I beg leave to present a petition from supporters of Millwall football club and members of the Football Supporters Association which has been endorsed by 10,000 signatures, including mine. The substance of the petition is that

the proposed legislation to force football supporters to carry identification cards … will have little impact on the problem of football-related violence, will hinder football's attempts to attract a new generation of supporters and will lead to the eventual demise of the game as a spectator sport.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Government to bring forward proposals which have the support of genuine football supporters.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etcetera.

I beg leave to present a petition from Councillor Mrs. Jill Reeves and other residents in my constituency of Castle Point who are concerned that any future legislation on Sunday trading and

commercial activity should uphold the character of Sunday as a shared and special day for the enjoyment of family life, rest, community and worship.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House do safeguard the uniqueness of the whole of Sunday, both through the requirements of the law, and through the enforcement of the same.

And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, etc.

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

The new clause stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin). At the start, may I say how much I support the Bill. It is a much-needed measure. Like many other hon. Members, I congratulate the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) on selecting this theme. When I cast my mind back over the nearly six years in which it has been my privilege to be a Member, I doubt whether three or four months have passed without a constituent getting in touch with me about the hearing aid industry or about the activities—or lack of them—of the Hearing Aid Council. It is generally agreed that the time is long overdue to turn our attention to the Hearing Aid Council. I support the Bill fully and the amendments to it have one purpose only—to make a good Bill even better.

In preparing for the debate, my attention was brought, courtesy of the House of Commons Library, to the Royal National Institute for the Deaf and its current paper "Hearing Aids: the Case for Change", which was published in October 1988. One need quote only one paragraph to illustrate the need for the Bill and the new clause. It gives this startling information:

"the Disciplinary Committee of the Council has met just 11 times since 1968 and not at all since 1985 … just 7 dispensers have been struck off the Register, the last in 1976."

I dare say that matters have changed since October, but that is a startling admission of the council's ineffectiveness and inadequacies.

For the sake of accuracy, will my hon. Friend confirm that the Hearing Aid Council can institute disciplinary proceedings only if it receives complaints? No doubt my hon. Friend will let the House know how any complaints were received during the period that he mentioned; according to my information it was relatively few.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right that relatively few complaints have been received, and that underlines the weakness of the whole system: the Hearing Aid Council's code of practice does not afford the protection that consumers—and sometimes the industry—need.

I was agreeably surprised to discover that the new clause had been selected for debate. It approximates very closely to the new clause 1 that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn moved on 5 April in Committee and I shall deploy substantially the same arguments as he did. It is unusual for us to have a second opportunity—by means of a second new clause—to debate a matter that is undoubtedly of great importance, but more can, and should, be said in support of the general theme that the Secretary of State should be given more powers.

May I reply to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter)? I understand that the disciplinary committee of the Hearing Aid Council has met just five times since 1976 and struck off one dispenser in 12 years. In the 21 years of its existence, it has met only 12 times and struck off only seven dispensers. That contrasts sharply with the 300 complaints received by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr.Jones) since the introduction of the Bill was announced. There is therefore a case for saying that there is a background of complaints that have not been adequately dealt with by the present machinery of the council.

My hon. Friend puts more clearly the point that I tried to make in response to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr.Porter)—that the system has not been working. That problem is being addressed in the Bill.

As arguments in favour of the new clause are essentially the same as those advanced in an earlier debate, it is important and beneficial to consider what was said in Committee by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn and by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs. In speaking to his new clause, the hon. Member for Ynys Môn started with a significant point. Displaying his natural courtesy, he thanked the Minister and his officials for the assistance that he had received in preparing the Bill and, no doubt, arguments in favour of some of the clauses. It seems to me that, in so doing, the hon. Gentleman laid himself open to the charge that I level against him now without any malice, that he did not press his arguments home strongly enough. I believe that those arguments are stronger than those deployed by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in reply.

9.45 am

The hon. Member for Ynys Môn continued by explaining that the Hearing Aid Council was set up in 1968, and that section 1 of the Hearing Aid Council Act required the council to draw up standards of competence and codes of trade practice for the industry. The significant point is that the 1968 Act gave the Secretary of State only limited powers, as was pointed out several times in Committee. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn said:

"Even if there were an overwhelming case for change, the Secretary of State would be powerless to intervene if the council refused to act."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 5 April 1989, c. 3.]

His new clause and this new clause represent attempts to redress that balance and correct that imperfection.

The hon. Member for Ynys Môn then drew attention to the grave anxiety that had been expressed over the years about the workings of the Hearing Aid Council—the very subject to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) referred. It was concluded in Committee that the case for change was overwhelming.

The hon. Member for Ynys Môn referred to some startling instances of high-pressure sales techniques, by which vulnerable people had been persuaded to invest in hearing aid equipment costing up to £1,000. I have not encountered such appalling abuses of sales techniques, but I remember clearly trying to help one or two of my constituents who had been pressurised into spending several hundreds of pounds on such equipment.

The hon. Member for Ynys Môn stressed the failure of the Hearing Aid Council and pointed out that, under the existing regime, nothing could be done to change the code of practice. He anticipated the Minister's reply to his argument—the same argument that he will perhaps now deploy—that a change in the composition of the council would be sufficient to provide the safeguards that are now missing. The Minister duly replied in that vein in Committee. He acknowledged that there was a fundamental difference between the promoter of the Bill and the Department about the role of the Secretary of State.

I was not present, but I can imagine my hon. Friend the Minister injecting a note of humour into his voice when he pointed out the irony that, in this case, Opposition Members were arguing for an intensification and extension of the powers of the Secretary of State, whereas they usually argue for the reverse. My hon. Friend described himself as "in principle a non-interventionist". The basis of his argument was that there was no need for the Secretary of State to have additional powers and that all would be made well by changing the composition of the council.

Under the new clause, the Secretary of State of the day could decide whether to intervene. The key difference between this new clause and the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) in Committee is that the present one gives the Secretary of State discretionary power to intervene, whereas the new clause moved in Committee placed a compulsion upon him to intervene if things went wrong. If we had a non-interventionist Secretary of State, therefore, there would be no intervention, but if we had an interventionist Secretary of State, no doubt he would use his powers.

My hon. Friend has made a point that I intended to make—no doubt more clearly than I could have done. The new clause is a compromise between the ideas advanced by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn in his new clause and the Minister's non-interventionist attitude; it does not go as far as the first, but is not as reactionary as the second. The Under-Secretary of State's argument is flawed. I say that with great respect. He lays himself open to three charges, which I hope he will answer.

The first is his faith in the belief that, should the council be composed differently, all would be made well. That assumption has not yet been convincingly demonstrated. Secondly, in Committee the Minister failed to perceive the true nature of the Hearing Aid Council, even revised as he would accept it. Thirdly, he does not realise that he is supporting the creation of a council which still will not have acceptable and adequate powers. I shall examine those three points in detail.

The first charge is that the Minister put too much faith in the assumption that, by changing the composition of the council, all would be well. In Standing Committee he referred to the change in the composition as

"the key provision of the Bill."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 5 April 1989, c. 14.]

He regarded it as a panacea that would correct all the faults and failings in existing custom.

If we look carefully at what the Minister said, we find not an argument but a simple assertion of a point of view. He asserted that, when changed, the council would solve the problem. He gave no reason why he came to that conclusion. He gave almost precisely the opposite. As reported in columns 15 and 16 of Hansard, the Minister gave two reasons why he believed the composition of the council should be changed. Neither is that the Bill will give the council sufficient power and thus make the Secretary of State's intervention unnecessary.

First, he stressed that the existing composition of the council puts an unreasonable burden on the chairman. No member of the Standing Committee quarrelled with that. Secondly, he argued that the increase to the 4:4:4 composition of the council would avoid confrontation. Those are the only two reasons that my hon. Friend gave for changing the composition. He did not show why changing the composition would remove the need for, or how it could be used as an argument against, giving extra powers to the Secretary of State.

I am flattered that my hon. Friend should refer at such length and with such knowledge to my modest interventions in Committee. For the benefit of the House, will he distinguish the arguments about the composition of the council and its powers? He will concede that the Bill would alter both. My argument put the two together. I said that the composition was important but that measures in other parts of the Bill with regard to the council's powers were of equal importance.

I have studied the Official Report carefully. I must concede that, if that is the Minister's argument, I do not immediately find it reflected in the columns of Hansard. My hon. Friend must be right, and I must be wrong.

The point that I am struggling to make is that there is nothing in the columns of Hansard or in the Minister's argument to show that the change in the composition of the council excludes the need to increase the Secretary of State's power. The Minister's argument is not the only one open to that charge. Seven other hon. Members spoke in the debate in Committee. I refer to my hon. Friends the Members for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) and for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), and to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), and the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) as well as the hon. Member for Ynys Môn.

Not one made the point or accepted the argument that a change in composition would remove the need for the Secretary of State to have additional powers. Although, as the Minister suggests, there may be strong arguments against giving the Secretary of State extra powers, they were not demonstrated in Committee.

After reading the Standing Committee report, I am still confused about what the Under-Secretary of State meant when he said that the Secretary of State should be left with existing reserve powers. It was a short speech by the Minister. I hope that he will be able to elucidate his point further. I have read his speech in Committee carefully. I do not think that he explained to the Committee— I hope that he will explain it to the House in rather more detail—what he means by reserve powers. Perhaps he will compare such reserve powers in the Bill with the other reserve powers that the Secretary of State may exercise in other responsibilities.

I welcome that intervention. The Minister has a lot to explain. His arguments in Standing Commit tee were far from acceptable even to his hon. Friends.

I sense that, as my hon. Friend proceeds, he is shooting a large number of foxes that would otherwise be run by people such as myself if I had the chance. He is making many important points. What the Under-Secretary of State really would like is a self-regulatory system, which I confess I should like, but we do not have a self-regulatory system in this hearing aid matter: we have an existing framework. The purpose of the new clause, which I support, is to improve that framework. We cannot go back. We cannot try to get the self-regulatory system that I suspect my hon. Friend the Minister would like.

That is a valid observation. I suspect that, when the hon. Member for Ynys Môn decided to embark on this course of action, he had to make a fundamental decision. Was he to seek to reform the existing system, improve what we have, or go back to square one and start again with an entirely different structure? Obviously, he chose the course of effectively reforming the existing system. I agree with him: the right approach was to seek to improve the position, and this Bill does that, with one or two exceptions. But some points must be tightened yet further.

Another charge which one can level against the Minister's argument in Committee is that he failed to appreciate the true nature of the Hearing Aid Council, even as freshly constituted. The Minister said:

"As a principled non-interventionist, I do not believe that Secretaries of State should have more powers than are absolutely necessary".—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 5 April 1989; c. 4.]

Those words remind me of an article that appeared in The Guardian two or three years ago. I was greatly flattered to be linked with the Minister when The Guardian described us as Right-wing libertarians. I do not like that description of myself, but I recall the Minister accepting it with some pleasure. Right-wing libertarian or not, he said that he was a principled non-interventionist.

Surely a principled non-interventionist would not approve what is effectively a quango. We have a Government-appointed committee. Its composition is deliberately changed to avoid confrontation. The Minister hopes that it will conduct its affairs even with a minimum of votes. In Committee, he said that he hoped that its decision would not have to be taken by vote. I do not believe that that is a satisfactory state of affairs. I cannot reconcile with the Minister's right-wing libertarianism his support for such a quango. I believe that, on those grounds, we should look much more carefully at giving the Secretary of State exceptional powers to intervene.

My third reason for believing that we can quarrel with the argument put forward by the Minister is the expression:

"The Secretary of State should be left with the existing reserve powers, but they should not be enhanced."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 5 April 1989; c. 4.]

I shall refer to that when I deal with the new clause in more detail.

10 am

I propound the thesis that the Bill as it stands is inadequate in that the Secretary of State has only reactive rather than proactive powers. If we wish to repair the past damage—as, indeed, we do—surely we must do the job properly and ensure that the Secretary of State has power to act in a proactive rather than a reactive way.

The new clause gives the Secretary of State proactive powers to draw up standards of competence and codes of practice for the hearing industry. At present, as many hon. Members will realise, he can only modify the standards or codes put to him by the council. The purpose of new clause I is the same essentially as that put to the Government by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn in Committee. It was rejected there, on the ground that changing the composition of the council to reflect more the interest of hearing aid users would ensure that change could be achieved.

I argue that the council is effectively a quango and its members are appointed by the Secretary of State. While it exists, it must protect effectively the interests of hearing aid users. The new clause would ensure that the Secretary of State could act in the event of a revised standard or code being needed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside said in his intervention, the power is discretionary. It does not compel the Secretary of State to act. It provides that he must first consult the council and consider any representations. It does not, therefore, overburden the Secretary of State with executive power. The third part of the new clause would also compel the council to investigate complaints received from the public. At present, the council is under no obligation to do so.

Although I support the Bill very much, I believe that it could be made a better one by the addition of the new clause. I have no hesitation in commending it to hon. Members.

I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) for the Bill. I was surprised, however, by the number of words used by the hon. Gentleman to describe the new clause, valuable though it is. I never dreamed that he had such a capacity for eloquence, such tremendous descriptive powers or such a great depth of knowledge. I congratulate him on his fine display. I noticed the hon. Member looking at his watch as he spoke. I could not make up my mind whether he was looking at it because he felt that he had been speaking too long or because he felt that he was not filling the time that he had allotted to himself.

The hon. Member for Basingstoke said that the sponsor of the Bill did not stress his points strongly enough in Committee. I have never won the ballot, although I have worked closely with hon. Members who have. I have never won a raffle in my life. If the hon. Member for Basingstoke is ever lucky enough to win the ballot, he will know that one has to be diplomatic and try to work with the Government. The relationship between the sponsor and the Minister has been a good one. I believe that the sponsor was right to indulge in that give and take. He has produced an excellent Bill. If we start interfering, being dogmatic and assertive, we get nowhere. I reject that criticism of the sponsor. I reject, too, the criticisms of the Minister. It is a fine thing when a Member on the Labour Benches defends a Conservative Minister, but I shall like it to go on record that the Minister has done a good job on this Bill.

I did not think that the composition of the council come within the ambit of the new clause. I am not sure whether it would be right to deal with that on Report or on Third Reading. However, I shall comment on it briefly. I believe that the composition of 4:4:4 is crucial. I do not believe that the Minister said that all would be well if that was the position, but he said that it was a significant and important contribution to the Bill. I agree with him. The former composition whereby the hearing aid industry dominated the council was patently absurd, and the 4:4:4 composition is precisely the balance that we need.

The proposed new clause weakens the oversight of the Secretary of State and I do not believe that that will be a good thing. The relationship between the Department of Trade and Industry and the council is tenuous and it should not be weakened further. I think that, as drafted, the clause removes the current power of the Department to approve the modification of standards or codes.

I like the part of the new clause that says that the council "shall" rather than "may" investigate complaints. I believe that the intent of the clause is good. However, if the Minister is not happy with the new clause—I am prepared to be guided by him—sI hope that it will be withdrawn.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the Bill, especially on the new clause, and to follow the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), whose contribution on the subject has been so significant. If hon. Members want to appreciate the problems of those with impaired hearing, I refer them to what I believe was one of the most memorable of speeches. I did not hear it but I have read it in detail. It was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) on 24 March. It was moving to read. It must have been even more moving for those who had the privilege of listening to it. We in the House have a particular interest in hearing because of the poor standard of the microphones, which were complained about only yesterday. I say that as someone who is suffering from a temporary hearing deficiency which may get worse. I hope that I will not be in a position to benefit under the Bill.

I know that my hon. Friend represents part of a county where field sports predominate. As a shooting man, does my hon. Friend take the precaution of wearing ear plugs? A number of people are beginning to suffer from defective hearing because they overlook that important safeguard.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. Of course, I wear ear plugs. I would recommend that many more people, especially those who listen to overloud music in discotheques, do the same, because that clearly is a cause of much damage about which we know far too little.

My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) has made many of the points that I would have wished to mention. There is a conflict between, on the one hand, having a form of quango or hearing aid council that has powers that will be effective and is composed in the right way, and, on the other, expecting the industry to be a self-regulatory body. I referred to that in an earlier intervention, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say something about it.

I have always preferred the self-regulatory approach. I have worked as a solicitor and that profession operates a closed shop. It is governed on a self-regulatory basis, which has been successful up to a point, although I do not believe that it is the most successful example of self-regulation—perhaps the takeover panel is such an example. I believe that self-regulation is more appropriate to professions where those who transgress the rules can be prevented from practising than to those who make and dispense hearing aids. We must deal with the Hearing Aid Council as it is, and in that spirit I support the new clause.

The composition of the council is relevant to the new clause. The 12-member council—four representatives of the trade, four consumers and four medical or technical experts—will create for the first time a genuinely balanced council with the prospect of consumers having a meaningful voice.

The reason for the new clause is that it is possible that the newly composed Hearing Aid Council will omit something or fail to pick up some complaint. In those circumstances, it is possible that the Secretary of State will want to require the council to submit a code. That is provided for by the new clause.

With those reservations, I believe that the new clause would improve the Bill, and I commend it to the House.

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), and I thank him for his support for the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) and myself.

I should first state my credentials for participating in this debate. I was instrumental in pressing the Government for comments on the paper "Hearing Aids: the Case for Change", which was published by the Royal National Institute for the Deaf earlier this year. On 16 March I asked a parliamentary question about those proposals. Interestingly enough, the question was tabled to the Secretary of State for Health, not to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. When the Under-Secretary of State for Health replied, he said that the proposals made by the RNID were being carefully considered. It is obvious that another Department is closely involved with this matter, and this is why I probed the Department of Health rather than the DTI for a response.

Another reason for my participating in the debate is that on a number of occasions I have been approached by my constituents, particularly Mr. Ronald Scurlock of West Wellow, who has had considerable difficulty in getting hearing aids. He has faced delays of up to a year in receiving hearing aids. The Health Service should reconsider the service it provides to those who are hard of hearing.

I was also prompted to participate in this debate by a parliamentary question that I tabled on 15 March to the DTI concerning the Plessey company in my constituency. I was surprised to notice that the question immediately before mine had been tabled by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr.Ashley), who is a leading authority on matters affecting the deaf. His question was:

"To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what consideration he is giving to the reform of the Hearing Aid Council."

I had no idea that that was a matter for the DTI and therefore I was interested in the Under-Secretary of State's response.

The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South pointed out that there were flaws in the membership of the Hearing Aid Council, which he believed favoured the industry. He suggested that the way in which it supervised the industry was absurd and that it should be changed in such a way that consumers rather than the industry which it regulated dominated the council. He also asked the Minister whether he should not take reserve powers:

"to amend any code of practice or standard put forward by that council so that he can keep a watch on future developments?"—[Official Report, 15 March 1989; Vol. 149, c. 405.]

That was a logical request and it is provided for by this new clause.

When the Under-Secretary replied to the right hon. Gentleman's question—we shall hear what he has to say later today—he skated around the right hon. Gentleman's proposals. He said that he had faith in changing the composition of the council which would ensure that it was effective and representative. I have my doubts.

10.15 am

Another reason for my participating this morning is that I have been approached by Mr. J. Hague, who heads the Hythe hard of hearing club. I received a letter in this week's post from him drawing my attention to the fact that the Bill was coming back on Report today and he said:

"The Bill is so important to hearing-impaired people that I earnestly ask you to stay in the House on that day."

Well, here I am.

My other reason for participating today is that I have a profoundly deaf godson. Evan Gibbs is 12 years old—his birthday was yesterday. His mother had German measles and that is why he was born profoundly deaf. He used to wear a phonic ear, which meant that he could tune into his teacher. He has now graduated to what is known as the post-aural aid, which is a great success. His condition is annually reviewed by Wiltshire county council, which is the local education authority. What is so important, particularly for children at school, is that there is always close liaison between the local education authority and the district health authority, which operates the ear, nose and throat unit that carries out such investigations.

Although we are extremely critical of the industry, I have found no evidence to suggest that there is any high-pressure selling of these extremely sophisticated appliances.

indicated assent.

I note that my hon. Friend is nodding in agreement. I know that he has an interest in this matter. Incidentally, when I spoke in the House about the licence trade during the passage of other legislation, I always made the point of declaring my pecuniary interest in that matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) intervened earlier. Perhaps he would like to clarify that matter.

I intend to speak in this debate later if I catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye. At the beginning of that speech I would declare my interest, that from time to time I advise the Hearing Aid Association—a trade association of private dispensers. I make it clear that that interest is recorded in the Register of Members' Interests, but I would have said that during my speech.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend, and I am glad that we have cleared up that point. May I say—I am sure that this will be echoed by other hon. Members—that that association is extremely lucky to have the services of my hon. Friend.

The new clause was ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke. I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) on his selection of subject and the way in which he has steered the Bill's passage so far. One is fortunate in this place if one's Bill obtains a Second Reading on the nod. It is a great credit to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn that his Bill took only one Committee sitting and that he gained the support of Committee members and of Members from all parties. Such progress demonstrates a remarkable degree of unanimity across the party divides which too often separate us.

I should also like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), whose debate on hearing aids on 23 March was extremely interesting to read. It has made us much more authoritative on the subject than we would otherwise have been. The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South is a robust campaigner on behalf of the deaf and is the current president of the Royal National Institute for the Deaf. We listen to him carefully.

I shall also mention someone who is, alas, no longer in the House, Mr. Laurie Pavitt, the former Member for Brent, South. Laurie and I crossed swords in this Chamber on many occasions. I once represented a constituency with considerable tobacco interests and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will remember, because you were in the same so-called lobby, that Laurie was determined that tobacco advertising should stop. He and I spent many hours in the Chamber debating that issue. It was due to him and his efforts back in 1968 that the first hearing aid Bill was introduced in the House of Lords and the Hearing Aid Council was set up.

One problem with uncontroversial Bills is that they remain unchallenged. People consider them highly desirable and, therefore, they sail through without any real probing. That is why I was interested to see from yesterday's Order Paper, when we received the first inkling of which new clauses and amendments would be tabled, that there were no fewer than five new clauses and six amendments. It would be wholly improper for me to question the Chair's selection today, but we are debating only one new clause and one amendment. Both of those are significant and important and should improve the Bill, but I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will use the discretion for which you are famous to permit us to stray a little on to the subjects covered by the other amendments that have not been selected, or at least will give us some time to mention them on Third Reading. It is important that in such debates we put down markers for the other place to consider when they debate the Bill, providing it receives its Third Reading today.

In the other place, in May 1968, the Hearing Aid Council Bill began its parliamentary journey, which concluded with the setting up of the Hearing Aid Council. The council is made up of Government-appointed members, six of whom are industry representatives and five consumer representatives, and it has an independent chairperson. The general function of the council, according to section 1 of the 1968 Act, is to secure

"adequate standards of competence and conduct among persons engaged in dispensing hearing aids"

That is done by registering dispensers of hearing aids, advising on training and regulating trade practices with a code of practice. All private sector suppliers of hearing aids operate under the Hearing Aid Council and its code of practice.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Hearing Aid Council provides the valuable function of setting examinations for hearing aid dispensers and dealing with their results? Does he further agree that it is ludicrous that two different sets of examinations are run for hearing aid dispensers, one by the National Health Service and one by the private hearing aid service? What is the purpose of these two completely different examinations which result in two different streams of people emerging to give this crucial, though small, service to the public?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for her intervention; but her question should more correctly be directed to the Under-Secretary of State who is to reply to the debate. I agree that there is no logic in what she describes, and it seems pointless to have two sets of examinations, particularly when the Ministry responsible is the Department of Trade and Industry. The Department of Health has been mentioned, and its involvement in this subject is important. There is a good case for saying that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary should not be sitting on the Front Bench today. He is always welcome, but a Minister from the Department of Health would be far more relevant.

The Hearing Aid Council is felt by some, including the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, to be ineffectual because of the limited sanctions it can impose in cases of non-compliance. I was pleased to see that amendment No. 2 has also been selected for debate because the matter of imposing sanctions on people who break the rules and the code of conduct is important.

I shall return to the question of dual qualifications. Perhaps when the Minister responds he will comment on this matter. If there are two layers and two alternative standards within the profession, what will happen in relation to our comparability with our European counterparts? Will people who wish to practise in this country post 1992 have to meet the standards of the private or the public sector?

My hon. Friend makes a good point, which underlines the importance of ensuring the highest standards. We do not need to attain harmonisation in Europe, because that would be too broad a concept. However, we must ensure that the qualifications of professional people are of the highest standard. In most cases we accept people from Europe with doctorates and qualifications of a lower standard than those in this country, but those standards must be brought up to our own, otherwise such people should not be permitted to practise.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that our goal in relation to hearing aid dispensing and the relevant examinations should be to achieve the best practice? Undeniably, the Germans have introduced the best practices and we should take careful note of the way in which the Germans have made the dispensers of hearing aids part of their paramedical team and have a better system than we do. We should not knock our European colleagues when their practices are better than ours.

I am reassured to learn that German standards are higher than ours. Siemens, which is a large company that is trying to take over the Plessey company in my constituency, is much involved with hearing aids. It is a most unwelcome takeover bid—I could not miss the opportunity of making that constituency point. Siemens is an extremely powerful company and it is nonsense to set fines for people who break the rules on hearing aids at £1,000. Siemens could afford to pay £1 million and still not notice it.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we should welcome the Minister who is here today from the Department of Trade and Industry because he will be interested in takeover problems, whereas a Minister responsible for health would not be?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. If we are not careful, we shall be called to order, and the Minister will not know whether he is listening to a debate on hearing aids or a debate on takeovers.

I want to sound a note of caution at this point. My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) has mentioned standards in Germany. One of the dangers facing a variety of industries in Britain is that the European Commission will start to lay down standards oriented towards the German rather than the British economy. It will give the Germans a great advantage in 1992 and thereafter if we do not lay down slightly more general standards for the future.

I take the point, but my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not reply in detail to it. I am sure that the Minister has heard it.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I am afraid not, because we must make progress.

I want to say a word or two about the background and to refer to the document, "Hearing Aids: the Case for Change", put out by the Royal National Institute for the Deaf. Incidentally, I pay tribute to Rosalind Oakley, the institute's parliamentary officer, who has been of enormous help to hon. Members in preparing for this debate and, in general, with matters relating to the deaf. The House will be interested to note that there are 350 ENT consultants in this country. There are 700 audiology technicians and 635 registered private dispensers. But there are 3·9 million people with hearing loss who might be helped by a hearing aid. The Government have been very good about taking advice from the specialists. Their views are always noted, but the RNID's point is that it is high time that the consumers' case—the case of these 3·9 million people—was given a fair hearing.

The present hearing aid services are failing to satisfy many chronic problems and consumers are not receiving the service that they should. In the first place, there are long waiting lists. I mentioned earlier the case of one of my constituents. The average wait for an ENT appointment is 16 weeks, and it can take up to two years to get an appointment. A further 14 weeks can often pass before a consumer is finally fitted with a hearing aid.

There is a staffing crisis in the Health Service. In some parts of the country hearing aid services have virtually collapsed because of these shortages and because of problems with recruiting new audiology technicians. There are certain neglected groups. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys has carried out a disability survey which identified almost 250,000 adults with hearing loss who are living in communal establishments. Almost without exception, hospital departments cannot offer services to those consumers.

It is also important to record the worries about inconvenient locations. For many people, the hospital hearing aid centre is neither local nor convenient. Consumers are obliged to attend at least two or three times to obtain their first hearing aid, and in most places they must return whenever they need batteries or a replacement aid. That is not good enough.

The RNID also believes that the service is ineffective. After receiving a hearing aid, 20 per cent. of consumers do not use it. Studies and pilot projects have confirmed that use and benefit can be maximised by good advice on fitting and follow-up visits to deal with any problems, but that cannot easily be done by a hospital-based service that is already under strain. We believe that there is inadequate protection.

Many consumers buying an aid privately from a dispenser who visits their home find that they are subject to high pressure sales methods—a point that was touched on earlier. They lack information about the conditions of sale and the back-up services that they can expect. The Hearing Aid Council is charged by Parliament with maintaining standards of trade practice, but it fails to do so effectively.

Training has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West. People who test and fit hearing aids and give advice on their use in the private sector are trained differently from those who do so in the NHS. The two sectors have no commonly agreed and recognised standard of training.

The Government are reviewing the organisation of the National Health Service now. Surely this is a golden opportunity to review hearing aid services. I congratulate the Royal National Institute for the Deaf on having examined the strengths and weaknesses of the NHS alongside the benefits and abuses in the private sector, and on the way in which it has argued the need for a reorganised system in its 28-page booklet, "Hearing Aids the Case for Change".

As my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke said, this new clause is similar to one moved in Committee. The fundamental difference is that this one gives the Government the discretion to intervene; it does not place a mandatory obligation on them to do so. We must ask whether the Hearing Aid Council is doing its job properly. There are obvious doubts about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West wants to abolish the council altogether—

I am a sponsor of this excellent Bill and I congratulate its originator sincerely. Ultimately, I believe that the present proposals in no way match the overriding need. We shall have to look further at a later stage than this Bill to find the solution that we seek.

That was a useful intervention. I draw the attention of the House to the speech made by my hon. Friend on this subject earlier this year. Their Lordships should read it, too, because it was important.

We must ask whether the council has succeeded in drawing up adequate standards of competence and codes of trade practice in this important industry. Many people think that it has not. On March 15, my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) asked my hon. Friend the Minister when he last reviewed the Hearing Aid Council's code of practice. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary replied:

"The Hearing Aid Council Act does not require or permit the Secretary of State to review the council's code of practice. The Act requires the Secretary of State to approve the code proposed by the council and any amendments that it proposes to it. The Secretary of State can make his approval conditional upon certain modifications."—[Official Report, 15 March 1989; Vol. 149, c. 261.]

Perhaps this power to impose conditions provides what we want. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will expand a little on that when he replies to the debate.

As things stand, the Secretary of State can only modify standards and codes that are put to him by the council. He has no proactive powers. Even if there were an overwhelming demand for change, the Secretary of State would be quite powerless to act or to intervene if the council itself refused to act. A good example was given in Standing Committee C, and all I shall do is to draw the attention of the House to the opening paragraphs of column 4 of the Official Report, because there is no point in putting something on the record twice.

The Government are demonstrating a benign faith in the composition of the council and are hoping that that will solve the problems. I believe—this is the purpose of new clause 1—that the Secretary of State should have reserve powers to fall back on if necessary. When my hon. Friend replies to the debate, I should like him to explain why he feels that such powers are not necessary.

New clause 1 would allow the Secretary of State to intervene in the running of what we can only describe as a quango. I was under the impression that this Government were pretty good at abolishing quangos. Therefore, I take up the challenge issued by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West and suggest that the Secretary of State might extend his quango hunt in this instance. While it exists, the council must protect the interests of hearing aid users.

rose—

Yes, I shall give way once more, but then I must conclude.

The accepted definition of the word "quango" is something appointed and paid for by the Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have an even more peculiar anomaly here, because the Hearing Aid Council may be appointed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but it pays for its activities itself?

The funding of the Hearing Aid Council is another major issue that should be addressed in the other place. I understand that the council is funded by raising fees from manufacturers registered with it. That raises the question of the role of the council. With the opticians, the General Optical Council is given a much wider brief to undertake training and other duties and has a broader source of funding, including Government money.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept from me that a substantial proportion of the council's costs over the years has been related to disciplinary proceedings and that the cost of disciplinary proceedings to the council is particularly heavy? Does he agree that one of the merits of the Bill is that under it a disciplinary committee can order a dispenser who has breached its code of discipline to pay the costs of that hearing and that in that way the costs of the council could be significantly reduced?

I am most obliged for that intervention as it raises an extremely important point. I hope that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr, Jones) will succeed in catching your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I am sure that the House would like to know his views on new clause 1.

The new clause would compel the council to investigate complaints from the public. At present it is under no obligation to do so. I do not believe that that proposal would mean that the Government would become interventionist. I understand the reluctance of a Conservative Government to take any form of additional powers. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State made that clear in Committee. The present system, which was set up under the Hearing Aid Council Act 1968, has not worked well and will have little to celebrate on its 21st birthday on 24 May. Incidentally, that is only two days after the birthday of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn, who has promoted the Bill, and who, I believe, will be celebrating his 40th birthday two days earlier. I thought that when the Conservative Government were elected 10 years ago, on 3 May—another celebration is coming up soon—they were in the business of abolishing the Department of Trade—

What?

Yes, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was in Europe at the time and probably does not remember the manifesto on which we fought that election.

The Department of Trade and Industry is a wholly interventionist body which we do not need unless we need to intervene in industry. It may have some benefit to the economy, but I reckon that the old Board of Trade was very much better. In fact, it was the old Board of Trade that featured in the original 1968 Act. The nub of what we are saying this morning is that the Department of Trade and Industry is the wrong Department and that the Department of Health should be responsible in this sphere—

rose—

No I shall not give way, because I must conclude.

I think that the Royal National Institute for the Deaf got it right. We must ask whether the Hearing Aid Council should be a medical council. We could well look at the workings of the General Optical Council, which is the equivalent of the General Medical Council and the General Dental Council. They are statutory health bodies with twin responsibilities for education and training, and with disciplinary functions. We are in the middle of reforming the National Health Service, and this is a superb opportunity for us to do something about the Hearing Aid Council.

I am a strong supporter of the Bill and support my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, who moved new clause 1 so ably. It is essentially a probing provision. I do not think that there will be any question of pressing it at the end of the debate. We shall listen with great interest to what the Under-Secretary of State says in reply, and I hope that our remarks this morning will be noted carefully in the other place when the Bill reaches there, as I am sure that it will.

I shall not follow some of the discussions that have taken place during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr.Colvin), much as I enjoyed the points that he made, especially on quangos. It seems to be not so much a question of sine qua non as sine qua quango, but we could look at that issue on another day.

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for what I know as Anglesey, but what I think Hansard knows as Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) on bringing the Bill to the House. It is a good measure and I hope that we shall shortly speed it on its way through its Third Reading and into implementation.

I pay tribute also to the Bill's co-sponsors. It is good that the next two names on the Bill are those of the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr.Ashley) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), who have shown just how an individual can overcome the difficulties of disability and play an active part, not least in the highest chamber of the realm.

However, we need to assist those who, through no fault of their own, cannot achieve such heights and ambitions, and this measure is geared to making life a little easier for them. The House of Commons is at its best when dealing with such issues. It comes together to represent those who need our assistance, and this is one of those occasions on which there is virtual unanimity of view that we want to do our best by such people. I am sure that the promoter of the Bill will agree with that.

It was interesting to note that the record of the proceedings in Committee reflected the good will on all sides. If 1 have one slight criticism of the Bill's sponsor it is that he seemed occasionally all too ready to accede to the Minister's persuasive powers, not least on questions of comparability. I understand the reasons for seeking comparability with other measures, but occasionally one should say that, if a solution is right for one problem but out of kilter with other measures, perhaps it is the oilier measures that should be brought into line. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr.Hunter) will develop that theme.

The key sentence in the briefing material provided by the Royal National Institute for the Deaf was the request that, whatever we did to improve the service, it should he geared to the consumer and not to the specialist or the salesman. That is right, because we must put the consumer first.

We all have knowledge of deafness. Some hon. Members may have close family members who suffer from deafness, as I have. In some instances, deafness is present from birth, while in others it comes later in life. It is almost worse when it comes later in life, because then one knows what one has lost. For someone who has had full hearing earlier in life, the frustration that comes when hearing starts to fade is extremely painful and difficult for others to understand. Perhaps the measure will enable more people to understand that frustration. The purpose of the new clause is to push that a little further.

I have experience in my family of the provision of equipment, and I know that a long time is needed for adjustment. My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West spoke about that in the excellent debate that she initiated. All too often, there is a take-it-or-leave-it attitude. We need to ensure that there is a good basic after-sales service. That service should apply not only to the equipment, to make sure that it is in working order, but to the user, to make sure that he is in working order and able to use the equipment adequately. Above all, it is a question of making sure that the after-sales servicer has the patience to encourage and train the user of the equipment.

I shall give another example of an area in which we need to keep pushing in order to improve the service. I remember a visit I paid to a consitutent: eventually, after a great deal of knocking on the door, I gained admittance and found the elderly lady watching television with the sound turned off. I asked her why she did not have the sound on. Eventually, when she could understand what I was saying, she said,"I cannot hear the sound so there is no point in having it on.:" I asked her why she did not get a hearing aid, and she said, "I have a hearing aid, but I cannot make it work." She had a soundless television and was leading a soundless existence, even though she had a hearing aid that she could wear. The problem was that she could not cope with the little wheel that adjusted the volume, because she had arthritic fingers.

Codes of practice are needed in such cases to make sure that alternatives are provided for such people. We do not want the take-it-or-leave-it attitude one sometimes sees. In that instance, I spoke to somebody from the industry and he was helpful in locating a suitable piece of equipment. However, my meeting with him was by pure chance, and the first people that I asked from the social services and elsewhere did not know of anything that was suitable for people with arthritic fingers.

The new clause takes us a little further in keeping the pressure on. I know that the Hearing Aid Council is involved in training and education qualifications. The measure may encourage the council to play a wider role in the community so that we can get closer to the prevention of some hearing problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) talked about noise, which may be the noise of shooting or of music in the ear. If we can prevent, we will not need to cure, but when we need to cure, we must do it with compassion and patience, using all the technology that is at our disposal.

Hon. Members were kind enough to let me intervene during their speeches. I should like to comment on some of the important points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) and for Battersea (Mr. Bowis). The first matter is prevention. I think first of the 12-year-old who is profoundly deaf because his mother had measles, although I suspect it was probably German measles. What more compelling reason could there be for seeking to transfer responsibility for hearing aid provision from the Department of Trade and Industry—unfairly beleaguered in the debate over its interventionist stance, but that is another story—to the Department of Health?

The prevention of deafness through immunisation against German measles should be common in this country. I was distressed to learn that a boy of 12 should have been born profoundly deaf because his mother had what I suspect must have been German measles. Presumably, that was because she had not been immunised. I am deafened because my mother had German measles when she was carrying me, but I am 47 and when I was born immunisation was not commonplace. The magnificent thing about being a woman Member of Parliament is that one is perennially young, which is a great relief. The men get older, but we do not.

Children should not be born deaf through lack of immunisation and I am anxious to see the Department of Health attending to immunisation through education programmes persuading mothers to be immunised.

My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea said that technology and dispensers must be user-friendly. Here I must part company with him, despite his great sympathy and understanding for those who suffer from a handicap and fail to find the proper technical provision. I have first-class hearing aids and sometimes can hear all too much in this place.

The National Health Service is technologically far outstripped by private sector provision of hearing aids. That shows that competition is important, because it means that innovation thrives, most properly, in the private sector. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) would not wish me to press that point too strongly. There are many different varieties of hearing aids with different refinements in the private sector, but the National Health Service is still in the age of the dinosaur.

I also take issue with my hon. Friend about the quality of the after-care service or the dispensers in the National Health Service. The after-care service is first-class and cannot be faulted. National Health Service dispensers are gravely let down by the paucity of technological development in the hearing aids that they provide. That is the problem, and there is no point in saying that the 250 or so varieties of hearing aid that the private dispensers can offer will ever be transported into the National Health Service system. Technological change continues and it outstrips the NHS.

We have to take NHS funding for hearing aid provision away from the major hospitals and into the private sector, into the high street. What a ludicrous situation; there are well over 3·5 million people who need hearing aids—I believe that that estimate is far too low—yet the way we offer them hearing aids is to force them to have appointments with 350 ear, nose and throat surgeons who surely have better things to do, since probably more than 95 per cent. of people with hearing loss cannot be helped surgically. Thus the time of ENT surgeons is wasted, and people are disadvantaged for no good purpose. The screening method in the National Health Service for the provision of hearing aids is so fine that it is effectively stopping people from getting the aids.

11 am

It is crucial that the best training be offered and the best qualifications obtained within the dispensing service; hence the need for one set of examinations. It is no good suggesting that the hospital examinations are superior to the private ones: that is not so—they are merely different. It is very important that there be one standard under the Secretary of State for Health, because, unlike the provision of spectacles, if someone is given a significantly wrong hearing aid, his hearing can be irrevocably damaged.

That is why the training of dispensers to the highest possible standard is most important. I urge my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs, together with the Secretary of State for Health, to look at the experience in Europe, particularly in Germany, and let us have a Hearing Aid Council under the Secretary of State for Health, together with a first-class self-funded trade association that elects its own members democratically and is not dictated to by the Government of the day. We do not want this peculiar, unbalanced animal, which unfairly forces the private hearing aid industry to pay for an organisation whose members it cannot elect. I believe that that is the way forward, even though this is an excellent Bill, albeit a temporary measure.

As one of the sponsors of the Bill, I should like to add my congratulations on what I believe will be an admirable first step in the necessary improvements for people with hearing loss. I have first-hand experience of the hearing aid syndrome, being the mother of a 16-year-old boy who lost his hearing as a result of my having rubella in pregnancy. All too sadly, that problem has not been satisfactorily resolved.

There has been considerable debate about the quality of hearing aids offered by the National Health Service. To date, my experience has been entirely of services offered by the NHS. There are inadequacies and major problems. It is a tragedy for a teenager to see aids available in the private sector that are far more discreet than those they have to wear at an age when they are very sensitive about their appearance.

The National Health Service, however, is a most tolerant organisation for young people who have to wear hearing aids. It is a fact that young people and hearing aids are often rather incompatible. On occasion, my son has jumped into a swimming pool having forgotten to take his hearing aid out, and has ruined it. He has also, in a fit of temper, thrown a hearing aid across the room. In such cases, the NHS has a strength we would never find in the private sector. It understands the frustrations and difficulties faced by young people wearing hearing aids, and it will replace them in such circumstances.

I agree with every word spoken by the hon. Lady. Does she not agree with me that what she is saying makes a powerful case for more resources to be devoted to the National Health Service?

I agree absolutely. Like many other parents of children with hearing aids, I am facing strong pressure from my son for a hearing aid that fits entirely in the ear. His consultant has advised me that it would be entirely suitable for his hearing loss. As a teenager growing into the difficult years, he is naturally most concerned not just about how well he can hear but about how he looks. In fact, if he had to choose, he would often decide that how he looks is more important than how well he can hear. He will pretend he can hear when he cannot in situations when he would feel embarrassed to wear a hearing aid. This situation presents a powerful case for what the NHS offers young people.

If the only options available at the moment are in the private sector, I pose a serious question about the penalties applicable for malpractice. If, as I suspect, I will have to spend a considerable sum over the next few years, once my son is fully grown—growing children make very different demands on the hearing service than do fully grown adults —I believe the protections should be very sound. I feel that the service should be free, since I believe my son's hearing loss is no fault of his own—and no fault of mine, either.

All too frequently we hear of pensioners having laid out large sums for hearing aids that just do not work. They either whistle and distort sound or they pick up background noise disproportionately. For one reason or another, these people just cannot get on with their hearing aids. Although the NHS may be slow and there may be inconvenience for out-patients, the follow-up service is guaranteed. This aspect must be considered carefully in relation to the private sector. I strongly support further regulation and certainly stiffening the penalties against anyone guilty of malpractice in this area.

I return to the point raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). We are considering a health problem because of which, through no fault of their own, people suffer severe hearing loss. They need a hearing aid. I believe that technological developments within the hearing aid industry should be made available within the NHS.

I must resist any temptation to be drawn down the path of replying to some of the valid and knowledgeable points made by hon. Members about provisions through the National Health Service vis-a-vis the private sector, or about the responsibilities of the Department of Trade and Industry vis-a-vis the Department of Health. As I see it, these are not legitimately appropriate points for this debate, although I believe that hon. Members were correct to include them.

I will concentrate on the new clause, and, first, I shall deal with the two more subsidiary points. New clause 1 proposes to change the phrase "Board of Trade" in the original 1968 Act to "Secretary of State". I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) that this was done some time ago and the Secretary of State for Health has already identified it in the current version of the Act. Thus, that part of the new clause is redundant.

The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) referred to a matter that has not been picked up by many other hon. Members when he said that he preferred "shall investigate" to "may investigate". I understand his reasons, but at present the system is that complaints are initially considered by the chairman and registrar of the council. They make a judgment whether the complaint is sufficiently serious to be referred to the disciplinary committee. That acts as a very useful filter.

The trouble with the wording of the new clause is that, if we were to force the disciplinary committee to consider every complaint, no matter how trivial or irrelevant—and there are a few like that—we would place an additional burden on the council and the committee and its resources. That is unnecessary, because there is every evidence that the present system works satisfactorily against a background—this is a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) made earlier—of a number of complaints. However, the House might want to be aware that the number of complaints is surprisingly small.

The main point at issue is the argument whether we want to give the Secretary of State greater positive or proactive powers in this matter. I have listened to the debate carefully, and I have re-read the Hearing Aid Council Act 1968. I remain convinced that the provisions in the original Act, which so far we have not seen fit to change, are still adequate to deal with the kind of things that will be before the council.

According to the 1968 Act, the council shall submit to the Secretary of State for his written approval any standard or code drawn up. The Secretary of State, in approving that standard or code, may make the approval conditional on its being modified in such a manner as, he may require. The Act contains real powers at the moment. Those powers are satisfactory and adequate, particularly in this context.

Many hon. Members have referred to the composition of the council. In changing the council's composition, as the Standing Committee did and as I hope the House will endorse today, we have produced a council that will have a different outlook and will look more closely at codes of conduct, training and many other matters that may be within its remit. It will therefore be able to have a relationship with the Secretary of State within the existing provisions of the 1968 Act that will operate much better, in a way that hon. Members would want.

For the reasons that I gave in Standing Committee I would, with regret, strongly urge the House not to accept the new clause if it is pressed.

The Minister places a benign faith in the council's composition. My hon. Friend replied to a question from the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) on 1 February. He stated that he carefully consulted certain bodies when making appointments to the Hearing Aid Council. He said that, in particular, he consulted the Society of Hearing Aid Audiologists and the Hearing Aid Industry Association about appointments representing the dispensers. He also referred to a long list of organisations that he consulted which have technical knowledge of deafness and audiological technical knowledge with reference to appointments of members representing 'the interests of the hard of hearing. I will not read out that list, because I gave my hon. Friend the Minister a copy before the debate started.

The whole question of nominations is terribly important. How much does my hon. Friend consult? Will he tell us a little more about the consultation process? How much advice does he take from members of the public? In his reply on 1 February, my hon. Friend said that he would consult and that he was prepared to listen to representations made by any member of the public with a problem who cared to come and see him.

My hon. Friend has made an important point and I can give him the assurances he seeks. I agree that it will always be important fully to consult interested and knowledgeable bodies in these matters against the background of the change in the council's composition agreed by the Standing Committee, which will give users and consumers greater representation.

We also believe that we should, and give an undertaking that we will, consult those bodies to which my hon. Friend has referred, but, as I stated in my reply on 1 February:

"it is open to any member of the public with genuine involvement in the dispensing of hearing aids or with the hearing-impaired or who has specialised technical knowledge of deafness to make nominations. All nominations are considered on their merits."— [Official Report, 1 February 1989; Vol. 146, c. 262.]

I go further than that: we will always be prepared to consider the names of people given to us in good faith who could claim to represent the consumer of the product in a more general sense or in a private capacity, instead of necessarily always representing a particular body.

We have the facility for, and we intend to have, the widest possible representation on the reconstituted council to ensure that it is thoroughly representative and can carry the confidence of the dispensers, the industry and the consumers. After all, we must be most concerned with the users of the product and to guarantee, as far as we can, to deliver a satisfactory product that will meet their needs.

That was a very useful reply. How many of the 12 bodies which my hon. Friend the Minister listed in his reply on 1 February took the trouble to see him? We are saying that there must be consultations and the door must be open. However, do people take the trouble to put forward nominations?

When we look for nominees, we find that most of the bodies respond in one way or another. Our liaison and contact with them is, as far as I am aware, to their satisfaction and is fully workable. If there are any difficulties, I want to hear about them to ensure that they do not persist.

Perhaps I have not replied to all the points that my hon. Friends may have raised, and I apologise for that. If the new clause is pressed, I regret that I must ask the House to reject it, for the reasons that I have given. On that basis, I hope that we can make good progress and see the matter to a conclusion.

I am in something of a dilemma. I genuinely believe that this Bill would be better with the addition of the new clause and, after nearly two hours of debate, I detect that quite a number of right hon. and hon. Members agree with me.

On the other hand, my hon. Friend the Minister is very positive in his assurance that the new clause is not needed. Whenever possible, one wants to avoid the hassle of a Division on a Friday morning. There is a way forward. As several hon. Members have said, hon. Members on both sides of the House will be watching the workings of the Bill very carefully. We may choose to come back to it in future. On that understanding, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 5, leave out `£1,000 and insert '£13,000'.

We have spent nearly one and three quarters hours debating new clause 1. Given that this is a worthwhile Bill and that such private Members' Bills are delicate creatures, I intend to speak very briefly.

Just because I have chosen to be brief, I hope that the House is not fooled into believing that this is anything but a very important amendment, that has much support. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will take the amendment seriously.

Hitherto, the only sanction available was to remove a dispenser's name from the register. The penalty is now set at £1,000. In this regard, I want to refer to some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) in Standing Committee. He made some worthwhile comments about the lack of efficacy of such a low penalty and he referred to the turnover of the companies involved.

A brief from the Royal National Institute for the Deaf bears that point out. It states:

"The RNID very much welcomes the Bill including the above measures, however, it believes that the suggestion in the Bill for a fine of £1,000 is inadequate. The cost of a hearing aid is between £300 and £800. In some cases individuals need not one, but two aids, with a resultant cost in excess of £ 1,000. Clearly the customer may have suffered a loss in excess of £1,000. It cannot be right that the guilty dispenser should pay a lesser price."

The brief that right hon. and hon. Members received sums up the remarks of the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South in Standing Committee C.

When I read the proceedings of that Committee, I was surprised to learn of the turnover enjoyed by companies in the hearing aid industry. Perhaps I should not be, given the number of people who, sadly, suffer from deafness. In the year ending October 1987, Scrivens Ltd., for example, had a turnover of more than £8 million, and in the year ending May 1987, Ultratone Ltd. achieved turnover of more than £11 million and net profits after taxation in excess of £500,000.

In Standing Committee C, the right hon. Gentleman spoke of a penalty of £20,000. My hon. Friend the Minister rejected that proposal, saying that that figure was far too high. However, many of us believe that, given the turnover and profits available to many companies in the industry, a £1,000 penalty is derisory. It may be argued that such a penalty is in line with that stipulated in the Opticians Act 1958. That Act is complex, and I do not claim to be an expert, but it seems to me that the other penalties that can be imposed on opticians are more severe, and the regulatory framework tighter, than in the hearing aid industry. The RNID brief points out:

"The Council is poorly equipped to discipline dispensers, and thus has a poor record of disciplinary action. The Disciplinary Committee of the Council has met just five times since 1976, and in those twelve years it has struck off only one dispenser. In the 21 years of its existence it has met only twelve times and struck off only seven dispensers. This contrasts with over 300 cases of complaint sent to Mr. Wyn Jones."

The powers of the Hearing Aid Council are weak, and for the first time we are giving it the authority to impose fines. Given the industry's high turnover, my hon. Friend must surely accept that a £1,000 fine is very low. I do not suggest a fine as high as £20,000. In Standing Committee C, my hon. Friend the Minister made pertinent points about such a high penalty conflicting with the practice elsewhere. However, I understand that accountants can be fined £3,000. In view of the potential financial loss and anguish caused to the mainly elderly people who are vulnerable to malpractice in the hearing aid industry, it is not too much to ask that the penalty be increased to £3,000.

I support the amendment, the case for which was put very well by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), who became positively brilliant when he quoted my speech in Standing Committee. I put my case in detail on that occasion and do not propose to go over that ground again. However, the hon. Gentleman correctly reported my suggestion for a £20,000 fine. I support the proposal to increase the penalty from £1,000 to £3,000. I suggested £20,000 because that was the figure suggested to the Royal National Institute for the Deaf by a private hearing aid dispenser as a reasonable sum. I did not pluck that figure out of thin air. A £3,000 fine would be reasonable and the case for it is very strong. I hope that the Minister will give that proposal his sympathetic consideration.

I also strongly support the amendment. The vast majority of hearing aid dispensers are people of the highest integrity and of complete honesty. None the less, the Bill is not attempting to deal with the vast majority but with a minority—[Interruption.]

Order. The conversation that is being conducted by the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends is interfering with his speech, which the Chair would like to hear.

I was not quite sure whether I could hear it because my hearing aid was turned up too loudly, or whether it was the fault of my hon. Friends.

I could hear two speeches through my hearing aid.

The amendment seeks to deal with the potentially small number of dispensers who take deaf people for a ride. In Committee, the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Ashley) made a short, sharp and pertinent speech about the need to increase the fine to £20,000. I greatly sympathise with his sentiments. However, as is the way in Committee on a private Member's Bill, and given the extent of support for the Bill, there was great anxiety to complete its Committee stage swiftly. Therefore, those right hon. and hon. Members who served on the Committee were reluctant to speak at length on any subject for fear that the Bill might run out of time. I am delighted that, in the larger forum 01 the House, we have an opportunity to return to the subject of penalties and to discuss it in greater depth.

In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister said that the penalty should not be out of line with those applied in comparable circumstances. He quoted the Opticians Act 1958 and the Solicitors Act 1974. The obvious reply is that both Acts are out of date in relation to the penalties that they incorporate. In reality, a £1,000 penalty in 1958 is equivalent to at least £10,000 today. Even the Solicitors Act penalty of £3,000 in 1974 is the equivalent of about £8,000 now. Therefore, the right hon. Gentlemen's proposal in Committee for a £20,000 penalty was not particularly oppressive, and the modest increase to £3,000 proposed in the amendment is the barest minimum level of fine that should be imposed.

People suffering from hearing defects can be very vulnerable to the activities of the dishonest person attempting to make a fast buck. Hearing deficiencies are extremely frustrating. If one takes an eye test and, as a result, purchases a pair of spectacles, one immediately knows whether those spectacles allow one to see better. If need be, one can hand them back and complain that they are not good enough. However, it takes quite a time to become used to a hearing aid. One has to work one's way in, so to speak—and I am still doing so. It is very easy for the slick salesman to say, "Give it another six weeks," but at the end of those six weeks it would probably be impossible for the purchaser of a dud hearing aid to persuade the person from whom it was purchased to take it back—even if that person were available. The level of fine proposed is much more of a deterrent, to try to ensure that the slick salesman is made to think twice before he sets about his dishonest activities.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is prepared to give that aspect further consideration. I do not understand why penalties that were fixed 15 and 30 years ago in other legislation are considered relevant comparisons in specifying a fine that is to be included in a Bill in 1989.

We are dealing with an important point, but I shall try to deal with it briefly while, I hope, doing justice to it. I am somewhat surprised at the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). Bearing in mind his profession and regard for the law and its niceties and subtleties, he will understand better than most why I received strong advice from the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Home Office that it was important that we retain an element of balance, comparability and relativity in the penalties available to the law. That must be achieved not only in magistrates courts and Crown courts but in the context of the Bill. I reiterate the point that I made in Standing Committee—we must not allow the penalties to get out of line on one item, no matter how tempted we are. I am afraid that the amendment threatens to do that.

11.30 am

I should like to make a more important and, I hope, more persuasive point. We must pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), who spotted very early one of the great weaknesses in the Hearing Aid Council Act 1968. No provision was made for an escalation of penalties. There was either a total penalty or none. The hon. Gentleman persuaded me very early that that matter would be one of the key factors in amending the Act. That is why the legislation, as amended, provides for the escalation of penalties, starting with an admonition, increasing to a monetary penalty of £1,000 and going on—this is the key point—to talk about suspensions and, ultimately, removal from the register.

That fully meets the points made by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough and Horncastle and for Devizes (Mr. Morrison). No matter how large or powerful a company may be, suspension or erasure from the register will impose a much greater penalty than any fine that the legislation imposes.

I hope that I can persuade the House to do as the Standing Committee saw fit to do—not to be tempted by the arguments to impose higher levels of penalty but to look again at the escalation of penalties provided in Standing Committee through the hon. Member for Ynys Môn. I strongly recommend that the House reject the amendment if it is pressed to a Vote. The Government are unable to support it.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), I do not think that the House, which is anxious that the Bill should be passed, wants a Division at this stage, but I am not entirely satisfied with the reply of my hon. Friend the Minister. He referred to suspension, as he did in Standing Committee, but that is not a practical proposition in many cases and is unlikely to occur.

My hon. Friend the Minister spoke also of the need for balance. In Committee he said:

"I have taken the advice of the legal authorities and of the Home Office. The proposals would cause problems …making an offence triable upon indictment."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 5 April 1989; c.7.]

My hon. Friend did not make that point today. I should have liked him to tell us more about the legal advice that he received. I am not convinced that a penalty of £3,000 would cause problems with the Lord Chancellor's Department, but I am prepared to accept that my hon. Friend receives legal advice of a far higher standard than is available to me. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

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

I have listened intently to the debate on Report, and I am pleased that the Bill can be commended to the House for Third Reading. When I was fortunate enough to win the ballot some time ago, little did I think that I would be moving the Third Reading. Hon. Members who have been successful in private Members' ballots are inundated with requests from all manner of worthy causes to present Bills to the House, but I was determined from an early stage to present a measure that would assist the hard of hearing, especially the elderly.

One of the first acts after ensuring that I had a measure worthy of support was to make sure that that support came from all parties. I must place on record my grateful thanks to all those who have supported my Bill, including the hon. Members for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh), and especially the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). I should like to thank also the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who has been extremely supportive, and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), who is not in her place. Those names show the wide support for the Bill.

It struck me as remarkable that one in 10 people suffer from some form of hearing loss. The proportion among elderly people is one in four. Hearing loss leads to tremendous social isolation, a matter that is little understood. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South who has done tremendous work and has raised the profile of this issue. That we can discuss the Bill on Third reading is due in great measure to his efforts.

Eighty per cent. of those people who acquire hearing aids do so through the National Health Service, but a significant proportion—20 per cent.—get their hearing aids from the private sector, the sector with which the Bill deals. About 650 private hearing aid dispensers are registered with the Hearing Aid Council and we are complaining about the activities of only a small number of them.

I have received almost 300 letters from people during the Bill's passage complaining about the activities of a small group of dispensers. Out of all the complaints, 84 per cent. refer to six companies; 66 per cent. to three companies; and, even more startling, nearly 40 per cent. to one company. The complaints show that only a small number of companies are involved, but they cause distress to hundreds of elderly people.

I genuinely do not know the answer to this point. How many complaints must be made before a company is struck off the register? How many companies have been struck off the register since the council came into being?

My information is that only one company has been struck off the register in the past 20 years or so. I do not think that the council would tot up the number of complaints before it struck off a company. It would consider the nature and seriousness of a complaint.

What complaints do we need to address? A small number of companies are using high sales pressure techniques and coupon advertising to get at vulnerable elderly people. Many of us have seen coupon advertisements in popular newspapers inviting people with hearing loss to respond and making tremendous claims for their products. Because the industry has dominated the council for so long, the code of practice is weak.

When sending literature to someone who has responded to an advertisement, a hearing aid dispenser is entitled to tell him, "We shall call and visit you to discuss your request unless you tell us that you do not want us to come." That is a weakness in the current code of practice. Inevitably, when someone asks for more information, a salesman will call, and he will often deploy all the high-pressure techniques at his disposal. The people affected are elderly, vulnerable and socially isolated who have been preyed upon by a number of dispensers and their sales people.

Unfortunately, as we have heard today, it takes time to adapt to a hearing aid. A hearing aid is not like spectacles, whose suitability can be judged immediately, according to whether one can see through them. Experts tell me that it takes up to a month or even longer to adjust to the sound that comes out of a hearing aid and to pick up the differences in sound. Moreover, one has to adapt to wearing a hearing aid. When it first arrives, one cannot wear it for very long at a time; one must get used to it. By the time someone discovers that a hearing aid is not suitable, the salesman may be long gone and impossible to trace. The complaints mechanism that we have now is wholly inappropriate.

To illustrate my case, let me describe two of the 300 complaints that I received. An elderly couple were visited by a salesman who told them that a particular model was appropriate. They did not have any cash in the house, but the salesman persuaded them to go to the bank with him to withdraw the cash and to hand it over there and then.

Perhaps even more significant was the case of the elderly lady who had looked after her parents all her life. She had suffered a hearing loss and was socially isolated, having been unable to make friends because she was looking after her parents. Her parents left her a small sum, and she decided that she would like a hearing aid. That hearing aid accounted for all the money that she had been left. She then found that it was inappropriate. She had spent all her money on it, thinking that she could go out into the community and socialise more because she would be able to hear. That poor woman was preyed upon by the dispensers and their sales person and she had no redress. There are many other cases like that, and the Bill is designed to address them.

The Bill is a modest measure—private Members' Bills are, by their very nature, modest measures—but it is important because, under the 1968 Act, the council can deal only with matters of serious misconduct, and the only sanction that it has is to strike a dispenser off the register. The council is reluctant to use that simple sanction because it deprives a dispenser of his or her livelihood. As we have heard, it has been used on only one occasion.

We need, therefore, to increase the range of disciplinary offences that the council can deal with. Unfortunately, the highly legalistic way in which complaints are dealt with at present is very expensive for the council. That is no criticism of the promoter of the 1968 Bill, which was a ten-minute Bill. It is remarkable that Laurie Pavitt managed to get a ten-minute Bill on to the statute book; it is difficult enough when one succeeds in the ballot.

The Bill seeks to make a breach of the code of practice a disciplinary offence and it includes a range of penalties that the council can employ. We also make it clear in the Bill that, if a dispenser is found guilty, he can be ordered to pay the costs of a hearing, which is borne by the council at present.

Most significant is the change in the composition of the council, which goes to the heart of the matter. For years, complaints have gone unnoticed by the council because it is dominated by the industry. The council should include more consumer representation; the consumer's voice must be heard so that complaints can be dealt with more effectively and efficiently, enabling us to root out the small group of companies that have caused so much distress.

The hon. Gentleman has said that the Bill is aimed at a small group of companies. Are the companies large enough easily to afford to pay a fine of £3,000 or perhaps even £20,000?

That is a good point, although the hon. Gentleman has put me in a dilemma because I should have preferred a higher monetary penalty. But if we changed the amount of the penalty for a disciplinary offence, which is £1,000, we should also have to change the penalty for the criminal offence that is committed by a person who is unregistered, which is also £1,000. To maintain a balance, we must accept, unfortunately, that the figure must be kept at £1,000. I agree that the companies could well afford to pay a higher fine, but we must remember that there are other sanctions such as suspension and erasure and that more than one penalty can he imposed under the Bill. That overcomes some of the concerns that have been expressed about the level of penalty.

I thank the Minister for his positive response to the Bill. He has been supportive and constructive, and he has listened, although there are many points on which we have failed to agree. I hope that the Bill will have the wholehearted support of the House.

I note that I did not figure in the plethora of thanks of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), and I was not altogether surprised. I again declare my interest as an adviser to the trade association that acts on behalf of the dispensers.

Millions of hearing aids have been dispensed by the private sector since the Hearing Act Council was set up, and the promoter of the Bill has been entirely fair in pointing out that, in this big trade, the number of complaints and the number of companies involved in those complaints has been very small. I re-emphasise that. The trade has made a distinct and positive contribution to helping the hard of hearing. In that regard, I pray in aid what the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) said in Committee. He, too, said that an enormous contribution was made by the private sector and that it was largely beneficial.

I followed this morning's debate closely. The manufacturers are clearly under attack. Would it not assist everyone concerned if there were a stamp of approval? I have followed up two advertisements in the national press during the past fortnight. I have received brochures from the manufacturers and I searched them to see whether in the literature there was anything to say, "This organisation is approved by the Royal National Institute for the Dea' or "We have the full approval of the Hearing Aid Council". Something similar to a British standards stamp would assure people that the hearing aid which they are buying has been tested, approved and is a legitimate product.

I have some sympathy with that view. Those whom I advise would be willing to discuss any such suggestion sympathetically if there are no practical contrary considerations. I cannot think of any at the moment.

It occurred to me this morning that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn has tried to graft on to an Act about trade regulation provisions to turn it into a consumer protection Act. I am not sure whether the graft will take. I am gratified to note that the Minister said that a fundamental review of the National Health Service in general and of provision for the deaf and hard of hearing is going on. Perhaps the appropriate time to discuss such matters in detail will be in a year or so when, presumably, the Government's proposals will come forward. I hope that that is the case.

I do not blame the hon. Member for Ynys Môn for the graft. I level that accusation against my hon. Friend the Minister. His fertile imagination produced the new 4 : 4 : 4 composition of the Hearing Aid Council. It is a matter of opinion, but the promoter of the Bill would have been happy with one additional consumer to balance the council at 6 : 6. After some thought, and reservations having been expressed, those whom I advise were willing to accept that composition.

The Minister has made his decision, and the Standing Committee followed it without too much difficulty. As the Bill leaves the House, one guess, that the composition will be 4 : 4 : 4. It would be remiss of me not to point out one or two difficulties that will arise as a result of that.

Consumers have been nominated traditionally—indeed by necessity—from organisations whose membership primarily involves National Health Service hearing aid users. I refer to the British Association of the Hard of Hearing, Age Concern and other organisations. People who buy hearing aids privately are not members of associations. it would be extremely difficult to find consumer nominations which were likely to have a balanced view of the national and private health sectors. One can advance that argument further in relation to medical nominations. It is obvious that virtually all medical and paramedical employees in this country are either directly or indirectly associated with the NHS.

It follows that medical nominees would also have a leaning towards the National Health Service and, as a side effect, a leaning towards the consumer element. On the newly constituted .

There is a fear, which is justified to an extent, that the composition will not be 4:4:4 and that there will be eight consumers and four people from the industry. The industry considers that that is out of balance. It would have been much happier with the original suggestion by the promoter of the Bill. It is feared that there will also be difficulty in finding sufficient consumers to meet the appropriate requirement.

I am told—this is a matter of some detail with which I will not bore the House, as I sense that the House wants to dispose of this matter fairly soon—that there will be difficulties in manning subcommittees and with people being on disciplinary and technical committees. The industry seems to think that it would be difficult to find people of the appropriate calibre. It fears that the new composition will be biased against the private sector. I hope that the Minister will try to alleviate those worries.

The problem of funding has already been mentioned. The council was a trade regulatory body. Although the trade had the majority of members on the council, it was content with, if not happy about, funding it. In 1987, its expenditure was £33,000, and in 1988 it was £73,000. They are not enormous sums of money, but they are not inconsiderable. With the balance of power on the council being so fundamentally changed, is it right that the trade should be expected to fund it completely?

Oftel, a consumer organisation which was set up by the Government to protect consumers against the predatory habits of British Telecom, is funded by the taxpayer. What is the difference between Oftel and the Hearing Aid council? It has been suggested that there is an element of taxation without representation. That is probably going a bit overboard. Why on earth should the industry be expected to fund something which the House had determined should be set up for the benefit of the consumer and taxpayer? The matter cannot be lightly brushed aside. My hon. Friend the Minister should exercise his fertile imagination a little more.

My hon. Friend mentioned Oftel. Consumers should pay for the protection which Oftel provides for them. No doubt British Telecom would provide the majority of income in that case. British Telecom's income comes from its customers. An important principle is at stake, and it could easily be applied to the hearing aid industry.

I listened to my hon. Friend's intervention with great interest. I assume that he supports what I am saying, but I am not entirely certain.

I did not support what my hon. Friend said. I suggested that consumers should pay for the protection which is being provided through the industry. Obviously the industry gets its income from consumers. I was putting the opposite view.

I do not agree, but I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will take that view into account when he makes up his mind about my points on funding.

The trade has some reservations about the Bill. I hope that when we next discuss the matter a Minister from the Department of Health will be present. Today's debate is not entirely relevant to trade. However, it is the only vehicle that we have.

I thank the promoter of the Bill for the courtesy which he has shown me in our discussions on the Bill over the past weeks. The Hearing Aid Association has been grateful for the way in which he has approached the matter. He has not castigated or made false or exaggerated attacks on the industry which has done much positive and beneficial work. Although I have some mild criticism of the Minister, I thank him for the consultation procedure, particularly in respect of council nominations. I hope that the Bill will have the effect which the hon. Member for Ynys ôn wishes. We want those people who are a slur on the industry to be weeded out. I hope that my reservations about the composition of the council will be taken in the spirit in which they were delivered.

I thank the sponsor of the Bill the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) and congratulate him on getting the Bill through to Third Reading. He has been both diplomatic and determined. I have been struck by his skills in conducting the Bill through the House, through Committee and here on Third Reading. He has been magnificent and I offer him my warmest congratulations.

The original Bill was drawn up by the Royal National Institute for the Deaf some months ago and I had pleasure in presenting it on behalf of the institute. It worked very hard on the Bill. The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) was kind enough to mention that I am president of the Royal National Institute for the Deaf and it is in that capacity that I offer my congratulations to the sponsor and express appreciation to everyone who has been involved in the Bill. The RNID is grateful for their work.

I should like to add my warmest thanks to Miss Rosalind Oakley, who has worked hard on the Bill. She has briefed hon. Members on both sides of the House and has ensured that we know all the arguments. The hearing aid dispensers have ensured that hon. Members know their views, and I appreciate the work of Miss Oakley. I am grateful, too, for the work of Mr. John Healey.

It has been said in the House that the Government will give the Bill a fair wind. The Minister has given it more than a fair wind; his support has given it a stiff breeze, for which I am glad.

I am also the chairman of the all-party disablement group; that group, too, warmly supports the Bill.

Laurie Pavitt rendered a great service to disabled people by putting through the original Bill, because in those days there was not the same understanding of the problems of deaf people. Laurie Pavitt did a phenomenal job in getting that Bill on to the statute book. I am sorry that he is not here to see the passage of this Bill, which has been built upon his original Bill.

The essence of the Bill is that it tackles the scandal of the exploitation of deaf people by shifty salesmen using high-pressure sales techniques. Deaf people are often harrassed, especially older people, with unsolicited visits by salesmen and by unscrupulous advertising. Some of the advertisements are an absolute disgrace because they are so grossly misleading. My blood has boiled when I have seen them. Efforts have been made to curtail them, but without succes. However, they will now be curtailed by the Bill.

What makes me angry about such dispensers is that they have made deaf people feel ashamed of deafness. The awful thing is that those advertisements have implied that deafness is something to hide and of which to be ashamed. Dispensers have done that on the pretext of helping deaf people, which is a prime example of double-talking, double-dealing and double-crossing.

As the promoter of the Bill and the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) have pointed out, it is only a small group of dispensers who do such things. The vast majority do a good job. I am glad to repeat that point, which I made in Committee. However, that small group causes serious distress to deaf people. Those dispensers have also blackened the name of the hearing aid industry.

The main provisions of the Bill extend the range of complaints that can be investigated and the range of sanctions available. Those are important advances. However, the crucial provision is the ending of the domination of the hearing aid council by the hearing aid industry. It was absolutely absurd that the hearing aid industry should have been able to dominate that council. It has now a voice, but a minority voice, which is right.

One important aspect that has not been mentioned, apart from the rogue salesmen and the way in which they extort money from people for their unsatisfactory hearing aids, is the complete failure to offer any after-sales servicing. That is an important aspect of the problem that has not been aired enough.

The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. In fact, it was raised before the hon. Gentleman came into the Chamber by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes). I am sure that he was very busy elsewhere. I am glad that the point about the failure of after-sales service has been emphasised.

The hon. Member for Ynys Môn mentioned his concern about the new balance of the council—four from the trade, four consumers and four medical or technical experts. He expressed the anxiety that there may not he many people qualified for the task and there may he difficulty in finding them. I do not for one moment believe that those doubts and anxieties are justified. I believe that there will be no problem in finding the proper people.

I emphasise again to the Minister that it is important that those he chooses are truly independent. It is important that they are not stooges of the industry. It is important that they are truly independent, with an expertise in and knowledge of deafness or a knowledge of the problems involved. I know that I can trust him to do that. I hope that his successors, too, will take on board the fact that that independence is crucial.

The Bill will be of enormous help to all those people who buy hearing aids privately. As the hon. Member for Ynys Môn has said, that is 20 per cent. of users. I hope that, in future, the admirable advances made by the Bill will be supplemented by improvements in the provision of hearing aids by the National Health Service and that it will have more resources, more choice and better aids. I hope that we can pursue that campaign of helping the National Health Service with the skill and determination that has been shown by hon. Members on all sides of the House in getting the Bill through its various stages.

As the promoter said, this is a Bill to assist the hard of hearing and especially the elderly hard of hearing. I congratulate him on presenting it. I have some personal interest in this matter because I suffer from tinnitus and deafness in one ear. Even when I speak, I can hear the whining hum in my left ear, which is always with me. It is a matter of concern that, as I grow older, it may, of course, become worse. Although I am not elderly just yet, it is a good thing to look ahead to the time when I will be elderly and perhaps will benefit from the provisions of the Bill.

I had my first brush with a doorstep salesman at the age of about 16, when I foolishly filled in one of those coupons in a newspaper. I was at school at the time and the next thing that happened was that a man arrived in a Ford van, range the bell of my housemaster's house and asked for me. He was sent away with a flea in his ear. I was summoned to the housemaster's study and I, too, was given a flea in my ear. Ever since that tender age, I have been extremely wary about filling in such coupons in case I should find such a man arriving at my front doorstep. I know from my constituents that such visits take place. They find them especially distressing as, in many cases, they cannot understand what the salesman is saying. I am sure that some of those unscrupulous salesmen play on that.

I have already mentioned small advertisements. I believe that they do not appear in the most reputable of newspapers—if any newspaper today can be said to be reputable. The fact that such advertisements are parodied in Private Eye makes one realise how far the level of such advertisements have sunk.

If one was ever confronted with the horrific choice of which of one's senses one could least do without, I am sure that loss of hearing would be considered the worst. I am musical and I know that many great composers, Beethoven and Smetana among them, suffered from deafness. Smetana wrote a string quartet in which the first violin played a long whining note which signified to him the first sounds of tinnitus—the first sign of the onset of deafness.

To be cut off from the world by deafness must be one of the worst possible things, especially for the elderly. Other hon. Members have already said how isolated such people feel. They feel they cannot go out; what is worse, they fear that they may be made fun of. What a terrible thing that must be. A deaf person may have the suspicion that he is being made fun of, but, of course, he cannot make out what is being said: he just has that feeling.

Other hon. Members have covered most of the points that I wanted to raise, but I think that it is a bit strange that the Department of Health is not the responsible Ministry for hearing aids. I am casting no aspersions on my hon. Friend the Minister, but it is rather odd. I know that this matter was raised in Committee, but I do not believe that anything has been done about it. I am sure that the Minister feels that he is on probation, and we look to him for an excellent performance.

Some elderly deaf people manage to make light of their disability by joking at themselves. I have an elderly deaf relative who, some years ago, gave a dinner party. During a lull in the conversation someone turned to her to get the ball rolling again and said, "Isn't it awful all these young men being killed in Vietnam?" Without a second's hesitation she replied, "Yes, but I believe they recover if you water them after dark." She had the great knack of being able to laugh at herself and if people can do that it is a way of getting over their disability. It is okay to do that when one is among friends, but the knock on the door heralding the unfriendly salesman is another matter. His only intention is to make another sale—that is all he is bothered about. He does not care that the ear is one of the most delicate organs. What on earth can a salesman know about whether his particular product is right for any particular person?

I hope that the Bill will be something that can be dropped on the toe of the salesman who has got his foot in the door. I hope that we can drive out those salesmen, to the benefit of the elderly hard of hearing.

As a sponsor of the Bill, I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) not only on promoting the Bill, but on getting it through the House successfully. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is a modest measure and obviously our debate has touched on things that are outside the scope of that Bill, but that is not surprising.

The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) should consider that as there is agreement on all sides that abuse by a relatively small number of companies is causing hardship, it would be to the industry's great advantage to have the Bill in place. The Bill will weed out the problem, and if standards are conspicuously improved deaf people will feel more confident to take advantage of the technologies and developments available in the private sector. To that extent, I am surprised that there has been some resistance to a Bill which I believe is highly desirable.

The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) has just given anecdotal evidence of the type of problems that occur. Many people have become so wary as a result of stories about unscrupulous salespeople that they have prevented themselves from getting useful advice because they do not want to expose themselves to a situation in which advantage could be taken of them. I hope that the Bill will help to reduce that problem to the great advantage of deaf people and of the industry.

In common with other hon. Members I have a particular interest in the deaf as my daughter is profoundly deaf. She is 12 years old and goes to Aberdeen school for the deaf. As a result of that, I have become involved with the National Deaf Children's Society and I am president of its local area branch. Although many of the speeches today have related to people who have gone deaf in later life, I wish to consider those unfortunate enough to be born profoundly deaf and start at a substantial disadvantage which they have to carry through life. The Bill has an important contribution to make to their lives.

As the hon. Member for Walthamstow has said, losing one's hearing is bad enough, but to have no hearing in the first place means that it is extremely difficult to get a basic grasp of language, through which we interact with other human beings. It is extremely difficult to learn the language and if one does not know or cannot hear the language, it is that much harder to speak and to lip read. Thankfully, relatively few people are born profoundly deaf. Such people are socially detached and anything that the House can do at any time to improve their ability to interact with their hearing peers is welcome. The Bill is a step forward.

The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes), whose son is deaf, pointed out that those of us who have deaf children have, in general, nothing but praise for the service that we receive from the NHS, although we may have questions about the technology, which is constantly changing and which is not so good as we would like. There are still problems with moulds that do not fit and the consequent deterioration in the operation of a hearing aid and problems with diagnosing the scale of the problem in an individual.

I accept that it is all very well to suggest that there should be a Hearing Aid Council standard or safeguard to show that a particular hearing aid is approved, but that does not deal with the problem. That hearing aid may not be appropriate. Someone may go to the private sector and contract to buy a hearing aid. There may be nothing wrong with it—it may be perfectly manufactured and of a technically high standard—but it may not be appropriate for that individual. I believe that dispensing is just as important as the technology of the hearing aid. We must ensure that dispensing standards are improved.

At the age of 18 my daughter will no longer be provided for totally by the Health Service. She will have to be prepared to contract for her own hearing aids. We all acknowledge that the private sector is advancing the technology of hearing aids faster than the Health Service on cosmetic grounds, and so on. If one is profoundly deaf one will want to get hold of technology which may be available outside of the Health Service. There must be absolute confidence that people will receive fair, detached and objective advice and the right after-sales service and correction if the complaint is wrongly diagnosed. The Bill makes a contribution towards resolving that problem and will be welcome.

I hope that the House appreciates that while we all know that the Bill is directed at the millions of people who become deaf and that, a small step forward has been made to protect their interests, it is important to acknowledge the smaller number of people who are born profoundly deaf, who have never had the advantage of being able to hear and who should be adequately protected. More could be done by the House, but I very much welcome the Bill.

I wish to associate myself with the generous and well-deserved words of thanks and praise which have been spoken today, particularly to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) to the Royal National Institute for the Deaf and its president the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), and, finally, to Mr. Laurie Pavitt who initiated the matter. As I have said, it is important in today's debate to put down markers for the other place. I say that in hopeful anticipation of the Bill receiving a successful Third Reading today. I wish to make five points in that connection.

First, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South M r. Porter) complained that the membership of the council was too loaded in favour of consumers with eight members representing consumers and only four representing the hearing aid industry. I should have preferred the council to be weighted even more heavily with five members from deaf organisations, one from a consumer organisation, four medical experts on deafness and four from the hearing aid industry. That would give a better balance of 10 against four with an independent chairman and ensure that people who use deaf aids were properly represented.

Next, my hon. Friend also made the point about the disciplinary committee, which should also be heavily weighted in favour of those who use hearing aids. I should like the number of industry representatives on the disciplinary committee to be restricted to one, with two representatives from deaf organisations, one from a consumer organisation and an independent chairman. That would ensure that the members of the council who represented hearing aid users had a majority on the disciplinary committee of five members. That is important.

The other place might also consider adding to the Bill a provision to give the council general powers to appoint additional committees. At the moment, the only committee that exists is the disciplinary committee. Under the Opticians Act 1958, opticians have a general power to appoint any committees they wish, and there is already an education committee and a companies committee. Such committees could have autonomy and could be directly responsible, not necessarily to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but perhaps to the Secretary of State for Health. That could be immensely valuable.

Another factor omitted from the Bill, no doubt by an oversight, is that there was no provision in the 1968 Act to require the council to produce an annual report. The other place should consider an amendment to compel the council to show each year how effectively and actively it has protected the interests of hearing aid consumers. The provision should require the council to state the number of occasions on which the disciplinary committee has been convened. On past experience, according to the RNID, it has been convened in 11 of the 20 years since the council was established, which is not very many.

Finally there should be an obligation on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on the overall effectiveness of the council in protecting the interests of hearing aid users, on the availability of hearing aids to the public and on the potential for transferring adult hearing aid services from hospitals to health services or group practices and dispensing hearing aids by a community dispenser, which is what the RNID proposes in its document, "Hearing Aids: The Case For Change."

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ynys Môn on bringing forward the Bill. I hope that it will have a fair passage in the other place, to the eternal help of the 3·9 million deaf people in this country.

This is an important measure and I congratulate the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), both on his luck in the ballot for private Members' Bills and his choice of Bill. Few people win a high enough place in the ballot to legislate so soon after entering the House and the hon. Member has used his good fortune to excellent purpose. I congratulate him also on the content and manner of his presentation of the Bill. Both upstairs in Committee on 5 April and here on the Floor of the House today he has made the case for his Bill with eloquence and obvious sincerity.

At the same time, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), I recall today the pioneering work of our former parliamentary colleague Laurie Pavitt in piloting the parent Act—the Hearing Aid Council Act—to the statute book in 1968. His work for hearing-impaired people will long be remembered, on both sides of both Houses of Parliament, with respect and appreciation. Speaking for the Opposition, I most warmly welcome this strengthening of his legislation and, from this Front Bench, pledge our full support for the early translation of the Bill into law.

The Bill's main purpose, by amending and strengthening the Hearing Aid Council Act, is to protect some of the most vulnerable among Britain's 3·9 million adults—including one in every two people over the age of 70—with a hearing loss serious enough to warrant the use of a hearing aid. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys undertook a definitive survey on the prevalence of disability, commissioned by the Government and published last September, showing that hearing impairment is the second most common disability in Britain today. Successful fitting and use of hearing aids reduces and can remove this disability, which is why the provision of the right aid at the right time is so important to so many people.

The National Health Service is, of course, the main provider of hearing aids but, as the hon. Member for Ynys Môn said, some 20 per cent. of all aids dispensed in this country are bought privately. They are often bought by elderly people who have been subjected to utterly disreputable sales techniques. There are cases of people spending as much as £2,000 on useless aids.

Let me give the House one example of the abuse with which this Bill is intended to deal. I give the example because it illustrates so well the importance of the Bill and has been so fully and clearly documented. It concerns an elderly woman living alone whose hearing deteriorated to the point at which she felt unable to mix with other people. Her doctor arranged an appointment with a specialist at Hull royal infirmary, where she was told that she would have to wait 15 months for an NHS hearing aid. She writes:

"In sheer desperation I decided to go to Amplivox-Ultratone for a hearing test. I was told they had a hearing aid costing £375 to suit my particular kind of deafness and that it would be ready in a week. I had been widowed six months and was going on holiday to try to cheer myself up, so I thought that if it took all my savings I must have one."

She had to take the hearing aid back as it was of no help whatever to her and was then told that she needed two hearing aids. Her letter goes on:

"I said I had no more money and was then told that I could have a second aid, with wires round my neck and into my right ear, at a cost of another £100."

This elderly widow then went back to her GP, who arranged a further NHS appointment with a specialist for her. The specialist made it quite clear that she had been grossly misled and exploited by the private dispenser. She then took her case to the small claims court and eventually had her money returned to her, plus costs. The case was virtually undefended and her letter concludes:

"If I had not had to wait 15 months for an NHS aid, I would have been spared all this worry and distress."

This case sets in bold relief the compelling need for this Bill. As was pointed out at the Committee stage by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, the accounts of hearing aid companies show them to be highly profitable. In the year ending May 1987, for example, Ultratone Limited had an annual turnover of £11.5 million, with net profits after tax of more than £500,000. So as an example of the strong exploiting the weak, the Hull case takes some beating. The case also strongly emphasises the way in which long delays in providing aids under the National Health Service pile handicap on handicap for people whose disability may be unseen but is nevertheless a daunting burden to bear.

Ministers do not, of course, talk freely about contract prices for purchases by the NHS. But as the Minister who announced and carried into effect the replacement of the old body-worn NHS hearing aid by the behind-the-ear model, I must take the opportunity of this debate to say that some of the private sector's prices for hearing aids, which are certainly no better than the NHS aid, are totally outrageous. They are not just an affront to human decency but a serious crime against disabled people who, in some cases among the more elderly, go to the private sector for fear that they may die in the queue for NHS provision.

My decision, as the then Minister for the Disabled, to phase out the body-worn aid formerly issued by the NHS, was taken in the mid-1970s. It was seen by the hearing impaired as a major advance. The new aid was cosmetically very much better than its predecessor and cosmetics can be very important to disabled people: ask those, for example, who use wheelchairs about the importance of having some chrome. But the change that I carried through from the old body-worn hearing aid was a very long time ago. What are the present Government prepared to do, nearly 15 years on, to carry that reform further? Has the Minister any statement to make about this today?

In his handling of this Bill, the Under-Secretary seems to have almost ruined his reputation as a would-be parliamentary tough guy: the Humphrey Bogart, as it were, of the House of Commons. Some of his interventions in Standing Committee read more like Sir Humphrey than "Bogie". He has clearly been helpful in regard to this Bill, as the hon. Member for Ynys Môn has acknowledged, both on and behind the scenes. He has won praise for being frank and fair in debate on a Bill which is rightly interventionist in its approach to tackling abuse in the private sector, and also more regulatory in its effects.

This House is often at its best when discussing the problems and needs of people with disabilities. Yet all of us must regard it as unfortunate that, once again, it has taken a private Member's Bill to achieve much needed help for disabled people. It is simply not good enough that legislative progress in a field of such importance has to rely, time and time again, on the luck and dedication of Back Benchers in this House. The Government have a responsibility to match their rhetoric about the needs of disabled people with more legislation of their own, especially when effective protection of vulnerable consumers is the issue.

The Government also have a clear duty to improve NHS provision at a time when the Chancellor is awash with public funds. In a recent Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), the Minister, in reply, spoke of a review that the Department of Health has been undertaking in this field. He said:

"In the coming months we must work on a sensible set of reforms, which commend themselves to all those who work in the Health Service and, above all, meet patient needs."—[Official Report, 23 March 1989; Vol. 149, c. 1303.]

Is there anything more the Under-Secretary can say about that review today? He must know that there is cause for concern when so many patients feel driven to the private sector and when there is the depth of exploitation which I and other right hon. and hon. Members have exemplified to the House? Has he read Dinah Hall's interview with Lord Snowdon in The Times of 16 February 1989? That interview reflects anger with the treatment of disabled people by unscrupulous high-pressure salesmen. Lord Snowdon, than whom no one has done more to help the victims of their techniques, said in the interview:

"I have no objection to companies making profits on something that is not needed—luxuries for able-bodied people. But when it's cashing in on people with disabilities…

Has the Under-Secretary seen the reply I had last Friday from the Minister for Health about the training of hearing therapists and the development of standards-based vocational qualifications? He presumably knows that proposals have been made to the Care Sector Consortium and the Training Agency on which the British Society of Hearing Therapists has been invited to comment? The reply was one of particular interest to the Royal National Institute for the Deaf and the British Association of the Hard of Hearing and it will be helpful to the RNID, to BAHOH and to the House if there is anything the Under-Secretary can add to it in this debate. I shall be grateful for any further information we can have —I assume that the Minister has had some consultation with the Department of Health—about the Government's intentions in regard to improvements in provision for the vast majority of hearing-impaired people who have to rely on the NHS for help.

The Hearing Aid Council is poorly equipped to discipline dispensers. Thus its record of disciplinary action is also poor. As the House has heard, the council's disciplinary committee has met just five times since 1976 and, in 12 years, struck off only one dispenser. Again as the House knows, in the 21 years of its existence the committee has met only 12 times and has struck off only seven dispensers. This contrasts with the thousands of complaints sent to right hon. and hon. Members, not least to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn since he announced his intention of introducing the Bill. They are almost all about gross overcharging of mainly elderly disabled people and the now wholly inadequate means of redress. The Act is not working and is much strengthened by this important Bill which, not before time, will improve the ability of the Hearing Aid Council to discipline the dispensers who are guilty of abuse.

In Committee the hon. Member for Ynys Môn said that there were some outstanding points of difficulty about the Government's approach to the Bill

"…where we remain on opposite banks of the river".—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 5 April 1989; c.30.]

I hope very much that, when this Bill reaches the statute book, with any improvements that the House of Lords may be able to suggest, we shall all, on both sides of Parliament, Front Bench and Back Bench alike, find ourselves on the same river bank, out of respect for the very wide range of organisations that support the Bill and for that part of the private sector that welcomes the protection the Bill offers to elderly and disabled people. Again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Ynys Môn. I thank the Minister, as the hon. Member did, for his helpfulness in Committee and pledge again total support from these Benches for the speedy passage and quick implementation of this Bill.

I shall again be brief, not only because today truly belongs to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), whose Bill this is, but also because I sense that the House is anxious to get to the next item of business. Quite rightly, everybody has expressed the extent to which hon. Members and people with hearing impediments are indebted to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn for what he has been able to do. It is not often that a private Member's Bill can achieve what has been achieved. I sincerely hope that the House will shortly agree to give the Bill a Third Reading. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn can rightly feel pleased about what he has achieved.

I thank the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) for his kind words about me and I link those thanks with thanks to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). I doubt whether my career will survive in view of what has been said about me in the debate, but I shall do my best to make sure that, where appropriate, we continue to use measures such as this to give protection or encouragement to those who need it. That is not inconsistent with adopting a robust attitude to those who are well able to look after themselves. That might go some way towards explaining the paradox that has puzzled many hon. Members during the debate.

The Bill does many important things and we have highlighted two of them. One is the matter of penalties. We think that we have put in place a workable series of penalties that will go a long way towards giving the council effective powers to deal with appropriate matters.

On the question of composition, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) made a helpful and positive contribution. He has knowledge of and interest in this matter, and rightly expressed concern on behalf of the industry and the dispensers about the nature of the new composition that the Bill will bring to the council. May I seek to reassure my hon. Friend by saying that we shall now have to find a way of having a membership of the council that reflects the nature of the industry? We shall do everything that we can to ensure representation from users of private sector products. I accept his comment that it is right that that should be so, and we shall try to do it when requesting nominations for membership of the council and by looking carefully at such nominations. The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South also spoke about that matter, and I hope that we shall be able to meet his requirements.

There is concern about funding which I well understand. At no point does the Bill set out to alter the basis of funding; it does not seek to be the vehicle to do that. I understand the concerns of the industry, but perhaps the House will be reassured to know that the main costs incurred by the council are in disciplinary proceedings. We amended the Bill to provide that the amounts levied by fines should go to the council and therefore in large measure offset any costs that may he incurred. We hope that that will also meet any additional costs that may be incurred through additional proceedings of the kind envisaged by many hon. Members.

We have gone some way towards providing a compensatory factor, if I may put it that way. I remind the House that the Secretary of State has to agree the annual fees levied by the council. Therefore, there is a safety valve, and if things ever threaten to get out of hand or to be dealt with irresponsibly—although I do not envisage that—there is a safety net. I hope that that reassures the industry and the dispensers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South for his positive attitude and hope that he will pass my comments to the dispensers so that from now on everyone will be able to make the council a more effective and more workable body.

The House can be pleased with the work it has done this morning. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn must be delighted. I ask the House to give the Bill a resounding Third Reading and send it well on its way to the other place so that it may reach the statute book as soon as possible.

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

The Bill comes to its Third Reading substantially amended in Committee. As I indicated on Second Reading, we had experienced some difficulties in drafting what was then part II of the Bill and what is now clause 6 dealing with powers to seize vehicles used in illegal waste disposal. I hoped that we could positively improve the drafting but my fear, which was rather more acute than my hope, was that we might lose that part of the Bill altogether due to opposition within Government Departments. However, my resolve to introduce these new powers was greatly strengthened by the comments of hon. Members on Second Reading when, as those who were present will recall, hon. Members called for even more severe measures —for example, confiscation of vehicles—than I had proposed.

During the intervening months, we have been able to consult in depth on my proposals, and I am delighted to be able to report the very positive results of those discussions. I am extremely grateful, first, to the London Waste Regulation Authority. Its members have given me unwavering support and its officers have spent an inordinate amount of time advising me and consulting departmental officials. Secondly, I am extremely grateful for the support of the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) who, in the course of our negotiations, was able to set aside the reservations that she expressed on Second Reading, enabling us to spend a most productive time improving the Bill in Committee without diminishing any of its original intentions.

I remind the House of the problem that the Bill seeks to address. Waste production from all sources has dramatically increased in Britain in recent decades. As the quantity, complexity and hazardous nature of wastes has grown, so has the disposal problem. In short, disposal of waste has become big business and, in turn, the potential profit has attracted a criminal element seeking to evade the current law on control of pollution and dump loads illegally.

My concern about the activities of fly tippers, as they are popularly known, began with representations from tenants on the Silwood estate in my constituency, through which I discovered not only the extent of the problem in my own constituency but the difficulties for the enforcing authorities in trying to tackle that very problem. I discovered that more than 10,000 tons of waste had been deposited near that housing estate, which led me to have more discussions both with my own local authority— Lewisham borough council—and the London Waste Regulation Authority. I discovered that the problem was widespread. I received reports from hon. Members of fly tipping not just in the conurbation but in rural areas, including some of our most cherished natural beauty spots. Clearly, the dimensions of the problem of illegal waste disposal are such as to require rather more than the Prime Ministerial exhortation to bag it and bin it.

In London—an area of 600 square miles with a population of 7 million people—about 17 million tons of waste is generated each year, 3·25 million tons of which is household waste and civic amenity waste, which is handled primarily by the public sector. A total of 13·75 million tonnes, however, is commercial and industrial waste handled by the private sector. In the greater London area there are approximately 300,000 industrial and commercial waste producers which generate a great variety of waste ranging from small quantities of complex chemicals to thousands of tonnes of material, some of which is extremely hazardous.

In London the regulation of waste disposal is the responsibility of the London Waste Regulation Authority and the London boroughs. In recent years,the LWRA has given considerable priority to the fight against illegal disposal of waste. However, as it stated in its annual report for 1987–88, that is a very difficult task. With regard to the need to undertake surveillance of popular fly tipping areas —particularly the more notorious sites, some of which are in the borough of Lewisham—the LWRA stated:

"Such exercises, to be effective, needed a good many officers and placed a strain on the LWRA's limited resources. LWRA officers, in common with most other enforcement agencies, have no special powers of arrest and are instructed to avoid dangerous situations. Some fly tippers can be extremely violent. On one occasion an offender drove his lorry at an officer's car. On another, an officer was assaulted by a site operator and savaged by the man's guard dog. As it stands at present, the law is so convoluted as to make it extremely difficult to mount successful prosecutions against fly tippers. An offender needs to be apprehended while actually committing the offence and it is necessary to prove that the waste that is deposited is controlled waste as defined by the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Witnesses, who are often ordinary members of the public, have not always been willing to appear in court. These are just two of the many problems to be surmounted. Procedural difficulties mean that the task of bringing an offender to book is a time consuming and uphill task."

That is why, as hon. Members will appreciate, it was necessary for me to introduce this private Members' Bill.

The powers that the Bill would grant are twofold. First, it establishes a registration scheme whereby those who undertake the removal of controlled waste for commercial reasons must obtain a registration certificate from the waste disposal authority. Failure to do that before moving controlled waste will be an offence. That measure will undoubtedly reduce the number of cowboy operators and it will be positively welcomed by the many legitimate operators who feel that they have been given a bad name in the business by the criminal elements.

Secondly, the Bill provides for the seizure of vehicles where the authority has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle has been used for the illegal disposal of waste and an offence has been committed, but it has been impossible for the authority to trace the responsible person. I hasten to add that it will not be possible for the authority to take such dramatic measures as seizure without having obtained a warrant from the appropriate authority.

I wish briefly to clarify several points outstanding from the Standing Committe stage about the operation of the Bill and to put on record the advice that I have received. There was concern about the phrase:

"or otherwise with a view to profit."

It is clear to hon. Members that a firm which is commercially engaged in these matters involves a company which regularly takes money for transporting waste. However, there was concern about what the phrase would cover. The object in this part of the Bill is to catch everyone whom one could reasonably describe as a waste carrier. We are not after the individual householder, as I explained on Second Reading. However, we might wish to encompass carriers who are not seen to be in the business of waste disposal but who may casually accept a cash payment for carrying in a vehicle and disposing of someone else's waste. The vehicle might not even be a lorry. Such informal cash-down arrangements would arguably not constitute a waste disposal business but, if uncontrolled, could give rise to fly tipping. Accordingly, our belt and braces definition is justified. Our definition includes all businesses carrying waste and any person carrying waste with a view to profiting from that activity. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members wish to see that provision in the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) was concerned that partnerships might be vulnerable to de-registration every time they lose or acquire new partners. After close examination of that aspect, we believe that that will not be a real problem. There are four possible cases to consider. When a new partner joins an existing partnership which is registered, he must apply for and secure registration before becoming a partner. That is a reasonable requirement, and one that he would have to fulfil if he were setting up as a waste carrier on is own account. When an existing partner leaves a partnership, there is no effect on the partnership's registration, and when an existing partner's registration is revoked a period of grace is allowed before revocation takes effect so that the carrier may appeal. During that period of grace, the partnership may decide either that the partner should appeal or that he should cease to be a partner— either of which will preserve the other partners' registration. When a partner voluntarily surrenders his registration but remains in the partnership—this would be peculiarly perverse—it would still be open to the other partners to remove him from the partnership so as to preserve their registration. I am satisfied, on the basis of that technical advice, that the Bill does not grossly inconvenience partners or partnerships but protects the right of society to ensure that those who engage in business through partnerships cannot use that legal form of business to evade the law.

Concern was expressed by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that the definition of "road" in respect of an amendment to the Bill citing the Road Traffic Act 1988 is too narrow. Again, I believe that such a fear is unjustified. The only parts of the Bill in which the word "road" appears are clauses 5(2) and new clause 3, which provide that no one other than a police constable in uniform may stop a vehicle on any road. However, off the road a disposal authority officer also may stop a vehicle. In effect, the narrower the definition of "road", the wider the power of authority officers. I know that that provision is important to waste regulation authorities, who often have to give chase to cowboy operators and only stop them well away from the public highway. Those new powers will do much to strengthen the hand of the enforcement authorities and to give hope to many constituents of mine and of other right hon. and hon. Members whose environment has for so long been blighted by the menace of fly tipping.

I introduce one note of caution. The Bill as amended is more dependent on regulation to be brought forward by the Minister than was originally the case. When the Minister responds, I ask her to make clear to the House the timescale against which those regulations will be brought forward. We do not want to place positive legislation on the statute book, only to find that it is inoperable or only partially operable due to lack of Government regulation.

Once again, I thank the sponsors, all of whom wished us well even though they had other engagements and could not be with us today. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley). I also express my sincere thanks to those who have given me such helpful legal and technical advice—the London Waste Regulation Authority, the London borough of Lewisham and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran). Again, I must express my satisfaction at the unusual accord that has been reached on both sides of the House in relation to this private Member's Bill. I was gratified to find only yesterday a reference to my Bill in the Government's reply to the second report of the Environment Select Committee on toxic waste. It has been a privilege to bring a new green Bill thus far in the House. I hope that hon. Members will consent to its Third Reading.

On Second Reading of the Bill, on which the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) was kind enough to invite me to join her as co-sponsor, I congratulated her on her good fortune in the ballot, which we all envy, and even more on her choice of subject, which concerns a severe aspect of environmental pollution. I express my congratulations on the skill and flexibility with which the hon. Lady has piloted the Bill to this final stage in the House. That is not the easiest thing for a Back Bencher to do.

The hon. Lady was right in congratulating, and drawing attention to the part played by, the London Waste Regulation Authority. Councillor Mrs. Joan Wykes and Mr. Ferguson, the general manager, gave impressive evidence to the Environment Select Committee on the problems covered by the Bill. I think that the hon. Lady will not mind my saying that, in a sense, this is also their Bill.

I thank also my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. Because of her good will and that of her officials and the assistance that they have given the hon. Member for Deptford, it is possible for us to give the Bill a Third Reading in the knowledge that the House will not divide on it. The hon. Lady will therefore have the satisfaction of having a Bill in her name.

The Bill started life with the limited but vital objective of eliminating that pernicious phenomenon of our commercial life, fly tipping. It now completes its life in the House as a Bill for the registration of carriers of waste. Perhaps, on reflection, that suggests a more appropriate title for the Bill—Registration of Carriers of Waste Bill —because it more readily identifies than the previous title what the legislation is about.

The Bill is a necessary link in the chain of duty of care which is the strategy that the Department of the Environment is evolving to deal with the problems associated with waste disposal. The fact that controlled waste will be transportable only by registered carriers will make it much easier to trace back to the original producers waste subjected to improper disposal.

This goes far wider than fly tipping. In that connection it is important to emphasise that the term used in the Bill, "controlled waste", includes ordinary builders' rubble. When using such technical terms the subject may appear to have greater importance and significance than it has. Builders' rubble is the biggest part of fly tipping. That will carry a penalty of up to £2,000 under the Bill—for the unregistered carrier who carries controlled waste. If the rubble contains asbestos or other dangerous substances, an even higher penalty—a penalty without limit—can apply to the unregistered carrier.

I welcome the fact that in clause 6 we have found a way to provide machinery for the seizure of vehicles used by unregistered carriers of controlled waste. It is very limited —more limited than I should have liked—as a magistrate's warrant will be required before the seizure can take place, and as the vehicle can be stopped only by a constable in uniform. We can understand the reservations that the Home Office may have about a system under which all the current waste disposal authorities—the county authorities and the metropolitan boroughs—had officials who had been given the power to stop and seize vehicles. It is a pity, then, that the regulation authorities as proposed by the Select Committee on the Environment, on the excellent model of the London Waste Regulation Authority, have not been accepted by the Department of the Environment. If we had a limited number of waste authorities organised on a regional basis, it would be far easier to control a system under which non-police officers had the power to stop vehicles and the circumstances in which they could detain them. That weakness in clause 6 may make it difficult to use effectively.

I sympathise with that argument, as I have shared the hon. Gentleman's concern. I was pleased to learn, however, that the London Waste Regulation Authority, which was closely involved in amending the Bill, felt that it would be able to operate the clause. It often needs the protection of the police, and it felt that the clause would be adequate.

I am certain that it is better to have clause 6 in its present form than to have nothing at all. The fact that vehicles can be seized is an important sanction in itself. Waste regulatory authorities might, in future, find the system more cumbersome than they would like if they have to find a magistrate at home and provide all the evidence to obtain a warrant, particularly in regard to the carrier who may be very difficult to identify.

Another matter that needs to be emphasised is that the use of registered carriers will only in part discharge the duty of care as I understand the Government intend it to apply. Producers will also have to have regard to the competence of carriers in relation to the waste that they are contracting to carry to discharge the duty of care. The question then arises whether in the regulations made under the Bill there should be some reference to competence—whether there should be a prescription for a certificate of competence on the part of the carrier.

It may be argued that the Department of Transport carriage of dangerous goods regulations provide control. Is my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment satisfied that there is provision under those regulations for the training that would be, and should be, required for people who carry waste materials to enable them to understand the nature of the waste that they are carrying, how it should be dealt with and what to do should there be an accident? With this Bill, we are going beyond builders' rubble and contemplating every other kind of waste that falls within the definition of controlled waste.

The final problem is the identification of fly tippers who might be registered or, more likely, unregistered. The offence under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 is to deposit material. To prosecute, one must either catch the fly tipper red-handed or have sufficient means of identifying him by the vehicle that he used. In the present circumstances, that requires eye-witnesses with pretty good eyesight, especially when a lorry's registration number is accidentally covered in mud, dirt or some other material that obscures its easy identification.

For that reason, following the thoughts of the Royal Commission on the environment in its eleventh report, the Select Committee suggested to the Government that there should be clear, positive identification on vehicles for hire or use by carriers of waste. The Government accepted the Royal Commission's recommendation as long ago as 1986, and then embarked on a period of consultation, as a result of which they have withdrawn from the Royal Commission's suggestion that there should be some kind of identification plate on a vehicle registered for the carriage of waste. Again, one can see the difficulty of a plate being easily seen and identified.

For that reason, the Select Committee went further and said that a registered carrier should have his name and address clearly emblazoned on his vehicle so that an eye-witness to fly tipping could readily identify and report without the confusion that frequently arises from half reading a number plate on the front or back of a vehicle. Unhappily, the Government have not agreed to that suggestion. I hope that, in the light of experience, they will have second thoughts. Perhaps they can deal with the matter in the regulations which they will be entitled to make when the Bill becomes an Act.

There are practical problems. A carrier may hire a vehicle to do a job for somebody else. We might need some changes in current practices. After all, if the Government are to introduce a duty of care, that in itself will require considerable changes in the way in which the industry presently gets rid of its unwanted rubbish. Therefore, it is not too far-fetched to provide a regime whereby controlled waste of all kinds should be carried in registered vehicles which are clearly marked as such, and marked in such a way that they can be readily identified by an eye-witness even on a dark winter's night in an obscure lay-by.

I hope that the Government will have further thoughts on that matter. The debate does not end on Third Reading in the House. The Bill must go to another place, and then we shall consider the regulations. It is always easy to find a dozen reasons for saying no. What one is interested in is finding the will to do something that is necessary. I suggest to the Minister, and to those advising her, that the Select Committee has not put forward its recommendations idly. They followed detailed examination of evidence from all sources. We realise that our recommendations are not easy to implement, but the need is such that a way should be found to do that.

I leave these thoughts with my hon. Friend the Minister. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford once again and hope that she has the pleasure of seeing on the statute book a Bill in her name.

I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) on being successful in bringing her Bill to this stage. Tribute has been paid by the Chairman of the Select Committee and others to the hon. Lady's efforts to take advice, to discuss the way forward and to bring to Third Reading a Bill that is appreciated and supported by all who take the question of waste and waste control seriously.

Fly tipping is a costly and offensive scourge which blights many parts of our country, especially some inner-city areas. There is no doubt that the Bill will make a useful contribution in refining the weapons to deal with that great problem. I appreciate the time and trouble that the hon. Lady has taken over the details and I am pleased that during Committee stage we were able significantly to alter the Bill in various key areas.

The Bill has, of course, been strengthened in Committee. Two examples are that, first, waste authorities can now use powers to search a vehicle, to make tests and to take samples of the loads, and, secondly, we have added a new offence of obstructing an officer who is stopping and seizing a vehicle. The Bill, in its amended form, will do two important things. It will create an effective register of waste carriers. The register will be of great use to authorities in their enforcement work and also to producers of waste who are seeing a legitimate outlet. All this is designed to be as simple as possible to impose the least burden on local authorities and legitimate industry while protecting those who are clearly deeply concerned about fly tipping.

The Bill will create a new enforcement power for authorities to seize vehicles. On Second Reading, the whole House recognised the strength of feeling that a measure was required which would provide for the seizing of a vehicle where a fly tipping offence had occurred but the owner of the vehicle had not been identified. I am pleased that we have been able to develop that into a form which is acceptable and will, I believe, be effective. The Bill is essentially an aid to detection rather than a new form of punishment. We cannot enact a power to confiscate vehicles as a punishment wherever there exists a suspicion against the driver. Hon. Members must agree that punishment is a matter for the courts and should be imposed only on those who have been properly tried and found guilty. Confiscating a vehicle is a serious matter because the vehicle is a form of livelihood. Those who have seen vehicles fly tipping sometimes forget that wrongfully to seize a vehicle would create severe difficulties for the owner if his purpose had been innocent.

There are a number of areas in which we have decided to bring forward regulations. The advantage of regulations is that further time is given to consult. It is easy to legislate hastily without, perhaps, thinking through the implications of the regulations for the people involved. In recent weeks it has been clear that the London Waste Regulation Authority and others have been able to help to refine the Bill. We hope that the time taken to produce the regulations will be used constructively. In Committee I said that we hoped to bring forward those regulations by the end of the year. There is no doubt that my Department takes this matter extremely seriously. We are also involved in a number of other measures to try to improve our control of waste and a great deal of effort and energy will be invested in that.

Our proposals to introduce a duty of care on the producers of waste, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) referred, will be the key to dealing with waste which is left in the wrong place. We shall have an important weapon with which to tackle that problem through our ability to identify the source of the waste and make the person involved responsible. To introduce those regulations we need a register of carriers of waste so that those who have a legitimate wish to continue their business feel secure that the people to whom they have entrusted their waste will satisfactorily meet the necessary standards.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green was also concerned about visible identification on the vehicle to show that it was licensed to carry waste. 'We discussed this in some detail in Committee. Although we agreed that, superficially, such a visual registration would be a good idea, there would be a number of exceptions where a carrier would not need to be registered—for example, if he was carrying his own waste. We must also consider the effects of such a concept on small businesses which sometimes hire or borrow an additional vehicle while carrying out a respectable trade. We therefore believe that the registration of such carriers and the obligation on them to produce the document to prove their registration is the right way forward. There is no short cut or substitute for stopping a vehicle and checking on the registration. We are not convinced that a visible plaque is the right way forward, but there will be a further opportunity to discuss all these matters because the Government have made it clear that they want to bring forward comprehensive proposals for waste legislation at the earliest opportunity.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green also asked about the competence of those carrying particular waste. Although the Government have made it clear that they believe that competence should be a material consideration when issuing a licence for waste disposal sites, there are no proposals for competence to be a particular requirement for registration. Registration will mean that there is a list of those carrying out a legimate trade. We shall, of course, consider those matters carefully when we issue the draft regulations and my hon. Friend may wish to make additional points at that stage.

My hon. Friend also asked about the need for a constable to be present when stopping a vehicle on the highway, and that need is recognised. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford and the London Waste Regulation Authority have made it clear that many of the characters involved in the illegal business of fly tipping are not those whom many would want to approach on a dark night without the presence of a constable. We believe that that requirement is right and proper. A member of the London Waste Regulation Authority is, of course, entitled to approach a vehicle off the main road and to ask to see that the vehicle is registered. We believe that we have got the balance right and that the requirement will be enforceable and add to the other measures that we have in mind.

It is clear that as society progresses we generate ever increasing amounts of waste, whether it be domestic waste, builders' rubble, industrial waste or fairly hazardous waste. The Government are determined to update at the earliest opportunity their proposals for dealing with waste in a comprehensive and thorough fashion. They have brought forward a series of discussion papers and documents in recent years and are anxious to take all views into account when finalising the details for legislation.

There is no doubt that the Bill brought forward by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford will make a significant and important contribution. Not only her constituents, but all those affected by fly tipping and all those involved in the legitimate trade of waste disposal have every reason to be grateful to her. I hope that the House will give the hon. Lady's Bill a robust and resounding Third Reading and that it will successfully continue on its way to another place.

With regard to this piece of legislation, I say to my hon. Friend the Minister, "Regulations, regulations and more regulations". Our party is supposed to be the party which, recognising that we are over-regulated in our businesses and industries, has made a special point of trying to remove regulations and to limit the number of new regulations put on the statute book.

I have taken a great interest in small businesses all my political life. The Bill will undoubtedly have a major effect on such businesses, which have small lorries to carry waste from one place to another. There are many small businesses in the building industry. My father was a demolition contractor and I have lifelong experience of travelling to and from waste tips to get rid of rubbish, so I know a great deal about the subject. There are many waste tips in my constituency, which is part of the Thames estuary. It houses many old gravel sites and one of the largest waste disposal contractors in the country, Corys, which has one of the most advanced plants for dealing with and disposing of toxic waste.

I do not speak merely to be controversial but because I believe there are a great many errors in the idea behind the Bill. No one wants rubbish to be dumped in a field, in someone's backyard or wherever. Everyone believes that people who do that should be caught and severely punished. However, there is a great difference between that and new regulations requiring special licences for vehicles which merely carry a bit of builders' rubbish from one place to another. People with lorries already have to obtain heavy goods vehicle licences, and one virtually needs a degree in law to understand the relevant regulations. I am not exaggerating when I stress the degree of pressure that this places on lorry owners who do a good job of taking rubbish sites to proper waste tips.

We also make it difficult for people to open sites where waste can be disposed. Again, I speak from experience. When one of the obviously suitable gravel pits in my constituency is offered for tipping, enormous numbers of people always protest. Those who live nearby do not want lorries travelling down the lanes and do not like the idea of having rubbish nearby although they all help to generate it. Protests are always made and we end up with fewer and fewer sites on which people can honestly and legitimately dump rubbish. We make it difficult for them to do so. This is the other side of environmentalists' problem. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) shakes her head, but a large part of my constituency business consists of people complaining either about taking waste to sites or about waste disposal.

If those who produce chemical waste were monitored —we know which firms make noxious or toxic industrial chemicals—we could ensure at that point that the waste would be properly disposed of. We could come to grips with the issue. However, making life more difficult for people who have to obtain special licences for their vehicles is unduly interventionist.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. She is well known for speaking on behalf of small businesses, and the whole House much appreciates her efforts on their behalf. Would she be satisfied if we said that when we come to make regulations we shall appreciate her advice as to their effect on the people for whom she is concerned, who are involved in a legitimate trade but who may not have all the authority of large firms behind them?

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister, and I am grateful for her suggestion. Since I appear to be in a bargaining position, before imposing these over-onerous regulations will she consider the development of more sites for legitimate tipping and obliging people who produce toxic waste to register, so that we know who is producing the rubbish? That would be better than giving powers to coppers to stop every lorry travelling from A to B with a bit of old rubbish, and making lorry drivers take out licences or be looked on as potential criminals.

It is well known that the Government hope to bring forward comprehensive legislation on waste at the earliest opportunity. We would much appreciate the thoughts and comments of my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that she will have many more opportunities to develop her important points at much greater length.

I thank my hon. Friend. I hope that what I have extracted from her does not turn out to be waste, and I hope that she will not fly tip my ideas.

I beg to move amendment No. 66, in page 1, line 5, leave out 'Secretary of State', and insert

'local weights and measures authority for the area in which an applicant for a licence has his head office or his registered office'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 37, in page 1, line 5, after 'State' insert

',after consultation with any local weights and measures authority appearing to him to be concerned,'.

No. 29, in page 1, leave out lines 7 to 9 and insert—

(aa) is employed by a local weights and measures authority and has completed a course of training deemed by the Secretary of State to be satisfactory.'.

No. 48, in page 1, line 9, leave out from 'applies' to end of line 11.

No. 73, in page 1, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert—

(b) satisfies regulations issued from time to time Secretary of State in consultation with representatives of local weights and measures authorities and

(ba) who has been accredited and audited in accordance with BS 5750 on such other quality assurance scheme as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine, and

(bb) has been accredited by the National Weights and Measures Laboratory in conjunction with Local Trading Standards inspectors and

(bc) has been audited by the appropriate local authority inspector in conjunction with the National Weights and Measures Laboratory.'.

No. 39, in page 1, line 10, after 'satisfies', insert 'the Secretary of State as to the matters mentioned in subsection (1 A) below and complies with'.

No. 67, in page 1, line 10, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert

'local weights and measures authority'.

No. 47, in page 1, line 12, leave out from 'section' to 'equipment' in line 14.

No. 49, in page 1, line 14, leave out from 'applies' to end of line 15.

No. 40, in page 1, line 15, at end insert—

'(1A) The matters referred to in subsection (1)(b) above are—

(a) the adequacy of the quality assurance system which is to be adopted by the applicant;

(b) the adequancy of the procedures which are to be so adopted for ensuring that any equipment which is passed and stamped by the applicant conforms to or complies with such of the following as are applicable to it, namely—

(i) any pattern in respect of which a certificate of approval under section 12 of the 1985 Act is in force; and

(ii) the requirements of regulations under section 15 of that Act (including in particular the requirement that the equipment should fall within the prescribed limits of error); and

(c) the traceability to national measurement standards of any testing equipment which is to be used by the applicant.'

No. 68, in page 1, line 17, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'local weights and measures authority".

No. 22, in page 1, line 17, at end insert—

'(2A) Before granting a licence, the Secretary of State shall consult the Chief Inspector of Weights and Measures for the local weights and measures authority, and the authority, together with the Chief Inspectors of such other local weights and measures authorities (if any) as appear to him to be appropriate.'.

No. 69, in page 1, line 20, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert

'local weights and measures authority'.

No. 72, in page 1, line 23, leave out

'Secretary of State such fee as the Secretary of State'

and insert

'local weights and measures authority such fee as the authority.'.

The Opposition are concerned that this measure has been introduced through the private Member's Bill procedure. We are aware of the Eden report on this subject of a few years ago, and of the Government's response to it. In effect, the Government accept most of the committee's recommendations. We should have liked the Government to introduce a comprehensive measure dealing with the self-verification of weights and measures equipment. We believe that this Bill deals only with a section of the Eden committee's recommendations and does not implement them comprehensively.

Amendment No. 66 seeks to delete the word "Secretary of State" and to insert the words

"local weights and measures authority".

The amendment goes to the heart of the Bill. We think that the appropriate authorities to deal with weights and measures inspection and verification should he local weights and measures authorities and trading standards officers. Which, therefore, is the appropriate body to grant licences under clause 1?

There are a number of reasons why I should like the local weights and measures authorities to be the licensing authorities rather than vesting that power with the Secretary of State. The latter course would involve a centralised system of weights and measures administration with powers placed on the Secretary of State and would move us away from the local aspect of weights and measures administration. It is a fact that every local authority has a department that deals with weights and measures legislation and contains trading standards officers. The localisation of weights and measures administration should be retained.

In any event, if the Secretary of State were the licensing authority, he would have to seek the advice and co-operation of a host of other organisations on the applications for licences that he would receive. As it is more than likely that those organisations would he local weights and measures authorities together with organisations such as the National Weights and Measures Laboratory, we feel that the involvement of the local weights and measures authorities should be retained.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that there has been sufficient consultation with the weights and measures authorities? All hon. Members who have been involved with consumer affairs legislation in the House for a long time are worried that there may not have been sufficient consultation. Does my hon. Friend agree that such consultation is important in determining our attitude to the amendment and to the Government's control of the Bill as a whole?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important point. It might have been better if the promoter of the Bill, the Government, the local weights and measures authorities and their representatives had been brought together to discuss a comprehensive Bill on which all parties could agree because, although there is a substantial measure of agreement within the local weights and measures authorities on the recommendations of the Eden committee, there is not a great deal of agreement about the provisions of the Bill which seeks to enact only part of the recommendations of that committee. I am sure that the local weights and measures authorities would be only too pleased to participate with the Department of Trade and Industry and with the manufacturers of weights and measures equipment in drawing up some proposals for a framework for legislation on this matter.

Centralising the power to grant licences in the Secretary of State would mean that he would either utilise the framework and the facilities that are already available—the local weights and measures authorities—or adopt an attitude of granting blanket licences to any manufacturer who applies. That would defeat the whole object of weights and measures legislation. I stress that we can trace the origins of such legislation as far back as the Magna Carta.

Although we talk about safeguards in weights and measures legislation, it would seem to defeat the whole idea of protecting the public from being short measured if we were to give a power to the Secretary of State, without adequate safeguards, to give a blanket licence to anyone making an application.

I emphasise that the local weights and measure authorities have considerable experience in that area, and I suggest that they should be responsible for the granting of those licences. Indeed, by their very name, the local weights and measures authorities are the obvious candidates to run any type of licensing arrangements. They are doing the job now and they are doing it well. The public have confidence in them. That confidence is increasing, and that is borne out by the response that most local trading standards officers receive to their reports.

Trading standards officers have influence within their authority areas. Why should we remove from them the whole remit for weights and measures administration and pass it to the Secretary of State? Those officers are doing the job and would be the obvious people to grant licences. If the power to grant licences is left with the Secretary of State, he will have to utilise weights and measures officers and trading standards officers or employ trained staff. It would be ridiculous if local weights and measures officers were not used by the Secretary of State. Why not give them the job and the authority to grant the licences to be applied for by various manufacturers?

Local weights and measures authorities have been operating for years and have built up local knowledge of companies, operators and people who use weights and measures equipment. Such local knowledge will be essential for the Secretary of State before he grants a licence. Again it seems logical that the ideal candidate to supply that local experience and knowledge is the local weights and measures authority. That would also enable local weights and measures authorities to combine inspection with other aspects of trading standards in their locality. The assessment about the suitability of a company for a licence could be combined with the normal day-to-day workings of local departments, and that would save time, effort and money. Local weights and measures departments have instant knowledge about the suitability of candidates applying for licences.

The Bill requires the provision of various controls such as audit and accreditation mechanisms. It also requires the inspection of the verification systems that will be put in place for manufacturers. Once again it will be left to local trading standards officers to control and monitor the audit and accreditation systems that will have to be used by manufacturers. It would be a duplication of effort to bring in local weights and measures officers under part of their remit to advise the Secretary of State when he is considering licence applications. The authorities should he given the power to carry out that job at the same time as they are verifying audit control, quality control and accreditation systems.

The job of considering the suitability of an applicant for a licence will enable the local authority to accumulate knowledge and experience of manufacturers in its area. That experience can be used to make instant decisions about licences and that will cut down on the bureaucracy of shuffling papers between local authorities and the Secretary of State. The local weights and measures authority is on the spot and has the experience, the knowledge and the capability to carry out the necessary functions in a short time. Of course it could also do the job much cheaper.

As well as being able to grant licences, the local weights and measures authority could also be an adviser. Before or after a licence application the authority could advise manufacturers on how to set up a self-verification and accreditation system or a quality control system. During that process of giving advice or advising on these systems, the local weights and measures authority would be able to accumulate the information required for the granting of a licence. Indeed, it would be on the spot to advise a company about what measures it would need to employ to qualify for a licence offered under the terms of this Bill rather than applications being made through the system to the Secretary of State, with a licence possibly being refused and further amendments being required. In those circumstances, much bureaucratic effort is involved in the granting of a licence.

1.45 pm

The Eden committee said in its report that any scheme of self-verification must engender the same confidence as verification by weights and measures inspectors. If we are to maintain public confidence in the weights and measures system in this country, licensing should be left with the local authorities and not given to the Secretary of State.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would seem to be more sensible for the Government to act on all the recommendations of the Eden committee by bringing forward its own Bill? Why has it taken the Government so long to act, and why are we having now to deal with a partial implementation of the Eden recommendations through a private Member's Bill rather than deal with a comprehensive Government measure which would have appeal to all parties concerned?

We would obviously have liked and would have co-operated in consultation on the full implementation of the Eden committee proposals, or as near to that as could be achieved. The Eden committee reported in June 1985, the Government's response being completed a year later. So the Government have had three years in which to bring forward a comprehensive Bill to cover these aspects of the weights and measures legislation. Even at this late stage, we would still like to see the Bill withdrawn with some commitment to a Government Bill and consultation with all the appropriate authorities.

I was saying that public confidence has to be maintained in the weights and measures authorities and legislation. As that public confidence presently rests with local weights and measures authorities, if the provision before us is accepted, that confidence will be transferred to the granting of licences.

Does my hon. Friend agree that much of the good work of the local weights and measures authorities would be destroyed if we had a central licensing system? Another great danger is that many local authorities now have inter-departmental arrangements between one area and another, enabling information to be transmitted very quickly to put on warning other areas of the country against fraud or other criminal acts. That, too, could be at risk.

My hon. Friend demonstrates adequately another reason why local weights and measures authorities have a stake in being the licensing authority under the Bill. Through their knowledge, networking and the facility they offer, authorities are able to work together. Their extensive knowledge in the field is what presses us to move these amendments to include them as the licensing authority.

The Eden committee recommended independent assessment, accreditation and surveillance. If amendment No. 66 is accepted, we would be moving some way towards the Eden committee recommendations. Paragraph 117 of the Eden report states that the authorities should be responsible to the Secretary of State and should also be publicly accountable. It stated that they should establish and publish criteria for accreditation and assess, accredit and register manufacturers. It also recommended that they should maintain a register and have many other responsibilities. Eden produced a long list of recommendations which he believed were necessary for the authority which would deal with the legislation. I believe that Eden never envisaged the idea that the Secretary of State would be the sole licensing authority. He believed that weights and measures authorities would be given that role.

Eden recommended that the authorities should be responsible to the Secretary of State through some kind of mechanism.

One of my worries about the Bill is that it gives the Secretary of State powers to fiddle. That is roughly it. The manufacturers are saying that they do not want an independent body to test their machines. They want the power to make them, repair them, and to fix the dials. That is in line with this Government's policies. They have fiddled 19 different sets of unemployment figures, they have fiddled the cost of living figures, and they have threatened to fiddle the balance of payments deficit because it is so embarrassing. Now along comes this Bill from the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). The Government are so blatant that they are introducing Bills under the guise of private Members' Bills to fiddle the figures. That just shows how arrogant the Government have become.

Only a few days ago the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare could have introduced his Bill, but what happened? He fiddled it away. It disappeared from view and was scheduled for another Friday. Then some Government fiddler came along to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare and jogged his elbow. He said, "Get your Bill off. Fiddle it away." He fiddled it away. He sat in this place for an hour and a half and then decided to take it off at the Government's behest. The whole thing is surrounded by fiddling. It fits in with the Government's performance in trying to trick and deceive the nation.

My hon. Friend has made one or two points in his brief intervention which I should like to address.

The fact that the Bill is being presented as a private Member's Bill does not exactly inspire confidence in the hope that the Government will protect weights and measures legislation. Public confidence would have been maintained had we had a Government Bill open to the full rigours of debate, with a Committee stage and consultation.

I am at a bit of a loss to understand the difference in principle between the private Member's Bill on the very important subject of fly tipping and waste control and this measure. Surely it is equally legitimate for Members on both sides of the House to come forward with such measures.

I am not seeking to deny Members the right to bring forward Bills on whatever subject they choose. That point is for another debate at another time.

Weights and measures legislation and weights and measures authorities must maintain public confidence. In such a delicate area as this, perhaps a Government Bill involving adequate consultation, taking into account the Eden committee's recommendations in full, would have been more suitable.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) also referred to tolerance exploitation, and that will be raised later in our proceedings.

Paragraph 124 of the report sets out three scenarios for a self-verification system. They include the British Standards Institution, the National Weights and Measures Laboratory and the National Metrication Coordinating Unit. All three scenarios are set out diagrammatically and are explained in some detail, but not one of them takes recourse to the Secretary of State as the highest authority. A supervisory body exists in all three cases, but at no point is it ultimately or immediately responsible to the Secretary of State.

Earlier, my hon. Friend mentioned public confidence in the Government. One cannot have confidence in a Government when, as in the case of the factories inspectorate, the number of public inspectors has decreased, as has also occurred in respect of Admiralty searches and the number of marine surveyors. If weights and measures also passed into private hands, what guarantee would their be that proper verification would take place—and that verification or self-verification of the small repairer will be adequate to guarantee the accuracy of weights and measures systems?

My hon. Friend's comments are self-explanatory. Public confidence must be maintained in any weights and measures legislation, as must the current local accountability.

Amendments Nos. 48 and 73 relate to provisions that we feel should be included in the Bill for regulating licences. We propose four different conditions, because the regulations set out in clause 1 relating to matters that must be taken into account by the Secretary of State when considering licence applications are inadequate, and they should be substantially strengthened.

Licence conditions and regulations should be clearly defined, and those relating to any self-verification scheme must be particularly well understood. The Bill currently requires only that a licence application should be in writing, accompanied by a fee, and that a record of it should be kept. Provided that a manufacturer can write and can afford the fee, he can obtain a licence. The Bill imposes no further conditions as to the suitability or otherwise of any manufacturer or body applying for a licence under the Bill.

Weights and measures legislation is a technical area, as is evidenced by the Weights and Measures Act 1985, and we are concerned that the Bill is loosely drafted. Licence conditions should be clearly stipulated, but the Bill contains only a vague proviso mentioning certain requirements of the Secretary of State—not conditions, but only requirements. We believe that licence applications should comply with various conditions. The first is that the applicant satisfies regulations to be issued from time to time by the Secretary of State in consultation with local weights and measures authorities. We believe that they are the appropriate authorities to draw up regulations in conjunction with the Government in ensuring that weights and measures legislation retains public confidence.

2 pm

Under the second condition, schemes must be accredited and audited in accordance with BS5750, which deals with quality aassurance schemes, or other quality assurance systems which the Secretary of State may introduce. The third condition provides for the National Weights and Measures Laboratory and local authority trading standards officers to accredit licensees. The fourth condition provides for assistance by the NWML in auditing manufacturers.

There must be confidence in any self-verification scheme introduced under licence or the Bill, and that would involve local weights and measures inspectors. There should be independent assessment of quality management systems, accreditation systems and surveillance systems. Paragraph 16 of the Eden report sets out self-verification schemes in detail. The committee recommended that BS5750 should be followed in quality assurance schemes. We believe that that should be made compulsory in the Bill. The government accepted that proposal in their response to the committee's report.

The Eden committee set out requirements for authorities administering the scheme. Those requirements should be included in the Bill to make it comprehensive. The Bill refers merely to a vague request to comply with requirements.

Is not the great danger of the Bill the fact that, because it is so short on detail, it is wide in the licence that it gives manufacturers? There cannot be quality control when licence is given to abuse.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I hope that we shall return to that issue. Applications for a licence should lay down detailed requirements for manufacturers or, as my hon. Friends have said, the Bill will be a charter for manufacturers to cheat.

The paragraphs in amendment No. 73 reflect the Eden committee's recommendations. The committee envisaged a split system for self-verification schemes, a split between the supervisory role, covering regulations issued by the Secretary of State and accreditation by the NWML and trading standards officers, and the Executive, which would have the job of inspecting the schemes, accrediting those involved and auditing management on a day-to-day basis. The British Standards Institution, because of BS5750 on quality management schemes, would be a prime candidate on the supervisory side, with the NWML and trading standards inspectors carrying out field audits. Alternatively, the National Weights and Measures Laboratory and the National Metrological Co-ordinating Unit might act as supervisors, with the weights and measures laboratory accrediting the firms and manufacturers and the home trading standards officers carrying out audits and imposing sanctions.

The final suggestion involved the establishment of an accreditation board—

Something has just crossed my mind. My hon. Friend has been associated with the mining industry all his life. He may care to draw attention to something that happened when I was a lot younger and when his father worked down the pit. We used to have self-verification machines at the pit, owned by the private coal owners, who weighed their own coal. Under the Bill, those weighing machines could come back. We should then have to do what we did then and employ a check weighman to check the bosses' weighing machines. The bosses ran the tubs of coal over the weighing machines and cheated the miners. We had to pay check weighmen out of our own pockets to stop them doing it.

We have talked about a return to the Victorian era. The Bill might not take us quite as far back as that, but the system extended into the twenties and thirties and right up to nationalisation. The miners had to employ people to check the machines, which were deliberately made to cheat them out of the amount that they were due for the coal that they had produced.

My hon. Friend has given us a graphic description of the introduction of the check weighman into the coal industry. What he has described is known as tolerance exploitation. Within a given legal tolerance, a weighing machine can be adjusted to give a lesser reading than that which it is prescribed to deliver. Tolerance exploitation is still possible under the law, and one of our fears about the Bill is that tolerance exploitation may be used by repairers or installers—rather than the manufacturers, with whom the clause deals—especially those who have some relationship with the end user of the machine. We hope to come to that in due course.

Does my hon. Friend know that, in a statute of 1335, Edward I made it clear that it was precisely such problems that concerned him? He required that, in the weighing of wool,

"the Tongue of the Balance be even, without bowing to one Side or the other, and without Hand or Foot, or other Touch made thereto."

Is it not clear that nothing changes?

My hon. Friend is right that nothing changes. As I said earlier, the weights and measures legislation can be traced back to that statute and to the Magna Carta.

To Roman times.

As my hon. Friend says, it goes back to Roman times. The Bill would severely dent public confidence in weights and measures, which hitherto has enjoyed a high degree of continuity.

A cost would have to be involved—a licensing fee—if, for example, the British Standards Institution were involved, as it would have to cover its costs. The accreditation boards, too, would have to cover their members' expenses. Under the existing arrangements, it is sensible to include and use the existing organisations such as the weights and measures laboratory and the co-ordinating unit. That would make the transition to the new system easier and ensure that we were using known, tried and tested standards.

All the recommendations to which I referred and which are contained in the amendment are set out in paragraph 126 of the Eden report. The Eden committee's recommendation was accepted by the Government, but it was not put into the Bill, and we have no Government legislation to implement it. It is interesting to consider the Government's response. The Eden committee recommended:

"Accreditation to self-verify will depend on the applicant satisfying the Secretary of State about:

(a) quality assurance;

(b) the traceability of testing equipment to national measurement standards;

(c) the procedures for ensuring conformity with an approved pattern;

(d) the adequacy of the testing regime for ensuring that self-verified equipment meets the relevant regulations."

On page 11 of the Government's response, one line stands out and confirms what I have been saying. It reads:

"there is a special opportunity to benefit from inspectors' accumulated experience in the verification of equipment".

Unfortunately, that does not appear in the Bill. The Government recommended British Standard 5750 because they wanted demonstrably high standards. Again, there is a special opportunity to benefit from inspectors. They said that they would encourage schemes based on British Standard 5750. On audits, they said that we need regular assessments plus notification of self-verification equipment for sample checking. That is not included in the Bill. The Government's response to the Eden report went on to state:

"The inspector will have powers to issue instructions to a SVO regarding verification procedures and powers to embargo equipment where the spot checks have revealed an unsatisfactory performance by the SVO."

That is not in the Bill, but it is in the Government's response to the report. The Government should have come forward with comprehensive legislation to cover those points.

Trading standards officers are the weights and measures authority in this aspect of the law, and they should remain so. The amendment should be accepted. If not, the Bill should be withdrawn in favour of a Government Bill.

I declare an interest. I am a consultant to the National Federation of Scale and Weighing Machine Manufacturers. I have never made any secret of the fact that I have brought the Bill forward so that this country should be ahead of its rivals in Europe when self-verification is introduced, willy-nilly, in 1991—whether or not the Bill is passed.

Three hon. Members have tabled amendments. I wrote to all three, inviting them to tell me about their specific complaints and seeking to satisfy them. The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) replied, but the other two did not. I am sorry about that. The only organisations that have formally come to me have been the Association of County Councils and the Institute of Trading Standards Administration. Both organisations have points to make about my Bill. I met representatives from both organisations, we discussed our views, and amendments to satisfy their requirements were tabled in my name.

The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central is under many serious misapprehensions. Had he given me a chance to explain more fully the circumstances of the Bill he would have understood that, far from encouraging the nefarious activities that he described, it is a small measure which may affect no more than a dozen manufacturers and will free trading standards officers for other duties which they constantly tell us they have no time to pursue. I do not understand why there should be such a wave of opposition to this extremely minor measure.

As I was one of the hon. Members to whom the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to write, I apologise to him for not having replied. The reason for that is that I was consulting at considerable depth with those who will be most directly affected. When I first put down my carefully considered new clause, it was the hon. Gentleman's intention to pursue the Bill without having consulted me, although he may have consulted other hon. Members. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if he felt that it was discourteous that there was no official reply to his letter. Had there been considerable consultation with all hon. Members concerned about the Bill, there might have been greater understanding of his position. No one objects to his making his attitude clear, but there are real objections on behalf of the consumers. It is quite wrong to suggest that only the weights and measures officers are involved.

The hon. Lady knows that those interested in the Bill, including consumers, were represented on the Eden committee, which produced a unanimous report. In the period between publication of the Eden committee report and the Government's response, all interested organisations made their views known. That was why we saw no reason for individual consultation.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

I have a letter from the Consumers Association—the publishers of Which?—dated 27 April, which is after all the consultations had taken place. It says:

"Dear Mr. Skinner,

I am writing to draw attention to our misgivings over the 'Weights and Measures (Amendments) Bill', and to request your support in opposing ‖ Although this bill appears uncontroversial, it does, in fact, overturn basic measures of consumer protection which have been taken for granted for over 100 years."

I have not been involved with any of the amendments. I just read the letter and thought that the Consumers Association obviously had a case.

The hon. Gentleman thought wrong. If the Consumers Association had had the courtesy to discuss the matter with me, it would not have written a letter based on so many misapprehensions and misconceptions. It has simply failed to understand what the Bill is about. I was alerted to the fact that the Consumers' Association had made representations to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin), but it did not copy those representations to me, nor did it consult me or ask for an explanation of the intentions of the Bill. If the trading standards officers, who would be freed from their duties by the application of the measure, were to apply themselves to the sort of things that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was talking about when he referred to cheating in the mines, I believe that it could be argued that this is a consumer protection measure which will improve consumer protection.

It is not fully understood that the licensing agreement from central Government will go only to manufacturers who obtain British Standard 5750.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will just finish my explanation, as it is important.

The suggestion that any manufacturer who applies will be permitted to stamp his own machines is ludicrous in the extreme. As a promoter of a previous consumer protection Bill, the Hallmarking Act 1973, I can say that the concept that our Government are not completely alert to the necessity to ensure that these things are done properly—they have been done properly in this country for many hundreds of years—is ludicrous. We are talking about technically difficult matters. Obtaining British Standard 5750 is not only a lengthy process, but an extremely expensive one involving staff at all levels in the company —from the managing director down to the chap who sweeps the floor. Few people will be able to afford or will take the trouble to obtain BS 5750. We believe that at present perhaps a dozen manufacturers in this country will be able to take advantage of the legislation.

Is the hon. Gentleman not saying that those who are in the club can therefore benefit from the club, and that that will exclude all the other manufacturers? What about companies which are beginning to develop in this sector? Unless they are part of that little group, they appear to be excluded.

They will go on in exactly the same manner as now and a trading standards officer will visit them and stamp their machines as and when required.

The hon. Gentleman refers to the fact that the Consumers Association has written to me as well as to other hon. Members outlining its objections to the Bill. Does he agree that as he knew that the Consumers Association was party to the widespread agreement to the Eden committee recommendations it would have been better to consult that association before putting pen to paper to devise his Bill? Does he also agree that instead of his being placed in this difficult position it would have been much better if the Government had brought forward a measure which incorporated the Eden recommendations and therefore satisfied all parties?

I had assumed, with good reason, that as a result of its presence on the Eden committee and its constant communications with the Government on that matter subsequently, there was no reason to believe that the Consumers Association, of all people, would be disturbed by the Bill. Its relevance to the consumer is remote.

The young man at the Consumers Association whom I telephoned on hearing of his concern said that he would write to me that very day. The letter was delivered on Wednesday night, but I cannot carry out negotiations on such a complex matter in 24 hours. He will receive a detailed critique of all his detailed points, but there is no substance in them and the consumer has nothing to fear from the Bill. It is a thin argument to suggest that manufacturers' costs may be modestly affected and that, therefore, the costs of weighing machines may be passed on to the public. The consumer has nothing to fear from the Bill. The application of trading standards will continue as before. It is the manufacture and, perhaps, the subsequent installation and repair of weighing machines that is involved. This Bill is not about the checking of weighing machines. No one is suggesting that there should be any change in current arrangements for that.

The substance of the Opposition's objections to the Bill was revealed by the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central, who said that they were very annoyed that they had got only a slice of the cake and that they would not allow the Bill to pass because they wanted the whole cake.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister because the Bill would give us a substantial lead over other European countries in subsequent negotiations. Obviously the necessary expertise is being applied to advise authorities in Brussels of the likely outcome of events. By stopping the Bill, the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central is simply allowing the French and the Germans to take a lead in a matter in which we are perfectly able to take the lead.

The hon. Gentleman says that we could steal a march on the Europeans if the Bill were passed. If the Government had activated the Eden committee report in 1986 when they accepted its recommendations, we should have gained a further three years on the Europeans.

I cannot argue about the desirability of bringing forward a Bill covering all the Eden recommendations, especially as it would contain the measures proposed in the Bill before us.

I have a letter to the Scottish local authorities from my hon. Friend the Minister in which he makes clear the Government's intention to bring forward a Bill. We all know that the timetable in this place is already full and my hon. Friend the Minister was unable to argue that this matter was of sufficient priority for the Government to produce a Bill. The failure to produce such a Bill is a poor reason for opposing my measure, which is simply part of that measure. The argument that a Bill covering all the Eden recommendations has not been introduced is not a good basis for opposition. In the light of that explanation, I should have thought that the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central would think carefully about the substance of his complaint.

My amendments have been tabled at the request of the Association of County Councils. I believe that it is perfectly reasonable that the local trading standards office should be consulted before a licence is issued. The suggestion that the scheme should not be administered nationally shows that the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central does not understand how the administration of weights and measures is conducted. Trading standards offices receive, at regular intervals, central guidance notes from the National Weights and Measures Laboratory, which is held in the highest esteem by all concerned.

Nowadays, we deal in high technology. The old weighing machine with a weight on one side and the item to be weighed on the other has gone. We now have sophisticated electronic instruments. The concept of a trading standards officer even understanding their operation let alone the adjustment of them, is clearly completely out of date. It is because the manufacturers are the best people for that job that the Bill suggests that they should be allowed to mark the machines on their own premises. Once that machine comes out of the factory, there is nothing to stop the trading standards officer putting his measured weight on it to check its accuracy. The checks and duties of the trading standards officer, as carried out today, will continue. I do not believe that the Consumers Association or any other organisation can suggest that the consumers' interests will be affected in any way. The present arrangements simply allow the trading standards officer's inspection to become the final inspection within the factory process. That is deeply unsatisfactory.

If any Opposition Member wishes to have a full explanation of the motives and merits of the Bill, and to discuss any fears that he or she might have about it, I am ready and available to do so. I am deeply sorry that I have not been given the opportunity to do so before.

With the permission of the Committee, I shall take this opportunity, although time is running out, to set out the background. Questions have been raised about the Government's position, and it will help hon. Members if I set it out briefly.

Hon. Members will be aware that the Eden committee was asked by the Government to review the arrangements for the legal control of measuring equipment in use for trade. One of the key recommendations of the committee, which included representatives from consumer bodies, and, as has been said, trading standards interests and equipment manufacturers, was that a self-verification scheme should be introduced. This scheme would allow properly accredited manufacturers, installers and repairers of trade equipment to verify and stamp equipment which had been shown to meet legal requirements, rather than requiring a trading standards officer to fulfil the task.

In accepting that recommendation in its published response, the Government fully endorsed the committee's commitment to ensuring that the public's confidence in fair trading should be maintained. To this end, the scheme would be available only to those companies accredited against stringent quality assurance criteria, and the expertise of the local authorities' trading standards officers would be used in the accreditation and auditing of the scheme. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that there would be any compromise of consumer protection. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) has introduced this Bill which seeks to amend the Weights and Measures Act 1985 so that a self-verification scheme could be introduced. The measures proposed in the Bill are consistent with those outlined in Cmnd. 9850 for the introduction of a self-verification scheme, and therefore the Bill has Government support. Similarly, the amendments tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare have sought to meet the quite proper concerns of trading standards officers and consumer interests and, therefore, should receive hon. Members' support.

As the Eden committee recognised, the technical complexity of weighing and measuring equipment increases inexorably—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare—and self verification, properly based on sound quality assurance principles., is the way forward. Other countries have already introduced schemes of this kind and we can certainly expect the impending Community directives on measuring instruments to include provisions for self verification. The United Kingdom rightly has an international reputation for the effectiveness of its weights and measures controls, and also for pioneering work on quality assurance certification. We want to take this opportunity to introduce a national self verification scheme and maintain our position in Europe as enlightened regulators for the benefit of manufacturers, consumers and the enforcement authorities.

I shall state the Government's position on the amendments as they arise.

I am always worried when a promoter of a Bill says that it is promoted in the interests of that section of the community who will be able to verify its own interests. Unless someone, who may be a manufacturer, is one of that group, he or she will still be subject to the same British Standard 5750 and cannot be part of the club.

I am even more concerned that a Minister should come to the Dispatch Box and agree that the Government had read the committee's report and accepted all its recommendations but will choose to implement just a few of them because that might help us in Europe.

I am even more concerned when the Bill's promoter says that trading standards officers should not be involved because they do not have the technical expertise to deal with these matters. That is not right or proper. I expect the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) to withdraw that comment; it was a nasty slur that was unworthy of him.

Trading standard officers in St. Helens have expressed grave concerns to me about the Bill—

Object.

Those of us who are concerned about animal welfare will be back again and again and again on this issue. The next time we shall be back will be a week today.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Why do the Government keep objecting to these safety measures?

Object.

Object.

Object.

Not moved.

Object.

Second Reading what day? No day named.

Object.

Not printed.

We have had a long association and friendship with both India and Nepal, which has been in two directions. We have provided aid to India which, over the past eight years, has totalled no less than £910 million. That works out at an average of £113·75 million per year. The figures vary from year to year because the agreed projects that are taken up are not even in number throughout the years and in some years the take-up is greater than in others. That is why we must look at this in averages.

During that period we have had a major hand in helping the Rihand coal-fired power station with £117 million, the Bharat Aluminium Company thermal power plant with £131 million; £24 million has been provided for low-cost housing; £15 million for social forestry projects in Karnataka; £31 million for long-wall mining technology; and £24 million has been provided for the Indo-British fertiliser education project. All are important aspects of aid which can be expected to continue in the future. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will say more about that later.

During a similar period, Nepal has received just over £70 million. That works out at an average of £8·75 million per year. It has contributed to the Dharan-Dhanjuta road in east Nepal and has provided help with the tea industry, with rural development in the Kosi hills, with grain storage, with an earth satellite station and—most important—reafforestation in the middle hills. With Nepal's increasing population, there is a problem about obtaining fuel and large amounts of forest have been denuded. That is bad for the soil, which is then washed away down the mountains by the rivers, making it difficult to work the remaining farms properly and effectively. Therefore, reafforestation is important.

In the past, the attitude behind our aid has been to help to renew those natural resources that can be renewed, to provide effective communications, to provide health care —including, of course, an improved water supply—arid especially, to help with education and training. In return, we have been able to export a considerable amount of goods to India. In 1983 we exported no less than £805 million worth of goods to India. That has risen steadily until in 1988 the estimated figure was £1,112 million.

The Nepalese have a special relationship with this country. I need hardly remind the House that it goes back a long way. For 173 years Nepal has been providing us with soldiers for the British Army and for the Indian army when it was under British control. The Nepalese will provide an effective service to the British Crown for many years to come because we are experiencing the problems of the demographic trough, which means that the number of service personnel in the British Army in the next 20 years is likely to be much lower than in the past, especially in infantry regiments. That means that we shall be relying even more on the Nepalese Gurkhas to help us with our defence commitments.

I was sorry that we were unable to help more in providing for the future of the station of Dharan. My hon. Friend knows my feelings about this. I wish that we had managed to retain it permanently because once one recruits to a particular area and provides a valuable service in terms of a hospital and medical treatment, one finds that service people tend to retire to such areas.

The value of the properties and the number built in that area depend upon the presence of a facility at Dharan. About 18 months ago the Government decided to close that, and it is now in the process of being wound down. That is unfortunate because it made a major and significant contribution to the economy in that part of Nepal.

The King of Nepal, His Majesty King Birendra, is a conscientious monarch and spends at least two months of every year visiting his people in the hills. I have personal experience of that. It is a wonderful thing to do and says a great deal for the king's dedication and his keenness and enthusiasm. He finds out a good deal about his people and his experience of their trials and tribulations and finds out where they most need help. That means that he is in a good position to see exactly where there are problems and where some assistance is required.

It came as a great disappointment to many hon. Members to learn about a breakdown in the trade and transit arrangements between these two friends of ours. Nepal is a land-locked country. It has China through Tibet on the northern border, which has two very difficult passes, and on the southern, eastern and western borders it has India. Until recently, as a result of a treaty which came into effect in 1978, there were no fewer than 15 crossing points for trade and transit, but that treaty came to an end about 12 months ago. Two extensions of six months were granted but then, at short notice, the agreement was terminated. Considerable difficulty is now being experienced in getting goods across the border because only two crossing points remain open. They are probably the most important of the crossing points and are at Raxaul and Jogbani. The end of the agreement has caused severe restriction and great difficulty for this land-locked country.

No fewer than 90 hon. Members have signed an early-day motion drawing attention to their concern about this situation. Quite clearly we must all be concerned because we are providing aid to two countries which are not trading freely or having free transit between one another. Much of the aid, especially to the smaller country, is dissipated in extra expense because of the closing of the border in so many areas. Civil servants in Delhi have said that the majority of essential materials are passing across the frontier despite the restrictions introduced in March, but that has not been found to be so by some people. I had a letter only yesterday from a constitutent whose son is working on behalf of the CARE charity in Nepal. His efforts are being severely restricted because he is unable to get petrol to move about the country to provide the important help that is required. He has told his mother that paraffin for cooking and sugar and soap are not easily available, that petrol is severely rationed and that medicines and hospital supplies are in short supply. This is a most serious matter when one is trying to help some of the poorest people in the world and also to ensure that the money spent by the British taxpayer in providing afforestation projects is not undermined by the wood being cut down to provide heat for cooking, necessary though that purpose is. Much of the money that the British taxpayer is paying for reafforestation, particularly in the middle hills of Nepal, is likely to be wasted if the situation that I have described continues for much longer.

I understand that Mr. Rajiv Gandhi is keen that the matter should be solved as quickly as possible. Of course, sometimes civil servants have a way of holding things up. My hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will know that not so long ago I had to deal with the question of some gold taken off a plane in Calcutta when it was being transported back legally from Hong Kong to Nepal by Gurkha servicemen to purchase land. Such a technical holdup may go on for months or even years while lawyers do their best to unravel the problems.

That kind of situation cannot be allowed to make life so difficult for people in parts of the world such as India and Nepal. There are good reasons why the two countries should have a very harmonious relationship in transit and trade. India is the largest democracy in the world, and Nepal relies on its goods transiting through India. In fact, 90 per cent. of Nepal's trade is with India. Thus, the two countries have a very close-knit involvement. At the same time they are entirely independent and sovereign states, and, as such, should be able to expect their goods to be allowed to be transmitted through adjoining countries without unnecessary let or hindrance.

Many agreements previously entered into, some of which extend until 1991, have had to be suspended because of this embargo. Diesel fuel, paraffin for cooking, baby food, medical supplies and salt are some of the products affected. Clearly, we must show concern about the situation. Coal is also important. Recently, 2,000 tonnes of coal has been released by India, but that is only a small proportion of the 1988 quota of 80,000 tonnes still due. The Nepalese cement industry, which relies on coal from India, is now in a desperate situation. Although Nepal entered into a contract with the Salt Corporation of India for the supply of salt until 1991, inadequate supplies of salt are being allowed into Nepal. Customs duty of about 145 per cent. is being imposed on Nepalese exports to India, leading to a virtual stoppage. That, too, is a serious matter.

Any reasonable person would be concerned about the matters that I have raised. While Mr. Rajiv Gandhi knows about the situation, I do not think he really appreciates its extent, because I am sure that if he did he would take urgent action to put it right. In the interests of the three countries concerned—India, Nepal and the United Kingdom—I hope the problem can be solved urgently. It affects the British taxpayer for the reasons that I have explained to my hon. Friend the Minister. I trust that it will be possible to unravel this matter very soon so that the trade and transit arrangements can be allowed to continue.

I should have thought that in the short term it would be sensible to allow the previous arrangements to continue for a further 12 months and in the meantime to come to a permanent arrangement for the two separate issues—trade and transit. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to do everything possible to ensure that the matter is resolved to everyone's honour and satisfaction.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) has kindly agreed that I should speak for a moment or two in support of his excellent speech. He brings to the House a special knowledge of the kingdom of Nepal and its relationship with India because he is the chairman of the all-party Nepalese group and a distinguished member of the Select Committee on Defence, and he has a special knowledge of the Gurkhas.

This is a serious matter. There is widespread support for my hon. Friend's points inside the House and in the country. The United Kingdom has had a special relationship with the kingdom of Nepal since 1815. Many of the Nepalese nationals have served in Her Majesty's forces and continue to do so. Several hundreds, if not thousands, of residents in Nepal receive pensions from the United Kingdom Government for their service. Many of them are suffering hardship as a result of the expiry of the treaties and the failure to find a solution of the problem between India and Nepal.

We all know that the United Kingdom has an excellent relationship with India. We are the firmest of friends with that great country and recognise its contribution to the work of the Commonwealth and the democratic principle. It is especially sad that the present situation should have arisen between two countries with which the United Kingdom has a special regard and affection.

It will not do for the Foreign Office to sit on the fence as the Minister of State, Lord Glenarthur, implies in correspondence to me. He observed that he hopes that the issue will be settled and that the Foreign Office will

"continue to follow events with keen attention."

It will not do simply to be an observer of events. We have an interest and a concern. We must ask the Government to use their best influence with our friends in New Delhi and on behalf of the kingdom of Nepal to ensure that there is a solution in that part of the world for which we have a special regard and an historical link.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) for giving us this opportunity to discuss the problems and challenges of development in south Asia. My hon. Friend is an acknowledged authority on Nepal and no one has done more to strengthen the good relations between the kingdom of Nepal and this country. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) for contributing to the debate. Any contribution which my hon. Friend makes in the House is stamped with his considerable common sense.

I am aware of the strong views of hon. Members on this subject, as is my noble Friend, Lord Glenarthur, the Minster of State to whose correspondence my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North referred. The strong views expressed in this debate and in other ways will be noted beyond the House.

I want to begin by referring to the aid and development issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South. On the face of it, there may appear a sharp contrast between Nepal, on the one hand, a small mountainous kingdom and still very largely an agrarian society, and, on the other, India, the second most populous country in the world with a large and growing industrial sector. In fact, their similarities are more significant than their differences. They both face the same basic challenge which is to raise the standard of living of their peoples, the majority of whom live in absolute poverty or close to it. Our aid programmes to both countries—the subject of the debate —are aimed at assisting them with that challenge.

Nepal has only opened itself up to international trade and aid, and to all the influences that go with them, in the past 25 years. It is all the more encouraging that it has chosen to follow the path of economic rectitude and has adopted a structural adjustment programme under the aegis of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. It has followed that programme with considerable commitment and success. I commend the admirable progress made by the Nepal Government in the past few months.

During my visit to Nepal in March 1988—which was a particularly enjoyable as well as useful visit—I was pleased to be able to offer British support for is programme in the form of a pledge of programme aid worth £5 million. I also pledged £10 million of aid to Nepal's major hydro-electric development at Arun. That and other hydro-electric proposals lie at the heart of Nepal's development prospects. They offer the possibility of a massive jump in gross national product in the next decade or two—some reports say, as much as 25 per cent. The only market for power on that scale is India, which has its own implications for the future.

To put massive development of that kind into place, Nepal must first develop its basic infrastructure. The backbone of its transport and communications is the road system. That is an area in which we made a major investment through the aid programme—difficult though that can be—and we plan to continue doing so in future, in close collaboration with the Swiss aid programme. The Swiss have slightly more experience of road building in mountains than ourselves. Our aim is not only to develop, repair and maintain Nepal's road system but to strengthen the country's own capacity to undertake those tasks.

That kind of institutional strengthening also lies behind our support for the Nepal Administrative Staff College, which trains Government officials in Nepal, and our close links with Budhanilkantha school, from which Nepal's future generations of leaders in government and industry will come. I paid a particularly interesting visit to that school and was very impressed both by the quality of education provided and by the spirit of community that one felt there.

Earlier I mentioned the major challenge faced by India and Nepal of alleviating poverty. It is entirely appropriate that His Majesty the King of Nepal pledged his Government to meet the basic needs of his people by the year 2000. That is an ambitious target. As one would expect of a very poor country, all the social indicators look grim. Levels of literacy are very low by south Asian standards, infant and maternal mortality is very high, and the population growth rate is alarming—especially given the rapid degeneration of the physical environment.

Nowhere are those problems more acute than in the hills. In our long-standing project on the Kosi hills we have assisted the local inhabitants in tackling those problems in an integrated fashion, with a special emphasis on forestry, agriculture and water supply. I should like more time to speak about forestry, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South said, is an extremely important subject. Alas, I must move on.

We agreed with the Government of Nepal that we should assist also in developing a system of primary health care that will reach out to the people in the eastern hills and provide them with the basic health services that they so urgently need. I cannot pass over the question of health without mentioning the British military hospital a Dharan, which was considered in the recent interesting report of the Defence Committee on the future of the brigade of Gurkhas. I do not wish to anticipate the Government's response to that report, but, as my hon. Friend will know from our evidence to that Committee, we propose to provide a package of £3 million of aid to assist in the conversion of that hospital to civilian use and to maintain the standards of care at that hospital for the benefit of the people in the eastern hills.

It will be clear from my comments that we have an expanding aid programme in Nepal. We expect that our aid disbursements for this financial year will be about 50 per cent. higher than they were two years agoߞ£14 million compared with £9 million. This programme reflects the long friendship between our countries, which has been exemplified by the brave and committed service of the brigade of Gurkhas, in peace and in war.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South referred to our aid programme in India. It reflects our historic connections with India and the considerable poverty and needs faced by India. More people live in absolute poverty in India than in the whole of Latin America. Over the years, we have found that we are capable of running in partnership with the Indian authorities especially valuable and effective projects. We are trying to help in the power, railways, agriculture and social sectors. I have been particularly impressed by projects which I have seen which attempt to alleviate poverty directly and improve education standards—for example, the work that we are doing in Visak and Hyderabad on slum improvement and on the primary education project in Andhra Pradesh. That is a good programme, and I hope that we continue to apply aid effectively in India.

I turn to the kernal of the argument put by my hon. Friends. They referred to the current state of bilateral relations between India and Nepal and to the dispute which has arisen between them which concerns arrangements for trade, transit and similar matters. The Government greatly value the rich and diverse web of links which bind Britain to Nepal and to India and which are firmly rooted in tradition and history. I know the importance attached by hon. Members and people in the country to sustaining and developing those links. My hon. Friends have referred to that point in relation to Nepal and India. That is certainly the Government's aim.

It is naturally of considerable concern and regret to us that a dispute should have arisen between two countries with which we enjoy close and friendly relations. I well understand and appreciate the feeling in the House over recent developments. I share hon. Members hope that the dispute will not be damaging to the people of Nepal or India or have any lasting impact on their economic development.

We have followed events with keen attention from the outset and will continue to do so. The World bank is evaluating the effects of the dispute and is co-ordinating with donors. There is no sign as yet that special measures are necessary. We shall consider any well-founded requests as sympathetically as we always do, but we look forward to the resolution of the dispute before that stage is reached. We very much hope that India and Nepal, as sovereign and independent countries, will soon resolve their differences in a way satisfactory to both and so bring the dispute to an end. I wish them every success in doing so. In this connection, it is encouraging that both sides are reportedly willing to hold bilateral discussions to bring about a resolution of the problem. My hon. Friends have set out their argument eloquently and potently and made clear their considerable anxiety about the dispute. I shall ensure that their views, including those of my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North on my noble Friend's correspondence, are drawn to the attention of Ministers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office who, I am sure, will read the report of the debate with interest and concern.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Three o'clock.