Lords Sitting of 22 March 1978

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of London.

LORD YOUNG OF DARTINGTON
Michael Young, Esquire, having been created Baron Young of Dartington, of Dartington in the County of Devon, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Bowden and the Lord Vaizey, and made the solemn Affirmation.

LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION AND EXPORT
2.47 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: 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 is the cause of the decline of 8 per cent. in the number of beef cattle on English and Welsh farms at 31st December 1977 over the previous year; and how far the export of live cattle and calves has contributed to this decline and to the rising prices which have followed the fall in livestock numbers.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the figures for beef cattle in the December census for England and Wales relate to cows kept mainly for rearing calves for beef. Very few of these cows have been exported. The decline in their number is due to a range of factors, including the continued switch towards beef from the dairy herd, the relative profitability of other enterprises and the heavy slaughter of breeding stock in 1974 and 1975.
The export trade in calves consists chiefly of bull calves from the dairy herd: it thus has little direct bearing on the size of the beef breeding herd. All aspects of the export trade in live calves have been
1792
examined by a working party of officials of the Agriculture Departments whose report will be published tomorrow. Prices for fat cattle are above those of a year ago but since September last have been below the target price, with producers' returns being maintained at target price levels by premium payments.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that long and undoubtedly convincing reply, which I shall study carefully, may I ask whether he knows if the publication of the report of the working party will come out before I have the opportunity of asking my Unstarred Question tomorrow? Or may I assume that a number of questions which I want to put will be answered in that paper? The confusion about this situation is that so many more—
Several noble Lords: Question!
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY:—live calves and sheep are being exported as a percentage of our total production than in earlier years. The confusion about this situation needs to be cleared up.
Several noble Lords: Question!
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, can the noble Lord offer any hope in the publication of the working party's report that this confused situation will be fully explained?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the report will be published and will be available tomorrow morning, in good time, I think, for the debate on my noble friend's Unstarred Question. With regard to its contents, Ministers will need time to study the implications and to take soundings before reaching a decision on the future of the trade. I am sure that noble Lords and other interested parties will also wish to study the report.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that those of us who are farmers, and who are in the beef business, do not understand what he and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, are saying? The answer is perfectly simple; there is no money in it.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I really cannot let the noble Lord the

1793
Leader of the Opposition get away with that, even though we are approaching the Easter Recess. We have seen a good recovery from the weak beef markets last autumn, and home slaughtering since Christmas has been above last year's levels. Despite this, market prices have been very much stronger, and consumers and producers continue to benefit from the variable premiums which have kept producer returns up to target price levels, and have moderated intervention purchases.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, what I think the noble Lord—
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I know my noble friend takes a great interest in this and I do not want to curb his enthusiasm, but he must ask a question.
Lord TRANMIRE: My Lords, arising out of that reply, is it not a fact that the price received by the home producer of beef is something like 30 per cent. less than what is received by the French producer?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, following the 5 per cent. devaluation of the green pound on 1st February and the extension of the beef marketing year to the end of April, the target price in the last week of April will be 66·75p per live kilo, an increase of 11·63p above the target price at the same time last year.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, in view of the fact that the proportion of the output of calves, cattle and sheep being exported has risen significantly in the last 12 months, may I ask my noble friend whether British farmers are selling Britain short?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, all these aspects, of course, are dealt with in the report, which does not make an overall recommendation for or against the continuance of the trade. It examines all aspects clearly and objectively, and draws conclusions on particular points. The overall decision is a matter for Ministers, and we shall look forward to hearing the views of all the interests concerned.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, would the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, confirm that, in an earlier reply on this Question today, he said that the reason for the reduction was that other farming operations were more profitable than this? Does it therefore not follow in logic that the reason for the reduction is that this operation is less profitable?
Lord GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord could, without anticipating tomorrow's debate, agree largely with what my noble friend Lord Carrington said; namely, that the drop in the number of beef cattle was basically because there was no money in their production? Does he not agree that, although the prices have—thank goodness !—improved a little this spring, the worry of the beef breeders has been the drop in the prices and the rise in feedingstuff costs in the last year or two? Would he also agree that the only thing which has kept the farmers going is the fact that they have been able to export a certain number of cattle and sheep at reasonable prices to the Common Market? Far from selling the country short, does not the noble Lord the Minister feel that the farmers are doing a very good job despite great difficulties?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure that there is a lot in what the noble Lord says. From 1st May, the support levels will also benefit from the further 2½ per cent. devaluation of the green pound and whatever increase is agreed in the common support price. These will be reflected in the target prices for the rest of this year.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE:My Lords, would not the noble Lord repudiate with an unqualified answer the suggestion that because people export they are selling the country short?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, certainly, my Lords.

THERMAL INSULATION
2.54 p.m.
Viscount HANWORTH: 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 why no regulations have yet been made for improved standards of thermal insulation in industrial, commercial and residential properties other than housing, in view of the fact that consultations with interested bodies started in July of last year.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, the proposed regulations are the first to be made under the powers to conserve energy, and my right honourable friend has to ensure that they are technically correct and legally enforceable. He now hopes to lay the Statutory Instrument before Parliament within the next few weeks.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that reply, may I ask whether she does not feel that the time which has elapsed since these regulations were formulated, is, in spite of the necessity for consultation, rather long, particularly in view of the importance of energy conservation?
Baroness BIRK: No, my Lords, I do not think it has been particularly long, because a number of people had to be consulted; industrialists and others had to be given the opportunity of putting their views, which they did. There is nothing, and there has never been anything, to stop anyone from going ahead with arrangements to conserve energy if they wish to do so, because these regulations apply to new buildings.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, in view of the fact that we are not yet in balance-of-payments surplus on oil, and also in view of the fact that, even should that happy event take place, we would wish to save all the money we could, can the noble Baroness say whether there are any plans to make insulation allowances eligible under the improvement grants scheme?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I do not think so at the moment. I shall have to write to the noble Earl on that particular
1796
question because I have not had notice of it. So far as the insulation of housing goes, of course, that does apply; but this is under different regulations and once these are made there will be a certain time before they are put into effect, to give people the chance to get used to the idea and to make plans. If I may, I will write to the noble Earl on that point.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, would the noble Baroness recall that the price of oil doubled and doubled again in the autumn of 1973? Since then it has been important not only to develop new sources of energy but also to preserve the energy which we are at present consuming. Surely it is more realistic to give special incentives to encourage the conversion of and insulation in existing houses, rather than to institute a plan without much priority which will take several generations before it makes a real impact on our conservation of energy and the loss of heat from existing houses?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the Question which I was asked, and to which I was doing my best to reply, was not dealing with housing at all but with industrial and commercial properties. In fact it refers quite specifically to—
"… residential … other than housing".
The noble Lord was referring to housing, which is entirely different.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, while not wishing to go into the detail of my noble friend's Question, could the noble Baroness at least give some assurance that this matter, including housing, will be dealt with with the same sense of urgency as the Government have given to the rest of the energy question?
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords. It will be dealt with now with considerable speed, taking into account the fact that people have to make plans in order to incorporate the new regulations. As I have already said, there is nothing to stop people in existing buildings from going ahead and making arrangements in order to conserve energy, which will be cost-effective not only for the country but also for themselves.

SOVIET MERCHANT SHIPPING TARIFFS
3 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: 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 whether Her Majesty's Government can state what arrangements have been made with the Soviet Union with regard to a visit recently made to discuss the undercutting by the Soviet Union of merchant shipping tariffs.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the noble Baroness is no doubt aware that discussions on maritime problems were held at ministerial level in Moscow last October. The outcome was disappointing and no further ministerial discussions are currently planned. Measures dealing with the activities of State-trading country shipping lines are being discussed in the European Community.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that rather unsatisfactory reply. May I ask him whether he can say what progress is being made in the EEC part of the world, and when can we expect a report on the subject, as this is rather necessary for a quick decision?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness means that the situation is disappointing or unsatisfactory, rather than my reply. But, as to the position in the EEC, the Council of Transport Ministers has asked for an action programme involving co-ordinated defensive measures and the Commission are preparing some proposals. The noble Baroness asked about the date, and I understand that the proposals will be considered at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers on 12th June.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is a deliberate Soviet policy of taking over large areas of the world's shipping business, by offering charges that are entirely uneconomic? Is this not worrying to the Government in view,
1798
also, of the massive expansion of the Soviet navy, besides the damage being done to the British shipping industry?
Lord ORAM: Yes, my Lords. The situation is indeed worrying. There are a number of specific problems which the Soviet authorities were not anxious to discuss with us; they wanted to talk along more general lines. It is for that reason that we feel that carrying on with the ministerial discussions is not profitable at this time, until the Soviet Union show more willingness to meet us in regard to the specific problems which the noble Lord obviously has in mind—for instance, the activities of the Soviet Besta line which, through its low rates and large numbers of sailings, is threatening to undermine the conference trade to and from East Africa. There is that kind of specific problem, of which we are only too aware, and on which we are anxious to see the Soviet Union move towards a solution.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say when he thinks it will be time for us to put down another Question, so that we do not lose any time?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I have indicated a date when the EEC discussions will take place, and I think that the noble Baroness would have that date in mind in deciding what further action to take herself.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the EEC discussions will include the competition which is offered by the Trans-Siberian land bridge, which not only undercuts Western shipping but is even of concern to the Russian shipowners, Morflot.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, we are very much aware of that land bridge problem. Though I would not wish to enter into any specific statement about the content of the discussions within the EEC, I can assure the noble Lord that that is a problem which is very much in mind.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, does the Minister not find it a little difficult to argue against the Russians behaving in this way when our own

1799
Government are heavily subsidising ships to foreign countries, with the obvious result of their undercutting our prices?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, that is a wider question. I am not embarrassed at not knowing the answer.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, on a more personal basis, will the noble Lord confirm the report in this morning's newspaper that he is leaving the Front Bench of the Government? If that is so, is he aware of what a disappointment that will be to those of us on this side of the House who have enjoyed many opportunities of sparring with him, particularly at the Committee stages of Bills?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord opposite. I am surprised that the event to which he referred warrants mention in a newspaper. But I have enjoyed engaging in tussles with him and with many others, both in front of me and behind me.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I could not let that opportunity pass. Has the noble Lord received my note saying how sorry I personally am that he is going, and expressing much appreciation of the kindness, co-operation and help that he has always given to this most troublesome questioner?
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, would the noble Lord take one further opportunity of charming this House with his effective answers, by answering this question: Is it not true that, in the Russian merchant navy, both the designs of ships and the crews come from the USSR Navy? Therefore, does not this allow them to undercut by totally uncommercial prices the operations of all the Free World's ships in any part, and is not this another way of spreading maritime influence in all the oceans of the world?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, it is, of course, a fact that the whole economic system in the Soviet Union and in related countries is very different from the systems in the West. In addition to the factor to which the noble Lord referred, there are many other factors of finance and so on which make competition from them very difficult to define and, therefore, very difficult to overcome.

MAINTENANCE ORDERS: NON-PAYMENT
3.7 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. May I be allowed to say how pleased I am to see the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, back, and I hope that she has fully recovered and is her usual energetic self.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why in view of the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971, there are 700 men imprisoned for not paying court orders for the maintenance of the children they have fathered.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, during 1976—the latest period for which figures are available—the total number of men committed into custody by magistrates' courts for failure to pay maintenance for a child was 542. The annual figure has fallen from 900 in 1970, and has been less than 700 since 1973. The estimated average number of men in prison at any one time during 1976 for failure to pay maintenance for a child was less than 50. Attachment of earnings orders are a useful means of extracting money from men who are in regular employment, but they are ineffective as a measure against persons who are self-employed, unemployed or who regularly change their jobs.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Can he say what action can be taken, other than sending these men to prison, because, as he rightly remarked, if they cannot pay there is not much point in sending them to prison? The figure I was given was that about 300,000 children have been fathered by the men who have been sent to prison. I should like to say how pleased I am to see the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, here, because he was so helpful in bringing in the earlier maintenance orders, and I only hope that these orders will be made more effective in the future.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, there is evidence that the threat of imprisonment is an effective sanction

1801
against failure to pay maintenance. This appears from an informal survey which was conducted by the Home Office in six magistrates' courts in 1974, and which showed that in nearly 90 per cent. of the cases where a court issued a committal warrant, but suspended it on conditions, the defaulter never, in fact, reached prison.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, as one who was a magistrate for well over a quarter of a century, may I ask my noble friend whether quite a number of men deliberately pile up some hundreds of pounds worth of arrears, and then, very willingly and eagerly, go to prison in order to wipe out those arrears of, perhaps, £600 or £700? Is not that, therefore, an additional reason why the Attachment of Earnings Act should be more stringently enforced?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the figures which I have given from the survey which was conducted in 1974 show that, in 90 per cent. of those cases, the person went to considerable lengths not to go to prison. But my noble friend is quite right; it is a difficult area. Undoubtedly, attachment of earnings operates extremely effectively, but only for people who have a regular job which they do not constantly change.

BRITISH STEEL CORPORATION
3.10 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Oram will, at a convenient moment after 3.30, repeat a Statement on the future of the British Steel Corporation.

SOUND BROADCASTING
Lord PEART: My Lords, I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if I made a brief Statement about sound broadcasting.
The House will recall that, in July last, the broadcasting authorities were authorised to provide and operate sound signal origination equipment for the purpose of recording or broadcasting the proceedings of the House. The necessary arrangements are now complete and will become
1802
operational as from Tuesday, 4th April, the day the House returns from the Easter Recess. From then on, the BBC and the IBA will be able to broadcast programmes containing live material from the Chamber.
A master tape of the proceedings in both Houses will be preserved in the Parliamentary Sound Archive Unit which is situated on the third floor of the Norman Shaw (South) building, where noble Lords will be able to listen to any tapes, should they wish to do so.
The conduct of sound broadcasting will be under the general supervision of the Select Committee which was appointed on 9th March and of which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, is the Chairman. This committee has power to meet with a similar committee which has been appointed in another place.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for that Statement and the very welcome news contained in it, may I ask him whether he is aware that there could be grave difficulties for certain Members of your Lordships' House and, indeed, for Members of another place and for the Independent Television Authority itself, if rapid progress is not made with the Independent Television Bill to repeal Section 4(2) of the Act, which requires the Authority to exclude from its programmes the contributions of Members of both Houses of Parliament?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord need worry. I do not believe that there will be any delay.

HOUSE OF LORDS' OFFICES
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that this report be now agreed to. In doing so, there is only one point which I ought to draw to your Lordships' attention; namely, paragraph 3, regarding the use of computers. The committee approved a proposal to computerise for Parliamentary use certain existing statistical records about the membership of the House, and they also agreed that it

1803
would be valuable to include in the computer database information about Peers' specialised knowledge and experience.
The proposal is that noble Lords will be circularised and asked what particular specialised knowledge or experience they care to allow us to put on to the computer. This would be useful for manning committees, for debates and for other purposes. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(Lord Aberdare.)
The Report was as follows:
1. SUB-COMMITTEES
Lord Denham was appointed to the Finance and Refreshment Sub-Committees in the place of Earl St. Aldwyn.
The Committee agreed to extend the Parliament Office Sub-Committee's terms of reference to include Black Rod's staff. The Committee propose that the Sub-Committee should in future be known as "The Sub-Committee on the Staff of the House".
The Committee agreed that the quorum of Sub-Committees should be reduced from three to two members.
2. PARLIAMENTARY PRINTING
The Committee approved a recommendation from the Administration Sub-Committee on the format of the Official Report (Hansard) when it is published in due course on A4 size paper.
3. USE OF COMPUTERS
The Committee approved a proposal to computerise certain existing statistical records about the membership of the House for Parliamentary use.
The Committee also agreed that it would be valuable to include in the computer database information about Peers' specialised knowledge and experience. Peers will be invited to provide this information on a form to be circulated by the Chairman of Committees, and will be shown a print-out of the entry against their name so that they can be satisfied about its accuracy.
The Committee will review the working of this database in a year's time.
4. VIEWDATA INFORMATION SYSTEM
The Committee agreed a proposal to contribute, for a trial period, to the Post Office's Viewdata information service. They also agreed to the Installation, in the Library, of a Viewdata terminal.
The Committee approved provision for the payment of the costs of staff training and expenses arising out of the installation of this and other computer based information services.
5. HOUSE OF LORDS' BULLETIN
The Committee agreed a proposal to issue a weekly bulletin about House of Lords' business. The Administration Sub-Committee will consider the content of the bulletin for publication.
6. LIBRARY
A Report from the Library Sub-Committee for the year 1977 was laid before the Committee and agreed.
The Committee approved a recommendation that the Library should have access to the British Library's Automated Information Service (BLAISE) and to the British Library's Local Cataloguing Service (LOCAS).
The Committee approved the creation of additional posts of Library Clerk and Information Clerk.
7. PARLIAMENT OFFICE
A Report from the Sub-Committee on the Parliament Office was received.
The Committee agreed to the regrading of a Chief Clerk's post in the Overseas and European Office to Principal Clerk and of the Accountant's post.
8. OFFICIAL SHORTHAND WRITER
The Committee approved the payment of additional fees for Committee work.
9. SUPERANNUATION
The Committee recommend that superannuation benefits to Clerks of the Parliaments should, in future, be provided by the House of Lords and not by the Civil Service Department.
The Committee were notified of the following awards:—

(a) Preserved pension and lump sum to Lady Elizabeth Barne, Personal Secretary, who resigned on 27th January 1978.

(b) Revised pension and lump sum to Mr. W. H. Langridge, former Doorkeeper, who retired after re-employed service as Special Messenger in the Chief Whip's Office on 1st March 1978.

(c) Revised pension and lump sum to Mrs. C. D. Nicholson, who retired after re-employed service as Cleaner on 1st March 1978.

(d) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. E. Farmer, Cleaner, who formally retired on 8th February 1978.

(e) Short service gratuity to Miss S. Perriinan, Shorthand Typist, who resigned on 27th January 1978.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

MENTALLY ABNORMAL OFFENDERS
3.13 p.m.
Lord ALLEN of ABBEYDALE Lord ALLEN of ABBEYDALE rose to call attention to the outstanding recommendations made in the reports of the Committee on Mentally Abnormal Offenders (Cmnds. 5698 and 6244); and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion

1805
standing in my name. The main report of the Committee on Mentally Abnormal Offenders was published in October 1975. Its findings have never been debated and I do not think that I need apologise to the House for inviting it to consider some of the issues which this strong Committee, in three years of hard work, considered so patiently and so profoundly. Perhaps I may be permitted to say what a particular pleasure it is that the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, is to speak in the debate. I am also most grateful to the other speakers who have put down their names.
The cold and unemotional phraseology of this Motion conceals a complex of social problems of immense difficulty and issues which involve, in an acute form, the task of balancing the interests and security of the community against considerations affecting the lives and liberty of some of our least favoured citizens.
May I begin by taking your Lordships back to a day in 1962 when a 14 year-old boy was sent to Broadmoor for offences of poisoning. The court found that this boy was suffering from psychopathic disorder and directed that he should not without the Home Secretary's consent be discharged from Broadmoor for 15 years. In February 1971, consent was given to his conditional discharge on medical advice that he had responded well to treatment and was no longer a danger to others. In the event, it proved that his morbid interest in poisons had in no whit abated, and in June 1972 that young man, Graham Young, was sentenced to life imprisonment for two offences of murder and two offences of attempted murder, all those offences having been committed by poisoning.
As a result, certain steps were taken to overhaul the discharge procedure from Broadmoor; but in addition, the Home Secretary, Mr. Maudling, said that this case had brought to a head the view which he and the Social Services Secretary had been coming to for some time: that the time was now ripe for a wide-ranging inquiry into the whole question of the application of the criminal law to mentally abnormal offenders. The noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, was good enough to agree to take this on, and so the Committee was launched.
Noble Lords need have no apprehension that I am going to take them through each of the 140 recommendations made by the Committee. I propose rather to concentrate on just two main areas: first, a few of the issues raised in the report about the procedures followed by the criminal courts and, secondly, some questions relating to the disposal of those who have to remain in institutional care. In the first of these groups, I pick out three recommendations which raise especially difficult problems of individual liberty. I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, replies to the debate, he will be able at the least to tell us what the Government have in mind to follow up these and other recommendations—recommendations which I must again say the Government have had in their possession for some considerable time.
I begin with those cases where the accused person is unfit to plead at his trial because of his mental condition. I am conscious that in using this very phrase "unfit to plead" I am following a time-honoured practice which the Committee itself thought to be unsatisfactory. The Committee preferred the phrase "under disability in relation to the trial". Be that as it may, it has long been the law that if a defendant is found by the jury to be under such a disability the court is bound to order his admission to a hospital specified by the Home Secretary, perhaps to stand his trial later if his condition improves but not if it does not improve.
The courts do everything within their power to ensure that, wherever possible, a normal trial does take place, and the Committee itself made a number of helpful suggestions to this end. However, the point which I am especially concerned with is the Committee's recommendation that the present procedure should be changed so that even where a normal trial quite clearly cannot take place because of the defendant's disability, there should nevertheless be a trial of the facts to the fullest extent possible.
The purpose is obviously to make as certain as can be that injustice is not done to a person who is mentally unfit to stand his trial by putting him away indefinitely in a hospital for an offence which he did not commit. No one supposes that there

1807
is at present a risk of frequent injustice, but the risk certainly does exist; and although what the committee suggests involves a considerable elaboration of the law for a comparatively small number of cases, nevertheless it seems to me that it has made out a persuasive case for change.
The second of my three points is the recommendation that where there has been a trial and conviction the court should have new powers to remand a mentally disordered person to hospital for up to six months in all before deciding on his ultimate disposal. The difficulties speak for themselves, but I know that the physician superintendent of Broadmoor is strongly in favour of this and that he will not mind my saying so. In a difficult case it can very well take several months' assessment before the doctors can give a worthwhile opinion on whether an individual is likely to respond to treatment, and therefore whether a hospital order would be appropriate. The eventual decision of the court is a once-for-all decision of paramount importance to the individual and there must be a lot to be said for giving the court the best possible advice before that decision is taken.
Thirdly, I come to the special verdict, and I had better explain what I mean. I am afraid that this involves me again in trying to say in a rather amateur way what I understand the law to be, and I hope the lawyers will listen to what I say with even more than their customary tolerance. For several centuries it has been recognised that if a person, at the time of his unlawful act, was mentally so disordered that it would be unreasonable to impute guilt to him, he ought not to be held liable to conviction and punishment under the criminal law. The present Statute provides for a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity if it appears to the jury that the accused did the act with which he is charged but that he was insane at the time. As to what constitutes insanity, the criteria are still, in theory, those laid down by the judges in 1843 in reply to questions posed by this House in the celebrated case of M'Naghten. If an insanity defence succeeds it always follows that the accused is committed to a hospital specified by the Home Secretary and that he cannot be discharged without the Home Secretary's consent.
When we had capital punishment there was obviously a considerable incentive for the defence to seek this special verdict. That incentive has gone, and there are now few cases, but the Committee thought that it would be right to try to devise criteria to be put to the jury which reflect the present knowledge rather more accurately than do the M'Naghten rules, stretched and extended though they have been over the years by the ingenuity of the courts. Not all their witnesses agreed that the effort should be made, but the Committee thought that the present rules were quite unsuitable for inclusion in any modern criminal code. It is also possible that if the law is changed so as to give the courts a wider discretion as to disposal, and if therefore it does not follow that the special verdict automatically leads to indefinite detention in a hospital under the orders of the Home Secretary, the attempt to seek the special verdict may come back into rather greater use.
Something also turns on what happens about the defence of diminished responsibility, but I must not be tempted to go into that today. I am not going to say more about the carefully argued attempt made by the Committee for redefining and replacing the M'Naghten rules and introducing a new verdict of not guilty on evidence of mental disorder, but it would be interesting to know whether the Government think that this is an attempt which ought to be made. I know, too, that the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, devoted a good deal of thought to this issue, and if, when he comes to speak, he could say a few words about it, I am sure we should all be very grateful. So much for my rather brief excursion into the criminal law.
I now come to my other group of questions about those who have to remain in institutional care. Perhaps I may be rash enough to say a brief word here too about the present law. The court has power in defined circumstances to order a mentally disordered person to be admitted to hospital for treatment, and except for a magistrates' court it can, in addition, make a restriction order if it thinks that this is necessary for the protection of the public. If a restriction order is made the individual cannot then be discharged without the Home Secretary's consent.
Then the Home Secretary for his part has a similar power to order a prisoner's removal to hospital, and power as well to attach a restriction order in such a case. Removal to a hospital for treatment, either by order of the court or by transfer from a prison, is not carried out unless the hospital is willing to accept the individual. The Committee found that these provisions were not working as they should. The trouble is this. On the one hand, we have the four special hospitals—Broadmoor, and the somewhat surprisingly named Park Lane, primarily for cases of mental illness and personality disorder, and Rampton and Moss Side for cases of subnormality. These hospitals are for those requiring treatment under conditions of special security on account of their dangerous or violent propensities. Not all their patients have been before the courts, but a good many of them have. The hospitals are overcrowded and the criteria for admission are strict.
On the other hand, the ordinary NHS hospitals have increasingly been subscribing to the open door therapeutic policy. I think it is fair to say that in recent years psychiatrists have become more reluctant to take on the care of dangerous or potentially violent patients or those with personality disorders, and look on treatment behind locked doors as inconsistent with what they are trying to do for the great majority of their patients. The staff, too, for reasons I can well understand, are tending to become less tolerant of accepting disturbed behaviour, and the skills in handling such behaviour are tending to be lost. The result is that between the special hospitals on the one hand, and the ordinary NHS hospitals on the other, there is a gap which is tending to widen. It was to fill this gap that the Butler Committee thought it right to put in an interim report in April 1974, practically four years ago, asking urgently for the setting up of regional secure units with some 2,000 beds, just a little less than the total occupancy of the four special hospitals.
The Government accepted this recommendation—at any rate for 1,000 beds to start with—and undertook to make the capital sums available. This was not a proposal to be killed, as so many are, by shortage of money. The Government then accepted a proposal in the main report,
1810
that in addition they should provide the money to run the units and special terms were settled for the nurses who would be employed there. What happened? My Lords, practically nothing; or perhaps, to be kinder, very little. In 1976–77 a revenue grant of £5·2 million was allocated to the 14 Regional Health Authorities for interim security purposes. Between them they spent £351,263, rather less than 7 per cent. of the total. Some of the rest was used as a kind of gift from heaven—a somewhat unusual role for the Elephant and Castle—and put to general expenses, like painting wards.
The Department, as I understand it, have allotted a similar total during the current year, but increased somewhat to take account of inflation, although I believe they have said that this time the money must be spent on psychiatry even if not actually on interim security. I know that the picture is patchy and that in three or four of the regions some interim provision has been made, but where it has been made it falls a long way short of the idea which the Butler Committee had, and in a number of the regions, so far as I can ascertain, nothing has been done at all. I have occasionally come across some problems of underspending of Exchequer money in my time—and I believe the Treasury are having some little local difficulty of this kind at the moment—but I have never come across underspending quite on this scale.
What are the reasons? First, there have been staff and trade union difficulties, as readers of the Guardian will know very well. There have been objections, very understandably, from local residents. But most important, I think, have been the reservations quite genuinely felt by the psychiatrists themselves. Whatever the cause, the results are plain. The courts are often frustrated because no hospital will take the offender before them; for lack of any alternative they have to send him to prison, which does not exist for the treatment of mental disorder, and whence he will return to the community when his fixed sentence is finished. A very experienced Lord Justice has told me that, so far as the courts are concerned, the position is now very much worse than it was in the 1960s. Broadmoor remains overcrowded, in part because it cannot move to local hospitals enough patients

1811
who no longer need the special security provided at Broadmoor. And the prisons, at any rate up till the other day, have practically given up asking the hospitals to take convicted offenders who are in need of treatment in a psychiatric hospital. According to the last report of the Prison Department, there are several hundreds of such prisoners.
Against this background, a Written Answer which Mr. Moyle gave to a Question in another place on 16th February, tucked away though it is without very much publicity, seems to me significant. This Written Answer is at column 345 of the Commons Hansard for 16th February. He said that several regions had interim secure facilities and that 10 of them had submitted proposals for regional secure units, but he added that the first two or three units were not likely to come into operation until 1980 or 1981, which, incidentally, will be just about 20 years since this idea of units was first mooted by a departmental working group, as the Committee's report records.
I know that the Social Services Secretary, as well as the Home Secretary, is taking a personal interest in these problems, and am very glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is going to take part in this debate. I hope that when he does he will be able to enlarge somewhat on Mr. Moyle's written reply. Does it mean that the problems which have impeded progress for all these years have now been solved? Will the units be of the size and run on the lines recommended by the Butler Committee? Is the Committee's philosophy still accepted? Have the problems of staff co-operation and planning objections been overcome? Do we really have to wait for several more years before the first two or three units are brought into being? And has there been a change of heart among psychiatric consultants?
This last question is vital because, although the provision of a number of new units would be a remarkable step forward after all this time, I hope that no one will suppose that every single one of the violent or dangerous offenders who do not quite meet the criteria for the special hospitals can be accommodated in these new units and that the doctors can then forget all about them and regard the problem as solved. The special units,
1812
once they exist, must not be simply mini-Broadmoors. There must be much more in the way of an overall and flexible programme, and I frankly do not see this being brought about without some change of heart in the profession.
I had hoped to touch on one or two other recommendations—the proposal for a new form of indeterminate sentence for very grave offences, a suggestion I view with some qualms I confess, and the suggestion for a new national advisory board to oversee the working out of a consistent policy—but I have already been speaking for too long. Even so, I have only been able to scratch the surface of just a handful of some of the problems discussed in the report. I have said nothing about arrangements about discharge, about the care of violent psychopaths, about the need for research, for example, for the treatment of offenders suffering from personality disorders, or about provision for non-institutional care.
But, before I sit down, I should just like to say this: this is an area where, if you are involved, it is very tempting to hope that someone else will take on a very awkward responsibility. It is an area, too, where a mistake over one individual will achieve far more publicity overnight than any success there may be in caring for thousands of people in institutions or in the community. There are extremely difficult problems here. I am glad to have the privilege of at last initiating a discussion of the praiseworthy attempt made by the Committee in their extremely valuable report to find some answers to these problems and, as I said at the beginning, to strike a balance between the interests of the community and the interests of the individual which is fitting for a compassionate and civilised society like ours. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

THE BRITISH STEEL CORPORATION
3.40 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I will, with permission, repeat a Statement on the British Steel Corporation being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry. The Statement is as follows:
"As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister told the House on 28th

1813
February, the Government have been conducting a study in depth of the medium and longer-term position of the British Steel Corporation. There has recently been much public concentration on the Corporation's likely losses in 1977–78. As I have told the House, these losses result from the worst crisis in the world steel industry for over 40 years and one in which the BSC's overseas competitors are suffering in common with the Corporation.
"Our review has now been completed. Close consultations have taken place with the Corporation and the TUC Steel Committee. We have also taken account of the reports of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. The Government's conclusions are set out in a White Paper which is being published today. A separate White Paper will be published soon giving the Government's response to the Select Committee's recommendations.
"A modern steel industry is vital to an industrial nation. The Government will therefore ensure that a substantial bulk steel-making capacity is available in this country. The BSC plays a key rôle in supplying our manufacturing industries with the major part of their steel requirements. That must continue.
"Our examination has shown that the present world surplus of steel will last for many years and that on the most optimistic assumptions the sales opportunities for BSC, both at home and overseas, on which the 10-Year Development Strategy of February 1973 was based, are no longer realistic. In present market conditions, the Corporation has substantial over-capacity. In the next few years considerable additional capacity will become available from large modernisation and expansion schemes already close to completion. A sufficient margin is essential to supply home and export needs when the world economy moves out of recession, and to provide for the unforeseen eventualities which have persistently invalidated previous forecasts. But neither the Corporation nor the country can afford the cost of the mounting over-capacity that would result from unchanged policies.
1814
"Accordingly, the BSC has proposed and the Government have agreed the following policies:
First, modernisation and expansion projects already approaching completion must be finished; for example Redcar II B and Ravenscraig III.
Second, substantial investment to improve product quality and so ensure competitiveness in the 1980s must continue. Subject to the conditions in the White Paper, the Corporation hopes to make a start on the installation of continuous casting facilities at Port Talbot in 1978–79.
Third, the Government have approved a proposed capital investment programme for BSC for the year 1978–79 at out-turn prices of £500 million. For the year 1979–80, subject to the normal annual review, there will be, again at out-turn prices, a further £500 million.
Fourth, there is no case at present for new starts on increased steelmaking capacity, so the proposed expansion in capacity at Port Talbot and the construction of electric are plants at Shelton, Hunterston and Ravenscraig must be deferred until demand forecasts improve sufficiently to justify their construction.
Fifth, the major and costly new mill projects for hot rolled coil at Port Talbot, plate at Teesside and tinplate in South Wales must similarly be deferred.
"For BSC to achieve financial viability, it is necessary for capacity to move more into line with demand. The Government have therefore accepted that BSC should seek to negotiate the closures in 1978–79 of high cost plants, in particular the Beswick review plants, in close consultation with the TUC Steel Committee and the local work-forces. As the House knows, terms have already been agreed for the closure of the Clyde Iron Works, the Hartlepool Steelworks and the East Moors Steelworks.
"The Government will seek to ensure that everything practical is done to provide alternative employment in the areas affected by steel-making

1815
closures. For its part, the Corporation will intensify its efforts in this direction, through its subsidiary BSC (Industry).
"The White Paper gives details of the special measures we propose at Hartlepool and East Moors. The Scottish Development Agency is already taking all practical measures to assist employment in the area affected by the closure of the Clyde iron works. The Government will announce any necessary remedial measures at other plants when closure dates have been negotiated by the BSC.
"The Government's present view is that further rationalisation will be necessary after 1978–79. However, both the Government and the BSC favour a step by step approach which will retain flexibility to adapt to developments in the market. Hasty and arbitrary decisions now could close the door to meeting future requirements.
"As the House knows, BSC faces serious financial problems. In this the Corporation is not alone among the world steel industries. The Corporation will need a substantial capital reconstruction at a reasonably early date. This will not of course affect its overseas loans which will be serviced and repaid on the due dates. In the present uncertainty in the steel market, it is very difficult to determine the precise size and nature of the reconstruction needed to produce a viable long-term capital structure. Pending that reconstruction, and in place of further advances from the National Loans Fund and of public dividend capital on the present criterion, the Government will meet BSC's financial requirements (other than short-term) by subscription of equity capital under Section 18(1) of the Iron and Steel Act 1975. These requirements include finance for capital investment, meeting obligations under National Loans Fund and other loans and covering the deficit expected to arise before reconstruction. BSC will continue to make short-term borrowings under Section 16 of the Act within the ceiling determined by the Government.
"Because of the immediate financial outlook, no dividend is expected on the new capital before the reconstruction. But I should make it clear that I will
1816
require all new capital subscribed from 1st April to be properly remunerated by dividends after the reconstruction. It would be premature to fix a minimum dividend requirement at this stage. I shall shortly present to the House legislation to raise the borrowing limit for BSC; more detailed information will then be given. We shall continue to determine the Corporation's cash limit on a year by year basis and will take into account the Corporation's physical and financial progress. For 1978–79 the cash limit will be £875 million.
"The funds required by BSC inevitably place a heavy burden on the public purse and divert resources from other desirable objectives. This can only be justified if both management and workforce can show they are taking the necessary steps to achieve the lasting viability and international competitiveness which are the Government's firm objective.
"Very substantial improvements in productivity are also needed if the Corporation is to become viable. The trade unions and local workers' representatives have a major role to play in this. The TUC Steel Committee have made clear their own commitment to achieving this improvement. For their part, the Government are determined to give full, sustained and public support to steps to achieve improved productivity in BSC and will continue to promote this with both the BSC management and the TUC Steel Committee".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.50 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, we thank the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for having repeated the Statement that was made in another place. It is a very long Statement and, together with the White Paper which I understand has just been published, it raises financial and technical matters, all of which must deserve close study within your Lordships' House. I am glad that the Government have as their firm objective "the lasting viability and international competitiveness" of the British steel industry.
However, looking back over the last four years I am compelled to suggest that

1817
the Government's handling of the industry has been far from reassuring. Situations have been consistently misappraised and action has been misjudged. About two years ago the Beswick Review produced a report assessing that there was an improvement in the prospects for the industry and allowing the postponement of certain painful closures. Only last year it was discovered that the BSC situation was even worse than it was before Beswick.
At a time of very high unemployment this is a most disquieting Statement. As the Statement has confirmed, we all know of the need for greater productivity in the industry. But we also know of the serious effects which carrying that out can have on jobs in the steel-making areas. I have two questions to put to the noble Lord at this point. First, can he tell the House whether this means that the Government have now abandoned the 10-Year Strategy for BSC, which was worked out before 1974? Secondly, can he give the House approximately the number of millions of pounds a day of public money which the Corporation is now losing, either today or to the latest date for which figures are available?
3.53 p.m.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, we on these Benches should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for having repeated this Statement. We welcome the fact that at long last the Government appear to have grasped the nettle of acquiescing in the closure of obsolete plants and of accepting the inevitable redundancies that will follow in areas which, for many Labour Members of Parliament, are politically very sensitive.
Speaking from some experience, if I may, I think that the British Steel Corporation is to be congratulated on the way in which it has recently set about negotiating redundancies with the trade unions concerned on a plant-by-plant basis. It is particularly to be congratulated on its pioneering work in seeking to attract new industry to the areas affected. This is an unhappy task, but in our view it must proceed if the Government are to achieve their firmly-stated objective of international competitiveness.
We have noted the step-by-step approach which is also being made to the question
1818
of capital investment—£500 million in 1978–79 and, subject to review, the same figure for 1979–80. The need to cut back on future capacity also involves this step-by-step approach. As an outsider it is not easy to form a judgment as to the appropriate figure, but in selecting these figures it is at least reassuring to learn that the Government are acting on the recommendation of the Steel Corporation.
In the White Paper which has just appeared it is acknowledged that the productivity of the Steel Corporation compares unfavourably with that of international competitors. Stress is placed on putting that right. One has had only a brief opportunity to look at this. I should like to ask the noble Lord this question: In so far as this means dealing with over-manning, is it the intention to give generous redundancy payments not only to workers at plants which are to be closed, but to those at plants not to be so dealt with?
Finally, at the end of the White Paper it says that it is essential for the country as a whole to understand the problem and to support the remedies, and to help in the achievement of a common objective of a competitive, profitable, efficient steel industry. That leads me to ask one general question which could equally well be addressed to the Conservative Front Bench. Does not the future of this industry present one of those major national problems about which it would be helpful if the Government of the day, in the interests of continuity of policy, were to involve the Opposition Parties, perhaps by building on the recent development that there has been—particularly in the case of steel—of the Parliamentary Select Committe procedure? Further, should not this be done before, and not after, decisions are taken on such basic matters as the future size of the industry and its investment plans?
3.57 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I should like to thank the two noble Lords for their comments and questions. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, rightly said, the Statement was a very long one and, although the White Paper is not long, it needs study together with the Statement which I have repeated. On that I entirely agree with the noble

1819
Lord. But beyond that I incline to disagree with him because he sought to make a Party point with regard to what he called the Government's handling of the industry and how the Government had been guilty of misappraisal and misjudgment in these matters. This surprises me a little, coming from a supporter of the Government that was in power in 1973 and which produced a White Paper which also turned out to be a serious misjudgment of the future. But I would not have sought to make that as a Party point because, clearly, developments such as the world oil crisis and the degree to which international trade has slumped were matters which any Government could be excused for not being able to foresee. The situation since 1973 has been full of difficulties as regards accurate forecasting.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, asked specifically whether the Statement which I repeated implies the abandonment of the 10-Year Strategy which was contained in the 1973 White Paper to which I have referred. I think that I can best answer that by repeating one sentence from the Statement, in paragraph 4. It says:
"Our examination has shown that the present world surplus of steel will last for many years and that on the most optimistic assumptions the sales opportunities for BSC, both at home and overseas, on which the 10-Year Development Strategy of February 1973 was based, are no longer realistic."
So, since those forecasts were unrealistic, obviously a reassessment of policy has been necessary. The noble Lord then asks for a statement of the losses in the current year, which has not quire run out. But it is, of course, as is widely known, a very serious situation indeed, and the loss is estimated at £520 million which, since he wants it in daily terms, is the equivalent of over £1 million a day.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, put his finger on an important point when he referred to the negotiations that are necessary between the BSC and the TUC Steel Committee. I would agree that much will depend on the success of these negotiations. He called attention to what is described in the White Paper and in the Statement as the step by step approach. I think that is a particular point that needs stressing. That is the
1820
approach that the Government and the BSC now take, maintaining a degree of flexibility and watching the situation as it develops.
He then referred to the problem of over-manning, which is dealt with in the White Paper as he indicated, and asks whether the degree and method of redundancy in plants which are not to be closed will be dealt with as well as in those which are closed. My understanding is that throughout all the plants these matters of redundancy will be the subject of these negotiations, on which the White Paper lays considerable stress, between the management and the trade union movement, and I am glad to say that, as the noble Lord indicated, the spirit in which these negotiations seem likely to be conducted is a good and responsible one, and bodes well for the future.

MENTALLY ABNORMAL OFFENDERS
Debate resumed.
4.2 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, turning to the Motion before your Lordships' House, I am sure that your Lordships would wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for giving us this opportunity to debate the report of the Committee on Mentally Abnormal Offenders. The first remark one has to make is that it is indeed a formidable report which the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and his colleagues have produced for the consideration of the Government and indeed of the community. It embraces not only the classification and identification of mental disorders but also pre-trial, trial, and after trial treatment of offenders.
All these stages are discussed, and far-reaching proposals and recommendations are made. We are fortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, is in the list of speakers. We shall listen with interest to what he has to tell us, not just about his report but perhaps about any change of opinion or emphasis which he may have reached as a result of events since the report was published. As the noble Lord, Lord Allen, has said, the

1821
subject is much too large to enable one to do more than discuss one or two aspects of the report. I am sure that one of the more disturbing aspects of the present situation is the treatment of persons who may not present any outward manifestation of mental disorder, and who may go through the criminal process without any disorder being perceived or recognised.
Putting the matter shortly, the Committee recommend that there should be a more efficient pre-trial screening system, partly by the use of social inquiry reports. It is said that such could point to signs of mental disorder and indicate the need for a full psychiatric report. I am hound to say from my own experience in the courts that it very often happened, either when one was prosecuting and read the police report or when one was defending and was confronted by one's instructions, and even by one's client, that the thought did cross one's mind that perhaps all might not be well mentally—and I do not mean merely by the defence which one was being urged to put forward in his favour. But there was nothing—and I am sure the position still obtains—that one could really do about it.
One has frequently been left with the uncomfortable thought that a person has been dealt with by a court who either should not have been dealt with in that way or, even worse, should never have been put before a court, so that a recommendation such as this has far-reaching importance. Having said that, one has to take the social worker and the social inquiry report which he produces as one finds them. In most cases they are already gravely overworked, and it is difficult enough for judges or magistrates to obtain a social inquiry report of any kind, let alone to be able to obtain one possibly on a suspicion of a police officer, or somebody, that there is mental trouble. I fear very much that, if this method of screening was adopted, it would require far greater financial resources and more expertise than are available at the moment. I expect to hear the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, say when he comes to wind up this debate, as he will say about many of the recommendations in this report, that in times of financial stringency such as these there is little that can be done other than the identification of need and the establishment of priorities.
1822
I am glad that so far as the pre-trial stage is concerned the report recommends that what I might term Section 136 procedure should be used more frequently than it is at present. The object is, of course, to keep out of court offenders who inevitably will require psychiatric treatment. The report rightly points out that regard has to be had for the public interest, especially where the offence is serious. If I may point a minor finger of criticism at the report and its recommendations, I am not sure that the Committee had quite the regard for the public interest that one would like to see in such circumstances.
One can think of examples all too easily where too much regard might be had for the individual and not enough for the public interest. There are many cases which might come to mind by way of example. A fairly trivial one might be a case, for instance, of indecent assault. It might well be the case where, if the offender was not produced and dealt with by a court in whatever manner, public opinion might be unjustifiably yet understandably outraged by what it might consider to be a cover-up of the offender, even if that offender was mentally ill, by reason of the fact that he had not been dealt with in a court of law which is, or should be, empowered to make the right and proper decision as to his future.
I turn briefly to the trial stage. I am sure that many will welcome the replacement of the unfit to plead procedure by that of being, as it is called, under a disability. One of the difficulties has always been that an alleged offender may be put into a mental hospital without trial if he was found to be unfit to plead. And it is surely sensible to provide for a trial even if, at the end of it, the defendant is found under a disability. Equally satisfactory is the replacement or apparent replacement of the M'Naghten rules by the special new verdict of not guilty on the evidence of mental disorder.
As the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said, the M'Naghten rules have in the past caused a great deal of difficulty, not least to practitioners, and their effects could well, so far as the individual is concerned, be capricious. If these recommendations are accepted, it will I think make it easier for a defendant who intends to rely on this defence to

1823
give the Crown the required notice which the Committee recommends, which I wholeheartedly endorse. Furthermore, he can give advance warning of the type of evidence that will be adduced to put forward his propositions—that is, evidence of a psychiatric nature—and, generally, the defendant will be able to put forward his case, if not in agreement, at least with a form of agreement with the Crown, so that something in the nature of an agreed case is put forward for the consideration of the judge.
I say this because, from my practice, I always remarked that the liaison, if that is the word, between the Crown and the defence was frequently non-existent and indeed on a number of occasions in my experience there was hostility, particularly if the prosecution thought that the defence had thought up an ingenious scheme to enable the defendant to escape what might otherwise be a long prison sentence. This suspicious attitude on the part of the Crown might well be compounded, and frequently was, when the expert giving evidence, however distinguished, was well known for his or her aversion to bringing mentally unsound offenders to a criminal court at all, and was even less willing that they should have to undergo the burden of a conviction. Any proposition that is put forward to reduce the strain on the defendant and at the same time convince the court of his state of mind with the least possible trouble should, in my view, be pursued.
I come finally to the position of the mentally ill once they have been disposed of by the courts, and I do not have to dwell on the fact that, generally speaking, our prisons are grossly overcrowded and that the position is not getting any better. What is alarming is the number of the mentally ill who are in prisons, and I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, what are the present figures and what is the trend? One would like to know whether the situation is getting better or worse or whether it is static. Last autumn, a figure appeared in the Press of 900 prison inmates who would be better off in psychiatric hospitals rather than behind bars. I should emphasise that the figure of 900 is the figure at any one time; it was made up, supposedly, of 400 persons
1824
mentally ill, 200 subnormal and 300 psychopaths—that is to say, grossly irresponsible or abnormally agressive persons.
Even graver is the thought that some mentally disordered offenders are denied psychiatric treatment because, by reason of their disruptive records, they are denied admission to National Health Service psychiatric hospitals. One understands and sympathises with the difficulties of the staff and the objections they have to such persons being admitted to their hospitals. Nevertheless, it is disturbing that the figure should be so high. One realises that planning permission poses problems for health authorities when trying to establish new places. Would the position be ameliorated in the Government's view by the setting up of regional secure units as recommended in the report, with all that that of course entails? If such units were set up, a number of those at present in open conditions could be transferred, which would increase the protection given to the public, and if the level of mentally disturbed patients in prisons were reduced, I suggest that that would lessen the strain on the prison service.
However, there are some formidable and some less formidable objections to these centres, some of which Lord Allen touched on. The regional secure units themselves would need the appropriate nursing staff, who would have to be attracted by favourable conditions of work and pay and would probably want a fairly substantial differential as between secure units and the ordinary hospital. All in all, I suggest that these units will need massive amounts of finance and I imagine the noble Lord would agree that they are for the future, if at all, and that what the Government must deal with now is the present overcrowding and neglect. Is it the Government's intention—I echo the question addressed by Lord Allen—to set up the national advisory body recommended in the report to keep the situation under review,
"to report where problems are arising and to assist towards solutions".
In the end, I believe interim measures will have to be provided while longer-term solutions are planned and financed. In the meantime, the community is greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Butler,

1825
and his Committee for their thorough review of what must be a disturbing social picture and for practical suggestions and recommendations as to how the community should go about solving these many and difficult problems.
4.17 p.m.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, noble Lords will be deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for his initiative in giving us an opportunity to debate this really vital topic. Not only does it allow noble Lords who are experts in this field, with vast experience and expertise, to place their views on the record and give us the benefit of hearing them; it may also, as time will perhaps show, extract some information from the Government about their intentions.
We know, and have already been told, that we are shortly to expect a White Paper with green edges regarding amendments to the Mental Health Act 1959. I have not noticed that either the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, or the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, are clutching White Papers with green edges or indeed with edges of any other hue, but I hope they may have at hand all the information that will be contained in the White Paper and that perhaps before the day is over they may let us into the secret. That makes me wonder whether it would have been more helpful if we could have changed our procedures to enable us to hear the Ministers before we speak; that could perhaps have made this occasion doubly valuable, because we could then have commented on what is actually going to happen rather than on what we hope will happen.
I should begin by saying clearly that in my view no amount of administrative manoeuvring within the constraints of the present inadequacies of resources in this whole field can make any real and satisfactory difference to the plight of those we have in mind—and by that I mean the patients and those responsible for them. Whatever we do will make no difference unless radical and urgent action is taken with regard to essentials—matters like premises, facilities, staff, equipment and resources generally in this whole sphere. If anyone entertains doubts that there are inadequacies with regard to hospitals and other premises, I should
1826
perhaps remind them that, in this connection, the EEC Commission on Human Rights is at present investigating the overcrowding and inadequacy at Broad-moor, and there are other institutions which are perhaps no better.
There are also in various parts of the country serious inadequacies regarding staff. My use of the word "inadequacies" is no reflection at all on the staff in those places; they work under very grave difficulties. Here, I should like to make a further point, but I do so with some caution because I am anxious not to be misunderstood. I have on many occasions spoken in your Lordships' House on behalf of overseas doctors, who have made an immense contribution to our National Health Service. But it really is difficult in certain areas of the country if almost all the psychiatrists happen to be foreign doctors with certain language difficulties. Here the difficulty in psychiatric treatment is not the difficulty of the patient understanding the doctor; it is the very real fear which the patient sometimes has about whether the doctor can really understand him. I shall not go any further on that matter, save to say that there are grave deficiencies in our resources, and whatever we do in altering statutes and amending the Mental Health Act 1959, or making various other administrative changes will not really put matters right unless we attend—and attend rapidly—to the basic essentials.
I now move on to the Report of the Committee on Mentally Abnormal Offenders, by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, and his colleagues, which we are here to discuss. The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, refers to the implementation of the outstanding recommendations made in the report, which would appear to imply that very large chunks of the Butler Report have in fact already been implemented. I regret to say that that does not seem, at least to me, to be the case. For my own personal knowledge I can itemise only two matters on which any real progress seems to have been made. First, some progress has been made in the establishment of regional secure units. But so far as I know—I am open to correction—there are only two so far, and they are of an interim rather than final nature. One of them is on Merseyside, the other in Surrey.

1827
Secondly, it seems to me that a little progress has perhaps been made with the establishment of the Advisory Board on Restricted Patients, which arose from a recommendation contained in the Aarvold Report. But I should add that the proceedings of that board are secret. In addition, it may be thought by some that its activities duplicate the functions of certain other bodies.
Having said that, I should not like it to be thought that this enlightened, comprehensive, and immensely valuable report which the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and his colleagues have produced has had no other effect; of course it has. There is no doubt at all that it has brought about changes in the climate of thought in this whole field, which I hope will themselves prove to have had some impact on the Government's plans, of which we hope to hear more later in the debate.
Obviously, we shall have to debate real proposals in due course; so I believe it would not be helpful if here and now I went into further details on these matters. But, before sitting down, I should like, briefly, to go through one or two matters partly arising from the Butler Report and partly emerging from this field as a whole, and related to the Butler Report, which I very much hope will be enshrined in the forthcoming legislation when it appears.
First, undoubtedly, we must look very carefully at all the procedures in relation to the mental health review tribunals. As I believe Mind—the National Association for Mental Health—has made clear over and over again, there are serious deficiencies in the way in which these mental health review tribunals work. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, and his colleagues have drawn attention to some of these deficiencies, and attention has also been drawn to them by other people in other places. I hope that the whole working of these tribunals would be looked at again. I hope that there will also be considered the securing of easy access to these tribunals by persons who are detained, whether under Section 25, 26, 29, 136 and, of course, the vital Sections 60 and 65 of the Mental Health Act. One should like to feel that all these people had easy and regular access to the tribunal. I should also like to see certain of the procedures of the tribunals changed. Much is said
1828
about this by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and has been said by others, too. In particular, I should like to see efforts made to ensure that, when the tribunals sit, the persons dependent upon them hear a very early decision, accompanied by the reasons which have brought about the decision.
In this connection, I should like to add a point which is certainly not contained in the Butler Report. In so far as the decision is a recommendation of the Home Secretary, and since his recommendation is made on the basis of the mental health review tribunal's actual proceedings, one wonders whether something could be done to make the Home Secretary's decision in these situations accountable, or more accountable, in some way.
Secondly, I should also like to see in the coming legislation progress towards a radical review of all the procedures whereby patients are compulsorily admitted to, or detained in, hospitals. I do not want to go into details here. Noble Lords who have already spoken have pointed to odd aspects of this matter, but the various sections of the Mental Health Act 1959 are highly complex. Very often there are patients detained in hospital who, frankly, have no idea whether they are detained under any particular section at all, or if they are, which section it is and precisely what it means. Sometimes a patient is not able to understand these matters, but frequently I have had to deal with relatives who ask questions about this and it has been very difficult to get them the answers.
I now move to my third point which I should like to see enshrined in the coming legislation with regard to the M'Naghten rules. Many years ago in another place I endeavoured to introduce a Private Member's Bill to do away with these rules, or to change them, but like most Private Members' Bills, it met the fate of running out of time. But I recollect that I was supported at that time by many distinguished lawyers who were cosponsors—Mr. Mark Carlisle, Mr. Emlyn Hooson, and Mr. Sam Silkin, as he then was—and, when I remember who Mr. Sam Silkin now is, my hopes rise as to what may follow from the review which is being carried out.

1829
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbey-dale, pointed to many of the disadvantages of the M'Naghten rules, as did the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. I have never had any doubts about this, and looking back into the record it is interesting to note that in 1874—although I know things have changed since then—Lord Bramwell, giving evidence to the Select Committee on the Homicide Law Amendment Bill in June, 1874 said,
"the present law lays down such a definition of madness that nobody is hardly ever really mad enough to be within it".
We have made vast improvements and great changes, and it is true that we had an improvement in that direction in the Homicide Act of 1957, which brought in the new principle of diminished responsibility. In that regard, I was inclined to agree with an eminent authority, Dr. Howard Jones, who, in his excellent book Crime and the Penal System, said:
"Many will feel that the procedure by which insane persons can be sentenced to prison for manslaughter is hardly a satisfactory final solution".
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbey-dale, quoted a case, and I should like to refer to another. It was a case of a young man of 17 years of age, who was convicted of murder. At the time, many people thought that he was suffering from schizophrenia, as I think he probably was. However, he did not plead insanity, quite understandably. There was no prospect of his being executed in view of his age, and presumably he preferred prison to Broadmoor. He went to prison, and within two years he had murdered another prisoner. It was a case in which our second line of defence—and I know we have a second line of defence; that of the various methods of examination of prisoners prior to and following sentence—had in fact broken down. That is no criticism of the people involved, but I think it points to serious defects in the rules as they then were.
Some years ago I made a point, which with leave I should like to repeat now, with regard to the horrible case of Christie, the multiple murderer. There is no question at all that Christie was M'Naghten sane, as one might say; and Christie was in fact executed. But if Christie's peculiarities and mental abnormalities had resulted, not in the death of his victims but in those victims being
1830
maimed, he would undoubtedly not have produced a plea of insanity and the prosecution would not have had the right to introduce that plea. He would then have had to be sentenced to prison for a violent offence, and, necessarily on the basis of our law as it then was, the sentence would have had to be a finite sentence, which would have come to an end with his release. Now I know that there is a longstop and that there are other methods of examination, and so on, which are very important; but I think that this example and others which have been quoted perhaps point to some of the difficulties which have arisen over very many years from the general concept of the M'Naghten rules.
I have made those particular points because I am not inclined wholly to agree with the report of the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, which I think reiterates that the onus of introducing the question of the mental state of the accused person should be laid clearly and definitely on the defence. It would seem to me that, where the mental condition of the alleged offender is in issue, either side ought to have the right, and indeed the duty, to introduce that, with, of course, proper safeguards.
Let me move on very briefly to my fourth point. I hope we shall also be looking, not only at the rights of people who are being taken to hospital compulsorily but at the rights of patients when they are detained in hospital. By those rights, I am referring to matters such as the right to receive and write letters and the right to receive visitors; and perhaps in certain cases we might even think again about the right to vote, which is taken arbitrarily and totally from persons who are detained in hospital in that way. Finally, I think we shall have to deal, and deal carefully, with the very delicate and very difficult matter of compulsory treatment. I do not want to go into any detail about this now, but I know that it is in many people's minds, and it will have to be thought about. I know that the intention when a person is detained for treatment is that he should receive treatment, but I myself feel a little uneasy about any kind of movement towards a situation in which individuals, whatever their mental state, are compelled to receive treatment when clearly their wish is not to receive it.

1831
My Lords, I think that is enough from me. I hope that later in this debate we shall hear things in which I shall be very interested, from the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and from the noble Lord, Lord Harris; and I shall now wait to hear the contributions of other noble Lords, to which I shall listen with great interest. Finally, let me thank the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, once again for his initiative in giving us this opportunity to have a look at a really urgent matter. Perhaps I should also thank the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, for, in a delicate way, pointing to a strain of caution, which is necessary in this field and which perhaps shows the extent of the difficulties with which we are faced, and the kind of conflicts which inevitably arise when one has to consider the well-being of a human being as an individual and the safety of the public among whom he lives and to whom, we hope, he will be able some day to return.
4.34 p.m.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken has paid generous tribute to various speakers, and I join him in those tributes and add his name to theirs. It is an unqualified privilege to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Allen, whose services over such a wide area are unsurpassed in our time. It is a privilege, qualified by a certain trepidation, to speak just before the noble Lord, Lord Butler. The last time I spoke in his presence, in St. Margaret's, Westminster, he came up to me afterwards, paid me some guarded compliment and then said, "It is a pity they do not put microphones in here". I looked at him askance, and he said, "Of course, I could hear perfectly but I was sitting in the front row." That, I think, is what is called a Butlerism; I think he has become famous for that kind of compliment. At any rate, I speak in front of him; and another reason for trepidation is that I am going to be critical, to say the least, about one aspect of his proposals—the regional secure units—not from the theoretical point of view but from the point of view of practical implementation. But I hasten to say that, of course, his whole report goes far wider than that and deals with many matters of profound significance in a most impressive style.
1832
Coming to these regional secure units, I have given some notice of my line of thought to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and I suppose, to put it in its simplest way, that I am going to ask him to tell us whether this idea of the regional secure units has been quietly dropped overboard. Perhaps you do not drop a thing quietly overboard and announce that you are quietly dropping it overboard: one process would defeat the other. At any rate, will the noble Lord say whether the Government are going on seriously at all with these regional secure units? That is the main point that I want to place before him.
Now, like other noble Lords, in trying to prepare myself for this debate I have made one or two inquiries on the spot. I visited Broadmoor, for example, not by any means for the first time. There I found Dr. McGrath, the formidable superintendent who has served the State so well in that capacity for over 20 years, a strong supporter of the Butler proposals for regional secure units. He told me that they would greatly reduce the pressure on Broadmoor, and would act both as a filter and a buffer. They would siphon off a number of disturbed patients who are now sent to Broadmoor because they are too difficult for the ordinary mental hospitals to handle; and, at the other end, they would take over many patients who are ready to leave Broadmoor but whom the mental hospitals are at present too nervous to accept.
What shocks Dr. McGrath—and I really do not think he would mind my quoting him, though of course he is a serving superintendent—is the failure of the regional health authorities to push on with the construction of these secure units. He gave me a table, which I think has been published, which shows how, disgracefully enough, the funds allocated by the Ministry for this precise purpose have either not been used at all or have been used in other ways. If we accept the point, for the sake of argument, that these secure units are highly desirable then somebody has to be blamed for their nonappearance; and from that point of view perhaps the noble Lord will explain what has gone wrong. Various explanations were offered while I was at Broadmoor, and have been since. There was the usual accusation of bureaucracy, and I am quite ready to join in that sort of accusation, at

1833
any rate while I am not likely to be in any responsible position. Then, of course, the difficulties with the local communities and the hospital staff were also mentioned.
What I had not anticipated—the noble Lord who spoke last would know all about this, but some noble Lords would not—was the blame bestowed by the forensic psychiatrists on their non-forensic brethren, who are, of course, the great majority of psychiatrists. I do not know whether all noble Lords here can tell a forensic psychiatrist from a non-forensic psychiatrist at sight, but at any rate that distinction was made. I know, of course, that the noble Lord, Lord Stone, would; but, then, he understands everything in the medical world, including the nature of my own mental and physical difficulties.
Lord STONE: But not that, my Lords.
The Earl of LONGFORD: At any rate, my Lords, we were told that the enthusiasm of the non-forensic psychiatrists for these units is very tepid, and yet no one—certainly no one at Broadmoor—doubted that the great liberalisation in the mental hospitals, which we all welcome, had left a whole category of dangerous men for whom security remains necessary. At present, apart from the special hospitals such as Broadmoor, there is nowhere to send them except prison, and yet everyone at Broadmoor, and I think most people, including noble Lords and Ministers, would agree that sick people, in Dr. McGrath's words, should not be imprisoned. We are talking about sick people. On the face of it, therefore, after a visit to Broadmoor, one would if that was the full extent of one's inquiries, emerge with the view that one should go full steam ahead with secure regional units and denounce everybody who drags his feet or stands in the way.
After that, I visited Knowle Hospital Special Unit but, after coming back from Knowle Hospital Special Unit, I am afraid that I found myself more rather than less confused. I had been at pains to find, with the help of the Ministry, a secure regional unit on the lines suggested by the Butler Report. The Ministry had done their best for us. I gather that Knowle had more to offer than anywhere else. I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, is familiar with what is
1834
going on at Knowle. He mentioned one other unit but I am not sure that he mentioned Knowle. Certainly, the Wessex Region seems to have spent more than any other region of the funds which were earmarked by the Ministry for the purpose.
I was shown the Knowle Special Unit with 14 beds and I was much impressed with the way that things were being done; but it was a far cry from this little unit to the kind of unit which is recommended by Lord Butler. The first thing that struck me about Knowle—which was the special unit that I was assisted by the Ministry to visit—was that the door of the unit was not locked. It soon transpired that in no physical sense was the unit more secure than the average ward in a hospital. I was told, however, that the unit was secure in a different sense, not in a physical sense but another sense, because of the high ratio of staff. There were, in fact, 13 nurses to 14 patients. This ratio was apparently much higher than in a mental hospital or a general hospital, or in Broadmoor.
In a document handed to me by the Knowle psychiatrist, it was revealed that more than two-thirds of the patients were voluntary. Therefore, the unit cannot be said to be dealing primarily with the problem of delinquents, the problem we are discussing today. It was dealing mostly with voluntary patients. So, taking this hospital, which was recommended to me as a good field of study, it was difficult, if not impossible, to recognise this as the kind of secure unit which was envisaged in the Butler Report. So, to the best of my belief, there is no such unit in the country at the present time.
I should add—and it is perhaps of rather more long-term importance—that those whom I spoke to at the hospital, including the excellent shop stewards, were highly critical of the Butler proposals in this matter. I am sorry to say this in front of the noble Lord, Lord, Butler but that is perhaps more chivalrous than to say it behind his back. In any case, he follows me on the list of speakers and can therefore put it right.
Lord BUTLER of SAFFRON WALDEN: My Lords, if the noble Earl is basing his observations on what he saw there, it was nothing to do with my report and I can accept no responsibility.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden—
Lord BUTLER of SAFFRON WALDEN: My Lords, I am very interested in the noble Earl's argument and I hope that he will continue.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, I was going to do so whether or not the noble Lord hoped that I would. The shop stewards, I am afraid, said flatly that they were utterly against the Butler approach. In that sense, whether they were right or the noble Lord was right, I am only telling him that the shop stewards were very critical of the approach. They were enthusiastic about the liberalisation. In saying that, I am not saying that these gentlemen are infallible but only what these gentlemen recommended to me by the Ministry actually told me. They were very enthusiastic about the liberalisation which has come to mental hospitals since the Mental Health Act. They said that to introduce the old restrictionism in any new unit established on the lines, they thought, of the Butler proposals would be putting the clock back and should not be tolerated for a moment. That is what the Government must cope with on the ground if they try to apply these criteria. Even if there were no such thing as bureaucratic inertia, the Government have a difficult problem in that situation. It was brought home to me that this new unit, like others being set up elsewhere, was an interim measure. Lord Butler had envisaged larger units. The psychiatrist in charge was ready for something somewhat larger than at present but nothing on the scale of Butler.
Since that time, I have come to feel that the failure to produce the so-called "Butler units"—and I am sorry if the word is inappropriate; but I am sure that the noble Lord will not mind my using it—may be due to something deeper than bureaucratic inertia. I am sure that bureaucratic inertia plays its part and, given half a chance, operates all too strongly. This is what I am putting to the Minister—and I went to see only one place but I gather that there is nothing sensibly better to be seen—can it truly be said that a real agreement on the desirable kind of unit as envisaged by Lord Butler has yet been reached, quite apart
1836
from the construction of the unit; or is it on the point of being reached among the various parties concerned?
In some bewilderment at this stage, I consulted MIND, which some of us think of in connection with the National Association for Mental Health who have done such fine work over the whole field of mental disorder and of which the noble Lord, Lord Butler, is the honoured President. I will not begin to summarise the considered opinion of MIND regarding abnormal offenders in general. They had many laudatory things to say about the Butler Report. They say, for example:
"It suggested rather impressive reforms in terms of prevention, rehabilitation and after-care improvements in the conditions for, and treatment of, the range of people who are called abnormal offenders'."
I am sure that all that is very very true. But in regard to the regional units, they are much more reserved. I am quoting from MIND who, I believe, are described as the campaigning aspect of the National Association for Mental Health. They say that the evidence which comes from the Clancy Committee set up by the DHSS demonstrates that the regional secure units are not in the least likely to draw many people who would otherwise be going to the special hospitals. They say:
"If the regional secure units immediately become cluttered up with people from ordinary psychiatric hospitals they are obviously going to be of very little help to special hospital patients and to prisoners."
If MIND are right, then the dream of the good people of Broadmoor that these regional secure units are going to make life easier for them is a fantasy. The real problem, as MIND sees it, is that local hospitals at the present time—and I think this is drawing towards what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley—are given very little help in coping with difficult patients. So MIND would firmly recommend that the resources should be concentrated as far as possible on the assistance of the local psychiatric hospitals—and may I add what I am sure would be their view—and on providing much more adequate resources for the special hospitals and for psychiatric facilities in prisons.
I found total scepticism when I was at the Knowle hospital about the after-care

1837
which is provided at present for mental patients. Certainly my experience of after-care provided at special hospitals or in prisons leads me to the same conclusion. If there are resources available, I hope that a high proportion will be devoted to after-care.
That does not mean that MIND feel that all progress with the special secure units should be stopped; they think that there should be experiments made in that field. But, certainly, their general point of view (which I share) is that there are other claims which are more insistent. We are all aware that in matters of this kind there can be no absolute certainty and no abstract standards of perfection.
Differences of opinion on exactly how to treat an abnormal patient will not be resolved in the near future. Indeed, they never will be. I am all for experiment of different kinds; but it would be unforgivable to use these differences of opinion, which are certainly going to persist, as an excuse for further procrastination in the development of our treatment of abnormal offenders. These abnormal offenders are always going to present a very perplexing problem, particularly in young ones, so it is not dogmatism on my part or on the part of any noble Lord here. Let us conduct these experiments; let us continue the arguments; but, above all, let us push on much faster in providing the resources that are so badly needed for dealing with abnormal offenders.
4.51 p.m.
Lord BUTLER of SAFFRON WALDEN: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale for the kind tribute that he paid to our report. Listening to the speech of my noble friend Lord Longford one would think that it was my report alone. As a matter of fact, two particularly learned justices were on the Committee; namely, judges, as was the best and most well-known psychiatrist or doctor in Britain, Sir Denis Hill. At any rate, he is head of the Maudsley Hospital and did a distinguished job. It consisted of psychiatrists from the North of England and from the South. It consisted of many other magistrates, and it consisted of people who
1838
joined with us in a unanimous report. Therefore, I am greatly interested in the noble Lord's arguments and I must take them as representing my colleagues' as well as my own.
I was very interested in my noble friend Lord Mansfield's speech with which I largely agree. It is clear he has special knowledge from the Bench which has helped him in giving his arguments. I hope that noble Lords from the Liberal Benches will be answered by the Government, because some of the points were not in our report. They deserve attention, but the question is whether they can all be reached today. In the case of the speech of my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale, he covered most of the subject so I shall not attempt to do that myself. I should like to stress the importance of our formula in relation to the M'Naghten rules. The M'Naghten rules are very old now—they date back to 1843.
I may as well refer to that now. When I went to see Mr. Maudling as Home Secretary, he referred to the case of Graham Young, a dangerous lunatic, to which my noble friend referred. I think he thought he would appoint a nice little Committee under me to get him out of political trouble about Graham Young and that would be the end of the subject. I was perhaps foolishly sitting on a particularly comfortable sofa, which I have never sat on since, nor have I ever been in the Secretary of State's room at the Home Office, or in any Minister's room in either office, Social Security or Home Office, since.
I was astonished when I received the real remit of what we had to look at. It was very much broader. It contained not only a reference to the criminal law as we know it, and the question of whether the word "insanity" is or is not out of date, whether we should base defence on mens rea, which would take me some two hours to explain, except to the noble and learned Lord, the ex-Lord Chancellor, sitting opposite. It entailed a great deal of not exactly criticism but desire for revision of the famous Mental Health Act. I, as a Conservative, helped to frame that Act and I often spoke about it both in the House and over the country. It is a magnificent Act but I think needing revision. Those were what we were faced with. I will take the M'Naghten rules

1839
first. I promise to come to these wonderful units; and also I promise to come to other subjects in a minute or two. The formula that we adopted in dealing with the M'Naghten rules is in paragraph 18.18 on page 222 of the report. It says that insanity being out of date
"We propose that the new formula for the special verdict should be not guilty on evidence of mental disorder'."
This is based on certain elements which are referred to in the previous paragraph, and the whole problem of mens rea and such technicalities, is referred to in paragraph 18.20 onwards. For noble Lords who are interested, I recommend them to look at those parts of the report.
What is important is that before we came to this decision on altering the M'Naghten rules and changing the criminal law for the first time for over 150 years, we consulted the Law Lords. We consulted the Lords Justices of Appeal and, in particular, we consulted Lord Justice Ormrod, whom I saw again before this debate to see whether he still agreed with our decision. In each case the Law Lords, starting with hesitation, came round to our point of view. In one of these paragraphs that I have quoted there is a statement by Lord Denning. I am afraid that, like some of the statements of geniuses, we did not quite agree with it; but the fact is that the noble Lord, Lord Denning, is himself an expert on mental disorder and we also consulted him. So much for the M'Naghten rules.
I also want to refer to certain medical definitions which were given by Sir Denis Hill and which are very important. Those are on page 229 of the report. It says in paragraph 18.35:
"A mental illness is severe when it has one or more of the following characteristics …".
Then the characteristics are set out and noble Lords can follow, if they so desire, the details lying behind our decision on the M'Naghten rules and our decision on the definition of mental illness. Those are in the report, and it is a clear one.
I have been told that the paragraphs of the report are some of the clearest ever written. I do not know whether to believe that. I should like to express my thanks to the secretariat, Mr. A. W. Glanville, and Miss M. Purvis. We dispensed with all shorthand and so we were
1840
probably one of the cheapest Royal Commissions ever reporting. The only expense was incurred because, for some reason—which I did not understand—the Home Office had to hire some premises. We had some pork pies and a few rolls of bread for lunch; otherwise I do not think we imposed a great deal of expense on the public. We raised in the end, I am afraid, a great many recommendations.
What I should like to do before I go into some of them is to say this to the noble Lord the Minister. Since the Education Act of 1944 I have managed to keep close contact and to be allowed to criticise and talk with every Minister of Education right up-to-date. I have even been asked to lunch by Shirley Williams. I have discussed what I hope will be reforms in certain directions. I shall probably be in agreement with them, and when they come forward I will be speaking here about them. I have also been in touch very closely on Treasury matters with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom I invited to one of my final dinners at Trinity College. He expressed great joy that on that very day he had exceeded my length of term of office of over four years by one day. I hope that he will be successful because it is essential to destroy and kill inflation.
I must say to the noble Lords, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and Lord Wells-Pestell, that although I have met them of course before in other incarnations, I should like to meet them and their Ministers and see a little more, for example, of the work of the Minister of Social Security. I can always get my way into the Home Office by devious means, having been there for five whole years running, and I am provided with a lot of useful information. I know roughly what is going on there. But I do not even know where the back door is at the Elephant and Castle. So it is very difficult to keep proper contact. I hope that some arrangement might be made by which we might have a consultation, and into that consultation, which would be perfectly simple, could be included, for example, some of the doubts of the noble Lord.
The real truth of the final terms of reference we were given was that there was a growing realisation of the need to reappraise the operation of Part V of the Mental Health Act 1959—that is the powers and facilities available for dealing with

1841
mentally disordered offenders, and power to protect the public at the same time. That matter has been referred to by three noble Lords who have spoken. It was a most daunting task and, while we took three years, I must say to the Government that they have taken practically three years—there are still a few months to run—before giving us any satisfaction whatever.
I think it is now time that the country woke up to the fact that certain things and certain news may be very exciting, but that certain politics and certain difficulties may be very embarrassing for the Government. But my noble friend who opened the debate and I, and those who are speaking, are dealing with the most abject and lowest portion of the population who are, in my opinion, being badly neglected by us all. Therefore, the fact that my noble friend has brought forward this debate is vital to the country as a whole. To be mentally afflicted is bad enough, but if you read the report of the Royal Commission on Hanging and see the brilliant language used there by the then secretary, Mr. Graham Harrison—probably the most brilliant man in the Home Office—you will see that there are many people who also have mental disorder. I shall have to disagree later with my noble friend Lord Longford on the subject of how to deal with certain people called psychopaths.
There are some topics to which he attached particular weight. The problem of the psychopath is one that appeared out of the operation of Part V of the 1959 Act. It is certainly one of the most intractable and perplexing questions one could deal with. The problem was: how should we deal with the psychopath? First, we have to try to find who he is. If we were to ask Dr. Johnson, we might get an answer, but I cannot think of anyone living who could give an answer. Dr. Johnson, when asked "What is poetry?" said,
"Well, sir, tis much easier to say what it is not. We all know what light is but it is not easy to tell what it is."
It is not easy to tell what a psychopathic disorder is and, as the Ministers who represent that Department know, their officials feel very great doubt about the position of the psychopath. It is certainly a great problem.
1842
I claim that the existence of psychopathic disorder is inferred from serious irresponsible or abnormal aggressive conduct. I daresay that when my noble friend Lord Longford was being led round by Dr. McGrath, he may have been warned, for example: "That gentleman over there might suddenly hit you because he is aggressive and dangerous: he is in fact a psychopath." Dr. McGrath and his friends are so clever that, on the whole, they manage to look after most of them; but these are singularly dangerous and unpleasant people.
This uncertainty of identification is often difficult to discern, and is paralleled by continuing uncertainty as to the proper way to deal with it. Some measure of success is claimed for certain methods of behaviour modification in some local hospitals, and no doubt we should like to try that. The Committee formed the view that a dangerous psychopath of the more aggressive type has no place in local psychiatric hospitals and that, while the option of a hospital order should not be discarded for psychopathic offenders in general, the modification of their behaviour as the object of treatment is more likely to be attained within the penal system than within hospital. That is where I am now approaching my noble friend's doubts and worries.
With these considerations in mind and, with a view to establishing more clearly the responsibilities of the Prison Service, the Committee put forward two main proposals. One was that the courts should no longer be free to make a hospital order in respect of a psychopath, unless the court is satisfied that a previous mental or organic illness or an identifiable psychological or physical defect relevant to the disorder is known or suspected. That was the first, and in addition there is to be an expectation of therapeutic benefit from hospital admission. In that way, we had one suggestion for psychopaths. The second suggestion concerned the difficulty of dealing with a dangerous and anti-social psychopath. It was suggested that a start should be made with a pilot study, which might be carried out in an existing part of a prison. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, observed that we were not so positive as to suggest that a pilot scheme should not be tried. I hope that the noble Lord who is to respond to

1843
the Motion on behalf of the Government will be able to say something on this extraordinarily complex issue.
Of course we did recommend in an interim report that a security unit should be set up. The House must realise that the Government accepted our interim report. Secondly, it must be realised that the Government accepted that they would go forward with this idea; and so we are asking today that something should be done. We were told at the time of our report by Ministers that there was no money.
Today there is an enormous blaze of headlines in the newspapers about the oil resources. These are to be used mostly for energy and for the re-creation of industry. At the very bottom the words appear in small print, "social services". I want the Ministers today to get some of that money. Social services are included in the White Paper on oil, and if they are included, something ought to be done for the mentally disordered, and particularly for the psychopath. Not only that, but as I came to sit in the House I had a paper, referred to by the noble Lord, published by MIND—the National Association for Mental Health, as I always call it—of which I am president, reminding me of the terrible conditions in Broadmoor, Rampton, Moss Side and the new Park Lane, a new special hospital which is far from completion. I was reminded of how it is becoming absolutely essential that public money should at last be spent.
If you visit Broadmoor and go to the left-hand side of the building, conditions are tolerable. On the right-hand side of the building, as you are warned by Dr. McGrath, the situation concerning bed room, sanitation and health is probably the most intolerable in the world. It is terrible that this should be going on and on. Here I am speaking six years after all this was put to me, as chairman of the Committee which produced the report. It is many years since I was a Minister—and I have been a Minister longer than anybody living in this country, in one Department or another. I must honestly say to the Government that these conditions are intolerable and I must ask that some of the oil revenues which are being blazoned today should be seized by their Departments and used for the relief which we want.
1844
The next problem that arose in this debate was the one about the liberty of the individual. That is a particularly important point. I have here a booklet about this, also published by MIND, which I saw only this afternoon for some reason. If people can afford £2·75, they can buy it; I am not allowed to make it a Government document! It is written by the Association's own lawyers and shows the importance of preserving the liberty of the individual and also the safety of the public.
Our first proposals were all very nice and were really in favour of the liberty of the subject, so far as was possible. But then a certain gentleman called Iliffe got out; he murdered his wife, cut her up and put her into the refrigerator. So we thought that that was a bit too much to allow, without a little control. Then, unfortunately, just before we were going to report—as the Minister will know—one or two other escapes occurred. In my opinion, the Cambridge rapist, who held the town to ransom for several months, could have been caught earlier. It was a girl in my office, who remembered a case of sex trouble, who reported it and helped towards the final arrest. This is all very well, but if you are going to have freedom of the subject you must also have security.
Sir Carl Aarvold was first appointed to a committee to look after this aspect, but we found, following on the view of the Royal Commission relating to mental illness, the Percy Commission and other such commissions, that that statement about the appointment of Sir Carl Aarvold was not enough and that it must be further strengthened. We therefore suggested the addition of an advisory committee, and that further permission should be sought—and the permission of the Home Secretary—before release could be made possible. I believe that this new compromise, which is much aided by the wisdom of Sir Carl Aarvold, will lead to fewer dangerous cases getting out and disturbing the public; and it is important that there should be this compromise achieved between the liberty of the individual, and the safety of the public.
As I said, I could go over many other paragraphs of the report. I believe that we should think a little more than we have

1845
done in our debate, so far, about aftercare. At the present moment, a man can be let out and the after-care may be so limited that he cannot do anything more. So he goes back and is, again, in the desperate situation which my committee and I saw in those sad, gloomy hospitals, so nobly and splendidly run by their superintendents. I think, also, that the problem of the inadequate, the rootless and, so often, homeless schizophrenic should be dealt with. One could go on with one person after another, but I feel that I have said enough to show that it is the honourable duty of your Lordships' House, as individuals and corporately, and it is the duty of the other House, to see that the Government of the day give us a little of these extra riches, which are coming to us, to help put right some scandals which are too great for this country to bear.
5.13 p.m.
Lord HUNT: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, spoke of his experience of speaking before the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden. I have to say that it is my fate or experience—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, will take it as a compliment—to speak after he has spoken. The last occasion when I did so was in a debate on education, and here I am speaking with equally little knowledge on the subject of the report produced by the Committee of which he was chairman. I profess to know very little about this subject, but I am, nevertheless, very grateful to my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale for inviting me to take part in the debate on the Motion in his name. I think that he was persuaded to do so by Dr. McGrath, the superintendent at Broadmoor—on what grounds I am not sure. It is, of course, very unwise in your Lordships' House, as everybody knows, to speak on subjects about which one knows little. Nevertheless, I am glad to take the opportunity, if only to make a single point on behalf of the probation and after-care service.
It is not without significance that the National Association of Probation Officers, of which I am privileged to be President, supported every one of the 138—or 140, according to my noble friend Lord Allen—recommendations in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Butler. NAPO is a body
1846
which is historically, and I think rightly, known for being critical of reports to Governments, whether they are by committees or commissions, on matters in the penal and social welfare fields, and here is a national association which has come out in total support of every one of Lord Butler's recommendations.
I am not here to plug the virtues of the National Association of Probation Officers, but I should like, in support of what I have said to point out that the Association does not run a union shop, and yet it is highly representative of the whole body of probation officers. It includes more than 4,000 of the total of 5,500 probation officers in the country. It consulted very widely before giving its evidence to Lord Butler's Committee, and it came out with this unanimous, strongly held and very positive view. The Probation Service is not, of course, involved with mentally abnormal offenders to the extent that it is with other offenders. But in giving its evidence, it voiced its particularly strong support for recommendation 1 in Lord Butler's interim report, and the supporting recommendation 2, bearing on the need—and the urgent need—for these regional secure units, of which we have heard so much this afternoon.
The National Association reinforced its support more recently—in fact, on 30th January this year—in giving oral evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on Expenditure. One member of the delegation from that Association informed the Committee that, in a prison—and it was not Grendon or Wormwood Scrubs, which have special units to deal with psychiatric cases—where he worked for several years as a welfare officer, about 11 prisoners on average every year were released after offences for which, in his opinion, and in the opinion of his colleagues, they bore only a very diminished responsibility. They were suffering from some form of mental abnormality and they should not have been sent to prison. That was not only the view of the welfare staff in the prison; it was the view of the prison governor and, no doubt, some of his colleagues.
On that basis, that probation officer computed that as many as 1,000 men and women might be serving prison sentences at any one time, with some form of mental disorder. They were not receiving, or

1847
perhaps were not susceptible to, psychiatric treatment and, in many cases, they were not subject to any control whatsoever on being released. They were serving fixed-term sentences. Normally, they would come out after completing two-thirds of their sentences, and there would be no control once they were in the community. That officer stressed to the committee his difficulty, and indeed his failures, in making any discharge arrangements for the great majority of those 11 men per year who were in that prison; and that figure could be multiplied by the many prisons in which that happens, with the consequent risk which those mentally disordered offenders, having been in prison, present to the public.
Even where such people are subject to supervision orders of some kind or another, whether they come out on parole licence or a young person's licence, they are very often not responsive to the kind of skills that probation and after-care officers and social workers possess. Whatever the numbers—and although I produced a figure of about 1,000, somebody this afternoon gave what sounded like an authoritative figure of 900, or thereabouts which I have not seen myself—it is reasonable to claim that there are very many cases of this kind. Mentally abnormal ex-prisoners present a danger to the public and to themselves, whether or not they are supervised, and even though they may not in all cases be violent people. Because of their disorder, some of them cannot be cured.
A number of questions arise from the evidence submitted to the Select Committee on Expenditure. May I pick out three main questions which raise quite a number of others, but they are very obvious ones. First, should such persons have been prosecuted in the first instance by the police? Secondly, depending on the plea at the trial and how that plea was dealt with, was there a medical report and were there social inquiry reports in every case before sentence was pronounced? Thirdly, depending on the question of reports, should such persons have been sent to prison, and was prison an appropriate form of sentence?
Certainly there is no one answer to those many cases of people who come before the courts in that mental condition.
1848
As I have said, those three questions give rise to a number of others. The answer to the first question, that of prosecution, and to the third question, that of imprisonment, may well have been known in most cases, but—and the "but" means that there was no alternative secure place for such persons to go to; there was no asylum, and I use the word "asylum" not it its old "loony bin" sense but as meaning a refuge or a place of safety where they could be cared for instead of having to be sent to prison, or after having come out of prison.
I have nothing more to contribute to your Lordships' debate, beyond expressing to my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale the hope that the testimony from the Probation Service with which I am concerned adds force to the case which the Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, made so extremely cogently and to which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has this afternoon drawn our attention with a very strong note of urgency.
5.23 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, so far as I am concerned, the most pleasing feature about the debate this afternoon is to see again in your Lordships' House the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden. I first met the noble Lord more years ago than I care to remember, when I helped to introduce into this country a voluntary organisation which today is perhaps one of the leading voluntary organisations, one that is known not only nationally but internationally. The noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, may not realise that this organisation would have sunk without trace within a matter of three years for lack of money had he not called together a number of business people and influential people and told them of the situation. His action produced so much money that it enabled this organisation to carry on, and today it enjoys a great deal of approval in the eyes of everybody.
I am not unaware that the matter which we are discussing today is a kind of "no-man's-land" which is full of mines and trip wires. However careful one is and however carefully one walks, one is bound either to tread on a mine or to set one off by the trip wire. As it was felt that my

1849
Department would in some respects be criticised, perhaps not without justification, it was thought that at this stage I should intervene to try to answer some of the points which have been made. It was possible to anticipate what certain noble Lords would say, and this they have done. Certainly the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, indicated to me some time ago the line that they were likely to take.
I want to say at the very beginning in answer to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that the report of the Butler Committee on the urgent need for regional secure psychiatric units was accepted by the Government. There is no intention on the part of the Government to put the report conveniently aside and at a suitable moment to torpedo it out of sight. There are reasons why the Government have not made the progress they would have liked to make.
We recognise that it is important that this recommendation and the programme for providing these units should be seen in the context of the Government's overall strategy for the development of services for the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped, to which we continue to attach a great deal of priority. This is not just a form of words; it is a sincere belief. Indeed, only this week planning guidelines for 1978–79 have been sent to health authorities and local authorities, reiterating the priorities for these services which had been set out—I would say clearly—in previous documents.
Mentally abnormal offenders who are referred as patients to the National Health Service are treated and cared for in respect of their mental disorders in that part of the psychiatric service which is appropriate to the care and treatment they need, including any appropriate degree of security. They are not regarded as a separate category of patient for whom separate services are provided, nor do they all require—this is a point which we have to keep in the forefront of our minds—the same degree of security.
The regional psychiatric secure units which the Butler Report recommended have to be seen against this general background. They form part of an integrated psychiatric service, not a separate and
1850
distinct service. Essentially, they are for patients who require a degree of security less than that of the special hospitals but greater than that of the ordinary psychiatric hospital or unit. It is part of the latter's function to provide a degree of security by means, in some cases, of a high level of staffing oversight and in others by the occasional use of a locked room or ward. Thus, the secure units will take only a minority of patients who are difficult to manage. They are not for all offender patients, or for all ex-special hospital patients, or for any other category of that kind. They are for a limited group of patients.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to Knowle Hospital and said—and I accept his comment and observation—that there is no locked door and that any of the patients can leave at any time. They would be dissuaded from doing so, and because of the high level of staff at Knowle there is every reason to believe that this policy is successful. Although I have been at some pains to inquire, I do not know of one person who has, for want of a better word, absconded from Knowle. This is due, as I have said, to the high level of staffing oversight.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, would the noble Lord like to finish with Knowle, or may I intervene now?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I have finished with Knowle.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, may I remind the noble Lord of what I told him: That two-thirds of the people there are voluntary patients. Knowle is not dealing, therefore, with the problem of delinquency.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: No, my Lords, but what is delinquency? Does delinquency apply only to those who appear before the courts? These are people whom it is suspected might well behave in a seriously anti-social way. As I have said, they have gone to Knowle and there they have stayed. I do not know of a single instance of anybody walking out or absconding.
Patients come from a variety of sources. Some patients come from special hospitals, but most special hospital patients who have reached the point where they are ready

1851
to leave hospital should either be transferred to ordinary psychiatric units or be discharged direct into the community. The largest source of patients for secure units is expected to be those who have proved to be beyond the capacity of the ordinary psychiatric hospital or unit to manage, even with a high level of staffing oversight. A further source will be offenders admitted on court orders, but again most of the offenders are envisaged as continuing to be admitted to ordinary psychiatric hospitals or units, at least in the first instance, to see what can be done for them at that level. The other source will be the mentally disordered prisoners transferred on the Home Secretary's order, who have been referred to this afternoon. Once more we would expect ordinary psychiatric hospitals to continue to take a number of such transfers in the ordinary way.
As noble Lords will be aware, progress in setting up regional psychiatric secure units has been—and let me be quite frank about this—disappointingly slow despite the special capital and revenue moneys which have been made available. Ten of the 14 health regions have put proposals to my Department and we hope that the other four will be able to do so very soon. But the noble Lord, Lord Allen, was quite correct. He was very fair—if he does not mind my saying so—in saying that the most we can hope for is that there will be two or three regional units operational by 1980 or 1981 and the rest we hope will be established by 1985. I cannot give your Lordships any assurance whatsoever that we shall be able to do so before then. There are considerable difficulties.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, referred to the use of the money which we gave. The allocation was first made in 1976–77 and it was repeated for the year 1977–78. It was to enable regional authorities to establish interim facilities to try and close the gap in the service. My department recognised that the amount provided was likely in practice to be more than could be used in the first year. The result was that the authorities were authorised to devote the unspent money to other urgent Health Service purposes. The regions were reminded last year that in the current financial year they should be in a position to put the allocation to the
1852
fuller use and recommend that any allocation unspent on secure facilities should be devoted to other facilities in the psychiatric field.
I have explained at some length the purpose of the units because I suspect that some of the difficulties in getting the units set up may spring from a variety of misunderstandings as to what is happening. My right honourable friend the the Secretary of State for Social Services at a meeting with the chairmen of all the regional health authorities as recently as yesterday discussed with them what must be done and what can be done to speed the progress. The chairmen confirmed their support for the policy but brought to the notice of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State the real difficulties that they are facing. The problems are complex.
The concept of regional secure units is an untried one and-I have to be perfectly frank about this—staff attitudes are also a key factor. It has to be said that the enthusiasm for treating patients under open conditions, with all the benefits to staff and patients in doing so, has led to a situation where many staff are reluctant to treat patients in conditions of security. There also seems to be an increased Unwillingness to treat the very difficult ones who are disruptive or violent or difficult, for reasons which I think most of us here can understand. It is one thing to say to people, "You ought to do this" when you are not doing it yourself.
Public attitudes are also a key factor. Misunderstandings about the nature and purpose of the units, the kinds of patients who will be in them and the risk they represent to the local public are widespread. Every one of us here believes that there should be a regional secure unit, but not next door to us, next door to somebody else. We are having these difficulties. One was raised in your Lordships' House over a year ago where the local community demanded an inquiry and it is not resolved yet because people living in the community will not have the unit.
The Regional Health Authority is in the same position as everybody else. We cannot build where and when we like. We have to get planning permission and we have to submit plans. We have to get authority to do this, that and the other and

1853
if anybody objects, as they do (in two cases, to my knowledge), we cannot do anything until after completion of a long-drawn-out process because the rights of the individual have to be protected. It does not help—not that any Members of your Lordships' House are responsible for this—when people make references in public to "mini-Broadmoors". As the noble Lord, Lord Allen, said, they are not going to be mini-Broadmoors. I am grateful to have this opportunity of saying the things I have said.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? As one who objected very strongly at the time to the Earlswood project, I feel I ought to say that I have now completely changed my mind, partly as a result of the urgency of the problem and partly as a result of the Butler Report. I hope that the Government will proceed with the matter with all urgency.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble Lord may have changed his mind—I am glad that he has—but the point is that you have to change a large number of people's minds in these matters before you can get things done. Some noble Lords may have seen the recent papers by Dr. Bluglass, regional forensic psychiatrist in the West Midlands Regions, which he put to an all-Party mental health group. He implies that the Department of Health and Social Services Working Party Report and the Butler Report were not specific enough about the types of patients who would be suitable for secure units.
It is true that my Department's report, which we call the Glancy Report, concentrated on types of patients who would not be suitable for admission, making the particular point that the units were not intended to cope with all the patients in mental hospitals who were sporadically difficult or aggressive but only with those causing continuing difficulty for whom expert and intensive therapy in secure units was likely to produce significant improvement within 18 months to two years. The Department's design guidelines went into more detail about the types of patients for whom the secure services are needed. However, we would accept that further definition may be helpful, but again we are dealing with a very young
1854
science—if psychiatry is a science. I do not know whether it is; it is certainly not an exact science. Any science that is not an exact science very often throws up more difficulties than it solves.
The point is also made that a significant number of patients are likely to require secure accommodation for longer than 18 months to two years as envisaged in the Glancy Report. This is an important issue. It highlights the importance of secure units being seen as only one element in the whole spectrum of different degrees of security. I want to stress this point—different degrees of security. I think we are making a very serious mistake if we think that a secure unit must be a place that is completely isolated from anywhere else, that is bolted and barred and locked. I do not think that that is conducive to helpful treatment.
I am simply trying to reply to some of the remarks that have been made about my own Department. I do not want to go on any longer, because the brunt of this falls on my noble friend Lord Harris. I should like to make one other point: that is, that we are so concerned about the problems which seem to bedevil this whole question of safe security units that we have had our policy endorsed by all chairmen of the Regional Health Authorities. I am glad to say that we have bad our policy endorsed by al I the professional bodies, including the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and also by the TUC and the national trade union organisation.
My right honourable friend has set up a committee which includes representatives of the whole trade union movement affected here; he has their support and we are hoping that they will be able not just to consider the difficulties with which we are faced but to provide solutions which will help us, once we have got through all the tedious problems of planning, siting and all those other things, to see that we are able to get the staff to meet the requirements of the Butler Report.
5.42 p.m.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, all those in the Prison Service, in the Probation and After-Care Service, in the Health Service and the voluntary and statutory social services, and indeed the mentally abnormal offenders themselves,

1855
owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for initiating this long and overdue debate. It seems almost presumptuous to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and his colleagues for producing a masterly and readable report on an extraordinarily wide-ranging and complex subject.
Mentally abnormal offenders are individuals who in our society are unacceptable to many, and indeed by many they are feared. They cannot be brushed aside; indeed it would not be politic to do so. As Lord Allen said in his opening speech, in a civilised society they should, surely, receive caring treatment, while at the same time protecting the public from their intermittent dangerous behaviour.
I would ask a few questions. First, may I draw the attention of your Lordships to the recommended provision for mentally disordered juveniles and young adult offenders. This is outlined, and the problems are outlined, in Chapter 17 where it says:
"Placement within the prison system is not appropriate for juvenile offenders suffering from mental disorder. … We recommend that steps be taken by the DHSS to encourage the establishment of more places in hospital for mentally disordered juveniles and we hope that increased facilities will promote greater willingness on the part of consultants to accept them".—[Parapraphs 17.2 and 17.3.]
There is much concern in this country over juvenile offenders requiring secure accommodation. On 20th June 1975, there was a ministerial Statement in the other place that the Government intended making available to local authorities financial assistance in the form of grants for the purpose of building secure accommodation for seriously disturbed juveniles. May I ask the Minister to what extent that Statement, made 2½ years ago, has been implemented? For a juvenile a time in prison can be a passport to further crime and further difficulty.
May I ask the Minister, also, whether any hostels have been set up for the after-care of such juveniles? This was a recommendation in Paragraphs 134 to 139. I was going to ask various questions on the regional secure hospital units, but the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has answered the questions I was going to ask. I should like to say that I was privileged to sit on a committee in the
1856
Oxford region which first discussed the setting up of these units, and I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has said: there are untold difficulties over the setting up of such units. One of the greatest difficulties, perhaps one of the sadnesses and tragedies of our time, is that everybody in an area agrees that they should be set up, but not in their area.
We should ask ourselves—and I would put this before your Lordships' House—in what way can we change public opinion in a civilised society in regard to people who are so mentally ill and mentally handicapped that help is needed, to persuade people that instead of being fearful, frightened and appalled by them, they should seek to help them and co-operate with those wishing to do so. I would also echo what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has said over staffing. I have worked in a mental hospital. It is very difficult for staff to accept work in a mental hospital that is secure and not open. I hope that we may have the co-operation of the trades unions. Their rôle is to safeguard their staff, and many of their staff are fearful. Also, I would suggest that it is a trade union's privilege to help its members to understand the need of the patients that we are dealing with. I hope that they would also join with the rest of us in doing what we can to change the public attitude towards people who are so much in need of skill and help.
I should like to take up a point which the noble Lord, Lord Butler, made on the question of social services and aftercare and preventive work. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, or the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, whether we should not be considering the question of the training and the role of the Probation After-care service and the training of social workers in the statutory and voluntary social services. I would ask the Minister to inquire of the Council on Training and Education in Social Work if that Council is satisfied that the universities and polytechnics are supplying the right type of training for probation officers and for social workers, training enabling them to work in the field of mental health.
I have been told by some senior probation officers and senior social workers that they are concerned that the present courses for some probation officers and

1857
social workers do not begin to equip them for work in this field. Yet again—and I almost hesitate to do this—may I bring to the notice of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, a request that I have brought to him on at least two other occasions for adequate community social services, and in particular the need for hostels. It is cheaper to provide hostel accommodation than for an offender to return to prison, or even to go to prison in the first place.
I had a friend called Joe, and he used to call a week before Christmas and ask whether he could see me to wish me a Happy Christmas. I used to say: "Joe, it's a week before Christmas, why not come round on Christmas Eve?". He used to say, "I have business to do tonight". That business was to clock a policeman, knock him out, appear before the magistrates and to be sentenced to time in prison, so that he could have a Christmas dinner. That does not happen now in the area in which I live, because we have a Church Army hostel, a Salvation Army hostel, and a Cyrenian community who, among other organisations, take in those unsupported by anyone else, but on whom some mental hospitals rely.
I should perhaps add that there are mentally abnormal offenders and non-offenders who can sustain life in a hostel or in the community if they receive a daily domiciliary visit from a nurse they know from the hospital who encourages them to take their medicines and who gives them support. That, with the support of either the probation officer or the social services worker, is able to sustain them. I cannot and indeed dare not embark upon the imponderable dilemma which contains conflict for both the Judiciary and medicine. However, I would join with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and ask the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, when we are to have the White Paper on the Mental Health Act 1959.
There have been debates in your Lordships' House on overcrowding in prisons. There are 347 prisoners in Oxford Prison which was built in the last century for 163. We have heard of gross overcrowding in the special hospitals. We have had debates in your Lordships' House on alternative community care and after-care of offenders and non-offenders
1858
who suffer a mentally abnormal condition. We have heard of the anomalies as between the administration of the Mental Health Act and the responsibility of the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Security.
Has the time not come for establishing a national advisory board with representation from all the interests involved—as recommended on page 266 of the report—to work out a concerted policy, and for such a body to assist towards working out solutions? I ask the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, whether his right honourable friend the Minister in another place would, in deference to the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, following this debate launch a combined operation—"Operation Butler".
5.54 p.m.
Lady KINLOSS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, paid tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, for his profound and excellent report. I should like to join him in that tribute and also say how clear and interesting I found it. It is certainly high time that this report, published as long ago as October 1975—two and a half years ago—should receive what is long overdue debate. If the people concerned in this report, the mentally abnormal offenders, are not numerous, they are persons who especially deserve our compassion. At the same time, either because they are a present and active danger to society, or because they are a potential danger to their fellow men and women, consideration of their treatment is imperative and urgent. Truly, we should not have delayed discussion of this report for so long.
I am very sorry that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford is unable to speak today. I had been looking forward to hearing what he had to say. As I read the report of the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden—paragraph 1.1 (b) of which refers to treatment in prison, hospital or the community—I could not help noticing that there was no reference made to pastoral care by such chaplains as there may be or of pastoral care when they return to society, although the report laid great emphasis on after-care, with which I entirely agree.

1859
Although in cases of restricted release under Section 65, after-care is compulsory, there is a lack of suitable hostel accommodation for such cases. I trust that the Government will be able to look at this matter sympathetically. As the Butler Report suggests, close co-operation between the social workers in special hospitals and the local authority social worker is an essential ingredient, and after-care should devolve upon either the social worker or the probation officer, whichever of the two in each individual case is known to have had the greater contact with the patient.
There seem to be conflicting interests within the administration in this matter—the proper sphere of psychiatrists, of medical treatment on the one hand, and of the public security on the other, which is essentially the role of the Home Secretary. Looking at the literature at my disposal, it seems to me that not always are these two things properly harmonised. However, the curative intentions of the doctors and the custodial purposes of the Home Secretary should, I should have thought, have the same aim: the single intention of helping mentally abnormal offenders to return to a normal and decent place in society. I ask myself whether, in fact, this educative process is helped by the present administration of the 1959 Act. In what I have to say, I do not blame any one Government, for it appears to me that the present situation has existed for a very long time.
It is a truism that any cure, of whatever disease, depends to a given extent on co-operation between patient and doctor. Hope is the essence of the cure, and it is that alone that the doctor can hold out to the patient as the light at the end of the dark tunnel of mental illness. But even when the responsible medical officer—or RMO as he is commonly called—has recommended discharge of a patient, and this has been followed by a similar recommendation of the review tribunal, the Home Secretary can refuse to accept the advice without giving any reason. I am greatly perturbed that in no fewer than 40 per cent. of cases under Section 65 of the Mental Health Act in which tribunals have recommended discharge, between 1970 and 1975 the Home Secretary rejected the tribunals' advice, and again, of course, without giving reason. Even then, if a
1860
restricted patient has been conditionally, discharged, the Home Secretary, again without having to give a reason, can recall that patient to hospital at any time. The organisation MIND took to the European Commission on Human Rights the case of a man who was recalled to Broadmoor after three successful years of normal life in the community, solely on the evidence of his wife with whom he had had a matrimonial dispute.
However, it is not only the wholly arbitrary nature of the Home Secretary's powers with which I am concerned, because there are also the administrative delays to which patients are subjected. The RMO may tell the patient that he recommends his return to society, yet there is evidence of cases taking the Home Secretary up to a year or more to make a decision. It can be that the Home Secretary refuses, again without any reason given, and does in 40 per cent. of cases. In one case that has been reported a patient recommended for conditional discharge by his RMO was kept waiting for two years. Understandably he suffered acute anxiety and, sadly, his marriage broke up. He suffered also the constant worry that the job and accommodation he had been offered would be lost. It is possible to cite other cases. One wonders how many relapses are caused by these administrative delays. With a 40 per cent. difference of opinion between 1970 and 1975 between responsible doctors and tribunals and the various Home Secretaries, one is obliged to ask why it turns out that the doctors and tribunals are found wrong in nearly half the cases. Why is it, if the doctors, who have personal knowledge of the individual patients, are wrong in so many cases, that the Home Secretary is not wrong also?
Allow me, my Lords, to cite the European Convention on Human Rights. It says:
"Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings whereby the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful".
Under the law as it stands in England a patient is deprived of all such rights. Is it truly just that he should continue to be deprived? Is it truly just that on the say so of one man—the Home Secretary—he can be denied access to a tribunal when his discharge has been recommended by

1861
his RMO? Is it not time that the law is amended?
After visiting Broadmoor yesterday I could not think that any of the responsible medical officers who I met—nor indeed any other doctor—would irresponsibly recommend the discharge of patients not tit for discharge. The devotion of the staff, doctors, nurses and equally the ancillary staff moved me deeply. May I say how much I value the privilege of having been permitted to see it for myself.
6 p.m.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for enabling us to discuss this important report this afternoon. We are all, of course, greatly in the debt of the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, and of his Committee. I sometimes think that we do not thank enough those men and women who voluntarily and without reward spend so much time and get so little lunch. It is perhaps a reflection on the House that we have not considered this report before.
I confess that in my very old age I am reaching the conclusion that Governments would do better if they appointed rather fewer Royal Commissions and committees and paid rather more attention to the reports they receive from those they do appoint. This has, I think, particular force at the moment when we have recently seen a Royal Commission appointed to inquire, among other things, into two subjects, both of which have already been considered by two or three separate committees; now a Royal Commission is to consider the whole matter all over again.
If I may, I shall confine my remarks to the effect which these reports have on the difficulties experienced by the judges, the courts and also the prisons in this area. One has, of course, to consider both the special hospitals and the general psychiatric hospitals. The position in the special hospitals was well described in the Butler Committee's Interim Report, in paragraph 4, as what they found to be the appalling conditions in the special hospitals. I shall not take up time in reading it. My noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich may agree that the position, which is in no way the fault of the special
1862
hospitals, is still as difficult now as it was then. They are greatly overcrowded and there are two difficulties which conflict with one another.
The first is that there are a number of patients who do not need the exceptional security provisions of the special hospitals but who cannot be left free in completely open hospitals; however, they would be quite all right in the secure units of an ordinary psychiatric hospital. On the other hand, there are those in prison who ought to be in a special hospital but who cannot be there due to lack of space. I would venture strongly to support the need for secure units. As has been said by my noble Baroness Lady Kinloss, these ought to be subjects for our compassion. I do not see my noble friend Lord Longford present. I have not infrequently agreed with him, but on this occasion I was surprised. I entirely agree with my noble Baroness Lady Kinloss that these people deserve our compassion. They are mentally ill; they are not so dangerous that they have to go to a special hospital. They need treatment and would improve with treatment. They cannot receive treatment in prisons for the reason explained in the report; they need somewhere to go where there is a secure unit, but do not need the degree of security present in the special hospitals. For too long now we have denied them that opportunity.
That leads me to say a few words about the time scale. It was in 1957 that the Report of the Royal Commission on Mental Illness commented on this problem and said that what they called "special accommodation" should be provided in general psychiatric hospitals. It is clear from what they said that they were referring to what are now known as secure units. That was 21 years ago. The Mental Health Act 1959, with its open-door policy, may have been a very good thing for all those who are mentally ill and who are not likely, by reason of their illness, to commit criminal offences. However, it did not improve the position for the prisoners.
In February 1961 there was the report—which is referred to in the Report of the Butler Committee—of a working party set up by the Ministry of Health. What they said appears at paragraph 20 of the Interim Report of the Butler Committee. I quote from the 1961 report:

1863
"Regional hospital boards should arrange their psychiatric services so as to ensure that there is a variety of types of hospital unit, including some secure units".
It is not that nothing happened, because only two or three months later the Ministry of Health issued a strong recommendation to hospitals to implement that proposal. But unfortunately nothing happened at all and there was still no secure unit. That was 17 years ago.
Indeed, up to 1974 nothing whatever had been done. The effect of all this on the judges, the courts and the prisons is described in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Interim Report. After setting out the circumstances, it says in paragraph 5:
"Two consequences follow from this: one is that many patients in the special hospitals need not be there for reasons of security; and the special hospitals have to refuse admission to cases they could appropriately accept if they had room.
"6. These problems rebound on the courts and the prisons and they are likely to increase as treatment of psychiatric cases is developed in district general hospitals. The courts are experiencing more and more difficulty in dealing with mentally abnormal offenders who need psychiatric treatment but who must be kept in secure conditions …
"7. Evidence received from the Home Office and from members of the Prison Medical Service has indicated growing concern among those responsible for the administration of the prisons about the increasing numbers of mentally abnormal offenders in the prison population. Despite overcrowding, the prisons have no choice but to accept the offenders sent by the courts, including the mentally abnormal people who are sentenced to imprisonment, for want of acceptance by a hospital".
Increasingly, the judges have decreased the number of cases in which they make hospital orders with a restriction because they found it absolutely useless to do so, for no one can find a hospital which is prepared to take such people. They cannot be sent by a judge to a hospital for treatment unless the hospital agrees to accept them.
It took more than two years before the Government, in relation to this report, said anything except that the matter was under consideration. I observe that when Questions are asked about mentally abnormal offenders in the other place it seems to be a matter of chance whether they are answered by a Minister of State from the Department of Health or by a Minister of State from the Home Office.
1864
However, in all this time I have seen no sign of the two Departments not cooperating very well together; they appear to me to have done so.
Naturally, I was delighted when, on 25th April last year, in a Written Answer the Minister of State in another place said:
"We [the Government] accept that the provision of a secure unit in each health region must be a matter of high priority, and … have provided support both for their capital and running costs".
I am delighted to hear from my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell that the Government have no intention of going back on that or of dropping it in any way. I appreciate the difficulties. I confess that I thought from what was said at first that some of the hospital authorities had taken the money and then embezzled it, but I gather that it is not as bad as that, though why they were allowed to spend the money on something else I do not quite know. I appreciate the difficulties of staffing, and so forth. This is really a matter for educating both those psychiatrists who are not forensic psychiatrists, and also no doubt the working staff. I am glad to hear that appropriate negotiations are going on with the trade unions concerned. Therefore, while it may have taken a long time I respectfully applaud the decision which the Government have now taken to provide, as soon as they can, secure units.
May I ask my noble friend Lord Harris whether I am right in thinking that today there is no secure unit at all? This is after a total of 21 years. If that is right, may I ask him what buildings are in train? Are some being started to be built? If so, how many and where? When are they likely to be completed? Most important what is their capacity? The Butler Committee calculated that there were about 900 prisoners who, instead of being in prison, ought to be in secure units, and that, allowing for people detained who were not prisoners, a total of some 2,000 places ought to be provided.
Lastly, might I ask whether I am right in thinking that there is no power at all for the Government to force regional hospital authorities to provide one psychiatric hospital in their area with some quantity of secure units? If there is no such power, do the Government—because they, after all, are providing the money—contemplate legislation to require it? Even regional hospital authorities are to

1865
some extent under the rule of law and under Parliament. Do the Government contemplate legislation to provide, having been given about 17 years, some time limit in which, if they have not taken some steps to produce secure units in one regional hospital in their area, Parliament may decide that they shall?
6.12 p.m.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, when some several weeks ago the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, asked me whether I would speak on this subject, I agreed with some trepidation. The trepidation still remains because this is not an aspect of the mental health service with which I come into much contact. My own contact, like that of many noble Lords and Members of the other place, has been with mental hospitals as such as opposed to the special hospitals. The noble Lord initiated this debate with a clear and convincing speech, and the ensuing speeches have followed that pattern, particularly the speech by my noble friend Lord Butler of Saffron Walden who, I am sure we all recognise, has produced a masterly report.
It is certainly a lengthy document, preceded by the interim report which I must say makes slightly easier reading, but the report as a whole is a valuable one. Of course with the economic situation that this country faces and has faced for some years under all Governments, and which it is likely to face in the future, the prospect of any major implementation of the report as a whole in the short term must be considered remote. Nevertheless, we all hope that as a result of this debate it will be possible for at least some of the major recommendations, particularly the provision of the new special hospitals, to be expedited.
The Mental Health Bill, as it then was, seems a long time ago. I recall that I made one of my first speeches in your Lordships' House on it. The Act, as it now is, is an impressive piece of legislation, despite the undoubted flaws which it may have. Any Act of 154 sections and 8 Schedules is bound to contain sections which, in retrospect, may be regarded as perhaps rather unworkable or surplus to requirement, or perhaps in some cases the opposite. But I believe that the Act has been a stepping stone to a good deal
1866
of progress in the mental health field; both in the general mental and psychiatric hospitals, and also in the special hospitals.
One of the great problems which the report highlights is that of overcrowding. The interim report, in paragraph 4, talks about the visit which the Committee made in, I think, 1972–73, which is 6 years ago. There may well have been improvements since then. If there have been I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will correct me and other noble Lords who make this point. The paragraph says:
"On our visits to the special hospitals it is not too much to say that we have been astonished and shocked at the over-crowding, particularly in Broadmoor, where in some wards the beds, in rows right across the room, are no more than 18 inches apart".
Eighteen inches apart! I must come clean here and say that I have yet to visit one of these special hospitals. I hope that the opportunity will come, because I think that it is something which all people in public life who have a genuine interest in these unfortunate people who suffer from mental disorders should particularly undertake.
But the alarming thing here is that it is not only in special hospitals that this terrible situation arises. Where I live near Epsom, we have six or seven mental hospitals staffed, as I have said before and I make no apology for saying again, by devoted people; but the overcrowding in some of these hospitals, particularly among the geriatric persons, is really very distressing. Here I think that the question of after-care really arises, because if this report means anything I believe that it is to the future that we have to look. It is fine to know that the new Park Lane Hospital is at least in the process of being built, whenever its completion date may be. The projected date is 1982. But it is not merely a question of bricks and mortar; it is a question of staffing. Where the problem really arises is throughout the National Health Service as a whole, whether it be general hospitals, mental hospitals, or special hospitals.
An interesting publication which the organisation MIND put out made the important point—I do not necessary agree with all their conclusions, but they submitted a valuable and sincere report—that despite any success one may have in this field, when there is a case of ill-treatment

1867
or something of that kind it is very much highlighted by the media. I do not necessarily quarrel with that, provided the facts are right and the impression is not given that those who staff these hospitals, in whatever capacity, are out to treat patients unkindly. Whether they are psychopaths or schizophrenics—and not being a medical man I am not qualified to tell the exact technical difference between the various terms—one thing is certain; that is, that these people are all mentally and in many cases physically ill, and that in some cases they need attention round the clock, whether in general psychiatric hospitals or, even more so, in special hospitals.
We must also consider the question of therapy. I have not given the Minister notice of this question so he may not be able to reply this evening: in these special hospitals—Broadmoor, Rampton, Moss Side and, in Scotland, Carstairs—how much attention is given to therapy, occupational therapy and so on? One recognises the difficulties here because in many cases these people must be very closely guarded and are dangerous, but I suggest that in some cases some kind of occupation in the hospital would alleviate many of the tensions which undoubtedly arise.
On the question of rehabilitation, one must bear in mind the two types of behaviourism, so to speak, one being in the home; if they are sent back home to their families, if there families will have them, after perhaps they have had several years in institutions, they go home to a very different environment and that must have a bearing on their behaviour compared with when they were in hospital, where they were guarded and looked after; they knew their nurses and they had security, even though, as noble Lords have said, the conditions under which they lived were not as comfortable as we would like to see.
It is good to know that a White Paper will be coming out, and I take the point which the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden made on the question of revenue from North Sea oil and how it should be spent. I believe the social services should have a very high priority, particularly in the sphere of mental health. The kind of people about whom we are talking may in some cases never be able adequately to take their place in society,
1868
but they are still human beings in need of constant treatment and sympathy. In other cases there is the possibility of some form of rehabilitation. I end by again paying tribute to Lord Allen for having initiated this debate because, notwithstanding the important and in some cases disturbing national and international affairs which surround us, any subject which concerns human beings as directly as does this debate is of major importance.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene to say that in a debate of this kind, in which two Departments are involved, with your Lordships' permission I propose to read very carefully all the speeches that have been made since I sat down and to deal with any point by correspondence. I think it would be quite unreasonable in the circumstances to expect my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich to be able to reply for the DHSS.
6.27 p.m.
The Countess of LOUDOUN: My Lords, as I am speaking towards the end of the debate, most of what I wanted to say has been said, but I intend my remarks to be short and, though I may repeat some of what has been said, I think it bears repeating. It is now two and a half years since the Butler Committee produced its final report, in which it expressed concern that no progress had been made in establishing regional secure units in the National Health Service. That was generally considered to be due to lack of funds. Since then a considerable amount of money has been set aside by the DHSS specifically for this purpose, and I am pleased to have the assurances of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, on this issue.
According to the information I have been given, interim secure units have been established in three hospitals: at Knowle Hospital Fareham, which opened in January 1977; at Prestwich Hospital, Manchester; and at Rain Hill Hospital, Liverpool. Prior to 1959, most mental hospitals had locked wards. Offender patients and difficult non-offender patients who were a problem of management and required some degree of security, but not to the level of that provided by the special hospitals, were easily managed by nursing and medical staff, who had considerable skill in this field.

1869
However, with the introduction during the 'fifties of the policy of unlocking doors and dispensing with restrictive methods of care, brought about by the discovery and use of a new range of psychiatric drugs, a new approach was necessary. Today, although there is some acceptance by the professions of the proposals for secure units, this is not unanimous and there is widespread misunderstanding and concern about their purpose and the types of patient for which they will cater. The White Paper on Mental Illness made a positive statement on which kind of patient should be admitted to a regional secure unit:
"… patients who are continuously behaviourally disturbed or who are persistently violent or considered a danger to the public, albeit not an immediate one".
There is also the belief nowadays by some people that all difficult patients will be accommodated in secure units and that the National Health Service psychiatric hospitals need have no further concern with their problem. But that is not so. Special hospitals are finding it increasingly difficult to obtain beds in NHS hospitals for recovered patients who are not now dangerous but who require rehabilitaton near to their homes.
In turn, psychiatrists and prison medical officers who consider that an accused person requires a hospital order, find it increasingly difficult to obtain accommodation in National Health Service or special hospitals, with the result that prisons now hold some hundreds of offenders who should be in hospital, and though recommendations for transfer from prison to hospital are made, these rarely take place owing to the increased resistance on the part of psychiatric hospitals to admit thse people. Special hospitals are overcrowded, many of their patients having no need for such secure conditions. But where is the alternative? Any plan to develop secure units should envisage a high turnover of patients, with the aim of keeping them for as short a time as possible, with regular reviews being made in all cases. There must be easy movement between the units, the special hospitals, and the National Service hospitals. This is essential to the success of the scheme.
Much of the present problem is created, by a fairly large group, the embarrassing or unrewarding patients, who are not
1870
dangerous, but are often difficult, un-co-operative, uncontrolled, and asocial; those who may drink, take drugs, upset other patients, or break institutional rules. Previously they would have been given "asylum"—and I use the word in its best meaning—by the mental hospital, but now they are increasingly rejected. Secure treatment facilities are required for a small proportion of patients who present difficulties in management, but not for the majority. Planning should concentrate more upon developing services and improving their interdependence. Regional secure units alone will simply create new problems, unless their relationship to other services is more clearly defined and understood. Perhaps now is the time for a national advisory body to be set up, as recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden,
"to report where problems are arising, and to assist towards solutions".
6.32 p.m.
Baroness STEWART of ALVECHURCH: My Lords, first, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for initiating the debate, and to say how much I have learnt from it. Like many of your Lordships, I read with much interest the report on Mentally Abnormal Offenders, and I thought that it dealt both realistically and in depth with problems which concern us all, and it is certainly my hope that many of its recommendations will be given priority by the Government in the not too distant future. I believe that we must bear in mind that, in a progressive country such as our own, the higher the standard of our social services, the more critical of them we become. It is only in quite recent years that we have become aware of the widely different needs of mentally abnormal offenders.
Those about whom I have some firsthand knowledge are juveniles who in past years we have dealt with in juvenile courts, and I should like to restrict my comments to their needs. I wholly agree with the statement made by the Association of Heads and Matrons of Community Schools, in its evidence to the Butler Committee, that when dealing with disturbed and anti-social young people, we should avoid attaching labels to them, such as "psychopathic disorder". What

1871
we should do is to try to understand their needs and viewpoints as individuals; and it is to the needs of young, disturbed people that I think we should give priority if we wish to reduce not only their number but also the number of abnormal adult offenders in our community today.
The provisions for young people who are both mentally disturbed and antisocial are, as the Butler Report says, totally inadequate. One urgent need is for more secure units where young people can both be assessed and receive treatment. The report suggests—and this I agree with—that sonic of these secure units should be attached to existing community homes, and should share the same staff, so that the young people could move gradually from closed to open conditions without interruption of personal relationships with the staff and those of their own age group. But I would urge that these closed units for young people should not be as prison-like as some of them are today. Although the doors and windows must be secure, the walls should be decorated, and the furniture and the lighting should be adequate, and the young people should be provided with occupation that has meaning for them and which serves some useful purpose to other people, as well as themselves.
I know that the problem is a difficult one, particularly in short-stay units in which there are many security problems. One must always bear in mind that in the hands of disturbed delinquents harmless instruments may become dangerous weapons. Also, in short-stay units there are likely to be wide differences in the degree of mental disturbance in the young people concerned. But voluntary societies might well be able, and willing, to make helpful suggestions and contributions in this field of occupation for young people in these units. I am convinced that high priority should be given to the provision of useful occupation for young people in all types of closed accommodation, whether it is prison, borstal, hospitals, or community homes. Although the provision of such occupation for the young inmates would be costly, it would, I believe, lead to greater co-operation and understanding on their part, and would lead ultimately to a reduction in the number of adult offenders.
1872
The Butler Report suggests that some of the additional closed units required for the treatment of disturbed juvenile offenders should be provided on a regional basis. This suggestion I would certainly support, provided that it leads to a more equitable distribution of these units throughout the country. One of the problems relating to these units for disturbed juvenile offenders is, as noble Lords have already suggested, that they may arouse the fear and hostility of citizens living in the neighbourhood. But suitable sites, which are neither unduly isolated, nor too prominent in a built-up area, are more likely to be found if povided on a regional basis.
Lastly, I should like to comment on the use of the word "subnormal" in the assessment of the intelligence of juveniles and adults. It is a most unfortunate word in that it implies that those who are given this label are inferior to those around them, and that they will remain so for the rest of their lives. Such a label is a tremendous handicap to young people, since their progress depends so much on encouragement and self confidence. I should like to suggest to my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich that the word "subnormal" should be replaced by one with less unfortunate associations.
6.37 p.m.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, even at this late hour I should like to join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for giving us the opportunity of debating this most important subject. The debate also gives me an opportunity, for which I am most thankful, of paying a tribute to the medical officers and the nursing staffs who have entered the service of our special hospitals. I can imagine there are few less attractive, and more daunting, prospects in the whole field of medicine. They have to take decisions affecting the safety and lives not only of their patients, but of people in the surrounding countryside, and, as the cases of Graham Young and others have shown, affecting the lives of the whole community. They are themselves at constant risk of personal violence and physical injury to a degree which hardly applies to any other branch of medicine. Theri decisions are subject to the widest possible public scrutiny, and when arrived at from the highest of motives, they are, even if

1873
absolutely correct, liable to gross misrepresentation and newspaper condemnation. If a rare human error has been made—and which of us is exempt from human error?—the repercussions are potentially so serious that no limit can be laid to them.
With all the wide range of prospects that are open to any doctor, I feel that only the strongest sense of social responsibility and of public duty could ever lead a doctor to devote his life to joining the medical staffs of our special hospitals. Hardly less a sense of social responsibility is demanded of their nursing staffs. Even if they do not have to take the ultimate decisions, they have to live constantly with the patients and are subject to perhaps even greater risks. No tribute too high can be paid to their sense of devotion and loyalty to the interests of the community as a whole. I should like to ask my noble friend who is to reply whether he would be good enough to let us have some details, if not now perhaps later on, about the recruiting situation of both the medical and the nursing staffs at our special hospitals. I should imagine that the shortages must be particularly acute.
The 140 recommendations of the Butler Report cover so wide a field, and many of them are of such excellence, that in a debate of this kind it is possible to deal with only a very few points; and, if I confine my remarks to the special hospitals, that is a wide enough field in itself, and I have time to touch on only a few aspects of them. In general, may I say that many cases of genuine grievance, even of glaring injustice, appear in a totally different light once they are properly understood by a direct approach on the spot, by an interview with the patient himself, and an explanation of the other side of his case by the medical officer, on whom the responsibility for his welfare has to rest. Of course, deprivation of liberty is a dreadful thing, whether of the mentally ill offender or even of the mentally ill; but it is incumbent on the community to make the conditions in our mental hospitals as tolerable, as conducive to proper treatment, and especially as flexible, as we can possibly make them. That is why I am particularly glad of the recommendations that secure hospital units should be established on a regional basis and that the cost of them should be met from central Government funds.
1874
These regional units need to be made, often in the teeth of uninformed public opinion, by an informed public minority; and I should like to see any future Government go ahead with their plans step by step, first in the North-West, then in the North-East, in the Midlands and the South-West, or in any other area where the need is greatest, to cope with the overcrowding at Broadmoor and create the local links which are so essential. Here, may I say how glad I was to hear about the new Park Lane Hospital. Shorn of any connection with private hospitals supported by the oil sheikhs of the Gulf, the name alone should give the hospital a good start; and it might well be an advantage if Broadmoor Hospital also could be renamed, just as the old Cancer Hospital was renamed, and called instead the Crowthorne Hospital, or by some other such name, which could divest it of its ill-starred and all too familiar image.
Here, too, may I confess that the Butler Report has led me to change my previous attitude to the Earlswood project at Redhill. Under proper security safeguards, there is an urgent need for the new security units to be sited as near as possible to established hospitals where facilities for treatment and research already exist. I hate the term "medium secure unit", and wish these secure units could be made as flexible and adaptable as possible. This can be done only by prolonged observation, perhaps even by trial and error, on the part of understanding and experienced medical officers. They have to work closely with the Mental Health Review Tribunals, who must also have a clear insight, even as intelligent laymen, into the pathology of mental disease, with all its implications for the patient's family as well as the patient himself. Perhaps the wisdom and experience of the Crowthorne Hospital staff can be lent for training purposes to the regional secure units, once they are established.
Mentally abnormal patients show such a kaleidoscopic variety of personality complications that years of experience are needed on the part of the RMO, in addition to his basic humanity, which must be taken for granted, before a decision on their future can be reached. Here, the personality of the RMO is of paramount importance. His conditions

1875
of work must be rendered as helpful as possible. His periods of study leave, especially in English-speaking countries abroad, must be encouraged. Everything ought to be done to protect the RMO, as well as the patient, from the risk of becoming institutionalised. Here may I say how I was struck at Crowthorne by the small population of coloured patients and the occasional references to the word "repatriation". Could my noble friend touch upon this in his reply? I realise that it is a delicate problem where that world "repatriation" is used for the able-bodied normal citizen: how much more is it liable to misinterpretation in the case of the coloured patient who is mentally ill! I recall a visit to a hospital for the mentally ill in Nigeria some years ago, where we were told that its surrounding barrier was not to prevent the patients from escaping, but to prevent others outside from breaking in. Perhaps that is an ideal we ought to aim for in this country.
I rather like the description, given in a report of the South-West Regional Health Authority, of what a regional secure unit might be,
"a cheerful community, therapeutically orientated, combining as much of a homely atmosphere as can be contrived, with an unobstrusive barrier that will restrict the residents' freedom to wander off at will"—
and, may I add, also with a local identity which would be therapeutically helpful in establishing links with the local community. I believe that such a goal is not utopian. I believe we are edging slowly towards it now, and that one day it will be attained.
6.48 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I should like to say at the outset what a valuable, indeed stimulating, debate this has been, and I think it is right to say on behalf of us all how grateful we are to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for having initiated it, and indeed to all noble Lords who have participated in it. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, has a high degree of expertise in these matters, not only as a former Permanent Under-Secretary at the Home Office but also of course because the position which he had some time before
1876
that in dealing with what is now the Criminal Law Department of the Home Office; and I will, if I may, deal rather later with a number of detailed points which he put to me in that particular area.
I think it it is also right to say how glad we all were to have the opportunity to hear the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, today; he made a vigorous speech. Again, I should like to deal with a number of the points which he raised. I think he was savage to the Home Office, his old Department, on only one issue, and that was on the quality of the pork pies provided by the Home Office when he was Chairman of the Royal Commission. I would say only this to him, that I take note of that point. I am glad to say that I was not in the Home Office at the time; nor was the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, Permanent Under-Secretary. But I take note of the noble Lord's remarks on this matter, and I will gladly draw them to the attention of the Home Office to ensure that the Chairman of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure is not enabled to make a similar complaint in the future.
Normally on these occasions I try to deal with a substantial number of points of detail which have been raised. Unhappily, I shall not be able to do so to the same degree on this occasion because I want to deal with a series of points of substance in this matter, and also to indicate a number of our provisional I conclusions about some of the recommendations of the Butler Committee. That being so, I think I shall not be able to deal with the points raised in as much detail as I otherwise would have done. May I apologise for that. I can assure the House that my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell and I will deal in correspondence with these particular points of detail which have been raised.
Before I begin to make any particular point of detail I should like to start with two general propositions—and one of them was anticipated by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield—dealing with the Government's response to the report of the Butler Committee. First, there is the question of resources and priorities. The economic situation has prevented the Government, and would have prevented any Government, from doing many of the things they would ideally have liked to do.

1877
Many of the Butler Committee recommendations would involve very considerable expenditure. Whether we have got our priorities right within the total of available resources is, I would concede, an entirely different matter; but anything that might be added to expenditure on the subjects covered by the Butler Committee would only have to be met by savings elsewhere.
I think that I can say—and in this I hope I will get the assent of two former Chancellors of the Exchequer who are with us at the moment, including the noble Lord, Lord Butler, himself—that if we had not taken a particularly rigorous attitude on the question of public expenditure in the immediate past we would not now be in a position to begin to emerge from our period of economic difficulties. I take note of what the noble Lord has said in terms of priority for the future. I will make certain that that particular view, so vigorously expressed, is passed on to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
Second, I think that the House might find it helpful if I explained the manner in which the Butler Committee made its recommendations. There are, first, some recommendations of a pretty broad nature exhorting, in the words of Recommendation 126, "a massive injection of money" into certain fields of current central and local government activity. Then there are a number of recommendations for new administrative arrangements. The recommendation about the Advisory Board on Restricted Patients, on which I shall have something to say in a moment, is one obvious example. Then there are a large number of recommendations the implementation of which would clearly require legislation. These recommendations are, in turn, divided between those which would involve amendment of the Mental Health Act 1959 and those which could be implemented only in what would be, demonstrably, criminal justice legislation.
As for the very important recommendations for amending Part V of the Mental Health Act—the Part which deals with mentally disordered people who have committed criminal offences—I must say straight away that I shall not be in a position to announce any decision this evening. The reason for this is that, far from failing to react to the Butler Report,
1878
the Government have been actively reviewing the Mental Health Act as a whole. The Inter-Departmental Committee considering the matter published in August 1976 a consultative document setting out what were their provisional conclusions on the changes required in the Act and inviting views from interested bodies and individuals.
In the light of the response to the document—and I might say that the response has been substantial in quantity and closely argued in quality—the Government are now drawing up legislative proposals. We hope to publish them in the form of a White Paper before the summer. This is a point which was put to me. I do not think it would be right for me to seek to anticipate the proposals that the White Paper will contain.
Purely by way of illustration, however, let me say that the White Paper will contain the Government's proposals on the difficult question of whether, and, if so, in what circumstances, people suffering from psychopathic disorders should be compulsorily detained in hospital. This issue has been the cause of a great deal of concern in the debate. It will be dealt with in the White Paper which also will refer to the Butler Committee's recommendation for giving the courts new powers to remand mentally disordered people to hospital as an alternative to prison in circumstances where, for example, a medical report is required. On this we hope shortly to undertake a consultative exercise.
I should like to give another illustration of the conceptual and practical difficulties that the White Paper will attempt to resolve. This relates to the duration of restriction orders made under Section 65 of the Mental Health Act. The view of the Butler Committee was that the courts ought to be free to make restriction orders wherever they think this necessary in order to protect the public from serious harm and that, furthermore, all such orders should be without limitation of time. Since the report has been published, however, the National Association for Mental Health (MIND) has produced Volume 2 of A Human Condition, their special study of the law relating to mentally abnormal offenders. They take a different view from the one put forward by the Butler Committee.

1879
They propose that an unlimited restriction order should be available only in respect of offences which involve serious violence against persons or property, and that in all other cases the term of the restriction order should be proportional to the gravity of the current offence. I mention this matter now because it seems to me to exemplify the complexity of this issue and the high moral and political questions which are involved in this field.
I should like now to come on to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, on an important aspect of the Butler Committee recommendations on which I can say that action has been taken in the light of the Committee's views. That is over the release of dangerous mentally disordered offenders from hospitals. As your Lordships have been reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and others, it was the tragic case of Graham Young which provided the immediate occasion for the setting up of the Butler Committee. The Committee devoted a great deal of attention to the detailed procedure for obtaining the opinion of an independent advisory board on proposals for the discharge or transfer of restricted patients. This procedure was instituted in 1973 following the report of the Aavold Committee on the Review of Procedures for the Discharge and Supervision of Psychiatric Patients subject to Special Restrictions. It was limited to the fairly small number of restricted patients in the special hospitals whose cases had been previously identified as requiring "special care in assessment".
The House may recall that the Butler Committee recommended that all proposals for the discharge or transfer of restricted patients in the special hospitals should come within the purview of the advisory board and, in addition, that the board should continue to be concerned with former special-hospital-restricted patients subsequently as regards the grant of leave and their eventual discharge from local hospitals or secure units and throughout their period of supervision, including the question of recall, if it arose.
When the Butler Report was published, the then Home Secretary, Mr. Jenkins, welcomed the Committee's further guidance on this difficult problem and accepted
1880
in principle that there should be an extension of the present procedure. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary, while also accepting that some extension of the present procedure is clearly warranted, considers that the Committee's proposals if implemented as a whole would extend the functions of the present Advisory Board on Restricted Patients beyond the point that it is necessary or practicable to do so.
He has, therefore, decided to reject the Butler Committee proposals concerning the board with restricted patients subsequent to their discharge or transfer from a special hospital. As regards the Committee's central recommendation that all proposals for the discharge or transfer of restricted patients in the special hospitals should be referred to the board, my right honourable friend has now decided that it would not be right to accept this recommendation as it stands. He considers that the indiscriminate reference to an independent board of all special hospital cases, regardless of merits, would involve an unwarranted diminution of the responsibility of the doctors for the assessment of their patients. On the other hand, he certainly accepts that there are strong arguments for extending the range of cases in which he receives an independent opinion on proposals for discharge or transfer from the special hospitals.
In the light of these considerations, we have decided to introduce a revised procedure on the following lines. Under this procedure, which took effect on 1st March, it is assumed from the outset that all cases of restricted patients in the special hospitals require special care in assessment, such that they should be referred to the advisory board. But it is open to the responsible medical officer at any time to recommend to the Home Office that a case is sufficiently straightforward, having regard to factors such as the patient's diagnosis, response to treatment, prognosis and so on, not to merit reference to the board. Where such a recommendation is received by the Home Office, considerable weight is attached to it. But the Home Office reserve the right to refer to the board, whatever the clinical assessment, any cases where it is thought that the public interest requires this because of the seriousness of the particular offence or the notoriety of the offender. In cases of doubt, the bias of the Home

1881
Office will be in favour of reference to the board. Where the responsible medical officer is not prepared to submit a recommendation that a patient's case is too straightforward to require reference to the board, any proposal for the patient's discharge or transfer is automatically referred to the advisory board.
My right honourable friend is confident that this new procedure, as well as extending the range of cases coming before the advisory board, will be found by those who have to operate it to be more flexible and more straightforward than are the former arrangements.
Lord BUTLER of SAFFRON WALDEN: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, I think it is a serious statement that part of this recommendation is rejected. I am as keen as anybody else to look after the freedom of the subject, but we have been very worried at the decisions of some of the doctors. Is the noble Lord satisfied that this new procedure, which I shall be very interested to study and which seems to be very comprehensive, will be able to get round a bad decision by a local doctor?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, we have gone into this matter very carefully. As the noble Lord has rightly said, I have made a fairly complex statement on what is a most complex issue. We have gone into this matter with considerable care. We have come to the conclusion that the public interest will be adequately safeguarded by these arrangements; we certainly would not have contemplated them otherwise. If, after the noble Lord has had the opportunity of studying what I have said, he has any points, I will gladly look into any matter.
The Butler Committee also recommended that the Board should be involved in the recall of former special hospital patients. In my right honourable friend's view, mental health review tribunals are more suitable bodies to offer him advice on such matters than would be the Advisory Board on Restricted Patients. He therefore proposes, having consulted the council on tribunals and chairmen of mental health review tribunals, to promote an appropriate Amendment to the Mental Health Act 1959. The Amendment might take the form of a provision that on the
1882
recall of a restricted patient to hospital, his case should automatically be referred to a tribunal for advice on discharge.
In the light of this, it will not be necessary for us to reconstitute the present advisory board, as the Butler Committee recommended. I should like to take this opportunity of echoing Lord Butler's words to pay a warm tribute to the members of the board, and particularly to Sir Carl Aarvold, their chairman, for their careful and conscientious work, which will be added to by the new arrangements that I have just announced. My right honourable friend greatly values—as I am sure did his predecessors—their advice on these exceptionally difficult cases.
I should now like to turn to some other aspects of the report which has been mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and Lord Butler. These are the recommendations concerning persons who are under a disability in relation to trial, and those concerning the special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, which may be returned by the Crown Court. This is an extraordinarily difficult and complex area of the law, raising as it does the whole question of the circumstances in which mental abnormality should be accepted as excusing an offender from criminal responsibility. The sheer complexity of these issues led the Committee to devote no less than 34 separate recommendations and two chapters of their report to these subjects.
We have now completed our preliminary examination of all these recommendations. We shall be circulating consultative papers within the next few weeks setting out our provisional conclusions on them and asking interested bodies and individuals for their comments. I shall arrange for copies of these papers to be placed in the Library of the House. But I think it would be appropriate today if I were to give a broad outline of the provisional conclusions which will be embodied in the documents. I will try to be as brief as possible and to avoid technicalities, but I fear I will not be wholly successful. I shall start with disability.
The Butler Committee were not satisfied that the present law—which is contained in the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964—provides a sufficient safeguard against the possibility that a defendant

1883
who is innocent of the offence charged, and thus entitled to an acquittal, may nevertheless because of his mental condition be unable to avoid a finding that he is unfit to plead and his committal to hospital. To meet such cases, the Butler Committee proposed that a new procedure should be introduced under which, where the defendant is found to be under disability, there would nevertheless be a trial of the facts to the fullest extent possible, having regard to the mental condition of the person concerned. The main object of the procedure would be to enable the jury to return a verdict of not guilty where the evidence was not sufficient for a conviction. The normal rules of evidence and burden of proof would apply. Where the jury were unable to acquit, they would return a verdict that
"the defendant should be dealt with as a person under disability".
The Committee also suggested other improvements to the law. First, where disability has been found and there is on medical evidence a prospect of early recovery, the judge should have discretion to adjourn the trial for a maximum period of six months. Second, the court should have a discretion as to the disposal of persons ordered to be dealt with as under disability, with power to make a variety of social or medical orders ranging between a hospital order with restrictions and an absolute discharge, but with overtly penal sanctions excluded. And, third, magistrates' courts should be given equivalent powers to those of the Crown Court if dealing with persons under disability.
In general, the Committee's recommendations seem to us to be acceptable. The consultative paper on disability will thus welcome them in principle. The holding of a trial of the facts in every case, as the Committee proposed, would have the obvious advantage of providing as complete a safeguard as could be devised against the possibility of an innocent defendant being found under disability and committed indefinitely to hospital. But we do have certain reservations about the practicability and effectiveness of the detailed procedure recommended by the Butler Committee, one of which is that the procedure would lead to an acquittal in cases where the defendant did some act, possibly of a violent nature,
1884
but because of his mental state at the time it is not clear that criminal responsibility for an offence can properly be attributed to him.
As to the special verdict, the Committee considered that as a matter of principle the law should continue to provide for an exemption from criminal responsibility, and therefore from punishment, for offenders suffering at the time of the offence from mental disorder of an appropriate degree of severity. But they took the view that the present test for such exemption, the so-called M'Naghten rules, was unsatisfactory in that it is framed in archaic language, and too strictly, with the result that it can cover offenders to whom it is accepted that no criminal responsibility should attach only through being stretched. They considered that although the defence of insanity is nowadays rarely put forward, having for most practical purposes been superseded by the defence of diminished responsibility which was introduced by the Homicide Act 1957, there were sound reasons for retaining it.
They therefore devoted a great deal of time and practical ingenuity to devising a suitable replacement test. The formula they came up with is of considerable complexity, but basically there are two elements: a mens rea element, approximating to the first limb of the M'Naghten rules, and a specific exemption from conviction for defendants suffering at the time of the act or omission charged from severe mental illness or severe sub-normality. Other important proposals made by the Committee in this area of the law were that magistrates' courts should be allowed to return the special verdict of "not guilty by reason of insanity", and that, as in cases of disability, the courts should be given a measure of discretion as to disposal, with broadly the same powers to make a variety of social or medical orders ranging between a hospital order with restrictions and an absolute discharge.
The Committee's replacement test for the special verdict is considered in detail in the consultative paper we are circulating on this subject. The relevant passage, while seeking comments from practitioners, suggests that the test, although at first sight it appears to be rather complicated

1885
and difficult, would probably turn out to be workable in practice and capable of application in the magistrates' courts.
On the question of disposal of persons found under disability or not guilty by reason of insanity, we do see some difficulty. Under the present law, success in an insanity defence—and also a finding of disability—must result in the defendant's committal to hospital, where his status becomes that of a person made subject to a hospital order with a restriction order made without limit of time.
The justification of the present law is, quite bluntly, the protection of the public. The provision ensures that, for example, persons who have committed serious acts of violence but do not currently meet the criteria for hospital admission set out in the Mental Health Act, are not simply set at large, which they would otherwise have to be, as a prison sentence would not be available in such cases. However, under the Butler proposals the court would be able to send a defendant to hospital only if the usual requirement for making a hospital order had been satisfied. Thus, the court must have received evidence that the defendant is suffering from one of four categories of mental disorder named in the Mental Health Act of a nature or degree warranting his detention in hospital for a medical treatment and that there is a place for him in a particular hospital. If these requirements were not satisfied, under the Butler proposals the court would have no choice but to set the defendant at large.
The tentative conclusion which is put forward in the paper we shall be circulating on the special verdict is that there are strong arguments in favour of what the Butler Committee recommended, at least in so far as the medical reason for the making of a hospital order is concerned. But the Committee's recommendations would mean that, because the court would have no power to pass a sentence of imprisonment on such a defendant, they would be obliged to free even those whom the court considered dangerous, even if no hospital place had been found.
The paper therefore argues that this is in fact unacceptable and proposes that in cases of disability and of the special verdict, courts should have the power in the last resort to make hospital orders
1886
in the absence of evidence as to the availability of a hospital place, provided that they receive two medical recommendations in support of this proposed course of action. It would be left to the Home Office to give or to obtain a hospital place within the ensuing two months, as under the prevailing arrangements. So far as this particular view is concerned, we shall be interested to have the views of the Judiciary.
This debate has inevitably centred on a number of fairly detailed questions of the kind I have just been dealing with. My noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell spent a great deal of time on the point of secure units in his speech. I should just like to deal with one aspect of this matter concerning a question put to me at the outset of the debate by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, about the scale of the problem so far as prisons are concerned. I think we can state this problem very simply so far as secure units are concerned. If we do not get them, a large number of mentally ill people are going to remain in prison. It is quite unavoidable: no regional secure units—a large number of mentally ill people in prison.
The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, mentioned a figure of 900. He is quite right: that figure appeared in the Press. I believe it appeared as a result of a fairly rough survey conducted by the Prison Department of the Home Office earlier last year. As so often happens, some necessary qualifications were omitted; for example, the figure of 900 included a number of prisoners who required psychiatric therapy but whose condition was not serious enough to warrant detention in hospital.
The Home Office is continuing to carry out surveys of mentally disordered patients, and I hope that as we go along these exercises will get progressively more refined. The last survey took place on 31st December last. It showed that on that day there were in our prisons 682 people whose mental condition, in the opinion of the prison medical authorities, warranted detention in hospital. Of the total, 216 were awaiting trial or sentence. Of the total number of sentenced prisoners, 201 were diagnosed as "mentally ill" as distinct from "suffering from mental handicap or psychiatric disorder".

1887
That is the scale of the problem, and I think those figures are as accurate as we are likely to get. It is a formidable problem because 680-odd people are kept in all manner of Prison Department establishments, from some of our dispersal prisons to local prisons; and some of the others in local prisons are fairly young teenagers, who are there because there is not enough secure accommodation of a different character in community homes.
It does not seem to me that there is anything particularly liberal about not having enough secure accommodation; in fact the very reverse is true. I remember taking part in a discussion some time ago when someone with greater knowledge than I said that I was devoting too much attention to the question of secure accommodation so far as children were concerned. I pointed out that the consequence of not having such accommodation was that those children went to prison. In exactly the same way, if we do not have enough of these regional secure units, prison is where these people will go, and we now have the situation that some of these children and some of these mentally disordered people are in the same prisons. That is a profoundly disturbing situation, which indicates very clearly the scale of the problem with which the Government are now confronted.
We have had an opportunity in this debate of dealing with some of the central issues which were raised in the report of the Butler Committee. They are, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, rightly said, of high importance: first, in dealing with some of our most grievously disadvantaged fellow citizens; and, secondly, in ensuring the safety of the general public. I think, again, that we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Allen, for having initiated this debate.
7.21 p.m.
Lord ALLEN of ABBEYDALE: My Lords, it has been extremely helpful, and in my experience, limited though it is, a little unusual, to have speeches from two Ministers in this debate. But I suppose that it is appropriate, when the Committee itself was set up by two Secretaries of State one of whom, I am glad to see, has now joined us on the Opposition Front Bench. I was very glad to have the assurances of
1888
the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that the concept of regional secure units has not been ditched, and to listen to his extremely interesting discussion about the purposes of the units. I also listened carefully and with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has just been saying about the decisions which have been taken, and the promise of goodies to come.
It is a complicated and difficult subject and I shall not say any more, since I, like I think most noble Lords, should like to read with care the record of what has been said. My only further comment on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is that I am afraid he was not quite accurate in suggesting that I had left the Home Office before the Butler Committee started to operate. In fact, I had the privilege of giving the inaugural evidence to the Committee and, not only that, the privilege of attending their inaugural lunch, at which pork pies were not on the menu. I am afraid that the standard must have deteriorated after I retired.
But it was a privilege, and for me quite a nostalgic one, to hear such a notable speech from the noble Lord, Lord Butler. I do not want to end on a critical note, but I have just one breath of criticism of what he said. He indicated that in my opening speech I had gone over pretty well the whole territory covered by the Committee's report. In fact, I can make no such claim, and I am extremely grateful for the various contributions which have been made in the speeches during the debate, on the areas on which I myself did not touch.
I shall make only two very quick points on the speeches which have been made. First, the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, was, in a measure, critical of the drafting of the Motion, and he read the words,
"To call attention to the outstanding recommendations made in the reports",
as implying that a lot had been implemented. It was not drafted with any such intention. It was just drafted with my normal kindliness, in acknowledgement of the fact that something, at any rate, had been done.
Then there were two points made by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, which really illustrated the whole problem that we are talking about. The friends of the noble

1889
Earl, the shop stewards, said that they wanted no part of violent patients who had to be treated in conditions of security, but, unfortunately, the problem will not go away. I said in my opening that it is always very comforting to think that someone else will cope, and this is what the shop stewards were doing. But someone has to find a solution.
Then the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, in her very interesting speech, suggested that the Home Secretary was perhaps not paying sufficient attention to the wise guidance of the doctors who knew these patients so well. But I am bound to say, without being in any sense critical, that it was on medical advice that Graham Young was released, which is what started it all off. I have one other comment on the speeches. Perhaps I could get together with the noble Lord, Lord Butler, after the debate and give him some guidance about the backdoor to the Elephant and Castle, which I happen to know rather more about than the backdoor to the new Home Office in Queen Anne's Gate.
We have had a debate which has cut right across Party lines. It has elicited most interesting statements about the approach of Her Majesty's Government. We shall not inquire too closely into what has been happening between 1975 and the statements made today. But if, in addition, the debate has done anything to enlighten public opinion, and to emphasise not only the complexity but also the urgency of these problems, it will have served its modest purpose. My Lords, I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Lord BUTLER of SAFFRON WALDEN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Harris, whether, besides his very able speech, there will be any White Paper, or shall we just rely on Hansard?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I indicated earlier that there would be a White Paper on one area. I also indicated that we should be putting some papers, on a different but related matter, in the Library of the House. But I have given some fairly clear indication of the territory which these papers will cover.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn

CHINA: ARMS EXPORT POLICY
7.26 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY The Earl of KIMBERLEY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy on exporting military equipment, such as aircraft, tanks and ships, to China. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I realise that this Question is a very controversial one, and there are two aspects to it—financial and moral. I believe that my noble friend Lord Strathcona will be enlarging on the moral point of view, while the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, will deal with the financial aspect. But first things first. We have the aircraft and shipbuilding industries, which have been nationalised for just about a year, both sides of which build military and naval equipment. So that, looking at the matter from a financial point of view, if we exported more both companies would be considerably better off. That is not to say that we do not already export arms to certain countries, because we do. British Aerospace, through Hawker Siddeley, has just done a very fine deal in selling Hawks to Finland. But about two years ago, I raised the question of selling jump jet Harriers to China, and the answer I received was very non-committal.
Today, I am very honoured that the noble Lord the Leader of the House is to reply for the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Peart, knows that I speak my mind and if, by chance, I ruffle feathers this evening, or come on a bit strong, I know that at least I shall have his understanding, if not necessarily his agreement. Further, the noble Lord well knows that there is no personal animosity directed against any Member of your Lordships' Chamber, because it has been said and rumoured that Her Majesty's Government will not export arms to China, as two-thirds of the Cabinet are worried about what the United States will say, while the other one-third are worried about what Russia will say.
But whatever may be the reasons for the lack of drive in the export of arms to China, it is, in my humble opinion, a wrong decision. There is no possible doubt that if China's defences were bolstered up by the West, and particularly by us, NATO and the whole of the Western world would have a very much stronger hand to play in the game of

1891
détente, particularly as the game is, at the moment, played under Russian rules. I have said before in defence debates that you cannot have true détente unless you have parity of power. Alas! it is a sad thing to say, but through the imperfections of the human race that is the way life is.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, wrote an extremely interesting, although very frightening, article in The Times last Monday, about the Russian SS.20, which is their new intermediate-range ballistic missile. He asked the planners whether they had an answer to it. I am so pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is going to speak tonight, because he is a true expert in this field. His knowledge and wisdom will add greatly to the depth and quality of this Unstarred Question. May I hazard a small suggestion that a partial solution to the problem which the noble Lord raised about this missile must surely be to make Russia's Eastern flank more vulnerable.
In the summer of 1972, China became very interested in the Harrier. It would be a very great asset to them on their Russian frontier, where they have very few runways and where their ground forces badly need air support. I am given to understand that the subject is continually raised at banquets in the Great Hall of the People, particularly when foreigners speak to Chinese officials; but I understand that since the present Government were elected, the British Embassy in Peking usually comes up with the stock answer that the Chinese have never put their request in writing. Of course the Chinese have not put their request in writing, for if the request were to be turned down they would lose face.
I believe it is a fact that on 4th November the Foreign Office denied that any approach had ever been made to them by China. On 6th December in another place, at col. 1098, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force said:
"I think that in matters of this nature it would be best to await a formal approach from the Government of the People's Republic of China. When that approach comes, if it comes, it will be properly considered under the normal arrangements."
He went on:
"When and if we receive an application from the Government of the People's Republic of China we shall consider all the factors, including the economic and political ones."
1892
He ended by saying at col. 1099:
"If we receive such an application—it is purely a hypothetical matter at the moment, because no such application has been received—from the Government of the People's Republic of China we shall adopt the normal procedure of going through COCOM and then coming to a decision."
The second reason that the embassy usually gives is that there would be a problem with COCOM. As your Lordships know, this is the organisation, based in Paris, which controls arms sales to Communist countries. But we seem to have forgotten one point: that in 1972 when ex-President Nixon visited China, China became an unofficial ally of the United States. Surely, therefore, the second reason is null and void.
The third and last reason given by the embassy is that it would anger Russia. I think it is about time that the ugly Russian bear was baited a little by the English bulldog. Our foreign policy today seems to be strangely familiar and reminiscent of that of the 1930s—appeasement, appeasement and appeasement, particularly where there seems to be any Soviet Communist influence. We, and the Americans over the Horn of Africa, have, in my humble opinion, become far too pacifistic and wet. If we and the rest of our Western allies have any respect for our liberty, we should start doing something about it right now, before it is too late.
One cannot possibly blame the British Embassy in Peking for being lukewarm, because their policy is directed from Whitehall. And in no way do I imply that there are no dedicated Foreign Office officials in Peking. However, the embassy does not provide the services which are offered to businessmen from France and Germany through their embassies. It is extremely difficult to get a visa for China, unless you are a Peer. But the French and the Germans freely give letters of invitation to responsible businessmen and women. I think it is significant that when Mr. Li Chiang, the Chinese Foreign Trade Minister, was here at the end of November last and spoke to the Secretary of State for Trade, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, we never heard what happened. All we know is that this Chinese trade delegation went to France and spent a considerably longer time in that country.
If I may make another small point, the French and the Germans provide a room in their embassies which contains airmail newspapers in order that while visiting businessmen are in China they can keep up to date with what is happening throughout the world. But the British do not do this. Lastly, the French and the Germans are way ahead of us in organising visits for their Chiefs of Staff and military delegates, although I understand that the Chief of Defence staff, Sir Neil Cameron, is shortly to visit China. However, I have also been given to understand that for quite a while now a sales team from British Aerospace has wanted to go to China, but somewhere along the line their visit has been, as usual, held up.
We give financial aid to some countries who seem intent on promoting Soviet-type Communism throughout the world. May I ask the Government to consider that perhaps it might be better in some instances to stop this aid and at the same time to start exporting military equipment to a country which (a) would pay for it, and (b) would help to keep Russian defences more occupied on their Eastern flank? I believe that we in the West should show a realistic respect for the vital interests of Russia, but I do not see that that is any reason why we should refrain from any action that upsets Russia. NATO exists to defend the Western world by trying to maintain a military balance with the Warsaw Pact countries. If NATO's task can be made any easier by Russia being forced to show some respect for the military strength of China, so much the better. Therefore, by exporting military equipment to China we are making a larger contribution to NATO.
I gather that the sale of warships is not too good a prospect, but that specialised equipment for ships, such as radar, communications systems, computers, generators, et cetera, would be more than welcome—and we can always throw in a few Chieftain tanks. We have the Society of Defence Manufacturers' Association which seems to concentrate its efforts mainly on the European market. Therefore may I ask Her Majesty's Government this question: If it is their policy not to export arms to China, will they please reconsider this policy? If, on the other hand, they wish to export arms to China, will they try to do all that
1894
they can to help our salesmen to get on with the job?
I repeat that it is no good waiting for the Chinese to ask, as they are terrified of losing face. We must go to them. Let us not forget that an order for 100 Harriers would be worth £600 million to us as a start.
7.37 p.m.
Viscount MONTGOMERY of ALAMEIN: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for asking this Unstarred Question, but I must say that he is going to be rather difficult to follow. He is obviously very knowledgable on this subject, but I am going to take a slightly different line from the noble Earl. On the subject of difficult visits, the noble Earl may like to know that in the early 1960s my late father visited China at the time when the United Kingdom was negotiating the sale of Vickers Aircraft to China. However, it was a pure coincidence that his visit should take place at the same time. For some reason, not entirely clear although my late father's visits and travels were frequently controversial, the Foreign Office took rather a dim view of his visit. Indeed, when the ubiquitous spokesman for the Foreign Office was asked how many aircraft were being negotiated for export sale, he replied that there were five Viscounts, if you included the Field Marshal. He hoped that at least one would be concluded!
I have not given the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal, who is to reply, notice of my intentions as they relate mainly to common sense. My experience of speaking outside the Chamber to the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal is that he is very high up in the common sense league table. I have no experience of defence sales, but the export of ships, aircraft and the like is very similar to the sales of other capital goods. It depends to a very large extent upon building up goodwill over a very long time.
A well-intentioned, very distinguished but regrettably ill-informed politician some years ago said that, "exporting is fun". Having been involved in little else for the last 27 years I can assure your Lordships that it is not. It is extremely hard work, but absolutely fascinating. As I have said, the success of our overseas trade depends on goodwill, well established

1895
friendship and an ability to supply the right goods at the right price and on the right terms. Obviously a paramount feature of credibility and goodwill is the sanctity of contract, about which much has been said on various occasions. Sanctity of contract must be a pillar on which rests the credibility of our capability to supply. There has been a recent case in which a contract has been negotiated and subsequently cancelled for political reasons. Although it is in a different part of the world I think it illustrates the point that I am trying to make. I refer to the recent sale and subsequent cancellation of a very small consignment of armoured cars for E1 Salvador.
On 8th December last, when this matter was being discussed in Question Time, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, whether he would not agree that if negotiations were reopened on this contract it would raise doubts about our credibility as a supplier of capital goods. The noble Lord entirely, and quite rightly, agreed with me that that would be the case. I am not resurrecting the E1 Salvador issue as such, but I should like to make the point that the exporting of capital goods will become increasingly difficult unless we are consistent in our policy regarding overseas trade. I would very much appreciate comments from the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal on that matter.
As the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, pointed out, the manufacture of defence equipment is an important industry. In this respect it is no different from other heavy industry requiring finance and labour. The United Kingdom has such an industry but it needs a stable economic climate to prosper. If the Government wish to stifle it they must say so. If the Government take political decisions and subsequently cancel sales, clients will go elsewhere, and there is no shortage of alternative supplies. It may be politics, but it is not very practical.
Whatever we do we must not prejudice the good relations that exist between suppliers of capital goods in this country and their overseas clients. These carry on over many years irrespective of the political philosophy in this country, which tends to oscillate, whereas our sales overseas, on which the lifeblood of the
1896
country depends, must continue despite these fluctuations. A more stable and less contentious attitude would assist our commercial relations in all overseas markets, not only in China.
7.43 p.m.
Lord CHALFONT: My Lords, like the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for initiating this short debate this evening and giving me an opportunity to contribute to it. Although he framed his Question in the rather special context of military equipment, I think it gives your Lordships' House the chance to consider, however briefly and however late in the evening, a fundamental change of a very important kind which is taking place in Chinese foreign and economic policies, a change which has enormous significance for us in the West, the West as a whole, and more specifically for the countries of Western Europe. I sometimes wonder whether we in Western Europe, and more especially in this country, really have any coherent strategy at all, any view of the world within which to consider our reactions to what is a constantly changing world scene. I hope it may be possible before too long in your Lordships' House to have a wider debate on that kind of subject and on such matters as the broader implications of relations with the People's Republic of China.
However, in the meantime it might be useful to place on record a very brief outline of the background of the changes which are now taking place and which make the noble Earl's Question so topical, and to my mind so important. Chairman Mao Tse-tung and Prime Minister Chou En-Lai are both dead. After a period of intense political turbulance in China we now have a new leadership, and China is clearly embarked on a fundamental process of reassessing its whole economic planning, and not only its internal economic planning but its place in the international power structure. Over the past year in China, without any great fuss or publicity, there have been a series of vital conferences on such things as the mechanisation of agriculture, the development of coal, oil and other energy sources, on railways, on communications and not least on the subject which is at the heart of the noble Earl's Question today, the question of defence.

1897
The culmination of this process of reappraisal by the new Chinese Government has been the Fifth National People's Congress which has just been completed in Peking. In the course of a long report to that congress on the work of the Government, the new Prime Minister of China, Hua Kuo-Feng, underlined the new basic national aim of his country—that of making China, by the end of the century, a powerful, modern, socialist, industrialist country. The basis for this transformation was laid down before his death by Chou En-Lai, who made it clear that there had to be a fundamental transformation in four areas of the Chinese economy and society. Those four areas were agriculture, industry, science and technology and, finally, defence—the military establishment of the military defences of China.
The new Prime Minister, Prime Minister Hua, made it very clear in his speech to the Fifth Congress at the end of February that China cannot hope to realise this vast and imaginative programme without help from the outside world, the industrialised world; and he was doing nothing more than underlining a statement by the State Planning Commission in Peking in September of last year to the effect that substantial imports of foreign equipment, foreign plant and foreign technology should now, for a change—and this is something new in China's thinking—be regarded as not only acceptable but inevitable. At the risk of taking a few seconds longer, I think it may be worth while to quote from that statement by the State Planning Commission, because I think it is a statement of enormous significance:
"While we rely on our own efforts to build up an independent and comprehensive economic system, this does not mean we are closing our doors to the rest of the world. We must expand our economic, technical and cultural exchange with other countries on the principle of equality, mutual benefit, and one supplying what the other needs. We must learn hard from the good experience of other countries and combine this with our own originality. We learn from other countries and introduce their advanced technology to meet our needs, not to hinder but to promote our own creativeness, not to weaken but to increase our ability to develop our national economy and achieve modernisation independently".
A long quotation, my Lords, but I think it underlines a fundamental change in the emphasis of Chinese foreign policy and one that we shall ignore at our peril.
1898
As it is, to say the very least, unlikely that there will be in the future any serious co-operation between China and the Soviet Union, it follows that the implications for the West are enormous. For example, in the non-defence field there are quite clearly great industrial and export opportunities over a very wide field, including railways, field plant, oil exploration, coal mining, aerospace technology—all the areas to which the noble Earl referred in passing in his opening speech. Already there have been a number of missions both ways between this country and China, and, of course, the framework of co-operation between the Common Market and China is in an advanced state of development.
This will not be easy, of course. The Chinese political system, highly centralised, with an economy totally State-dominated and State-controlled, does not make commercial relations between us and them easy. But there is now a great opportunity not only to assist in the transformation of the Chinese economy and Chinese society—which in themselves I would have thought were admirable aims—but to do so in a way which will promote our own interests as well as those of the Chinese Government and its people.
To move, in conclusion, from the general economic field to the specific field of defence, to which the noble Earl's Question refers, it is essential, I believe, that in considering the ideas that he has put forward this evening we should understand the Chinese attitude to the international power structure. Of course, it is impossible to analyse it at any length in a debate of this kind at this time of day, but one can say very briefly that it proceeds from a fundamental mistrust of the two great super-Powers, the United States and the Soviet Union. They are regarded by the Chinese quite simply as deadly rivals for world domination, for what the Chinese call hegemony. Of the two, the Soviet Union arouses the greater hostility and mistrust in Peking. The Russians they regard as the social Imperialists, and they believe that one of the Russian aims is to separate Western Europe from the United States in order to achieve a high degree of Communist domination in the West as a step towards their aim of global imperialism.

1899
In this context, I think it is interesting to note that in his speech to the Fifth National Congress the new Prime Minister of China said something that I think we should all bear in mind. He said:
"At present some people in the West follow a policy of appeasement towards the Soviet Union with the fond hope of saving themselves at the expense of others. This can only whet the ambitions of the aggressors and hasten the outbreak of war".
That is the view of the Prime Minister of China.
A natural corollary of this view and of this analysis is a desire on the part of the Chinese to see the emergence of a strong and powerful Western Europe, able to pursue its own way in the world without too much domination and interference by either the Soviet Union or the United States. At the same time—and here I come to the real point, I think, which lies behind the noble Earl's Question—the Chinese recognise that they must be in a position to defend themselves, to secure their own national security. In their view, the main, indeed the only, threat to that situation comes from the Soviet Union, and it is possible to argue that one of the principal reasons for the determination of the Chinese to build up their economy and their industry, to which I referred earlier, is to provide more effectively for their means of defence. It is possible to argue that the whole of their economic and industrial policy has behind it the motivation of survival and security.
They realise only too well that their defence equipment at present is inadequate both in quantity and in quality. They are clearly not going to turn to either of the super-Powers to repair that. For similar reasons they are unlikely to turn to Japan, another possible source of supply. They will almost certainly turn to Western Europe to repair their defences. Furthermore, they will regard the readiness of the countries of the European Economic Community to help them in this respect as an acid test of our attitude towards the international power structure and towards the global foreign policies of the Soviet Union.
At the same time their own strategy is clearly undergoing a very fundamental change. In the past we have generally
1900
believed—I think with some justification—that the Chinese strategy for meeting a military invasion would be to allow the invading force to penetrate deep into the heartland of China and then to envelop them in a great People's War, which would involve tunnel warfare, guerilla warfare, all the techniques that they have learned from the profound military writings of Mao Tse-tung. I believe that is now changing. Under the new and pragmatic and rather more outward-looking leadership in Peking, I think they are now embarked upon a new and more conventional strategic doctrine which involves defending their frontiers, defending the seas around their coastline, with the nuclear weapon always, inevitably in modern warfare, in the background as the ultimate deterrent.
If this is so, and I believe it to be so, they are going to need large-scale programmes of development of military aircraft, surface ships, submarines, tanks, guns and missiles, and to equip their enormous forces with those modern weapons of war, with that modern equipment is clearly beyond their own immediate capabilities. They have, for example, only about half a dozen aircraft manufacturing centres of their own. And, of course, apart from weapons and weapon systems, they are going to need, as the noble Earl suggested, command and control equipment involving complicated electronic apparatus, advanced early warning radar networks and that kind of thing.
It is my view, which I think I share with the noble Earl, that Her Majesty's Government must have, and must be seen to have, some coherent policy in this matter. Whatever that policy may be, let us have one and let it be seen to exist. There will be—there is no mistake about it—intense competition; whatever we say about it, whatever moral positions we adopt, there will be intense competition for this kind of trade in Western Europe. Already a large Chinese military mission has spent a long time in France, and they were not there sightseeing! Unless we have some kind of policy we may be sure that our partners in Western Europe will have one.
This is, I readily admit, not a simple matter. There are many factors to be taken into account. The COCOM list of strategic materials which we are forbidden

1901
to send to Communist countries will have to be substantially revised. On the political level, there are a great number of people who genuinely and justifiably believe that it would be wrong to take sides in what is regarded as a struggle between the two Communist super-Powers. There are also—and I regret to say it—a great number of people in this country who will resist any suggestion of co-operation of this kind with the Chinese because it is against the interests of the Soviet Union; and there are, whether we like to admit it or not, a great number of people in this country for whom the interests of the Soviet Union take precedence over everything else, even over the interests of their own country.
What we must understand is that China is one of the world's great Powers and that great changes are taking place there, both in its internal development and its perception of its place in the world. We must be prepared to meet those changes with new attitudes and new assessments of own own. I very much hope that the noble Earl's Question and the short debate which is following it will make some contribution to what I believe is now essential for this country, both in our own national interests and as members of the EEC; namely, a fundamental reassessment of our political, economic and military relationships with the People's Republic of China.
Lord STONE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him one question? Is there any history of the Chinese having an atom bomb?
Lord CHALFONT: Yes, of course, my Lords, the Chinese have a nuclear weapon. They have tested it on several occasions. Recent tests demonstrated that they have a thermo-nuclear weapon of a kind which is at least as sophisticated as our own; it is approaching a degree of advanced technology similar to that of the Soviet Union and the United States.
8 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will take due note of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, in asking this comparatively confined Question is, in fact, triggering off the possibilities of a
1902
much more important debate later, when perhaps rather more noble Lords will be present to listen to what is being said.
As a trading nation with a balance of payments problem, it is very tempting to be an uninhibited free trader in the arms business, like any other profitable business. My noble friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein has already pointed out that we have a rather unusual industrial capacity and ability in this direction. Two noble Lords at least have pointed out that China is a particularly interesting case, with rather special opportunities for us. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has expanded on all of those matters in the authoritative and informative way that we have come to expect from him.
The qualifications that one must bear in mind as an instinctive free trader are, first, that obviously we are not going to export the most highly sensitive technological equipment to any but the most reliable and trusted of allies. With the best will in the world, I do not think that we can in any way yet include the Chinese in that category. However, of course, it is also worth pointing out that the most sophisticated equipment is not, generally speaking, the kind of equipment which is suitable to export to relatively unsophisticated countries.
The second reservation must be the export of arms to nations with whom we might reasonably anticipate that we could one day find ourselves in conflict. It is a very obvious point to make. Although we found ourselves at variance with the Chinese, for instance, over Tibet and, I suppose, to some extent over Vietnam, the reality of the power situation, as has already been explained, is that China acts as a very important restraining factor on the USSR by pinning down some of what we see as a grossly over-inflated military capacity which it feels the necessity to maintain. Again, we must not go too far down that road, because we would have no wish to act in any way provocatively towards the USSR. Indeed, I think that most of us feel that the boot is really on the other foot.
It seems to me that the real problems arise when we start making too many nice moral judgments about those with whom we do business. Unfortunately, some of those judgments include double

1903
standards. The only note of political controversy which I shall intrude for a moment into my speech is that perhaps our side is a little less prone to flagellating our consciences about this than the Party currently forming the Government. I was not intending to extend very much further into the moral issues, despite what the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, said.
However, I think that there is one point that is worth making here and it has already been touched upon. I am referring to the fact that if we do not provide the Chinese with arms, then somebody else will. It is not a wholly respectable argument for a country which still claims some degree of leadership in international affairs, but nevertheless it is a very telling one in real terms. Germany and France are the most obvious countries. I also think that it is worth making the point that any trade involves communication and an improvement in the understanding between two nations, even though we must accept that almost all forms of trade can, if we try hard enough, be diverted for what we might call para-military purposes. Communications equipment is not necessarily exclusively peaceful. Lorries can be used to transport troops, and we can extend that argument right down to things like fertilisers and disinfectants.
Coming back to the main question, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that we ought to have a consistent policy. If there is one, many of us are not totally aware of what the Government's policy is. We ought to state it and stick to it. We should certainly avoid the kind of unhappiness to which my noble friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein referred, where contracts are broken by the instructions of the Government.
I feel that our attitude towards defence sales should be to throw the onus of proof on those who are opposed to them—that is, there should be a presumption that we can proceed with these sales unless there is a demonstrably powerful reason why we should not. I have already explained that I believe that not only does trade follow the flag, but in certain instances the flag and better understanding can follow trade. We must accept that if we do not do it other nations will try to beat us to the punch.
1904
The noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, has mentioned the French connection. I was interested to see in The Daily Telegraph of the 27th January reference to Sir Neil Cameron's proposed visit, to which the noble Lord has already referred. Clare Hollingworth said:
"It is no fault of Sir Neil that he was preceded, more than a year ago, by his French opposite number with the result that the French Prime Minister, M. Raymond Barre, recently signed a 'framework' co-operation pact with China".
I should like to ask the noble Lord: Are we being out-manoeuvred because of policy hangups, or are we suffering from a lethargy born of lack of enthusiasm? I hope that the noble Lord will be able to tell us that the Government give full and enthusiastic support to the examples of products that we can make in this country, like the Harrier, whereby we can demonstrate the continuing pre-eminence of our engineering capacity.
8.7 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate and I should like to congratulate all those who have contributed. I shall deal specifically with the points that have been raised. I do not believe that there is much difference of view within the House. Occasionally one hears extravagant language—for example, the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, talked about "appeasement". I thought that that was an out-of-date word to use in this connection and I do not want to go back to those days. There is no attempt here to appease anyone. I acknowledge that this is an important subject and that is basically why I welcome the seriousness of the speeches of the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, and my noble friend Lord Chalfont who speaks, as always on defence matters, with great experience. I agree with my noble friend's analysis of the position of China and its development. May I just say to noble Lords that it is important, of course, for British industry and consequently for the jobs of those employed in it, but I am sure that noble Lords will accept that there are other considerations involved besides industrial and commercial ones.
The Government's attitude towards sales of defence equipment to any country is, and must be, a part of our general relations with that country. Therefore, I should like, first, to set the Question in

1905
context by saying a few words about our bilateral relations with China. I think that my noble friend Lord Chalfont did this clearly and succinctly. He mentioned the Fifth National People's Congress which was held recently, and confirmed the present Chinese leadership's policy of emphasising economic development, including the modernisation of agriculture, industry, science and technology and the armed forces. Although her philosophy of self-reliance remains important, China is now more willing than she was in earlier years to look abroad for some of the technology and equipment which will be necessary to achieve her ambitious economic targets. A striking example of this is the long-term trade agreement signed last month with Japan.
As has been mentioned by noble Lords, Western Europe, too, is for China a politically acceptable source of advanced equipment and high technology. We in the United Kingdom, which has had a long and friendly relationship with China—a relationship which continues to develop through increasing contacts at all levels—are naturally keen to expand our commercial relations with China in this new climate. That is the view of Her Majesty's Government. Of course, we shall not be alone in this hope—the competition from our European partners will be fierce. Mention has been made of the attitudes of France and of West Germany, and of how sometimes it has been argued that they have better facilities for their businessmen. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, that that is not true and that that argument is not justified. We give all necessary support to our people—as much as the French and Germans give to theirs—and will always follow up individual complaints. If there are individual complaints, I shall certainly take them up with the Foreign Office after this debate.
But let us not be too pessimistic. As I have said, a long-term trade agreement was signed with Japan. Naturally, we are anxious to increase our commercial relations with China in this new climate. Of course, we are not alone; and I have said, competition will be fierce. Chinese interest in developing commercial relations with European countries is evidenced by the visit of her Minister for Foreign Trade, Mr. Li Chiang, to the United Kingdom and France last November and December. Mr. Li said at that time that
1906
his visit would be followed by others, designed to explore what each country had to offer towards China's development needs.
Among the high-level delegations expected here in the next few months are an iron and steel delegation led by the Minister of Metallurgy and one composed of senior representatives from the State Planning Commission and State Capital Construction Commission. Meanwhile China has initialled a trade agreement with the European Economic Community—and we are an important part of that—which provides a framework for expansion of trade, and which Mr. Li Chiang is expected to come to Brussels to sign at the beginning of next month. I believe that all of these developments augur well for our future economic relations with China, and the British Government welcome them.
It is an acknowledged fact that some of Britain's most important industries, and some of the equipment and technology of which we are rightly proud as being undoubtedly among the best in the world, fall within or have applications within the defence sphere. It is, therefore, not surprising that the Chinese should have expressed keen interest in such items and that British companies should be keen to sell such equipment.
The Government's attitude on this question is well-known. It is that any formal approach from the Chinese Government for the sale of a particular item of equipment will be considered on its merits, and in the light of our international obligations and the political and economic circumstances prevailing at the time. Your Lordships may be tempted to regard this as too cautious and unadventurous a stance—even self-defeating, given my earlier remarks about the keenness of the competition. But, as I said at the beginning of my speech, the issues are not restricted to industrial and commercial ones.
I should like to touch briefly on some of the wider issues involved. If all that needed to be considered was the direct effect of China's military strength on the United Kingdom's security, the issue would be simple enough. China does not present a direct military threat to the United Kingdom; indeed, as I have said, we have friendly relations with China. But this is

1907
too simple an analysis; and too narrow a viewpoint. Other considerations apply. I refer, of course, to our international obligations with regard to COCOM, or, to give it its full title, the Co-ordinating Committee.
COCOM includes all the members of NATO—except Iceland—together with Japan. The Committee is a consultative body originally set up in 1950 to agree and keep under review lists of prohibited exports covering military equipment and other goods of a strategic nature which should not be exported by the West to the Sino-Soviet bloc, as it then was, for fear of compromising our own security.
It is important that we should not allow strategic considerations which were valid more than 20 years ago—and here I agree with noble Lords who have spoken—to determine what we can and cannot sell to communist countries in the very different conditions prevailing today. In particular it is no longer realistic to talk in terms of a Sino-Soviet bloc, which was stressed by my noble friend Lord Chalfont; indeed, as has been mentioned, the Chinese now regard the Soviet Union as their main enemy and as the main threat to world peace. COCOM, which remains important to the United Kingdom, has kept the strategic criteria which govern its operations under review, and has made changes designed to ensure that the criteria reflect current political and economic realities.
The Spey aero engine deal, following as it did the successful sale of Trident aircraft to China, highlighted the opportunities that exist in that market for the British aircraft and aerospace industry. That has been stressed by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, from the Opposition Front Bench. But it is surely clear that the implications involved in the sale of the types of equipment referred to in the noble Earl's Question—aircraft, tanks and ships—are even wider than those raised by a transfer of technology, such as the Spey deal represented. Of course, that deal highlighted the opportunities that exist in that market for the British aircraft and aerospace industry.
1908
I have said that each case must be looked at in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time. Our relations with China are not static—indeed, I have touched on some of the ways in which they are continually improving. These growing links apply also in the field of defence relations. Last year a party of students from the Royal College of Defence Studies visited China. The Chief of the Defence Staff has accepted an invitation to pay an official visit to China—the first such visit by a United Kingdom Chief of Defence. As noble Lords know, the Chinese have been regular guests at the Farnborough Air Show, and are showing increasing interest in attending other similar exhibitions in this country and elsewhere in Europe. I do not wish to suggest that these contacts will automatically lead to sales of defence equipment. But circumstances change, and we must avoid committing ourselves to a rigid position. The attitude to our sales which I have outlined is thus shown to be, in these circumstances, the right one and in the best interests of this country.
In view of Lord Kimberley's remarks about the chicken and the egg on Harrier, it would be well to take note of what has happened in this respect. I should like to refer for a few minutes to the position of the Harrier aircraft. The Chinese first mentioned Harrier to Hawker Siddeley Aviation, now British Aerospace, at the time that the first Trident aircraft was handed over at the end of 1972. Quite naturally the company made it clear, both to the Chinese and to Her Majesty's Government, that they would like to be able to sell this aircraft to China. But the company, quite properly, also made it clear to the Chinese that such a sale would require the approval of the British Government, and that the British Government had made no commitment in this respect.
More recently the Chinese Vice-Premier, Wang-Chen, in November 1977, stated, in the presence of a visiting group of British businessmen, that China intended to acquire the Harrier. When the Chinese Minister for Foreign Trade, Mr. Li Chiang, visited Britain at the end of last year he saw a flying demonstration of the Harrier. The British Government are, therefore, well aware of Chinese interest in this aircraft. The British Government's

1909
general policy, which I have outlined, applies equally to the Harrier. The Government have stated their willingness to consider any formal proposal which the Chinese Government may wish to put forward.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, may I interrupt for one moment? Do we conclude that there is therefore no specific, or inherent, objection on the part of Her Majesty's Government to the sale of Harrier jets to China?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I thought that I had stated the position quite clearly. We are now waiting for a proposal. I cannot go further than that. The next move must be made on this, and there must be a move, and I would hope that it is accepted by the House that in principle we believe in supplying equipment to China. I thought I made that clear. We must of course have a clearer idea of the Chinese requirement, and this is why we must have talks and discussions. All I am saying to noble Lords who have expressed their doubts is that it is the intention of the British Government to see that trade develops with China, and inevitably a part of that trade will be defence material.

MILE END GARDENS (PORTSMOUTH) BILL [H.L.]
Report from Her Majesty's Attorney General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
CIVIL AVIATION BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.