House of Commons Hansard Debates for 15 Oct 1990

Column 1019

The hon. Member for Redcar posed a particular problem over insurance provision involving Switzerland, Italy and Spain, and she hoped that EC action might solve it. Unfortunately, by including Switzerland in her case that would be impossible because the Swiss are not governed by Community rules. Had she chosen three Community countries, that would have been the kind of issue that we would consider as we developed the directive programme covering all types of financial business.

Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for

Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), asked about barriers to takeovers. They are right that the Government have been exercised by the relative difficulty that many UK companies find in making takeovers on the continent of Europe compared with the relative ease with which European companies can make takeovers here. Progress is being made. The British Government have raised the issue with the Commission, which has responded by agreeing that it is a problem and introducing a work programme to attack some of the legal obstacles through directive proposals, for example in the 13th directive on company law.

Many hon. Members will agree with the Government that the obstacles are often fundamental and more cultural than legal. Often the law codes of the countries concerned permit companies to operate in one of many ways and they do not have to operate as they do. This weekend I was heartened to see in the newspapers comments that attitudes in Germany are changing as a result of the general discussion on barriers to takeovers. Many people in Frankfurt and, indeed, in Paris, where changes are more rapid, are coming to see the force of an open market to challenge existing management and to provide a more active marketplace in which ownership of companies can change hands as well as secondary shares in more limited packages.

We are making progress in the general argument and in tackling the cultural barriers, which are every bit as important as, if not more important than, the legal barriers that we have already identified with the Commission and that may in due course be tackled in some of the directives that we are considering.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) and many other hon. Members agreed with the Government's position that progress on insurance is too slow. He would also agree that speed is picking up a little. The British Government intend to help that along its way. I reassure him that if the opposition comes only from Belgium and Germany-- they have been opposing some of these measures--they do not constitute a blocking minority in the Community, so progress can still be made. We must ensure that a blocking minority does not build up against the principle of freedom of provision in insurance. The British Government's strategy is designed to achieve greater unanimity among member states in favour of the proposal, and to prevent a blocking minority against the proposal.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam (Redcar) : In the absence of the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) and as I listened to his speech, may I say that he is well aware that two countries do not make a blocking minority in the EC? He was worried, as are we, about the structural differences that are built into the insurance industry. It is the structure, particularly between the banks in Germany and France, which makes it difficult for our insurance industry

Column 1020

to compete in what in directive terms may look like an open market, but which in practice is backdoor protectionism. That anxiety was voiced by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It would be useful if the Minister could explain how cultural differences that are slowly waning will prevent our insurance industry from having a fair and open competitive market in Europe in the next couple of years.

Mr. Redwood : That is not the concern that I was addressing. However, I have heard the hon. Lady's point. I believe that our insurance companies in many areas have superior products at extremely attractive prices. That will come out within the single market once there is a legal framework that entitles them to work on a services or a branch basis under the necessary directives. It is with that in mind that the House agrees that we should make due speed in negotiating the directives to give them that chance.

The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) was worried about the dangers of concentration, particularly in accountancy. The purpose of our competition regime is to prevent damaging or dangerous concentrations. The mergers and competition regime applies to accountancy just as it applies to anything else. Each case is looked at on its merits and the Director General of Fair Trading offers advice to the Secretary of State accordingly.

The hon. Member for Rotherham claimed that fraud is widespread. He cast aspersions on practically the entire City and much of the corporate sector. I say to him and other hon. Members who make such allegations that if they bring us the evidence in these cases, I promise that they will be investigated and, if necessary, brought to court. However, general allegations are far from helpful. They put British business in a bad light when viewed by others from abroad, and, if nothing can follow because there is no evidence, everybody is left feeling dissatisfied that the allegation has been made but there has been no follow-through.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir R. McCrindle) made an extremely important contribution. He asked about taxation.

Mr. Dalyell : In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, (Mr. Crowther) I should say that he was a member of the Select Committee. I was not a member of that Committee but I understand that it looked at the matter in some depth. Are the Government saying that the Select Committee was ill-informed?

Mr. Redwood : I have nothing to add to what I have already said. If there is evidence of fraud, we need it because we shall pursue it vigorously. If there is no evidence, it is a silly allegation. I should like to remind my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar that the changes in stamp duty and the taxation of options and futures introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his Budget are welcomed in the City of London because they will help the competitiveness of the City no end. They are examples of the way in which the Government will listen carefully to those who make out a case that our competitiveness is being damaged by our taxation regime and will respond if the Treasury thinks that it is right to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar also mentioned the illiquid assets test. I promise the House that we shall pursue that adequately. In our consultation

Column 1021

document, we set out a number of areas in which we think that illiquid assets are too stringently defined. We started with a capital adequacy directive that may have required City of London firms to increase their capital by around 40 per cent. or more. As a result of the major changes that have come about largely at the Government's insistence, the capital requirement may be 10 per cent. or so above the current levels. We believe that the current levels are about right. We think that they are safe and prudent and allow people to make some return on their money. If we can get the right result of the illiquid assets test, we may be nearly there on the capital requirement that we seek.

Mr. Cash : Does my hon. Friend agree that the question of capital adequacy should be weighed against the question of competence? After all, people can come by money in all sorts of ways, which enable them to support the requirements laid down by law but not to deliver the goods to the customer. Surely it is important--I tried to suggest this with a fated amendment to the Financial Services Bill--that competence is a requirement as well.

Mr. Redwood : Part of our system relies upon assessing the fitness of people to run businesses and, in some cases, to assess their solvency. These are the basic principles needed to run a successful regulatory system.

Most of the other hon. Members made points--

Ms. Mowlam rose--

Mr. Redwood : I should like to leave time for other contributors. Two other hon. Members would like to speak and I think that I should press on.

Most of the other contributors to the debate reiterated points that had been made by others. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) was keen to ensure that reciprocity does not damage us. The Government agree with that. He was worried about the position of off-market trading. The Government recognise that difficulty and will strive to protect our interests on that important issue, which will be one of the difficult negotiating points in the next phase of the negotiations on the directive.

The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) thought that we needed statutory regulation rather than self-regulation. That misconception is shared by some other hon. Members. We have a system, established under statute, of professional regulation backed by practitioners who are involved in the process of regulation. It is not a pure system of self- regulation ; it is professional regulation with practitioner involvement to keep people's feet on the ground.

Mr. John Marshall : Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest problems facing the financial services sector is the quality of auditing? Professional regulation does not seem adequate to stop auditors from signing rather duff dockets.

Mr. Redwood : The accountancy profession will shortly come under new arrangements, and the Department will be considering carefully those seeking recognition under the legislation because we are keen to ensure the highest standards of audit. However, I should not wish to associate myself with the attacks made by some Opposition Members on standards of auditing and the

Column 1022

way in which the profession is conducted because much of the work that it does is first class and should be recognised as such. Our system, which is rather similar in many ways to the Securities and Exchange Commission and its SROs, is based on the Securities and Investments Board, established under statute and backed by self- regulatory organisations--professional regulation with practitioners to keep people's feet on the ground. We wish to strengthen those elements because we believe that we need rather more compliance and detection work and rather less rule-making. 9.41 pm

Mr. Anthony Nelson (Chichester) : The financial services industry has a doughty champion in my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has had the good fortune of an extended opportunity to answer in some depth the important debate that we have had today.

I am pleased that we have been able to continue this debate and to allow further contributions, because it allows Parliament to be seen to be scrutinising carefully the contents of an important report from a Select Committee and to be taking the Government reasonably to task on their policies and views.

Everyone acknowledges that the financial services industry is vital to our economy and that it will be so in the ensuing decade. It accounts for some £7.7 billion of our invisible trade surplus, it employs more than 1 million people and an enormous proportion of our gross national product, some 10 per cent., is generated by it. In recent years it has had to adapt to enormous changes in the marketplace, perhaps above all in technology and in the regime of national and supranational control. Great accolades should be given to British financial services--the banking and investment industries--for the way in which they have responded to these challenges, have surfaced with profit and appear well set to weather the wind of competition in the next few years.

The Select Committee report, albeit lengthy and strewn with many recommendations, was an important study for it to undertake, and I should like to see it be a more permanent feature of the landscape rather than a one-off investigation. I have long felt that our parliamentary processes for scrutinising and considering Government policy on these matters are woefully inadequate. The American system of a congressional banking committee, which allows for scrutiny and a legislative role, is an excellent model, but, because of the demarcation of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and the Trade and Industry Select Committee, the former scrutinising banking and the latter financial services, we have never had the proper vehicle for considering this important aspect of our economy. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) to consider the possibility of establishing a Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry whose remit would be to consider and report on the financial services and banking industry throughout the year.

As I said earlier, I believe that there should be a more formalised approach to the consideration of annual reports--particularly those of bodies such as the Securities and Investments Board. We set those bodies up under the Financial Services Act. They have enormously important

Column 1023

powers of investigation, prosecution and restitution and it is absolutely right that they should be accountable to the House as well as to the Government of the day. Not only are Government moneys invested in bodies such as the SIB ; the integrity of the City as a fair market for investment services is at stake. I believe that the bodies themselves would not wish to be the only judges of their policies and would welcome the opportunity to explain themselves, at least annually, to a Select Committee of the House.

I am pleased to note that one of the Committee's recommendations was that we should become a full member of the exchange rate mechanism. That was a timely recommendation, speedily acted on by the Government. I tabled the original early-day motion calling for immediate membership of the ERM--some 12 years ago, believe it or not--which drew the support of signatories such as the present Chief Whip and a large number of members of the Cabinet, so I was delighted when the event took place, albeit not before time.

I hope that, now that the light has been seen, a constructive attitude will be taken to the much more important negotiations that will take place at the December conference on economic and monetary union. We should not take entrenched views on the commonality of the medium of exchange. No one really minds what colour a bank note is or what faces or names are inscribed on it. The important thing about a bank note is that it should be worth something and that it should maintain its value ; its worth should not dive one day and soar the next. It is also important that one should not have to pay an extortionate rate of interest if one wants to borrow to buy a business or a house.

Most people who have adjusted to pounds and pence rather than pounds, shillings and pence will see that they have a distinct self-interest--as our country will see it has a national interest--in having a secure and valuable medium of exchange. For the industries that we are debating, a commonality of medium of exchange would be far preferable to a number of different media of exchange operating within the single market.

Let me give an example. Part of the debate about the entrenched protective position of the German insurance industry has to do with the rules that apply to the way in which assets are held in Germany. From the German perspective, it has not only been necessary but has been a good and right financial judgement that a large part of the assets should be held in deutschmark-denominated liquid currencies as well as in equity currencies. That is because not only the companies concerned but the money-denominated assets held have maintained a very strong value. One can understand why German insurance companies should be loth to accept an outside directive that tells them that they must hold a higher proportion of their assets in the currency-denominated assets of other countries, which may be more vulnerable. With the more rigid system that the ERM provides, or if we moved to a common currency system--the common pound or the common ecu--that problem would disappear because we would have one medium of exchange. That would make the operation of the single market a good deal easier.

Mr. Cash : My hon. Friend should cast his mind back to the middle ages or the 16th century, or perhaps to the Spanish inflation problems of the 17th century or to the gold standard and the problems of the 1920s, as well as

Column 1024

considering the current situation. It is only too apparent that it does not matter what the currency is. What matters is the relative strength of the economy, which in turn is the determining factor in the strength of an individual currency. In other words, the strength of an economy, its competitiveness, how much one is saving, the manner in which productivity is operated and the extent to which unit labour costs are involved reflect the genuine strength of an economy. It does not matter a fig whether one refers to an ecu, a pound or a lire.

Mr. Nelson : I concur with my hon. Friend and I do not detract from his analysis. However, the currency that is commonly used in the United Kingdom is used in regions that have different economic performances, just as we live within a European Community with regions with different economic performance. My hon. Friend is right to state that there is a correlation between economic performance and the actual value and the exchange rate value of one's currency over a period of time.

However, we are in no position to be vainglorious. It is not as if the performance of our economy has been outstanding in comparison with other European countries. Why must business men and constituents in my area pay nearly double the rates of interest to be found in other ecu currencies? Why do we have nearly double the rate of inflation of some other European countries? It is not as if we are in an enormously strong position and are worried that somehow the exchange value of the pound will be diluted by joining the other currencies. Far from it. We are the supplicants. We need the disciplines and higher standards of prudential control which I believe membership will bring about. It is extraordinary for some elements of my party and others abroad to suggest that we need tighter financial control and greater prudential requirements and then to refuse to ally us to the mechanisms to enforce that discipline.

With regard to takeovers, I was interested in the Select Committee's recommendations on the Commission's report, which I hope will be published. I should like my hon. Friend the

Parliamentary-Under Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs to consider two aspects. The first relates to the takeovers directive which states that a key feature of that directive shall be the fundamental principle that shareholders should be treated equally. I have always been slightly mystified by that statement as a principal objective of the takeovers directive. My view, as I have explained previously, is that the fundamental principle must be the right and ability of shareholders first and foremost to decide how to dispose of their assets. There must always be compelling reasons if that right is to be taken away from them. That is not a matter of equality between classes of shareholders ; it is a right which attaches to all shareholders.

My second point relates to a directive on disclosure requirements. The threshold at which disclosures have to be announced on a European level is 10 per cent., while it is 5 per cent. in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Redwood : No, it is 3 per cent.

Mr. Nelson : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for correcting me. I assume that that position will continue and we shall continue to operate a stricter and more open system of disclosure. However, if we are playing on a level playing field and we are not giving other companies an undue right

Column 1025

to be exempted from takeovers and for minority stakes to be built up elsewhere in the European Community when they are a matter of disclosure here, I hope that we shall press for some changes in that regard.

I want to make several points about the single passport which is the ability to obtain authorisation as a bank or investment company in one European country and to offer those services throughout the Community. We must remember that our interests involve investor protection. We are not about trying to grease the wheels of the financial services industry. We are here principally to protect and enhance the rights of investors and companies to raise money. In doing that we must consider the best financial deal on the market. We want to see competition in the banking and financial services industry and the best competition need not necessarily come from within the European Community. It might come from Japanese or American companies.

Therefore, there is the matter of extending the passport to countries such as Japan and the United States. I should not like to feel that, in creating the single market, we were erecting barriers against Japanese or United States financial services and banking industries. Some right hon. and hon. Members may say, "That is not necessary, because they are in a strong competitive situation anyway." However, we can tie some access to the European single market with reciprocity, which is sorely needed and would overcome criticisms that we are just creating a customs union, a tariff barrier and a preference for companies within the European Community.

I was struck by what the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) said about consumer interests. As far as I am aware there is no specific directive on consumer interests. As I understood her speech, in addition to implementing the directives and arriving at 1993, she would like a greater international and public awareness of their protections, their opportunities and the safeguards that are being extended to them. I wholeheartedly agree with that. The hon. Lady's intentions were sound, but whether they should be the subject of a recommendation or a directive, I know not. The principal responsibility should rest with self-regulatory organisations. After all, it is in their interests to promote use of the markets of which their members are subscribers.

Ms. Mowlam : A consumers directive has been knocking around the Commission for some time. Its initial stages of negotiations will start in December 1991. The point I was making is that that means that it will not be in place when the other directives on investment services, capital adequacy and secondary banking are implemented in 1993. They are not being given the same importance, weight and balance as the other directives that we discussed earlier.

Mr. Nelson : I am obliged to the hon. Lady. Nevertheless, I have been supporting her comments and she might agree with what I say. There are two other small points. One is about the directive on payment systems. I believe that there is a recommendation rather than a directive on payment systems. I should like to see that upgraded to a directive. Whether we like it or not, the credit card industry is a medium of exchange and payment which is here to stay.

Column 1026

Credit card fraud is a multi-million pound business with professional crime involved, people being ripped off on a massive scale, and numerous new entrants to the market coming forward to tie loyalty to their business by issuing a card. We must regard much more seriously credit card fraud and professional operators. The Government should look much more carefully at that matter. The other point relates to the winding-up directive. Although it may seem a little negative to consider such matters, I believe that winding up has an equally important part to play in the protection of investors as sponsoring the burgeoning of new industries. I should like to feel that winding up was instigated at the appropriate moments, that there were common rules and that it was given the importance that should be attached to it.

The Securities and Investments Board, in its role in the financial services industry in this country, deserves a word of support and commendation. Its chairman and members have worked extremely hard to provide orderly markets and communications with the SROs which they scrutinise. It is interesting that, under section 105 of the Financial Services Act relating to investigation powers, in the years since the Act has been in operation there have been 40 investigations and action has been taken in 21 cases by the self-regulatory organisation or by winding up. In five cases there has been restitution and in eight cases there have been criminal prosecutions on matters of fraud or conduct of business. In addition, there have been 330 cases of alleged unauthorised operation of businesses which can amount to a criminal offence. Fifty-seven of those have been resolved. There have been eight prosecutions and two civil injunctions, and 27 cases have been withdrawn. Many other cases have been resolved.

Many hon. Members who have called for the sweeping away of the system set up under the Financial Services Act and its narrowing down into a smaller number of bodies should respect the fact that a great deal of hard work has been done day by day to identify and follow up cases of alleged fraud.

Let those who call for the sweeping away or amalgamation of self-regulatory organisations remember that, if that were to happen, there would be a real danger of our moving towards even more centralist control. After all, if the SIB were to absorb all the self-regulating organisations we would end up to something more akin to a Securities and Exchange Commission.

For all those reasons, I believe that the existing structure set up under the Financial Services Act 1976, uncomfortable as it may have been in its inception, has worked to the advantage of the City and will continue to work to the advantage of our economy.

I welcome the response of the Government today and the contribution that the report of the Select Committee has made, but it must not end here ; the scrutiny must continue.

9.59 pm

Mr. William Cash (Stafford) : I think that I must be very brief--I think it is time for me to sit down.

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

Column 1027

PROCEDURE

Motion made,

That this House agrees with the recommendations contained in the First Report of the Select Committee on Procedure of this Session (House of Commons Paper No. 379).-- [Mr. Wood.]

Hon. Members : Object.

QUESTIONS TO MEMBERS, ETC.

Motion made,

That with effect from the beginning of the next Session of Parliament Standing Order No. 17 (Questions to Members) and Standing Order No. 18 (Notices of motions, amendments and questions) be repealed and the following Standing Orders be made--

Time for taking questions (1)--Questions shall be taken on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, after private business has been disposed of.

(2) No question shall be taken after half-past three o'clock, except questions which have not appeared on the paper but which are in Mr. Speaker's opinion of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business. (3) Any questions tabled for written answer on a day on which the House does not sit by reason of the continuance of a previous sitting shall be deemed to be questions for written answer on the next sitting day and shall appear on the Order Paper for that day. Notices of questions, motions and amendments (1)--Notices of questions shall be given by Members in writing to the Table Office. (2) A notice of a question, or of an amendment to a motion standing on the Order Paper for which no day has been fixed or of the addition of a name in support of such a motion or amendment, which is given after half- past ten o'clock in the evening shall be treated for all purposes as if it were a notice handed in after the rising of the House.

(3) A Member shall indicate on the notice of any question whether it is for oral, written or priority written answer.

(4) Where a Member has indicated that a question is for priority written answer the Minister shall cause an answer to

Column 1028

be given to the Member on the date for which notice has been given, provided that the requirement of notice shall be the same for such questions as that prescribed in this order for questions for oral answer.

(5) Notice of a question for oral answer may not be given on a day earlier than ten sitting days before the day for answer, provided that, where that earliest day would otherwise fall on a Friday, the earliest day on which such notice may be given will instead be the previous sitting day.

(6) Notice of any question for oral answer must appear at latest on the notice paper circulated two days (excluding Saturday and Sunday) before that on which an answer is desired.

(7) When it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of less than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purpose of calculating the period in paragraph (5) of this order. (8) When notice shall have been given of a Motion for the adjournment of the House for more than three days Mr. Speaker may cause to have printed and circulated with the Vote a memorandum superseding the provisions of paragraphs (5) and (6) of this order and instead setting out the earliest day on which notice of questions for oral answer may be given for each of the first ten sitting days after that adjournment, provided that each such day shall as far as practicable fall on the same day of the week as that on which the question is to be answered and shall not be fewer than fourteen days before the day for answer ; and also setting out the latest day for notice of questions for oral answer on each of the first two sitting days following that adjournment provided that each such day shall not be fewer than two days (excluding Saturday and Sunday) before the day for answer.-- [Mr. Wood.]

Hon. Members : Object.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Ordered,

That Mr. Peter Lilley be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Francis Maude be added to the Committee.-- [Mr. Wood.]

Column 1029

Haemophiliacs (Aids)

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

10 pm

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South) : I cannot promise to be as brief as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). I should like to thank Mr. Speaker for exercising his discretion so that that we can have a wide debate rather than a narrow one this evening. As the House will be aware, we have had a number of Adjournment debates on the vexed subject of compensation for those haemophiliacs who have contracted the AIDS virus. The House may ask why we are having yet another. There are two reasons. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) has said, this problem will not go away. Secondly, developments during the summer recess have underlined the need for yet another debate.

I should like to remind my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister who is to reply to the debate of the words of Boswell in 1773 :

"A lawyer has no business with the justice or injustice of the cause he undertakes. The justice or injustice of the cause is to be decided by the judge."

Certainly Mr. Justice Ognall has expressed his views clearly as to what should happen in this case. I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend should look once again at the judge's recommendation in that case.

I should like to remind the House of the sequence of events that have led to this problem. In 1974, the Medical Research Council, concerned at the possible spread of hepatitis from infected blood recommended that the United Kingdom should become self-sufficient in blood products. In 1975, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), as Minister for Health, promised that we would become self-sufficient in two to three years. It is a chilling indictment of what happened in the 1970s that, if that promise had been met, some of the 1,200 individuals who became infected with the HIV virus would not have been infected. Individuals who have died might otherwise have lived.

If we look at the history of the warnings given, we learn that the first death of a haemophiliac infected by AIDS took place in Florida in January 1982. In July 1982, Dr. Bruce Evatt, the director of disease control in Atlanta, published his first warning. In 1983, there was a further warning in The Lancet. In April 1985, national health service heat-treated factor 8 became available, 10 years after the pledge given by the right hon. Member for Devonport.

The result of all that was a human tragedy. Some 1,215 haemophiliacs--one in four--became infected with the HIV virus ; 210 have developed full-blown AIDS, of whom 150 have died. One of the greatest tragedies of all is that two dozen wives and girl friends have been infected by individuals who did not know that they had the HIV virus.

Those statistics cannot convey one iota of the depth of the human problems involved. It is a great irony that factor 8, which was designed to improve the quality of life for haemophiliacs, has granted many a suspended sentence of death. Many haemophiliacs have battled to overcome the consequences and difficulties of their illness. Some hon. Members will have seen that, only three weeks ago, Dr.

Column 1030

John Herdman, a relative of one of my constituents, with a PhD in physics, was snatched away at the tender age of 28. No one could fail to be moved by the description in The Sunday Times stating that three years ago he was an active young man who went swimming every day. Now, because of the medical difficulties, he has died, and we have lost a brilliant life.

When I was a university lecturer, one of my most brilliant students was a haemophiliac. Throughout the course, he could not attend one lecture because he lived in Dunoon and could not make the boat and train journey to Glasgow. Despite the fact that he did not attend one lecture and had only two tutorials a term, he came second out of 200. That said a lot for his determination ; and it may also have said a little about the quality of the lectures he did not attend and something about the impact of the distractions of the students union on academic performance.

We are faced with the problem of a man seeing his brother die and not being able to say, "There but for the grace of God go I," but knowing that his brother's physical suffering is a dress rehearsal for his own illness and death in perhaps weeks, perhaps months. We face the problem of a widow who is dependent on her sons for financial support, knows that they are both HIV-positive and realises that she will have to attend both their funerals and her financial support will disappear.

It involves the problems of a sister--haemophilia is one of the strange, unique diseases carried by ladies but directly affecting only men--who sees her brother suffer and says, as one has said, that she is witnessing the destruction of all the men of her generation in her family. Haemophiliacs must attend the funerals of victims, not knowing whose funeral will be next. We all attend family funerals, but for some haemophiliacs, doing so has become a way of life, if one can talk about a way of life under such circumstances.

AIDS is a particularly vicious disease, and the physical pain is only part of the problem. The difficulty facing its victims is not merely physical because, in the public mind, AIDS is associated with sexual promiscuity and drug addiction. It is a disease whose mysteries are clouded in prejudice throughout society ; that has compounded the problems facing its blameless victims.

Even in Britain, famed as a tolerant and fair-minded society, the very word AIDS is likely to generate prejudice in at least some minds. That has compounded the problems of the father who says that he cannot accept that his son has died of AIDS. It has compounded the problem of the victim who, having told his employer that he has AIDS, loses his job. It has compounded the problem because the friendships enjoyed by the victims have all too often turned out to be skin deep. When people mention that they have AIDS, their friends tend to move away rather than come closer, as they should do.

The victims of the disease do not seek compensation for themselves but for their families. The problem was summed up for me in a few short sentences : "The victim has had to give up work. He knows that he is dying. He only wants peace of mind. He wants to know that his family will be all right." What the victims seek is to die with dignity, secure in the knowledge that their relatives will be cared for and their wives and children will not face a lifetime of penury and penny pinching. Perhaps they want that last family holiday together.

Column 1031

Physical hardship can be alleviated by medicine, but peace of mind cannot be guaranteed by someone's saying, "Let us have a court case to be determined next March, April or June." If we wait for a court case to be determined then, a number of the victims will not be around to see the verdict. Posthumous justice will not grant them peace of mind ; it may help their relatives, but it will not help them.

The full majesty of the law is clearly suitable for the vast majority of cases, but I do not believe that it is always a happy vehicle for cases in which speed is of the essence. I do not think that we are in a happy position when litigants are legally aided and the defendant--the Crown--is also relying on the taxpayer to pay the costs. A certain amount of public money will be spent, and it will not bring the law into good repute. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to examine the matter again.

In 1964, my right hon. and learned Friend and I fought our first general election. The slogan under which we fought was "Prosperity with a Purpose". The reason why Lord Home chose that as a slogan was that he was not following a course of sheer naked materialism, but rather underlining the simple, basic fact that he sought to create greater prosperity--not as an end in itself, but as a means to a far nobler end : the relief of hardship in our society.

There is no conflict between a belief in the social market economy and a social conscience ; indeed, only if we have a social market economy can we afford a social conscience. I believe that the challenge to the Secretary of State is a simple one, and I appeal to him as a practical man to come to the House and re-examine the issue.

We are told that it would create a precedent if we paid compensation on a larger scale to the haemophiliacs tomorrow or next week ; but are we really being asked to say that, if a further example of this were to hit us, no compensation would be paid? Would we say to another group in our society that they must go to the law? Of course not. I do not believe that the collective conscience of the nation would allow any future Government to walk down the other side of the road like a Pharisee.

Clearly the Secretary of State has been advised that he can satisfy the courts of the land, but I ask him to consider making a short statement to the House. I suggest that the statement should read as follows. He should say that this is an inherited problem, caused by decisions made long before he became Secretary of State or before the Government were returned in 1979 ; that, as Secretary of State, he cannot be held responsible for decisions made in 1976 and 1977. He should say that the Government provided the resources to permit the heat treatment of blood products so that a similar disaster would never befall the nation. However, I would also like him to say that he will reconsider his decision--reiterated today--about the wisdom of fighting the case through the courts.

I would also like the Secretary of State to show a willingness to enter into discussions with representatives of the Haemophilia Society. The chairman of that society is a constituent of mine who is a respected vicar, and I believe that any agreement that he reached would be honoured by the vast bulk of his members.

Finally, I should like the Secretary of State to say whether he is willing to reconsider whether £20,000 should be the limit for individual compensation. Is that an adequate figure to compensate for the physical difficulties, the emotional traumas, the financial suffering and the loss of life involvd in this case? I fear that if there is no early solution to this problem many people will raise the issue

Next Section

Home Page