Lords Sitting of 21 January 1976

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The Chairman of Committees on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.
The Lord Leconfield and Egremont—Took the Oath.

HOUSING: NORTH WILTSHIRE SCHEME
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they have taken to encourage the extension of the North Wiltshire District Council housing scheme in other housing authorities.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, about 40 local authorities have so far introduced schemes. We expect to be able to issue general advice in light of their experience and of the special examination now being undertaken by Sir Dennis Pilcher of the scope for local authorities to lease houses.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that information, may I ask whether she recognises that in the examination the valuable work already done by the North Wiltshire District Council in arranging lettings of otherwise empty properties should be taken into account? Does she further recognise that if this scheme could be brought to the attention of all the non-metropolitan and metropolitan district councils a great many houses which are at present unoccupied could be let?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, we are aware of that point and the attention of local authorities has been drawn to the scheme. Indeed, a great many of them have been in touch with the Department. I would point out to the noble Baroness
462
that the North Wiltshire scheme has not yet been in force for a year and that there have as yet been no changes of tenancy and no let properties taken back. It is difficult to examine the scheme until we see how it works out.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, is it not a fact that part of the principle of the North Wiltshire scheme is encouragement to let empty properties under a guarantee of return to the owner at the end of the short lease by the local authority, and that the principle, which the noble Baroness herself supported in the short debate, is one which could be applied in other places? Will the Department issue a circular encouraging its application by other authorities?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, it could be applied but only where local authorities can rehouse the people concerned when the properties are taken back. That is the point which, as the noble Baroness will remember, I stressed in the debate and it is the reason why the scheme may not always be applicable to all authorities. As I said in the original Answer, a circular will be issued when we have made the examination and have received the recommendations from Sir Dennis Pilcher.

SCOTCH WHISKY: EXCISE DUTY
2.38 p.m.
Lord BELHAVEN and STENTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the widespread redundancies and short-time working in distilleries throughout Scotland, they will consider some reduction in the very high excise duty on Scotch whisky.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I am of course unable to anticipate the Budget Statement which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be making later this year in another place. I should mention that any relationship between reduced employment in Scottish distilleries and the current rate of excise duty on spirits is less direct than might be inferred from the noble

463
Lord's Question. More than four-fifths of Scotch whisky production is exported without duty payment. Spirits duty is payable on release of whisky from bond for home consumption, after it has matured for at least three years. It is still too early to derive any firm conclusions as to the effect of the 1975 Budget on home consumption, but duty-paid clearances for the first 10 months of 1975 were about 1 per cent. higher in terms of volume than those for the corresponding period of 1974.
Lord BELHAVEN and STENTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for that detailed reply. May I ask whether he is aware of the effect on the level of taxation levied by foreign Governments of the highly penal rate of taxation on Scotch whisky which is levied in this country? In relation to the Budget which is approaching, is it possible for the noble Lord to impress on his right honourable friend that a gesture on the part of Her Majesty's Government in lowering this penal duty might encourage the distillery workers and their families who are suffering most from the present situation?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, my right honourable friend had that point in mind when he prepared the last Budget. Had he maintained the duty in real term sat the level of 1970, the additional duty in 1975 would have been £120 per bottle. However, he raised the duty by only 64p per bottle because of the considerations mentioned by the noble Lord.
Lord MOLSON: My Lords, at the risk of going marginally outside the scope of the original Question, may I ask whether the Government are aware that, owing to the high cost of grain, the amount of whisky distilled this year in Scotland was lower than it would otherwise have been? In view of what the Minister has said about the importance of this industry for exports, will the Government consider giving help to the whisky industry to maintain its stocks for five, six and seven years ahead, by which time the whisky will be saleable.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, that was considered by my right honourable friend both before and after the last Budget, but he came to the conclusion that to act in
464
the way that has been suggested would be outside the strategy of the Budget. Furthermore, he felt that the producers of whisky had a remedy in their own hands. I understand that wholesalers and retailers normally receive two months' credit, and the answer is to reduce that term of credit.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the fact that most people who drink whisky say that they do so for medicinal reasons? Therefore, would it not be of benefit to the whisky industry if doctors were enabled to prescribe whisky on the National Health Service?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, unlike my noble friend I do not take for the gospel truth everything that is said!
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that according to the medical profession whisky is the only alcoholic drink that is a non-depressant? With the present extremely depressing behaviour of the Government, would it not be wise to encourage the production of whisky?

CHILD CARE AND WELFARE SERVICES
2.44 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the advice they have issued to local authorities on procedures to prevent non-accidental injury to children occurring partly as a result of an incomplete exchange of information between responsible welfare agencies; whether they will take steps to revise or reinforce that guidance in the light of the report on the case of Steven Meurs; and whether they intend to take any further steps to prevent the occurrence of similar tragic events.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the need for the closest co-operation between all agencies concerned with children at risk and for a full and frank exchange of relevant information between all those involved has been a central feature of the guidance which has been

465
issued on this subject both by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and by other Departments who also have responsibilities in this field, and such guidance is kept under continuous review. It has been reinforced in guidance on good practice which has been prepared and issued locally by many of the area review committees which have been set up in England and Wales to co-ordinate the activities of all agencies involved in their areas. It will again be emphasised in guidance which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will be issuing from her Department early next month.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Does he agree that the breakdown in communications and some other ills which the welfare services experience, arise in part from the fact that over 60 per cent. of the workers in those services, with the exception of the Probation Service, are untrained? Would he agree that the 30 to 40 per cent., or minority, of trained and experienced workers naturally progress to higher points of the hierarchy where they are administratively employed? If that is so, can the noble Lord tell us what steps are taken by local authorities to draw on this reservoir of experience and training to provide in-service training for those who are not so qualified?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord has just said. It has been a matter of very grave concern to a large number of people who are familiar with the demands in the field of professional social work that so many people engaged in this work today are in fact untrained. But we are faced with a very serious problem. There is an enormous number of children who need some kind of visitation and supervision, and the local authority social services departments are like a vast army locked in battle. They have to deal with the enemy and do not really have time to disengage and look at what is going on.
However, the noble Lord is perfectly right; more money should be spent on the training of social workers. I am happy to say that a fair number—I believe a large number—of local authorities have in-service training schemes and further
466
training schemes in operation. I should like to think that those who occupy the higher administrative positions in local authority social services departments, having come up from the grass roots, are putting their expertise and their knowledge at the disposal of those who are in the course of being trained. But the noble Lord is quite right; this is a matter which we must watch carefully.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, would it not be true to say that the whole community stands condemned in this case—not only the social workers, but friends and neighbours of this poor woman whose child died? Does my noble friend agree that it is not actually so much expertise or training that is needed, but rather a little plain common sense, which cannot be applied in all the areas of social services but which in this case might have prevented this tragedy?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am not so sure that it is as simple as that. This case reveals a regrettable, lamentable situation. But I understand that there was no complaint at any time from any neighbours who might have known of the situation. I come back to the fact that the case-load of the average social worker in our local authorities is enormous, and while I deplore what has happened I hope that we shall not go on from battered babies and battered wives to battering social workers who, on the whole, are doing a magnificent job.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I very much agree with what the noble Lord has just said, but was there not a real danger signal in this tragic case; namely, the failure to note the significance of the fact that the mother would not admit people to her house? Ought not the Government to impress upon local authorities the importance of recognising a signal of that kind, which is something which can be seen without very much training?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, this is a signal which is well known to experienced people within the field. Unfortunately, it is not always appreciated by the untrained person, and perhaps it was a little unfortunate that that was the situation in this particular case. But I do not think there is any need for the Government to impress upon local authorities that this is a particular point

467
which must be watched. This has already been pointed out. I should like to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that, following the guidance which my right hnourable friend sent out in April 1974, there are now all over the country area review committees which represent the same areas as those covered by the Area Health Authorities, and many of these committees have themselves issued instructions and guidance to social workers. I have here such a booklet which covers merely the borough of Lambeth, South-warkand Lewisham. It is very comprehensive and in the very near future it is likely that something similar will be issued by all the Area Review Committees appointed to deal with this kind of situation.
Lord WADE: My Lords, to revert to the original Question, may I ask the noble Lord whether the problem mainly arises from the incomplete exchange of information or from the heavy burden of work falling upon welfare workers in the various agencies? Which is the main cause?
Lords WELLS-PESTELL: I should not like to say, my Lords. I can remember that when I was in the Probation Service I had 200 cases, and I did not have time to talk to anybody, however much I may have wanted to do so. This was many years ago. The more case conferences there are, the more experienced social workers are being taken out of the field, and another tragedy is likely to happen. I do not know which comes first.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, as a large number of women refuse to allow officials to enter their houses, can we condemn this social worker out of hand for not regarding it as a most unusual occurrence for a woman not to allow her to enter her house?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I hope we would not condemn the social worker. As I say, it is an extremely difficult situation. First, there is a question of individual judgment, which can be wrong on occasions. Then there is the pressure of work, and there are many other factors which have to be taken into account.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, the last thing I was seeking to do was to condemn anybody. What I was asking the Government to do, in a case where there is a child known to be at risk and a refusal, was to emphasise the importance and recognise the significance of those two facts where they occur together.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I can assure the noble and learned Lord that we are not unmindful of that and what he has suggested has in fact been done. Obviously, if my right honourable friend is going to issue further advice in the near future this may well be a point which needs emphasising again.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, in his original reply the noble Lord made no mention of Scotland, but as there has been reference to an exchange of information and area review committees may I ask him to ensure that this exchange crosses the Scottish Border? North of the Border the administrative and social welfare arrangements are slightly different from those South. This is an area where it is most important that this sort of information is available.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am not sure of the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services in this matter. I do not know whether or not it includes Scotland. My suspicions are that it does not, but I will certainly draw this point to her attention and see whether anything she may do and say in the matter is communicated to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Lord INGLEWOOD: But, my Lords, the noble Lord will agree that the Border should not be an Iron Curtain.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I seriously ask my noble friend this question? Is he aware of the fact that before the previous Government enacted the Local Government (Reorganisation) Act—I am not speaking from a Party point of view now—each county council and county borough had a special children's department under a children's officer? Is he further aware of the fact that under that reorganisation scheme each children's department as such was abolished and merged ino a general social welfare department? Does he not think

469
that it might be a good thing to reinstate the original children's departments, where the problems of children could have specific attention from skilled workers?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I should be obliged if my noble friend would allow me not to answer that until I have been able to think about this and to consult my colleagues. But let me say here and now that with the passing of the children's departments and the children's officers we have lost a great deal of skill and competence.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, am I not right in thinking that in this particular case of Steven Meurs the uncle complained, and was he not called "a silly old interfering man"?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I will take the noble Baroness's word for that, but I was not aware of it.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while endorsing the Minister' tribute to social workers, may I ask him whether the Government would consider entering into sonic discussion with the Social Workers' Association with a view to dealing with problems of this character?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I know from my own personal knowledge that we are constantly in touch. There are 300 voluntary and professional organisations responsible for social work in this country, and I think I can say that we are in touch with them all, obtaining their views, their comments and their observations on the whole range of social services.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, may I revert to the noble Lord's answer to my original supplementary about the extent to which the existing pool of training and expertise is used for in-service and in-house training? May I ask him, in the light of his not absolutely concrete reply to that specific point, whether he will take steps to ascertain how far it is common practice in local authorities to make that use of those resources, and let us know the result of his inquiry?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I shall be glad to convey what the noble Lord has just said to my right honourable friend to see whether that kind of information can be obtained.

JUVENILE CRIME
2.56 p.m.
The EARL of LYTTON The EARL of LYTTON rose to call attention to the continuing growth of juvenile crime; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is chance that brings me here today. I put my name into the ballot box, and to my horror it was drawn out first; and so it is that I have an opportunity to come before your Lordships and, I hope, to achieve my object, all sublime, to call attention to juvenile crime. That is the subject on the Order Paper. But I have also been asked to call attention to something else. There are many distinguished speakers to follow, and it has been suggested that, as we are obliged to finish by half-past five, anyone who hogs the air for more than 10 minutes will incur the displeasure of the Whips. I have made my contribution by leaving my notes behind, hoping that I may forget half of what I wanted to say.
However, to revert, I have been interested in crime since, 50 years ago, I was handed over a young man on crutches and instructed to execute him for the second time, and to do it properly this time. Although that has no bearing on what I am going to talk about, it indicates my interest. Then, recently, when a report was headlined in the London evening newspapers to the effect that every London boy is a thief—some before they are 7, more before they are 10 and the whole lot by the time they are 16—I looked at it and decided that I would follow it up. That particular report has no special relevance to this debate because it is old, but it did bring to my notice one interesting fact which I have had confirmed throughout the world, and that is that crime is not caused by poverty in particular; nor by deprivation; nor, indeed, by something being wrong with a person's head, as the Royal College of Psychiatrists, in their evidence to the Short Committee, indicated. The vast majority of delinquents stand in no need whatsoever of psychiatric treatment; they are normal. They are not "kinky"; they are naughty.
During the months which have passed since I won this ballot I have corresponded with chiefs of police from the Clyde, the Mersey and the Thames, in

471
Paris and West Berlin, Tokyo, San Francisco, Melbourne and other places. The replies have been pouring in, and, if possible, I will give a glimpse of what they say, but they have produced on my mind a certain pattern. Crime—I do not mean juvenile crime, but crime everywhere—has been rising considerably since 1950. In some countries juvenile crime bears a constant relationship, but even where it does not—and in many it does not; it is much higher—there is the distressing feature everywhere that younger children are committing more violent crimes, and that they are more frequently accompanied by girls. That happens everywhere.
While we are on the subject of girls, Scotland tells me that over the record of the past 20 years, for every one girl criminal there are 10 boys. So Scotland wins the good girl prize. That merely confirms my impression, which I have had for some 50 years, that the female sex is the nobler. However, things are unhappily changing, and when women take to crime the female of the species is more deadly than the male. A very responsible educational authority in London told me that there is a community, perhaps more than one, where it is very ill-advised for the teacher to separate two girls who happen to be fighting. The chances are that both will turn on him and they will both bite him. Long ago I had occasion to sew up the lips of one woman who had been fighting with another; but that is another story.
My Lords, I have tried to find out what is at the heart of the problem. A great deal of this can be taken in its stride by our police everywhere; and, before I go on, I will go back to one further result of my world survey, which is that round about 1969 the spirit of the 1969 Act seemed to be blossoming—everywhere. Captain Davy of New York writes to indicate his great admiration of the way we control our social services. The chap from San Diego indicates from his figures that roughly about the same time the same sort of thing was happening. Much to my surprise, it happens to be Tokyo rather than here where the 1969 Act is being carried out. They keep their eye on some 50,000 to 60,000 children in Tokyo; as they say that they would otherwise be deliquents. Is that not
472
exactly what we are trying to achieve: adequate supervision? I am not sure whether or not that 50,000 to 60,000 figure is very large because I am no expert, and the population of Tokyo is about 11½ million. But it is an indicator; and they have a nice little name for one of their methods. "Hello dear", I think the movement is called. I do not know enough about it. I feel that a visit to Tokyo would be a most useful result of all this reasearch.
I should like to congratulate Vienna on their being able to write to me to say: "This is not a topical subject. We have no problem." That is a city of 2 million. How do they do it? I do not know. In many other places it is serious. In many places the figures are not comparable; they are very suggestive but are not strictly comparable. In Melbourne, for instance, there were 27 homicides last year; but the age groups are different. They are different in Japan, too. It looks bad in Melbourne where all are under 21; it looks good in Tokyo, for there were only 5,000, but they were all under 14. So one cannot make a comparison.
My Lords, let us stick to this country. Scotland Yard helped me most. They did not brief me. I went in there and held one of their officers for questioning. When I do that with the police, I go on for two hours non-stop until he makes some confession or the other. It was the same with the Inner London Education Authority. I think I pinpointed the serious trouble. It appears that there are in London 200 dyed-in-the-wool, sophisticated criminals who have been before the police, each one, 30 or 40 times. What more can the police do? But there are only 200. They have committed every sort of crime. One hundred and twenty of the 300 motorcars stolen in London every day are taken by people under the age of 17 who have no authority to drive anything.
This is allied a little to truancy, but in order not to take up too much time, I want to concede that according to my inquiries the staffing shortage due to inadequate salaries has been the cause of a lot of trouble in all or in a great many schools; and that in May this year when the salaries were raised the light began to break almost immediately. Things are improving already. I want to say in

473
regard to truancy that it is difficult to find the true truancy figures. It looks like something between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent.; but that includes absentees and children with tonsilitis—for they have every sort of ailment. The real truancy figure may be something like 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. Again, by questioning until I got a confession, I asked what were the elements of this 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. which was resented at the recent Conference of Assistant Masters. What percentage is it? They want to expel certain children from the system. I think that somewhere there is a 2 per cent. figure.
My informant, who impressed me as knowing everything from A to Z—and if you want to know, go to the Inner London Health Authority, the head of the Secondary Department, and you will find out—suggested1 per cent. I am not sure myself that there is not a place for a statutory class of ungovernable boy. Unfortunately, when I said "ungovernable boy" this man also said "ungovernable girl", that it was half and half. That is what we have come to. There has been a decline in the behaviour of girls.
My Lords, I have been speaking for eleven minutes, but I did make two announcements and I will go on for one minute more to the end of what I was going to say. With regard to the matter of supervision, I overlap a little with the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, today on the subject of visiting. That is important. We must cover the matter of these difficult families. I think that some families should be put in care, and not the children. The families are responsible for them; they should be put in care and supervised. It is a question of "Like father, like son". Some of them are not up to it. My impression is that there is nobody except a policeman who has the right to enter a house at all. I am suggesting that there should be somebody like a statutory National Society for the Protection of Children who would go in with that right. I feel that the social services are becoming like father and mother confessors. They are getting a very happy and confidential relationship with the people in the houses and they do not want to be involved in criminal proceedings.
My Lords, I persuaded my noble friend Lord Leconfield and Egremont, against his better judgment, to make his maiden speech today, and I do not want to go on lest he has no time to make it.
3.10 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for introducing this debate this afternoon. We shall listen with great interest, I know, to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Leconfield and Egremont.
Juvenile crime, and particularly the alarming rate of its increase, is a matter about which the public are rightly concerned. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has given us some figures. Some of our most persistent and violent criminals are now under the age of 17. About a quarter of all serious crime involving violence, and more than 40 per cent. of all burglaries and robberies, is committed by children under the age of 17. I too regret that the number of girls committing crimes is on the increase. I believe it to be true that last year there was a 16 per cent. increase in the crimes committed by girls, and the amount of crime committed in London rose alarmingly as well.
What is particularly disturbing is that neither the courts, the police nor the local authorities seem to have been able to deal with the problem. Not surprisingly, the public is becoming increasingly alarmed and is losing faith both in the penal system and in social workers. Law and order is an issue about which people feel strongly, and the public are puzzled because juvenile crime is on the increase at a time in history when more money than ever before is being spent on the education service, on social services and better housing, when there are grants for urban aid, and when poverty, although always something which is relative, is not the grinding poverty of the past. Better material circumstances may have brought a great many good things, but they appear to have brought with them increased lawlessness. In this debate we shall all find it far easier to state the problems than state the solutions. It seems to me that the great value of this debate today is the opportunity to make some constructive suggestions as to what might be at least some of the ways out of this present tragic situation.

475
One common cause of concern is the operation of the 1969 Children and Young Persons Act. This Act is regarded as a failure by almost everyone. I suspect the primary reason why it has not worked is because there have not been available enough resources to implement it. Nevertheless, many people would like to see more power restored to the juvenile court. One of the questions which must be asked is what magistrates could do unless there were to be increased resources to build what is believed to be the necessary number of community homes. One would have to ask, in our present economic difficulties, what would be the cost of such a policy. I believe the latest official figures show that the cost per young person in secure accommodation is now between £7,000 and £8,000 per year. It will undoubtedly be more next year.
Before we contemplate more secure accommodation it seems to me that two questions should be asked: First, could we spend such sums of money more usefully? If my figures are correct, we are spending on each child in such accommodation the equivalent salary of a full-time fully qualified social worker and a full-time fully qualified teacher. Furthermore, one must ask the question whether secure accommodation is the best way of dealing with the problem. According to the statistics I have seen—I hope I am interpreting them correctly, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will correct me if I am wrong—the official figures seem to indicate that there is only a 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. success rate. "Success" means that the young offender does not commit another offence for another three years. In those circumstances, I do not think it is possible to conclude that further secure accommodation would necessarily be the answer to juvenile crime. It is perfectly true it may be the answer for some offenders; and the question that should be asked is whether the right people are going into the right places. Nevertheless, it seems to me that if we are to find something constructive to say, we have to meet the very real fears of the public which is concerned about the breakdown of law and order, and to do so it is necessary to show that the causes of juvenile crime are indeed far more complex than may at first be supposed.
476
Any proposals must meet these fears and must be realistic at a time of economic stringency.
One of the considerations which I believe we can take into account is the variety of responses there are to an adult who commits a crime. There appear to be far more alternatives than those open when a juvenile commits a crime. For an adult there is prison, probation, community service, fines and other penalties, whereas juvenile courts can only make supervision and care orders. It may well be that other alternatives ought to be available. For example, it has been suggested to me that a young person put on a supervision order ought to be under the care of the Probation Service. Alternatively, I know a number of people, experienced in the care of juvenile offenders, who would like to see introduced a community service scheme for young offenders. I should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, if he could say in his reply whether such a proposal would require legislation or whether this is something which could be introduced immediately. There is no reason why such a matter could not be incorporated into a supervision order and the courts could attach a condition requiring it. It would be vastly cheaper than residential care and it is a system which could make use of volunteers.
Secondly, I believe we should consider a much greater use of professional foster homes for the care of young offenders. I believe that Kent County Council is already trying an experiment and paying professional foster parents a suitable sum for the care of a young offender. Again, this scheme has the immediate economic advantage that it is infinitely cheaper than residential secure accommodation. But the far more important reason is that for once in his life it would allow a young offender to build a real relationship with caring adults. I have no doubt the Home Office is studying in detail the Hammersmith experiment which is now being carried out. Under this scheme, children can each day be at a centre from nine in the morning to eleven at night. They do not live in t they go home to stay with their parents. The time-table of each child is tailored to that child's needs. The child comes to the centre because of a truancy or because it has committed some crime. In this way

477
the child remains in the circumstances in which it will inevitably find itself when it leaves the organisation that is looking after it. In the meanwhile, it is receiving professional help. I wonder whether we should be considering further projects in the light of this experience. The great advantage of this scheme is that the child's relationship with its parents is maintained. I believe that these suggestions could at least be put into effect immediately.
If we are going on to consider the underlying cause of juvenile crime—which I believe are matters which should be considered in a debate such as this—there are other matters affecting the long-term good of society that we should look at. After all, when a child finally comes before the court, it comes at a time when something has gone seriously wrong. It is not something which happened that day or the week before, it must have been accumulating over a long period. All the evidence of research shows the fundamental need of every child to build secure emotional relationships in the early years of life. One has only to compare the active, energetic, interested, inquiring, happy child of two with the listless, bored, "could-not-care-less" attitude of the depressed and disturbed adolescent hanging about waiting for something to happen, to see that life can change very much if a child does not have the right start.
I believe that, as a society, we have concentrated so much on the physical well being of children that we have neglected the emotional and spiritual side of their development. Over the long-term we need to look at the teaching of young people about marriage and family life, a theme we touched on last week in the sex education debate. Surely health education should mean teaching girls and boys about the responsibility for looking after children, not just feeding them and keeping them clean, with a roof over their heads. Children who have not had the experience of a happy home cannot in their turn pass on that experience to their children. It is one of the important points made by my honourable friend Sir Keith Joseph when he talked about the cycle of deprivation.
Marriage and motherhood are of vital importance, and in our anxiety over the
478
Sex Discrimination Act to see there is no discrimination in employment we should not allow girls to feel guilty because they wish to give their undivided attention to bringing up a family. It is a vital job in the community and if they are not successful in doing this job society will pay a very great deal later on.
Continuing my theme, I believe that more could be done in the Hospital Service to help mothers, when their babies are born, to understand their children's needs; and when a mother takes her baby to a clinic for inoculations and regular physical check-ups it would be an opportunity for education to be given on the emotional needs of children as well. After all, only a very long period of public education and administration has made the prevention of so many physical illnesses a success story of the 20th century. Now we should look constructively at the other side of a human being's life to see whether we can be equally successful there.
We also need to look again at the planning of our cities. Tower blocks, the destruction of whole communities and totally inadequate play space, are, I believe, some of the causes of children growing up to be delinquents. Those of us who have been privileged to have places in which we could play as children, where we could climb trees, run about and enjoy ourselves, must appreciate how fortunate we were and how difficult it is for many young people in society today. Indeed, I was interested to read a report on vandalism by a Working Party connected with the Home Office Standing Committee, which says this about playgrounds:
"These, though more primitive and less expensive than fully equipped Sports Centres, were generally felt to make a really worthwhile contribution to combating vandalism. Most authorities are aiming to provide an adequate number and for the future they contemplate providing such facilities on all new housing estates. Some local authorities spoke highly of the value of 'adventure playgrounds' with less stereotyped equipment than the usual playgrounds."
I believe we have been singularly unimaginative in the past over the planning of some of our cities. I hope we have learned from these lessons and will be able to do better in the future.
This is a short debate and so I should like to conclude by making a plea for

479
full co-operation in this whole area between the Home Office, the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of the Environment. So many of these problems cross all three Government Departments and what one of them is doing ought to be done in conjunction with another. We have already criticised local authorities for their lack of cooperation, but we need to see that such co-operation is taking place at the centre as well. I am glad to see that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester is to speak later in the debate. It is for him to speak of the spiritual side of a person's life, but I was most interested to read in the paper recently that among the fastest growing youth movements in the country are the Girl Guides and the Brownies. The reason given for this was how muddled young people are today about the principles in which they believe and how comforted they were to join an organisation which set out a set of constructive principles which they could believe and follow.
I think that in all this we must consider the spiritual and moral side of a person's upbringing. Everyone needs a code in which to believe and by which to live, something by which he can measure his behaviour throughout life. At the end of the day we need this acceptance of responsibility by adults, whether they be parents, teachers, social workers or engaged in the medical profession, seeking constructive ways to help a group of very unhappy people doing a great deal of damage within society.
3.24 p.m.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, it is a great privilege to take part in this debate initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. He has laid it down that we must not speak for more than ten minutes and if I exceed that time I hope he will move that I be no longer heard. I shall then subside gracefully. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said some things on the moral and spiritual side with which I find myself wholly in agreement. She has said some other things which I think are rather unfortunate but I shall hope in these few minutes to put There was a time when I felt the need to her right more firmly than I would have done before the days of women's equality. be chivalrous but that no longer applies.
480
Like others of your Lordships, I have been involved in these special topics for many years. In 1963–64 I chaired a committee at the request of Mr. Harold Wilson who was then the Leader of the Opposition. This committee included the present Lord Chancellor, a former Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and other distinguished Members of your Lordships' House. We were concerned with the prevention and treatment of crime and we introduced in our Report what might fairly be called a new approach to juvenile delinquency. In this connection we were particularly indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, who is not with us today. In that Report we laid heavy stress on the need to avoid treating children as criminals wherever possible. That was the basic theme of our approach to juvenile delinquency, while recognising of course the need for law and order. I am sure that all members of that Committee are proud to think that this approach has been so largely given effect to in subsequent legislation.
This is where I come to the noble Baroness, if I might obtain her attention for words which may seem rather harsh. She said that not sufficient resources had been given to implementing the Act of 1969, and I entirely agree with her, so we are totally at one there. I am sure the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, do not need to have guidance on that point; obviously not enough resources have been devoted to that. The noble Baroness said that this Act was agreed by almost everyone to be a failure—I believe those were her words. That, I am afraid, I regard as a nonsensical remark. It just is not so. There must be many people both here and elsewhere who do not agree at all and so the noble Baroness simply must extend, if I may say so respectfully, her circle of acquaintances. If she moves just a little outside her own burrow she will find an awful lot of people who think that that Act was one of the greatest benefits in the treatment of young delinquents in this century. Therefore I hope that the noble Baroness will take it from me—and I say this with all respect to someone who is now on terms of complete equality with all of us here—that that remark of hers will be regarded in many circles as most regrettable. I must say that,

481
because to say less would be too old-fashioned—
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I am quite prepared to stand to be corrected by the noble Earl, but I should not like him to think that I had asked only about one other person before engaging in this debate. I have consulted as widely as I can—and I know a number of people engaged in the social work profession—before reaching any conclusions. I will accept that the conclusions that I reached have been my own.
The Earl of LYTTON: My Lords, might I intervene as a peace-maker? Is it not a fact that the social services are about 75 per cent. untrained and that they are doing their best under difficulties, but they have not been as successful as they should have been?
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, the ten minutes are slipping away with all these interventions. At any rate, the noble Baroness has recorded her view. She has moved in a certain circle and has found some people to agree with her. I only tell her that when she says (I think I am reporting her correctly) that almost everybody regards it as a failure she is saying something which is simply not true—that at least I must say—although I have no doubt that she herself imagines it to be true.
It was said of the philosopher Kant that he started from both ends of the road at once and never met himself in the middle'—I am referring to myself now and not to the noble Baroness. One is taught here, in approaching the question of young delinquents, that we must think in terms of the vast majority of young people, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the relatively small number whom one might call the hard-core of intransigents or whatever you like. Speaking very rapidly, I would say that we are moving entirely in the right direction with regard to the vast majority. I think we ought to move away much faster than we are doing from institutional treatment. We ought to do much more in the way of intermediate treatment and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Harris, when he speaks, will have something to say about the treatment of people in their homes. At any rate, that movement I entirely applaud. Nevertheless, we are left with a hard-core of these people—and everybody knows
482
that the whole social life of young people, in particular, can be wrecked by a relatively small number—and the crucial question is: what do we do about the small number? Here, we have to find some new solution.
I do not think it is to be found in our Report of 1964. I do not know exactly where it is to be found. The phrase, "We need more secure provision" is all right up to a point, but that suggests that you just lock these people in and try to prevent them from getting out. That in itself is very unconstructive, so we have to find some method of applying a firmer and more moral discipline, very much in line with the ideas of anyone who has looked into this subject. We have to find some way of treating the minority on different lines from the vast majority. But in each case we must remember that the approach must be constructive and that each person—whether we say he or she is easy to deal with or difficult to deal with—has an immortal soul and is just as important from the angle of the community which is trying to do justice to him or her.
Before I conclude, I will say one word on a different subject. One can talk about the treatment of crime, the causes of crime or the prevention of crime and all these are very much entangled. But may I say one word about the causes and the prevention of crime, taking my illustration from one section of the community where crime is admittedly higher than the average? I am talking of the black community, and my experience comes mainly from Brixton. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, is well aware of this, because he himself, in one of his Ministerial capacities, has been of the utmost assistance to organisations of black people who are trying to help their fellows in Brixton.
If you look at the causes of the especially high delinquency among young black people, not only in Brixton but everywhere, these factors suggest themselves. There is a feeling of alienation from their parents' background, there is poor housing and conventional teaching and education do not allow for the social background of the child. Anybody—any elderly person or any young person not brought up in their milieu—who has had to deal with any black children must find it very hard to communicate with them, to understand what they are saying,

483
and to make them understand what one is saying, and they suffer very much in that way in the schools. Finally, there is unemployment which, to speak in round terms, among the young black community is double the national average. Those are exceptional factors which undoubtedly produce a much higher rate of crime than the average, though many of the problems are petty.
If these problems are to be solved the Government and local authorities will have to provide money and facilities for much better training in vocational skills, and many more special incentives to bring industry into the areas concerned. This is perhaps the most glaring instance of where more resources arc required, but it is only one illustration of the general question. My Lords, when we talk about coping with juvenile delinquency, are we humbugging ourselves? Are we failing totally, as I believe we are, to provide the resources necessary to deal with the problem?
The Earl of LYTTON: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down may I join issue with him on his use of the term "black"? I have done a lot with black people and have lived with them, and I can indicate, for example, the Uganda-Asians who are in this country now—an excellent community with whom there is no trouble at all. Let the noble Earl go to Neasden High School and have a look at them. There are communities with difficulties. There are the West Indians. But why not distinguish? Not all black men are alike, any more than all white men are alike.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, I did not say they were, but the noble Earl and I are both of the same decade in this life, and it is just possible that he does not realise that black people now like to be called "black" I was not aware of that until a few years ago.
The Earl of LYTTON: My Lords, they are not all the same.
3.35 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, what we are debating this afternoon, thanks to the initiative of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is not simply part of an international phenomenon and is not simply an integral part of the general growth of crime in this
484
country over the last two decades; it is a specific problem of great gravity in its own right. The figures that perhaps indicate this most clearly are those that were produced by Commander Marshall of the Metropolitan Police towards the end of 1974; and this is a useful date, for a reason that will appear a little later.
He pointed out then that in the Metropolitan Police area, over the years from 1969 to 1973, the number of arrests of people of all ages for indictable offences had gone up by about 18 per cent. Of those people, the number over the age of 17 had increased by 10 per cent., while the number of juveniles under 17 had increased by about 60 per cent. It is a specific problem, nothing to do with the general increase in crime in this country. He went on to point out that in 1973, of all the arrests for indictable offences in the Metropolitan Police area, some 31 per cent. were arrests of juveniles. That amounts to something like one juvenile in every 25 living in the Metropolitan Police area in 1973, and that trend apparently continued well into 1974.
May I stress that we are not considering offences of triviality—larceny of a milk bottle or being drunk and disorderly or matters of that nature. In the year 1973, in this area, over half of those who were arrested for the offence of burglary were juveniles, and this is an offence which can cause grave psychological harm, apart from the physical loss that may be sustained. Thirty-nine per cent. of those who were arrested on a charge of robbery were juveniles and that amounted to 1,000 cases in 1973 alone, which was over twice the number some four years earlier. Fourteen per cent. of those who were arrested on charges of wounding were juveniles—again, about 1,000 people in the Metropolitan Police area alone.
The reason why I ventured to indicate that the year ending 1973 was perhaps a helpful one for your Lordships' consideration is that that was at a time before mass unemployment had begun to make itself felt, and before inflation had begun seriously to erode the standard of living of the mass of the community. Therefore, it seems a little difficult in those circumstances to attribute this substantial rise in juvenile deliquency purely to environmental factors. Of course,

485
they have properly to be considered and can properly be inquired into. The effects of bad housing that have already been mentioned, the effects of job insecurity or job monotony, the effects of poverty—all these may properly be inquired into. But although there are areas of slum housing and of great poverty, by and large over the last decade those areas have diminished in this country, and perhaps it is not very logical to ascribe the rise in juvenile delinquency to those factors. Equally, one can properly look at the background of these juveniles; the number of cases where they have been influenced by coming from broken homes, and perhaps by the general decline in moral or religious values in the community as a whole.
Perhaps I might mention one specific matter— the general decline in respect for the rule of law that has arisen in this country over the last few years. I do not want to make Party political points this afternoon, but I hope it will be considered a fair comment if I say that it is improbable that children will have the greatest respect for the rule of law if they have been brought up in families which thought it either clever or funny to defy the Industrial Relations Act, however deplorable a piece of legislation that may have been. I think that it is improbable that children will grow up to have a very pronounced sense of right and wrong if they have been brought up in families who consider that it is normal or natural to make overnight a profit of millions of pounds on the purchase and sale to the community of a piece of land that it needs for housing.
It is no doubt helpful to analyse the long-term causes that may have given rise to some of this juvenile delinquency, but I believe that at best that can give rise only to long term and incomplete solutions. To take a specific example, if one could investigate the backgrounds of 100 youngsters on a football match special train who had behaved like thugs and smashed it into pieces, whether their team had won or lost, I doubt very much whether, in relation to each of those 100 children, one would be able to say that so many came from broken homes, so many were living in high rise flats, so many came from areas where they
486
were temporarily out of work, or whatever it might be.
I would expect, of course, that factors of that nature would play a very material part in relation to the large majority of those children. Where that is so it is only right and proper that the 1969 Act should be so operated that those children are treated with the utmost possible sympathy and leniency in order to rehabilitate them into both their families and the community. But there is, as has already been mentioned, among others by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, a small group of persistent offenders whose cases are rather more troublesome. Again in the Metropolitan Police area, the same figures showed that there were some 100 male juvenile offenders whose offences between them totalled 3,735—many of them serious offences, many of them offences of violence. It was no answer of the social worker who is reported to have said to a police officer, "These kids wouldn't have such a bad record if you police didn't keep arresting them."
In relation to this small number of serious and persistent offenders, there are immediate remedies that must be sought, remedies rather more urgent than those which can be provided by long-term investigation. First of all, there is the manifest lack of secure places in community homes. I believe that in July of last year there were 220 such places for the whole country and that the Government then indicated that they would be prepared to grant a further £2 million towards providing more places. This is estimated at providing not much over another 100 such places. Secondly, in many of the major areas of this country there are no remand centres to which young people can be sent. Unhappily, the result is that those young offenders are sent instead, quite unsuitably, to local prisons where they are liable to mix with extremely undesirable company.
Thirdly, the very lack of these secure places in community homes encourages magistrates to make unruliness orders. They have nowhere to send the juvenile offenders by way of a community home, and therefore they feel obliged to send them to prison, which is so unnecessary. Fourthly, the 1969 Act as it is operated and as, of course, it provides, means that there are no sanctions whatever for a

487
court where a fine is imposed but not paid by a juvenile, or where a supervision order is made but broken by a juvenile. There are no means by which the court can then proceed to deal with the person who has broken the order.
Fifthly, there is the question of care orders. I should have thought that the magistrates on juvenile panels, who have great experience of these matters, ought to have been entrusted with the power to determine what kind of care a particular offender should be given and, perhaps, what is the minimum length of period for which that care should be applied. Your Lordships will know that the present position is that there is no power to do anything except make a care order. The local authority may then, if they wish—and only too often even though they do not wish, because they have no alternative—simply send the child straight home where, as often as not, unhappily, further offences continue to be committed.
It appears to be not unreasonable to suggest that the juvenile courts which have such vast experience might be entrusted with the power of determining which are the appropriate cases for residential treatment. Indeed, the present inability of juvenile courts to make such orders is having precisely the opposite effect to that which was sought under the 1969 Act, in that because there is no power to make such orders the alternative course is taken of sending children either to a detention centre or to borstal training when it is not really suitable or in the child's own interest.
In a word, my conclusions are these. First, that there is a long-term inquiry into the long-term causes of juvenile crime which can provide only long-term solutions; secondly, that the overwhelming majority of these young people can properly be dealt with by the utmost leniency, kindness and tolerance; thirdly, that there is a small number of offenders who must also be dealt with by leniency, kindness and tolerance but for whom, in addition, a degree of firmness is necessary not only in their own interests but also in the interests of the community as a whole. When the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, replies to this debate, I hope that he will indicate that the Government propose to amend the
488
1969 Act and to provide under that Act the resources by which, in the appropriate cases, that degree of firmness, in the interests of the community, can be applied.
3.48 p.m.
Lord LECONFIELD and EGREMONT: My Lords, I crave your indulgence on this occasion, as it is the first time that I have addressed the House. I see no reason why your Lordships should choose to listen to me. I am young and feel very much in awe of the collective experience that I see gathered here today. Perhaps, however, the urgency of this debate can be my best excuse for speaking at this time. There can be few members of this House who are better fitted to draw our attention to this problem than the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. Before the war, he was a youth club leader in Bermondsey. He has long manifested an exceptional ability to communicate with and understand the young and his word must have a special significance for us today.
The statistics which your Lordships have heard speak for themselves and I shall not attempt to add to them. All I wish to say is that there are no geographical frontiers to juvenile crime. It is as ubiquitous as the machine gun and is the central concern of nearly every police force in the world. I have received information from the Prefect of the Paris police, set out with characteristic French clarity, which proves how seriously the French regard juvenile crime. It is, perhaps, some comfort to us—a small comfort, God knows!, but some comfort—that they are just as perplexed as we are about the problems of its eradication. In certain areas of the United States the authorities have quite clearly reached the point of despair.
If I may be allowed to develop a personal note, recently I worked for a year on the East Coast of America. The threat of wanton violence and damage to property there, as I could see from firsthand experience, has become so extreme that the police are on permanent patrol in the corridors of certain schools. This is a terrifying example to have before us. It is really this that has emboldened me to take part in this debate, because its memory has never left me. It is precisely this that we must do our utmost to avoid. The importance of understanding and

489
conquering juvenile crime must not be underestimated. We must try everything. Our objective must be to use every weapon, the sophisticated and the simple. It is a cliché to say this, but nevertheless it is true; if crime by the young can be contained, the problem and prospect of adult crime will inevitably be diminished.
Several attempts have been made by successive Governments to do this. The last of these was the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. Out of this there has undoubtedly come a more compassionate attitude towards young offenders; a desire to cure rather than to punish. But many criticisms have been levelled at it, particularly by magistrates. As their experience must of course be drawn upon in the fight, these criticisms must be heeded. It has been said that the Act is aimed too much at the casual rather than the chronic offender; that under its terms the greatest care is lavished upon those one-time offenders who would anyway be unlikely to evolve into the hardened adult criminal of the future; that too little deterrent is provided for the hard core of habitual juvenile criminals.
It has also been observed—this is very important—that the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970, by guiding social workers away from specialisation, conflicts with the 1969 measure, which gives additional extremely specialised tasks to the social workers at precisely the time when they are not equipped either by training or direction to bear them. What is certainly true is that the juvenile crime rate continues to rise and it is far beyond my competence to suggest an easy solution. Perhaps the most that can be done is to put forward a desirable pattern that might be aimed at; a pattern that incorporates both the traditional and the advanced, for there can be no over-simplification of positions on this matter—no "sloganeering" of Left or Right.
First, we have in this country one overwhelming advantage. Our police have succeeded over the years in building up a unique relationship of mutual trust with the rest of the community. This relationship exists for a number of reasons, some historical, some sociological. Governments must not only recognize this but must capitalize on it, as I am sure the present Government with their very humane record on this subject have every inten
490
tion of doing. In capitalising upon it, they must not only employ the most sophisticated methods of detection but they must also have regard to the old social dialogues and contacts that were so well established by the beat. I believe it is fair to say that Dogberry and Verges must not be entirely spurned in favour of Sherlock Holmes. In dealing with juvenile criminals, the police often find themselves playing simultaneously the role of social worker and law enforcement officer. Through their juvenile crime bureaux they often attempt the near impossible task of combining these two. More often than not they succeed. These bureaux have done a great deal to destroy the image that so many young people previously had of the police; that is, solely as agents of punishment. Let us see, my Lords—as I am sure the Government have every intention of doing—that they are given to the full the support they deserve.
Next—I am sorry, my Lords, I am going on too long—let us try to increase the liaison between the courts and the social services. The one is often apt to think the other too lenient or too rigid. A remedy here might be at least a partial return to the kind of specialisation that the 1970 Local Authority Social Services Act did away with. Clearly there must be some degree of uniformity of approach, either imposed from above or voluntarily arrived at. At least social workers dealing with juveniles should have the necessary training over and above their general qualifications to perform this exceptionally difficult and specialised task. Surely this is the very least that society and the Welfare State can do for these children.
There are still grounds for hope even in the most extreme areas. Recent publicity given to certain events in the North-East can be contrasted with another incident. I do not know how many of your Lordships read the recent report in the Sunday Telegraph of an experiment which is being conducted in Newcastle. Approximately 100 children are suspended each year from Newcastle's large comprehensive schools. Each of these comprehensives has now set up a special control unit through which the hard core—about 12 in number—of the disruptive element is extracted from the rest of the schools. These pupils then receive special attention in a separate part of the building. The idea is that they will eventually

491
be filtered back into the main stream. Teaching at these special units is naturally aimed at a lower level, but it is conducted by teachers who are regarded as being of a particularly high quality. A psychologist—I know that one runs away from the word "psychologist" but I think in this case it is apt—is often called in to help and the emphasis is on persuasion rather than discipline. The Nuffield Foundation is closely monitoring this experiment which so far appears to have shown signs of achieving a remarkable success.
My Lords, I cannot profess to have any personal knowledge of this experiment, but I hope it is not impertinent of me to ask the Minister whether, when he replies to this debate, he will tell us what value the Government place upon it; for I believe it is no exaggeration to say that the result may prove decisive—I hope it is no exaggeration to say this—for the future of education in this country. This is a big subject and I have already spoken for far too long. When today we see violence and brutality all around us it is scarcely surprising that it should also exist among the young. But surely we owe it to them to shun the simplistic solution in which the level and severity of the punishment is merely increased. Such a solution turns the casual offender almost overnight into the hardened criminal. There is little reason to imagine that it succeeds in deterring the chronic offender.
If I may be impertinent enough to suggest it, what is needed is a real, compassionate understanding of the background and the motives that lie behind each case. At the moment the necessary machinery for discovering these is available in the local education authorities, the police, the magistracy and the social services. What it needs now is additional synchronisation, further encouragement and—above all—the will.
3.59 p.m.
Lord SOPER: My Lords, it falls to my very pleasant responsibility to be the first to welcome the maiden speech of the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat. He made two mistakes: the first was to say at the beginning of his speech that he could see no reason why we should not listen to it;the second was at
492
the end of his speech, when he said he had spoken too long. Apart from that I found what he had to say immaculate.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I think the noble Lord, Lord Leconfield and Egremont, said he saw no reason why we should do so, did he not?
Lord SOPER: My Lords, the combination of youth and fervour warmed our hearts and, I think, our minds. We listened to the noble Lord, for what he said was an admirable expression of the exhilaration and confidence of youth, and that charitable attitude which is not always concomitant with youth. At the same time, he obviously wished to show us the kind of qualities which have already endeared him to us. We shall with expectation look forward to further contributions that the noble Lord will no doubt offer to us in this House.
My Lords, here I must declare an interest. I am responsible for the care of some of these delinquent youths and girls. What I have to say will no doubt be coloured by that experience, but I hope that at the same time it may make some contribution of credibility. I venture to make two preliminary comments which I think are necessary in a debate as wide-ranging as this. One is that no doubt these figures are accurate—and there can be no question but that there has been a lamentable rise in juvenile crime—but there are certain mitigating factors which should not be ignored. One of those mitigating factors is the increased probability of detection, and the other is the greatly increased opportunity of criminal action in a multitude of Acts which before were not appearing on Statute Books, but now so do.
That does not in any way justify the belief that we should, with some kind of complacency, regard a temporary aberration from a general condition, but I think it persuades all of us who have some experience in these matters that we are dealing with a situation which primarily is not to do with what we theologians call "original sin". I very much doubt professionally whether the amount of inherent evil has varied very much over the centuries. I deplore that. It is impermissibly high, and it may be a confession of our own ineffectuality as ministers of the Gospel to reduce it.

493
My Lords, what seems to me to be the inference in the speeches to which we have listened this afternoon is that we are in a particular set of environmental circumstances which, bearing upon this basic quality or disquality, produce the kind of statistics which we deplore, although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that there is a distinction to be drawn between those causes which, being long-term, require long-term remedies, and those immediate issues which require immediate and practical conclusive evidence, and, when that evidence is arrived at, conclusive acts to deal with it. Yet it is part of the business of this House, in a debate on juvenile crime, to consider some of those environmental circumstances which have promoted the increase in crime, or so it is assumed. I would begin by casting some little doubt on the generally accepted thesis that if you are looking for juvenile crime, look for a broken home and you will find juvenile crime.
An interesting comment was made by a bunch of experts looking at the relationship of broken homes and crime. They came up with a suggestion—fascinating to me—that where a grandmother lives in the same house as the first and second generation, there is a greater likelihood that the children and grandchildren will be better behaved, which seems to suggest not so much that the quality of family life is the matter at issue, but its continuity. I am certain that families which stay together, bickering and quarrelling as they do, nevertheless contribute a particular quality to the family life which, although it is endangered, is not finally impaired by the various quarrels which take place from time to time. The continuity of family life rather than its quality has to be taken into account. In other cases, it may be that the causes of breakdown in family life are identical with the causes of juvenile delinquency, and one is not contingent upon the other.
My Lords, it has already been said that unemployment should not be regarded as conclusive evidence because the rapid increase of unemployment is very recent. I would prefer to think that the uncreative leisure which many young people and children find available today must be taken into consideration. It reminds me of what Gibbon said about
494
bread and circuses in the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. He said that in the Augustan era there were 67 public holidays in a year, but by the time Nero was playing his violin, the number had increased to 167. I am fairly certain, out of experience of contact with the boys and girls for whom we seek to care, that it is the absence of the kind of opportunity to be had from the Boy Scout movement or the Girl Guide movement, or the acceptance of those chances; it is the aimless leisure of so many youngsters which contributes considerably to the apathy towards moral issues, and is accentuated by the even more dreadful and scathing conditions of juvenile unemployment.
My Lords, I cannot forbear to comment on the increase of the availability of weapons of one sort and another, and the encouragement given by the media to consider that virility and growing up are both associated to some extent with the expression of violence, not least the violence which is also sexual, a matter generally disregarded, but which in matters of this importance are to be taken together in many respects. I am quite sure that one of the answers which can be given to the point on unemployment and uncreative leisure is something along the lines of public service, something along the lines of youth work, which is required as a second stage of the education process which, when it ends at 15 years of age, induces truancy to a very large degree in the concluding years as well as in the earlier years of that schooling, and is irremedial under conditions where increasingly those who leave school are plunged into a world where they are not required to accept the kind of discipline properly adumbrated by other noble Lords already this afternoon.
I believe further that we cannot disregard the increasing availability of alcohol. I know that this is the sort of drum I am inclined repeatedly to bang, but I am quite sure I am right, and make no apology for saying that the introduction of the beer can and the availability of alcohol and the record of ever-increasing figures of the intoxication of the young, is one of those environmental indications which go some way at least to explain the increase in that kind of crime often committed, not by

495
people who are blind drunk, but by those sufficiently intoxicated not to care very much what the moral issues happen to be. It is for those reasons that I do not find myself totally surprised at the increase in juvenile crime, but I do find myself at somewhat of a loss to see what, in the present circumstances, can be done about it. However, I would make various random suggestions.
My Lords, as have others, I have been impressed by the effectiveness of the 1969 Act, where the necessary resources are available to put its articles into effect. I should like to see, where supervision orders are provided, that both parents should be required—if there are two parents—to appear at court to be told what is going to happen. Over and over again probation officers have told me that when one or other of the parents comes to court—or when the mother, as in most cases, comes—the provision is not properly recognised and the likelihood of it being carried out, or the conditions for which the parents should be responsible for being carried out, are minimal. I should like to see some kind of centre; if you like an attendance centre, which is totally separated from the police force. I share with the noble Lord, Lord Leconfield and Egremont, great admiration for the work of the police forces, but to be quite matter of fact and simple about it, it seems tome that where there is tension between the police force and the juvenile delinquent, it is quite impossible to expect that the juvenile delinquent, when expected to attend an attendance course on Saturday afternoon, will not regard it as an imposition, and will not regard those who impose it or regulate it, or supervise it, as his enemy. What is more, attendance centres can quickly become thieves' kitchens.
My Lords, as I have spoken for ten minutes, taking off the minute in which I was congratulating the previous speaker, perhaps the House will allow me to make one other observation. I will certainly try to make it briefly. If you have no religious background—and we are living in the first secular age for many, if not the overwhelming number, of these young people—then where are they to find the challenge of the moral issue? Is it not significant that those who officially have kicked out religion have had to reintro
496
duce what they call "self-criticism", which reminds me very often of the Methodist class meeting, which, whatever its failures and disadvantages, at least posed to the faithful regularly the contribution that they could make to the good, their failure so to do, and the difference between the way they were behaving and the way in which they ought to behave.
My Lords, some kind of self-criticism is absolutely imperative for those who are expected to live according to laws which are regarded as just and right. If they are not found, then where are the stabilising and disciplined principles to be found? I of course accept the principle that it is against the God who is our heavenly father that we sin; it is against Him that we commit our faults. Supposing there are many today who cannot subscribe to that particular belief. Is it not imperative that they should find somewhere a standard in the community in which they live, in the behaviour of their fellows, which is mandatory, which is obligatory or at least has such high validity as to persuade them regularly to consider their own lives in its light'? That is not a pious hope. It is, I think, the inevitable and irreducible need of any final recovery from the lamentable condition of juvenile delinquency which can only, in my judgment, be finally abated and controlled within a society which sets an example which the young people are ready and willing to follow.
4.12 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, my reason for speaking in this debate is that for very many years I have been treasurer and on the executive of the Kent County branch of the National Association of Boys' Clubs, and I can say that the boys who have been through our hands have acquitted themselves extremely well in the world, and there has been as far as our records can tell, no instance of crime. Before continuing I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for initiating this debate. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord who has made his maiden speech, Lord Leconfield and Egremont, and to say how very pleasant it is and how appropriate to have such a young man speaking in a debate of this kind; to see a young face in this House is most cheering.
The Earl of LYTTON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Viscount. It is pleasant because he is juvenile and not delinquent.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I would say that I quite agree that the figures are really terrifying—juvenile crime up 33 per cent. last year; and I think 40 per cent. of the whole spectrum of crime is juvenile. Also I heard the noble Earl say that in the Greater London area 12 boys out of 12 by the time they leave school have committed a theft or some petty crime. I thought in fact the actual figures were nine out of ten. I find that very hard to believe, although apparently it is in this report. I will not speak about girls, because in regard to juvenile crime among girls I know nothing. I would only agree with the noble Earl that the female is the more deadly of the species.
My Lords, what I am about to say I have said in this House many years ago. The 18th century French philosophers Voltaire and Rousseau said that crime was only caused by poverty and bad Government. It only shows how time has proved them utterly wrong. From my own experience I know very many people who have been brought up in very poor circumstances who would never think of committing any crime. On the other hand, I have known one or two people who have been brought up in quite good circumstances who have committed crimes. It shows that we must not believe everything that philosophers say.
We must try to cure the cause. I think it is a tragedy when young people have to appear before a court. It is the cause we must get at and try, if we can, to eradicate. And it is obvious to all your Lordships and to everybody that the cause lies first in the home, and later on at school. I think the home is probably the most important influence. I would wholeheartedly agree with the noble and reverend Lord, Lord Soper, that broken homes are a great cause of this. There are many mothers today who I do not think need to go out to work but yet do go out to earn more money, perhaps to get a second car. I think it would pay dividends if the State, the Social Security services—some people might think it is bribery—could
498
pay mothers to work in the home and not go out to work. After all, what is a more important job in life than bringing up children, and bringing them up correctly'? I can think of no more important occupation. Many parents today give their children the most magnificent Christmas presents and birthday presents to salve their consciences because perhaps in other ways they have neglected them. We do really want the mothers in the home.
May I tell your Lordships something a friend of mine told me. He is somebody called Waddington who has just come back from China. This ought to appeal to a lot of the Party opposite—perhaps not in this House, but to a lot of their colleagues. He went round some schools in China and was very impressed by the good discipline of the children. He said to one of the teachers: "What happens if you happen to have a very unruly child?" The teacher said: "We send them back to their parents". Then my friend asked: "When they come back to the school and they are still unruly, what do you do?" The teacher replied: "We then banish the parents to forced labour. We punish them". Of course, I am not proposing that we should do that here. But it does rather take up the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who brought up the question of family care, that the parents are really to blame; you cannot blame young children. I have a friend who some years ago was going round a very big comprehensive school. He said: "I think it is a superb place; you have everything you need. But there is one remark I would make: your pupils appear to be very bad-mannered." The headmaster said: "Manners are a relic of the feudal age. We don't teach manners."
I think that teachers to a certain extent are to blame, too. I quite agree that the majority of teachers really do their utmost to do a good job, but there are a certain number of teachers who might be eradicated from the system. I knew two young people who were anxious to be teachers, and one was a teacher for a very short time. On the second day a small boy came up and abused her in extremely foul language. She complained to the headmaster and the headmaster said, "I am sorry, we cannot do anything about it. If I do, the parents will come up and make a fuss and go to the local

499
M.P., and so I cannot do anything about it." So she gave up teaching.
Television has been mentioned. I quite agree that on television the whole time we see this appalling violence. You do not get that in children's hours, but the trouble is that many children do not go to bed when they should do and their parents allow them to sit up to see these scenes of violence. I think the noble Lord, Lord Soper, brought up the question of high-rise flats. Perhaps it was not him, I cannot remember. There again, when you bring up children in what I can only describe as a concrete jungle, it is very difficult for them. I give these nature trails for children from schools—State and other—at my place in Kent. I am a great believer that the nearer to the beauties of nature you can get children, the more chance they will have.
I have now spoken for 10 minutes, but I should like to say that I quite agree that there is great economic stringency at the moment. But if the Government and future Governments could give more money to the formation of boys' clubs—I am not speaking about girls because I do not know anything about girls regarding juvenile crime—if you organise runs, play games, climb hills and sail, keep them interested, that will solve a great deal of these problems. If only we can take them away from the "box", and make them do things instead of watching other people do things, that would be of great help. As I have run my time, the only thing I would end up with is that we must try to root out the cause. It is terrible to have these young people going before the courts. Bringing them before the courts is not the cure. We must try to eradicate the cause. I know that it will take a long time, but it is in our power to do so.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, at this time in the debate perhaps I might intervene for a moment to remind your Lordships, with all due deference, that this is a short debate, and in order to enable my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich to give an adequate reply to the various points raised, I would suggest, with great respect, that noble Lords remaining should limit their speeches, if possible, to eight minutes.
4.25 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of LEICESTER: My Lords, only one half minute then for those little courtesies to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the maiden speech that was given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Leconfield and Egremont, and just a word in support of what my noble friend Lord Soper said about not exaggerating the picture. It is bad enough, and I should not like to be accused of complacency, but my figures do not entirely agree with those given by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. I understand that the proportion of indictable crime, in the sense of persons found guilty, during the last four years has hovered at about 22 per cent. to 24 per cent. and has not varied very much.
In my area of Leicestershire—I take no credit for this—last year the number of known juvenile crimes was reduced by 12;½per cent., and even when it was at its worst it was running at 3½ per cent. of the total youth age group coming into any trouble with the police. This is always a dangerous argument. I remember very well, when the noble Earl, Lord Longford, was speaking in one of our early debates about university unrest, he said:
"It is quite true that we are dealing with a minority. But make no mistake, as soon as you touch that minority they will become a majority."
We have not quite come to that pitch with juvenile crime yet, but it is something we have to be on the look-out for.
I have been in close touch with both the police and the social services in my area of Leicestershire, and Leicestershire is one of the few provincial areas where there is an adequate juvenile crime bureau working in close touch with the social services. I am very impressed indeed with what they are doing. The social services are doing a splendid job among what we might call the more hopeful cases. I was recently in one of their community homes where I think I can say they have mastered the problem of truancy—which is a great achievement—partly through co-operation with the schools. The children have to go over all parts of Leicester and a good deal of Leicestershire to get to their old schools, but cases of truancy are now very rare through a mixture of kindness and firmness. There is no time to go into the

501
details of which I could inform the House because, with the further reduction to eight minutes, one is reduced to a form of almost telegraphese if one is to say anything at all.
I think that I must move on to try to answer in some very inadequate way the challenge thrown out to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, although I feel that the ground has been well prepared by what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Soper. I have my own thoughts about youth unemployment, about broken and disturbed homes, about urbanisation. All these things have contributed to a society in which juvenile crime can flourish much more easily than it would in societies of different kinds.
But, if I am asked whether there is a root cause, I find myself answering it like this: I do not think that any society can hold together cohesively unless it has what I call vertical loyalties as well as horizontal loyalties.
We live in an age when horizontal loyalties are very strong. The peer group among youths of certain ages, the trade unions, the professional associations, every group that feels it has a common interest, congeals together if necessary against everyone else, and the number of enterprises in which there are vertical loyalties—loyalties running right through a family, a firm or even a school—are rather hard to find. I know teachers in schools whose behaviour appears, either accidentally or intentionally, to undermine the authority of the home and parents.
All this represents one of the root causes of our troubles and I do not see the cause of it so much in sex and violence on television as in the illusion that is being spread in this country by the interviewers in the media that if only the common man knew all the truth, he could debunk every known authority on every subject. This is an extremely damaging and dangerous element in our nation. No nation can live without myths and legends to incorporate a spirit of loyalty that can really inspire the self-criticism of which the noble Lord, Lord Soper, spoke. I endeavour to give my life so that, so far as possible, people can find an expression of loyalty in their service of Almighty God, the maker of all things and all men: but even if they stop
502
short of that, there is still this upward and downward relationship of love and care, respect and responsibility, however one likes to describe it, which binds together different levels in every society and in every enterprise.
That is why the Girl Guides are doing such splendid work. I have Scout troops in my diocese who arrive at their Scout meeting with their knees pouring with blood because they have been stoned by young thugs on the estate: thugs whose only objection to them, I am sure, is that they are adhering to a form of society with a loyalty which it is their desire to undermine and resist. Thus, we will not cure this problem in a mini-debate, though we have to throw our best thoughts into the pool, and this is mine.
4.34 p.m.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I wish first to congratulate my noble friend Lord Leconfield and Egremont on his maiden speech. I like to think that it was perhaps encouraged somewhat by a meeting we had about a year ago at my old college at Oxford. I also congratulate him on coming to sit on these Benches. My Lords, I have only two points to raise today. The first is that this Motion is very much a logical follow-up to last week's debate on sex education in schools. Though of course not all juvenile crime is the result of subversion in education, I maintain that a significant proportion is encouraged by it. Since the decline in the influence of the churches, that discipline and training has evaporated. Since the abolition of National Service, that discipline and training has gone. Many of the schools which were the bastions of mental discipline are in danger of going and the reduction in the Forces, especially in the Young Soldiers battalions, have removed another prop. One has only to read of the affairs of schools like Tyndale to realise the consequences of the acts of the lunatic subversive fringe in our educational system.
What a neck for Mrs. McColgan to try to hoodwink us into believing that the "rank and file" is not a part of the International Socialists set up. Their "Little Red School Book" is notorious and their pamphlets on, "How to get your teacher the sack" and, "How to cope with the police" cannot, at the greatest stretch of the imagination, be

503
good training for the young to support law and order. They and the Maoists set up cells in whichever schools they get their feet in. I know of the most repulsive of their leaders who actually got a student to steal his master's papers for the use of the Socialist Worker. My Lords, read Militant or Young Guard.
The second point I wish to raise is about alcoholism among the young. In my research for last week's debate I came across a very real worry among responsible educationists, especially in South-East London, on this subject. There has been a terrific—there is no other word for it—increase in juvenile alcoholism; the noble Lord, Lord Soper, referred to this. The drug culture is on the decline but teenage drunkenness, often leading to crime, is on the increase. I am told that statistics are available from the Metropolitan Police. Can we have them today? For example, are not the majority of wanton acts of vandalism by the young triggered off by drunkenness? Many parents do not help. "We like a drink. Why not the kids?" is often their attitude. Television advertisements do not help. At one time over Christmas 17 out of 20 "plugs" were for "booze". Nowadays it is not every landlord who can tell a 13, 14 or 15-year-old girl from one of 18. In one school I know of, 14 and 15-year-old girls were tipsy in class at 2 o'clock in the afternoon. There is definitely a connection between drug-taking and drinking. My informant was told by the well-known Sister Patricia of the Anglican Community of St. Mary the Virgin of young girls, being cured of hard drug-taking, returning to the Community to be cured of alcohol addiction, and vice versa.
Serious crime, vandalism and assaults are often the result of drink or a combination of drink with barbiturates or amphetamines. How often is the offence of taking and driving away the result of that combination? Supermarkets and delicatessens now sell "booze", some at all hours, to teenagers. Permissiveness now runs right through the whole spectrum of society and nowhere is it more apparent than in alcoholism and the young. Could the Government produce some figures? I am sure that if the incidence of crime with teenage drinking could be effectively demonstrated we
504
should be on the way to controlling this modern plague. Do not tell me that the teenage vandalism of railway coaches, football buses and so on is done by sober people.The Western Morning News carried a front page picture on Monday of a vandalised Cornish church. It was completely wrecked—pews, Bible, choir stalls, the lot. Do not tell me that this was done by those who arrogantly boast that they are not Christians. No. These latter-day iconoclasts are young vandals subverted one way or another, and I have given your Lordships just two of the possible ways.
4.39 p.m.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, because of the shortness of time for this debate we must curtail our remarks. This is difficult for those of us who feel we have quite a lot to say on this issue. I sincerely thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for introducing this debate because many of us have wanted to air our views on this subject. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Leconfield and Egremont, on his maiden speech; his enthusiasm for the subject was indeed refreshing to all of us, and certainy to those in my age group, and we look forward to hearing from him often in the future.
As all speakers in this debate have explained, juvenile crime is increasing at an alarming rate. The escalation has been noticed, commented on and worried about by some of the most important bodies in this country, among them the National Council of Women of Great Britain, the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Police Federation, the Magistrates Association, the Justices' Clerks Association and the National Association for Probation Officers. Also, every single juvenile court magistrate in the country is deeply worried and upset.
Time is short and I shall therefore restrict my comments to my own view of what I observe on my own bench, together with other views about families and the way some children are brought up. I sit in a very busy juvenile court in a large conurbation North of London. We have three juvenile courts every Wednesday and I sit as chairman on Wednesday mornings. The main increases in crime in my court are in burglary, criminal damage, taking and driving

505
away and mugging. All those are extremely serious crimes. What can we do about them? The answer is, practically nothing. We can send any of these offenders to an attendance centre for up to 24 hours. I suggest to the Minister that that could perhaps be extended, because it amounts only to 12 alternate Saturday afternoons. We can fine them but, again, it is very difficult to fine, for example where one knows that the mother in a one parent family is on social security. There are detention centres. We know we can send boys to detention centres, but they are now usually released in six weeks. Then there is borstal. One can send an offender to borstal for nine months, though that case has to go through the Crown Court. However, offenders are very often released after three months. We can also make a care order whereby the offender is placed under the care of the local authority. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, quite rightly said, magistrates have absolutely no authority whatsoever; they can put the child into the care of the local authority but they do not know and have no authority to know—what happens afterwards. I can, and do, say that I recommend that the child should go to a community home, but that is as far as magistrates are now allowed to go. We have practically no authority at all and the children know it. They know that our hands are tied.
I believe we need to ask ourselves why this situation has arisen. I, like my noble friend Lady Young with her vast knowledge, also blame the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. I know that it was full of good intentions but I feel that all of us who were dealing with the problem at the time knew that it was implemented far too early and without adequate provisions being made by the Government of the time. I do not feel that this was anybody's fault. The Bill was pushed through. If I remember rightly, there was an Election coming up and everybody wanted this particular legislation on the Statute Book. It has, in many instances, been a very bad piece of legislation; its provisions have never been caught up with and, so far as I can make out, will not be so for a very long time.
Secondly, I blame parents. Some noble Lords have mentioned the "box."
506
Parents and children alike are "box" conscious. Parents also fail to communicate with their children as they used to do in my young days. Granted that was a very long time ago, but parents should be made aware that they should communicate with their children. They do not seem to talk with them, and children certainly do not communicate with their parents. That goes through to the teachers as well. Also, parents may be frightened of their children. This seems incredible, but children these days are loquacious, very good at backhanding their parents, very good at being rude, at having no manners and no discipline and at simply walking out on their parents. The parents lose contact. They are frightened to tell little Billy to return home earlier than he has been doing. This morning I had a boy in court who had had many previous convictions. The social worker said that matters were very much better now because, when the child came home at weekends from the community home, the mother had reached agreement with him that he was to be in much earlier than in the past. I asked how late this 14-year-old boy stayed up. "About half past three or four o'clock in the morning", she replied, "but now I have come to an agreement with him that he will come home between twelve and one." A young child who is out on the loose with the gang which he has been with all his life will naturally go back to the gang and get into more trouble, as he did, so finding himself before my court this morning. So parents are unable and often unwilling to supervise their children.
Clearly, I must acknowledge that most teachers and social workers are excellent people. However, as we all know, a great number are untrained and—more significant and, I believe, more pertinent to this problem—many social workers and teachers who are responsible for the children have themselves been through training colleges and schools and in their adolescence have learnt no discipline and have been against law and order. I am afraid that, to my knowledge, it is quite certain that some of them—it is only a small minority, but it is a significant one —are not teaching discipline or law and order in the schools because they do not believe in it. After all, if teachers and social workers do not teach what we

507
think is right for our children, the generations will move on and those children will become undisciplined parents who, perhaps break law and order themselves.
I believe, however, that we are all responsible, as one noble Lord has said this afternoon. We are responsible as a community. We have allowed the morals of the country to go down a slippery slope. We are not yet at the bottom, but I wish we were and that we were gradually creeping up again. We have not said "No", often enough.
What of the future? What can we suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to the Home Office and to all those who have to deal with our children? As has been pointed out and as we all know, there is a hard core in nearly all the big cities. Probably that is not so in the country—I have no knowledge of the country—but, unfortunately, there is a core of hardened criminals in the big cities. I know that because they come back again and again. They never seem to have had enough of me. I do not know why—perhaps I do not frighten them enough. Possibly that may be the clue. Perhaps we may succeed if we make the punishment at borstal or the detention centre fit the crime, though only for a short time, so that the offenders do not want to go back there and would prefer freedom to once more getting across the law and being recalled to borstal or the detention centre.
However, the hard core does not contain the normal juvenile delinquent. We really must see whether we can do something more for them. I should like many more community homes, purely because, in my experience, to take a child away from its home and environment and from the gangs it has been with, teach it something and return it home must be valuable. The parents will have been kept in touch in the meantime and the child can return home in about two years' time. That is what used to happen in the days of the approved schools but now, as I say, we on the bench are not even allowed to say that the child must go to a community home.
I have touched on care orders. I strongly agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. I should like to see community service. I know
508
that it is very difficult because the type of community service has to be extremely carefully thought out by those in charge. Clearly, it is no good sending a thug to look after an old lady and paint her walls, but one idea which I have had something to do with is putting young people in charge of people who are very much less fortunate than themselves, people such as subnormal children, or even subnormal adults, or subnormal teenagers; people who can be understood by a child and be seen to be worse-off. It is extraordinary how these young people have no idea that there are other people who are so badly-off.
We obviously need more playgrounds and leisure activities. This point was forcefully brought to my notice last week after I had sent a boy to Ashford Remand Centre for three weeks. He asked whether he could please go back because there was something to do all day, and he enjoyed it. We on the juvenile benches are having considerable trouble because magistrates are not willing to sit on these benches. They realise that the end product is hopeless. Their hands are tied. They cannot do what they want to do with the juveniles who appear before them. I have had considerable trouble recently in persuading younger people to put forward their names for service on the juvenile bench. My Lords, my time is up; indeed, I must apologise for having exceeded my time. Those are my few comments on this subject.
4.51 p.m.
Baroness STEWART of ALVECHURCH: My Lords, first I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Leconfield and Egremont, on his most interesting speech and to express the hope that we shall often hear him in the future. We are all naturally concerned to note the growth of juvenile crime in this country and, indeed, throughout the world. But I am sure that we should all agree that it is important that we should not exaggerate the size of the problem and that we should avoid statements that might undermine the confidence of young people in themselves and their status in society. Young people certainly do not read reports of our debates, but they often read newspaper headlines and placards which reflect adversely on their generation. They

509
frequently see on television other young people, and indeed adults, behaving m a wild and irresponsible way. Unfortunately, there is no one to point out to them that the vast majority of young people are in fact well behaved—as well behaved as we are.
For example, only about 5 per cent. of those under 17 years of age are delinquents. The corresponding figure for girls, a very interesting one to me, is 0.6 per cent. It seems that we should try to discover the reasons for this most significant difference in relation to sex. Perhaps the Home Office could instigate an inquiry into this field; it would have all the material available. One factor in the sex difference relating to delinquency is the degree of expectation among adults about juvenile behaviour. Let us take violence for example. In a girl it may be regarded as psycopathic and she may be thought to be in need of treatment. In a boy violence is, more often than not, regarded as natural, within fairly wide limits. In most homes parents take it for granted that the girls will help with the domestic work and the washing up, will look after the baby and do the shopping. Help may be asked of the boys, but it is less likely to be taken for granted.
This difference in relation to sex is found not only in homes where people are well behaved; it is also found in homes where there are delinquents, as Charles Dickens himself knew only too well more than a hundred years ago, to judge from reading The Old Curiosity Shop. Speaking both as a former juvenile court chairman and a present member of a secure accommodation committee that is specially responsible for the welfare of young people in closed accommodation, I agree with those of your Lordships who have suggested that we should have a wider approach to this problem and that we should consider some of the related factors, as well as what we believe to be causes.
One of the related factors is undoubtedly truancy. Many of your Lordships have referred to it, and we know that it is a major problem in many of our comprehensive schools. Apart from the disruptive influence in the school itself, and the risk which the truants may run if they get in touch with anti-social adults, there is also the long-
510
term handicap for the juvenile in that he is missing his education and may go throughout life without the certificates which he might otherwise have earned. But as truancy is a major educational as well as a delinquency problem, I wonder whether the DES and the Home Office might consider a special investigation into this field. They might, for example, ask selected local education authorities to hold conferences to which the truants themselves might he invited to contribute and to express their views on education. This might seem an extraordinary suggestion. Nevertheless, I believe that it would not be impossible to find intelligent delinquents and truants who would make a useful contribution. I do not think that there is enough interchange of ideas between young people who are regarded as problems and the adults who take responsibility for them.
I also wonder whether local authority housing programmes could make more provision for the needs of young people. I realise that today local authorities almost always provide open spaces, but what I believe are also needed are well equipped rooms which could be used as centres for community projects associated with the immediate neighbourhood. These need not be used exclusively by juveniles. But the adults living in the neighbourhood would not expect juveniles to use these rooms unless it was stated quite explicitly in public that they were intended for juveniles as well as adults, and possibly chiefly for community projects in which young people would be involved. It seems to me essential that if these projects are to be useful and are to contribute in a way that will really benefit young people, the young people themselves must have a real say in the organisation.
Finally, I wish to refer to the closed accommodation in community homes. I am fully aware of all the many problems associated with community homes at the moment, particularly because there are not nearly enough of them. But I wonder whether in the homes, all of which, so far as I know, are full, more attention could be paid to the educational needs of the young people. There tends to be an assumption that in a community home the most useful work would be done in a practical way, but some of the boys in community homes whom I have known

511
could work quite well for their "O" levels; in fact, they do quite well if given the opportunity. But in making that suggestion I am fully aware of the difficulties associated with it.
5 p.m.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, yesterday evening I was in a borstal talking with young people who are some of the casualties of our society and a reflection on the community in which we live. Before they come to the open borstal—I am a member of the board of visitors—they pass through Strange ways Prison for allocation, and here these young people aged between 15 and 21 spend 23 hours a day locked up. They come to borstal because they have rebelled against their unsatisfactory way of life. At the present time, one of the main causes of these crimes may be put down to the difficulties of getting a job, as has been said today. The anxiety and uncertainty before leaving school, and the feeling of not being wanted or needed, make them confused and hostile. In many areas the long leisure hours cannot be filled with enjoyable and interesting pastimes because there are none. The choice seems to be work for a few if they are lucky but drinking and sex for all who want it. Discontented young people are flocking together and forming disruptive gangs who rob, stab and beat up innocent people. These young people need a meaningful challenge in life. They need to be motivated to want to take part in useful occupations by good leadership, instead of drowning their sorrows in false outlets, such as drinking and drugs, which lead to their unsocial behaviour.
My Lords, yesterday a recall to borstal told me he had wanted to join the Army more than anything else. He and his probation officer had worked together to this end, and he had at last been accepted. One night before call-up he went out, got drunk and committed a stupid crime. Now he knows that he has thrown away the only thing he wanted and the only challenge in his life. He bitterly regrets his folly. This could be the turning point in his life, when he sees no chance of succeeding. The example set by many adults seems to be that of selfishness and fiddling.
512
Many firms are often frightened to prosecute in case of strikes, so that young people learn that it is possible to get away with dishonest practice. Young people with difficult home circumstances and problems of learning, living in large impersonal buildings and attending huge comprehensive schools, must find it practically impossible to keep an individual identity with any dignity. Often, the only way that anyone will take notice of them is when they truant and turn to crime. We have an after-care service, but would it not be better to have a preventive before-care service? Our society has changed. More temptations are displayed. Thieving, like any other infection, spreads. It seems that we now have an epidemic with which to deal.
My Lords, there are several organisations trying hard to help young people at risk, but they are drops in the ocean. The community service volunteers never turn down anyone who wants to volunteer. They ought to be congratulated for what they are doing. So often young people involved in crime have graduated from children's homes to community homes, to detention centres and then to borstals, passing from one social worker to another. No longer are they individual people: they have become institutionalised clients. The community service volunteers encourage young people to want to give, rather than always being at the receiving end, and to help each other, so gaining confidence. I hope Her Majesty's Government will encourage more schemes in the community, but unless these have good, trained leaders who can properly supervise they will have little likelihood of succeeding. I also hope that Her Majesty's Government will see the need for a nationwide health education programme to teach children about the dangers of alcohol, the need for hygiene and child care. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said. Otherwise, how are we to halt the cycle of growing violence and crime which leads to so much unhappiness and family breakup? My Lords, I now just have time to thank the noble Earl for having initiated this debate, and also to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Leconfield and Egremont, on his excellent maiden speech.
5.4 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, as indeed the noble Baroness who has just concluded speaking has rightly said, the House is greatly indebted to two people today: first, the noble Earl for having initiated this debate and, secondly, the noble Lord who made his maiden speech this afternoon. I had the pleasure of knowing his father only fairly briefly in my life, but I know what enormous pleasure it would have given him to have heard his son make his maiden speech here this afternoon. We all look forward to hearing him again, and I do so particularly because I found myself in very large agreement with what he said to the House today.
At the end of this debate I think it would be right for me to say that the Government welcome particularly the contributions of those Members of the House who have recognised, as I think many have, that juvenile crime is a social malady in regard to which effective treatment requires that we diagnose and deal with the causes as well as the symptoms. To debate this important subject on any other level might be a welcome relief to our anger, our frustration and our fears, but it would do little to reduce the incidence of juvenile offending or to treat, control and re-educate those young people whom we are most concerned to help.
At the outset I should like to comment on the statistics of juvenile offending. These have been mentioned by a number of Members of your Lordships' House, including the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. Recorded crime in England and Wales has more than doubled in the last 20 years, and in these circumstances it would be astonishing if the age group under the age of 17 had been immune from this general trend. Indeed, it certainly has not been immune from this trend. There is, however, no evidence that the juvenile crime rate is increasing at a seriously disproportionate rate. Boys under 14 and girls under 14 were responsible for 7 per cent. and 4 per cent., respectively, of all indictable offences leading to convictions in 1974, and these figures have remained constant over the last four years. Boys aged 14 and under 17 were responsible for 19 per cent. of indictable offences in 1974. This figure
514
has been rising at a rate around 1 per cent. each year, starting from 16 per cent. in 1971. The figure for girls aged 14 and under 17 was 12 per cent. in 1974, the same percentage as for 1973. This represents a rise of 1 per cent. from the 1971 figure. If, however, we look at the total number of juveniles found guilty before the courts and also—just as important in some respects—those cautioned by the police, the figures have risen from 176,000 in 1970 to 229,000 in1974, a distressingly formidable rise. What we cannot be sure about is how much of this rise is due to a greater awareness by the public of crime and a greater willingness to report it, or to increased activity and successful detection on the part of the police, particularly through the valuable work with young people of their juvenile bureaux.
The number of juveniles found guilty before the courts of indictable offences rose from 79,138 in 1973 to 92,879 in 1974. Although the most common juvenile offences remain theft and burglary, and some of the cases of theft are probably comparatively minor offences, we have to accept that young people are responsible for a significant proportion of detected serious crime. I accept also that there is a hard core of recidivist, disturbed and violent juveniles who have so far proved unresponsive to all the measures available to help and control them. The young people in this group are a danger to themselves, to their schools and to the community. There can be little doubt that offending by juveniles, both in its extent and in its growing seriousness, presents one of the most intractable current problems in the field of social control and child care. What, in these circumstances, then, ought we to be doing about it? The police role in dealing with juvenile offenders is clearly of the utmost importance.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords—
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I have a very limited amount of time for I fear we have to end within two and a half hours. I do apologise to my noble friend, if I may so refer to him, but I cannot give way. As I was saying, this is recognised by the police themselves. The great majority of forces in England and Wales have special arrangements for dealing with juveniles who come to their

515
notice. Over a third of forces operate formal juvenile liaison schemes which cover both those who have already committed an offence and those who are at risk of doing so. In addition, juvenile bureaux are established in the Metropolitan Police district and several other force areas. They are mainly concerned with gathering information about the juvenile after he has committed an offence—whether, for example, by summons, by caution, by supervision or by some other means.
A number of noble Lords have discussed the present law relating to children in trouble, the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, which, as my noble friend Lord Longford pointed out, he had a great deal to do with in the years prior to 1964 when there was a committee of the Labour Party sitting to discuss the series of problems that we have been debating today. As the House will know, the Act has been under review, both by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in conjunction with his colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Security, the Welsh Office and the Department of Education and Science, and by the Social Services Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee of another place. The Select Committee published its findings in September. These have now been considered by the Government in conjunction with their own review and we hope to make a statement soon. I cannot anticipate this statement today but there are one or two things which I should like to say.
The strong and differing views which this legislation continues to provoke, are not, I think, focused on the general aims and philosophy of the Act. I think my noble friend Lord Longford was right in what he said about this. Those are to keep children and young people out of the criminal justice system whenever possible, to provide support for them in their community and, if they have to come before the juvenile court, to ensure that the measures available to deal with them are sufficiently varied and flexible for each child's individual needs. These aims, as in 1969, continue to receive general assent. We cannot reinstate the previous system, and we should, I think, resist the temptation to think that all would somehow be all right if in some magical way
516
we could go back to the situation before the passage of the 1969 Act. The inescapable fact is that the rise in juvenile offending over the last five years has outpaced our capacity to find resources to deal with it, and we have no evidence that these upward trends would have been arrested if the law and treatment systems had stayed as they were.
As a number of noble Lords have indicated, there is undoubtedly a shortage at present of specialised secure accommodation for children both on remand and for those requiring longer-term treatment. There were 155 places in existence by the time the 1969 Act came into force. On the 31st March last year, there had been a distressingly small increase on that fairly low figure. The figure of 155 secure places had risen to 193. However, at the moment a further 57 units are under construction and 95 more are in the provisionally approved programme for 1975–76. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, made the point—and I have great sympathy with it and anybody speaking from this Bench must do so—that the cost of providing secure accommodation is a fairly substantial one. But I must say from my travels around the country with my responsibilities, first, to the Probation Service and second to the police, that there is overwhelming pressure for more secure accommodation from the police, from the Probation Service and from many magistrates, as the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, will confirm. We simply must have more secure accommodation; although I recognise with the noble Baroness that the cost is distressingly high.
The Regional Planning Committees established under the 1969 Act saw a need for a substantial increase in secure accommodation first for assessment purposes (the purpose served by the former remand homes) and, secondly, for relatively long-term treatment in community homes with education on the premises, the former approved schools. The plans produced by the committees, as amended, include proposals for the provision of 480 additional secure places. Two hundred and three of these are in observation and assessment centres, and 277 in community homes with education on the premises. To encourage local authorities to meet regional needs within a reasonable period

517
of time, the Government have taken power in the Children Act 1975 to enable them to make grants to local authorities to meet the costs of providing secure accommodation. One particular benefit of the early provision of additional secure accommodation in observation and assessment centres will be to speed up the implementation of the Government's policy of phasing out the remand of young persons to prison, which I think gives many Members of this House grave disquiet; that still in this year we are sending people of this age to prison. I think it has to be an urgent priority so far as any Government are concerned to do something to deal with this situation.
Although the main responsibility of providing secure accommodation in community homes is a local authority responsibility, it is recognised that among the boys and girls committed to the care of local authorities there is a tiny minority who are so disturbed and disruptive that they not only recieve no benefit themselves from treatment in a community home, whether or not in secure accommodation, but severely obstruct the treatment of others. For such children the Department of Health and Social Security are to provide and administer directly three establishments, known as youth treatment centres, with a high staff ratio, specialised facilities, and a programme geared to the provision of care, control and treatment over a period of several years. The first of these centres—St. Charles Youth Training Centre—was opened in 1971 and currently provides 38 places. The building of an additional 12-place secure unit is planned to start at the end of the year. A second centre is being built in the Birmingham area where a further 62 secure places for highly disturbed children will become available during the summer of next year. A start on the third centre, at Wakefield, will be made towards the end of 1976 which will add a further 76 secure places.
But, my Lords, I would add this. The successful care, control and treatment of delinquent children can only be carried out, whether in the community or in an institution, by men and women with the proper training, experience and devotion to this difficult and sometimes highly unrewarding task. Despite the great increase in the strength of social service departments over the past five years,
518
there are not enough, there never were enough, and in all likelihood there never can be enough, of these men and women. I accept at once that the additional responsibilities which were laid on local authorities under the 1969 Act came at a particularly difficult time. They were faced with the Seebohm reorganisation, the loss by promotion or movement to other jobs of many highly experienced and qualified child care officers, and by the prospect of a major revision of areas following the Local Government Act. These changes did not make their task any easier.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to the powers of the juvenile court. It is, of course, true that juvenile magistrates have lost their previous power to ensure a period of residential treatment for a child by means of an approved school order. This order, together with the fit person order, has been replaced by the care order which commits the child to the care of his local authority, and places on that authority the responsibility for deciding where and how he shall be treated. This is the most fundamental change at present made by the 1969 Act; the second is the replacement of probation by supervision.
But those sections of the legislation which would withdraw existing powers of the court have not yet been implemented. However as the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, said, she is by no means satisfied with the situation. Notwithstanding this, attendance centre orders are still available for boys from the age of 10 upwards; detention centres are available for boys aged 14 to 16 and borstal training for both boys and girls from the age of 15. In addition, the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1972 which enlarged, extended and restated the powers of the court to order offenders to pay compensation to their victims applies also to juveniles. This means that the juvenile court can now order compensation to a maximum of £400 in respect of each offence proved, the same sum as for an adult offender. In the case of a child under the age of 14 the court shall, and may in the case of other juveniles, order the parent or guardian to pay unless satisfied that he had not conduced to the commission of the offence by failing to exercise proper care and control.

519
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, asked whether community service orders could be extended to children. The answer is they cannot without further legislation. They are not covered by the 1972 Act. I agree that these orders have been highly successful. My noble friend Lady Wootton, and those also associated with her, who were involved in the recommendation which led to the creation of these orders, may look back upon this proposal with a great deal of pride. Nevertheless, apart from legislation, we still have a great deal of work to do in extending community service to the rest of the country so far as adults are concerned. As the noble Baroness will know, there are formidable pressures at the moment on the Probation Service.
My noble friend Lord Longford raised the question of intermediate treatment. These schemes are now available in all areas. I recognise at once that we have an inadequate amount of information about them. I am told the Personal Social Services Council is undertaking a study of this particular type of treatment and we look forward to reading the results of that study. The noble Lord, Lord Leconfield and Egremont, raised a question about the situation in Newcastle concerning disruptive school children. This is one of a number of local projects which involve the establishment of small units in schools for pupils who are particularly disturbed or difficult. In Newcastle the Department of Education and Science is sponsoring research by the Nuffield Child Psychiatry Unit into methods to deal with maladjusted children. This research is looking into a variety of methods to approach the problem. The Government will follow the progress of this experiment with a great deal of interest.
I hope what I have said this afternoon demonstrates that the Government recognise the serious problems we are confronting in this field. I must emphasise that although society may be justified in demanding a measure of retribution to deter young people from crime, this by itself is insufficient. For true protection something far more positive and fundamental is needed. First, we must seek to build a society in which the needs of our children for security, for loving support and for an opportunity of self-fulfilment
520
are met within their homes, schools and places of work. This is a task which cannot be a matter solely for the Government. It concerns us all.
Secondly, our defence must rest upon a juvenile law which is humane, flexible and effective. It must now be our united task to work together—juvenile courts, local authorities, schools, the police and all concerned at local level—to develop a constructive approach to deal with these problems. As I have said, the Government will shortly be coming to Parliament with proposals based on their consideration both of the Select Committee's Report and of the results of their own review. Thirdly, as has been said by many speakers in today's debate, our society relies upon a responsible, well-trained and adequately staffed police force which commands the respect of the community it serves. Here there has been a highly encouraging development recently, in that 1975 has been the most successful year for police recruitment in the history of the police service. Certainly in many areas the situation is still far from satisfactory. Nevertheless, the situation has improved noticeably in the year 1975.
I accept at once that we cannot expect a quick or easy answer to the problem of juvenile deliquincy, a problem which is clearly so deeply rooted in our society. We certainly cannot look to the past for an easy answer; there never was a golden age. We must keep in mind the truth expressed in the 1968 White Paper Children in Trouble, that the aims of protecting society from juvenile delinquency and of helping children in trouble to grow up into mature and law abiding persons, are complementary and not contradictory, and in that situation I think we have some grounds for both hope and confidence.
The Earl of LYTTON: My Lords, it remains for me to thank all those who have taken part, especially the noble Lord, Lord Leconfield and Egremont, who I am certain will realise that his grave apprehensions were wholly unjustified. As I cannot comment on everybody's speech, I shall be writing to all who have taken part—including asking how it was that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, managed to make one of the most distinguished speeches in four

521
minutes. I shall be writing to the 50 or 60 people outside your Lordships' House who helped me, including police chiefs all over the world. I shall be wheeling their documents in my wheelbarrow to Scotland Yard for processing. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

THE CASE OF MR. D. C. ANDERSON, Q.C.
5.26 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN rose to call attention to the case of Mr. David Colville Anderson, Q.C.; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Its purpose is to call attention to the case of Mr. David Colville Anderson, Q.C., with a view to persuading Her Majesty's Government to re-examine the case and, if they are not satisfied by that alone that he should be exonerated and reinstated, to arrange an independent inquiry into the case. I understand that Mr. Anderson will be presenting a petition to the Prime Minister calling for the effect of his conviction to be set a side by appropriate administrative action, and for his reinstatement. I should add that there is an amendment to the petition calling for a public inquiry first. I believe the ratio between the signatories for the one and the other is about two to one. I hope the noble Lord in his reply will agree on behalf of the Secretary of State to receive this petition and the supporting signatures in Edinburgh on behalf of the Prime Minister and give it full consideration.
The case of Mr. David Anderson, to which I am venturing to draw your Lordships' attention, is that of a Scottish Queen's Counsel who served for twenty-six years in the RNVR, including the whole period of the 1939–45 War. He was mentioned in despatches and he was also decorated by King Haakon with the Norwegian Freedom Medal. He served from 1960 to 1964 as Solicitor-General for Scotland, for most of the time without a seat in Parliament; but in December 1963 he was elected MP for Dumfries in a by-election which was caused by my coming to this House. He
522
did not stand in the 1964 Election. Between 1964 and 1972 he conducted some 27 public inquiries, and also conducted many trials as an honorary Sheriff. In October 1971 he was appointed by Lord Clyde as one of the two part-time chairmen on the establishment of the Industrial Appeal Tribunals in Scotland. In October 1972 he was appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland to the new post of Chief Reporter, as head of the Scottish Public Inquiry system with the rank of Under-Secretary in the Civil Service. He has been happily married for 27 years to a lady whose father was a distinguished Queen's Counsel and later a Judge of the Court of Session. They have a daughter and two sons, all of whom have done well.
In December 1972, within two months of his appointment as Chief Reporter, Mr. Anderson was conducting a Public Inquiry in Ayrshire, the first major one in his new post. He was staying at the Tower Hotel in Troon. On 22nd December, he was charged with having conducted himself in a disorderly manner on 18th December and alarming two girls, both aged 14, while with his motor car, and that he did commit a breach of the peace. At this stage there was no mention of the details of the offence. Mr. Anderson was not made aware of these until he received a written complaint—that is, a summons—in which he was further charged with approaching the girls during the hours of darkness and suggesting that they accompany him in his motor car to a quiet place to engage in judo exercises with him, and with offering them £1 each for walking on him, jumping on him and kicking him.
This hardly tempting offer from an elderly gentleman on a winter night the girls, needless to say, did not accept and the man drove off. The charge did not specify a time, but it was established at the trial that the offence took place within a few minutes of 8.30 p.m., and this was December. Mr. Anderson was tried in the Sheriff Court at Ayr on 21st and 22nd May 1973, under the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1954. He plead not guilty, and gave evidence that he had not left the hotel except for a two-minute stroll at about 11 p.m. to get some air before going to bed, and had not used his car that night. The incident had taken

523
place over seven miles away on the outskirts of the town of Prestwick. The hotel proprietor at Troon and his wife supported his evidence. However, Mr. Anderson was convicted and fined £50. In consequence, he was dismissed from his post and from the Civil Service, and has been unemployed ever since.
In Scotland an accused has no right to demand a jury trial. Jury trials are directed by the Crown Office to be held only in cases likely to involve long imprisonment. There is a right of appeal to the High Court of Justiciary, which Mr. Anderson exercised, but the Appeal Court is limited to consideration of a stated case, which is prepared by the sheriff who has himself tried the case. The defence then has the right to propose adjustments to the stated case but the sheriff is not obliged to accept them. In this case, the defence senior counsel, who was at that time himself a sheriff principal and vice-Dean of the Faculty of Advocates and had been present throughout the trial, signed ten pages of adjustments which in his view reflected the evidence.
The sheriff, however, rejected the lot except for one minor sentence which dealt with a procedural step. He also refused to grant counsel a hearing upon these adjustments. Such a hearing, again, is not obligatory but it is normal practice where the considerations are serious and the consequences grave. The Appeal Court decided that on the facts as stated by the sheriff—and I would emphasise "as stated by the sheriff"—he had been entitled to convict. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, who presided, said that the question of reliability of the evidence and identification was one for the Sheriff and not for the Appeal Court.
Under summary procedure in Scotland, no official record of the proceedings is taken, but in Mr. Anderson's case the senior shorthand writer used by the Crown to record evidence in jury trials took a complete unofficial record of the evidence. This was on the instructions of Mr. Anderson's solicitors and with the consent of the Court. The 178-page record so made could not be looked at by the Appeal Court, but it would be available to any form of inquiry that might be subsequently ordered.
Having lost his appeal, Mr. Anderson then petitioned to the equitable powers of the High Court, technically known as the Nobile Officium. I understand this is an extremely rare procedure. His petition was rejected as incompetent, on the ground that a form of appeal was provided by Statute and had been used. He then petitioned the Secretary of State for a Royal Pardon but this, too, was refused. His Member of Parliament, Mr. Alexander Fletcher and Mr. Malcolm Rifkind, the advocate, who is also an M.P., thereafter called for an inquiry in a debate on the adjournment which took place in another place on 11th April 1974, to which the Secretary of State for Scotland himself replied. I shall come to this in a minute or two.
Mr. Anderson's dismissal from his post and from the Civil Service resulted as a direct consequence of his conviction. I am drawing attention to his case not on that account but because there are many people in the Churches and in the law, both in Scotland and in England, in the Services and elsewhere, who are, to say the least, uneasy about the proceedings and about the conviction, and who feel strongly that the case needs to be raised again and that an inquiry into the whole circumstances is necessary. For example, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the very reverend the Lord MacLeod of Fuinary have each written to say that they believe the conviction and subsequent dismissal require re-examination. There are also over 1,000 signatories in all. For my part, I cannot claim to know Mr. Anderson at all intimately, but those who do consider that the offence of which Mr. Anderson was convicted is quite out of character. Having read the transcript of proceedings and thought very long and deeply about the case, I share the belief of many who are much more qualified to judge than I that the evidence certainly does not warant a conviction and that the Secretary of State should appoint an inquiry to examine afresh the circumstances of the case and make recommendations.
We all make mistakes, my Lords, and I have no intention of blaming anyone; but if, as I believe, the Sheriff was mistaken in finding Mr. Anderson guilty and

525
was mistaken in his selection and interpretation of the evidence which he submitted to the Appeal Court, it seems clear that there was no way under existing procedure that his mistakes could be remedied. We are then faced with the situation that not only was there a miscarriage of justice in this case, but that there is nothing to stop a similar miscarriage in future unless and until the law governing summary jurisdiction procedure in criminal cases is amended. I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply will be able to tell us that a review of the law is in progress and that we can expect recommendations soon.
I have been told that the defence evidence in the stated case was disallowed at the instance of the Crown Office. If this is so, it means that the Crown intervened to prevent the Appeal Court having before it evidence for the defence, including evidence not challenged by the prosecution. That would surely be a constitutional and legal outrage as well as an insult to the Appeal Court. If it were the normal practice in Scotland, that would only multiply the scandal. If this is the practice, I submit that it should end forthwith and never be allowed to occur again. In his reply to the debate in another place, the Secretary of State spoke of the need to maintain public confidence in the system of criminal justice in Scotland. Nothing could undermine such confidence more than failure to admit such mistakes when they occur and failure to take whatever steps are appropriate to mitigate their effects.
To show that mistakes have been made in this case, I am bound to go into some detail. I shall start with the points on which Mr. Anderson's case seems most vulnerable. He, too, made mistakes. I would imagine that this would not be the sort of action that a lawyer would take in the normal way, but I am not a lawyer. One of the grounds on which the Secretary of State refused the demands for an inquiry was that Mr. Anderson had written a letter to the Crown Agent which he subsequently withdrew. In it he stated that he had been out in his car and had spoken to two girls. The Secretary of State gave the impression that what Mr. Anderson said in his letter must have been true. Even Secretaries of State can make mistakes, but I am bound
526
to say that when the Secretary of State publicly revealed in the debate for the first time the existence of this letter, I, too, was shaken. But now I understand Mr. Anderson's reasons for writing it. I hope that on reconsideration Mr. Ross will also understand them.
One might ask: who, except under duress, ever admitted an offence of which he believed himself not guilty? Why, my Lords, hundreds and perhaps thousands every year do this in minor motoring offences. In such cases clients are often advised that the chances of acquittal are not better than even and that to save time, trouble, expense and publicity it is sensible to plead guilty. I doubt whether Mr. Anderson would have taken this course had he consulted an independent lawyer first, but even advocates do odd things when they fall foul of the police and their whole career is at risk.
Bear in mind, my Lords, that when Mr. Anderson wrote the letter he was not aware that he was to be accused of inviting the two girls to engage in judo with him and of tempting them with £1 each. For him, to avoid publicity was all-important not only if he was to retain his appointment but also because he was in the middle of an important public inquiry which the Glasgow Herald had recently estimated to have already cost £250,000. He thought that, if his case was taken along with the minor offences, it would probably pass unnoticed. After all, asking two girls the way to Troon in the dark might technically be a breach of the peace, but it was scarcely an heinous offence, warranting dismissal from the Civil Service.
But why, I may be asked, should he think it likely that he would be convicted if he pled "not guilty"? This is a difficult point, but Mr. Anderson was well aware that rumours had been in circulation, particularly in legal circles, about the circumstances in which he had resigned as Solicitor-General—rumours of which the sheriff was bound to have heard and which were likely, in Mr. Anderson's opinion, to influence him subconsciously. Mr. Anderson has always maintained that these rumours were unfounded, except in the case of one trivial incident in 1958 which he admits was an error of judgment on his part, but no more, and was certainly in no way in breach of the law.
There was yet another reason why he wanted to avoid publicity, to which he attaches the greatest importance in the light of his experiences in Norway during the war. He considered that there was a security aspect to the matter, and I will return to this later. But, meantime, what I want to make clear is that it was because of his preoccupation with the security implications that he went to see the Crown Agent. Whether or not he gave the Crown Agent that impression, I do not know. The Crown appeared to have accepted that the letter did not represent Mr. Anderson's recollection, for at the trial not only did they make no reference to it, but they held out publicly as Mr. Anderson's recollection the letter which he had submitted to the police when charged. The letter corresponded not only to Mr. Anderson's evidence in court, but also to his verbal replies to the police when first interrogated.
There was another reason why Mr. Anderson had doubts about his chances of a successful defence. He had been told categorically by the police, when they first interviewed him, that it was his car that had been identified. This is admitted by the police in evidence as recorded in the verbatim report. Moreover, the recorded evidence of the two girls shows clearly that the car they saw on the night of the incident was quite different from the car which they subsequently said was very like the car at the incident, though one said that she could not be sure. That brings me to the central question of identification, both of car and of man. I shall deal first with the car.
Within minutes of the incident one of the girls, who said she was interested in cars, wrote down on a piece of paper, which was kept and produced in court, the make, the colour and the registration particulars of the car as completely as she could remember them. The particulars were—a Chrysler, bright blue, with letters BSC and L as the year, and numbers which she wrote down as containing a 4 and a 5 and another different number which she had forgotten—a different number, my Lords. She said that she thought it was a Chrysler, as her mother was learning to drive one, a saloon, and she had thought this to be the very same car. Mr. Anderson's car was not a Chrysler but a Triumph; not
528
a saloon but an estate car; not bright blue but dark bluish-green, which I believe the makers describe as Mallard. By contrast, the same girl described Mr. Anderson's car as green when she saw it at the hotel.
Mr. Anderson's car had the registration letters described by the girl, but no 4 in its number. Its number was 555. When cross-examined, the girl was positive that the numbers were different from each other, and she worried about the right order. Mr. Anderson's 555 in a row do not have a right or wrong order. The second girl said that she took no interest in cars and had the impression only of the registration letters which she thought were BCS, which denote Ayrshire, not BSC which is an Edinburgh registration.
Two days later, when the girls were taken by police to look at cars outside hotels in Troon, they said that Mr. Anderson's car was "very like" the one at the incident. Under cross-examination it emerged that one of them meant "very like in size", and she said it would have been "more like" the car at the incident if it had been a saloon instead of an estate car. The other said that she recognised it because it was dark and dirty and looked very like the car which she had seen at the incident.
The sheriff, however, rejected the girl's evidence about the car number, on the ground that he thought she had, "no clear view of the number", and said so in his Stated Case to the Appeal Court. Yet the verbatim notes record that she said she had had a "quite distinct" view of the number plate from very close range for several minutes, in lighting which the sheriff himself described in his Stated Case as "very good". There was not a shred of contrary evidence. Nor is that all. Having thus rejected the written evidence of one of the girls, the sheriff, in his note at the end of the Stated Case, said that he accepted the evidence of both girls "in its entirety". Yet he did not accept either their evidence that they were not alarmed or the description of the car which they gave immediately after the incident. So much for the so-called identification of the car. I now turn to the identification of the man.
The Secretary of State, in the debate in the Commons, attached great importance to the identification of Mr. Anderson by the two girls. This took place

529
from within a police car at a range of 30 to 40 yards. The car was drawn up at that distance from the police station, at which it had been arranged for Mr. Anderson to call in his car at an agreed time to hand in a photograph of himself for the purposes of identification. The two girls sat together in the back of the police car, with two policemen in front. This broke two of the rules which are approved by the Chief Constables (Scotland) Association as necessary in the interests of reliability. In the adjournment debate in the other place, the Secretary of State claimed that the rule referred to did not apply as it appeared under the heading "Guidance in Relation to Identification Parades" and that the arrangement was not an identification parade.
Let me quote the words of the rule. Under a section headed "Detection of Crime", it reads:
"Where it is necessary that witnesses should have an opportunity of seeing a suspect who is not in custody and whose whereabouts arc known, only one witness at a time should be present at the place where the suspect is expected to appear, so that one witness should not influence the other."
The rule does not say "at the place where the identification parade is held". Cross-examined, the police witness agreed that the purpose of the rule was to avoid one witness assisting or affecting or consulting the other—to use his words—"in any shape or form". Clearly, it is even more important to avoid this if there is no formal identification parade, and if the witnesses are children. The fact remains that even if, technically, no rule was broken, the method of identification adopted was irregular and inappropriate, and the irregularity was not justified by any emergency.
Another rule was also disregarded. I understand that it is proper practice that witnesses should be given no lead when trying to identify. Yet the girls agreed in evidence that they were expecting the arrival of the car which they had seen at Mr. Anderson's hotel, and that they expected its occupier to be the person whom they had been brought specially out of school to identify. And identify him they did—a walking stanger at a distance of 40 yards. When one of the girls was asked in court how she had identified him, she replied that it was by his nose. Yet she agreed that she had
530
not really noticed the nose of the man who had accosted her; nor had the police noted it in the description which she had given soon after the offence.
Some reliance might reasonably have been placed on this so-called identification if Mr. Anderson had resembled the description given to the police by the girls on the night of the incident, but the description did not fit him at all. In court, one of the policemen read out from his notebook the description of the man which each girl had given to him when interviewed within two hours of the offence. The man described differed from Mr. Anderson in at least five particulars. The man's hair was described as white or blond—Mr. Anderson's was then darkish brown. They described the man's complexion as pink—one girl said "muddy"—but Mr. Anderson's is pale. They described his eyes as large and open in shape—Mr. Anderson's are somewhat narrow. As to his height, one put it at 5 ft. 6 in., but Mr. Anderson is over 5 ft. 9 in. His eyebrows were described as thick and grey—Mr. Anderson's were scanty and light brown. They also described him as well-built, whatever that may mean. At the time, Mr. Anderson might have been more accurately described as slight.
To crown all, when the first girl to give evidence in court was asked in the course of her evidence—not at the start of it—to identify the man who had accosted her, she pointed to the shorthand writer. There is no suggestion whatsover that he was involved, and when asked whether she was sure she said that she thought so, but it was a while ago. The significant point is, not only that he bore no resemblance at all to Mr. Anderson, but that out of about 16 men in front of the girl he most closely resembled the description she had given to the police. He had white hair, a ruddy complexion, thick grey eyebrows and thick-set build.
I am told that in most trials that would have been the end of the case. The procurator fiscal asked the girl to look around the court and she eventually pointed to the dock, where Mr. Anderson sat in isolation. Before leaving the matter of identification, I should refer to the evidence of Mr. Anderson's wife. The two girls agreed in evidence that the man was wearing a heavy grey/black tweed overcoat with a pattern and a tweed cap. Yet

531
Mr. Anderson's wife testified that she had helped Mr. Anderson to pack, and to put his things in the car, and had seen him off that day, and that the only coat and headgear he had with him were an unattended plain fawn raincoat and a brown felt hat. Her evidence was not challenged by the Crown. This was one of the many facts in the 10 pages of Adjustments which the sheriff refused to state to the High Court.
My Lords, the gravamen of the charge seems to me to lie in the word "alarm". There is no evidence that at the time of the incident the girls were alarmed. The girls said in evidence that the man came up behind them and said, "Excuse me." He was polite, well-spoken and sober. He asked the way to Troon. He said he came from Edinburgh and was staying in Troon. When asked by defence counsel whether she was upset in any way by the incident, one of the girls replied, "No, not really. I didn't really think about it till I came home and started to tell my mum." She also said that she did not think her friend was upset, either. She added that when they were walking away she and her friend were laughing about it. And the young assistant at the garage where they stopped on the way home, when asked by the procurator fiscal whether they seemed definitely put out and excited, said they were "not unduly excited." The girl told her mother that she thought the person was a bit of a crank.
That, my Lords, may have been a shrewd observation. Nobody would make a proposition such as the girls say was made unless either he was suffering from some mental illness or else he was sure the proposition would not be accepted. If the man's purpose was to damage the character and credibility of someone else, he would want the proposition to be so extraordinary that it would catch the headlines but at the same time so unattractive that there was no chance of its being accepted. If, on the other hand, the man was mentally ill, I submit that he ought to have been medically treated, and not convicted and punished. But the evidence is that Mr. Anderson was normal. I suggest that logic and medical opinion, therefore, point to impersonation.
So much for the credibility of the girls. No discredit to them; they were very young. But what about the probabilities and improbabilities? Is it likely that anyone, let alone an experienced advocate, would have told the girls where he came from and where he was staying? In the words of a former convener of the sheriffs principal, who has signed the petition and who was for 12 years the senior sheriff in Scotland, the conduct alleged against Mr. Anderson was "wildly improbable in a man of his character and intelligence".
All the circumstances would seem to make Mr. Anderson a most unlikely person to have gone out that night. He had spent the previous night in the train coming back from London with his wife. He had had a 20 minutes' break at home for breakfast and had then had to drive 80 miles across Scotland in mid-winter to an inquiry which began soon after 10. He spent a full day conducting it and then had to catch up with his work after three days in London. One important production in the case was his letter, dated that day, which was delivered with his completed work to his Civil Service Department. There was no time other than that evening during which he could have done the work, which would have taken about three hours. The evidence of the civil servants on this was not challenged at all. But the police thought it likely that Mr. Anderson was the man.
Why? Basing themselves on the statement of the man involved that he came from Edinburgh, the Ayr police got in touch with the Edinburgh police. Now the Edinburgh police had information which related to incidents reported to them between nine and 16 years previously and which purported to involve Mr. Anderson. As I have said, he has always strongly denied involvement in any of these incidents, except the one to which I have already referred when a young woman who lived in the same street where he had his chambers spoke to him in a railway carriage on the way back from a function in the constituency he was then nursing, and before the journey was over he had agreed to take her to see a film. For some reason that has never been explained to him, she was accompanied by a policewoman when

533
he met her at the cinema. His admission in that case seems mistakenly to have been interpreted as an admission that he was also involved in the remaining incidents which apparently occurred between early 1958 and the end of 1963. He has been given the precise date and times for only two of those, both of which were in Edinburgh on 28th December 1963, at times exactly stated. For these two he is able to prove from independent witnesses that he was in Perthshire that day and could not have been in Edinburgh at the times of these alleged incidents. If it is said that admission of one incident makes him liable to be thought to have committed all the others and he can prove not to have been there for two of them, then the same applies in reverse. Clearly, however, it was on the basis of these incidents that the police concluded, as they no doubt put it, that he had, "done it again."
Here we come to the most curious aspect of the case, and there are some who feel it may be the most grave. I have already referred to Mr. Anderson's Norwegian decoration. The citation was signed by their Foreign Minister, Halvard Lange, as well as by the King in person. Now Mr. Anderson's services not only benefited Norway but also had a bearing on the strategic control of parts of the Arctic and North Atlantic, and thus were correspondingly distasteful to the Russians. Mr. Anderson has evidence to show that they did not forget. Several very high ranking NATO commanders have signed his petition. These include two Vice-Admirals who have each commanded our Polaris fleet and another Flag Officer who was Vice Naval Deputy to the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, and also the Air Marshal who commanded the Berlin airlift, and a recent Supreme Commander in Northern Europe.
In 1969 he submitted to Security, through the late Lord Reid, a report of the approaches which had been made to him. In reply he was told that it had been decided to take no action, and Lord Reid added that he was right to have submitted the evidence. In 1972 he reported again through a friend who had recently resigned from the service. He was told that the Security Service would be making a report to the Crown Agent. Ten days later the then Lord Advocate
534
telephoned him to say that he was being considered for the new post of Chief Reporter. It is hardly credible that the Government would have appointed him if they had concluded that all his very detailed evidence about Norway and the subsequent harassment he had endured were just figments or delusions. If Mr. Anderson was being impersonated it could, of course, have been by Russian agents, but the point is that all this gave rise to a good deal of rumour.
Some of the early incidents are reported to have involved the use of a car number similar to Mr. Anderson's, although the man was again said to have borne no resemblance to him. He believes that the whole history, taken together, may well point to an attempt to discredit him, possibly so that his account of his experience in Norway would also be discredited if he reported it. The later incidents each occurred when he was prominently in the news. The two said to have taken place in Edinburgh when he was in Perthshire, were only two weeks after he had become a Member of Parliament at the widely reported Dumfries by-election. No further incidents were reported for nine years until this Ayr incident just after he had been made Chief Reporter and was again in the news.
No doubt to the police Mr. Anderson's brief reference to his involvement with a foreign Power must have seemed beyond belief, and merely reinforced their presumption that he was abnormal. Who would blame them? No doubt also his counsel was right not to raise the matter at the trial, for the effect on the Sheriff might well have been the same. However, the fact remains that in the petition which has been raised and which will be presented after the debate there is an impressive body of testimony as to Mr. Anderson's normality, integrity and stability of character: statements by his family doctor, reports by psychiatrists whom he was advised to consult in 1964, naval commanders under whom he served, schoolmasters who educated him as a boy, 12 of those who served with him on the bench of the Industrial Appeal Tribunal, and so on—shrewd people in touch with local feeling. Twenty-three of the witnesses and objectors from the inquiry he was holding in Ayrshire when he was charged and numerous friends and

535
neighbours who know him closely are among over 1,000 petitioners. I believe that the actual figure is 1,006, although I see from the Scotsman that it seems to have gone up to 1,010.
There were 130 lawyers who signed the petition, including 106 solicitors from 25 towns all over Scotland, and those who have read the verbatim notes are at a loss to understand how he could have been convicted. They regarded it as incomprehensible that the sheriff held back from the Appeal Court even the police evidence which favoured the defence, such as the description of the man by both girls which was read out in court from the policeman's notebook, so different from Mr. Anderson, or the police car test which showed that not less than 40 minutes' absence would have been needed from the hotel.
In the absence of the omitted evidence it is important to understand that all that the High Court could, or did, decide was that the sheriff was entitled to convict on his statement of the facts. It is true that the High Court did stress, both in Mr. Anderson's appeal and in his later petition to them, that the sheriff was an experienced one and that therefore all must be well. The Secretary of State in his turn adopted this reference to the sheriff's experience. Undoubtedly the sheriff was experienced. He had been sheriff substitute of Ayr and Bute for a great many years. But it does not follow that he was infallible. Since the Secretary of State has introduced this argument I am bound to tell your Lordships that there was another appeal from the same sheriff five months later by a Mr. Livingstone. I shall quote the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, who presided over both appeals. Speaking of the same sheriff's conduct in the later appeal the noble and learned Lord said:
"His questions savoured more of the role of cross-examiner than of presiding judge".
He then went on to say that the sheriff's conduct—and I use his words:
"disclosed that he was adversely inclined towards the accused,"
and also that he had failed to remind the jury about a defence of alibi. The appeal was allowed. I venture to suggest that it was unfortunate in the light of
536
the subsequent case that the High Court and the Secretary of State relied so strongly on this sheriff's experience to support a presumption that there had been no miscarriage of justice towards Mr. Anderson.
I ask your Lordships to note that the situation in the Livingstone appeal came to light only because it had been a jury trial and that the proceedings had been officially recorded by a shorthand writer. On this point I must draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, to fresh evidence which has come to light. There is the evidence of Dr. A. J. Bain, the Edinburgh psychiatrist whom Mr. Anderson was advised by the late Professor Sir D. K. Henderson to consult in 1964, about the time of his resignation as Solicitor-General. After six sessions, Dr. Bain could find nothing wrong with Mr. Anderson, but Mr. Anderson had pressed him to provide some health reason to justify his resignation. Dr. Bain was later concerned that what he had reported had been misinterpreted by the then Lord Advocate. He asked Sir David Henderson to see the Lord Advocate at the time but the meeting was refused. Seven years later, in May 1971, Dr. Bain felt obliged to place on record from his case notes what had happened. He died the next year. He asked that the contents of this memorandum should not be disclosed for three years. That period has now expired.
Second, after his death his widow sent Mr. Anderson the correspondence Dr. Bain had about him. The correspondence included a letter dated 6th April 1964 from the then Lord Advocate to Dr. Bain which makes it clear that although the Lord Advocate himself thought the evidence was overwhelming, he had not been able to extract any admission from Mr. Anderson. Mr. Anderson had, of course, volunteered information about the incident in 1958 to which I have already referred.
Given the limitations of Scottish summary procedure—no right to jury trial, no official record of the evidence, although a career may be at stake, and therefore no means of ensuring that the stated case is in accordance with the evidence; given also that abnormal and unreliable means were used by the police to obtain identification, given the strong

537
prejudice against Mr. Anderson arising from the belief that he had been involved in past incidents, all but one of which he has always strenuously denied, and that one a trivial matter over 17 years ago about which he denies any impropriety; given the palpable unreliability of the evidence of the two young girls, as shown by the written evidence, whose descriptions of the man himself, of the car and of the clothing each indicate some man other than Mr. Anderson; given also that the balance of probability was that Mr. Anderson did not go out that night—he was of good character, he had just been appointed to a new and important post, he was tired after a long journey, he had work to clear up, and his car was parked under a floodlight by the hotel's glass door in such a position that the hotel proprietor could scarcely have failed to notice if it had been away for more than a few minutes, let alone 40 minutes, which is the minimum time that would have been needed for Mr. Anderson to go to Prestwick, talk to the girls and return to the hotel. Given all these things—and that is without bringing in the security background with the implications it contains—surely much greater harm will be done to public confidence in Scottish justice if no inquiry is held than if an inquiry is allowed. Certainly over 1,000 people who signed the petition think so—an impressive cross-section of responsible opinion, both in Scotland and in England. This House may feel that no one would have gone to such very great lengths, through the courts, through the Houses of Parliament and bringing his case personally to the attention of so many people individually, if he had not had the strongest and firmest belief in his own innocence.
My Lords, I recognise that any Government is reluctant to allow an inquiry in one case lest it form a precedent for a flood of similar demands in other cases. I venture to think that, if there are strong reasons to believe that there has been a miscarriage of justice, that is a reluctance which ought to be overcome. If, as in this case, it also appears that the miscarriage of justice has occurred through a defect in the system—through the inability of the system itself to correct the mistake in the sort of circumstances which have arisen in this case—then there is all the more reason for having an inquiry.
I am not asking your Lordships to pass judgment on Mr. Anderson now, one way or the other. I am calling the attention of your Lordships and the Government to this case because I believe that it should be a matter of public concern and that the most careful and conscientious consideration should be given by the Government to the petition signed by over 1,000 people which will shortly be presented. I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, will be able to say tonight that the Government have changed their mind. If not, I hope that the Government wall agree to accept the petition and will decide to grant it, or if they are not entirely satisfied that there has been a miscarriage of justice from that alone, will set up an independent inquiry to review the case in all its aspects. I must apologise for keeping your Lordships for so long. I hope you will think, as I do, that it was worth raising this matter. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers,
6.7 p.m.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for spending so much time on this complicated case and for setting out as clearly as he has done the facts which are available. I do not know Mr. Anderson personally; I am not involved with Mr. Anderson in any shape or form and I did not sign the petition, although if I had done so I should have been in impressive company (as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has pointed out) of over 1,000 petitioners, all of whom asked for a public inquiry, including many distinguished Members of your Lordships' House, eminent lawyers, clergymen, professional people of all kinds—including many friends of mine in this House and outside: people, above all, of integrity, knowledge and, I would suggest, compassion.
I know of the particulars of the case only from the documents sent to me, unsolicited, by Mr. Anderson. I have studied them with great care and although it was stated in another place that his use of material was highly selective, I must say that in the material he sent to me I was favourably impressed by the fact that he made available both the cons and the pros. I was also enormously impressed by the constancy of his family and

539
his friends, which I take as a reason to react.
I was also filled, as was everyone else—with the thousand people who signed—with an unease which has caused me to intervene in this debate, although, as I have said, I do not know Mr. Anderson.
There is one thing I want to say here and now—the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, touched upon it; namely, the security aspect. I must say this because it is one of the things which discouraged me about the approach. With the revival at the present time of the "Reds under the beds" syndrome the arguments which I found the least plausible were those of a political conspiracy, an enemy conspiracy, which deliberately framed him both in the Edinburgh incident referred to, which led to his resignation as Solicitor-General, and in the incident we have been mainly discussing, of the two girls at Prestwick.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, in the debate in the other place, said that the account of the security or, if you like, Soviet involvement, was of quite extraordinary complexity. I agree. As a wartime director of plans and operations of political warfare, I am always surprised at the ubiquity and omniscience which we attribute to the KGB or, for that matter, to the CIA. The preoccupation of Mr. Anderson with the security aspect reminds me of the once-only reference by Lord Haw Haw on the Nazi Radio to the British town clock which stopped at five past twelve. It was what we called in those days a self-propagating "SIB". People in dozens of villages and towns all over Britain whose clocks had stopped—not necessarily the town clock; it could have been the clock in the high street—insisted that Lord Haw Haw referred to them, and that there must be a spy in their midst. They were really furious when the counter-espionage discredited the reports—furious because it implied that their town did not deserve a spy. I am not suggesting that the KGB are incapable, or would be incapable, of dirty tricks. On the contrary; I know of plenty. But I find it difficult to accept the long, long memory, and the long and tenuous reach of Moscow alleged in this case. As was pointed out, Mr. Anderson had an official mission in Norway at the end of
540
the war to forestall the Russians, which he executed effectively. But if everyone who frustrated Soviet intentions at that time, a quarter of a century or more later is to be given the black or the red spot, then Black Rod had better start worrying about the security of most of your Lordships' House.
Without any disrespect to the offices concerned—that of Solicitor-General or chief reporter of the Scottish public inquiry—I very much doubt indeed whether Soviet espionage would regard these offices, or the men in them, or even the background of Mr. Anderson, as a target for their sinister intentions. I am quite prepared to accept that Mr. Anderson believed that he was such a target, but I do not accept the ramifications, the ingenuity or, in this case, the extravagant misuse of resources by the KGB. I think Mr. Anderson probably did believe that, very much in the same terms that people took as an insult the fact that Lord Haw Haw had referred to their town yet they were not credited with having a spy. Those reservations do not at all prevent me from supporting the plea in this case for a public inquiry.
My reasons are completely uncomplicated. I am not involved personally with Mr. Anderson, but I do share with a great many people—including the eminent judges, Sheriff principals and lawyers who signed the petition—a serious misgiving about the Ayr trial, about the method, above all, of identification, and, incidentally, of the dismissal of the alibi put up, substantially, I thought, from the evidence by the hotel proprietors. As an old police court reporter, familiar with the sheiff court and other criminal courts from my early days, I have been always seriously concerned about the method of identification. It is so easy wrongly to identify, not by mischief but because of bad memory, of bad light, or bad almost anything. Therefore, in the case of this breach of the peace, where Mr. Anderson was fined £50 and was ruined as a public servant, which took place at Prestwick 8 miles away from Troon, the proprietors of the hotel in Troon were prepared to justify, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, pointed out, that he had been in a hotel at the time, that he had been heavily closeted with his work, and that his car was conspicuously there all the time. When Mr. Anderson was under

541
suspicion, the police arranged with him to hand in a photograph at a prescribed time at the police station. The two girls involved in the case—I am repeating what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said, because, I think it is important—were together in the back of the police car posted 40 yards from the police station when Mr. Anderson arrived by arrangement. The girls together—not separately —identified him as the man who had accosted them, although their description on the evening of the offence, as has been pointed out to the police, did not coincide with Mr. Anderson's actual appearance, or his hair, or his build, his complexion, or his height, or his eyes. The hazard of wrong identification is one with which all concerned with human rights are all to familiar. The police also are concerned, in conscientiously carrying out their duties. In Scotland, the Chief Constables have laid down rigorous procedures for this. In this case, the procedures condoned by the sheriff fell far short of the minimal safeguards which any one of us in respect of human rights would feel entitled to expect.
Mr. Anderson, with the loyal support of his family and others, has been fighting his conviction since 1973. I hope the Government will reassure the 1,000 concerned people: and if I may say so I hope the Government, with some sense of compassion, and above all respect for human rights, might accept the call for a public inquiry for a man whose career has been blighted. I stress and reinforce what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. Because of the unease which has been created in so many minds by this case, we should call for a revision of trial procedures.
6.18 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn in his Motion drawing attention to the unhappy case of Mr. Anderson. I should also like to declare that I do not personally know Mr. Anderson. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, I received a brief from Mr. Anderson unsolicited. Like many other Members of this House, and many Members in another place, I added my name to a petition some months ago calling for an inquiry, both in this case and over the general issue of the fairness of the exist
542
ing appeal procedure as shown up by this case. I therefore very much welcome what has been said by my noble friend and, indeed, the way he has said it. My noble friend has been for many years an eminent politician, both in Scotland and in Westminster. I do not think there is any Member of this House who has more experience in public life and in the judgment of political issues, who could have put his delicate case more convincingly. I hope very much that what he has said will be weighed very carefully by Her Majesty's Government, because the speech of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has expressed the very deep concern felt by a wide selection of people in Scotland.
As a layman, I recognise that the case of Mr. Anderson has been through all the legal procedures possible, and that any action by the Government must be for an exceptional reason sufficient to overcome the charge of interfering with the due processes of law. I believe in this case there is a good reason. It is simply that Mr. Anderson's case illustrates a glaring weakness in the appeal procedure. It is because of this that Mr. Anderson did not receive a fair hearing at the appeal stage, not necessarily through the fault of any individual, but because of the system.
On reading the case of Mr. Anderson a number of points of detail strike one forcefully, and most of these have been dealt with very carefully by my noble friend. To me, the most important is that here was a man who is a past holder of a high office of State; was then the Chief Reporter of Public Inquiries; served, as we know, in the Navy with distinction, and is a family man with three children. Here was an eminent man accused, convicted, and ruined by what one can only describe as a trivial charge. His reputation and his life were virtually shattered.
I would suggest to the House that many lesser men would have walked away from this situation, from further adverse publicity, after striving to clear their name through the courts. But not so Mr. Anderson. He has shown the same courage and tenacity that he showed in his distinguished war record. Rather than let time heal the wounds, he left no stone unturned both to prove his innocence and to expose the present weakness of the

543
appeal system. Each time he has, of course, exposed himself to further painful publicity, both to himself and to his family. As we know, he sought a Royal Pardon from the Secretary of State. Then his case was debated in another place last July, and now we have this debate today. Then, of course, as my noble friend said, he will shortly be submitting a petition to the Prime Minister.
His brave efforts, I suggest, have not gone unrewarded. He has received enormous, widespread support from many eminent Scottish people in all spheres of life; I think that the most convincing thing to me is that the support has come from all spheres of life. I believe that that petition is a sufficient reason for the Government to consider very carefully and sympathetically setting up an inquiry. Why has Mr. Anderson received so much support? In my view, it is because the evidence against him in that case, the disputed identification, indeed the procedure of identification as my noble friend described it, and the subsequent limitation of evidence on appeal showed up this glaring weakness, which in his case was an apparent unfairness at his trial and indeed a major defect in the present system.
In another place the Government's reply to the debate, which of course took place before the petition was raised, was based on two arguments. The first was that the present law on the question of appeal had stood the test of time for many years; and, secondly, that the Thomson Committee were already reviewing this sort of appeal procedure. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, when he comes to reply, can say how soon the Thomson Committee are likely to report and whether their terms of reference really cover the type of case of Mr. Anderson?
In supporting my noble friend's Motion, I should like to add my plea to the Government that the petition on behalf of Mr. Anderson demonstrates deep and serious disquiet over his conviction, and indeed the effect on possible future cases. That petition is supported by a wide section of people. I hope that, like all good democratic Governments, the present Administration will recognise that this is a demonstration which is sufficient as a reason for setting up an inquiry. No other course, I submit, will
544
bury the feeling that there was a miscarriage of justice in this unhappy case.
6.25 p.m.
Viscount CALDECOTE: My Lords, I think I should make clear at the outset that I have signed this petition for David Anderson. It is a sorry story of a man in public life whose character and reputation have been destroyed. The issue that has to be determined is whether the prima facie case that this was a result of a miscarriage of justice is so strong as to require a full inquiry. I sincerely believe it is and that an inquiry is essential, the outcome of which will be either to justify the action that was taken or to exonerate David Anderson and restore his character.
My Lords, I first knew David Anderson when we served together in the RNVR. He was a normal, energetic, conscientious, patriotic officer, devoted to the Royal Navy and to his native Scotland. I cannot believe that that man changed into a twisted, unhealthy, dishonourable crank such as is implied by the alleged evidence on which he was convicted, and accused without conviction. There is no point in repeating the long and detailed history the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has so carefully and accurately put before your Lordships, but I should like to emphasise two points.
First of all, in 1964 I understand Mr. David Anderson was accused privately on the basis of a police file that had been maintained without his knowledge from 1957–58, about that time. No prosecution had been made, and he did not, I understand, know anything about this file. At that time he was then coerced—perhaps "blackmailed" would not be too strong a word, but certainly coerced—into resigning as Solicitor-General for Scotland. It appears to have been very odd behaviour for the officials concerned. I do not doubt that all of them at all times acted in the course of what they believed to be their duty as they saw it. But I do not think we can get away from the fact that that kind of action, that kind of coercion, was more akin to the Star Chamber than to British justice. Those events before 1964 which we are told were on the police files, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has indicated, almost certainly affected the attitude of the police to Mr. David Anderson in

545
1972. It affected him in relation to the incident which took place at Prestwick, or was alleged to have taken place, and it no doubt contributed to his conviction.
Because of Scottish law, as the noble Lord indicated, no adequate appeal was possible. In those circumstances, those two circumstances taken together, surely we must come to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case of miscarriage of justice which has ruined David Anderson's life. There is, in my view, a clear and exceptional case for a full inquiry. If the Government refuse an inquiry—and I deeply and sincerely hope they will not—they will have to state their reasons. I hope they will not say that the expense and effort is not justified, for no expense is too great to rectify injustice of this magnitude. I hope they will not say we cannot have an inquiry because action at the time by certain people has to be covered up and kept confidential. No doubt, as I say, they all acted honourably in the circumstances of the time and in their own understanding of their duty. Perhaps at the time certain actions may have been in the national interest. There is no need now to keep those actions confidential. It is totally irrelevant.
I hope the Government will not use the argument of security, as I have heard it used in other sad cases. That is irrelevant now, too. I hope they will not use the argument that we must not create a precedent. Surely British justice is far too precious a jewel to use that argument. I believe that British justice has apparently been distorted. It stands accused of recklessly and irresponsibly destroying the character and life of a conscientious, patriotic public servant.
If a full inquiry is refused—and, as I say, I hope it will not be—not only will a person's character have been ruined without proper justification, but the fair name and the world-wide reputation of British justice will be forever tarnished. Can there be a better reason for a full inquiry? So with all the sincerity at my command, I implore the Government to accept the suggestion, request, petition for a full inquiry, so that we may know the truth of this matter, and the action taken may either be justified or Mr. David Anderson's character restored.
6.31 p.m.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in his very full exposure of what may be a grave injustice. The points of the case have been sufficiently gone into, and I think have proven quite definitely the need for an inquiry. The system of appeal to a summary trial by a sheriff is certainly regarded with great unease by a great many of my friends who are lawyers, and is under investigation at the present time. I have signed a petition calling for an inquiry. The whole matter was brought to my attention by a friend of mine who sent the papers to me, and when I read them it appeared to me that there was no doubt.
I do not want to reiterate arguments which have been so ably put by people who have studied the case and done a great deal of work on it. What I want to do is to assure the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and the Scottish Office, that the unease is real and great in all political circles and in many circles in Scotland, and that they cannot maintain what I am afraid has come to be regarded as a slight characteristic of the Scottish Office, an obstinacy about this matter. If they look at the list of people they will see that it covers a wide field of public ability and interest throughout Scotland.
The matter has now come to a point where an inquiry must be held in order either to clear the name of the Scottish Office or, as I hope, to clear the name of David Anderson. Like the noble Viscount, I would also implore the Scottish Office not to thrust this aside as they have done in the past, but to at least inquire into it.
6.33 p.m.
Lord HOY: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for rising at this time, but I have listened through the whole of the debate. I knew Mr. David Anderson, and still know him, and I shall not make any assessment of him one way or the other. In the course of this debate, certain things have been said of which I disapprove. Indeed, I heard the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, say that this was a condemnation of the appeal system in Scotland. I did not want to interrupt the noble Earl, but in what way did he think that the appeal system in Scotland was

547
failing? If he wants to get up and tell me now, I am willing to give way.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I was obviously too loose in my description. I was referring to the specific case, as in the case of Mr. Anderson, where the sheriff was sitting by himself with no jury. No oral evidence in the case was taken down, and the appeal, as I understand it, was based purely on law and not on the facts.
Lord HOY: My Lords, I am willing to accept the noble Earl's explanation, but I am certain that he will be grateful to me for having allowed him to put it right, because I think that on the whole the Scottish legal system operates very well indeed. I did not like Lord Drumalbyn's reference to the police in Scotland, as though they were building up a case without evidence. The noble Lord has considerable experience. The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, spoke about coercion. That was the word he used.
Viscount CALDECOTE: My Lords, I did not speak about coercion by the police.
Lord HOY: No, my Lords, but by the Scottish Office. This was a reference to the Secretary of State for Scotland at that time, who is this day a very distinguished Member of your Lordships' House. Indeed, if I recollect correctly—and I will be corrected if I am wrong—at that time he was ably served by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. I do not know, and I must ask, because I am referring to the noble Viscount, Lord Muirshiel. I cannot remember who was at the Scottish Office at that time. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was there at that time as a Member of another place.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I intervene? I am not quite clear what date the noble Lord is talking about. I left the Scottish Office in 1960.
Lord HOY: Then I think the noble Lord was there at that time.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: No, my Lords. I think the position was that what my noble friend said—and personally I do not wish to endorse it in any way—was that the
548
date in question was 1964. That is what I understood. I have been listening very quietly but intently to this debate.
Lord HOY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I, too, have been listening very carefully to it. No matter who was at the Scottish Office at that time it would not deter me from saying what I am about to say now. Whether it was one Party or the other, so far as Scottish law is concerned, we have been fair and gone out of our way to be fair to anybody who has been accused of any trouble.
All I want to say to your Lordships this evening is that this case has been gone through on a considerable number of occasions. I have a great regard for Mr. David Anderson, and I should not like to think that he had been convicted unfairly. I should like to think that if there was any suspicion of doubt, at all, that it could be given in his favour. At the same time, when we are debating an issue of this kind, I do not think we are entitled to use the opportunity to malign people who are responsible for the law in Scotland. The police, the law departments in Scotland, the Lord Advocate's Department, have all done a job for which we ought to be grateful. Before your Lordships reach any conclusion about this, while we are always thinking of seeing that justice is done to the person who is charged, I hope we will remember that we are grateful to those people who administer the law in our country, and I hope that we shall be as fair to them as we are to the accused.
6.38 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I do not wish to occupy much of the time of your Lordships' House. It was not my intention to intervene, although the papers came into my possession. I read them and was deeply impressed by the arguments the papers embodied, but when I hear my noble friend, who was a colleague of mine in the House of Commons for many years, defending the Scottish Office, I recall a case which occurred many years ago in Glasgow when the question of identification was the crucial point. It was the famous case of Oscar Slater, who was accused of murdering an old lady not far from where I resided in the Garnet Hill district of Glasgow. The whole case against Oscar Slater depended on identification. In the course of the

549
prosecution, several witnesses appeared and proved conclusively that they had witnessed this person, Oscar Slater, in the neighbourhood where the crime was committed. It was on the basis of the identification that he was convicted and sentenced to death, but was reprieved. Eighteen years afterwards, largely because of the submissions and the persistence of the late Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, it was decided to hold an inquiry, and Oscar Slater was pardoned. I have never forgotten that case, and largely because of my experience at that time—and the knowledge that this man, although he may have been guilty of other crimes, was in the end not proved guilty of this offence —I have always been somewhat suspicious about this issue of identification.
I hope the Scottish Office will not refuse to hold an inquiry or give some credence to the petition that is to be submitted to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the ground that the police never commit an error of judgment. I have had other experiences and though I have great admiration for our police force in the United Kingdom, particularly in the neighbourhood of Glasgow, one must occasionally exercise some prudence, some caution, in accepting everything that the police say in the course of a prosecution. In the circumstances, I am inclined to support the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in asking that the Government agree to an inquiry.
6.42 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, at this stage we are asked to comment one way or the other on the conviction of Mr. Anderson or the effectiveness of the Scottish legal system. However, I must say that when I looked at the papers which were sent to noble Lords and others, I was astonished at the way in which this appeal was conducted. To take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, who was discussing criticisms of the Scottish legal system—and far be it for me, a mere Englishman, to enter into that in any detail—if a person is convicted and on appeal in a summary case the only information which is laid before the superior court is that which emanates from the sheriff who convicted him on what is called a stated case, then the defence has the right to put in amendments to the stated case. As I understand this matter, the defence lawyers
550
acting on behalf of Mr. Anderson put in 10 pages of suggested amendments and all but one item in those 10 pages were then struck out by the sheriff before it went to the Court of Appeal. That is all I know and it strikes me as a very difficult situation for a defendant to be in, when going to appeal, if he cannot present the case in his own way, if his defence is not allowed to submit any argument it pleases, and if those arguments can be struck out not even by the prosecuting side but by the sheriff who convicted him in the lower court. I hope this matter is being looked into by the committee about which we have heard.
The matter which really concerns me and about which the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, spoke, is this: having looked at all the papers that have been sent to me by Mr. David Steel, who has taken a considerable interest in this case and has gone into it thoroughly, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, have had occasion to notice cases where persons have been convicted largely on evidence of identification and subsequently have been found to be innocent. I recall going to the Court of Appeal to hear a case which was in the list and while waiting for it to come on I listened to a case in which the evidence of identification was by a polite officer who was actually sitting next to the convicted person in a gas board van which was alleged to have been stolen. The person was convicted on the basis of the identification of the policeman who was sitting next to the accused for several miles until he was alleged to have opened the offside door and pushed the policeman out. After the man was sent to prison somebody came forward and asked for that offence to be taken into consideration in connection with another matter. The convicted person then appealed and, of course, got off on the basis of the confession of somebody else. If even policemen can make mistakes of identification, how much more likely is it that teenage children may do so?
The Government are themselves seized of this matter and have appointed a committee on identification procedures under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Devlin. They must have done so because of the number of convictions which have subsequently been overturned or have been the subject of a free pardon,

551
because the persons concerned have been found to be innocent. One must, therefore, ask how many other people have been convicted largely on the basis of identification evidence where findings of innocence have not later emerged. One must assume that if there is a large body of cases where people have later been exonerated, we are perhaps looking at the top of the iceberg and that there are many innocent persons suffering now largely because they have been convicted on the basis of identification evidence.
For this reason I warmly support the demand made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that at least there should be a public inquiry. That is the least we can ask for if the 1,000 people who signed this petition—and, surely the many others in addition who would have signed had they read the evidence—can be reassured that a miscarriage of justice has not taken place in this case.
6.47 p.m.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, this is a case about which there must be and surely will be an inquiry. It is merely a question of time. When public anxiety on a matter of justice such as this reaches a certain point, it must be assuaged by an inquiry, and if an inquiry is denied, public pressure will go on rising. There must be an inquiry and the Government only discredit themselves by continuing to resist holding one; that is, when the point has been reached at which it is clear that an inquiry must be held. That was the common factor in the cases of Dreyfuss, Adolph Beck and Oscar Slater, to which my noble friend Lord Shinwell referred, and a great many others—the extraordinay resistance shown by Government over years and years until finally they had to give way, as they will have to give way here and justice was done.
Here is a case in which a man is destroyed because one other man chooses to believe in the identification of two children who had seen the man they spoke of for the first time. How can anyone say that that is safe? I really urge the Government to accept the inevitable and say. "This is a case which at some point must be inquired into and it is better to do it now than to build it up
552
and up", as one found in Dreyfuss, Adolph Beck and Oscar Slater. The more one holds it back the more inevitable it becomes, and the more discreditable it becomes, hen it does come.
6.50 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, Parliament has a traditional and honourable role as the place where individual cases can be raised for redress of alleged wrongs. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has raised the case of David C. Anderson and I can have no complaint about that. My only regret is that this gives a fresh airing to unfortunate circumstances that were already fully discussed in a debate in another place on 11th April 1974. I am afraid that, like my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on that occasion, I have no real comfort to offer the noble Lord. I should make it clear at this stage that what I shall say in the course of this debate has the full support and agreement of my right honourable friend.
It is important for the House to bear in mind what is the extent of the Secretary of State's function in a case of this kind. His prime function is to uphold the rule of law. What has been done by a court of law must be presumed to be duly done and its orders upheld unless there is reason to doubt its correctness. His second function, and one that the Secretary of State, like his predecessors, finds one of his heaviest responsibilities, is to consider whether there are any reasons to doubt the correctness of a verdict. If information comes to his attention that the court's verdict appears to have been in error—that a person who was innocent may have been convicted—then it is his duty to investigate the case and weigh up the fresh issues carefully against the court's decision and, if there are sufficient grounds, to provide a remedy. For this purpose, he has been given the extraordinary power to make recommendations to Her Majesty the Queen for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of mercy.
I have referred to it as an extraordinary power because such it is. The Secretary of State is not empowered to re-try a case and decide on the merits of a conviction on the evidence at the trial. Leaving aside his lack of powers for the moment,

553
even a Court of Appeal armed with a transcript is in no happy position to do that where there is evidence sufficient in law, for it has not heard the witnesses under oath and examination and observed their demeanour. What is required, if ho is to exercise his powers in a case of this kind, is some additional information—some further factor—not before the court, which points towards a miscarriage of justice. it cannot be some fanciful or unconfirmed doubt or possible alternative explanation. It must be a factor of substance.
I am sorry to have taken so much of your Lordships' time in this explanation. But it is of importance since the main substantive factors not before the court in this case were not, to the Secretary of State's mind, of a disincriminating nature. The issue before the court in this case was whether on the evening of Monday 18th December 1972 Mr. Anderson was involved in an incident with two girls in the Prestwick area as the prosecution alleged or whether his alibi that he had been all the time in a Troon hotel was correct. The court heard the evidence of the witnesses and convicted Mr. Anderson, as the Court of Appeal held it was entiled to do on the evidence. Mr. Anderson took the further step of applying to the nobile officium of the High Court of Justiciary but his application was unsuccessful. He subsequently applied to the Secretary of State's predecessor for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of mercy. The latter—now the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and a Member of this House—examined the case with, I am sure, the care which successive Secretaries of State have shown in such cases, and concluded that there were no grounds which would justify him in recommending exercise of the Prerogative. In view of the nature of the offence of which he was convicted, Mr. Anderson's appointment as Chief Reporter to the Secretary of State for Scotland was terminated.
Before I turn to the circumstances in more detail, there are some preliminary points which I should like to make in view of the criticisms which have been made of summary criminal procedure in Scotland and of the right of appeal in summary cases. First, I am rather surprised by the wide-ranging nature of the adverse comments made by the noble Lord, Lord
554
Drumalbyn, and other noble Lords. The number of cases disposed of annually by the summary criminal courts in Scotland—these are the sheriff court and the district court—is well over 200,000. I am not aware of any general feeling of disquiet in Scotland about these courts and their procedures. I say this with some confidence since, as it happens, we have recently received the main report of the Thomson Committee on Criminal Procedure, which has carried out a detailed review of procedures in the criminal courts of Scotland. It stated as one of its general conclusions the following:
"It became apparent to us early in our deliberations and from the evidence we received from our witnesses that our existing system of criminal procedure was fundamentally sound and that improvement was all that was needed and not radical change".
It went on to say:
"We consider it of the highest importance to preserve the basic distinction between solemn and summary procedure and we have been at pains to ensure so far as practicable that none of our recommendations affect the summary nature of summary proceedings".
The second point I should like to make at this stage concerns the right to demand a jury trial. The noble Lord has commented that an accused has no right to demand a jury trial in Scotland. This of course is true, but again I should like to refer to a conclusion of the Thomson Committee. The Thomson Committee considered whether an accused person served with a summary complaint in the sheriff court should have a right in certain serious cases to apply for trial by jury, a matter earlier considered by the Grant Committee on the sheriff court. The Thomson Committee stated that all its witnesses were opposed to this proposal and that it shared the views of the witnesses and of the Grant Committee in opposing it.
The third of my preliminary points concerns the right of appeal. It has been criticised for its limited scope—what right of appeal in criminal cases has not? The criticism may well be justified and it may be that the Thomson Committee on Criminal Procedure, now that it is quit of its main report, may be able to devise some practicable improvements in the nature of the appeal. But it is the present law of Scotland and has been for many years; nor could inadequacy in rights of

555
appeal be quoted as evidence suggestive of a miscarriage of justice in the court of trial.
The last of my preliminary points is that, whatever may be said about aspects of the case such as identification—to which I shall return later—there is no doubt that Mr. Anderson was duly convicted in accordance with the criminal law of Scotland.
At this stage, I should like to make reply to one or two questions put to me in the course of the debate, and to do so before talking about the facts of the case. First of all, the noble Lord, Lord Drumablyn, mentioned the fact that no official record of trial proceedings need be kept of summary criminal procedure. I would remind him that, in respect of Mr. Anderson's trial, that trial was similar to others under summary criminal procedure in Scotland. As I have said, the Thomson Committee will look at appeals as the next stage of its study of criminal procedures. I cannot say what will be its conclusion on that issue. The noble Lord, Lord Drumablyn, also referred to the fact that a decision by an experienced sheriff in a subsequent case was commented upon adversely by the Appeal Court.
I do not feel that it would be appropriate for me to go into detail about another case. I believe that the noble Lord will be aware that it is difficult to draw conclusions by a comparison of two individual cases. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, also asked how Mr. Anderson could have been appointed a chief reporter, if there was no substance in his report to the security service. I can best reply to that by quoting what my right honourable friend said in another place on 11th April 1974:
"Mr. Anderson had…conducted a number of public inquiries satisfactorily on a fee-paid basis before he was appointed to the Civil Service as a full-time Chief Reporter, and the obvious assumption is that he was considered by all concerned to have the qualifications for the job and to be a suitable person for a Civil Service appointment, subject to the satisfactory completion of a two-year probationary period of service."—[Official Report, (Commons), 11/4/74: cols. 697–8.]
I turn to the question posed by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who asked how soon will Thomson report and will the terms of reference be wide enough to
556
cover appeals in cases such as that of Mr. Anderson? I can respond by saying that the report on appeals is expected in about a year's time. The Committee has just sought written evidence about appeals procedure, and its terms of reference are wide enough to allow it to consider appeals in summary cases such as this.
I shall now deal with the facts of the case. These were that the police were called in as a result of an incident in which two young girls were put in fear and alarm by a man who approached them and made offensive suggestions to them in a street in the Prestwick area on the evening of 18th December. Police inquiries suggested the possibility that Mr. Anderson, who had been resident in a hotel in Troon on that night, might have been the man involved. When they called at the hotel they interviewed the proprietors who informed them, as they subsequently gave evidence, that, to their belief, he had been in the hotel all evening, though not in their sight. The police afterwards interviewed Mr. Anderson and asked him if he would be willing to take part in an identification parade where he could be seen by the girls.
He subsequently informed the Crown agent that he declined to take part in such a parade,
"to protect the repute of my post",
but he offered to obtain and provide a photograph of himself for identification purposes. However, before this was handed over the police, as they were entitled to do in their function of investigating crime, made other arrangements with regard to possible identification. They arranged for the two girls to be at a place at which Mr. Anderson arrived and they identified him as the man they had met. He was then charged.
At the trial Mr. Anderson put in the special defence of alibi and, as I have said, the sheriff, performing the court's function of reaching decisions on disputed facts, heard the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution and the defence and reached his verdict. Here I should like to make three points about the trial, relating to identification, an aspect of the case to which noble Lords have devoted some attention. The first relates to eye-witness visual identification itself. It is a known fact that it is fallible;

557
known from cases in which subsequent evidence fortunately was obtained which showed it to be fallacious. Secondly—and this too is a common experience—there were differences in detail between the girls' attempt to describe the man they had met in words to the police and Mr. Anderson as visually identified. Thirdly, the identification has been attacked on the grounds that in the arrangements made in lieu of an identification parade, the police did not take a step recommended to reduce the possibility of witnesses influencing each other in their identification. Identification was, of course, a key issue which was fully canvassed at the trial and, as I have said, there are no grounds for argument that the trial was not propely conducted and concluded according to law.
I turn now to the relevance of these points to the Secretary of State's functions—and this is very important. It might be suggested that they are factors to be weighed in the scale, as there are factors of this kind in many criminal cases. But they were issues already before the court, and they could not be argued to be of sufficient weight, without additional considerations or information, to justify Ministerial intervention on a judgment duly made by a court of law.
As to additional information, the matter of greatest substance must be the statements made to the Crown agent, the official head of the Scottish prosecution service, and two senior Scottish Office officials by Mr. Anderson between his being charged and the time of the trial. In a letter of 26th December 1972 to the Crown agent he gave a circumstantial account of his leaving the hotel on 18th December 1972 and meeting two young girls in the Prestwick area and upsetting them, although presenting an innocent explanation of how this occurred. When interviewed by two senior civil servants on 10th January 1973 about the possible effect of the offence charged against him on his employment he also referred to a meeting, unfortunate and perhaps misjudged though innocent, with two young girls as the explanation of the charge.
Subsequently he wrote to the Crown agent to the effect that, after further thought, he had come to the conclusion that the incident of which he had given
558
an account took place on another date. In a letter to the solicitor to the Secretary of State for Scotland he also gave an explanation of the account given to the two senior civil servants—to the effect that it was a speculation by him on how he could have so caused alarm unintentionally and forgotten about it. I shall not go beyond what the Secretary of State said about those events in another place except to say that this is not the sort of additional information that would justify him in intervening in a verdict of a court of law.
My Lords, as to other factors Mr. Anderson has been an assiduous correspondent, in particular alleging a long-term plot against him by a foreign Government. As to the plot, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in his speech in another place made the statement, with the authority of the Home Secretary in view of his security responsibilities, to the effect that he (the Home Secretary) had investigated Mr. Anderson's assertions but had concluded that there was no justification for further review or independent inquiry. I should make it clear that, in relation to Mr. Anderson's conviction, this is relevant only in so far as it raises the hypothesis that Mr. Anderson was deliberately impersonated at Prestwick on 18th December 1972. All I can say is that I am advised that there is no evidence to confirm or support such a possibility.
As I have said, my Lords, his powers in relation to the Royal Prerogative are among the most anxious the Secretary of State possesses. It is no duty of his—very much the opposite—to cast doubt on decisions duly reached by courts of law. He cannot retry a case; nor can he appoint some other person to act as a judge and retry it on his behalf. But, if representations are made to him that a miscarriage of justice has occurred by the conviction of an innocent man, then, in a case like this, his recommendation for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative is the only remedy and he must examine all the existing facts, and any further relevant facts which inquiry might produce, and consider whether the exercise of the Prerogative can be justified. This is what the Secretary of State has done. This is what his predecessor did early in 1974. The present Secretary of State reviewed the case later in 1974. In each case they

559
came to the conclusion that no further action was justified.
This it not to say that the mind of the Secretary of State is closed. Secretaries of State must, and do, remain open-minded on Prerogative cases and are always prepared to consider new information if it is forthcoming, and certainly the petition which is to be submitted could be considered in that light, as indeed would Dr. Bain's memorandum if it can truly be described as being new evidence. But if the proposal here is for some general review of the facts and factors, which have been gone over many times before, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State does not accept that there is a case for it or that it could assist him in the Prerogative decision, which it is for him alone to take.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I do not want to say anything about this particular case or about the action of the Secretary of State, but I must say this. In England summary cases are tried by magistrates. There are very many more than 200,000 a year; there are 21,000 magistrates; and there is a very much wider range of jurisdiction. In every case where there is a conviction by magistrates there is an absolute right of appeal to the Crown Court to have the case reheard ab initio—witnesses, cross-examination, and all. After 50 years' experience of the Bar and four, very nearly, as Lord Chancellor, I consider this an absolute necessity for the protection of the subject.
7.10 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful, first of all, to those noble Lords who have spoken in this debate today. I am also grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham for intervening so powerfully at the end with his brief but very cogent comment.
As I say, I should like to thank those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, including the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, who I thought, if I may say so, slightly misrepresented what I said, because I was not attacking the police in any way whatsoever. I was merely pointing out that they had made a mistake in the rules concerning identification, and anyone can make a mistake. As to what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has said,
560
he has given an indication of what the Secretary of State would require by way of further evidence. What I should really like to say to him is this. Here is a case which was sufficiently important for the procurator fiscal to refer to the Crown Office from the start. It was put straightaway in a category different from that of the normal case. That being so, there is some reason for saying that, because of its implications, it needs special consideration.
In this case, unlike other summary cases, a full verbatim report was taken and transcribed. My complaint is that that full verbatim report has not been considered and cannot be considered, it appears, at the present time. This seems to me entirely wrong. The noble Lord talks about the facts having been gone over, but so far as I know nobody has seen the verbatim report. With permission, I shall put a copy of it in the Library, so that noble Lords can look at it for themselves. I think that this is something which the Secretary of State must look at and must study, and decide whether the sheriff took account of all the evidence when he prepared his stated case for presentation to the High Court. Unless this is done, there will be a great deal of dissatisfaction.
It is all very well to say that this is the way in which matters are normally dealt with in Scotland and the way in which they have been dealt with for a very long time. I must say that I find this a curious argument for the Labour Party, of all Parties, to use, which claims to be a Party of progress and change. If something can be shown to be going wrong here, and if special action has to be taken, then it should be possible to take it and to correct the mistakes, as I said earlier. I say that the first action that should be taken is for the Secretary of State to have a careful look at the verbatim report, and make up his mind on the subject. If he is satisfied, after looking at it, that the sheriff was entitled not to put the evidence into the stated case, then this is a matter on which I might have to ask noble Lords to make up their own minds again at a later date. But I say to the noble Lord, with the greatest of respect, that I do not think that it can be said that this matter has been fully explored. The noble Lord wishes to intervene?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I intervene merely to say that I hope the noble Lord will accept that the Secretary of State does not view this matter in the light of being a Party politician. The noble Lord's reference to the Labour Party, I should have thought, should be struck from the record.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not think I can strike anything from the record, but what the noble Lord was saying, in effect, was that this is the way matters have always been treated in summary jurisdiction cases for a long time past, and I was commenting that this was an odd thing for the noble Lord to say. This is, of course, not a Party matter. I was complimenting the noble Lord by saying that the Labour Party had claimed to be a Party of progress. I am asking for the progress.
My Lords, I think that this debate has been conducted in a very fair manner. I accept the position that the noble Lord has taken up as of now, within the present range, but I hope that when the petition arrives and is being studied—and I am quite certain that the petition will be accompanied by a copy of the verbatim report—this will be taken into consideration in full because there must be some way, where mistakes are made, to look at them and decide that they should be put right. My Lords, having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

OVERSEAS STUDENTS' FEES
7.15 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN Lord GLADWYN rose to ask Her Majesty's Government on what grounds they have recommended that the increase of fees to be paid by overseas students from 1976–77 as an interim measure should be twice those paid by British students. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I suppose I should begin by declaring my interest in the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I am the chairman of what is called UKCOSA, the United Kingdom Council for Overseas Student Affairs, an independent body which does its best to protect the interests of overseas students in this country, for whose welfare we surely ought, not only in our own interests, as
562
I shall seek to show, but also, I think, largely out of some remaining sense of obligation, to pay special regard.
My Lords, according to the latest statistics there are about 95,000 of such persons in the United Kingdom, but if you subtract the 20,000 nursing students (who of course get paid for their invaluable services), together with language assistants (who are also paid) and another 17,000 or so who are in the private colleges, in the Inns of Court, in industry or business, and so on, you get an approximate total of 53,000 who form the effective overseas student population of this country. Of these, the largest section is that of university post-graduates and undergraduates (15,000 and 10,000 respectively), closely followed by those in further educational colleges (21,000, mostly from the Commonwealth), while the polytechnics absorb about another 6,000. Of the 53,000 it is thought (although for some extraordinary reason there are apparently no statistics on this point) that about 23,000 are supported by some kind of scholarship award or grant; and among them, of course, are the officially sponsored students, whose fees are paid for them anyhow by Her Majesty's Government, by their own Governments or by international agencies. All the remainder—that is to say, about 30,000; but, as I have indicated, there might well he more—are dependent on their families or local communities in their home countries, or on their own personal savings, if any.
Naturally, some of these people have means of their own, more particularly, though by no means always, if they come from rich or what might, I suppose, be called nouveau riche countries. But the great bulk, chiefly from the poorer Commonwealth countries, find it extremely hard both to find and to make do on the £20 to £30 a week, which is now about the minimum required for mere existence in the United Kingdom. This is all the more the case if, like many of the post-graduate students, they are, not unnaturally, married. It is, I need hardly say, this category which is hardest hit by the recently announced 30 per cent. increase in the fees which they pay, which for those in universities and advanced further educational establishments, as they are called, will now come to no less than £416 a year, as compared with £250 a year in 1974–75, home students paying

563
only £182 and, in some cases, £150 for the same facilities. There is, therefore, unhappily, good reason to suppose that, given the economic climate now prevailing all over the world, a fair number (and possibly even, I am afraid, a large number) will now simply be forced to pack up and go home.
Should that happen, then, apart from any other consideration, Britain will be deprived of the £1,000 to £1,500 a year which they, the people who may go, spend in this country, and our balance of payments will therefore presumably, pro tanto, be unfavourably affected. Indeed, it has been calculated—and this is an interesting point—that for every 1 per cent. of students who leave there may well be half a million pounds or more loss of income to set against the saving in fees. Under this showing, therefore, a loss of no more than 5 per cent. of students (shall we say, about 1,500?), could result in a net financial loss on balance to this country. Nor can it be denied that in a general way we stand to gain enormously if overseas students go back to their country with a good opinion of Britain and capable of putting their acquired skills to good use in the lands from which they come. Furthermore, they will tend to favour good relations with Britain and look to us as natural trading partners. Up to this point I hope that your Lordships will agree that I have confined myself to a simple statement of uncontestable facts.
It is with this background that I approach the recent decision, made public in a Written Reply to a Private Notice Question in another place on 16th December last. What must strike any observer is that this procedure bears what might be described as a sinister resemblance to the procedure adopted in 1967 (when discrimination was first introduced) by the Labour Minister of Education. In both instances it must be assumed—we can hardly assume otherwise—that the intention was to avoid any criticism that might be voiced in Parliament of a measure of which, in its heart of hearts—if that is not an absurd expression in the circumstances the Government were probably ashamed.
It is true that the present Minister has been cleverer than his 1967 predecessor;
564
for on the face of it he seems to have squared the Vice-Chancellors—something which his predecessor, as noble Lords who heard the debate in this House in February 1967 will remember, signally failed to do. It is, however, a pyrrhic victory since the recommendation of the interim report of a Joint Working Party of the Vice-Chancellors' Committee and the University Grants Committee runs directly contrary to the great bulk of the arguments involved. It is true that, as an interim, or short-term measure, the Working Party suggested that the fees of all students (that is to say, both home and overseas students) should be increased by 30 per cent. to keep them, in real terms, at the 1975–76 level. It was no doubt hoped in this way to create or to seem to create an atmosphere of impartiality. It does not appear to have occurred to the Working Party that such a measure would increase the deplorable discrimination against overseas students initiated in 1967, and all overseas students will be aware that the vast majority of their home-based colleagues do not pay a fee—in any case, 60 per cent, less than theirs—but, in effect, have them paid for them by the State, by one means or another.
Above all, the present Minister has seized on the Working Party's tentative recommendation without seemingly having paid attention to other features of this rather tortured report, whole paragraphs of which—I hope I shall not bore your Lordships—are well worth quoting. For instance, in paragraph 27, it says:
"Overseas members of universities have always been most welcome and their presence has itself contributed a special dimension to the quality and character of the work and achievements of the universities.… There can be no doubt that Britain benefits from the cross-fertilisation of ideas and cultures and the mutual understanding that are fostered by the international movements of students and scholars."
How true! A little further, one learns that:
"…one main effect of higher fees, other things being equal, might be to reduce the numbers of applications from overseas students in a way related to the ability of the student or his government to pay. Any seriously diminished opportunity to recruit overseas students would be of academic disadvantage to the British universities. Apart from the general stimulus and educational influence that comes from the presence of able people of

565
overseas background, their entry, especially at the post-graduate level"—
and I emphasise "post-graduate level"—
"…increases the concentration of students with advanced training and exceptional ability in a way which makes the British universities more attractive and academically productive."
It concludes with the striking words:
"A substantial increase in discrimination in fees (or perhaps even any further increase in the level of overseas student fees) could be very damaging to the universities."
That is what the report declares.
My Lords, quite apart from this strange way of leading up to a proposal for a large and discriminatory increase in the fees payable by overseas students, the Working Party moreover says that it will welcome wide discussion before making final recommendations and that if it is felt to be in the national interest—thereby passing the buck back to the Government—to limit or reduce the size of the subsidy at present provided for the education of overseas students, all kinds of alternatives should be considered including the mitigation of numbers by quota and, even, a "tariff-quota" system in respect of which, not unnaturally, it sees grave difficulties.
My Lords, one of the simplest solutions, to which it does not allude, is that all fees payable by qualified—I repeat "qualified"—overseas students might as an excellent form of "aid" be met out of the existing budget of the Overseas Development Ministry, pruned, perhaps, of some of its present, more questionable, items. Such a reform might be all the more acceptable in the light of the recent report by M. Tindemans on the future of the European Community to the effect that we should
"…gradually transfer to the Community a substantial part of national appropriations intended for development cooperation (major development projects, food aid, financial aid) and in coordinating the remainder of our activities in this field."
That is what is proposed by M. Tindemans. In other words, that eventually we should have a common aid programme as well as a common agricultural programme and, no doubt, therefore, a common policy as regards overseas students fees all of which ideally could be met out of common funds.
As for students from the wealthier and oil-rich countries—to which we know in the last few days attention has been drawn
566
in the Press—I would draw noble Lords' attention to paragraph 33 of the Working Party's interim report:
"While there are strong temptations to charge what the traffic will bear in the case of wealthy oil countries—and indeed it has become fashionable to talk in terms of 'paid educational services' involving the imposition of full-cost charges on a contractual basis—there are good reasons for caution in moving in this direction. Such schemes are simple only when they involve courses mounted specially and the normal practice of charging the full cost can be applied, and they are also likely to conflict with the paramount need for the selection of individual students to be a matter for the admitting university to decide and not one that can be subsumed by inter-governmental agencies or private contractors."
Again, the report says that.
My Lords, turning now from the virtual condemnation of the Government's recent action by the Vice-Chancellors' study group, we might profitably recall what was stated in the Overseas Development Ministry's White Paper in October last. Here, when describing its admirable policy of More Help for the Poorest, the Ministry observes that:
"We believe that it is essential that a poverty-focused aid policy has to be related to the circumstances of each individual country and that one has to proceed by means of detailed programmes related carefully to the circumstances and wishes of each country and not by way of general guidelines to be applied regardless to all countries."
It adds:
"We shall continue to offer training and further education in this country for those who require it and for whom the appropriate facilities are not available or cannot be economically provided nearer home."
It must be clear to any unprejudiced person that the latest fee increases contradict both these laudable aims in that they hit rich and poor students alike and actively discourage those from the poorest sections of the poorest countries from taking up training opportunities in the United Kingdom, no doubt in fields where there may well, as things are, be spare capacity in our own educational establishments—a point on which the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, is going to dwell in his forthcoming intervention.
Noble Lords will now possibly be in a position to judge whether the recent action of the Government was at all reasonable; and if they are not so persuaded by me, I feel they will be unable to resist the much more powerful arguments put forward by Professor Rolf

567
Dahrendorf in his splendid article in yesterday's Daily Telegraph. Why then did the Government do such a foolish thing? To save a little money? But it looks as if even this objective will not be achieved. To quieten apprehensions of certain local education authorities? Perhaps. Or was it to appease some of their supporters, or others, who do not care for foreigners, of whom, according to Mr. Enoch Powell, there are already far too many in this country? Quite possibly, I fear.
As to the local authorities, the new increases and the associated DES Circular to them (14/75) is only a further proof of the lapse of interest in overseas students following the flat rate increases that came into effect last year These increases were at least the same for British as for overseas students—that is, not discriminatory—and the then Secretary of State, Mr. Prentice, asked local education authorities and universities to exercise their discretion in cases of hardship. Yet in Circular 14/75 there is merely a reference back to an earlier circular on the question of using discretion.
Admittedly, the allocation by the University Grants Committee of hardship funds to universities seems to have met, or may have met, the needs of students in difficulty as a result of last year's increases, but whether it will do so in the wake of the much larger increases proposed for the coming year is very doubtful. In the State sector colleges, where the largest number of overseas students are studying (as well as the largest proportion of students from developing countries), the local education authorities do not seem, unless I am wrong, to have waived fees in cases of hardship. The same arrangement may therefore be totally inadequate to meet the hardship which these fresh increases will cause. Special central arrangements will obviously be required. I hope that the Government realise that.
But, my Lords, whatever the reason for the Government's foolish action, and whatever the steps taken to mitigate its effects, one thing stands out a mile. Her Majesty's Government's policy discriminates heavily between home and overseas students, a thing that no other advanced European democracy, save only
568
the Irish Republic, has ever ventured to do. Indeed, in many of these democracies (including the Federal Republic which, admittedly, has a quota but not a serious quota) no fees whatever are charged, and in France there is only a nominal fee equivalent to £15. France, surely, is in a position very similar to our own. She stands, as we do, at the head of an important language and cultural area and she has, as we have, certain continuing responsibilities as a one-time head of a world-wide Empire. It is true that, under the French system, there are more university students than with us; it is true that the students do not usually, as usually with us, have a tutor or the equivalent of a tutor. This applies to all French students and therefore there is no discrimination in this respect. But none the less, 9 per cent. of the total French university student body—that is to say some 60,000 as opposed to our 25,000—are from overseas. The very idea of penalising seekers after knowledge in metropolitan France is foreign to the French mind, as it should be to ours, were we not in some danger of being overwhelmed by an inward-looking and indeed a provincial mentality that can probably only be countered by the triumph of the European idea and the consequent gradual formation of a more outward-looking democracy.
The real trouble with our present system, which results in such ultimately self-destructive measures as the latest discriminatory increase in student fees, is, in fact, that there is no body, and certainly no person, responsible for considering the problem as a whole in the general interest of this country. All the many Ministries involved have their own axe to grind, some of them very small and local axes. Eventually some compromise emerges from the machine which is then perhaps rubber-stamped by the Cabinet. But since there is no governmental spokesman for the unfortunate overseas student himself, it is inevitably the grievances of some local authorities, or even the complaints of those who dislike foreigners—and particularly dark foreigners—to the effect that our own students are not getting a fair deal, which carry the greatest weight.
After the last fuss we made in Parliament some eight years ago, an attempt was eventually made by the Foreign and

569
Commonwealth Office to remedy this situation to some extent; but with the transfer of Mr. Kershaw to other duties, and with the change of Government it seems unfortunately to have faded out. This is a great pity—particularly as in May 1974, the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, now a Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, agreed to regard it as part of his Ministerial responsibilities to take an interest in matters affecting overseas students. Was the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, consulted before this discriminatory increase in fees was made? I suppose he was. It would be interesting to know.
Moreover, apart from fees, there are a number of issues (some of which I hope will be taken up by other speakers) still in need of urgent consideration, I could list them very briefly as follows: the continued unclear and unworkable vacation employment regulations for overseas students; the absence since 1963 of any guidance from the DES to local education authority colleges on the welfare of overseas students; or since 1967 from the Home Office on admission procedures and immigration regulations; no established contingency arrangements for emegency situations such as faced students from Biafra, Uganda, Cyprus and Ethiopia recently; continued discrimination against overseas students in local education authority hostels—that is, differential charges for overseas students in hostels attached to polytechnics and technical colleges; the need for a more adaptable successor scheme to the Overseas Students Welfare Expansion Programme (OSWEP); the Government-sponsored housing subsidy programme administered by the British Council; and, finally, the exploitation of overseas nursing students as cheap labour with little concern for their educational needs.
My Lords, I would not wish to restrict my intervention today to a simple denunciation of a policy, wrong in principle and increasingly counter-productive in practice, which no doubt, given our Parliamentary system is as such irrevocable. So I will end by making what I hope will be thought to be some constructive suggestions. If the decision is indeed irrevocable, specific safeguards for privately-sponsored students already here are essential, including some central fund
570
(comparable to the University Grants Committee fund for universities) for those students who are unable to pay the increased fee in the State sector. For the future, increased financial assistance for good, poor students from the poorer developing countries wishing to start their courses or further their studies in the academic year 1976–77 surely could be provided. This could be done by enlarging the OSFAS scheme (the Overseas Students Fees Award Scheme) to include more students in a wider range of study levels than in the existing scheme. At present, only one in four needy applicants receives an award for the payment of his fees under this scheme, mostly at the post-graduate level. With even a modest injection of funds OSFAS could play a much more important role in countering the effects of high fees on poor students on useful courses.
I also think it is most important that the Government should set on foot a wide-ranging inter-Departmental study of the effect of the increases on overseas students, which is related both to the White Paper on overseas aid More Help for the Poorest, and to the final report of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and the University Grants Committee, when that is shortly to become available. This study should cover the capacity of United Kingdom teaching institutions (staff, equipment, accommodation and so on) to provide courses related to the actual needs of overseas countries. For instance, short practical courses connected with actual projects might well be given priority over longer courses. That suggestion has been made and I think it is a very good one.
I must say in conclusion that I earnestly trust that the Minister who is to reply will be able to say that he regards these proposals at any rate as reasonable, and that he is prepared to adopt them in accordance with what I feel may well be the general desire of the House of Lords. For it is precisely in this sort of sphere that our House can, if it so desires, mobilise a wealth of really informed opinion to which even the vast and entrenched bureaucracy might with advantage pay some attention. It is consequently not entirely without hope that I await the Ministerial Answer to my Question.
7.43 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, although I do not go the whole way with the case that has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, this evening, I should like to thank him for initiating this debate. With his wide knowledge of the subject the noble Lord has undoubtedly put questions to the Government which require answers if the Government are going to follow a policy of widening the differential fee. The noble Lord has also reminded us of the advantages of attracting overseas students into our universities and colleges. Their presence is of mutual value and it is part of the tradition of our universities that entry should be on the ground of academic attainment.
I expect the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, will remind your Lordships far better than I can that his Report made the point that in higher education contacts may be made which will be of value personally, commercially or diplomatically in future years. For those reasons, I refute the argument sometimes put forward that it is not in the interests of this country to educate men and women who may return immediately to their own countries to work. The fact that in 1973–4 some 74 per cent. of overseas students were from developing countries surely reinforces this argument.
But can we afford the existing financial arrangements? I concede to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, whose knowledge is so much greater than mine, that in other countries universities seldom charge differential rates. Would I be right, perhaps, in claiming that we ought not to forget that few other countries have this system of pure grants for their degree courses and the consequent responsibility on the taxpayer to subsidise the gap between the fees charged and the cost of a place?
For me, a very valuable consequence of this debate would be to have some further enlightenment of the cost of this support. The recent interim report of the Joint Working Party of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the UGC estimated the amount spent on university education for overseas students at £50 million, excluding capital and equipment, and the subsidy as a tenth of the universities' total recurrent grant. Does this accord with the Depart-
572
calculations and have the Government made an estimate of total support for overseas students on advanced and non-advanced courses?
I appreciate that this matter is complicated, not only for somebody like myself without a mathematical mind, but also because of the fact that all our institutions of further and higher education are open to overseas entrants. I also realise that the supporting finance will arise from a variety of sources. In saying this, I do not forget the many independently-financed organisations such as UKCOSA, of which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, is the Chairman, which do so much to co-ordinate and in some ways finance the opportunity for young people from abroad to study here. But the question of cost seems to me central to this debate and has after all been the reason for Government policy since the Labour Government of the day announced an overseas fee in 1966. I trust, therefore, that the Government will tell the House this evening how much they estimate to save by even a 30 per cent. increase for overseas students.
I would ask whether any calculations have been made of the countervailing earnings. The interim report of the Joint Working Party estimated a loss of £700 per head approximately for the drop in overseas numbers following the 1967/68 increase. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, gave his estimate of what that loss might be today. Obviously, personal and dependants' living expenses, expenditure on books, equipment and so on, and even travel to and from our shores, are potential sources of earnings of foreign currency from overseas students. Before embarking on a course of higher or further education, many attend fee-paying schools in this country. Others attend commercial language schools or are enrolled for correspondence courses and, of course, the steady flow of people from abroad cannot fail to be of commercial advantage to this country.
But the over all problem is the total amount of subsidy needed, which has continued to increase at a time when every sector of education is crying out for more resources. The increase in overseas demand, of course, is a tribute to higher education in this country, and therefore to make cuts in our higher

573
education services which may reduce the quality of that education—the very quality being sought after—must surely be avoided if it is possible to do so. The Government's solution is to impose a still higher overseas student fee. Clearly the effects of inflation have caused sharp increases in the cost of a student place and undeniably many young people from abroad would be willing to nay a great deal more.
These are arguments for higher fees on financial grounds, but to my mind they are not arguments for higher fees in order to regulate the numbers of overseas students. Deliberately to price people out would contradict years of tradition and practice; but if the Ministry for Overseas Development were to take over the Government programme for overseas students, I think this would set the higher fee in a different setting, and at any rate in a much fairer setting.
This proposal is by no means new. It was recommended in 1963 by, I think, the Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, although of course the noble Lord and his colleagues did not support a differential fee; it was put forward last November by my honourable friend Mr. van Straubenzee in another place in a debate on overseas aid, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has recommended it today. I always hesitate to recommend any transfer of responsibility from the Department of Education and Science, for, although I disagree profoundly with the politics of the Department's Ministers, I have a very high regard for the administration of them and of their officials. But I think this might work—and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, argued very much better than I could why he thought so—and I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, will be drawing the attention of his noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts, who has special responsibility in this field at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to what is being said in this debate.
May I make just one or two points on this subject. If support for overseas students went on the overseas aid budget, without of course altering the various bursaries and scholarships already offered, it would clearly show—which is not apparent at the moment—that we are contributing what is, in effect, overseas aid in this respect. ODM is surely the
574
Government Department best placed to do some forecasting of future numbers—I do not know whether this goes on at all at the moment; the best place, also, to ensure that international relations are not impaired by decisions made in this field. ODM could discover best what level of aid other Governments would be prepared to subscribe, and could then award money more accurately to those who are really in need.
I confess that I have been perplexed by the arrangements which the Government currently make for hardship. Perhaps this is due to my ignorance. I understand that when the £70 increase was imposed this year, "hardship arrangements" were introduced which I believe refers to the overseas special fund. I am not quite certain whether this is a fund, which dates back to the hardship fund which was set up in 1967 for students already in this country. I should be interested, if there is time, to hear how this works; whether these hardship arrangements give extra help to married students who were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn; whether in practical terms the hardship fund relates both to local authorities and to universities, and whether these arrangements are to be up rated for next year.
Also when, in a Written Answer on the House of Commons, the Secretary of State announced on 16th December the 30 per cent. increase, Mr. Mulley added:
"I understand that the Ministry of Overseas Development will pay the increased fees for those overseas students who are assisted as part of the aid programme."—[Official Report, Commons; col. 554.]
I assume the Secretary of State meant that the increase in fees is to be met by ODM, and though, doubtless, this was welcome news to the recipients, of course it leaves aside those who are not so benefiting and is, I surmise, on a more generous basis than the hardship arrangements. When one considers that over 62 per cent. of overseas postgraduates and undergraduates at universities, and over 82 per cent. of overseas students on advanced courses at colleges, come from developing countries, the countries which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, so rightly said was picked out in last October's White Paper on aid as needing our training and further education opportunities, then all I can say is that I am driven to

575
the conclusion that Government support would be more fairly administered by the aid programme—and that is not a reflection upon the administration of the Department of Education and Science.
Finally, I hope that the Government will be giving their views at the end of this debate about the total numbers of overseas students and numbers attending particular courses; and here, again, certainly for me, more information would be of help. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, gave the effective number of students on advanced courses in this country as 53,000. I should be interested to know what has been the increase over the years. The noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, can take any period of time that he likes. Do the Government see the increase in numbers which has taken place over the years as in any way a threat to planning targets for total numbers in higher education, particularly targets which the Government may have for numbers involved in postgraduate work? Is it the case that on certain courses in some institutions the overseas proportion is very high, and does the presence of overseas students upset or help the Government's planning assumptions for the percentage of all students whom they wish to see on Arts or on science-based courses? Those are the questions that certainly I am interested in when thinking of raw numbers of students from overseas.
Your Lordships will, however, be aware that the Inner London Education Authority has recently been concerned with the high overseas proportions in some of its colleges, but appeared to be torn between recognition that the Authority has been extending itself to the limit financially, and the realisation that a cutback in overseas numbers could endanger the viability of some courses, and even of some entire teaching departments. Of course, this problem is seen in particularly sharp relief in Inner London. But wherever this problem exists it is, I suggest, one of resources. It may be a problem of housing, exacerbated, perhaps, by the provisions of last year's Rent Act, and where overseas numbers are very high it is only common sense to recognise that it is a problem of the general policy of the particular
576
institution or local education authority concerned. I hope that today this debate will give us some more facts upon which to base our judgment of the Government's policy. My concern is also to see that the Government seriously consider the possibility of transferring their overseas students support to ODM, for I believe that this move could ensure that wide opportunities continue to exist for entry into our universities and colleges.
7.57 p.m.
Lord BOWDEN: My Lords, may I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for providing this opportunity for the House to discuss a matter which has of recent years, or even of recent months, become of enormous public interest, and which has excited a very great deal of controversy—sometimes rather ill-informed. With much of what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn said, I agree, and I particularly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said a moment ago; that is, that the support for overseas students might with very great advantage be transferred to appear quite firmly as the responsibility of a Ministry other than the Department of Education and Science. In talking to my students, I have sometimes said that the tradition has been that Central Government pay through the block grant system about 95 per cent. of the cost of the education of English students, and about 90 per cent. of the cost of the education of foreign students, because the total cost is vastly in excess of any fees that are charged.
I find it difficult to share the noble Lord's indignation that the English universities and the British Government should be conforming, perhaps very late in the day, to what has been the policy of 80 per cent. or so of all universities in the English-speaking world for more than half a century. I have in my hand figures which have been provided for me by the Association of American state universities and colleges. Your Lordships will remember that in America the individual states each maintain their own university system. There are, of course, many privately endowed universities as well, but it is to these State universities that the great majority of American students go. If, for example, you are a citizen of California you will pay 190

577
dollars a year to send your son to university. If you come from another state in the Union, or from another place in the world, you will pay 1,500 dollars—a disparity of seven to one. I could enumerate half a dozen other cases, but the average for 350 universities—and this was in 1975–76—amounted to this; that on average the residents of the state were required to pay 500 dollars in fees for universities, and non-residents of the state were required to pay about 1,350 dollars—a disparity of two-and-a-half to one, or rather more. This is a much greater disparity than we ever contemplated and it is applied equally to students from outside the state from wherever in the world they might come; from within the United States or elsewhere.
This has been the policy of American universities for half a century, so we are adopting a policy which has been traditional in much of the English-speaking world, although perhaps not on the Continent of Europe, for more than half a century. Nobody could accuse the Americans of having been unreasonably parsimonious in the way in which they have helped university students from other countries. They have accepted a great many, but this is the way in which they have done it.
I am very well aware of the problems facing foreign students. If I may declare my own interest, at this moment my institution has students from 63 countries, including almost all of the underdeveloped countries I could name. It is probable that the proportion of foreign students in my institution and the number of countries from which they come is as great as that to be found in any other institution in the country, with the possible exception of the London School of Economics whose spokesman will be addressing us in a moment. Therefore, I have a long acquaintance with these people whom we have been educating for many years with a very great sense of achievement, pleasure and pride. But I have become aware of two things. First of all, there is a great and growing resentment at the growth of their numbers. This is based not so much on the number of foreign students but on the simultaneous decline in the number of English students in some departments.
I want to discuss both of these problems simultaneously because one cannot
578
assess the opinions of the public without seeing how closely they are interrelated. I will begin by dealing with a point which was raised by both noble Lords, namely, what has been done to pay the increased fees of students who have already arrived. The answer is that the University Grants, Committee put a fund at the disposal of all universities out of which special grants can be made to students whose fees have been increased during the course of their university career. In the whole of my institution no student has been found to be embarrassed by an increase in his fee or has had to go back home because of it.
On the other hand, we have another fund which is provided for the alleviation of hardship among all our students because their grants have been eroded by inflation and are now quite inadequate. This fund has been very much in demand, but it is quite inadequate and its administration has thrown an altogether appalling light on the difficulties which confront both foreign and our own students. The number of applications for extra grants, gifts or loans—we deal with all of them—up to Christmas of last year was nearly three times as great as the total demand for similar grants in the whole of 1974–5. For example, some students from Uganda receive a grant of £50 a month upon which they are supposed to live. They cannot do so. We have made representations to the Government of Uganda who have noted them and said that they will consider the matter. Other students, too, come with totally inadequate grants and cannot live upon them.
This is a much more serious problem than that posed by the fees which nearly always seem to come separately, to be separately accounted. I cannot believe that foreign students have either been or will be deterred by an increase in fees because the increase in the number of applications from overseas students for places in my institution is nearly 50 per cent. over last year. The increase in the fees, alarming although it may appear to be, is not deterring would-be students—at least, not so far as we know.
I must turn now to the point which I raised a moment ago—that our hardship fund is heavily in demand from both our own and foreign students. Unless Members of this House have sons or grandsons in universities, they may not realise just how difficult of late it has become

579
to finance them. This is a point of which the Government must become aware.
If I can summarise the remainder of my argument it is that having built and equipped a splendid university system it is now denying its advantages to the very people for whom it was intended; namely, our own children who are now reaching the age of 18 and contemplating a university career. All parents receive a grant of £50. This sum was fixed in 1945 and was then intended to pay the fees of the universities which were at about that level at that time. When my own children went to college 10 years ago it covered most, if not the whole, of the fee. Thereafter parents have to pay a contribution which is based on a sliding scale, dependent upon their income. I have looked into the position of those citizens of Manchester who are crossing sweepers and dustbin emptiers, and I find that any such man who is on the basic rate of pay is not required to make a contribution towards the education of his children. I am sure that this House will be glad to know it, but if they work three or four hours of overtime and earn a bonus they may be required to pay as much as £50 or £60 towards the cost of the education of their children.
When this system was contrived the original intention was that middle-class and wealthier people should pay for the education of their children, whereas ordinary, working-class people could not do so. It is not reasonable to assume that the kind of person to whom I have referred should be obliged to make a significant contribution towards the education of his son, if his son is able to go to university. As a man's income increases, the contribution mounts rapidly. Suffice it to say that a man and his wife, who between them are earning more than £8,000 a year, have to find the whole of the cost of their children's education, including the fees. That can be costed up as the equivalent of £2,000 gross, and many parents cannot and will not afford it. Last year the Government very generously announced an increase in grants to students. In practice, they gave nothing extra to most students but they found they had a claim on their parents for another £100 or £150 a year. Many parents found that the Government in their wisdom had decided that they ought
580
to give their children another £150 but had not provided them with the means with which to do this.
It is this which has produced the bitter reaction against foreign students. The universities are unable to attract Englishmen but thousands of people from every country in the world come to take courses which are no longer accessible to those people for whom the universities were built. I was talking only yesterday to my former secretary, a girl who graduated in French at Manchester about six or seven years ago. I discussed with her the cost to her parents today of sending her to college. She said, "I would not go today. It would not be worth it and I could not ask them for it". Yet, as your Lordships know, students are coming from 63 countries and people cannot understand how or why it is that they should be coming here in larger numbers all the time while ordinary, middle-class parents should be so baffled by the problems of financing their own children in the universities of their choice.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, if I may be allowed to interrupt the noble Lord for one moment, may I say that his objection is not very logical. Surely the reason that British students cannot go to university is that they have not got the means to go there. That is not to say that the presence of overseas students is preventing British students from going to university. It is an illogical objection.
Lord BOWDEN: My Lords, I am not saving that there is a causal connection but that the bitter resentment against the presence of foreign students which is to be found everywhere is due to this.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, it is illogical.
Lord BOWDEN: Illogical maybe, my Lords, but ordinary people who see our universities full of foreign students and who are unable themselves to send their own children there most bitterly resent it. Perhaps I may follow this up because I find that this is peculiarly embarrassing in my own institution. As I have said, we have been educating students for 150 years. We have among us students from 63 different countries, and so far, fine. But what I find alarming is that in some departments foreign students seem to be taking over. I could quote half a dozen

581
cases, of which perhaps I may give a couple. In my institute we have a department of textiles which is probably as fine as any such department anywhere in the whole of the civilised world. In one of the classes we have 24 students, every one of whom is foreign, and what am I to say to Lancashire business men who come in and say: "You are educating our competitors. It is wrong. Why have we no Englishmen?" That is the question I pose to the Minister who is to reply to this debate.
To take another case out of scores of such cases. We have a class on the theory of hydrocarbon chemistry—namely, the chemistry of oil and its products—which is about as important a subject as is known in the country today in view of our reliance, growing and great, on North Sea oil. The course was mounted with the support of the Science Research Council and also with the support of the great oil companies. Last year it had 46 students, of whom two were British: the rest came from half the world. No one is happy in the circumstances. Englishmen either will not or cannot afford to come.
To give another example of a course we have been running for 50 years. The first British electric grid was built in 1926. Much of the design work was done in my institute and we are still studying the problems of transmitting power from the dynamo to the switch. For many years we have accepted foreign students and we have been enormously proud of them—I want to make that point—and in fact in the whole of that great are of the world from Algiers to Bangkok there are 15 institutions within which groups of men are designing grid systems for underdeveloped countries. This marks the first stage of their development, their industrialisation and their march into the 20th century. Of the 15, we staffed 13 from my institute. So when I say we are proud of them, your Lordships will understand why. But your Lordships will also agree with me in thinking that when this year we have a class of 26, of whom one is British, we have grounds to fear. How can we survive as a nation if we have not got engineers capable of designing and constructing our own grid?
So I am afraid that the problem of foreign students is much more complicated than the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has appreciated. People are
582
not merely worried at their presence but they are worried at their presence in the absence of British students. The reason why Englishmen do not come is partly because the grants are inadequate, partly because of the cost to middle class parents, and also—and I must make the point very strongly—because of the inadequacy of the salaries which may be commanded by engineers when they have graduated. A man who chooses to become an accountant or a solicitor will earn three times as much as an engineer of the same age—so why be an enginer?
I will illustrate by quoting from two advertisements which appeared on the same day, one in the Evening Standard and one in The Times. The Evening Standard was advertising for a laboratory assistant to work in the Central Office of Information. His qualifications were that he was to be 16 years of age and to have two "O" levels. There could hardly be a lower qualification than that. He was to start at the age of 16 at £1,800 a year, rising to £2,100 at the age of 21. At the same time, the Science Research Council was advertising research scholarships to be given to men with first-class degrees. They were to get £1,050, which is less than half as much as the laboratory assistant was to get at the same age. Why should we expect people to come and study engineering? How can we expect to survive as a nation if the whole purpose for which our universities were first developed is totally frustrated, first by the inadequacy of salaries of engineers, but most particularly by the inadequacy of the grants enabling engineers to come to college? In my opinion it is quite intolerable, particularly when one thinks of the history.
Your Lordships will remember that the first impetus for the expansion of universities came with the Barlow Committee's Report of 1946. It urgently recommended that British industry would not survive if it did not have more engineers, and it must therefore have more university places in which these men could be educated. This began the move for the expansion which culminated in the enormous expansion which the Report of the Robbins Committee stimulated. But it was always the case that the expansion was justified on the grounds that the industry and the community needed educated men to go into it in

583
order that it should prosper. We have built what I believe to be a very good system of universities, although they are rather small by international standards, and it is intolerable to the public at large that they should be taken over, as they are in some cases, by foreign students who can come here from the ends of the earth when our own students cannot come at all.
So the question of the overseas students' fees cannot be seen in isolation; it must be seen in the light of the general view of the public that their own people are being kept out for the benefit of people to whom, after all, we owe nothing at all.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, it is not the foreign students who are keeping the British students out; it is the inherent inability of the British students to go. It is nothing to do with the foreign students, except as a kind of sentimental reaction to it.
Lord BOWDEN: My Lords, this is the point I am trying to make—that the universities are emptying and providing places for foreign students because our own people cannot afford to go there. That is the gravamen of my charge. This is what I believe to be the fundamentally important thing. This is why, in essence, the ordinary man in the street, the ordinary newspaper editor, finds it so extraordinarily offensive to his idea of fairness and sense that we should go on at great expense educating our principal competitors and not educating our own people. I do not believe that the question of student fees by comparison is really significant. I believe that the change which has been suggested; namely, that this part of the cost should be borne by the Overseas Development Board, is perfectly satisfactory. I do not believe that we should have any sense of shame that we conform to American practice rather than to French practice. I would remark that most of the foreign students in German universities are in fact Germans who have gone abroad because it is easier to get in as a foreigner. Half of all German foreign students are in fact German nationals who have translated themselves to Switzerland to come back again under those circumstances.
584
But these I think are trivial matters. What I am trying to stress—and I stress it with a tremendous sense of urgency—is that our own universities are being destroyed and denied the opportunity to educate the people for whom they were created. This is thrown into awful relief by the foreign students, and this argument about foreign students' fees has been exacerbated and has acquired the bitterness which is so evident today for this reason and for no other.
8.18 p.m.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, I think I should begin by declaring an interest. As the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, indicated, although perhaps in a way which may not have been intelligible to all present, I have been associated for a very long time indeed—with the exception of the Second World War since 1924—in one capacity or another with an institution which I fancy recruits its students from at least as wide an arena as the Manchester College of Technology. I must say en passant—for this morning I delivered a lecture to an audience of many nationalities—that I am not aware of any seething bitterness at present in the foreign students at the London School of Economics. Indeed, I am quite sure that on the part of students and staff alike, it is a matter of pride. The reason I put down my name to take part in the discussion this evening was that I think that what has been decreed by the Ministry is likely to be inimical to the international atmosphere, which I regard as good, of institutions such as ourselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowden, raised a series of questions concerning the reluctance of British students to go into the universities. I do not intend to go into that in this connection. From my point of view the centre of gravity of this debate is the issue of discrimination, of charging one fee to foreigners and another fee to our own native students. I am not unaware of the circumstances to which the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, made allusion, of the extraordinary muddle as between the different States in the great confederation across the Atlantic. But what is much more germane to the subject under discussion this evening is the fact to which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has already drawn attention; that is, that in the EEC. in the different countries of Western Europe—apartfrom

585
Eire—we are the only country which practises discrimination as regards fees. Incidentally, I think it is germane to the matters which worried the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, that it is not a question, so to speak, of living in a world in which overseas students have only one place to go in order to acquire industrial skills which, perhaps, they may use in con-petition with us. It is a fact that in continental Europe the various university institutions—particularly the technological universities—offer a splendid alternative and one which, in my opinion, we have to keep in mind.
Therefore, I have no doubt at all that the practice of discrimination and its intensification as regards absolute amount's by the Ministry recently, while it may lead a certain number of people from poor countries to go home in despair because they do not know the languages of continental Europe and do not know how to acquire them, will probably lead to a certain amount of switching. The Germans, the French, the Dutch and the Belgians will be training our competitors, if that is the real ground of offence, and in our universities there will be a comparatively small proportion of foreigners. It is not true that they are taking over the universities yet awhile.
My Lords, what are the results of this? I find it extremely difficult to answer the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. So far as the more or less direct financial effects of driving people away are concerned, I am quite sure that it is to get an entirely false perspective simply to look at the marginal cost as represented by the Working Party of the University Grants Committee and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors, and not to look also at the amount brought into this country, in one way or another, by the people who pay us the compliment of regarding our education as being worth while to secure.
But whether, in the end, the result of what has happened will be plus or minus in this larger context is not a matter on which I should feel professionally sure, without making a good many more investigations, which, at the present moment, I do not know how to make. I do not know how to judge the elasticity of demand by foreign students at the present prices which have been fixed. I defy anyone to be cocksure about it.
586
What seems to me to be much more certain is that if we drive away a substantial number of foreign students, particularly students from the developing countries, we shall lose indirectly quite considerably from a commercial point of view as the years go by. If these people go to France, Belgium, Holland and so on, they will acquire the jargon, the technique, the ease of moving about in the technological communities in which many of them aspire to move. To that extent—it is not the only influence, of course—we shall suffer. How much we shall suffer seems to me again to be a matter which is indeterminate; it is a matter for conjecture. For these and other reasons, I fancy that, in the long run, we shall suffer quite considerably.
My Lords, when I turn to the academic side of the question, I really have no doubt at all that spiritually we shall suffer a great deal. Most of my academic career has been at least 50 per cent. concerned with the training of graduate students from various parts of the world —not only from the underdeveloped countries but also from America, Canada, from continental Europe. I have no shadow of doubt that if these people cease to come, or are deterred from coming, in such numbers as they come at present, then the spiritual atmosphere of those institutions which cater for them will suffer. I am also fairly sure that our general status in the world will receive one more blow by the gradual realisation that this kind of thing is what we are doing; that is, that in Europe—which, on the whole, has regarded education at any rate as one of the things in which it is not going to practise the art of discrimination—we, whose glory it has always been to attract a considerable number of foreign students and to treat them on exactly the same footing as we have treated native students, have shut up shop and are now discriminating according to country of origin.
My Lords, I have not much more to say. This is the bicentenary of the publication of Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith and consequently all economists must be doing quite a lot of homework in that connection. I was reading Book IV of the Wealth of Nations only the other night when I had already put down my name for this debate. I noticed this mordant sentence, which I submit is not

587
entirely relevant to the practice of discrimination:
" The sneaking acts of underling tradesmen are erected into political maxims for the conduct of a great empire."
Needless to say, there are no personal references here, and it may be thought that the 18th century terminology is a little harsh.
Reflecting on this matter, I think of the shame that I should have felt, in my capacity of advising the academic board at the London School of Economics, if there had existed at that time these discriminatory practices; the shame I should have felt on asking Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Pat Moynihan, Dr. Emminger, for instance—to name a few of the distinguished people who have done us the honour of coming along to Houghton Street. When I think of that, I am ashamed of the growing insularity, the inward-looking nature of the attitude which has inexplicably come over this country in my lifetime. In my young days the Progressive Party proclaimed the brotherhood of man. We now resort to these mean and pettifogging expedients.
8.31 p.m.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I came intending to make one speech. I shall now make a totally different one. After listening to what has been said in this House tonight, I feel that we really are putting to ourselves the questions: What do we mean by higher education? What do we mean by further education? What do we mean by universities? What do we mean by polytechnics?—and everything else. I should have thought that we are faced, both from their inception and from their development, with the fact that first of all higher education is concerned with the advancement of knowledge, that it is concerned with a community of learning which transcends all national boundaries. But we also have another obligation in higher and advanced education. It is the one to which the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, has referred, and it is of serving the needs of the community in producing trained people in order to do all the jobs which are required in the community. I think that we are slightly confusing these two.
588
My Lords, I would be utterly opposed to any form of discrimination between countries, between peoples inside countries, in so far as access to higher education is concerned. But it is rather a different matter when you consider whether you are going to set up and equip institutions, laboratories and so on, in order to give specific training, because you believe that there is a national need for that training, and then you find, as the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, has pointed out, that you have not got the people apparently in the country to fill those places.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, raised the question of cost and the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, I was glad to find, was not prepared to answer, because it seemed to me, on the face of it, it was an almost impossible question. It is not simply dealt with by taking the total cost of running the institution and dividing it by the number of students, and saying that it therefore costs £1,500 per student. This is utter nonsense. If you are running a laboratory, then it will not cost you £1,500 per student; it will cost you £3,000 or £4,000 per student. If you are giving lectures and your class goes up from 100 to 110 it adds virtually nothing to the cost of running the class. Therefore, it is quite absurd to compare the cost of providing a laboratory, equipped for supplying technical information, knowledge and training, with a lecture-room in which lectures are given to a class of any size; so long as the lecture-room can still hold the students, you are all right. Of course in the Sorbonne they do not worry, they let them go out in the street. That is why the French system of education is much cheaper than ours. It is only in the Ecoles they give highly specialised training.
We come to another point. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, seemed to me to indicate that if students did not come to this country they would go perhaps to Holland, Germany, or somewhere else to get their training. Our technical training is the shortest and most condensed in the world. If you go to Holland and take technical training you do not get it in three years, you get it in six to eight years. The technical training in almost every country on the continent of Europe is a longer one than our training, and

589
very frequently students come here because they can get their training more easily, in a shorter period of time, than they can abroad. I do not blame them for doing it.
We are now faced with a real problem, which I think is not fully appreciated; that is, that on the one hand you want to encourage the best students from everywhere to come. I think the London School of Economics, with which the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, has been associated for so long, has built up a reputation which is worldwide. It would be a disaster, in my opinion, if students did not come from all over the world to the London School of Economics, because the very fact that it acts as a centre for the very best in their fields of study makes the London School of Economics what it is. One therefore wants the students to come. Is the same thing true of a technical college run by the Inner London Education Authority when they may be forced to put on a course in a technical subject because ten foreign students and not a single British student have turned up? If you are to run a course in a local education authority, you must have, I think, a minimum of either six or eight students. This means that if four students from this country turn up the course will not be run, but if eight students from abroad turn up the course will be run. The course may be an extremely expensive one to run, and it is run purely as a technical course.
I think this is a different issue altogether from charging fees for universities, places where you are trying to attract the best people in order to develop the subject and get the whole intellectual life improved. I would submit that you give a technical training because this country needs the technical training. If people will not come forward in this country for the technical training, I can see little justification—except, as has been suggested, as a method of helping developing countries—but in that case it ought, as has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, to be put on a separate Vote. It should not come under the Education Vote, because you are taking away from what ought to be supplied for developing the educational system and using it for aid to developing countries; it is per
590
fectly legitimate, but it ought to be put on a different Vote.
There is one other point one wants to bear in mind, and that is that when we talk about the developing countries we are talking about a vast range and spectrum. We include India as a developing country. India has 84 universities of its own; 3½ million university students. I would suggest that it is not sensible for Indian undergraduates to be coming over to this country to study unless there is a special field in which they must come. In the main I would say that it does not do them any good, because very often they do not understand the language well enough to profit by the training which is given here. I know this because I have taught many of these Indian students, and much as I have enjoyed having them it has often taken a lot of time to get ideas over to them. At the same time it holds back the development of the universities in their own country if we try to attract them here.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, might I say that it is certainly my observation, which I think would be borne out by statistics, that so far as the ambiance I was talking about was concerned comparatively few Indians come here until they have reached a first degree in their own country.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord says, and it is always difficult to get up-to-date data in the field of education since all the information service of the Government became computerised. It now takes about three or four years to do it instead of getting it out in a year or so. So far as I can find out, in the year 1971–72 the number of foreign students coming to this country from Asia was 7,322; the number coming from the American continent was 4,551; the number coming from Africa was 3,666. In other words, the numbers are coming from India still, although I admit in nothing like the numbers they used to come. They used to flood into this country, but they no longer come in those numbers, thank heavens! I say "thank heavens! "not because I do not want the Indians here, but because I think it was bad for them to come. They were often coming merely because the reputation of an Indian

591
university was not good enough. If they got a degree in an Indian university they found it more difficult to get a job in India than if they got a degree in this country, and that was an unfortunate thing. Therefore, I am glad that the Indians are going in much more now for helping their own universities. This is a healthy sign.
When we consider the whole field of higher and further education, we must distinguish between the purely technical side to which I have referred and the side which I would call wider, higher education. In my opinion there should be absolutely no balance in the main field of higher education. But I do not believe that it is an obligation on this country to put on courses—I can speak for the university with which I was associated for 25 years—for instance in the field of naval architecture, which even 20 years ago were attended almost entirely by Norwegians and Greeks with about three or four British students. The result was that the Norwegians were able to build up quite a good repair industry on the shipping side largely as a result of the training given to them in the University of Newcastle. I do not think that it is our business to be doing that type of technical training for other countries unless they are developing countries and we do it in an entirely different way.
I would beg my noble friend, when he replies, to consider how proper relief can be given in this whole field of higher education for those who come to this country for perfectly good, sensible, genuine reasons, and whether it is not possible to find some system, whether it be scholarships or whatever it may be, in order to prevent students from being excluded because of this increased fee which is being put on. I personally would like to see all fees for higher education abolished; I think that the thing is an absolute nonsense. In fact, the fees for higher education have been largely maintained because the universities themselves wanted to have what they called an independent income, and by getting their fees fund increased they pretended that this was a private source of money, whereas of course most of it was coming from public sources in any case. But they were able to put it in a separate column in their accounts, and they pretended that this was their own money and not money given
592
to them by the Government. I wish we could abolish fees altogether. May I put to my noble friend that the great step forward that he can make, that the Secretary of State can make, is to go on now from this point of differentials to abolish fees altogether, and then differentials do not matter.
8.46 p.m.
Lord GARNER: My Lords, with such a galaxy of noble Lords with far more experience than I in this field wishing to take part in this evening's debate I propose to be brief, especially as so many points on my mind have already been touched upon. I do not wish to become involved in any question of detail, and the discussion so far has clearly shown how complex so many of the factors are. Nevertheless, I must confess that I have an instinctive reaction that any discrimination against those from overseas, and particularly any substantial discrimination, is unfortunate and could have bad consequences, and that reaction—call it a gut reaction, if you like—is fortified by certain basic reasons. I mention only two.
First, I am no pessimist about the future of this country, but I imagine that we should be facing the fact that the heavy manufacturing industry resulting from the fortunate accident of the Industrial Revolution, on which our prosperity was built up in the last century, has had its day and we have to look for other forms in which to create our prosperity. One of these clearly is increased technology, specialised equipment of one sort or another; but another field was, particularly, services of all kinds (banking. accountancy, architecture, and so on), and perhaps exploiting the heritage of this country both in stone and in natural beauty, the arts, the theatre, literature and so on. One of the most important factors in this area was precisely education.
The quality of our universities is universally recognised, and incidentally the English language is an accrued advantage. This is something that all the world looks to us to provide, and it would be tragic if at this time—and I am not saying that this has happened—we were to risk the chance of throwing this away by earning internationally a reputation for being either niggardly or inhospitable.
The second general Point that I would make is that it seems to me—and various

593
other noble Lords have made the same point—quite impossible to strike a balance in mathematical columns, but we should not overlook some of the factors that it is very difficult to quantify: the enrichment of our university life with those coming in from abroad, the great contribution that has been, and no doubt will continue to be, made to research, and moreover the actual material benefit that comes from costs of travel or purchases and various other things that should fairly be taken into account. But perhaps still more significant are the un-quantifiable benefits that come from people who have enjoyed and benefited from their stay in this country returning to their own countries, spreading goodwill, enhancing our reputation, returning for visits and no doubt, incidentally, in the process, giving publicity to British wares and equipment and acquiring these for use.
My only other point is to reinforce the plea that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that the Government should look at these matters as a whole, and he developed this point and spoke about its history. I have not seen very great evidence almost at any time in the discussion of this matter since 1967—certainly there was no great evidence in 1967, as I know because I was in Government service then—that some of the problems are looked at as a whole and that the important policy considerations which should apply in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in the Ministry of Overseas Development and in the British Council are fully brought to bear.
In this connection, I found very attractive the ideas that were put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and others that the Ministry of Overseas Development should be looked to in future not only for guidance over the whole problem of education from overseas but also some responsibility for the financial provision. I hope that the noble Lord who replies—of course, he will be replying on behalf of the whole Government—will be able to assure us that that is no mere formality and that wider considerations are being, and will be, taken into account on this complicated issue, as has not always been the case in the past.
8.52 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I feel rather diffident at taking part in this debate because I am probably the least academically trained Member in the House at the moment. I offer sincere congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, not only for an interesting and informative speech, but for raising a matter that has not been raised since 1967. I venture to enter the debate because I helped in 1946 to set up the Social Welfare Department in Malaysia —Malaya, as it was at that time—and I had the opportunity to select students, to send them to this country, later on to receive them back and, still later, on going back to Malaysia, to see the excellent work that they had achieved as a result of their training in this country. I am President of the International Friendship League and the Women's Corona Society—working president, I am glad to say—chairman of the Anglo-Indonesian Society and on the Executive of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Thus, I have been able to keep in touch with a great many overseas students. When I was Member of Parliament for Devonport I regularly had them to my house—we always have supper parties for them—and I got to understand their problems, and of course I also refer to those who came to the docks for naval training.
I consider, having read the document, More Help for the Poorest, that on page 23 of Cmnd. 6270 the Government are really committed to more training in further education. I hope, as the paragraph goes on later to mention, that it will not be the policy for particular centres of excellence in their own countries to be used because I consider that it is very beneficial for students to come to this country, particularly for advanced studies. What we have to decide tonight are the priorities—what we are going to spend our money on. While we know that only a limited sum is available, I suggest that education is one of the best ways in which this money can be spent. I have always been an advocate of practical help and I have seen far too much money wasted on various projects. When I have been overseas I have received, for example, woollen garments in tropical countries. In Indonesia, following the

595
Japanese destroying the sugar mills, we were anticipating new machinery, but when it turned up it was for beet sugar and not for cane sugar, and of course there is no beet sugar in Indonesia.
I regret very much the attitude taken by the Daily Express and the Daily Telegraph, which in my view has been detrimental to the general taxpayer, who may think he has been milched. That is not the case at all. I was, therefore, particularly grateful to Professor Dahrendorf for his article in yesterday's Daily Telegraph, which put the matter straight, and I hope that that will be equally well read. It is interesting to note that in 1974–75, 12 per cent. of students in universities came to Britain as against 9 per cent. in 1969–70,but the interesting fact for those who are worried about the numbers is that that has not kept pace with British students, in other words, there were more British students on the dates I have mentioned. It has been pointed out that in Germany, Luxembourgand Denmark the educational facilities are free. It is also interesting to note that Switzerland has the highest number of students and that they charge only the same as their own students pay.
I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, is not still in his place because he was stated in an article to be "the tough principal "of the University of Manchester. I was going to tell him that only an hour ago I met some people from the Seychelles who told me about how much they appreciated the period they spent in Manchester, particularly those training to be civil servants in their own Parliaments. I suggest that if students in this country are not coming forward for engineering and if the people running the textile industries are worried, it is up to them—that is, if the people cannot afford it—to start scholarships. There is no reason why these industries should not start scholarships of their own to help the people in this country.
I believe that there has been no hardship for our students other than from the monetary point of view; none of them has been turned away from the colleges concerned. It should also be remembered that many students from the developing countries may have to return this September to their homes because of this great increase. It seems unfortunate
596
—and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn—that an announcement about such increases should have been made in 1966 and 1967 and yet again on 16th December of last year, yet slipped by practically everybody. It did not slip by the noble Lord's vigilant eye and we are therefore particularly grateful to him. Despite the propaganda about oil millionaires, one should realise that this is an exceptional case; I feel rather sorry for the poor girl who is implicated in these articles. Most of the students are sponsored by their own Governments and come from the poorer developing countries. These are surely the ones who need the most help. It seems particularly regrettable that it will be ability to pay, not the potential of the individual, which will be the main criterion for future students. I therefore suggest that we look at this matter very deeply.
On 21st May 1968 the Department of Education and Science sent out to local authority colleges Circular 71/56/ 02, with the full economic costs of boarding in hostels attached. These are going up, too, and this of course is very detrimental for overseas students, because in many cases they will have to pay double the amount compared with our students. On 1st March 1957 the DES Circular 320, commending the virtues of hostels to local authorities, stated:
"The opportunity of mixing with other students outside the hours of formal study has long been recognised as a valuable contribution to education in technical colleges, as in schools and universities."
I do not think that paying different rates will encourage students to live together. When this was challenged by the National Union of Students in 1968 it was stated that it was not a new policy on the part of the Administration. But Memorandum No. 490, which was issued to local authorities in 1955, had not been implemented. However, in April 1975 there is discrimination in regard to accommodation in hostels and full board can cost as much as £23.50 for overseas students, compared with £10 per week for United Kingdom students. The overseas student welfare expansion programme was introduced by the Government in 1961. I gather that it has provided 6,000 places, but it appears no longer to be available.
I should like to touch on the question of married students. I think it essential

597
that the wife should come with her husband even if only for a short time, because I have noticed when I have been overseas that it is very often frustrating for a student to find after he has spent several years in this country that he cannot adjust to his wife who has lived all the time in the country of origin. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the British Council, UKCOSA and the National Union of Students agreed by implication that the present discrimination was indefensible. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office position was stated in a letter to UKCOSA of July 1974, which said,
" Although we are opposed to the discriminatory charges and, indeed, opposed them when they were initiated, there is little likelihood of them being abolished."
That is what I am worried about. In a letter to the then President of the National Union of Students dated 21st June 1968, the Leader of the House in another place said:
"It is certainly not my intention to discourage students from outside England and Wales from taking courses of further education."
Whatever his intention, this action of putting up the fees will discourage students coming from the less developed countries.
The Ministry of Overseas Development has said that only a quarter of overseas students are financed from British sources. Others are financed by the United Nations or their own Governments. Three-quarters are privately financed. I feel that that is a remarkable record. I should like to suggest that a special overseas students' local authority fund should be established to subsidise overseas students wishing to use or in need of local authority hostel accommodation. The allocation of funds should be administered either by the British Council on behalf of the ODM, by the ODM itself or by delegation to local authorities. I suggest that such a fund will be a small token out of a formal budget of thousands of millions to ensure the Government's commitment in aid terms to the education of the overseas students in the United Kingdom. I believe it could be seen to be of real benefit. I hope that the few words which I have said in this debate may make your Lordships realise that I am very much against any form of discrimination and should
598
very much like, though I know it is not possible at the present time, to follow the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, that these fees should eventually be abolished. In the meanwhile, however, surely we can make them more equitable.
9.4 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for having initiated this debate and for doing so in a speech which seemed to me to express the historic liberties for which Liberalism has stood. I am speaking with some diffidence in the same way as did the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers. I am encouraged by the fact that she said that she had not many academic qualifications because the speech which she delivered was one of the most valuable we have heard during this debate.
I have never had the privilege of being a student at a university. I have had no part in any administration of higher education. I therefore speak, particularly after the contributions which we have had from those who have given distinguished service in those spheres, with a great deal of reservation. All I can say is that I have had very close association with students at universities throughout the country and that for 30 years I have been particularly associated with students who have come from overseas and especially from the developing countries.
I have noticed one great change in the attitude of overseas students during the past 30 years. Immediately after the last world war I became aware of a rather ironical situation: students from the developing countries who came to British universities became anti-British, while students who went to universities in the Soviet Union became anti-Communist. In my contact with students today, I find that the situation is very different and that, broadly speaking, overseas students who are at our universities no longer have the anti-British attitude which they had 30 years ago. This is partly because of the recognition of the right of their territories to self-government and the new political climate, and partly because they are finding at their universities a tolerance and, indeed, a fellowship with British students which they did not have 30 years ago. Because

599
of his authority, I listened with a disturbed mind to the speech of my noble friend Lord Bowden. He suggested that among both students and staff there was now bitterness towards students from overseas. I have not found such bitterness. I do not claim to have his authority, but I go among students, including those at Manchester University, and I have not found that temper among the English students.
Today there has been issued the annual report of the British Council. It pays tribute to the great value to this country —economically, and in many other ways —of overseas students at our universities. Overseas students contribute importantly to research, and there are language teachers at our universities and schools. The total of 90,000 overseas students includes 20,000 nurses, and all of us who have been in hospitals know the value of their service. In money terms they contribute £90 million annually in foreign currency to this country. Therefore, even from the point of view of the advantage of this country, the presence of overseas students is of value.
But from the point of view of the estimation of Britain in the world, what they do when they return to their countries is of even greater importance. There are the skills and the techniques which they take there. I hope that other Members of your Lordships' House saw that remarkable television programme—I think it was last night, or perhaps the night before—about the health service in Tanzania and the contribution which nurses who had been trained in our British hospitals had made to that country. Overseas students who have been to our universities are the best missionaries of good will from this country that there are in the world today.
In passing, I wish to pay my tribute to three Members of your Lordships' House who are associated with the British Council which has prepared this report. The first is the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, who is the chairman of the British Council. Secondly, there is the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who is a vice-chairman, and thirdly the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who is one of the most useful members. I believe that the thanks of the whole House is due to them for their services.
600
My Lords, my main criticism of the increase of fees to overseas students at our universities is the discrimination which it expresses. It took place first in 1967 differentials. The increases which are expected to be imposed in September mean that the fees of home students will increase from £115 to £150 a year, while the fees paid by overseas students will increase from £320 to £416 a year. I am wondering how this discrimination can be made consistent with our Race Relations Act, which makes illegal any discrimination in this country on the ground of national origin.
It is true, as my noble friend Lord Bowden said, that there are hardship funds at the universities, but I have found that a number of overseas students are reluctant to apply for grants under the hardship fund because they fear that if they indicate that they are in financial stress they will have provided reasons for the immigration authorities refusing permits for them to stay in this country.
The hardest hit of overseas students are not those at the universities but those at the polytechnics and at the colleges of further education. Most of these students are privately supported by their families, by their communities, it may be by industrial firms and by their own savings. There is no hardship fund for them: there is only local authority discretion on the recommendation of university principals. I should like to know whether the following statement is true. The National Union of Students state that they do not know of a single case of a polytechnic or college of further education student who has had any contribution from a hardship fund on the recommendation of the principal of one of those institutions.
My Lords, before the publication of the British Council Report today, with its figure of 95,000 overseas students in this country, the National Union of Students had information of 52,587. Of these 52,500 students, 42,772 came from the developing countries, and only 13,000 received awards from either their home or the British Government, or from communities or industrial concerns. I say this quite conciliatorily, and I say it with particular emphasis to the Front Bench of a Labour Government. If these increases of fees to overseas students continue, we shall find that it will be only

601
rich students from abroad who will be able to come to our universities.
My Lords, I want finally to admit a difficulty. I do not want our Government to be subsidising, at our universities, the sons of rich oil sheikhs or other rich élite from overseas, from the developing countries, but we should recognise this. Of the 52,587 students from overseas, only 7,349 come from the OPEC countries, and not all of these are the sons of sheikhs. I hate the means test—I went through the 'thirties—but there may be a case for laying down an income level, asking overseas students on their entry forms if they reach it, and making them liable for misrepresentation. But we must avoid any elaborate system of the old means test methods of interrogation of all students. That must be avoided. We should welcome foreign students, particularly those from the developing countries. They could become the greatest diplomats of international co-operation which we can contribute to the world.
9.19 p.m.
Lord MILFORD: My Lords, it is very difficult for me to make a speech after the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, because I agree with every word he has said; and, like him, I work very closely with the National Union of Students. At this moment I should like to praise enormously the work that the National Union of Students is doing concerning education and foreign students. They are fighting right from the ground floor to get the poorest students a good education.
This question of education is tremendously important for the whole world. Tonight we are talking about the developing countries. I want to spread it farther down still to the undeveloped countries, to the poorest people in the world. I want to help lift them up by giving them better education.
One must remember that there are a billion people in the world today who have got an annual income of under £90. We must have a sense of guilt towards these people, I think, because when I was a young boy at school the map of the world was covered with little red blobs, all over the place, where British colonies existed or British protectorates. It is largely today those red blobs that are the underdeveloped countries. We
602
took the wealth from those countries and we did not bring them into the modern world. So that I think we have now a tremendous moral sense of bringing those people up, saving them from starvation. The way to do this is through education. Only education can rescue them from starvation by giving them the skills and knowledge necessary for their economic development. This chance, the best possible education, is one of the most valuable gifts that Britain can offer to the poorer nations. If we cannot do it freely—I have heard tonight that certain countries do it freely, and I do not see why we should not—then we must do it as cheaply as possible.
If we have differential fees—I think that these are absolutely wrong—they should be devised so as to help the poorest students first, as was strongly advocated in the recent White Paper on racial discrimination. Yet in 1967 differential fees were introduced and the overseas students have to pay more than our home students. As the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has said, the overseas students will now have to pay £416 while the home students pay£150. Imagine the effect on a poor-country student wanting to come and get our wonderful education! We must bear in mind that the majority of the nearly 100,000 overseas students, about 75 per cent. of them, are from the poor, underdeveloped countries and they have managed to get here only through their families saving, their friends giving them presents and scraping together themselves.
To those poor students from the poorest countries in the world what a dismay this 30 per cent. increase must have been! Does it not raise the level of discrimination, of unlawful discrimination, on the grounds of national origin? By contrast, most home students will get their fees paid by the local authorities or they will be transferred to the local authorities from the universities. Of course, I am afraid that some will suffer; those whose fees are not paid by the local authorities and those on minimum grants without help from their parents.
The home students should not be thrown into difficulties. But the greatest concern is for the overseas students who are going to be far harder hit. If we go on raising fees in this way, we will still only be getting students backed by

603
big business, the oil sheiks or foreign Governments, and they can get education without any difficulty whatever. We are not concerned about this élite, we want to help the poor, underdeveloped countries. This is what I want to go on emphasising. The main effect of the fee increases falls on the overseas students. We can only infer that it is meant to do so. The Government mean it to fall on the overseas students to provide cash to offset the Government's cutback in education expenditure in this country. It is incredibly mean to make overseas students pay for our difficulties.
In the universities there are arrangements for a hardship fund for overseas students. As the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said, it is accompanied with the heaviest means test. Imagine what a means test looks like to a poor overseas student from a poor country! He fears, if the Home Office finds out that he is in difficulties, perhaps they will refuse to renew his visa. In what position are the first year students who went to the university a year ago, and did not expect fee increases? Already the poor overseas student is harassed by the Home Office through the 1971 Immigration Act. He cannot work during the vacations to earn money to increase his income. The result is that about a third of all overseas students do not qualify for the hardship fund in universities.
As the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said, the polytechnic students are the hardest hit of all. They are mostly privately funded from their families, friends and personal savings. No hardship fund exists, only a local authority's discretion. The students' union, which fights these cases and tries to help students, says that no local authority has exercised discretion; they cannot and dare not because of the pressure from the Government to cut back so far as possible on local government expenditure. And there are even worse examples. For instance, the City and East London College denied to the National Union of Students that it had powers to exercise discretion. Are colleges unaware of their powers, or are the local authorities not carrying out their statutory duties? This whole question of the overseas student is heavily threatened by the growing racialism in this country and by chauvinism. An enormous cam
604
paign against overseas students is mounting and is being heroically fought by the National Union of Students, based on their theory that the poorest must be helped first against increasing discrimination.
.Another great problem is the question of hostel fees. Student surveys show an increased differential in hostel fees—and it is increasing more and more. For instance, in Bradford overseas students pay £21 and home students £12. In the North-East London Polytechnic, overseas students pay £62 and home students pay £12. The result is that in the North-East London Polytechnic hostel there is only one overseas student.
The drive against discrimination comes up against those clinging to neo-colonialism and the attitude of ex-colonial Powers to the developing countries. The noble Lord, Lord Bowden, put this attitude clearly not very long ago when he said (and it was reported in the Press):
"It worries me greatly to find that some of our most effective graduate schools are educating men who, in the natural course of events, will go home and compete with hard-pressed British industries."
Surely the economic truth is that the more wealthy the backward nations become the greater markets they will offer for our own industries.
Another form of attack on the existence of overseas students comes from those who are raising the fear among the British public that by financing the students we are constantly raising the local rates. But very few people talk about the benefits that overseas students bring to this country—for instance, there are language assistants, nurses and £90 million worth of foreign currency, together with multicultural and multi-lingual education systems and research. There are over 15,000 postgraduate students in this country and most of them are in research, which is tremendously valuable for us. But, as the National Union of Students say, We must not produce this list of benefits that we get from overseas students in the struggle to support them."
Our aim is to offer a gift to the huge, poor, undeveloped world, to whom we owe so much—for how we have neglected their interests in the past! And for that gift to be acceptable, it has to be as cheap and easy to obtain as possible. When those countries are educated, we,

605
and the whole world, will gain. To take the line that we cannot afford to do this because of our own financial problems or because our rates will go up is madly short-sighted. The more overseas students are as highly educated as possible the better solution they will offer for us and for our trade, and for the trade of the whole world.
9.34 p.m.
Lord SHER FIELD: My Lords, two general considerations strike me about the subject under discussion. The first is that most of the points on one side are quantifiable while most of them on the other side are unquantifiable. To simplify, it is largely a case of hard cash against imponderables, and this complicates the debate. The second point is that the subject arouses, especially as it is treated in some parts of the media, those xenophobic and nationalistic feelings which are never far below the surface of our national life, though I doubt whether these are very prevalent among the younger generation. These manifestations, in so far as they surface, obfuscate the argument.
Not even all the facts and figures seem to agree; for example, as regards the increase in the numbers of overseas students in proportion to the increase in the total number of students. Certainly, in the case of one institution of which I have some special knowledge, the proportion of overseas to indigenous students at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels has scarcely changed over the last decade, and this supports one of the points made about the London School of Economics in yesterday's Daily Telegraph article by that former overseas student, Professor Ralf Dahrendorf, to which reference has been made in this debate. Clearly, up to the present, different samples give different results, though it is too soon to detect whether the last increase in fees and the one in prospect will alter these percentages
A good deal has already been said in this debate about the imponderable and unquantifiable arguments, but I should like to develop just two of these a little further. Anyone who, like myself, has been involved over a period of years with scholarship schemes for overseas students or exchange arrangements, can testify to the important and enduring effect in their attitude to Britain on people who usually
606
attain some positions of influence in their own countries. Most of them—not all, of course—go back with a favourable impression, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said. Many of us taking part in this debate have had to deal with former graduates of British universities operating in important positions. The consequences in terms of benefit to Britain, political or economic, are certainly difficulty to assess, but I have no doubt in my mind that it all adds up to a large plus. At a time when we receive too many overt reminders of our relative impotence in international affairs it would, in my opinion, be foolish to jeopardise this covert contribution to the maintenance of British influence in the world. Your Lordships may say that this is a typical Foreign Office argument, but I advance it none the less without apology.
On a more material level, there is the foreign exchange aspect. We are told that it is indefensible to subsidise the education of the sons and daughters of relatively wealthy foreigners, and that is a very plausible sentiment. This position can be, and has been, attacked from several directions. All I want to emphasise is that the personal expenditure of such a student during his stay here may well offset any public money laid out on him or her, while one visit from the parents can far more than make up the difference during a single week-end in terms of the export of goods and services. Moreover, since most overseas students acquire an attachment to their universities and therefore develop an animus revertendi, they will by coming back frequently to this country continue to contribute favourably to our balance of payments for the rest of their lives.
Then there is the contribution which the overseas students, especially the post-graduates, make to the research and development effort in our universities which, in the institutions of which I have knowledge, is greatly valued. I would hazard a guess that they give as much as they get. One institution in particular with an international reputation in a large discipline of which I have knowledge attaches the very greatest importance to its overseas relationships.
I have seen suggestions, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, has alluded, that overseas students take away with

607
them valuable technological information. I find this quite difficult to believe. Anybody who has spent as much time as I have in trying to organise the exploitation of the research and development information in British universities can tell you that there is very little of commercial value to make away with, and in so far as overseas students contribute to the transfer of basic technology to the less developed areas of the world the process is surely to be welcomed.
Lord BOWDEN: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I was referring in particular to Turkish students. It so happens that at the moment the Turkish textile trade is almost destroying part of the Lancashire business. A large number of Turks who are taking courses in technology in my institution will go home and improve the performance of their own industry to the detriment of ours. We have been doing this—goodness knows why!—for 100 years. We felt that it was fine just so long as we were still able to educate as well a few Englishmen.
Lord SHERFIELD: My Lords, while accepting that there may be special cases, whose fault is it that the British people are not studying textile machinery technology? In general, I venture to assert that the balance is in favour of taking no action which would discourage overseas students from coming to this country. In conclusion, I would emphasise one point. When faced with a welter of conflicting arguments in relation to an item of expenditure it is very tempting to a Department of State to cut the cackle, to settle on a figure, however hard it may be to substantiate its fairness or validity, and to say that this is how it is to be. I hope that this is not what has been done so far in this connection. Quite apart from what the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the University Grants Committee may ultimately propose, there are many diverse and probably conflicting departmental viewpoints and interests. It may be that a body exists within the Administration which has tried to reconcile these differences and make an assessment in depth of the imponderable factors and which can listen to outside opinions before a figure is pulled out of the air or broader policy is finally deter
608
mined. If there is not, then I support the suggestion that has already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Garner, that the noble Lord should endeavour to persuade the Secretary of State to set up such a body.
9.44 p.m.
Lord CARADON: My Lords, at this late hour we must resist the temptation to follow the arguments that have been put to us by certain speakers. Sometimes outside this House and sometimes even within it, the discussion is too narrow, too parochial and too prejudiced. Tonight we are dealing with a much wider issue. I should like to deal with the question solely from the point of view of our contribution to international development. I believe that in the education provided for overseas students in this country we have a method of contributing to international development which is the most advantageous, effective and valuable.
As to advantage, I do not propose to get involved in any attempt to deal with this matter on a calculation of costs, but I believe it is unanswerable that the foreign students who come to this country contribute in the money they bring with them far more than anything that is paid by this country on their education. I do not think that can be challenged. It is a fact of great consequence because it destroys the attempt to deal with this matter merely on a refusal to meet the necessary charges. I do not think it can be disputed that the foreign students bring practical, positive financial advantage to this country.
The system of education provided by this country for foreign students is also the most effective form of overseas development aid that could possibly be devised. I have had some experience of the provision, through international agencies, of the experts who are sent with the support of our Ministry of Overseas Development to different parts of the world. Naturally some difficulties arise: it is not always easy to get the best experts to go overseas for a year or two. They have to be highly paid; the costs of travel are considerable; they are sometimes unsuitable; they have no knowledge of the language. Nevertheless, in my own experience some hundreds of them from this and other countries often do a remarkable job.

609
But what a comparison it is between a few hundred experts with certain natural disadvantages going to help the poorest countries in the world and tens of thousands of their own citizens going every year in order to carry the skills and the benefits of their knowledge and their education not only for a year or two, as in the case of the United Nations experts, but for the whole of their lives. The comparison means that this form of assistance is much the most effective that can he devised and it is also the most valuable. None of the standard criticisms made against overseas aid apply. In the first place, no expense is involved; on the contrary, there is financial benefit to this country. Secondly, no balance of payments is involved; on the contrary, it is to our benefit in the balance of payments that they should come, and it does not leave behind, as so often in the past has been the casein our overseas aid, the burden of loan repayment which has to come from the poorest countries in the world. No burden of repayment of loan arises. So in all three respects this is the best form of contribution that this country can make to overseas aid.
As is the case with some others in this House, most of my working life has been spent in the Colonial Service overseas and I claim for my service that we have made some contribution—we would hope an economic and political contribution—to the advance of a quarter of the population of the world in British territories. But our contribution is as nothing in comparison with the contribution of British universities.
I do not know whether any of your Lordships are aware of a remarkable article written by Ambassador Moynihan of the United States of America, who has achieved something of a notorious reputation of late. He wrote an article which he called "The British Revolution ". He said that the most important development of the last generation, or the last fifty years or so, was the contribution which had been made by British education (and he mentioned in particular the London School of Economics) to the developing countries of the world. He called it "The British Revolution "because he believes that we have made the largest contribution of all. He spoke about it as an immensely good thing. Ambassador Moynihan is not very apt to give lavish compliments,
610
but he said that this was an immensely good thing that had been done.
I believe it is so. I believe it is a British lead given in the world which, in our suburban parochialism, we tend to underrate. It is a lead we have given. Certainly we have been ahead in the world, and have made a greater contribution in this respect than any other country in the world. We continue to do so. I am glad when I hear that we do so on a steadily increasing scale. So it should be; and it should be our pride. Edmund Burke said that our leadership in equality and in training for freedom was the peculiar and appropriated glory of England. In these days, of course, one should make reference also to Scotland and Wales. But it is so; it is the peculiar and appropriated glory of England that, through the education provided by this country, we have sent out maybe hundreds of thousands of people to all parts of the world, carrying with them what we can give them, which is much more than any material thing—the benefits of an English education. I do not think we should underrate this. I do not think we should be ashamed of what we are doing.
My Lords, I do not know whether it is relevant, but I remember when the Soviet Ambassador in the United Nations accused me of pretending that all had been well in the advance of British colonies to self-determination. He said that all the leaders of the British colonies had been in British prisons, from Nehru to Nyerere. I was able to reply that I felt sure the distinguished representative of the Soviet Union would agree that it was better to make Prime Ministers out of prisoners than prisoners out of Prime Ministers. Indeed, that has been the progress on which we have been engaged in recent decades. I believe we should be proud of it, and that we should welcome it.
My Lords, we should recognise that nothing else we do is comparable with what has been done in this sphere, and which now can continue to be done in the post-Imperial era. If we fail, and if we allow miserable arguments of petty cost to interfere with such a magnificent achievement, then I think all of us will be very severely to blame. I think it was a disgrace that in 1967 we introduced discrimination; it is a disgrace that we

611
now increase it. We should consider it, and we should look at it again, on the basis that has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. It is not a matter for the Department of Education and Science alone. It is not a matter for people like the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, who speaks about the bitterness of opposition, which I would contest. I do not believe it is so.
One of the things which gives me greatest comfort in this matter is that the National Union of Students and the organization which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, represents have come forward and taken a lead in this campaign to beat down the miserable considerations put before us. I am glad to see that some of the universities—we should pay tribute in particular to the University of Bradford—have refused to put into effect the requirements of discrimination. So I would say that if all other aid, if all other contributions from this country to the development of the world, particularly in the fight against poverty and squalor, were all to stop—and God forbid that it should!—then this at least should continue. This contribution, of which we can be genuinely proud, surely should be one thing we should jealously preserve, instead of talking about whether it is a matter of financial balance that the student has to justify before he can be given the opportunities of our education.
Before we can start talking about division and bitterness, we should be prepared to justify what we have done, and to demand that we go back to a basis of reasonable equality. Otherwise, what are we doing? What we are doing is to tell the world that we do not like it; that we are going to make them pay as far as we possibly can. The harm that that can do is beyond computation. What is more, we are doing exactly as has been suggested; we are suggesting that we want only the rich ones, and those who come from the poorest countries and the poorest families we are glad to eliminate. That is not an attitude which I think can stand well in the reputation of this country. Therefore, I think this remarkable debate, as it seems to me, with its able introduction, although we have gone on much longer than we imagined, has been well worth while.
9.56 p.m.
Lord ANNAN: My Lords, I would not disagree with one word of what the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, has said about the influence which in the past graduates of our universities have had overseas. You have only to go to India and there you will find that all the elites were either at Cambridge University or at the London School of Economics at the time when I was an undergraduate and Lord Robbins was teaching.
Having said that, may I now turn and become as parochial as I possibly can, for I have the melancholy distinction of having been the one member of the Vice-Chancellors' Committee who in 1967 defended in your Lordships' House the decision by Mr. Crosland, who was then the Secretary of State, to introduce this differential. I did so because I knew what Mr. Crosland was up against as Secretary of State. He was faced with a decision on priorities. The priority was whether he would get money for the educational priority areas, the slum schools, the disgusting primary schools which had not been changed by one brick since they were built in the middle of the 19th century, or whether he would go on with the fee system as it was. I said to your Lordships that I realised that this struck a very sensitive nerve in the universities. I did not hesitate as to which I would have chosen, and I think he was right to make that decision.
I think that your Lordships in this debate have displayed a marvellous and Olympian disdain for the way the finances of the country are run and for the way in which Government works in this country. For we know that people can get money on a Vote only if they are prepared to make concessions on something else. This really should be borne in mind. For instance, the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, in a speech which was as charming as it was moving, recommended, if I heard her aright, that local authorities should set up a fund to help hardship cases among overseas students. How can this be done at a time when local authorities are being urged, indeed compelled, by Government to cut their costs all over the place, to cut the number of teachers in the schools, because there simply is not the public money available? Again, not one single noble Lord has mentioned devaluation. The reason, of

613
course, why there is to be an increase in fees is to take account of devaluation.
These are parochial matters if you like, but this is the stuff of politics. We cannot, at a time when we have a rising number of unemployed in this country, 1½ million rising perhaps to 2 million, totally ignore the fact that cuts are having to be made all through the economy. The public sector in some ways has escaped more than others, but it, too, will have the axe wielded even more severely. I am not at all sure, if the Lord Chancellor would listen to this, that there should not be a Standing Order of the House that any noble Lord who advocates an' increase in expenditure should, in the same sentence, indicate from what quarter he would make cuts in order to finance that increased expenditure.
Lord CARADON: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept the argument repeatedly put to him that the bringing of overseas students to this country does not lead to a deficit but leads to a financial advantage?
Lord ANNAN: My Lords, I shall certainly come to that point in one moment, if the noble Lord will allow me. The facts arc that here is a sum of money which is raised in this particular manner. What is it in the educational field which ought to be cut in order to provide this sum of money? This is in fact the argument that has to be argued in Cabinet, with the Treasury, in the Department, and inter-departmentally. It is too easy simply to advocate that on some global way of looking at the economy you can justify this particular cut in income of the Government.
There are a great many points to be made, and I shall make a disjointed speech tonight because there are some points I want to make very much on the other side. Before I begin on those, and before I pass to other points of detail to which I should like the noble Lord the Minister to reply, I wonder whether I might say that one of the reasons why we have so many overseas students in this country is—and this has been pointed out tonight—precisely that English universities, polytechnics, the whole of our institutions of higher education, give a very remarkable education, with pass student ratios unknown anywhere else.
614
I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, who pointed out the degree course and the qualification one can obtain in three years compared with six or seven years in another country. What is more, when students come to this country they learn the lingua franca of this world. As Latin was "the "mediaeval language, so English is now "the" language, and that is why so many wish to come to this country: they will be learning not merely the subject they came to study technically but also the free language of the world, the one which is most used in gatherings and institutions.
I myself believe that today it is not a question so much as to whether there shall be a differential. The differential is there; it is going to be exceptionally difficult to persuade any Cabinet or Minister to get rid of it. My memory does not go back to the line which the Conservative Front Bench in Opposition took in 1967, but I certainly saw no inclination when the Conservative Government were on this side of the House between 1970 and 1974 to remit this particular charge.
In taking this unpopular stand tonight, I hope your Lordships will recognise that all I am trying to do is to say that there are certain facts in politics, certain facts in governmental finance, which I do not believe have been adequately faced. Let me immediately agree with the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, that there is a substantial gain by foreign students coming to this country. The figure that I have from the Department of Trade and Industry was not £90 million, but it was certainly £50 million as an estimate which was put on the foreign currency which they will bring into the country. This undoubtedly affects the case. No one wants to kill the goose which lays such golden eggs, particularly as the geese so often become swans of great value to this country when they return to their own. I have heard it suggested, for example, that one reasonable and sensible amendment would be to have a differential but to modify it if the overseas student is a part-time student. There are many such part-time students and I think it is for consideration whether they should not pay a part-time fee such as, for example, the home based students in this country pay.
There are some who argue that while it is legitimate to charge a differential

615
against those who take up graduate-taught courses or post-graduate-taught courses, we should be more indulgent and remit the fee, the differential, for those who are studying for higher degrees such as a PhD. This can be argued on the general grounds of scholarship with no discrimination, and in this field of higher scholarship we should indeed have no discrimination at all between those overseas and those at home. They argue that it is only here, in this post-graduate stage, that one gets that cross-fertilisation of ideas, culture and understanding and that that is fostered by the movement of scholars across national borders. Attractive as this argument is, I am not persuaded that it would be administratively easy to cope with such a scheme.
Let us not forget that every time a modification is introduced in regulations this increases the number of civil servants to administer such a scheme and increases the number of administrative officers in universities. The pride of our universities is with what small administrations they manage to cope with the manifold problems with which they have to deal today. The administrative staffs are very small and the reason for this is that the teachers—and exactly the same applies with the polytechnics—prefer to do the administration themselves. This is unlike the situation in many other spheres; for example, in the Arts much of the increased expenditure has gone on Arts officers rather than on actors, singers and performers. I hope the Minister will say that he will look into the question of whether we might have some modification of the differential for part-time students. For example, often a foreigner in this country who is in a job will have a wife who herself would like to take a part-time course at a university. Often somebody who is finishing off a thesis or other work has to go part-time for a year.
I come to the wider topic of whether there should he any restriction imposed in universities on the acceptance of overseas students. I am glad that I have not heard any suggestion from the Government about introducing any quota system. Those who say that there should be no differential at all will find very soon that, if there were no differential, a quota system would then be imposed. That is the choice. Which does one prefer, a
616
differential or a quota system? I do not think there will be any doubt as to where opinion in the universities will lie. If they have to choose, they will choose a differential rather than a quota. I think a quota would work unfairly and there are many reasons—I will not go into them at this late hour—why it would be thoroughly undesirable.
As part of the national economy campaign, I think that far fewer postgraduate awards are available for our own students, and this is what has led to the situation which the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, described at Manchester University. We must face the fact that this is a fact and we must take account of it when we come to decide which of certain alternatives we shall be faced with. But I believe there is a danger that, in these days of broad-brush planning in the Department of Education and Science, someone among the officials will have the bright idea that if the number of overseas students were reduced by, say, 20 per cent., the space and resources in the universities and polytechnics could then be allocated to a flood of suitable British undergraduate students who were at present queueing for places.
I hope no such argument is adduced in the corridors of the DES because that is the kind of dream which certain civil servants in the Department may have when afflicted by insomnia and when they are trying to get to sleep. It is the bureaucratic equivalent of counting sheep. It simply does not follow that because one reduces the number of overseas students one will be able to fill their places with equivalent British students either at the post-graduate or, much more likely, the undergraduate level. There is at the moment no queue of students, particularly, I am afraid, for those departments of science and technology where most of the overseas students are to be found. There is no flood of postgraduates because, as has already been said today, there are no grants except for a trickle of British post-graduates.
This is the situation as I see it. I should be worried if the understandable feeling which we all share as to the need for overseas students to come to our universities so affected our judgment that we believed that there were no arguments at all in favour of the differential. The differential was imposed in 1967. The direst

617
prophecies were made that no overseas students would be found in a British university or polytechnic, but here they are today in their thousands. I wonder whether this will substantially affect the numbers who can come. I am all in favour of those who have said how important it is that the poorer student should come. I believe that the answer has been given during the course of the debate and that the way out is to ask the ODM to see if it can take on the responsibility for bringing that kind of student to this country. As the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, knows well, this is a very familiar and popular argument in universities today. I do not believe that it is purely dodging the question; I believe that it is a logical administrative change, not just a bit of inter-governmental accounting.
I should like to put one last question to the Minister. Will he consider redefining what is an overseas student? There are some grotesque anomalies about. For instance, a boy or girl who is as British as they come but whose parents have been resident overseas, not because they are tax-evading expatriates
618
but because they are earning hard currency for this country, may find that he or she suddenly has to pay overseas students' fees. This seems to me to be an anomaly. It is perhaps an equal anomaly that a wily and skilfully advised alien who has sent his child to an English public school for three years can then relish the fact that the child qualifies as a home based student. I wonder whether these matters can be looked into.
As your Lordships will have realised, a very great deal of deeply felt sentiment surrounds this subject. I feel that this rhetoric is honourable but that some of it reflects the realities of governmental finance. The truth, as I see it, is that there is no single criterion which enables us to follow a line of policy. It is a bit of a hotchpotch and the level of fee charged will ultimately be a mixture of what is politically possible and what is economically realistic. I believe that we have a right to charge for our unique facilities, but I should be entirely in sympathy with all those who think that any such charge should be realistic and. in the case of anomalies, that mercy should always be shown.
10.15 p.m.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I make no apology for rising even at this late hour. I put down my name to speak but it was omitted from the list, and this is a subject on which I cannot possibly restrain myself. I never thought that I would ever have to make this speech. I have been a member of the Labour Party all my life and I never thought I would find myself in a situation where I would be dealing with a subject which should be so deep and so completely a part of our blood corpuscles. Why should we be thinking at this stage of discrimination—and it is discrimination of the worst kind—on the question of fees, differential fees and rising fees for the world at large? This is an irony beyond all measure. I follow my noble friend Lord Caradon very closely on this. In the past 27 years I have travelled 2¾ million miles for the United Nations and the biggest investment in foreign aid, and the biggest and best investment we have ever made, has been in the people we have educated, either by sending others out to help in their education or by bringing them here to be educated. I agree with my noble friend Lord Caradon that the people who go back to multiply the products are the best investment in the world.
I remember on one occasion being with Paul Hoffmann who was the managing director of the United Nations' Development programme. We had been over all the ground and discussed all the things, which had to be done in the world, and we always came to this cul-de-sac which was education. Until one can get the thing started and generated, and push it on and transfer it, there is very little one can do. One came back eventually, in the last resort, to something which must be of the nature of classroom education. We came out of the United Nations' building into the Plaza, and on First Avenue I saw on a passing coach an advertisement which read: "Teachers bottled for export in Scotland" I thought to myself: That's the spirit!
We are considering the whole business of how we are to magnify and multiply
620
the capacity for the most important and only thing which really matters ultimately in foreign aid. I hate to call it that; I prefer to call it "mutual aid," at best because we learn and gain so much from others. But the most important thing here is the sharing of knowledge and skills, and we should be backing it up with material resources. However, the first thing is to establish the method of communication. I just cannot believe that we are now gradually closing these doors which have never been closed. I think of the wandering scholar; after all, the world is full of wandering scholars. How did Scotland acquire its education and its educational system?—by wandering, and by people wandering to Scotland.
We now have a fantastic situation. While we are talking about renouncing pay beds we are apparently creating educational pay beds for the sheikhs because eventually the only people who will be able to pay for education will be the wealthy. This is a very great British tradition, because all the great public schools started as foundation and charity schools but finished up by providing merely for those who could afford to pay. How can anyone try to work out a system which would exclude from all the so-called sums and computations we are making the completely immeasurable values that we are talking about? Do not forget that in the pockets of these poor students there are also blank cheques, because the people who come here to be educated are those who go back to their own countries to become Ministers of Finance or take up similar posts.
If you want to look at it in terms of pure Mammon that is one thing. The other thing I can see is that, if you start establishing this principle, how can you ever hold your head up again and say that we in Britain are now not only turning our system into a commercial educational system but in fact providing for the well-to-do and the rich? By this system of increasing fees, the people we have been talking about—the people my noble friend Lord Brockway has

621
been talking about and the people that the noble Lord, Lord Milford, has been talking about—will not be able to come here to be educated. The only people we shall get will be the paid people, the people who will be allowed to leave the country. I do not want to cause any diplomatic crisis, but think of the Shah of Iran. The poor wandering Persian coming out of Ishbahan with his parents' money in his pocket is not going to be allowed to come any more, so all we shall be able to get will be the people they will hire and send. The same thing will happen commercially. The only people we shall get will be those whom the oil people, or whoever it may be, will want to train.
I am sorry to say this, but I did not expect to hear the kind of argument we heard from my noble friend Lord Bowden—that there are too many overseas students in our classes—because, like Lord Gladwyn, I did not quite follow the logic of it.
Lord BOWDEN: My Lords, may I briefly explain? I was complaining about the shortage of British students.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: I know, my Lords, and that is exactly the point I want to make. What are we blaming anybody for? We are short of British students. If we took the foreign students out of the classes the teachers would be fired. What are we talking about? This is the same sort of argument as I had in the 1930s, in Lancashire, about Lancashire weaving research. There were complaints that we were producing machines which we were selling to the Japanese. Why? It was because the cotton industry would not buy them. They were putting themselves out of the market—it was not the Japanese who were putting them out of the market. It was because they were not using the latest machinery and were leaving the initiative to the Japanese. This is the kind of completely illogical argument that I cannot understand. When I find it also divorced from the morality with which I really am concerned in this matter, then that is it. All right, talk about economics, but the point is that
622
here is an issue on which I feel that we are going to abdicate one of the most important things, one of the invisible flags which will still be flying on the flagstaff when the British Empire has been forgotten.
10.22 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Crowther-Hunt): My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for giving us the opportunity of this debate and for so ably reminding us of the importance of continuing to welcome students from all over the world into Our universities, polytechnics and other establishments of higher and further education. As has been emphasised this evening, learning transcends national boundaries, and we in this country have a proud record of opening the doors of our educational institutions to students from all parts of the world. It is also beyond dispute, my Lords, that our institutions have benefited greatly from those students from other countries whom we have welcomed here. It is equally beyond dispute that many British students have benefited from the facilities afforded in other countries. There is, I am sure, no disagreement between us on this score, and our common concern must be to preserve these opportunities on a mutually satisfactory basis.
Before I seek to reply to some of the precise and detailed points which have been made, let me first of all try to set out the facts of the situation, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, specifically asked. We start from the fact that the numbers of overseas students in higher and further education in the last ten years have roughly doubled, from about 30,000 in 1964–65 to over 60,000 in 1974–75. In percentage terms, this is an increase from 8.6 per cent. to 9.7 per cent. of all students in higher and further education. This is not exactly the record of an inward-looking, insular people, as the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, suggested our record was during this time; nor does it represent any gradual closing of the doors, as my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder has suggested. Quite the con

623
trary! This is a very large expansion which has taken place during those ten years in the number of overseas students in this country; and it has not only developed in absolute terms but has increased percentagewise as well. This is a very great record of which we can be proud.
The numbers of overseas students on degree and other advanced courses, including post-graduate courses, in higher and further education over the same 10-year period have increased from about 22,000 to nearly 40,000, an increase from 10.3 per cent. to 11 per cent. of all students on degree and other advanced courses. The numbers of overseas students on postgraduate courses over the same 10-year period have increased from about 8,500 to over 16,000. In percentage terms this is an increase from 29 per cent. to 32 per cent. of all students on postgraduate courses. In our post-graduate courses now 32 per cent. of the places are occupied by students from overseas. The numbers of students on non-advanced courses over the same 10-year period have increased from about 9,000 to about 22,000. But this is not the end of the story. In addition to these students in universities, polytechnics and other institutions of further education, there are large numbers of overseas students who come to this country to train as nurses in our hospitals, as barristers in the Inns of Court, to train in private establishments and in commerce and industry for a variety of vocations. The total numbers of all overseas students coming to this country has increased from about 68,000 in 1964–65 to over 95,000 in 1974–75.
Increases of this magnitude would inevitably raise questions, even if there were no financial constraints. But as noble Lords are well aware, there are severe financial constraints and we are concerned tonight with those which affect overseas students in higher and further education. As we are frequently reminded, the tuition fees paid by overseas students represent only a fraction of the average cost of tuition. The average cost of tuition for degree and other advanced courses is currently of the order of £2,000 a year and the recommended level
624
of tuition fees for overseas students this year is £320 as against the average level of cost of £2,000. Next year it will be £416. The recommended levels for home students are £140, on average, for 1975–76 and £182 for 1976–77. The corresponding figures for non-advanced courses in further education are an average cost of tuition of about £1,000 a year and fees of £200 in 1975–76 and £260 in 1976–77 for overseas students. At the same time the recommended levels for home students are £80, on average, for 1975–76 and £104 for 1976–77. Although the actual cost of any particular student or group of students cannot precisely be assessed, these figures will indicate the order of magnitude of the subsidy we are providing.
Let me go further to answer precisely some of the points made by the noble Lord. Lord Belstead, in this connection. We have naturally made some attempts to estimate the amount of subsidy provided by the British taxpayer and ratepayer and we have concluded that the cost of courses for overseas students in higher and further education, less the income from fees, could be put at more than £100 million a year—that is, if one wanted to put it in this context—more than £100 million in subsidy terms. I might add that I do not know the basis of Lord Gladwyn's assumption or, indeed Lord Caradon's about the balance-of-payments benefit, which both noble Lords asserted with a great deal of authority was naturally flowing in our direction from overseas students. What I do know is the Government's view that the expenditure by foreign students in this country is much more than offset by the resource costs of providing for their education and other needs, to the tune of over £100 million in a year. In other words, one might say that, whereas the expenditure of foreign students is put at about some £60 million a year, the resource costs of providing the education they have is put at something like £170 million a year.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying if we had no overseas students in this country we should benefit to the extent of £60 million to £100 million? Is that really his argument?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, I am not saying that at all. There are imponderables in this connection; I should like to come on to them later. What I am saying is that, so far as we can see, expenditure by overseas students here is something of the order of £60 million, whereas the resource costs of the education and facilities which we provide are something of the order of £170 million. If the noble Lord can subsequently produce figures to challenge that, I shall be glad to consider them. So in referring to a subsidy of over £100 million, which I mentioned earlier, I am saying that this is not a miserable argument about petty costs, as the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, put it. One hundred million pounds is not a petty cost by any stretch of the imagination.
The differential fee for overseas students was first introduced in 1967–68 when it was recognised that there was a need to contain the increasing level of subsidy. By 1974, however, it was clear that, with rising costs and our worsening economic situation, some further steps were necessary and, indeed, that the whole question of tuition fees, for home as well as overseas students, would have to be looked at again if the opportunities for higher education and its quality for our own students as well as for those from overseas were to be preserved. It was for that reason that my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Education and Science announced on 18t1; March 1975 that he was recommending universities and local authorities to increase fees for the academic year 1975–76. This recommendation was intended to restore the proportion which university fee income bore to grant in 1967–68 and to save some £4 million in further education. In the case of universities the proportion of fee income to grant had already fallen from about 8 per cent, to about 5 per cent.
Towards the end of 1974 the University Grants Committee and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors put in hand a review of the structure of tuition fees which it was hoped would be completed in time for their recommendations to be considered before fees were fixed for the 1976–77 academic year. In fact, they have completed and published an interim report, but propose to consult widely before writing their final report. It is hoped
626
that their final recommendations will be available later this year in time to consider what changes in fee levels might have to be made for the 1977–78 academic year.
I should also make it clear that the Government too have been examining the whole overseas student question along the lines the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn suggested including the levels of tuition fees. I think the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, said, "Let us make an assessment in depth ". The noble Lord, Lord Garner, called for an interdepartmental study, as indeed did all speakers in the debate. This is what the Government set in train some considerable time ago. This review has been timely both in relation to the extent of the problem and also because of the growing polarisation of views on the subject. We are hoping that the fruits of this and the Government's decision upon it will be available in the not too distant future, because we have to recognise in this House that there is a growing polarisation of views on this question. While there is support, which has been admirably expressed tonight, for the liberal tradition we have always followed in this country over education, nevertheless the fact has to be faced that there is a large and growing pressure from those in the country who are concerned about the large number of overseas students, as they put it. I get more letters of complaint on that side than on the other. There are two schools of thought here.
On the one hand, there are those who argue that there should be no differential in the fees charged to overseas students and that discrimination of this kind is objectionable in principle and conflicts with the European liberal traditions of higher education. Perhaps I might make another point to reinforce this argument. Those who take this line suggest that those who have such first-class higher and further education facilities to offer, as we have, have a duty to make them freely available, particularly to students from the newly developing countries in the world. This sentiment has been expressed in your Lordships' House tonight.
This argument is again reinforced by the view that this is not only the right thing to do morally but is also right from the point of view of enlightened self-interest. It is pointed out that the

627
presence of overseas students in our academic communities enriches the quality of the work and life of those communities; their presence may provide significant benefits to our international standing and our commerce in the future, particularly if the people who train here subsequently go home and want to buy British in the scientific and technical fields in which they have trained. Therefore, in this way there will be a long-term contribution to our earnings of foreign currencies. This is one of the imponderables which have been talked about.
The contrary view is that, whatever the countervailing advantages, we cannot afford to provide for unlimited numbers of overseas students, and that, of the various ways by which the level of subsidy might be controlled, the charging of higher fees accompanied by the provision of help under Government aid programmes for those coming from developing countries is the least objectionable. In this context, some go so far as to say that our excellent educational facilities should be regarded as an international marketable commodity and that we should get the best price for them in the international commodity markets of the world.
These, in summary form, are the two opposing views on this difficult question and full weight is being given to them in the Government's review. The longer-term policies which will result must take account of our position in the EEC. There were under 2,000 students from EEC countries studying in this country in 1973–74, compared with 50,000 other students from overseas. Her Majesty's Government have always up to now considered it equitable to treat all overseas students alike, and have not sought to distinguish between those from particular countries or regions, whether the EEC, the Commonwealth or the developing world. We subscribe, of course, to the desirability of encouraging mobility within the EEC, on the lines agreed between EEC Education Ministers in Brussels in December. However, this is a question with more to it than the issue of differential student fees and it is one which we and the Community will be studying in all its aspects.
However, to return to the noble Lord's Question, which is related to the 1976–77
628
increases, in the view of the Government it became necessary to raise tuition fees on an interim basis simply to reflect the increases in costs since fees were fixed for the previous year. A decision had to be taken, moreover, before the end of 1975 if the budgeting procedures of the local education authorities and establishments concerned were not to be again disrupted and if adequate notice was to be given to those who might be affected. It was for the those reasons that, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, pointed out, my right honourable friend announced on 16th December that he was recommending a 30 per cent. increase in tuition fees for 1976–77.
I was asked earlier who had been consulted, and I would say that this decision was taken by Ministers collectively; this was no unilateral decision within a single Department. This decision was, in fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, was ready to agree, consistent with one of the recommendations of the interim report of the UGC Committee of Vice-Chancellors Working Party, which recommended an increase in fee income in line with rising costs, and the local authority associations, who were consulted, fully agreed.
In considering the size of the latest increase, the paramount factor which had to be taken into account was the substantial increase in costs of tuition in the establishments concerned. This increase naturally varied between the different kinds of institutions involved but, in general, was between 29 per cent. and 34 per cent. It would have been impracticable to suggest raising fees sufficiently to cover the actual amount of increased costs. The least that could be done, in equity to the community at large, was to increase fees by a percentage of the same order as the overall increase in costs hence the recommendation of a 30 per cent. increase.
At this point I should like to put the situation of overseas students in its general perspective. The 30 per cent. increase which has been recommended will affect all categories of students in this country, from home and overseas. It is 30 per cent. for everybody. The number of students, home and overseas, who will be required to pay from their own resources an increase of this order

629
—and I stress those words—is likely to be about 1¾ million, of whom some 100,000 will be full-time students in universities, polytechnics and other further education institutions, while the remainder are the very large number of self-supporting part-time and evening students in further education. The number of overseas students included in these figures who will be paying higher fees may well be about 60,000 in all, of whom some 8,000 will have the increase met by British Government aid programmes, through ODM, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the British Council. I accept, of course, that it can be argued that overseas students on university courses will pay an increase of £96 (30 per cent. on £320), whereas home students will pay perhaps £42 (30 per cent. on £140). But the converse to this argument is the fact that the overseas student will still be paying less than one-quarter of the true cost of his course, whereas the home student's parents or sponsors, in addition to paying a fee of £180 or so, will of course be making a direct additional contribution through taxation. And it is fair to add that a 30 per cent. increase based on cost-of-living changes does no more than preserve the existing level of Government subsidy of overseas students in real terms. If we did not increase fees pro rata with inflation the effect would be to increase the proportion of subsidy for such students carried by this country; and the actual sterling amount of the subsidy will increase in cash terms even with the recommended increase.
In our present financial position, if any one category of students were to be specially treated, and there are several categories which might be thought worthy of consideration—and not all overseas—it could only mean increasing the burden on the remainder. For example, if overseas students were to be sheltered from the increase by a lower percentage being applied to them, home students would have to pay more.
It is true that overseas students are already paying a higher fee than home students because of the differential which was introduced in 1967–68, but to have lessened the increase for overseas students in 1976–77 would have meant increasing home students' fees at a rate far higher than the increase in costs. In these cir-
630
cumstances, the Government have concluded that the only equitable course of action is to recommend that all fees should be increased by the same percentage—a percentage reflecting, as I have said, the increased costs in the institutions concerned. Any other course of action would have altered the existing fee structure, and decisions of this fundamental kind must await completion of the longer-term review to which I have already referred.
The kind of overall proposals which have been made relating to what we should do about this question have surprised me. I start with the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, who put his finger on the point that the question of overseas students is highly complex and that the problems are not open to a simple solution. He emphasised, that the basic reason for much of the criticism, as he saw it, was that many home-based students cannot afford to go to university. He stressed the inadequacy of the system of student grants in this country and said that a much more generous support system would be advantageous. I should point out that the system of student support which we have in this country is more generous than that which is to be found in any other country I know of in Western Europe. At the moment it costs us about £244 million a year.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowden, is saying, "Increase it ". We shall, of course, review the matter again for the next academic year. However, the noble Lord is saying, "Increase it now. It should be more now in relation to the cost of living than it already is, so let us add more millions to it. Then let us add more millions to postgraduate studentship awards, which for 1975–76 amount to something like £20 million ".
Then the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, helping to solve our problems, suggested that the right course would be to abolish altogether fee income in the universities and polytechnics. The cost of doing that would be another £30 million to £40 million. The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, said, "Let us establish a local government fund." Well, that would also cost more money.
This is why I was particularly grateful for the points which were made by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. He introduced

631
a breath of realism into the very difficult problems which we face. This is essentially a question of priorities. I liked the noble Lord's suggestion that we ought to have a rule in this House that any noble Lord who advocates an increase of expenditure should show what should be cut by way of compensation—and, I would add, or what rates or taxes ought to be increased if there is to be no compensatory cut. This seems to be a very sensible suggestion. As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, we are faced with—I was going to say three alternatives but you cannot have three alternatives. There are, however, three possible courses.
The first is that there should be no restriction whatsoever on overseas students; we should provide places for them free of charge and impose no restrictions. Do we want to go down that road? The noble Lord, Lord Annan, said that if there were no restrictions and no fees this would soon produce the demand for a quota system, because without a good deal of extra cost we could not provide the extra educational places and the teaching posts which would be required if we abolished all charges. If, therefore, we cannot abolish all charges, we move in a quota direction, and clearly noble Lords would not want that. So the noble Lord, Lord Annan, came back to a differential fee suggestion. These are matters on which the Government will be taking a decision in the light of their consideration of the review that is being made, but it is important to stress that we are faced here with real choices. They are very difficult choices and we have to decide where the balance of advantage lies to this country and to the newly developing countries and all those we want to help, in the light of our present economic and financial resources.
To turn to a further point made by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, he asked if we would look at the question of redefining an overseas student and he quoted the situation in which someone counts as an overseas student whose parents may have been working abroad for three or four years and for this purpose they and their children are counted as overseas; and he is putting that alongside what he would say are bona fide overseas students who have established a
632
three-year residential qualification in higher education in this country and under those circumstances qualify not only for a mandatory grant but also for paying home student fees. These are problems that I am happy to take on board and we shall certainly look at them.
I should like now to come to one of the very important suggestions that were made by a number of noble Lords: that the ODM should, as it were, take over the whole problem of overseas students' fees and overseas students generally and co-ordinate their aid within an EEC common aid programme. This point was put not only by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, but also by the noble Lords, Lord Annan, Lord Belstead, and Lord Wynne-Jones. This line of thought closely relates to the major policy issues which the Government are now considering in the review that is under way and I can assure noble Lords that it will be taken into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, raised the question of race discrimination in the discriminatory charges so far as overseas students are concerned, and he implied that the higher level of overseas student fee is discriminatory. As I have said, there are sound reasons for this. Overseas students are already heavily sub-sidised by the United Kingdom taxpayer and we could not expect the taxpayer to increase his subsidy at the present time by reducing the fees charged to overseas students to a single, home rate. But we shall consider carefully, in the context of our general review of student fees, the consequences of the Government's new anti-discrimination proposals.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Milford, asked whether local authorities have actually assisted students from a hardship fund. It is entirely at the discretion of local authorities whether they apply, waive or modify the fees recommended. In Circular 3/75 the Secretary of State requested them to continue to exercise discretion in hardship cases, and he again referred to this consideration in Circular 14/75. How local education authorities exercise their power of discretion in hardship cases and how these are identified are entirely matters for local authorities. In fact, we do not have central information on this but in this area there has

633
not been any substantial body of complaint
I really do not want to keep your Lordships all night. Those specific points to which I have not replied I will deal with by correspondence, and I hope it will be an assurance to noble Lords to say that this is a matter that the Government have had under review for a number of months and that all the points that have been raised in the debate will be within the purview of that review and will be taken into account. For that reason, my Lords, this is a particularly timely debate in your Lordships' House: it has come at a time when the points that have been made here can have a major impact on the decision-making of the Government as they face up to these crucial issues.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, will the noble Lord reply to the three concrete proposals I made for mitigating the effects of the proposals of the Government? Will he let me know whether he agrees with my proposals?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, specifically on that point.

ANGLIAN WATER AUTHORITY BILL [H.L.]
AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
COITY WALLIA COMMONS BILL [H.L.]
FOYLE AND LONDONDERRY COLLEGE BILL [H.L.]
GREAT NORTHERN LONDON CEMETERY BILL [H.L.]
HOVE BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
METHODIST CHURCH BILL [H.L.]
NATIONAL EXHIBITION CENTRE AND BIRMINGHAM MUNICIPAL BANK BILL [H.L.]
RAILWAY CLEARING SYSTEM
SUPERANNUATION FUND BILL [H.L.]
SAMUEL MONTAGU & CO. LIMITED BILL [H.L.]
TYNE AND WEAR BILL [H.L.]
WIMBLEDON AND PUTNEY COMMONS BILL [H.L.]
YORKSHIRE WATER AUTHORITY (RIVER DERWENT) BILL [H.L.]
Presented, and read la.

CIVIL AVIATION (GATWICK) (CONTROL OF LAND BY DIRECTION) ORDER 1975
Reported from the Joint Committee without amendment.
STATUTE LAW REVISION (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; Bill to be printed as amended.