertheless, I recognise that the importance of good supervision is essential. The Bill ensures that only those who are properly qualified, and under proper supervision, can remove the tissue. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) gave due recognition to that when he drafted the Bill. It would have been easy to think that such a simple procedure could be extended more widely than he suggests.

I echo the congratulations offered to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter. He was right to say that this has been an important week for health and social service issues. I was privileged to serve in Committee on the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), and passed in the House last week. I congratulate both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend on following up that legislation so readily, as my hon. Friend lucidly explained to the House. I hope that my hon. Friend's Bill will succeed. It will undoubtedly receive the support of the medical profession. I hope that hon. Members on both sides will also support it.

I support the Third Reading of this important legislation, and, in so doing, I must immediately pay triple tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). First, I congratulate him on his success in the ballot. It is perhaps even more remarkable that, having been drawn 19th, he now finds his Bill before the House. That is against all parliamentary odds.

Secondly, I congratulate my hon. Friend, as many others will, on his warmth, dedication and skill in selecting the subject of the Bill before us.

Thirdly, I congratulate my hon. Friend on the fact that, with the help of hon. Members on both sides of the House, he has skilfully steered the Bill through its Committee and Report stages. It reflects the greatest credit upon him and the constituency that he serves. He has a long, well-documented testimony of care for the disabled, with which I am glad to be associated.

This morning sees the House at its best. When one considers the events of the past week, it is a tribute to the House that, on Friday morning, we are discussing a Bill which is so important to those who suffer from blindness.

I was deeply humbled by the moving speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward). The House will long remember his account of his illness. We wish him good health and godspeed in his service in the House.

Medical science has advanced greatly since the original Act, especially in the transplant of organs and tissues. There is a renal transplant unit in my constituency, and I am thrilled to be the patron of the friends of that unit.

My introduction to blindness, no doubt like that of many hon. Members, was as a little boy sitting in Bible class and discovering, through the scriptures, how the Lord came down and made the blind see again. Close to where I worked in Liverpool, the first blind workshops in the world were established. From conversations with people in the medical profession, I know that there is a keen awareness of the benefits and blessings that can come from the transplant of tissues, especially from the eyes.

I welcome the Bill and give it my complete support. My concern for such matters was awakened remarkably some years ago when I heard the sad news of the death of Lady Churchill, the widow of Sir Winston Churchill, and was astonished to discover that within hours of her death her wish that her eye tissues be taken and used again was fulfilled. That brought home to me in a simple but dramatic way the blessings that can come from the transfer of tissue to those who suffer from ophthalmic diseases.

I am especially attracted to the need for speed in such transplants, and I wish to make a simple plea. This morning, I took the precaution of checking that my kidney donor card was with my credit cards and other effects. I commend for consideration the suggestion that such a card should include eye tissues—

Mine does.

Mine does not.

The new card issued by the DHSS contains the words:

"I request that after my death

(a) my kidneys, eyes, heart, liver, pancreas be used for transplation; or

(b) any part of my body be used for the treatment of others. (delete if not applicable)."

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to point out that multi-donor cards are now available. This might be the right time to apply for a new card or pick up a new card at one's library or citizens advice bureau.

I am never too proud to accept a rebuke. Perhaps it is a reflection of my age that my card does not contain those words. However, I assure my hon. Friend that my card is not written on parchment.

This has been a wonderful debate and a momentous occasion. In conclusion, I pray that many people will look back on this day and say, "As a result of the House of Commons and the hon. Member for Exeter introducing this Bill, I can now see." I commend the Bill to the House and wish it godspeed.

I have already spoken on the Bill this morning, but I hope that the House will allow me a further statement before it goes to the other place. I have been moved by the contributions of hon. Members, and it is important that we consider in the calm atmosphere of a Friday morning matters that will benefit people. That is what I have always believed to be the objective of Parliament, but I regret that often the reverse seems to be true.

This is a remarkable Bill which has been steered through Parliament by a remarkable Member. During the past three years, I have followed faithfully the legislation introduced and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), just as faithfully as he has followed me in the alphabetical list of Members, and almost as closely. Our objectives are similarly inseparable.

The Bill does not introduce a new concept. It merely takes us back to the position that obtained before 1961. In 1961, the Human Tissue Act tightened the restrictions on those who could remove organ tissue. It was vital for the trust that the public should have in those who removed organs and tissues that it was done by those who were properly qualified and that no one could deny the right to a medical practitioner.

Before 1961, the techniques were such that few organs could be removed and used for transplant. Indeed, corneal transplants were the only ones to achieve any notable success. But techniques developed later in the middle of the century and the possibility of kidney, liver and heart transplants meant that the legislation had to be tightened. The fact that corneas lost out because of that tightening of the legislation was wholly justifiable at the time. It is now clear that corneas should be exempted from the general rules that are still desirable for the removal of other organs, although kidneys may soon follow suit.

The object of the Bill is an increase in donation, which could be achieved by more publicity, the issue of donor cards and educational leaflets to schools, associations and colleges, by direct publicity in newspapers and by the public reading the stories of those whose lives have been enriched and recovered through receiving organs from donors. It could also be publicised through the experiences of the next of kin of those who have donated their organs, who can explain the enrichment that results from the realisation that a part of their deceased loved one is giving life or removing pain.

I dislike and have serious qualms about the personality cult which has recently followed some organ transplantations. If the personality cult can increase the flow of organs, so much the better, but I wonder whether it is right to subject the lives of the next of kin of those who have donated and received organs to the glare of often ghoulish publicity. I therefore ask that the sensitivity of the next of kin be remembered above all. We need publicity for the success of the transplantation programme, but ghoulish interest must be resisted at all costs. I hope that newspapers and television programmes, which have done so much good in encouraging transplantation, will remember the sensitivity that the area deserves.

I pay a further tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter. He was fortunate in his place in the ballot, but the subject that he has chosen has promoted him above the normal expectations of Parliament. That shows not only the wisdom of his choice but just how the House receives the things that my hon. Friend says and the causes he espouses. Because of his character and what he has stood for during his years in the House, the House immediately expects that his Bill will be for people's benefit and will receive general agreement. That feeling has accelerated the passage of the Bill through Parliament.

The Bill deserves a speedy passage. I am a sponsor of no fewer than three Bills that are to be debated today. I know that the promoters of the other Bills will understand me if I say that this is the most important of them all.

I therefore thank my hon. Friend, and I thank the Minister and his officials for their co-operation. This is a marvellous Bill; Parliament should be proud of itself and of my hon. Friend.

I will be brief, in order to facilitate the passage of the next Bill. I congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), and his sponsors on both sides of the House, on this measure, which is most welcome and appears to command support in every part of the House.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) on his success in the Ballot for Private Members' Bills, on choosing a Bill that will be of a great benefit to people who have lost or are in danger of losing their sight, and on piloting the Bill so successfully through the House in its early stages. I would like also to assure the House that the Bill in its present form has full Government support.

The Human Tissue Act 1961, which governs the removal of organs for transplant purposes, requires that organs be removed from cadavers only by registered medical practitioners. In the case of kidneys, hearts, livers and pancreases, that is a sensible and indeed a necessary precaution. But corneal tissue is different from other transplantable organs in two important respects. The first is that the removal of corneal tissue is a much simpler procedure and does not require the skills of an experienced surgeon, and the second is that corneal tissue does not deteriorate so quickly and can safely be removed from a body up to several hours after death.

The requirement that corneal tissue be removed only by registered medical practitioners is a serious constraint on the supply of suitable material that is urgently needed for corneal grafting. The requirement makes heavy demands on the valuable and limited time of ophthalmic surgeons, and in practical terms it means that it is very difficult for them to remove corneal tissue except from donors who happen to die inside hospitals that have ophthalmic surgery departments.

This constraint on the supply of tissue means that in most departments of ophthalmic surgery, corneal grafting is still an emergency procedure undertaken only as and when the right sort of tissue becomes available for a particular patient on the waiting list. This in turn often results in a wasteful use of hosptial beds and theatre time and makes yet further demands on surgeons and theatre nurses, and creates uncertainty for patients. If more corneal tissue were to become available, corneal grafting could become a scheduled procedure and much would be gained, and the purpose of the Corneal Tissue Bill is indeed to ease the constraints so that the increase in supply which we all seek can be achieved.

The number of people who die in circumstances where corneal donation is a practical possibility is far in excess of the number of people who die in circumstances which permit the donation of other organs such as kidneys, hearts, and livers. Corneal tissue suitable for grafting can be taken from people in older age groups whose other organs would not be suitable for transplantation, and the longer permissible period between death and tissue removal means that tissue can be taken from patients who die in hospital wards and even at home; the only patients who are suitable donors of other organs are those who die on respirators and whose functions are artificially maintained after brain death has been diagnosed. The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller), with his medical expertise, has made that point. The simplicity of the procedure of corneal removal also means that health service staff who are not qualified doctors can undertake it provided that they are properly trained. This Bill will permit them to do so.

Yet the removal of corneas from bodies is a procedure which must be undertaken properly and sensitively, so a number of safeguards are required. The safeguards need to be flexible enough to ensure that the procurement of corneal tissue is not unnecessarily constrained, and yet rigid enough to ensure that the procedure is competently performed with due regard to the safety of patients and the sensitivities of relatives. The Corneal Tissue Bill provides four safeguards which we beleive achieve exactly this.

The first safeguard is that the staff who perform the procedure will have to be acting under the instruction of a registered medical practitioner. This will allow a doctor to instruct them to go to a distant hospital or to a patient's home without his having to make the journey himself, but will not allow them to act on their own account. The doctor will be professionally accountable for the instructions that he gives, and he will know that he will have to answer for any instructions that are unprofessional or irresponsible.

The second safeguard is that the doctor will be required to satisfy himself that the people that he instructs are sufficiently qualified and trained to perform the procedure competently. For obvious reasons, there are at the moment no recognised qualifications or training courses for technicians or nurses in this field, and we think that the most appropriate safeguard for ensuring their competence is that responsibility should be laid upon the doctor. The medical profession is prepared to accept this. There will, of course, be opportunity for my Department's chief medical officer to issue guidance on the matter at some later date should he consider it to be necessary and appropriate. I should perhaps add that I was pleased to learn that the United Kingdom Corneal Transplant Service in Bristol is preparing a training course on the procurement of corneal tissue which could be run in the event of the Bill becoming law. I have every confidence in the UKCTS and its training course could make an important contribution in getting any new arrangements off the ground.

The third safeguard is that the people who will be permitted to remove corneal tissue must be employees of a health authority. In supporting this provision which was discussed earlier, the Government are attempting to achieve the same balance between ensuring that the procedures are properly controlled and allowing flexibility to ensure that there are no necessary constraints. As employees of health authorities, staff will be subject to whatever procedures health authorities consider necessary, and I am confident that health authorities will exercise those responsibilities wisely.

Private hospitals will not be prohibited by this provision from performing corneal grafts, and I would expect that in most instances they would enter into arrangements with health authorities or with the UKCTS for the supply of corneal tissue. If they wanted to make their own arrangements for the procurement of corneal tissue, the tissue would either have to be removed by registered medical practitioners as now, or they would need to enter into some agreement with a health authority over the use of health authority staff. I do not see this provision as presenting an unreasonable constraint on private hospitals, and it will of course ensure that the procurement of corneal tissue does not become an entrepreneurial activity undertaken outside health authority control.

The fourth and final safeguard is that certification of death will remain a prerogative of the medical profession. It would to totally wrong for corneal tissue to be removed before death had been certified by a doctor, but the doctor who certifies death will not under this provision necessarily have to be the same doctor as the one who gives the instructions for the tissue to be removed.

So I commend the Corneal Tissue Bill to the House. Corneal grafting is a procedure that can safeguard or restore peoples' sight, but it is a procedure that can only be carried out if there is an adequate supply of corneal tissue. I am told that new techniques are being developed—we have heard about some of them today—which will enable corneal tissue to be successfully stored for considerable periods of time. It is not too fanciful to imagine that before long an ophthalmic surgeon will select the right sort of tissue for each patient from the shelves of a well-stocked eye bank. But this will not be able to happen unless the eye bank is well stocked, and this will require an increase in the supply of corneal tissue, which in turn will require that the present constraints be eased. So patients will benefit greatly from the Bill. The National Health Service as a whole will benefit as demands on staff time are reduced and resources are allocated more efficiently. As I have said, the safeguards that are included in the Bill are sufficient to enable these new procedures to be introduced safely and sensitively.

After a traumatic week, the Bill reveals the House of Commons at its best and is an example of the best use of our procedures. For that we must thank my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter. I congratulate my hon. Friend and assure the House that the Bill has the Government's unqualified support.

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 12, after '(2)', insert

'(powers of court in respect of tobacco vending machines used by young persons)'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for selecting the amendments and for suggesting that they be discussed together.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 are technical and are intended to tidy up the Bill. It might be helpful to the House if I briefly explain their effect. They describe precisely the relevant part, in section 7(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and section 18(2) of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937, in which the word "may" is being substituted by the word "shall" in the Bill as amended in Committee. These provisions concern the powers of the court in respect of tobacco vending machines used by young people. In agreeing to the amendment, the Committee was concerned that the courts should be in no doubt of Parliament's intentions—that when it has been proved that a vending machine selling tobacco is being extensively used by young people, the owner of the machine, or the person on whose premises the machine is kept, should be ordered to take precautions to prevent the machine from being used in that way or, if necessary, that the machine should be removed.

For the sake of consistency and coherence, the amendments that I propose describe the purpose of that clause of the Bill being alluded to, and therefore I hope clarify the value of the amendment. Hon. Members will see that the provisions in subsections (1)(a) and (c) contain similar words of explanation. In these cases the phrases in brackets describe in the case of subsection (1)(a) the nature of the proviso, and in the case of subsection (1)(c) the reference is to the definition of "tobacco". The object is to make the Bill more intelligible.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 also arise out of the Committee's wish to change the discretionary power which at present resides in the court into a duty. In supporting the repeal of subsections (1) of the 1933 Act and of the 1937 Scottish Act—making it an offence to sell any tobacco products to children apparently under the age of 16—the Committee agreed that an appropriate saving clause be included in the Bill to prevent people, who may have offended before this Act came into effect, from losing the defences which were available to them at the date of the alleged offence. An example would be that if a shopkeeper sold some tobacco product other than cigarettes to a person under 16 reasonably believing it to be for someone else's use, he would still be able to rely on that defence even though the case came to trial after the Bill had come into force.

The Committee also agreed to amendments which would replace the word "may" by "shall". This in effect would remove the discretion of the courts to take into account the individual circumstances surrounding a case, and would place a mandatory power on the courts to order the owner of a tobacco vending machine, or the person on whose premises the machine is kept, to take specified precaustions to prevent the machine from being used extensively by persons apparently under the age of 16 years, or for the machine to be removed. It would seem appropriate that a similar saving clause should apply also in this instance, thus ensuring that the Bill does not operate retrospectively in relation to offences alleged to have been committed but not tried before the Bill comes into operation.

The amendments provide for the appropriate saving clauses on these two matters to be incorporated into the Bill. Accordingly, I invite the House to support them.

The Minister has been extremely helpful throughout our consideration of the Bill. I am grateful to him for tabling these amendments and for explaining them. I am particularly pleased about amendments Nos. 1 and 3, because they confirm the Government's acceptance of the decision taken in Committee to toughen up the legislation as it applies to tobacco and cigarette vending machines, which are known to be used extensively by youngsters under the age of 16.

In classic Standing Committee style, we wanted to change the word "may" to "shall". This will require courts to take action when they have evidence that such vending machines are being extensively used by youngsters. The courts will have discretion about what they do about that, but something will be done. I am grateful to the Minister for accepting our suggestion and for tidying up the Bill.

I understand the objective of amendments Nos. 2 and 4. The Minister has made it clear that the qualifications will affect only alleged offences committed before the Bill comes into effect. When the Bill is on the statute book there will be no nonsense about whom the tobacco or cigarettes are being sold for, because it will then be a question of whom they are sold to. If the person is under 16, whoever sells that tobacco will be guilty of an offence beyond any shadow of doubt and action will be taken. The House shares that objective—at least I hope so, but one does not know these days. The amendments are consistent with the Bill's objectives.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) for asking me to support his Bill. The amendments are excellent. In Standing Committee it became clear that there was a great deal of cynical activity by those who sell tobacco products.

I sometimes feel sorry for the manufacturers, who try to restrict the sale of the products by giving instructions to retailers. I feel sorry, too, for retailers, who have to live with the stigma of selling products which many people regard as not only unnecessary but downright unhealthy. However, I get particularly angry about the placing of cigarette machines in locations designed deliberately to attract a market which we know to be illegal, and with traders who sell cigarettes to the young, knowing it to be illegal. Sometimes, they even facilitate selling cigarettes to the young. A child might not be able to afford a full packet, and the retailer may be prepared to sell them wrapped in sweet wrappings or old newspaper. I am told that 10p a stick is common.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the efficacy or effectiveness of the present laws? More important, is he satisfied with the law being proposed under the Bill, and does he think that it is likely to be any more effective? Is not the main problem the implementation of the law rather than its text? Will the Bill enable us to take any significant steps forward?

My hon. Friend is right to say that one of the greatest problems is enforcement. To discuss this matter in Parliament at regular intervals brings it to the attention of the wider public. When legislation is going through Parliament, it becomes a focus for discussion in the media. I warmly welcome the activities of the "That's Life!" programme. The presenters, in their search for consumer fraud and potential danger for consumers, have often exposed cynical practices. At the moment. the programme is doing something about the selling of tobacco to children.

A letter sent to certain hon. Members yesterday by U.S. Tobacco International. Inc. mentioned two points. The manufacturers claim, first, that they are unaware of people breaking the laws of this land and ignoring the guidelines given by the company to the retailers; secondly, that the manufacturers' lawyers are investigating the claims made in the programme. The legislation is good in one respect, above the fact that it further enhances the law, in that it brings publicity to the breach of the law.

As I said in Committee, when I found no fewer than seven retail outlets openly selling to people clearly under the age of 16, I was glad to have the opportunity to expose that. The opportunity given by today's debate and by the debates in Committee and the publicity associated with them is only to the good of our young.

The amendments are a recognition of the fact that there are breaches of the law. The setting up of betting shops close to unemployment benefit offices is a cynical exercise in trying to separate those who have little from what little they have. The £1·50 for a packet of cigarettes is money that children have a fight to get, or that comes from their parent, by fair means or foul. Therefore, I welcome the amendments, which recognise the practices that retailers have used to try to get round the law. I hope that my hon. Friend feels the strength of opinion in the House and in the country.

I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 20, leave out 'Tobacco Products (Sales Restriction)' and insert 'Protection of Children (Tobacco)'.

We have discussed this amendment in Committee, and I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the matter again. At present, the short title of the Bill is Tobacco Products (Sales Restriction) Bill, and on reflection I am not sure that that is entirely appropriate because it would take a broader measure than this to restrict the sale of tobacco, although many of us would like to do that. I look forward to the day when the smoking of tobacco will be seen as the unnatural and dangerous habit that it clearly is.

I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the latest letter than I have received from US Tobacco International, Inc. which manufactures Skoal Bandits. The company makes the point that it does not manufacture or market any cigarettes. Therefore, the present title is somewhat of a misnomer because it implies that such a company manufactures cigarettes. The Protection of Children (Tobacco) Bill would be a much better name.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have received letters from US Tobacco International, Inc. and I intend to refer to it, perhaps on Third Reading if we make good enough progress.

The Bill's objective is not simply to restrict the sales of tobacco, although that would be an excellent objective from the point of view of public health, among other things. The Bill's purpose is specifically and rather narrowly to protect children and young people under the age of 16 from the dangerous effects of all forms of tobacco—both cigarettes and other tobacco products such as Skoal Bandits. We need to protect children against nicotine addiction because of their exposure to such products. It would be useful if the title could be amended in this way to make it clear to the public and everybody concerned that that is what the Bill is about.

When we discussed this matter in Committee, I agreed to consider an amendment along the lines of amendment No. 5. I said in Committee that a change in the short title would normally be warranted only if, as a consequence of other amendments, the original title no longer adequately described to the Bill's purpose. However, taking account of the points made in Committee and of assurances from the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) that this amendment is not intended to extend the scope of the Bill beyond that which we have considered, I was happy to say that we would not object to the renaming of the Bill. Therefore, I support the amendment.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I am perhaps as fortunate as the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). I enjoyed listening to his speech on the Third Reading of his Corneal Tissues Bill, with which we have just dealt. The hon. Member was 19th in the ballot for private Member's Bills and his Bill is the second to complete its progress through the House. I was drawn 12th in the ballot and, with a bit of luck, I hope that my Bill may be third on its way along the corridor to the other place. The hon. Member for Exeter referred to the business of getting private Member's Bills through the House as being like a game of snakes and ladders. I am delighted that the Government and Members of all parties have taken such a constructive view of my Bill, and that good progress has been made thus far.

The Bill has two objectives. The first is to deal with the obvious failure of current legislation to control the sale of tobacco products, especially cigarettes, to youngsters under the age of 16. As the Minister has said in parliamentary answers and in debates, up to £90 million a year is being spent on cigarettes by youngsters under the age of 16 in this country, of which up to £10 million is being spent in Scotland, the part of the United Kingdom about which I am naturally most concerned. That is clearly an outrageous state of affairs.

The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 for England and Wales and the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 are supposed to make such sales illegal, but the scale of the trade makes it abundantly clear that that legislation is, in effect, a dead letter. It may have been too complicated to achieve prosecutions so that the police and other public agencies have been unwilling to try to obtain prosecutions. As a result, the trade has grown steadily and a new generation of youngsters is becoming hooked on a very dangerous habit. The first objective of the Bill is to clarify that legislation and to make it easier to obtain prosecution where appropriate.

I hope that when the Bill reaches the statute book there will be a crackdown on this trade. I hope, too, that the Minister will be able to tell us today that his colleagues at the Home Office and the Scottish Office intend to give directions to the law enforcement and public prosecution authorities to ensure that something is done about this. It is essential that there should be an effective deterrent to traders who blatantly and openly sell large quantities of cigarettes and other tobacco products to young people who are exposed to great danger as a consequence.

The second basic objective of the Bill is to broaden the scope of the legislation on tobacco products to include items such as Skoal Bandits, a product resembling a miniature tea bag and containing finely ground, flavoured tobacco intended to be sucked in the mouth. Such products have been extensively available in the United States for some time and are now, sadly, being manufactured in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) and marketed in this country and in Europe.

Some countries, notably the Republic of Ireland, have banned the sale of such products altogether. The Bill does not propose such a ban, but I believe that it is to be commended in view of the insidious nature of the product. Extending the definition of tobacco products to include such items will at least make it clear that it is illegal to sell them to youngsters under the age of 16.

The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride have referred to the letter from Mr. J. R. Walter, director of marketing for Europe of US Tobacco International, Inc., who has evidently been reading the reports of proceedings on the Bill in Committee. Mr. Walter suggests that his company would not dream of selling its products to youngsters under the age of 16, taking an almost "holier than thou" attitude to the matter. He says:

"To the best of our knowledge Skoal Bandits are not currently offered through vending machines. The company has no plans to produce a vending machine pack."

If potato crisps can be sold through vending machines, it should not be unduly difficult to sell items of this kind in the same way. Whether or not it is nominally company policy, it is clear that retailers are likely to use that manner of marketing as well as across-the-counter sales.

Is the hon. Gentleman calling into question a published letter to all Members from the director of marketing? The letter states clearly:

"The company has no plans to produce a vending machine pack."

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he does not believe that?

It is no doubt perfectly true as far as it goes, but it is easy enough to put a normal pack of Skoal Bandits into a vending machine which could be used by anyone entering the building or street where it is located. It may not nominally be company policy to sell the product through vending machines, but the company cannot prevent that. There is no point in merely paying lip service to the principle. Whether the company likes it or not, vending machine sales are likely to happen.

The letter is very carefully worded. It continues:

"Our product flavours are not aimed at children."

I have two packets here. One is peppermint flavoured and the other is berry flavoured and very sweet, to judge by the smell. The flavours may not be specifically aimed at children, but sweets tend to be attractive to children. Whether or not the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) or the company acknowledges it, it is inevitable that such products will be attractive to children.

I am sorry to be so persistent, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is rather more concerned than he needs to be. My investigations show that those are normal descriptions for snuff products. The description "peppermint flavour" is a normal description used by any tobacco company manufacturing snuff products. A person buying a packet of snuff would be asked which flavour was required. The company has merely taken the names of flavours used for snuff products.

Methinks the hon. Gentleman protests a little too much. I understand that the Doorkeeper has some snuff. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to ask him for some cherry flavour. He is trying very hard, but I do not think that he is convincing many people.

Mr. Walters continues:

"US Tobacco does not encourage or condone the distribution of free samples of Skoal Bandits to young children."

Again, the words are very carefully chosen. Whether or not the company encourages or condones it, there is evidence of free distribution of samples to young children, as the BBC programme showed. Whether or not it is company policy, it has been going on in other countries and it is likely to happen here.

On promotional policy, Mr. Walters states:

"The Company has not offered T-shirts in small sizes."

It is not impossible for small people to get into large T-shirts. At the public swimming pool in the area in which I live with my family I have seen quite young children in T-shirts bearing the Skoal Bandit logo.

The letter refers to toy cars. It says:

"The Company does not utilize or authorise the production of any toy cars with our product name on them."

One only had to watch "That's Life!" the other night and one would have been able to see a toy car with the Skoal Bandits logo emblazoned on it. [Interruption.] Hon. Members need not worry, I have nearly finished with the letter.

The letter refers to Government grants. It says:

"The Company has not received £1 million from the Scottish Office. As a new company establishing employment in the area, we do of course qualify for the normal grants available."

I should be fascinated to know how much the company has got. I tabled a question to the Scottish Office last December, to which the Under-Secretary of State replied:

"There have been three offers of regional selective assistance over the past 10 years to companies in Scotland classified to the tobacco industry in the standard industrial classification. Details of grants offered in each year cannot be given as to do so would disclose information relating to individual companies."—[Official Repot?, 16 December 1985; Vol. 89, c. 62.]

Many people would be fascinated to know how much money has been handed out in the form of public incentives to that company and other companies. It is public money and people have a right to know what is going on.

rose—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is beginning to stray a little from his own Bill. I am sure that he will direct his remarks to the Third Reading.

I am trying to deal with some of the points raised by this company in respect of my Bill.

It would also be pertinent to mention the advertisement and promotion of the product. The Minister was kind enough to send all of the members of the Committee a copy of the new voluntary code of conduct, the voluntary agreement between the Government and tobacco companies on the advertising of tobacco and tobacco products. Unfortunately, as I understand it, that code does not apply to Skoal Bandits. A separate deal of some kind applies to them. The comments I have been making raise some concern about the conduct of this company in respect of promoting Skoal Bandits. There is cause for concern about that.

My concern was borne out this time last week when I was speaking to the pupils of a primary school. Kingsmeadow primary school, in Haddington, in my constituency. I was giving the standard talk to schoolchildren about what Members of Parliament do. I was trying to say what splendid people we all are and what a useful job we do. I cited as an example my job of steering this private Member's Bill through the House. I mentioned that the Bill would have some bearing on the product called Skoal Bandits. When I said that, many little faces brightened up with recognition and they said, "Oh yes, we have heard of that product." They were primary schoolchildren, not 16-year-olds.

We have seen that the company producing Skoal Bandits is sponsoring motor-cycle races and we have seen the logo on various advertising material. The children already knew about the product, knew the name and found it attractive. That is getting a little close to home and I am worried about it. The first thing is to get the product name known by youngsters and others and it is only a matter of time before some of them get a little pocket money, see the product in a shop and buy it. At that stage we have the next youngster taking a potentially addictive product.

The product is certainly addictive if it is taken repeatedly over a relatively short period. It is extremely dangerous and can cause serious disfigurement and lethal diseases, including cancer of the mouth. That is obviously a matter of concern and I hope that the Government will, if necessary, reconsider legislative control of the promotion of this type of product.

Obviously, the British Medical Association and others will keep a close eye on the effectiveness of the voluntary agreement. We hope that they will succeed, but I am afraid that the track record of earlier voluntary agreements has not been terribly satisfactory. Obviously, we hope that this agreement will work a little better.

It is appropriate to thank everyone who has been involved in drafting and working on the Bill, in the House, in Committee and elsewhere. I am grateful to the Minister for his assistance and for the Government's active support for the principles in the Bill. I must stress that this is not one of those Bills produced by the Government and hopped around the Back Benches. It was the result of private enterprise on my part. I am grateful to the Minister for his active support of the principle when I raised the suggestion with him. I am particularly grateful for the original suggestion from the East Lothian local health council, which deals with such affairs in my own constituency. That organisation was concerned about the possible threat to youngsters in my area exposed to the type of advertising I have been talking about. It suggested that this legislation would be useful; that started the ball rolling.

I am grateful to the British Medical Association, to Action on Smoking and Health and to many hon. Members on both sides of the House for their assistance during the consideration of the Bill. I am also grateful for that curious commodity, good fortune, which seldom comes the way of an Opposition Back Bencher, or even an Opposition Front Bencher, these days.

As I said earlier, the Bill started life as No. 12 in the ballot. Here we are at No. 3, with the prospect of the Bill going to the House of Lords and hopefully landing on the statute book before long. As I said earlier, I hope that this legislation will lead to genuine action and a real crackdown on this pernicious trade and that we will see a diminution in the amount of tobaco products of all descriptions being sold to young people in this country.

The Bill comes before us, as the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) mentioned, shortly after we have seen the new voluntary agreement on advertising and promotions. Whatever one's feelings may be about its shortcomings, one certainly welcomes the emphasis that it places on discouraging young people from taking up smoking.

The Bill also comes before us shortly before we expect to see a voluntary agreement on sports sponsorship. It is encouraging to see that, at last, the broadcasters are recognising the influence that the broadcasting of sponsored sport has on young people. They are also beginning to recognise their responsibility when the sponsoring is carried out by tobacco companies. I hope that as a result of the new agreement, when we see it, and the recognition by the broadcasting authorities, we shall see some changes. For example, snooker is enjoyed for many hours by many people, but it has virtually become a continuous advertisement for cigarettes. It is bound to influence young people.

As the hon. Member for East Lothian said, the Bill extends the definition of tobacco products and strengthens and clarifies the law on the sale of such products to the under-16s. Once the Bill becomes law, as we hope, it will be very important that it is complied with and enforced. The essence of our system of government is that the majority will comply with the law, and that it is necessary to enforce it in only a small number of cases. That is so over the whole range of conduct, whether we are talking about speeding or—dare I mention—Sunday trading. Whatever the area, unless the majority comply voluntarily with the law, we have anarchy or we shall have to move towards some sort of police state.

In this context, therefore, a heavy responsibility lies upon the tobacco industry and retailers. It is to the credit of the industry that a feature of the new voluntary agreement is that it will devote £1 million to a campaign in the retail trade to prevent the sale of tobacco products to those under the age of 16. One realises the difficulties that face retailers, just as they face publicans, particularly nowadays, in telling whether a young person is over or under 16, especially girls.

It is a sobering thought that 41 per cent. of children are smoking by the age of 16. The hon. Member for East Lothian mentioned the enormous sums of money spent on tobacco products by those youngsters. In a survey, 86 per cent. of those under 16 said that they had bought their cigarettes from machines or shops. There are far too many stories, such as the ones we have heard from the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), about retailers being willing to break packs and sell single cigarettes, for us to be able to dismiss them. Although, of course, I am not making a general condemnation of tobacco products retailers, that suggests that a relatively small number are deliberately, knowingly and continually breaking the law. They must cease that practice. I hope that the campaign to which I referred will be vigorously pursued by the industry.

Difficult though it is bound to be for the police and local authorities to enforce the law, the fact that in one year there were but 45 prosecutions for selling cigarettes to those under 16 does not suggest that there is a dynamic enforcement campaign by the powers that be. One realises that the local authorities and the police have a wide range of responsibilities. All of us have experience and knowledge of many of the responsibilities and problems that face the police. Of course, we must keep the matter in perspective. However, an occasional blitz on tobacco retailers, supported by exemplary sentences by magistrates, would have some effect. I hope that in his winding-up speech my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will say that there will be a special push on that front. Perhaps it is as well, too, to remind retailers and the courts that tobacconists need a licence to sell tobacco products, and it is possible for that licence to be withdrawn.

I congratulate the hon. Member for East Lothian on the skilful way in which he has steered the Bill through Committee and the House, and, indeed, behind the scenes. I wish it well.

The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) made a thoughtful contribution to the debate.

It gives me no pleasure to be attempting to turn away jobs from my constituency, as it may appear. I appreciate that we have fairly high unemployment and jobs are extremely important, but other matters must be considered. The health of the community cannot be jeopardised by certain occupations. One must accept responsibility in that respect.

The Bill is relatively modest. If some hon. Members are concerned about what they consider to be people's freedom to kill themselves as they please, I can understand their being heated about that. The Bill does not ban the production of tobacco products. It does not ban the production of the substance about which we are most concerned. Perhaps we should take a leaf out of the book of the Irish Republic and ban it, but that is not what the Bill does.

Surely those who are concerned about freedom should also be concerned about the encouragement or discouragement that is given to habits that are extremely dangerous to health. All that the Bill is trying to do is discourage people from taking up habits that are dangerous to them. There is no doubt that this is a dangerous habit. According to the figures that have been produced in the United States, in the past 10 years or so the number of people using substances similar to this has risen to about 7 million. Those people are mostly children. If one takes into account the differences in population in this country, that means that 2 million young people are at risk from the use of these substances.

Those substances are extremely dangerous. Skoal Bandit dipping snuff contains nicotine, which is a powerful agent for raising blood pressure. It also contains carcinogens, which are cancer-causing substances. The nicotine product is absorbed from the mouth and enters the bloodstream very quickly. If enough is taken, it produces a sustained rise in blood pressure. If that occurs at an early age, there is cause for great concern for the future health of the individual. The person will probably continue to have high blood pressure in adult life, with subsequent danger to the heart, and cardiac conditions will ensue. Carcinogenous substances are causative factors in various types of cancers of the mouth and jaw and other areas such as the back of the nose and the pharynx.

We would be remiss in our duty as legislators if, however much we are concerned about the right of people to take dangerous substances, we did not take two aspects into consideration. First, we must consider the extent to which we should make it clear to people that these substances are dangerous and discourage them from pursuing and adopting habits that are dangerous to their health. Secondly, we should consider the fact that the substance which the Bill pinpoints is attractive to a group of people who are not of an age to be able to determine such matters. If we are not in loco parentis, perhaps we should help parents to protect their children's health.

I have no compunction in sponsoring a Bill such as this, because I consider it my duty not only as a medical practitioner but as a legislator to take such steps that I think will assist parents without interfering too much with their rights, in their attempt to ensure that the children they have borne will grow up as healthy adults and not subject themselves to useless pastimes and dangerous habits that will do a great deal to undo—to use a tortuous phrase—the good that has been done by a century of progress in improving health.

; I congratulate the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) on his skill in presenting this measure. I have no wish to prevent it from reaching the statute book. I welcome the measure, and although it is known in the House and outside that I take a liberal attitude towards the freedom of the individual even to harm him or herself—

The Liberals are not here.

That is typical, of course.

Although I am known to have a liberal attitude to the freedom of the individual, I acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for East Lothian. When talking about minors and especially about people under the age of 16, we have a duty to recognise that that freedom must be restricted. I accept the point made by the hon. Gentleman—that somebody who does not smoke nicotine products is likely to be healthier and less likely to endanger his health than someone who consumes tobacco products. In the absence of being in loco parentis, we have a duty as legislators. The House has taken the view in the past through legislation about children and young persons that it has to protect children from forming habits such as smoking, and if the law is weak and is not to fall into disrepute, it should be strengthened. The Bill seeks to do precisely that.

All hon. Members have received a letter from US Tobacco International, Inc., and the whole of that letter should be placed on record so that there is no doubt about the company's attitude towards the Bill. I have no interest to declare. I have no financial interests with any tobacco company, but I met people in US Tobacco before the Second Reading of the Bill. I had lunch with them, but the only thing I received from the company was a box of 25 cigars. One cigar was offered to me at lunch and, the box having been broken, I was given the rest. That is the extent of my financial and personal interest in any tobacco company.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us who made that tobacco product if the company that gave it to him did not?

The company that manufactured the cigars given to me is US Tobacco. It manufactures cigars and Skoal Bandits in Britain. It does not manufacture cigarettes in Britain, nor do I think it manufactures cigarettes in the United States. The letter, which should be placed on the record, will assist the hon. Member for East Lothian and the House to recognise that US Tobacco approaches this Bill and its responsibilities seriously.

I assume the letter that I have is the same as the one sent to other hon. Members. It reads:

"Dear Mr. Brown,

Following our conversation"—

that was a conversation that I had with people in the company between Second Reading and today—

"I am writing to give you some factual information upon a number of inaccuracies and apparent misunderstandings concerning my Company and our product Skoal Bandits, which were voiced in the official report upon the committee stage of the Tobacco Products (Sales Restrictions) Bill.

As the manufacturers of Skoal Bandits we support this Bill, as it not only removes any potential misunderstandings or loopholes from the law, but should also serve to reinforce our long standing Company policy on age."

Nothing could be more categorical than that statement.

The letter goes on:

"All bona fide Skoal Bandit retailers are aware of our policy of only directing our product at adults. Adults in this case being defined as aged eighteen or over. With regard to comments contained within the published minutes of the committee meeting, the following are factual points responding to specific statements made.

Vending machine sales"—

these have been spoken about this morning—

"To the best of our knowledge Skoal Bandits are not currently offered through vending machines. The Company has no plans to produce a vending machine pack."

That was also touched on by an hon. Member.

"Our product flavours are not aimed at children. Nomenclature and flavouring has followed the traditional snuff products"—

I made that point in an intervention—

"where, as evidenced in retail trade publication price lists, similar product names are available"

As I said earlier, those product names are used for the sale of snuff products.

The letter goes on:

"Falling cigarette sales—Skoal Bandits are not designed to meet falling cigarette sales. Our Company does not manufacture or market any cigarettes."

In the course of my speech I omitted to refer to falling cigarette sales. U.S. Tobacco says:

"Skoal Bandits are not designed to meet falling cigarette sales."

I have a slip of paper which I understand is enclosed in every packet of Skoal Bandits. It says:

"A new way to enjoy tobacco. New Skoal Bandits is tobacco with a big difference; quite simply, you can now get real tobacco pleasure without lighting up—Skoal Bandits is an individual portion of fine quality mint flavoured tobacco in a handy little pre-moistened pouch. So you can now enjoy the taste and satisfaction of real tobacco anywhere, anytime—even when or where smoking isn't convenient or allowed."

If that is not suggesting that this product can replace the use of cigarettes I do not know what is.

I do not dissent from what the hon. Gentleman says. US Tobacco is making the point that, even if, with falling cigarette sales, some companies are trying to increase revenue by the manufacture of other products, it is not doing that. This company does not manufacture, and has not manufactured, cigarettes. Yes, it is seeking to capture the gap in the market caused by a decline in the consumption of cigarettes.

Perhaps the company is providing a signal service towards solving the problem of how to stop the habit-forming cigarette syndrome. In the past, many people have tried to devise a means of consuming tobacco or tobacco substitute products so that the danger of cigarette smoking is reduced. I accept that there is a health risk from the consumption of Skoal Bandits. I do not deny that, but—I have no medical evidence to support this and I may stand corrected by the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller)—although there is a health risk, there is less risk from consuming Skoal Bandits than if one were regularly to smoke cigarettes.

I should like to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the point in the letter about falling cigarette sales. It says:

"Our company does not manufacture or market any cigarettes."

That is a non sequitur. No one is saying that that company manufactures cigarettes and is marketing Skoal Bandits to counter its falling sales. Cigarette sales are falling and companies which want to get into the act of selling tobacco will use other means of doing so. The disclaimer which the company makes does not make sense when related to the first sentence in the letter, because nobody is saying that the company has been making cigarettes and its sales have fallen. The company has set up an Aunt Sally and tried to knock it down. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not try to ensure that this Bill does not go through.

No.

The company itself says that it wants the Bill. I would not be telling the truth if I were to say that this method of using tobacco is as dangerous as cigarette smoking, because it is not. Cigarette smoking is the most dangerous form of using tobacco. I accept that this product is not as dangerous as cigarettes, but it is still dangerous and could lead to cigarette smoking. In the main, it is young children who are taking it.

I have no intention of frustrating the Bill's progress. If I had wanted to do that, I would have used the skills which some suggest I have in Committee or on Second Reading. I merely want to correct some of the misunderstandings that were expressed in Committee. It could be argued that some regular cigarette smokers have changed to Skoal Bandits and that they have contributed to a net gain in the nation's health. Skoal Bandits might have contributed to the fall in cigarette consumption.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this form of tobacco consumption might be beneficial in terms of the problem of secondary smoking?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Some hon. Members who support the Bill more enthusiastically than I do would be the first to argue that there are many public places where non-smokers have to endure secondary smoking. The consumption of Skoal Bandits is much less dangerous to them and, to that extent, they are socially beneficial to non-smokers. There has been much debate about the adverse effects of smoking on nonsmokers.

I am aware that my hon. Friend does not want to destroy the Bill, but will he explain why the Republic of Ireland has recently banned all sales of Skoal Bandits?

The Republic of Ireland's social policy—on abortion, for example—and its economic policy provide good examples of what not to do.

There seems to be one issue on which the people of the North and South of Ireland are united. I received a letter from health organisations in Northern Ireland yesterday expressing deep disappointment at the Northern Ireland Office's failure to co-operate with the Republic of Ireland to extend the ban to the entire island.

Order. We are getting into another debate. We must stick to the Bill, which concerns tobacco products being sold to people under 16. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will return to the subject of the Bill.

The next paragraph of the letter deals with precisely that. It says:

"Free distribution of samples—US Tobacco does not encourage or condone the distribution of free samples of Skoal Bandits to young children. Any employee found to be knowingly sampling anyone under the age of eighteen will be dismissed. Our lawyers are currently investigating the allegations and claims made in the BBC programme 'That's Life'."

That programme said that Skoal Bandits were sold to a 10-year-old boy in Keighley, Yorkshire, by a woman, the implication being that she was an employee of US Tobacco.

There was no such implication.

The implication was in an interview. US Tobacco has investigated the incident and found that the person concerned was not an employee. If she had been, she would have been dismissed. The company welcomes the Bill because it will protect the company as well. The letter continues:

"The Company has not offered T-shirts in small sizes. During a recent promotion, which was linked soley to purchase of product, respondents were only able to secure T-shirts in medium or larger sizes.

The Company does not utilize nor authorise the production of any toy cars with our product name on them. We maintain vigilance on these issues and in the past our lawyers have contacted companys producing and selling such toys, instructing them to desist. In the light of the recent allegations on `Thats Life!' our lawyers are again investigating.

The Company has not received £1 million from the Scottish Office. As a new company establishing employment in the area we do of course qualify for the normal grants available. In replying to a question in the House of Commons. Peter Morrison MP, Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry stated in February that the assistance provided to tobacco companies in England, Scotland and Wales under the Industrial Development Act 1982 (as amended) in the year to December 31, 1985 was £349,000."

That is the total for all assistance under regional development grants—

Order. I called to order the promoter when he started to develop that argument, and I must do the same with the hon. Gentleman. He must return to the content of the Bill.

I apologise, but I am anxious to put the record straight, as selective quotation of the letter might have given the impression that the company does not favour the Bill. It was alleged in Committee that the Government gave the company £1 million to set up a manufacturing plant. That is simply not true.

What is the truth?

The truth is that a total of £349,000 has been given through regional assistance to all tobacco companies in the United Kingdom, with the exception of Northern Ireland.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the figure quoted by the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, includes grant given by the Scottish Development Agency?

I could find that out. The company says that the parliamentary answer said that

"the assistance provided to tobacco companies in England"—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must pay attention to my ruling. He is now going over the Committee stage, which is wholly irregular on Third Reading. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to refer to the Bill. If he does not, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will realise that it is difficult to do that when the company is responding to criticisms that were made in Committee. I acknowledge your injunction, Sir, and I will have to rely on the last paragraph of the letter, which refers to the "That's Life!" programme. I hope that all hon. Members who have a copy of that letter read the last paragraph carefully.

US Tobacco, which manufactures Skoal Bandits, welcomes this Bill, as I do, because it clarifies the matter. I acknowledge, as does the company, that this House is responsible for ensuring that the law is obeyed in relation to selling cigarette products and tobacco-related products to children under 16 years of age. Skoal Bandits are omitted from the description of "tobacco products". I accept that Skoal Bandits are tobacco products and should therefore be included in the schedule to the Children and Young Persons Act. US Tobacco is not in the business of selling its product to children under the age of 16; indeed, it does not wish to market its product to persons under the age of 18. If anything, the company is more vigilant than would be the case under the Bill.

I submit that this company has an honourable record in the context of tobacco companies. It is not irresponsible and has a fine reputation in the United States. It provides a number of jobs in this country. The record of the hon. Member for East Kilbride in relation to tobacco and its dangers is proud and honourable. It is courageous for the hon. Member to take his principled stand on this matter, when he has within his constituency the factory that is manufacturing Skoal Bandits. I respect the fact that the hon. Gentleman has not changed his view, even though it must be said that US Tobacco is regarded by the Government with favour to the extent that it has received a grant from the Scottish Development Agency.

Order. We are not discussing a tobacco company or regional grants. I must warn the hon. Gentleman that he must take notice of what I say; otherwise I shall have to order him to resume his seat.

I apologise once again, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point I am trying to make is that this company seeks to carry out its obligations and responsibilities honourably with regard to children under the age of 16. That the Government regard it in that light is borne out by the fact that the company manufactures that product in this country. Thus, I suggest that the House should take at face value the letter that the company wrote to all hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee.

I have made it plain that I do not want to prevent this Bill from reaching the statute book. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Lothian on introducing it. I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have strayed in my remarks; it was certainly not deliberate on my part. I normally strive to the utmost to remain in order, so I apologise for trespassing a little on your good will.

Having just recovered from your announcement, Mr. Deputy Speaker, following the third reading of the Corneal Tissue Bill, that the Ayes had it, and having then gone on to read the Standing Committee report of this Bill, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) referred to the incident of caning in his youth, I thought it high time to concentrate on the important details of the Bill.

There are three main points to make. I hope that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), in introducing the Bill, was concerned with much more than Skoal Bandits. Many other similar products are not necessarily marketed in the same way but are coming on to the market and have tobacco as part of their make-up. They are dangerous to young people and encourage them to take up smoking.

On this point I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes when he says he believes that the use of these products might actually reduce the habit-forming syndrome, as he calls it. I do not believe that that is true; I believe that products such as Skoal Bandits may start young people on the road to smoking. If a product is given a sweet or peppermint tobacco flavour and young people acquire a taste for that product, the step from there to the habit of smoking is smaller than going straight to smoking cigarettes. I am worried that the availability of such products will be a dangerous step towards the habit-forming syndrome and will increase the incidence of smoking among young people.

When my hon. Friend passes through the doors of this House he is subjected to temptation because there is a smell of snuff, a pinch of which I had before I came into the House. Is he suggesting that, because the snuff is flavoured in a rather delightful way, every hon. Member who is a non-smoker of tobacco, and cigarettes in particular, but who takes a pinch of snuff is increasing the risk of then smoking cigarettes?

I know that, in his half-hour speech, my hon. Friend seemed to forget that the substance of the Bill is about young people under the age of 16 and the influence that Skoal Bandits and similar sweets could have on them in creating the habit of smoking cigarettes. We should be directing all our attention today to those people and not concentrating on people who later in life may decide to take snuff or to smoke. Although that is important, it is not central to the Bill.

What is relevant to the Bill is that, unless we extend the description of tobacco products, young people will have a greater incentive to start smoking cigarettes by first starting on sweet and flavoured snuff. That is why I strongly support the Bill, because it extends the description of tobacco products to cover not only Skoal Bandits but a whole host of goods which are beginning to come on to the market and which will have a dangerous effect.

Referring again to the intervention, I do not believe that we should under-estimate the extent of this problem. I understand that 30 per cent. of fifth formers are regularly smoking and that £90 million per annum is spent on tobacco products by those under 16. Thus, we have an enormous problem. While I strongly welcome the decrease in the incidence of smoking, what is particularly worrying is that at present there is an increase in the incidence of young people smoking. That is extremely important, and one reason why I warmly welcome the Bill.

Does my hon. Friend not believe that perhaps the reason for increased smoking among the young is increased advertising at sporting events, although they are supposed to inspire the young to health?

I do not want to be drawn now into discussing a point that is not essential to the Third reading, but I do not believe that that is true. An effective voluntary agreement is the solution to that problem, not a total ban. Much as I hate smoking—I do not smoke myself and dislike the secondary effects—I believe a voluntary and effective agreement—persuasion, not compulsion—is the solution and the hallmark of representative Government on this issue.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I will not give way again, because several other hon. Members wish to speak and other hon. Members who have sponsored Bills want to bring them forward. I hope they will have time to do so.

I should like to draw attention to another main point which is relevant to the Bill. It is a key debating point because it covers prosecutions and how we can effect the implementation of the Bill. I am worried because in 1984 only 42 prosecutions for selling cigarettes to young people went ahead. There is no doubt that such sales are widespread. We must tackle the problem, but it is difficult to do more than merely persuade the retailers through debates such as this that they have a major social and legal responsibility to young people. The time has come for a well-publicised campaign by local authorities and the police. One cannot expect the campaign to run year in, year out, but I believe that a campaign similar to the television licence campaign would be effective. The problem is under-estimated both inside and outside the House, and it is vital that it should be tackled.

I would not adopt the idea of identity cards, which was suggested in Standing Committee as one way of tackling the problem of young people buying cigarettes, and would not expect a massive increase in the policing of retail outlets, but a well-publicised campaign would reduce the considerable danger of escalation. Unless the Bill is passed, there will be more products such as Skoal Bandits. I hope that the House recognises that so much money is spent on cigarettes by those under 16 and that the dangers of cancer of the mouth and tongue from these alternative products are so serious that we should pass the legislation as rapidly as possible. The House should give the hon. Member for East Lothian all possible support.

I apologise to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and to the House for missing the Report stage. I came to the House as quickly as I could and was glad to be here for Third Reading.

The Bill is right in principle, but I am not sure that it will achieve the ambitions of the Bill's sponsor and those who closely supported him. Sometimes it is difficult to identify 16-year-olds. Well-grown nine-year-olds can take in people by looking a young 16. Young people can make themselves look older than they are.

Recently, I toured the cancer and heart wards at the Central Middlesex hospital with an eminent surgeon from near my constituency. We looked at people suffering heart disease. The surgeon was convinced that the heart disease and cancer in the patients we saw had been caused by smoking. He felt that some people started smoking before they were 16. I saw some horrific and sad cases. I am not in a position, nor do I seek, to quarrel with the medical profession. I realise from observation the dangers of smoking. I believe that widespread advertising to show people the dangers of smoking may be so agressive that it is self-defeating.

I smoked quite a lot between the ages of nine and 16 but did not smoke much after 16. I have not smoked cigarettes, cigars or pipe tobacco for many years. In January, my 80-year-old uncle died. He has told me that he started to smoke when he was a toddler. The post mortem showed that, although he had smoked all his life and had had a ghastly graveyard cough for 60 or 70 years, he was as clean as a whistle. There was no sign of cancer in the mouth, the lungs or anywhere else. It may be a little dangerous to generalize—

Stupid.

—like that twerp on the Opposition Front Bench who makes fatuous remarks from a sedentary position on a serious and proven point.

Prove it, then.

It is proven. I have seen it with my own eyes. I am describing a member of my own family. He was one of a large number of individuals who lived and died in the way I described. He did not suffer the scourge of cancer. It has been suggested that someone who lived and smoked as he did would have died from cancer.

The hon. Gentleman should understand that the Royal College of Physicians does not believe that it is inevitable that a person will die of cancer-related diseases if he smokes. It says only that smoking kills 100,000 people a year. Anecdotes about 90-year-olds who smoke 100 cigarettes a day will not counter that fact.

I do not just suggest that the Royal College makes that claim. The hon. Gentleman has no basis for saying that. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to me, he would not have made such an erroneous remark. I hope that he will listen carefully because I am speaking sincerely and am not seeking to defeat the Bill. It is right to express reservations. We are not here to rubber-stamp the measures of other hon. Members, however sincere they are and however strongly they feel. Generalisations on smoking and on non-smoking abound. It is right to allay some of the fears.

I respect the need to protect young people from smoking. I spent 23 years in the teaching profession and often punished pupils as severely as I could to try to prevent them from smoking. However, hounding people too severely can push them in the opposite direction. Seven hundred of my constituents work at Gallagher's in Northolt. They are thoroughly honourable and produce fine cigarettes and tobacco. I talk with them often about the arguments against smoking. They feel that the claims against smoking are sometimes excessive and often unproven. The onus rests with those making the generalisations, particularly about those under 16, to prove their point. I ask the Bill's promoters to bear that in mind.

Voluntary agreements which are thought to have the power to influence those under 16 can work both ways. If agreement is voluntary, it is voluntary. Some people will voluntarily respect it, and others will voluntarily oppose or ignore it. We must accept that. If people make a voluntary agreement, hoping to achieve a complete prohibition, in this case, of smoking, but fail to do so, they should remember that the agreement is voluntary and that they cannot enforce it. One must remember the meaning of "voluntary", and either seek complete prohibition honestly or remember the voluntary principle. When a matter is voluntary, sometimes one achieves one's hope, but sometimes one does not. Almost always, one compromises.

One must warn, advise and persuade people against smoking, but one must not take away their right to choose to do so, especially when other people are not affected, and particularly if they have been warned. Providing they know the dangers to their health, they must be allowed the right to choose. That is an important democratic principle. After all, many young and old people have far worse addictions than smoking, such as drugs. Many people, even those under 16, depend on Valium or cocaine, and others are addicted to excessive alcohol and spirits. It is important to remember that, when we rightly rail against the evils of smoking.

One of the substances which people under 16 are particularly fond of consuming and which is extremely bad for their health—I sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) is not present—is sugar. It is one of the most terrifying health risks to children under 16. Those who support the Bill should be equally worried about the consumption of excess sugar by those under 16.

Order. The Bill deals with tobacco products. I have been tolerant with the hon. Member, but he is beginning to widen the debate about the merits of tobacco products. We are on Third Reading, and speeches must be related strictly to the provisions in the Bill. I remind the House, yet again, that we are dealing only with those under the age of 16.

There is no question in my mind that we are dealing with those under 16, and I shall be careful to respond to your direction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I feel that I am straying.

Shakespeare said that forbidden fruits taste the sweetest. One of the difficulties of forbidding smoking is that it makes it attractive to the young. The main reason why young children smoke is because they know that adults and teachers dislike it intensely. We have little alternative but to forbid it, but it produces the major disciplinary difficulty in schools of overcoming children's attraction to smoking because adults object to it, for all the good reasons. Children smoke in lavatories and behind buildings. [Interruption.]

The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) laughs, but I know that from my long experience. If he had more experience of wider matters, he would make more pungent, cogent speeches than he does. It is a serious matter, and if he is amused at my point, I can tell him of a school in which pupils aged over 16 were thought to have a big influence on those under 16.

The hon. Gentleman may know the school. The example of older children on younger children is real. If those over 16 are seen to smoke it encourages younger children to do so. In this particular school a new and able head decided that he would hit hard at those under 16 who smoked, and throw the book at them. He decided to allow those aged over 16 to smoke in a sixth form room, separated for the purpose, and away from another sixth form room where there was strictly no smoking.

The removal of the excitement felt by over-16s about defying school rules on smoking caused the practice to die. They no longer wanted to smoke. The object of the exercise was achieved much more effectively than by imposing excessive penalties on smokers, which is the approach that the House is in danger of inroducing with the Bill. I do not suggest that if we permit under-16s to smoke the habit will fade away, but excessive prohibition and compulsion make it exciting and we shall not achieve what we wish.

The moral is obvious. Our duty to conduct ourselves properly, to remain in good health and to make the best possible contribution to society is best achieved through freedon to choose. That is always more effective than trying to get people to do the right thing by endless and often mindless compulsion.

I support the Bill. I apologise to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) for having been absent during the earlier stages of the Bill, but it was my only opportunity to register for the London marathon.

As a Member of Parliament for a Bristol constituency, my support for the Bill may not have been automatically expected, but there is no doubt that the tobacco industry nationwide opposes sales to young people. The extension of legislation to any tobacco product is advantageous, because I and many people believe that the best way to stop people smoking is by education. If we encourage children to smoke at an early age by providing what one might describe as ersatz products, we automatically introduce children to cigarettes.

With many hon. Members, I have received representations on the subject of Skoal Bandits. One of my constituents, a Mrs. Smith of 3 Butler House, has written to me expressing grave concern that they encourage young people into the habit of smoking, and I share that view.

My only reservation about the Bill—if the matter has already been explained I apologise for raising it again—is that clause 3(2) says that the Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland.

The point was mentioned briefly. My first draft of the Bill included an amendment to the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order, but the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who is responsible for health advised me that that was not the most appropriate way to deal with the matter in Northern Ireland. I have been assured that the Government will introduce a parallel measure for Northern Ireland through the appropriate mechanism.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. With those few comments, I express further support for the Bill and hope that it receives a fair passage through both Houses.

Most hon. Members recognise that we should step up the effort to stop the under-age use of tobacco products, which are undoubtedly being promoted deliberately by the tobacco companies, in some cases with the connivance of the BBC through the excessive showing of tobacco company-sponsored events, for which the companies should be charged. I welcome the additional restrictions that are proposed in the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson).

No one believes that an approach based solely on restrictions is likely to succeed. It is becoming clearer and clearer that the publicity campaigns held to date to induce people to stop smoking have succeeded with some groups but have signally failed with others. We need much more emphasis on publicity campaigns that will have an effect on the groups that have taken least notice to date, including young people. It has always been against the law to sell tobacco products to those aged under 16, and it is a welcome proposition that we should increase the efficacy of that law. We hope that the Government will exhort prosecuting authorities throughout the country to take the matter seriously.

The other purpose of the Bill is to bring Skoal Bandits within the ambit of the law. I believe that these products are wholly infamous. In our discussion on the Bill on corneal tissues there were references to bringing entrepreneurs into health. In this case, entrepreneurs are bieng brought into ill health. On the very day when the company launched its product in Britain, the chief medical officer of the Department of Health and Social Security and his equivalent in Scotland advised every doctor that the use of the thing was dangerous and likely to induce cancer that could disfigure and cause death. It is a barmy society that is prepared to countenance giving Government grants to build a factory to produce a product which the chief medical officer then has to advise doctors is likely to kill some of their patients. That is plain loopy. We should resist that approach. It is regrettable that US Tobacco has been permitted to set up its plant in this country at all.

Several hon. Members have referred to the contents of the letter from J. R. Walter, Director of Marketing Europe. All I can say is that the letter to hon. Members from US Tobacco is cant and humbug from start to finish.

What basis has the hon. Gentleman for saying that?

The hon. Gentleman need only compare what is happening with what is contained in the letter. I do not propose to burden the House by going through it in detail again. Other hon. Members have already done so, some of them have been ruled out of order, and I wish to remain within the rules of order.

We have also heard preposterous arguments that it may be less dangerous to use Skoal Bandits than to smoke cigarettes, and therefore Skoal Bandits are all right. Someone who has habitually played Russian roulette with two live rounds in the chamber might as well propose to use only one live round instead. It would be sensible to oppose playing Russian roulette at all, and we should oppose tobacco products altogether.

The Bill is a welcome measure extending present and new controls to cover Skoal Bandits. The advertising used by US Tobacco shows at what market the product is aimed. In the very box that the stinking—literally stinking—things are sold in, we read:

"Like your first beer Skoal Bandits can be a taste that might take a few days to acquire and get the most out of. You'll need time to work out how often to take Skoal Bandits, and how long to leave it in. Time to adjust to this new way to tobacco satisfaction. It's up to you, but whatever you do, stick with it."

The real stuff!

That advertising is in line with the promotional efforts of the tobacco companies, which are determined, as always, to recruit new, young users of tobacco products. The industry is unique in that it kills 100,000 consumers every year, and it is therefore obliged to encourage new recruits. I welcome the measure and its limited restrictions.

I have no wish to prolong the Third Reading, but I want to make a few comments.

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) on his success in the ballot and on reaching this stage with his important Bill. I acknowledge his generosity in thanking us for the help that we have given him. We in the Department have been pleased to help him in his endeavours.

The Bill has secured a large measure of agreement, although with some slight tepidity. We share the desire to protect youngsters from the evil consequences of tobacco in all its forms and to dissuade adults from supplying it to them. The Government are fully committed to that objective. We want to reduce the appalling incidence of preventable disease and premature death associated with tobacco, and the Bill is an important step toward strengthening the law on the illegal sale of tobacco products to youngsters under the age of 16.

The extent of smoking among young people was referred to by several hon. Members and is of major concern to the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) has some doubts about the efficacy of the Government's activities in relation to the voluntary agreement, but the voluntary agreement's record has been good in significantly reducing smoking among adults. Other countries have adopted other measures, such as statutory prohibition, which have proved less efficacious than our voluntary scheme. We have even greater hopes of the new voluntary agreement.

We share a concern about the disturbing tendency among the young to smoke. That is one of the reasons why we are spending about £2 million a year, through the Health Education Council, on health education programmes against smoking. Many of the programmes are aimed at children. The Government have funded a £1 million pilot media campaign in two television regions to discourage teenage smoking. The campaign has a weight equivalent to spending about £6 million nationally. It is the first time that an anti-smoking promotion of this weight has been used on television.

The new voluntary agreement on tobacco advertising includes several provisions specifically designed to protect young people, and as part of it a further £1 million is being spent by the industry in a campaign telling retailers that it is illegal to sell cigarettes to young people. I hope that that will reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan). It is a happy coincidence of circumstances that we have the new agreement, and, subject to whatever might happen along the corridor, that we will have the Bill on the statute book.

We have also had to concern ourselves, at some risk to parliamentary convention, with the new threat posed by oral tobacco, now on sale in many parts of Britain, and the associated risk of mouth cancer. The main brand being promoted is Skoal Bandits. The Government deplore their introduction to the UK, and, as we have heard, their promotion, especially the potential attractions of the product for children, has been one of the main concerns expressed by the House. We are worried not only because of the established link with mouth cancers, but because of the threat of dependence on nicotine.

The Government have listened carefully to calls for stronger action against this product. Since the Committee stage, officials from my Department have been in contact with the manufacturers of Skoal Bandits, U.S. Tobacco International, Inc. I am pleased to inform the House that the company has accepted that certain health warnings ought to appear on the packs and on the advertising material and that the rules governing promotion and sale of the product should be considerably strengthened. The details are yet to be negotiated, but I thought that hon. Members would wish to be aware of the new position. The precise nature of the warnings will require consideration, but our aim will be to make clear that these products may cause oral cancer and that they should not be considered a safe alternative to cigarette smoking. I hope that the House will welcome these moves as wholly consistent with the Bill's objectives, and with the speeches of most hon. Members today.

Has not the company's approach been most co-operative and shown that it does not engage in humbug? Will my hon. Friend confirm that his Department has had a good relationship with the company?

I am happy to confirm that the statement that I have been able to make is on the basis of the exchanges that we have had with the company. I welcome that outcome, as I hope does the rest of the House. We now look forward to concluding those changes and working out the details of the negotiations on the voluntary agreement.

It is necessary to update the seperate Acts for England and Scotland that deal with the sale of tobacco. These date back to 1933 and 1937—long before medical evidence of the dangers of smoking had emerged. Nor were they drafted with oral tobacco products in mind. Therefore, it was necessary to update the Act, and this has happily been achieved in the work that we have done on the Bill.

The Government may seek to make a modest change to the Bill when it is considered in the other place. This concerns the possible inclusion of a statutory presumption in the Scottish Act to make it clear that the products covered by the Act, and so labelled, contain tobacco. This change may be necessary because of the differences between the criminal procedures in Scotland and England, and it would make it easier to obtain convictions under Scottish law. I hope that the hon. Member for East Lothian in particular will recognise that point.

I am grateful for that clarification, and anything that will make it easier to deter this pernicious trade is welcome. Is it the Government's intention to institute an effective crack down against this massive trade, and is advice to be given to the prosecution authorities and the police, when and if the Bill reaches the statute book, that they should institute prosecutions where they find that such trade is continuing?

I hope that the Government's attitude is extremely clear from the measures that I have already outlined with regard to young people and smoking. I have no doubt at all that once a new measure is on the statute book my hon. Friends in the Departments concerned will take every necessary step to ensure that the new law is applied appropriately.

I believe that we have reached the point at which I should again congratulate the hon. Member for East Lothian and his colleagues on the way in which the passage of the Bill has been achieved so far. I have been very happy to collaborate with the hon. Gentleman, because to a large extent we share the wish to make progress in this area. The hon. Gentleman may wish to take us still further, but on the Bill we are entirely at one and I have no hesitation in commending it to the House.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

As the House knows, the Second Reading took place without debate and rather more suddenly than we had expected. I should therefore express my thanks to my hon. Friend for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) for helping me out of a little difficulty in that regard. As there was no Second Reading debate, it might be convenient if I make a few brief remarks now, although I do not wish to go over all the ground that was covered fairly fully in Committee on Wednesday as time is short and other hon. Members wish to bring forward other measures.

As the House knows, ever since I became a Member of Parliament I have taken a keen interest in the well-being of British horticulture and I have always been eager to support any initiative to improve its position and quality. In the past 10 years or so there has been a gradual but noticeable improvement in the marketing standards of home grown produce generally. On Tuesday of this week the Apple and Pear Development Council laid on an excellent presentation in Westminster Hall which was visited by about 100 Members from all parties. Members in all parts of the House are therefore aware of the improving quality of British produce.

It is essential, however, that we look forward to further improvement. The more forward-looking growers are well aware that if they are to compete with high quality, well presented imports they must offer good products effectively marketed. Value for money can be offered by improving quality as well as by keeping down prices.

One of the factors in bringing about the improvement has been the European Community common quality standards for fresh fruit and vegetables, which have brought new confidence to the market place by setting recognised standards to which all growers and traders must adhere. Broadly, the aim is to keep products of unsatisfactory quality off the market.

In Committee on Wednesday my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd), who is well known for his assiduous interest on behalf of the wholesale fruit and vegetable trade, spoke of certain anxieties expressed about the Bill by the National Federation of the Wholesale Fruit and Vegetable Trade. I believe that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, and to a lesser extent myself, did what we could to allay those fears.

One important point must be repeated on the Floor of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne said that the wholesale trade would like closer inspection and controls at farm shops and pick-your-own stalls. I do not believe that that is strictly appropriate. At the wholesale end of the market, the ultimate customer cannot inspect every item of goods. At the farm shop, however, the buyer can see every apple, cauliflower and lettuce. In this protectionist age, I am still a great believer in caveat emptor. In a farm shop the emptor has every chance to look out. Therefore, the fears expressed by the national federation of the wholesale trade were probably misplaced.

The farm shop movement is majoring in freshness, if the House will allow such a word. I believe that the freshness element that is being put forward by farm shops is excellent. There are one or two grotty stalls, but no customer with any sense will go to a grotty stall, or if he goes once he will not go again. Nobody buys large quantities at a farm stall. Therefore, if somebody is caught with indifferent produce, he is wise enough to avoid it a second time.

The wholesale trade has another legitimate anxiety. It fears that the great bulk of the weight of inspection must be done in the wholesale markets, because we are, sadly, short of inspectors. There are not many of these distinguished and assiduous people, who are some of the finest public servants that we have. They work difficult hours on cold early mornings and do an extremely fine job. However, there are not many of them and they must work where there is the greatest bulk of produce. Inevitably, that is in the wholesale market.

In Committee I stressed the fact that most traders freely give all the details requested. However, there are a minority who do not give the details and who cause trouble. It is with a view to bringing that minority into a position where the good name of the trade and the quality of British produce will be maintained and improved that we have brought this modest little measure before the House. I hope that hon. Members will give it a Third Reading.

I acknowledge and welcome the motivation of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir J. Wells) in bringing this measure to the House. I am sure that we all applaud, as we must always, the search for the means to ensure quality and reliability of produce, especially home produce, when it is being bought by our own people. I fully acknowledge the correctness of those motivations, but I have one or two small reservations about the terms of the measure before us.

One reservation was expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone in Committee, when he said:

"it is not intended that the powers should be used extensively or result in a large number of prosecutions."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 16 April 1986; c. 2.]

That is an admirable statement of intent or aspiration, but how it is possible, at this stage, for us to judge the number of prosecutions that may take place as a result of this measure is difficult for me to see. We all hope that very few people will be liable to prosecution, but one cannot tell, at this stage, to what extent prosecutions will take place. Therefore, that causes me some concern.

I am even more concerned because in my constituency there have been occasions when prominent horticulturists who have repeatedly been prosecuted for offences such as overloading vehicles have felt that they were being discriminated against and unduly harshly treated. Therefore, I regard what is proposed with some trepidation. If that is the sort of case that is dealt with in a different area of the law, there might be a danger here.

Why does one need to introduce a full panoply of bureaucracy and regulations in an area such as this? One has only to look, for example, at a body such as the Worshipful Company of Fruiterers, which has been established for some 700 years and has huge experience in this area, and ask oneself why we need such a Bill. We could instead look to a voluntary, charitable body with experience in an area such as this which would be well capable or, I would suggest, more capable of policing and reinforcing standards of produce and so on. It is always a source of some regret to me that we are forced to go down the road of statutory regulation rather than look to voluntary bodies, as we do with the goldsmiths or fishmongers, and many other bodies of long-standing excellence, which are allowed by us to impose standards and rules.

The hon. Gentleman uses the goldsmiths as an example of a self-regulatory body, but hallmarking of gold and silver by Government-appointed assayists is the longest standing quality control on behalf of the consumer in the world.

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The point that I am trying to make is that in our search for the best means to maintain standards, my preference is always the voluntary self-regulating approach, as far as possible, rather than going too far down the road of statutory obligations and public officials doing the work. My limited reservations about the measure revolve round that area.

I should like to ask a few questions about the detailed provisions in the Bill. They revolve around clause 3, which refers to normal practice, which I always find slightly worrying. It states:

"The Ministers may by order made by statutory instrument make such amendments to this Act as they think fit for the purpose of changing the circumstances in which an authorised officer is required to give written consent to the movement of produce."

Thus, there is scope for changes to be made by statutory instrument. The clause goes on to say:

"Before making such an order, the Ministers shall consult such organisations as appear to them to represent interests likely to be affected by the order."

That is all well and good, but one wonders, in such circumstances, what might be in the ministerial mind when searching for representative bodies to consult.

It is my understanding that when the Bill was first thought up, before it came to me, all sectors of the trade were fully consulted. It has been given a fair wind by all sectors of the trade. The only modest reservations were the ones that I mentioned. I thought that it was important to take the House into my confidence about the small reservations, which were fully aired in Committee.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am glad that he has taken the opportunity to let the House know what the Committee knew. I hope he will concede that there is always an area of lingering doubt in such matters when, as we must rightly do, we leave it to the discretion of Ministers to determine when they make alterations by statutory instrument to adjust to changing circumstances, and, more important, when it is left to them to decide who will be consulted. We all must have had experience from time to time of bodies which feel aggrieved because they have not been consulted in a particular case. However, the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone has carried with him all the major elements of the trade gives the House confidence when considering the measure.

I wanted to air those limited reservations about the Bill, because one has to accept that it is vital to the horticulture industry that we are ever more vigilant over the maintenance of quality and standards. The work done by the Apple and Pear Development Council is a good example. That must be done so that we can make the best case for our consumers to consume our own products. In the past we have not always been of the best. However, any measure such as this, which helps in any way to achieve that end, must be welcomed by the House. I welcome it for that reason.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir J. Wells) on his success in the ballot and on his wisdom in promoting the Bill. The Government fully support the aims of the Bill and believe that if enacted it will be of considerable assistance to our inspectors in seeking to improve the quality of horticultural produce on the market by the effective enforcement of the quality standards for fruit and vegetables. Therefore, I hope very much that the Bill will be given its Third Reading today and that it will be agreed in another place in due course and reach the statute book.

Improved quality and improved marketing are essential to the success of the British horticulture industry in today's competitive environment, so any measure that will help the application of the quality standards must be in the longer-term interest of the industry. Likewise, any improvement in quality will help to ensure the availability of first-class produce, which is what today's consumers are coming more and more to expect, and rightly so.

In practical terms, the Bill will give horticultural marketing inspectors, and the equivalent officers in Scotland, the power to put a stop order on defective produce to prevent it being moved. The intention is to stop a minority of traders moving defective produce around to avoid being caught.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) mentioned the trade's reservations, which my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) expressed. I trust that we have reassured our hon. Friend and the trade. I listened carefully to the suggestion that we would be supporting an additional bureaucracy. We have an obligation under Community regulations, and arising from our responsibility to consumers, to enforce standards at all stages of distribution. It is clearly in our interests to do that as efficiently as possible. There is an obstacle to efficient enforcement—we cannot put a stop notice on to prevent the small minority of traders from moving produce about to avoid being caught.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire expressed anxiety about clause 3(1), which empowers us to make changes. This is a legitimate worry. We are contemplating only minor alterations. It would be a great nuisance if it was necessary to have primary legislation to achieve the same effect.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and commend the Bill to the House.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I am grateful for the expeditious manner in which the early stages of the Bill have been taken. It did not have a Second Reading in this House. As it was introduced in another place, perhaps I should explain its purpose. Its only purpose is to amend section 16 of the Gaming Act 1968 so as to enable a person who has bought chips by means of a cheque in a casino, during or immediately after the time during which he has been gambling in that casino, to redeem that cheque.

The Bill has a most respectable parentage, in that it carries out the recommendation made by the Royal Commission on Gambling and implements two of the proposals of that Commission. No one can say it has been brought forward with undue speed, because the Royal Commission reported as long ago as July 1978, and as long ago as 1979 the then Home Secretary said that the Government accepted the proposals for change and would be prepared to implement them when there was an opportunity for legislation. That opportunity has now arrived.

The Bill was introduced in another place by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, an ex-Minister of State, Home Office, and it had the important support of Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who, as Sir Philip Allen, was a permanent secretary in the Home Office at the time the original legislation was taken through. More importantly, for the last few years he has been the chairman of the Gaming Board for Great Britain.

Gaming in Britain is strictly controlled. The Gaming Act 1968 exercises strict control over the operation of gambling casinos, and one of the important provisions of that Act deals with the granting or the prohibition of credit. The effect of the 1968 Act means that any cheque that is given in exchange for chips or cash to enable a person to take part in gaming has to be delivered to a bank for payment or collection within two banking days.

Under the law as it stands at present, a cheque once given by a person cannot be redeemed by him when he cashes up at the end of the night, should he be successful and have chips that he wishes to return for cash. It means that the casino, having accepted that person's cheque in payment for the chips, is required to give back to him either cash or the casino's own cheque for the total value of the chips that he returns. A casino cannot give back to him his own cheque for redemption as part payment.

The only person who can possibly benefit from that situation is a dishonest person who gave a cheque, was then successful in the casino and received either the casino's cheque or cash in exchange for the chips that he returned, and the casino then found that the person had dishonoured his cheque when it was taken to the bank to be cashed.

In preparing its report, the Royal Commission on gaming visited some 40 casinos. I should like to quote one sentence from its report:

"From our visits to casinos we have found that this aspect of the gaming laws"—

that is, the inability to redeem a cheque—

"causes more irritation than any other, both for the casino proprietors"—

obviously, for the reasons that I have explained—

"and for their customers who equally often wish to redeem the cheque that they have earlier given."

This is a sensible amendment. As I say, it has been brought forward with the knowledge and approval of the Gaming Board for Great Britain. The only other matter that I should add is that it is accepted that this change in the law will require that the right to redeem a cheque should be accompanied by regulations specifying the detailed records of transactions that casinos will be required to keep for inspection by the Gaming Boards for Great Britain. Therefore, the Bill ensures that it cannot come into being until a date appointed by the Secretary of State so that one can be sure that the amending regulations are in a suitable position before the Bill becomes law.

I thoroughly approve of this measure and congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) on the skill with which he has brought it to this stage. His arguments have been heard by no one until now, but that is a measure of the success and wisdom of this legislation. I agree with the Bill, but I believe that one point is missing; it may be an extension, but it would strengthen further the power of the casino to enhance the way in which credit asked for temporarily by a customer with the deposit of a cheque could be enforced. Nowhere in the Bill does it provide that a customer, when the casino tenders back to him a redeemed cheque, has to receive it; it merely says that the casino may give back a cheque. It allows, through this change of the law, for the customer to receive his own, as it were, IOU, and to tear it up after a successful night's gambling. Nowhere does it say that the customer has to receive back his cheque.

I believe that in this Bill we should take the opportunity not only to allow a casino the right to give a cheque back or to give its own cheque if it wishes to do so, but also to make it an obligation on the person presenting the cheque in the first place—the person who has given credit to that cheque and held it out to value—to receive back that cheque if the casino so requires. At the moment, it does not seem that the law forbids a customer to refuse his cheque, although in those circumstances the casino would be put upon inquiry and no doubt it would be within its rights to hold on to the cheque prior to encashment. Perhaps the Minister will explain why there has not been included in the Bill the insistence that the customer should take back his own cheque if the casino so requires.

First, I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) for introducing the Bill—a modest measure, as he pointed out, in relation to a fairly complex background of legislation formed by the 1968 Gaming Act. The Bill has been recommended by, and has withstood the scrutiny of, another place and amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. In addition, I assure the House that the Gaming Board, which is the watchdog set up by Parliament to regulate this industry, is satisfied and considers that the measure is good. As has already been made clear, regulations will be made, on the advice of the Gaming Board, by the Home Secretary in relation to the content of the provisions required.

My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) raised a point on which I will have to take advice. However, there are two aspects to it. The first is the extent to which "may" and "shall" in legal terms are exchangeable. I realise that my hon. Friend knows about that. Secondly, there is the question whether there is indeed a material weakness, as he seems to point out, in the new emphasis placed on the conditions under which redemption takes place. It would certainly be the intent of the legislation that the casino would deal with the initial cheque in the redemption process; that is the whole point of it. However, I see my hon. Friend's point. I will look into the matter and write to him clarifying the point that he has raised, which I trust will satisfy him. I hope that the House will give this modest Bill a Third Reading.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I once had the privilege of introducing a Bill under similar procedures concerning milk allocation to children at school which went through all its stages in the House without one word being uttered. The value and virtue of that legislation were so self-evident that there was no need to speak to it. Had I done so, the Bill might not have been accepted.

On this occasion, however, it might be helpful if I give the background to the Bill and explain its main purposes, because the House has been courteous in expediting progress. I thank the Department of Transport for its assistance. Those are the only kind words I am likely to say about that Department during the Government's lifetime. Therefore, they should form the first major part of my speech. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Transport and his officials.

The Bill is relatively modest but important. It has two aims: first, to get rid of some of the confusion about permit parking in local authority areas; and, secondly, to deal with traffic parking devices, meters, and so on.

First, there is confusion about whether it is legal in areas of permit parking for a local authority to charge or not to charge—to have a variable scheme. Clause 1 specifically and directly gives local authorities that flexibility. This is an important measure, especially in seaside and other areas which are heavily congested for brief periods of the day, where the local authority seeks power to protect residents and to facilitate the parking of those visiting the area. The Bill gives the local authority power to charge, or not to charge, residents, nonresidents, permit holders and non-permit holders. That flexibility will enable local authorities to gauge their traffic needs and controls.

The second aim is perhaps more interesting and important because it deals with metering devices used in arranging for parking. It concerns three aspects—in-car parking discs, parking meters and parking meters without a clock. The present legislation is rather confused. The Bill seeks merely to clear up the principles. Basically, it means that there can be in-car parking devices for rent or charge which are costed, and that will be legal. That will be important in areas of outstanding natural beauty where it would be an advantage to control and charge for parking, but where people do not want parking meters to clutter an otherwise good view, cathedral close or other part of our heritage. Therefore, the Bill will make it legal to have in-car parking devices. A number of companies, in conjunction with local authorities, are already experimenting with them.

Some present difficulties with parking meters are the number that are often out of order, emptying coins from them, and taking them in and out of action according to traffic demands and police or security needs. The Bill will enable us to have the equivalent of a British Telecom card for use in parking meters which will register the time. A customer will insert a card and buy his time, as he does with a BT card. It will be automatic, electronic, safe, durable, and unlikely to break down. Eventually, "smart cards" will be able to be used which will allow a person's account to be debited directly, rather than under the arrangements with a BT card.

It is a simple, direct system, and it is important because many of our parking meters have almost outlived their useful life. There is a large market for British firms in this area, especially in the United States. However, at present, when British firms seek to export these instruments, and they are asked, "Are they being used in the United Kingdom?", they must reply, "We cannot do so because we are not certain whether they are legal." The legislation will make it legal, so it is important for the British economy, as well as for safety, for getting the collection of money off the road, for security, for saving local authorities' repair costs, and for doing away with the necessity of having a clock device present to be seen by traffic wardens.

The final provision deals with fraud in relation to this device. This is a minor piece of legislation. I doubt whether there will be enormous celebrations in the streets when it becomes law. However, it will ensure a degree of efficiency and tidy up the law. That must benefit those who administer the law as well as those who suffer from or have to bear it. It provides an opportunity to improve the economic prospects of some of our companies, to guarantee jobs and to introduce new technology into parking meters.

For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House. I thank the Government and the House for their courtesy during its passage.

This is one of the welcome occasions when the Transport and General Workers' Union is shown that it is represented on both sides of the House on a significant transport issue, although it may not necessarily be as substantial as the one to be introduced next week. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)—perhaps I should refer to him as my honourable Brother, so long as it does not get him into trouble with reselection—

Order. I hope that no members of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers will start referring to me as Brother Chairman.

I hope that I was speaking indirectly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to get my marching orders from you.

The hon. Gentleman described the purposes of the Bill.

I am grateful to the Minister, who is my brother in the trade union, for dealing with me kindly and courteously, but I wish to point out that this measure may increase employment prospects. According to my brothers in the Hull municipal corporation, the measure that the Minister will support on Tuesday will create at least 300 redundancies throughout the country, because it will decimate public transport.

If, in a few years' time, we have an opportunity to consider the effects of the changes, I hope that my honourable Brother will return and say that he was wrong and I was right.

The Government welcome the Bill, which provides useful clarification of the law on parking. Although the Bill may seem rather technical and concerned with matters of detail, it will be valuable both in the greater freedom it gives to local authorities to select an approach to on-street parking which best suits local needs, and in the greater certainty it will give to manufacturers in the development of new equipment and methods.

Technology is improving all the time in many areas, and parking technology is no exception to the trend. Traditional parking apparatus, especially the coin-operated clockwork parking meters, has given good service for many years—some of us might argue, too good a service, given the amount of money that we have poured into them. Nothing stays the same forever and new approaches are possible using magnetic cards and microchip technology. New systems are being developed which could revolutionise parking in the future.

The existing legislation was prepared long before such new approaches were considered. Not surprisingly, the present law does not fit those new approaches at all well. The Bill would amend the legislation to bring it into line with what is possible and remove legal doubts which have arisen over, for example, the use of coinless equipment.

I do not wish to give the impression that all the new approaches necessarily involve high technology. Better ways of using space on our streets can be achieved in some circumstances without the need for complex electronics. The Bill's provisions for shared parking schemes, under which permit holders and visitors can use the same road space—although not at the same time, remembering the slightly better road safety figures that we announced yesterday—are good examples of this. The Bill should remove some of the legal doubts which at present prevent many such schemes. From my constituency experience, I know that such provisions would be useful near railway stations, where commuter traffic could be kept off all-day parking and we could allow residents to park where they have their homes and pay their rates as well as allow visitors to shops and to residents to park for a reasonable period.

The Bill should also help with approaches to parking, such as the prepaid card displayed in the vehicle. That and similar systems may not meet the requirements of the existing legislation, but doubts should be removed by the Bill.

The Bill provides the freedom to try a range of new approaches. It should give more flexibility to meet the needs of residents and visitors. It should enable the production of more reliable and cheaper-to-operate equipment. It will permit cashless systems which could avoid many of our current problems.

The Government are happy to support the Bill, and I am happy to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for introducing it. I hope that it will come into law soon.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill has been introduced once again by me and by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I wish to say a few words about it and about my intentions in the succession of Bills on company law which I have introduced since 1969.

My first Bill was a complex measure, and I learned from the Committee stage which it successfully completed that if a Back-Bench Member is to make a significant contribution to company law reform it is important to recommend simple, workable and inexpensive measures. But I am convinced that it is possible to introduces minor changes in company law which are likely to have a powerful effect in improving efficiency, and that is the intention of this year's edition of my Companies Bill, which hon. Members will recognise is broadly similar to the measures which I have recommended to the House in every Session since 1970.

I have said many times that the limited liability company is one of the great creations of British genius. Like cricket, it is a British invention which has been copied in many parts of the world. It is a wonderful way of bringing together human resources and material assets in a most fruitful relationship for the creation of wealth. Like cricket, it has been copied in many countries; and as with cricket, we find that some other countries now perform better than we do in the operation of limited liability companies.

Can one improve efficiency by passing laws? That is an important issue for hon. Members to consider, because it is difficult from outside a business to see how changes in the law might make the senior management or the board of directors operate more efficiently.

There is another question of a similar kind: do we need yet more company law? I am somewhat critical of the way in which the Department of Trade and Industry has approached reform of company law in recent years. It is giving too much attention to the prevention of fraud and gross malpractice — and in so doing producing huge slabs of legislation — but is not considering ways in which the existing framework of company law—which is broadly of 19th century origin—could be brought more up to date, so that the various parties performing their regular functions in publicly quoted companies could have a clearer idea of their rights and responsibilities within a statutory framework that helps them to operate in the most effective way.

In recent years there have been changes in the environment in which companies operate which have brought greater pressure on managements to operate effectively. Some of the changes are highly commendable, and I welcome them. For instance, there is the much improved professional analysis by stockbrokers and the staff of the big investment institutions. This has undoubtedly brought pressure to bear on managements to improve performance. There is also far more extensive press coverage of companies affairs. Opening up companies' doings by coverage in the press tends to be conducive to greater efficiency.

The activities of takeover bidders are less welcome. They undoubtedly frighten boards into behaving more effectively, but they have as their aim the destruction of the company rather than its cure. The current takeover frenzy tends to make managements concentrate on producing sparkling results in the short term rather than consider the interests of shareholders over long spans of time. We are also seeing much more competitive marketing, which means that all firms seeking to enter British, Community or world markets have to behave in a more competitive way if they are to survive.

However, all those pressures can pass by companies such as those with which I am concerned in the Bill. I am thinking of companies which are beginning to show signs of decay or of declining vigour and initiative, but are not yet as obviously in trouble, as they may be in a few years time when shareholders and outsiders begin to realise that something is badly wrong. I am thinking of companies which are not as energetic and resourceful as they could well be, given the human and material assets at their disposal. In this area, minor changes in company law could be extremely beneficial without being burdensome, grossly innovatory or revolutionary.

The Bill therefore considers the position of supervisory elements within the company which are favourable to the company's success and which, quite properly, have access to confidential material. I am speaking, of course, of the non-executive directors and the auditors. Almost all public companies have some non-executive directors, and companies in this country have had to appoint auditors for a century or more. I hope that we can find ways of improving company law in minor but effective ways so that the status of the non-executive directors and the auditors is improved, and they automatically have more authority in the conduct of the company affairs, and better knowledge of the business.

It is not always clear to an outsider or to a shareholder who the non-executive directors are — or, indeed, if there are any who are strictly non-executive. It is very often company practice to appoint to the board someone who can occasionally be relied on for specialised advice, or someone who is well known to the board and to whom members of the board like to refer from time to time. Such people are not really non-executive directors. They are not aware that their role is to act for the shareholders in a truly supervisory way.

Often, board members who appear to be non-executive hold themselves available to offer specialised advice when called upon to do so, but otherwise they do not interfere in the management or supervision of the company. They might be a useful element, but they do not strictly meet the requirements that I see for the role of the non-executive director.

Companies sometimes appoint as non-executive directors people who are not particularly significant; and even if they are well known or influential, they may be unable to exercise authority for various reasons. It is worth analysing why even quite powerful figures are frustrated when they want to do something to improve the efficiency of the executive management. If they do not like what is happening in a business and resign noisily, they may damage the firm without bringing about the changes which they think necessary. They can resign quietly without a fuss, but that will probably not be noticed and their gesture will be ineffective. They could argue within the board from a minority position.

In public companies in Britain non-executive directors are usually in the minority, unlike the practice in North America; but the non-executive directors may not be effective even when they raise legitimate doubts about company policy. Or they may argue on the basis of inadequate data, in which case they will be outgunned by the heads of departments—the executives on the board who might have axes to grind over particular aspects of expenditure or management policy.

Even when there are effective non-executive directors on boards, they are not always able to give the shareholders the service that is sometimes needed. The Bill therefore requires public companies to state which directors are non-executive directors, and this is narrowly defined—that is, non-executive in the true sense. We are talking about supervisory directors who are aware of their responsibilties to act on behalf of the shareholders in the boardroom.

The Bill also suggests a minor reform of procedure governing the election or re-election of directors which would give the shareholders more discretion over the choice of candidates to fill board vacancies. Too often, when a vacancy occurs through natural rotation, resignation or death, only one candidate is put forward and he is automatically elected to fill the space. That does not always produce the best candidates for effective management.

I do not think that the suggestion that I have incorporated in the Bill — which I expect could be improved — would be used often. However, it might occasionally be relied upon, particularly by institutional investors, to bring pressure to bear on boards to improve the quality of candidates. If dud candidates were put up for vacancies on a board, the shareholders could organise themselves more easily than under existing company law to put up rival candidates, and so to promote meaningful elections to improve the quality of the board.

In a public limited company, each director has to stand for election on a separate ticket. It is one of the privileges of a private company that more than one director can be elected on one nomination, so that the shareholders have to take directors A, B and C all together, without having to reject one. However, in a plc, each director stands on a separate motion, so some protection is afforded to shareholders in a public company.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's advice, which I realise comes from an extremely deep knowledge of company law and procedure. What I am suggesting in the Bill, which I admit could be improved, is that members of a company, who will probably be institutional shareholders, should have the right to insist that the company circulates in advance of the annual general meeting, or any meeting at which the election of directors is due, the particulars and the name of a candidate. That candidate should not necessarily be the man preferred by the board for the vacancy, but one whom the interested shareholders would wish to notify other shareholders was available for the office together with a limited amount of data as to his qualifications.

As with professional societies and many bodies which have a scattered membership which they reach through the post, this would mean that people outside the general run of company supervision would have a chance to look at the candidates and make their own selection. I doubt whether this would happen often, but the intention is that it might happen, and the fact that the names of rival candidates could be circulated in advance, together with appropriate information about their qualifications, would scare boards which were thinking of putting up unsuitable candidates — men who are too old, who have no effective qualifications to contribute to the management of firms.

The Bill also requires all public companies to prepare their data and estimates concerning the firm, and its likely future and ability to carry on as a growing concern, in a businesslike manner; and to provide the information to all the board members, including the non-executive directors. What I am suggesting is common sense and normal prudence for every company, but unhappily one finds that when companies get into serious trouble, it is largely attributable to the fact that they have been neglecting to follow the general pattern of competent businesses in collecting data about their performance, market shares and the role and attitudes of their competitors, and in making long-term forecasts of their capital position and their ability to meet their obligations as they fall due.

When the auditors detect that companies are not handling their internal management of the collection of data, comparisons, forecasts and future planning in a businesslike manner, they are frustrated because they do not have any statutory responsibility to warn the shareholders that there are doubts about the way in which the board is managing its business. I emphasise that I am not discussing firms which are acting fraudulently or criminally, but firms which are lapsing into sluggish or old-fashioned business methods, and which sooner or later will damage the investors, the customers and the work force, because the company is not making the best use of its human resources and material assets.

How do we decide whether a company is handling its internal data collection and forecasting in a businesslike way? It is futile to pass a law that all companies must manage their forecasts in a businesslike way. However, this is a responsibility that has to be shouldered by some supervisory element within the firm. The non-executive directors are not necessarily the right people, but the auditors are.

We must require the auditors to accept this responsibility. Auditors have a natural reluctance to do this work even in the minimal way that I am suggesting in the Bill. All that I am asking is that auditors should have the responsibility to warn the shareholders if, in their view, the firm is not handling data collection and forecasting in a competent manner. The Bill does not insist that the auditors should guide the firm, but simply gives them the minimal responsibility to warn shareholders if they can see that the firm is not performing this function in a businesslike way.

On the continent a hundred years ago the development of business practice resulted in the appointment of supervisory boards, so that in Germany, particularly, but also in other countries, one finds that top management is split into an executive team, which consists of the regular heads of department, and a supervisory team, which knows that its role is to look at the effectiveness of the management as a whole on behalf of the shareholders.

In this country we did not adopt the idea of a supervisory board which has the duty to look at all aspects of the running of a business, but moved instead towards the appointment of a new profession—the profession of accountancy — which would have the particular responsibility of carrying out a compulsory audit on behalf of the shareholders. I rather regret that we did not follow the German practice, which has produced a very competent business background and one which in many ways has advantages by comparison with the British system.

However, as what we have is a highly competent professional body of supervisors whose business it is to act for shareholders in looking at the way their companies are acting, I believe that we should ask those professionals somewhat to extend their responsibilities. Under the Bill they would simply have to warn the shareholders if they thought that a firm was not dealing with the collection of data and the making of forecasts as competently as it should.

Why, in particular, are auditors afraid of being asked to carry out even that limited function? It is because they are nervous of stepping outside their established statutory routines because they might incur a painful or even crippling liability if shareholders turned on them for falling down on their functions and obtained compensation for losses attributable to the auditors' negligence. We must understand the pressure that that fear puts on people in the auditing profession; but the growing complexity of business makes it essential that the supervisory element appointed by shareholders should now move a little further in the direction of management accounting.

This year, therefore, I have made what I hope is a small improvement in the Bill by introducing a new clause 6. It consists of just a few lines and is, I believe, self-explanatory. It states:

"The liability of any individual person appointed to act as an auditor under the provisions of the Companies Act 1985 or of any employee employed by an auditor so appointed to carry out work on an audit who shall be held liable in negligence, default or breach of duty in respect of his performance of that audit, shall be limited to a maximum of £50,000."

That is a substantial sum and I hope that it will be sufficient to deter people from acting in a light headed way, but it is a figure which should also be within the capacity of most firms to insure without taking on too heavy a burden. As this is such a topical matter in the auditing profession, I hope that my suggestion—which may well be capable of improvement—will be regarded as a good subject for hon. Members to consider, perhaps in Committee on the Bill.

The Bill would apply the changes that I have described to all public companies, but among the most important recommendations in the Bill is one which I suggest should apply only to very large companies. I have incorporated a definition of a very large company, although again it is something that might well be improved. The intention is to catch the 100 or 200 biggest British companies and to follow the North American practice of appointing audit committees.

On the New York stock exchange a number of years ago it was made a requirement, as part of the listing agreement, that to qualify to be quoted on the exchange a company must have appointed an audit committee. I spent some time with, and learnt a great deal from talking to, officials of the New York stock exchange about the way in which the audit committee was to be appointed, how it should operate and the general public reaction to the appointment of audit committees.

I do not think that we should require companies in this country automatically to follow the example of the New York stock exchange, because the etiquette and the procedures are not yet sufficiently widely understood. However, I should like to find a way of giving companies a gentle annual prod in the direction of appointing an audit committee. I have found a formula which I have therefore incorporated in the Bill. I simply suggest that there should be an item on the agenda of the annual general meeting that the company must consider the appointment or re-appointment of an audit committee.

In order to make my recommendations more specific, I have taken a considerable amount of trouble to produce a schedule consisting of model regulations for the management of an audit committee. It could be a sort of addendum to table A for companies which wish to operate an audit committee. It would not be obligatory for them to follow the routine that I have suggested in the Bill, but I think that it is a businesslike start. If they want to operate an audit committee in a slightly different way, it would be entirely up to them to do so.

As the idea of audit committees for public companies is still rather unfamiliar in this country, I hope it will be found to be a useful feature of the Bill that it carries a schedule in which model regulations are set out. People who are familiar with what is normal practice in New York will recognise that I have copied many of the features from there.

If an audit committee is appointed, I conceive that it would make the non-executive directors more effective, because it would give them regular professional support from people who are independent of the executive management of the business. It would also put the auditors in a stronger position in their contacts with the board, because they would have a statutory procedure for keeping in regular contact with the non-executive directors.

I do not wish to dilate on this subject any more, although I think that it is a subject of general interest. I should like to conclude by saying why I think that the Bill is especially topical and necessary now.

I believe that it would have been good for British business if something on the lines of my Bill had been adopted 18 or more years ago when I first set out to advertise these reforms. Now, however, we are seeing the Government, quite rightly, promoting the concept of wider share ownership. This means bringing into the ownership of shares of public companies a large number of people who want to know how their companies operate. They would like to participate and ought to be given a satisfactory and worthwhile role.

I believe that the changes that I have suggested in the Bill would involve small shareholders more closely in the way in which their companies operate and give them an opportunity to express their views from time to time over such matters as the selection of the directors. It would also give the institutions ways of acting effectively on behalf of all shareholders equally, not just of other institutional investors or their own interests, without risking the accusation of insider trading.

We have the difficulty that so many of our large and influential shareholders are afraid to act except in the role of absentee landlords. If they see that something is not right with a company they do not seek to intervene, because they do not know how they can properly do so. Instead, they simply try to dispose of their holdings as quietly as possible before other investors detect the way in which the management may be allowing the business to slide downhill.

It is the lack of shareholder pressure effectively applied to management that is one of the principal causes of inefficiency in British businesses. The institutions have a responsibility to support changes in the law which would enable them to act in a proper way, and not in a way which would lay them open to charges of insider trading.

I also feel that the Bill is particularly topical because of the Government's campaign of privatisation—another development which I entirely support. We need to improve the qualtiy and effectiveness of the responsible supervisory element within businesses which may not be subject to competitive pressures and which may be too large to be assessed correctly by outsiders.

The business of supervising the executive management of a large undertaking from within in a benevolent way is something which the House should encourage. There are restraints on the way in which the supervisory elements operate within businesses at present because, unfortunately, we are allowing our company law to become increasingly obsolete.

I hope, therefore, that the Bill will proceed to Committee. On two previous occasions it has completed its Committee stage. I believe this is a useful way in which hon. Members who are interested in studying questions concerning the efficiency of business can occupy their time. I am not asking for very much time, because it is only a short Bill, but I should like it to make progress. Indeed, I should like it to complete all its stages. However, even if it only reaches a Standing Committee and does not go through all the remaining stages at this point in the Session, I am sure that it would at least attract informed attention and support in appropriate quarters outside the House. The Bill is not controversial on party lines; it has all-party support. It is not burdensome on management. I believe that it will be beneficial to all concerned with the success of British companies.

I welcome the opportunity to support my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams). I hope that I may say without embarrassment to him that I have been an ardent fan of his and his regular annual Bill for the past 17 years. The reason is better explained if I declare an interest. I am a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, a Fellow of the Association of Certified Accountants, and a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators.

When I qualified as a chartered accountant in 1969, my first job was as a lecturer in accountancy. One of my tasks was lecturing in company law. Every year one has to teach one's students existing law and some of the subjects that might be introduced over the coming year or two. Each year, as the law has changed, the forecast for the future has not. It has always been for audit committees, and it has always been with great respect that we have looked at the legislation proposed by my hon. Friend to the House.

My hon. Friend sometimes reminds me of Lord Denning, inasmuch as a student of Lord Denning once wrote to him, "Dear Lord Denning, Please, no more law reform. I am having trouble learning what there is." All I can say is that, with audit committees many students qualified long ago knowing the terms of my hon. Friend's Bill in its various guises. The first time that I came to the House to see a Standing Committee was to view my hon. Friend—not a Prime Minister, but my hon. Friend—discuss a Bill very much like this one in the Committee on the Companies Bill in 1978.

I support the Bill and wish that the Government would give it a Committee stage. I go further and say that I believe that the need for an audit committee in major companies has been proven time and again. In 1977 the Confederation of British Industry set up a working party and came out broadly in favour of the principles of the Bill. The CBI said:

"the operation of audit committees within certain companies might be an effective method of ensuring the independent review of those companies' financial activities, of improving the existing internal and external audit procedures, and of letting it be seen that these requirements were being met".

The CBI's working party was opposed to statutory compulsion, but it welcomed an experiment. Soon after, the Institute of Directors similarly recommended an experiment.

Every profession is proud of its house journal. The house journal of the accountancy profession is the magazine Accountancy. No doubt the 1,000th edition of any magazine is a milestone. The fact that the editorial of the 1,000th edition cried out for audit committees shows the importance of the subject to the informed accountancy world. It was even mentioned in the White Paper entitled "The Conduct of Directors". In fact, it has been mentioned so many times that I cannot believe that it has not become law by now. In the United States audit committees have become compulsory in New York. Therefore, I should spend a few minutes saying why I believe that audit committees should be introduced.

Audit committees can made a substantial contribution to helping directors fulfil their responsibilities. They can help directors to understand, perhaps from a different point of view, the way in which financial matters should be assimilated and then given to shareholders. They strengthen the role of non-executive directors. In the Bill, my hon. Friend expands upon the role and position of non-executive directors, and there is nothing more anomalous in existing company law than the fact that it makes no distinction between executive and non-executive directors. A difference should be drawn.

The third advantage of an audit committee is that it strengthens the objectivity and credibility of financial reporting. The board would be more answerable to each of the various specialists within the board and a specialist within the board would have to answer to an independent committee of his peers rather than merely to the clique that so often exists in some companies.

Fourthly, an audit committee would strengthen the independence of the audit function, and not merely the external audit function, but the internal one as well. An audit committee could choose the external auditor rather than that auditor being hired through some old boy network. I am not saying that that occurs much, but it is common for a chief executive, when moving from company to company, to take with him the firm of auditors with which he has built up an understanding and relationship. I am not saying that that reduces independence, because honourable people will act honourably, but it will help independence to be seen to be done if the auditor can be chosen by a fully independent audit committee. That would lead to greater control over the chief executive.

The fifth advantage is that an audit committee would improve the quality of the audit and accounting functions, in that an independent committee of the board is more likely to be able to see what is wrong with the internal functions of a company. A sort of paternalistic pride goes with setting up an accounting organisation within a company, and it is sometimes difficult to be detached enough to see that it is ineffective. If one works full time in a company, it is often difficult to have the experience to see what is actually happening outside. The ground shifts and systems change, and the future for that company may well be in progress which cannot be seen internally.

The last advantage of many that I could mention is that it improves communication between directors, auditors and the management of a company. It helps everybody to understand his role. The consultative committee of the accountancy bodies said that any audit committee should contain at least some of the following matters. It should contain a majority of the committee's members, including its chairman, and the majority should be non-executive directors. The chairman of the committee should also be non-executive. It said:

"the establishment of a committee should not reduce the collective responsibility of the whole board for financial … matters".

Indeed, it said that the committee should be totally non-executive.

The first of the only other two points that it makes and which I should like to mention is that the committee should be required to review at regular intervals the internal control system of the business. That is something that many executive directors find they have a little time or desire to do. The other recommendation is that the committee should meet the external auditors at least once a year, and that whenever the external auditors consider that a matter should be brought to the attention of the board of directors, it should be discussed.

The discussions between external auditors and directors should not merely take place in the office of the chief executive or the chief accountant, but should be open within the ambit of the audit committee. The remaining desirable features are helpfully set out in the appendix to the Bill about which my hon. Friend has spoken. I assure my hon. Friend that, because the appendix is not covered by copyright, it will be seen by thousands of future students and I hope that I have his permission to plagiarise mercilessly. It will certainly save me some trouble in the future.

Another point about audit committees is that in the United States, where they have been compulsory on the New York stock exchange since 1978, they have proved to be a success. I know a number of non-executive directors who serve on audit committees, and they felt that those committees have brought real accountability to the companies.

Audit committees have not been established under law because there are some disadvantages. It is argued that they split the board, that they would be seen to be cheating on themselves, that they would be seen to be ferreting for information to try to catch the chief executive out. I disagree. Splits already occur in boards. The point about an audit committee is that it can be properly and fully informed about matters on which non-executive directors are often not informed. Non-executive directors bring experience from outside. Such committees would help them to gain greater information about the internal workings of the company which they are trying to assist.

Another disadvantage, it is said, is that audit committees tend to pre-empt two-tier boards. I know that the Opposition support the idea of two-tier boards, whereas we do not. That argument is irrelevant, however, as the committee would be a sub-committee of a main board and therefore able to exist by itself. Another disadvantage, it is suggested, is that audit committees would encroach on management responsibilities. On the contrary, they would be supervisory of, and helpful and an independent source of advice to, management. I believe that management would be proud to work in an environment in which its skills could be recognised and rewarded properly.

It is argued that audit committees would be powerless if they could not enforce the recommendations or the report to their shareholders because they would not have executive power. I can think of nothing more powerful than an audit committee, by statute, insisting that its report be given to shareholders. That is an important element to build into the Bill in Committee.

One of the Government's major criticisms is that audit committees are not practicable in the United Kingdom because there are not enough non-executive directors to serve on them. I submit that we have not tried to find out, In an environment in which 35 per cent. of The Times top 1,000 companies have fewer than three non-executive directors and 25 per cent. have none, it is difficult to discover who would be able to put himself or herself forward.

One of the Government's criticisms of audit committees is that they smack of quangos. They suggest that the big companies, which my hon. Friend suggests should have audit committees, are exactly those which do not need them and that therefore to have an audit committee would be to have a quango forced on a company which is trying to be efficient. That argument is not valid, and I suspect that the public would not think it valid either.

Audit committees would cost a little more, but savings would flow from better management of internal systems. I believe that they would be extremely effective. The experiment in America, on which we can draw, has proved their need and worth. The Government ought to introduce an experiment in the larger companies, although I should like all public companies to submit themselves to audit committees.

That might be a dream, but I should like to conclude by drawing on my hon. Friend's analogy. He said that limited liability companies and cricket have a lot in common. Following the recent performance of the England team in the West Indies, I suggest that he is wrong. It is not limited liability, but limited ability, that worries us. It is not enterprise and expansion, but liquidation, about which we must be concerned. I strongly hope that the English team is not wound up. I believe that it needs an independent committee to which it can refer, and I should like my hon. Friend to serve on it.

The Bill is worthy, and has been for 17 years. I hope that the Government will give it a fair hearing.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams), who has mounted a long and persistent campaign to draw the House's attention to an important matter. He and the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) have shown that they believe that there has never been a more propitious moment for that 17-year-long campaign to reach fruition.

There is an undoubted and growing anxiety about how corporate affairs are monitored. That anxiety manifests itself in many ways, such as anxiety about how corporate bodies are supervised, and proposed Government action on the role of auditors. Concern was expressed in our deliberations last session on the Insolvency Act about the way in which the privilege of limited liability can be abused. There is currently concern, through the work of the House on the Financial Services Bill, about the protection of investors, particularly in corporate matters. I am glad to say that all that is backed up by indications from the Government of increased practical action to enforce the existing rule for the filing of annual returns and so on.

There will surely be a general endorsement of and welcome for the principles that underlie this Bill. One of the features that distinguishes to our disadvantage our system of doing things from that of rather more successful economies is that we have less disclosure and availability of information about the affairs of companies than is the case in, for example, the United States. We need that greater availability and a more efficient means of controlling, monitoring and supervising the financial administration of companies both in the interests of the investors and also of the efficient administration of companies and the business sector as a whole.

The preoccupation of the hon. Member for Kensington could accord very well with that increasingly held perception that limited liability—although I am happy to endorse the encomium by the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley)— is a privilege that carries with it commensurate responsibilities. We are quite entitled to look at the way in which those responsibilities are discharged.

The Bill is a modest provision. The hon. Gentleman has wisely stopped short of including any mandatory measures. All it does is invite companies to set up audit committees if they so wish and to rely on a statutory provision notwithstanding anything in their own articles. That is probably the right way to proceed. We can all accept that audit committees, despite arguments against them, would be a valuable step towards making information more readily available.

I have one slight cavil about clause 6. The hon. Member for Kensington has rightly identified a problem of pressing current concern. Accountants and auditors are increasingly worried both about the scope of litigation that they face in this and other jurisdictions and about the increasing difficulty of ensuring adequate insurance cover against awards and damages. Thus, the hon. Gentleman is right to direct attention to the problem, but I am concerned whether he has found the right solution.

I am not sure whether I know the right answer, although I have seen a range of possible answers, including limited liability. I believe that in clause 6 the hon. Gentleman may have gone for a solution that is a little odd. If we get to Committee, we can assess whether there might be different ways of limiting liability or in other ways meeting the real concerns of the accountancy profession.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is great concern about the level of fraud in corporate and other financial affairs and undertakings. However, an equally important matter to which we should devote attention is to ensure that the law in this field is properly drafted so as to secure the effective administration of our corporate undertakings. This Bill can contribute usefully in that direction.

It is an agreeable although somewhat challenging task to have the duty of replying to my hon. Friend, the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) who once again has brought before the House a Bill to amend company law.

My hon. Friend's campaign on this matter has indeed been long, and I am sure that he has broken many records for such a campaign. I wish to join other hon. Members in paying tribute to him for his persistence and determination in waging that campaign. He has been reinforced on this occasion by the advocacy of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) who takes a close and constructive interest in these matters and who made a number of intelligent points, as did the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) in his brief but characteristically eloquent contribution to the deliberations of the House.

Since my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington began his long campaign—some 17 years ago—there has certainly been no lack of companies legislation, both in response to changing circumstances at home and to implement our European Community commitments. Without any attempt at producing a comprehensive list, I can site the Companies (Floating Charges and Receivers) (Scotland) Act 1972, section 9 of the European Communities Act 1972, the Companies Act 1976 the Insolvency Act 1976, the Companies Act 1980, the Companies Act 1981 and the Companies (Beneficial Interests) Act 1983, all of which—and more—have now been consolidated.

In addition, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes knows particularly well, we have the very important Insolvency Act 1985. The Financial Services Bill has received its Second Reading and has been considered in Committee. There will be secondary legislation later this year to implement the third and sixth company law directives. Thus, there has been and will be no shortage of companies and related legislation. There are times when I echo the views of those who argue that there is sometimes a little too much. Indeed, my hon. Friend recognised the existence of this disenchantment in a speech on an earlier, somewhat similar, occasion in 1982.

It might therefore be convenient if I describe briefly the Government's general approach to proposals for change in company law. It is based on the following considerations. First, proposals for changes must be based on more than theoretical arguments. There must be a demonstrable need for change with a marked balance of advantage over disadvantage. We are most concerned to avoid placing new burdens on industry and commerce, unless there is a strong case for additional protection for creditors and shareholders.

Secondly, because of the risk of promoting legislation which is technically defective, wherever possible such legislation should be preceded by thorough and extensive consultation with interested parties, including the professions. Thirdly, although inevitably there are occasions when the national interest requires the views of particular interested parties to be given less weight than they would wish, it is important as far as possible to attract the support of interested parties for proposed changes.

I fully understand that the intention behind my hon. Friend's proposals is to improve the efficiency of British business by arresting what he believes to be a long-term decline in the effectiveness of shareholders and the efficiency of directors and managers. The question is whether the proposed changes are necessarily the most effective method of achieving that objective.

I shall look in detail at the Bill's proposals. They fall under five separate heads. First, the directors' report of every public company shall state which of the directors is a non-executive director.

Secondly, every public company shall circulate a list of candidates for election as director 21 days before the meeting at which the election will take place. If a candidate so requests, the company must circulate a statement of not more than 200 words describing his qualification for election. The list of candidates shall specify those who are seeking nomination as non-executive directors.

Thirdly, the agenda for every annual general meeting of a major public company shall include, as a separate item, the consideration of the appointment or reappointment of an audit committee of the board. The Bill goes on to set out in some detail how such a committee would be constituted and provides a set of model regulations for such a committee.

Fourthly, the directors of every public company are required to produce, at least once in each financial year, such data and estimates about the company's business and estimates of its future business as will allow a reasonable assessment to be made of the company's ability to carry on business as a going concern and to pay its debts as they fall due. Such data and estimates must be provided to the company directors, the company secretary and the auditors, who, if in their opinion the requirements have not been complied with, must say so in their report.

Last, but by no means least, the Bill limits the liability of any individual appointed as auditor, or of an employee of an auditor, to a maximum of £50,000 for negligence, default or a breach of duty.

Four of the proposals concern activities of the board. Three would be mandatory — those relating to the identification of non-executive directors, the circulation of details of candidates and the preparation of data and estimates. The fourth, that relating to audit committees, would be voluntary. I shall come to the final proposal, that relating to the liability of auditors, in due course.

I have to say that, in the Government's view, the first, four proposals would not, either taken singly or together, have the effect that my hon. Friend hopes to achieve. There are advantages in the appointment of non-executive directors to public limited companies, particularly those which are quoted on the stock exchange, who are able to make—

Object.

Second Reading what day? No day named.

Object.

Second Reading what day?

With the permission of the Member in charge of the Bill, Sir, Friday 4 July.

Object.

Second Reading what day? No day named.

Not moved.

Object.

Object.

Object.

With the permission of the Member in charge of the Bill, Sir, Friday 4 July.

Object.

Not moved.

The east London borough of Newham has suffered cruelly from seven years of Thatcher government. All its problems have been aggravated and exacerbated. It faces a crisis of decline and decay, and this speech is a cry of pain. My purpose is to state the facts, and to ask the Government to face their responsibilities to help and assist the borough, not to damage it further.

Much of Newham was built in the middle of the last century. Much of its economic life derived from the port of London and the industry and commerce that went with it. Now the port is no more, the old industries have left, much of the housing stock is decaying, and unemployment is rife. We share many of those problems with other inner-city areas, which are time bombs ticking away, threatening to explode. The better off move out, leaving behind those with fewer skills. The major employers leave, and monetarism blights the few remaining companies which are struggling to survive.

In that vicious circle, as jobs go, incomes fall, housing becomes dilapidated, the area becomes down at heel and tatty, and graffiti, vandalism and crime grow. It is in such areas that those out of work become the long-term unemployed, the least skilled are likely to live, the old are most likely to be made redundant, and the young have greatest difficulty in finding work. Moreover, the ethnic minorities are over-represented in all those groups. The frustration from that additional layer of racial disadvantage makes a combustible mixture.

We are becoming an increasingly divided nation; divided between the comfortable Britain of the well housed, with jobs, who live in the suburbs, and the Britain of the poor in our discarded, crumbling inner cities. There, the young are an outcast generation, shut out of society. There are also signs that we are creating a new black under-class—a phenomenon which has no parallel in British working-class history.

Nowhere has the impact of Government economic policy been more harshly felt than in the inner cities. To make matters worse, there has been a massive switch of Government resources away from the inner cities. Nine years ago the Labour Government designated 14 of the 364 local government districts in England as areas of exceptional deprivation and need, for which additional resources had to be found. They were grouped into partnership areas. Three instruments of policy were used to help them: the rate support grant, based on an assessment of needs, the housing investment programme, and the refurbished urban programme.

What has happened since? In real terms, the urban programme in those areas has been increased from about £150 million in 1975 to about £200 million in 1984—in constant prices, an increase of £50 million. However, the rate support grant has been reduced in constant prices by no less than £720 million. In the same period in those 14 areas, the housing investment programme has been reduced in constant prices by £270 million. Those 14 areas of great deprivation have been savaged in six years to the tune of £900 million a year.

It is no wonder that there is an inner-city crisis, social tension, disturbances, petty theft, house-breaking and drug abuse. If there is not to be a breakdown of society in Britain, the Government must take emergency action to tackle the inner-city crisis. Several Government Departments must co-operate in a major development of urban policy. It is no good expecting the invisible hand of the market to solve the problems or addressing them in the rhetoric of the competitive race or saying that these areas should stand on their own two feet. It cannot be left to the private sector, because there is no private profit in clearing away dereliction. Those areas do not have sufficient own resources. It is a national responsibility. There can be no substitute for the public sector taking the lead in halting the downward spiral and creating the environment and conditions for the private sector to follow.

Let me deal with the borough of Newham, which has been treated so unfairly by the Government. The people of Newham face a range of social, economic and environmental problems which are greater than almost anywhere in the country. What are the facts? Some 20,000 people—20 per cent., or one in five, of the work force—are unemployed. Since the Government came into office, 150 Newham residents have joined the dole queue every month. Sixty-five per cent. of council tenants qualify for housing benefit. Well over 30,000 are on the bread line, drawing means-tested supplementary benefit. Many thousands of children live in those families.

Housing is a major headache. The cheaply built working-class housing of Victorian times badly needs renewal. Post-war rebuilding has added problems of high-density, high-rise estates. Newham has 112 tower blocks, including the tragic Ronan Point, and more people living above the 10th floor than in any other area of the country. There are 11,000 households without baths or inside toilets. More than half the privately rented homes do not have those facilities. There are nearly 6,500 overcrowded households and more than 5,000 single-parent households. The waiting list for council housing is 7,300―59 per cent. up on 1983. Can the Minister understand the number of housing cases with which I must deal in my advice surgeries?

Despite those needs, which mean that Newham rates second only to Lambeth in housing need, the council receives a housing investment programme allocation from the Government smaller than that of almost all the inner London boroughs.

A Department of Education and Science study showed that, of 104 education areas in England, Newham has the highest percentage of children from low socio-economic roots, the highest percentage of children living in poor housing, the fourth highest percentage of non-white children and the fourth highest percentage of children from large families. About 35 per cent. of schoolchildren come from ethnic minorities. This large cultural diversity needs a wide range of special curricula.

As a result of difficult backgrounds, motivation and aspiration are low. Only 3 per cent. of children go on to university and another 5 per cent. to other forms of higher education—the second lowest in the country. By contrast, in Richmond upon Thames, 18 per cent. of children achieve university entrance. Many of Newham's schools are Victorian or Edwardian buildings lacking play space or sports fields.

The people of Newham come from many races and cultures. Well over a quarter belong to one of the New Commonwealth ethnic groups. Only Brent and Hackney have a larger black ethnic population, and they both receive special urban programme resources, while Newham does not. For Newham's ethnic minority groups, the problems of inner-city deprivation are compounded by racial disadvantage and discrimination. Newham's ethnic minority communities have special requirements which need additional resources. The size and diversity of Newham's ethnic population means that we have a range of needs, aspirations and outlooks, so that the task of fulfilling them is more complex and extensive than in other areas.

Newham has more than its fair share of social problems and of people in need of special care and attention. The frail, the elderly, single parents, families in tower blocks, the ill and the handicapped all make heavy demands on the borough's social services. Mortality and morbidity rates are above average. Many young people are disillusioned about the prospects of life on the dole and have slipped into a sub-culture of truancy, vandalism and crime. Too many get into trouble with the police.

That is Newham's plight. It needs special urban programme support in the form of partnership status. On the positive side, Newham's communities are resilient. They showed that during the blitz. There is a wealth of talent and of ideas for overcoming the difficulties. In this spirit, public, private and voluntary agencies have joined together to produce an action plan in anticipation of partnership status and the additional funds that it would produce.

The plan embraces six main proposals. First, we need to tackle unemployment and local employment problems, supporting existing jobs and firms and encouraging new jobs and investment. Secondly, we need to improve the physical environment. There is much to be done in improving drab local surroundings. Thirdly, we need to overcome Newham's acute housing stress. That would directly improve people's quality of life and in particular reduce the stresses reflected in the indicators of poor health and social and educational disadvantage. This would encourage skilled and qualified workers to stay in, or move to, the borough.

Fourthly, we need to tackle racial disadvantage and promote good race relations. Newham is a prime example of a multiracial society. We want to build on our vibrant multicultural community, in which everyone participates fully in the life of the borough. Our ethnic minorities need full access to the range of local services and help in establishing their own facilities to meet the social, educational and cultural needs of their communities.

Fifthly, we need to cope with social stress and people in need. Newham has a disproportionate number of people suffering from the stresses of low income, unemployment, old age and disability and in need of health and support. The strategy is to develop complementary statutory and voluntary services to help people to lead full lives. We want to develop care in the community rather than in institutions. In addition, the borough wants to develop intermediate treatment projects as an alternative to custodial care for juveniles in trouble.

Sixthly — last but not least — we need to widen educational opportunity and to help people to realise their full potential.

I have outlined the borough's problems and how local people want to tackle them. The plan and the approach to that Government have the full support of Newham council, Newham health authority, Newham chamber of commerce, the Newham voluntary agencies council and the Newham race relations association. It is also, of course, supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), whom I am pleased to see in the Chamber. I am making a plea for central Government to stretch out their hand in partnership and to work in co-operation with Newham to solve the borough's problems. So far, the Government have discriminated against the borough. The Government's statistics show that other areas, less deprived, get more. Nor does the allocation of traditional urban aid offer a solution. Newham receives less and less from the source every year.

Only partnership status will give an assured source of special financial resources. It is a mystery to me why it has not been granted already, and why Newham is discriminated against. When we visited the Under-Secretary of State recently, the hon. Lady said that she was mystified as to why adjacent and very similar boroughs were sometimes treated so differently. I will hazard a guess about the reason. Such decisions are often worked out by computers in the Department. I suspect that someone has fed into the computer the information that part of Newham falls within the area of the London Docklands development corporation, which is given extra resources to promote development in dockland. The computer has concluded that Newham is already being aided and therefore does not qualify for partnership status. Incidentally, Tower Hamlets has partnership status, although it is also a dockland borough.

If this is so— it is the only explanation that I can think of—the Minister should tell the computer that it is a delusion and a misreading. Other facts should be fed into the computer. Although one third of the borough's space is in docklands, 94 per cent. of its people live outside. The non-docklands part of the borough has a population greater than the whole of Hackney or Tower Hamlets and has a range of inner-city problems of the same magnitude, but it does not receive the resources that these adjacent areas receive.

The majority of the ethnic minorities live in the north and east of the borough. Action to meet their needs will have to be concentrated there. The computer should be told as soon as possible that the establishment of the LDDC by the Government has made it more difficult to tackle the borough's problems. For example, the LDDC's concentration on building homes for sale has depleted the land stock that had been reserved for council housing. That makes it more difficult to reduce housing shortages and retards the process of decanting young families from tower blocks. The needs of the north of the borough where my constituents live are different from those in the docklands. Partnership resources are urgently needed to meet those needs.

I hope that the Minister will not try to fob me off by talking about the traditional urban programme. The seven partnership authorities receive an additional £10 million to £25 million each, and even the 23 programme authorities receive an additional £3 million to £6 million each, but Newham receives only £1·5 million under the urban programme. Newham is more deprived than six of the seven partnership authorities and more deprived than all the programme authorities. What explanation do the Government have for that unfair treatment of Newham?

It is no use the Minister talking about urban development grants. Newham has received only one large grant, for Gunson Sortex. Such grants do not tackle social problems and are limited by the private sector's interest. Few firms are coming forward with plans.

The Minister should not talk about other designated districts or ODD funds. Newham receives only £400,000 here. There are six applications for derelict land grants in, and we are awaiting the results.

Traditional urban aid is the only source of special Government funding available to Newham for community and social projects, but this is actually being reduced. In 1985–86 the figure was unchanged, at about £400,000, but the 1986–87 grant has been cut by almost half, to £254,000. Why is Newham being treated so badly?

The one-off nature of the funding contrasts sharply with the rolling programmes which are a feature of partnership authorities. Newham has only mainstream funding. Exchequer support for council revenue expenditure has been cut from 61 per cent. in 1979–80 to 46 per cent. in 1986–87. This has resulted in losses of tens of millions of pounds to the council.

In recent years the council has been able to use internal funds to meet part of its annual expenditure. It has done that to keep rates lower than they would otherwise have been. This is sometimes called creative accounting. However, in 1986–87 it is not able to do that. Although revenue balances will be used to alleviate the final rate demand, a strong element of shortfall has to be passed on to the ratepayer. Rates are being increased by 13 per cent. this year because of Government rate support grant cuts. Newham's rates have gone up this year because, by special measures, the council kept rates down in previous years.

The Minister has been to Newham. He knows about its severe problems. He must also know that Government action in mainstream capital and revenue finance to the borough and the absence of partnership status shows a complete disregard for the problems. The Government have made false promises to the people of Newham. If the urban crisis in Newham is to be tackled vigorously, new programmes, projects and facilities will be required. Newham's case for partnership, which the Government are sitting on, identifies a practical strategy and a plan of action for addressing these issues.

Do we have to wait for a new Government before there is action? I look forward to hearing whether that is so. I call on the Government to work with us to help the borough to implement the new programmes, to tackle the special and severe problems of Newham by giving partnership resources and creating conditions which can offer a more purposeful and rewarding way of life to my constituency.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) on his presentation of the case for Newham. If promotion to partnership status were based just on the energy, persistence and eloquence of Newham councillors and Members, Newham would have been promoted some time ago; however, the Government have to take other factors into account.

As the hon. Member said, the case has been put to me on several occasions and, more recently, on 10 March, to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I have been to Newham several times and have had a guided tour with the both the hon. Member for Newham, North-East and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Bank.). I have met leaders of the council on several occasions, and through my contact with the London Docklands development corporation, I have an insight into some of the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I would not dissent from some of his analysis, although he will not expect me to endorse his criticisms of the Government.

We accept the need for Newham to be given help to take advantage of opportunities for urban regeneration and to tackle the social, housing, economic and educational difficulties in the borough. Sadly, these problems are not peculiar to Newham. They are shared with many inner-London and a few other outer-London boroughs, but I accept that they are present in acute form in Newham; that underlines the need for priority to be given to the borough in distributing any additional resources.

While recognising the strength of Newham's case for partnership status, we consider it important that existing partnership and programme authorities should receive support that is sufficiently substantial and long terra to underwrite a full programme of projects, so that a real impact can be made on the ground and an assessment made of the relative merits of different types of projects.

Limited urban programme resources have meant that we have had to restrict the number of partnership and programme authorities to avoid spreading resources too thinly. Total urban programme resources are constrained and there is little likelihood in the immediate future of further partnership or programme authorities being created. I know that this will come as a disappointment to the hon. Gentleman, and to Newham, but I can assure him that this is something that we keep under review, and that Newham's case will be given priority if and when changes are made. This does not mean that we are currently ignoring Newham's problems or refusing to help the borough. Help is being offered to Newham in a number of ways.

The hon. Member ended by referring to rate support grant and the rates, but he was on fairly thin ice there. Under the 1986–87 settlement, we were willing to increase Newham's rate support grant by £21·8 million—that is, 34·7 per cent. — over 1985–86, for spending at the assumed level of a 3·4 per cent. increase on 1985–86 levels. We estimated that Newham's expenditure would increase by 14·5 per cent. largely due to abolition of the GLC. The proposed settlement would have allowed for a rate reduction of some 14 per cent. Unfortunately, Newham has chosen to increase spending by as much as 26 per cent., and it has therefore inflicted on its ratepayers the largest rates increase— 12 per cent—in London. The hon. Gentleman must accept that that represents an opportunity lost to ease the burden on local residents and business and to encourage enterprise. I mention this only because the hon. Gentleman spoke in a somewhat provocative way in that regard.

We are determined to help Newham to tackle its urban problems in a number of specific ways. It is an "other designated district" in urban programme language and is making good use of its powers under the Inner Urban Areas Act, with the aid of grant from the Department.

In 1985–86 we approved 79 projects, attracting grant of nearly £360,000. Of those approvals, more than a third were rent grants for start-up businesses taking space in the Stratford workshops—the old Plessey works, which had been converted to provide 93 small managed workshop units. I recently approved a project to provide additional workshop space at the Shalom employment action centre, with grant support of £47,000. That centre is aimed at the long-term unemployed. The majority of users are from Asian or Afro-Caribbean backgrounds and special provision is also being made for the young unemployed.

In relation to the traditional urban programme, £694,000 was allocated in 1985–86, compared with £264,000 the previous year. There were exceptional reasons, due to underspend elsewhere, and I cannot hold out any prospect of such a large increase this year. Nevertheless, that was a substantial sum to help industrial and commercial projects in Newham. Quite a few of the projects were aimed directly at ethnic minority groups. At the top of the list, approvals for children's holiday projects worth nearly £32,000 were given and the Department is making more than £500,000 available to help Newham to support voluntary bodies previously backed by the GLC.

We are grateful for the various packages offered by the Government, but does the Minister accept that, as Newham is the second most deprived local authority area in England, the resources received from the Department are inadequate to deal with our problems?

The reality of government, as compared with the aspiration of opposition, is that one has to make difficult decisions. The London borough of Haringey, for example, can make a case almost as eloquent as that made today for Newham, but if we promote boroughs such as Haringey and Newham we must inevitably demote others. If one accepts that the purpose of the partnership programme is to make a sustained attack on the problems of a borough, it cannot simply be switched off from one year to the next. We are committed to an element of continuity in the programme and it is difficult to promote boroughs such as Newham and Haringey unless additional resources are made available for the programme as a whole.

That is up to you.

With regard to derelict land—

rose—

The hon. Gentleman slightly overreached his time, and I wish to say something about derelict land.

The impression that I got when I visited the borough was one of considerable dereliction. The Department is writing to Newham today to convey approval of two projects for derelict land of some £36,000, with the possibility of further approvals to come. The two approved projects involve the reclamation of land and buildings off High street, Newham at the Bow bridge site—I do not know which hon. Gentleman has the fortune to have that site in his constituency—and off the North Woolwich road at Knights road, in an industrial improvement area.

The first project concerns the clearance of land and the second involves the clearance of obsolete industrial buildings and the removal of rubble. We have also been discussing with the borough and with the gas board the possibility of supporting, through derelict land grant, a major survey of the Beckton gasworks site. We are now awaiting proposals from the gas board, which we shall consider as positively as we can.

It is true that, so far, only one approval has been given for urban development grant — the Gunson Sortex project — but the Department is in touch with the borough about two possible further projects and I am pleased to see that good progress has been made in working up those cases.

As the hon. Member for Newham, North-East knows, we set up an urban housing renewal until last year, with £50 million available, to tackle local authority housing problems. On top of that, resources were available for community refurbishment schemes to improve municipal estates. I am glad that, at the council's request, my Department's urban housing renewal unit was able to visit Newham on 6 February to offer advice on how to tackle some of the worst rundown housing estates.

As a result of that visit, the borough has now submitted proposals for four schemes involving the Rathbone estate, Clements Avenue estate, James Sinclair Point and Dennison Point. The proposals are now being considered, and my Department will be in touch with Newham shortly about some of the details.

The hon. Member touched on the London Docklands development corporation. It is not a computer which makes the decisions, it is the Minister. I am not sure whether that is good news or bad news for hon. Members. We know that the LDDC area represents a relatively small area of Newham. None the less, it has brought considerable investment and activity to the borough. For example, 1,339 homes had been built on LDDC land in Newham up to September 1985. That represents nearly two thirds of total house building on LDDC land.

Prices.

The hon. Gentleman shouts, "Prices." However, nearly half the houses have been sold for less than £40,000, which, for London, is relatively cheap. We have widened housing choice to residents of the borough. If the hon. Gentleman looks at those who have bought houses from the LDDC, he will find that a substantial number, about one third, are either tenants of existing local authority houses or those on the waiting list.

I hope that the wide range of projects and initiatives I have mentioned in the short time available will reassure the hon. Gentleman and Newham that the Government are concerned to help the borough with the process of urban regeneration. I am impressed by the width of support for the borough's efforts to stimulate the local economy and improve the environment and the efforts of all sections of the business community and the voluntary sector. Within the resources available, we will continue to give what help and support we can in working up good schemes for further specific grant support.

Does the Minister not agree that the moral of what he has said is that the Government are not appraised of the seriousness of the inner-city crisis and are not putting in sufficient resources? Last year we spent half a billion pounds in the Falklands. Would it not be better to put half a billion pounds into our inner cities before they explode?

When the Govenment took office in 1979, £90 million was spent on the urban programme. The figure for the current year is £317 million. It has gone up very substantially. Therefore, it is not true that we have switched our priorities away from the inner cities. We are spending more and more on them. We have introduced the derelict land grant scheme and the urban development grant and we have a new grant in the Housing and Planning Bill, currently going through the House.

Therefore, I reject the criticism that we are insensitive to the problems of inner cities. However, it is not just a question of public expenditure; it needs the commitment of the private sector and the voluntary sector. We are determined to harness the energy of those sectors in tackling the problems in Newham and elsewhere.