Lords Sitting of 31 March 1981

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

British Aerospace: Market Floatation Cost
Lord Glenamara: 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 was the total cost of floating 0British Aerospace on the market, including legal fees, commissions and advertising costs, and by whom was this cost borne.
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, the amount so far paid by Her Majesty's Government to meet the cost of floating British Aerospace is £4·06 million, excluding VAT. The total costs, again excluding VAT, are expected to be between £4 million and £5 million.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, does the noble Earl feel that this is an exorbitant price to pay for selling off a valuable national asset?
The Earl of Gowrie: No, my Lords, I do not. I think it is a pretty small commission in relation to the amount of monies that were raised by selling this asset and in relation to the excellent idea of privatising an industry and getting it off the PSBR.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that most people would not wish the Government to be deterred from making these very sensible alterations just because of the legal costs, particularly when the legal costs are in keeping with the general rate that has always applied to business transactions of this kind?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am fortified, as always, by support from my noble friend.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, may I take this opportunity to pay a tribute to those of my former colleagues who performed the responsibilities thrust upon them in such a splendidly professional way? Does the noble Earl realise that the figure which he has given is some 10 to 15 times greater than what it cost to bring together the competing companies and to forge them into one on-going and expanding concern? Does he also agree with me that it is a little sad to think that this expenditure did not forward any new research, that it did not buy any new piece of equipment, that it did not produce even one part of one new aircraft? Is this not further proof that it is not those who actually make things who get the biggest reward in the society which we are creating?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I find the noble Lord's logic most curious. There is not the slightest bit of evidence that there will be any less research done by a great British private sector company than by a company which happens to be in the hands of the state sector. In terms of the overall cost, the noble Lord is leaving out of account the cost of capital borrowing and the rest upon the public sector borrowing requirement which would have accrued had British Aerospace remained in the public sector.
Lord Morris: My Lords, arising out of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, would not my noble friend agree that he has conveniently forgotten the incidence of inflation which was so ably fuelled by the previous Administration?
The Earl of Gowrie: Yes, my Lords.

Wages Council: Cost
2.40 p.m.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many wages councils are now functioning; how many wages inspectors are employed; what is the cost of financing the wages councils and inspectorate and whether any significant reduction in these costs has been made in the light of Government policy on spending cuts.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, at present there are 33 wages councils; on 31st December 1980 there were 148 outdoor inspectors and 122 other staff in post in the Wages Inspectorate; and the estimated cost of financing the wages councils and the inspectorate is £3·68 million for 1980–81. There will be a substantial reduction in cost in future years as a result of the Government's decision last year to reduce the number of posts in the inspectorate.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply, which is encouraging so far as it goes. Will the Minister tell us how many independent members of wages councils sit on more than one council? Even though, by doubling up, there may be a saving of expense, would it not be true to say that it is very difficult for somebody who sits on four, five, six or seven wages councils to be truly impartial in his consideration of the problems of any one?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, when I became Minister with responsibility for wages councils, representations were made to us as to whether the judgment of independents was impartial. We had a look at the record of their judgments over a number of years, and we came to the conclusion that indeed they were and that, if anything, they slightly favoured the employers' side. As to the number who sit on more than one council, I should need prior notice of that question.
Lord Blyton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that wages councils were set up to protect those in work

111
who had no industrial muscle with which to protect their wages, and that as a result of wages councils a decent wage has been established for many people who were not otherwise covered? I hope the Government will not reduce the number of inspectors or the number of wages councils, thus leaving a number of employees at the mercy of rapacious employers.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I recognise that wages councils cover people who are not otherwise collectively represented. As believers in free collective bargaining, the Government recognise the good work which the wages councils do. That said, at a time of high unemployment and high inflation there must be worry, whenever there is any form of national minimum wage, that people immediately below the margin will not find employment.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, did I hear the Minister say that under this Government there is high inflation and high unemployment? If so, what are the Government going to do about it?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, as the noble Lord is perfectly well aware, there is at the moment raging currency inflation around the entire Western world.

Wages Councils: Awards
2.40 p.m.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many wages council awards have been back-dated during the last twelve months and how many have been post-dated.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, in the last 12 months wages councils have made 36 orders changing the statutory minimum rates of pay in their trades. Of these, 25 were issued after their effective date of operation and 11 before their effective date. The date of effect of a wages order is a matter for each council to determine, but the date must not be earlier than the date on which the council agrees its proposed changes in minimum rates.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. Would the Minister not agree, though, that the fact that many of these awards were ante-dated is an encouragement to inflation which would otherwise not arise? Would he not also agree that the fact that these awards are spread over the whole country and give the same award over very large numbers of small and medium businesses in different areas must not only be inflationary but likely to be restrictive of job opportunities?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I do not agree that the wages councils' awards are likely to be inflationary, because they tend more to follow inflation than to create it. We are speaking about an economy where
112
the national average wage for men is now about £130 and for women about £85 and the statutory minimum imposed by wages councils is round about £58, so I do not think that is an inflationary affair. As I said in reply to a supplementary to the previous Question of the noble Lord, I do think that, particularly where the young are concerned, there are some job opportunity losses as a result of any statutory minimum.

Nigeria: State Visit by the President
2.45 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the conclusions of their discussions with President Shagari of Nigeria.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, we warmly welcomed President Shagari on his State Visit. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister had extremely valuable and constructive discussions with him covering African problems, especially Namibia, as well as other international and bilateral subjects. Both Governments welcomed the excellent state of bilateral relations and expressed determination to strengthen them further.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that a very wide range of subjects was discussed? May I raise two separate questions with him?—one, the fees for the students and, secondly, Southern Africa. On fees for students may I ask this: while welcoming the decision to freeze charges for students who are at present here, did not President Shagari point out the danger in the long run, when, despite their preference for this country, many students will go to America, where the charges are half what they are here? Also, can the Minister say whether he thinks it right that there should be lower charges for students from comparatively rich Europe and higher charges for poorer Commonwealth countries?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the question of the fees payable by students coming from Europe is of course related to our membership of the European Community, but, as to the question of students' fees payable by Nigerian students, of course we appreciate the Nigerian Government's very real concern over this matter. The issue was indeed fully discussed with President Shagari during his recent visit. On several occasions, and again during this recent visit, we have expressed our deep regret at the necessity to charge the full fees. We greatly value the contribution of Nigerian students to the British educational system. We have explained that the effects of the increase are being closely monitored and I should perhaps point out that some postgraduate grants for exceptional students are of course available from the Department of Education and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, is there any prospect of the Government's modifying their wretched policy in respect of students coming from poorer countries?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I may say so, that is slightly wide of the Question on the Order Paper, but in the general way our policy in connection with student fees, as with the rest of our economic policies, has to be related to our economic resources.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, may not the comparatively successful outcome of these talks have something to do with the fact that the President of Nigeria was once an overseas student himself in this country and does that not indicate that the calculations should not be entirely financial?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, of course we welcome the fact that over many years students from Nigeria, including a number of very distinguished ones, have attended our schools and universities, which no doubt is one of the reasons why our present relationship with them is so strong. We hope and believe that that relationship will continue, but it is not likely to continue very effectively if our own economy in Britain remains in disarray.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the discussions led to any progress being made as regards the difficulties of British companies which have manufactured goods for export to Nigeria and are still awaiting payment?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not aware that that is a significant problem. A good many of our exports to Nigeria, as elsewhere, are of course covered by the ECGD arrangement.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, did the President comment on the Government's failure to pronounce a single word of discouragement to sportsmen who play and coach in South Africa, thus encouraging apartheid, and did he mention in particular our obligation under the Gleneagles Agreement to discourage by every means possible such sportsmen from indirectly giving aid and comfort to apartheid?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, our opposition to apartheid is of course well-known. We do not always agree with some of our African friends on precisely the best way to counter it but the noble Lord may be sure that the Nigerians are well aware of our views, as we are of theirs.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would my noble friend be willing to look at particular cases? He said just now that these matters were not in significant proportions. Would he be prepared to look at cases where exporters have manufactured goods for Nigeria and not received payment?
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, my Lords, I would readily undertake to look at any case my noble friend draws to my attention.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, could the noble Lord the Minister expand on what he said about the present Government's opposition to apartheid? Is it the case that President Shagari said publicly that he hoped that Britain would stop supporting and strengthening the
114
South African economy? Do the present British Government agree with this policy or disagree? Do the present British Government believe in strengthening and supporting the South African economy under apartheid, or do they disagree?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think that goes rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper; but I think the noble Lord is aware of this Government's view on apartheid, as indeed are the Nigerian Government.
Lord Goronwy-Roberts: My Lords, in view of the importance of Nigeria and its immense potential, especially in Africa, both diplomatically and commercially, would the Minister assure the House that the closest possible consultation will be maintained between us and Nigeria in the future, especially in regard to the future of Namibia, so vital to the future of the West and Western industry, and in regard to the expediting of the end of apartheid in Southern Africa?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, of course, the question of Namibia is slightly different from the question of South Africa, although they are often discussed in the same context. In fact, our views vis-à-vis the Nigerians over Namibia are not very far apart. So far as South Africa goes, our views on apartheid are well known, as of course are those of the Nigerians.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, surely, on consideration, the noble Lord would withdraw his suggestion that my question was outside the bounds of the Question of my noble friend Lord Brockway. I was referring specifically to a statement made by President Shagari during his visit to this country. Could the noble Lord answer that question?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I indicated in the first Answer, the visit was a great success. On the question of sanctions against South Africa, which is, I imagine, what is at the back of the noble Lord's mind in pressing his supplementary, it is, of course, the fact that we have not taken up a position on sanctions against South Africa at this moment; but we have consistently made it clear that we believe that sanctions would cause grave damage to the prospects of a resumption of negotiation on Namibia, for example, and indeed to the process of peaceful change in Southern Africa. Furthermore, it would create considerable economic problems for other African countries.
Lord Barnby: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that at a moment when there appears to be considerable discussion as to the relative merits of trading with Nigeria as against South Africa, the fact is that in 1979 the total trade with Nigeria was considerably less than that with the Republic of South Africa? It was only last year that the total trade with Nigeria was £1,200 million as against £1,000 million with the Republic of South Africa. But the economies of both are equally important, and probably the prospect of trade with the South African Republic is more encouraging to exporters because they get better paid.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I would not want to compare the future prospects of Nigeria with South

115
Africa; but on the question of whether or not the trade would have any relevance to our position vis-à-vis apartheid, I am wondering whether a total trade embargo on Southern Africa would in fact have the effect that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, thinks it would have.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, so far as welcoming overseas students is concerned, do we make any distinction whether their origin is Nigerian or South African? But again, with regard to their future when they return home, has the noble Lord any figures as to how many returned students have been hanged by the succession of Nigerian Governments and as to whether any have been hanged on their return to South Africa?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not quite sure of the relevance of that question. The noble Lord may be assisted if I say that there are about 5,000 Nigerian students in this country at the present time.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, other noble Lords have raised the question of Southern Africa. May I ask the Minister a question about the discussions on Namibia? Is it not the case that the President urged reactivity by the Western group of five nations instead of waiting for a decision by the United States, because delay enables South Africa to increase its illegal military domination of Namibia?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is indeed the case that Namibia was discussed with the President during his recent visit. As is well known, both our Governments are very disappointed at the breakdown of the Geneva talks. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister expressed our determination to continue to work with our partners of the five and with our friends in Africa for a peaceful and negotiated settlement. We hope that all concerned will look for a positive way forward.

GLC: Transfer of Housing Stock
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Bellwin will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the transfer of Greater London Council housing.

Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [H.L.]
2.56 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Water Bill
Report received.

Fisheries Bill
2.58 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. This is an important piece of legislation for our fishing industry. It deals with a wide range of matters: the setting up of a new Sea Fish Industry Authority; powers to provide continuing financial aid to the industry; improvements in the arrangements for securing effective measures for the conservation of fish stocks; fish farming; and the conservation of whales. This is something of a mixed bag. But each section of the Bill reflects one simple concern: the Government's determination to do all in their power to provide a framework within which the interests of our fishing industry can be protected and its rational development can be fostered.
For too long the industry, particularly the catching sector, has had to operate in an atmosphere of uncertainty. This has been caused essentially by the difficulties we have encountered in negotiating a satisfactory common fisheries policy. I am sure that the House will share the Government's disappointment that the Council of Fisheries Ministers which met last week was unable to make any progress in the negotiations for a comprehensive revised common fisheries policy because one delegation was unable to discuss the crucial question of access. It is important for the sake of the fishing industry to reach an agreement which will provide a sound basis for structural and marketing policies, enforceable conservation measures, adequate quotas and reasonable exclusive and preferential access arrangments to safeguard our vulnerable coastal fishermen.
The Government will continue to make every endeavour to reach overall agreement on a common fisheries policy this spring. We look to our partners in the Community to approach further negotiations in a similar positive spirit, to the advantage of the Community as a whole. It will then be for the industry to make the best of its opportunities.
But Government too have a role. This Bill will provide the means whereby the Government can continue and develop the support they give the industry. This is not just a matter of providing financial assistance where this is appropriate and justified, but involves providing for services, whether through the agency of the proposed new authority or directly, which the industry, made up as it is to a large degree by small, independent units, cannot provide for itself but which are essential to its future.
Part I of the Bill provides for the replacement of the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board by a single new statutory authority for the whole sea fish industry. There is a general consensus that this is a sensible step to take. The present authority and board already work in the same premises with much of their work being carried out in common. There is a strong case therefore for replacing them by a single authority which can operate as economically as

117
possible. At the same time the new authority can be provided with the appropriate mechanisms to enable it to serve the fishing industry effectively in the years to come.
The Government have carefully consulted the fishing industry about our proposals. Before drafting this legislation we gave all sectors of the industry a full opportunity to express their views about the functions, membership and financing of a new authority, by issuing a consultation paper. Numerous comments were received. I do not claim that there was unanimity of view within the industry on all points. Indeed it was to be expected that differences of emphasis would be expressed. Nevertheless I believe that the Bill takes account of the concerns of the fishing industry and it is clear that the new body is wanted by the industry.
The new authority will retain a number of the features of those it replaces; for example, the industry favoured retention of a number of the functions currently exercised by the White Fish Authority and Herring Industry Board. I take this public opportunity of expressing the Government's thanks to the chairmen, members and staff of both bodies for their work over the past years. The decision to replace these bodies is in no way a criticism of their achievements, which have been considerable. They indeed have been prominent among those who have seen most clearly the need to replace the present legislative arrangements with statutory provisions which reflect more appropriately the needs of the fishing industry in the future. With new powers the Sea Fish Industry Authority will be able to build further on the solid foundations laid down by the present authority and board.
I would draw the attention of the House to certain particular clauses in Part I of the Bill. Clause 1 provides for the membership of the new authority. The composition of the authority's membership is a departure from the provisions for the present bodies in that under our proposals the industry will take a direct role in determining the policies of the authority. Up to eight representatives of the industry will sit on the authority together with four independent members. This is quite different from the present system under which all members of the existing bodies are independent of the industry and are advised by large advisory councils of industry representatives.
We make the new proposal in response to strong views expressed from all sides of the industry that its representatives should take a direct part in the authority's decision-making. Ministers will appoint the representative members after full consultation with the industry. Our policy in making the appointments will be to obtain the fairest possible representation of the various sectors of the industry and the various regions of the country. The result will be to bring the experience of the whole industry directly into the decision-making process of the authority, with resulting benefits to its work.
Clause 2 lays on the authority the duty of promoting the efficiency of the sea fish industry and of serving the interests of the industry as a whole. Clause 3 gives powers through which this duty can be exercised. The range of powers covers functions for which a considerable body of opinion in the industry expressed support during the consultation exercise we carried out. It will be for the authority itself to determine its priorities
118
and thus the use to which it puts each of these powers.
Much of the remainder of Part I of the Bill relates to the provisions for financing the new authority. A considerable part of the new authority's financial resources will be raised from a levy on the industry as indeed is the system at present. Clause 4 provides the powers. It will be for the new authority, including its representative members, to propose the rates of levy which they will need to raise to fund the tasks they set themselves. The authority will also propose the sectors of the industry on which the levy should fall. The responses to the consultation paper showed a general acceptance by the industry that a statutory levy was the fairest and most appropriate means of raising the necessary resources. There was some interest expressed in changing the form of the levy from the basis used at present, which relates the levy to the weight of fish sold, to a system which would relate the levy to the value of the fish. The powers are drafted to enable the authority to decide which is the more appropriate method. As is the present procedure in respect of the WFA levy, the authority's proposals on the rate of the levy will be subject to confirmation by the fisheries Ministers and Parliament.
In addition to the power to raise finance by levy, Clause 6 provides for the authority, should it so wish, to borrow funds for the exercise of its functions. This power to borrow is subject to statutory controls. In addition there are powers in Clauses 7 to 9 for Government to assist the authority in its borrowing should this be appropriate.
Part II of the Bill provides new powers which are needed to enable the Government to make financial aid available to the fishing industry. New powers are particularly needed to enable the Government to take full advantage of financial aid measures which may be agreed by the Community as part of a revised common fisheries policy.
It is not yet clear what financial measures will be agreed in the Community, but the Bill as drafted should enable whatever measures are agreed to be applied in this country. This matter is of considerable importance to the industry, since it is clear that a measure of restructuring will be needed, and changes in the fishing fleet will be required when the shape of future fishing opportunities can be properly determined.
Part III of the Bill contains provisions to improve the conservation and management legislation for sea fisheries. The clauses make a number of detailed amendments to the existing legislation, which is already a complex area into which to venture. I hope that in my remarks today I bring out some of the main considerations which underlie the provisions; and I will arrange to make some written explanatory material available to noble Lords well before Committee stage on this part of the Bill to assist their consideration of it.
There will be no dispute in this House about the importance of conserving and managing the fish stocks in our waters. Quite simply the long term future of our fishing industry depends on effective conservation, and firm enforcement of the legislation is essential if conservation is to be achieved. After a careful review of the existing provisions we are clear that the measures

119
in this part of the Bill are needed if we are to be able to fulfil our responsibilities to the industry.
The need for the changes to the legislation is fundamentally straightforward. The main powers to manage the fisheries are in Acts passed in the late 1960s, which were partially amended in 1976. Since 1976, and certainly since the late 1960s there have been considerable developments on the fishing scene. The need for effective but flexible controls has grown with the pressure on fish stocks. The common fisheries policy will place on the United Kingdom the responsibility of enforcing Community controls on vessels of all nationalities in our waters and we must ensure that we have fully effective enforcement procedures. The development of the western mackerel fishery and its large transhipment operation brings with it the need for further powers of control over these activities.
These arguments are not new; and they have been put forcefully to the Government. There has in particular been strong pressure for better powers to control the fishing by foreign vessels in our waters and to achieve better control of transhipments. This part of the Bill responds directly to those needs.
Several provisions of the Bill are to provide more flexible powers to manage the fisheries. Present powers are sometimes "all-or-nothing"; for example, our powers to prohibit fishing for a particular species can only be used to prohibit all fishing by all nationalities in vessels of all sizes. Where there is a need for only a limited prohibition the existing powers are therefore inadequate. The present options are not to impose a prohibition, to the detriment of those stocks for which a prohibition is justified, or to extend a ban further than is strictly necessary and thus unnecessarily restrict the operations of some fishermen. Clauses 19, 20 and 22 will reduce these difficulties by giving more flexible powers in respect of setting minimum size limits for fish, including different sizes for different areas, and in respect of licensing fishing vessels, and prohibiting fishing.
There are several provisions to enable better control to be exercised over fisheries in which transhipment occurs. There are powers in Clause 23 to prohibit transhipment operations, and Clause 21 would give Ministers the power to licence all vessels which receive fish by transhipment.
There are powers in Clause 25 to enable enforcement officers to gain access to the receiving vessels to which fish are transhipped so that the transhipment operation can be closely monitored. Powers to obtain documents relating to catches transhipped are important where vessel quotas are in force. Clause 25 will enable officers to seek documents on board the receiving vessels. It will also enable them to seek documents held on shore. The transhipment operations of our fishing fleet are frequently controlled from on shore, and increasingly the documentation recording the catch taken and transhipped by fishing vessels is held in shore premises. Their powers of entry will greatly improve the authorities' ability to monitor the industry's operations.
Considerable stress has been laid on the need for effective enforcement of fisheries legislation against vessels of all nationalities, and in proposing amendments to the legislation we have taken this point fully into
120
account. We have reviewed the general level of maximum penalties for offences and some revised provisions are made in Clause 24. In reviewing penalties the Government have taken into account the high cash returns which can be obtained from illegal fishing operations. We also took into account the rate of inflation since the last review of penalties five years ago. Cases involving foreign fishermen are normally taken in magistrates' courts in England and Wales and sheriffs' courts in Scotland; and it is necessary, therefore, to ensure that maximum penalties available to these courts provide an effective deterrent. Among a number of amendments made in Clause 24 a new maximum fine of £5,000 would apply to certain offences; and the courts' present powers to impose additional fines up to the value of the illegal catch are extended to some additional offences in order that courts can prevent offenders from obtaining any financial benefit from illegal catches.
Clause 30 will also make an important contribution to the Government's powers to enforce fisheries legislation. Its main purpose is to enable our enforcement officers to take action against vessels breaking Community fisheries regulations within British fishery limits immediately such regulations are imposed. Under our present legislation we could not take immediate action against vessels of other EEC countries, because a statutory instrument must be made before fishing by EEC vessels in breach of a Community provision can be made an offence punishable in our courts. The procedure for making a statutory instrument inevitably takes some weeks. We consider that it would be indefensible to rely on existing enforcement powers and to accept that for a period of weeks such Community fishing controls could not be properly enforced in our waters. Our lack of powers would be to the disadvantage of United Kingdom vessels as our existing legislation gives us more effective powers to act immediately against United Kingdom vessels than against foreign vessels.
I turn to Part IV of the Bill, which includes a number of useful provisions for fish farmers. I must pay tribute to the work done by the late Lady Emmet of Amberley in relation to fish farming and to her untiring efforts to bring to the attention of successive Governments a number of problems and difficulties in this field.
The clauses in this part of the Bill meet a range of concerns expressed to the Government by fish farming interests, and therefore I hope that this part of the Bill will be welcome to them. The need for the amendments arises primarily because fish farming on a commercial scale is a relatively recent development in this country so that our existing legislation does not, in general, make specific provision for it. Nor does fish farming fall neatly under the headings either of fisheries or of agriculture; as a result legislation applying to those fields sometimes extends unsuitable provisions to fish farming or fails to give adequate powers in the fish farming sector.
Clause 31 gives powers to make grants for fish farming. The provision of national grant is a condition of eligibility for EEC grants and the provision will, therefore, enable fish farmers to benefit from European Community grant aid in the way that farmers and fishermen already can. Clause 32 provides specific powers for fisheries Ministers to under-

121
take research and development into fish farming and to provide advice on fish farming matters. Fisheries departments already carry out work under both these heads under general powers, but it is preferable to take specific powers where possible. Let me emphasise that this technical clause does not signal any intention to change our policies in respect of the volume of research and development or advisory work we are carrying out in the fish farming area; it will simply underpin our powers to undertake it. Provision is included to charge fees for advice given, but I should make clear that as a matter of policy there is no intention to exercise the power in respect of advice provided by ADAS in England and Wales, which will continue to be free of charge.
In Clause 33 we recognise that many provisions of present legislation for managing and conserving wild freshwater and sea fish have no relevance to fish which are farmed. These regulations unnecessarily restrict the normal operations of fish farmers, and the clause therefore exempts fish farming from the scope of many of them and gives Ministers powers to make exemptions from others.
Shellfishermen are extending their cultivation techniques and now breed shellfish on a range of structures as well as on the seabed. Clause 34 enables shell-fishermen to be given the same protection they currently enjoy in respect of their operations on the seabed to their stock being cultivated on these structures.
There are, I know, a number of other points on which fish farmers would like to see legislation in addition to those in the Bill. We are considering now those issues that have been put to us, in the context of a wide review of inland and inshore fisheries. We shall be issuing a consultation document inviting views on these fuller issues with a view to considering whether further legislation in due course would be appropriate. Meanwhile, the provisions in Part IV of the Bill constitute a useful step in recognising the position that fish farming holds in this country today.
The final provision to which I wish to draw the attention of the House is in Part V; that is to say, Clause 35. This extends the whaling conservation legislation, which already bans the taking of whales both in British fishery limits and, by United Kingdom registered vessels, anywhere in the world. The clause extends these bans to cover all cetaceans, including therefore porpoises and dolphins, and raises penalties for whaling offences. This is an initiative by the Government to strengthen controls against whaling, particularly by giving protection to all cetaceans in our fishery limits, and as such it should be welcome to conservation interests.
There will be an opportunity in Committee to examine the details of this Bill. I have tried here to draw attention to some of the principles on which our proposals are based. The provisions of the Bill are diverse but, in the Government's view, necessary to enable the fishing industry of this country to take full advantage of the opportunities open to it and to enable the Government to play their part to protect and promote the industry's future. I commend the Bill to the House, and beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
3.19 p.m.
Lord Peart: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the Minister on the way in which he has presented this Bill. It is an important and a very detailed Bill which we shall examine carefully in Committee. But it is a Bill which I believe the industry will welcome. I hope that speeches will be such that that spirit will continue and that this Bill will become a milestone, if I may use that term, in the history of the fishing industry. Having been a fisheries Minister over a long period, I know the problems of that industry; but I think we can now see a way ahead. Admittedly, we still have problems with the Community. I was never involved in any discussions with the Community on fish as such. I am not certain whether my noble friend Lord Ross was. I think he was several times.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I just said, No.
Lord Peart: Well, my Lords, there is no reason why he should not say, No.
We had yesterday a preview, and I congratulated the Government then for giving the aid which was necessary; the £37 million worth of aid which was also on top of the £25 million which had been granted previously. In other words, the Government are showing their earnest desire to make certain that this great industry should be helped. We still have our problems—the problems in Europe. As the House will know, at the meeting which was arranged to discuss fish at the European Council at the beginning of last week it quickly became apparent that one delegation was not able really to try to come to an agreement. In other words, they had to face the intransigence of the French Government. I hope that we shall be firm and continue to play our part in Europe, but we must see to it that our interests are fully protected. I believe that in the end the countries of Europe will accept basically our approach because we have a long history in this field.
The Bill itself is a long Bill. The White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board are to be abolished and replaced by a single new body. I should like to contratulate all those who have served those authorities over the years. They have done a magnificent job, but the time has come when we have to make changes. The Bill contains new powers to make financial assistance available to the sea fishing industry and provides, as the Minister said, a more effective fisheries conservation and management measure; extends restrictions on whaling; and includes provisions on fish farming. This is unique and has been welcomed by many sections of the industry and other industries outside, including the farming community, who are involved in this.
The key proposal is the creation of a new authority, the Sea Fish Authority. I welcome this. The Bill provides for the abolition of the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board and the establishment in their place of a single statutory body with a range of functions appropriate to the future needs of the sea fishing industry. The Government have taken an early decision to replace the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board, and I know that wide consultations have been held with the fishing industry and other interested organisations during the summer

123
on the functions, membership and financing of the new authority.
This is a very varied industry. I have here a note which I propose to develop when we come to the Committee stage. Clause 1, for example, provides for the establishment of the Sea Fish Industry Authority consisting of not more than 12 members, four of whom would be independent of, and eight of whom would be representative of, the sea fish industry. The duties and powers of the authority are largely those of the White Fish Authority and of the Herring Industry Board, which bodies the authority replaces.
Here I must give an example. The industry is very varied. The industry comprises catchers; salesmen; buyers and merchants; freezers; canners; smokers, and other processors; distributors; wholesalers; retailers; fryers, and many other parts too numerous to list. The ratio of onshore and offshore employment is thought to be in the region of 5 or 6 to 1, so one can see that here is an industry which is varied and touches on many large sections of our community.
I agree with the Minister. I think it about right for the Sea Fish Authority that eight of the 12 members will be representatives of the fishing industry. It may well be that this will be questioned. I know it was questioned strongly in another place during their Committee stage. But the authority will have powers to undertake research and development advisory work and training. It will also give financial assistance and undertake work in the important area of developing the marketing and consumption of fish as well as exports. The authority can provide services for overseas interests so long as these do not prejudice its activities for the benefit of the industry in the United Kingdom.
The Minister will appreciate that we shall be discussing much of this in much more detail later. The Bill consolidates, as the Minister knows, and extends existing powers to make financial assistance to the fishing industry by way of grants or loans. I understand, though, that for the creation of aid for the new body this will take the form of a levy. I would hope that we would have a reply on this matter as to how this will necessarily be financed. The schemes would be made statutory, by statutory instruments subject to the approval of Parliament, and there are powers for the new Sea Fish Authority to administer schemes as required on behalf of the fisheries ministries.
I believe that this is an important matter. I welcome Part III of the Bill. This makes new provisions which will enable the Government to enforce effective controls on fishing by foreign vessels within our fishery limits, and by United Kingdom vessels in all areas. Amendments to existing United Kingdon provisions are made to ensure that any breach of the European Community measures will be an offence and punishable accordingly. Maximum penalties for a number of offences are increased. I welcome this. It is right that we should make a tough line, and we must stand up to those people who sometimes fish in our waters and break regulations. We have to be much stronger in our approach on this matter than we have ever been before.
As I look through the Bill itself I see there are many proposals which are important. But I know that during its passage on Second Reading in another
124
place there were arguments about certain details affecting the industry. For example, there was a great complaint that we do not train our fishermen; that we have no training boards such as we have in the agricultural industry. In other words, they argue that now that we are seeking to become available from the Common Market to develop fish farming, to give one example, there is now likely to be a surge of interest in the subject of fish farming.
If that is not to be frustrated, major promotion by the Government, the Ministry, the National Farmers' Union and the National Water Council will be necessary. In other words, we shall have to have more discussions, and many of these discussions must later be linked to a desire on the part of the fishing authorities to provide adequate training for the people who will be affected by this. I believe that this is important. I know that my right honourable friend Mr. Mason in another place has stressed it. He argues that one of the first jobs of the Sea Fish Industry Authority should be to launch a study with a view to recommending to the Government how best the employment legislation can be amended to bring this industry abreast of other national industries.
There is also an urgent need to develop training of fishermen on a much wider programme than at present. Here the Sea Fisheries Training Council may be involved. I should like to know whether what was put forward by my right honourable friend is right or wrong, and I ask the Government for an answer. Will the authority take over the implementation of the training council's recommendations? I have noted a welcome increase of training programmes in the past two years, and in the number of fishermen attending them, but there is not yet enough emphasis on safety. Many of their courses are on the use of fishing gear (which is all right in its way), the introduction of new technology, fish detection methods, and engineering and hydraulics.
However, I gather the training council has drawn up a five-year strategic plan with a view to developing schemes involving new entrants and safety training. In its last report it said that at least half of the existing labour force of the seagoing industry had never had training, for example, in survival, fire fighting, or first aid. It added that 60 per cent. of existing fishermen began their working lives without any formal training and that many young people continued to enter the industry in that way. The trade unions, particularly the Transport and General Workers' Union, want training and working conditions improved for the safety of their members, and I am sure noble Lords would agree that that is a worthy aim which we should support.
The safety record of the fishing industry is unbelievably bad, the worst of any industry in this country. The rectification of that state of affairs will necessitate a major effort on the part of the Government and their new agent, the Sea Fish Industry Authority, if we are to tackle the whole question of safety at sea. I know the unions involved would like a public inquiry to be established to examine and recommend how best the appalling casualities in this industry can be reduced. The Health and Safety Executive Report for 1978 showed there were 380 fatal accidents per 100,000 employed in the near and middle

125
distant fleet, compared with 15·8 in Britain's coal-mining industry. The Department of Trade's statistics for 1978 showed there were 247 accidents per 100,000 employed in the fishing industry, whereas in coalmining the rate was 25·4. Both reports prove the absolute necessity to increase the emphasis given to safety training and the development of safer working practices on board seagoing vessels. I could go on citing the problems that will face the new body.
We must remember that it is the fishermen who in time of war always come to our support. It is an industry which has a very fine record. For that reason it is right that we must now seek to modernise the industry. We now have a great opportunity to do so. The Government have done well to introduce the Bill. They have also done well to give the grant aid which we discussed yesterday at Question time. It is fair to say that we are now branching out into a new area which will be of help to our fishermen when they go to sea and even when they stay inland and wish to trade. I congratulate the Ministers concerned for what they have done, and the Bill deserves our full support.
3.33 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am glad to speak following the noble Lord, Lord Peart, and to hear him express approval of the Bill. I was able to support him wholeheartedly from the Bench he now occupies when towards the end of 1976, as Leader of the House, he was the Minister piloting through a fisheries Bill for the benefit of the British fishing industry. When I was a fisheries Minister, as Secretary of State for Scotland, I was involved in negotiations with the EEC and the problems of Iceland. I too give the Bill a warm welcome.
These are anxious days for the fishing industry, an industry which has been passing through traumatic times. In the last six years the world's patterns of fishing have been drastically changed, mainly as a result of the international adoption of a 200-mile fishing limit in 1976. Other countries have had to face drastic changes also. We have been affected more than any other major fishing nation because in the past most of the fish caught by British fishermen were caught near distant shores, notably Iceland. Those fish, mostly cod, were what consumers in the United Kingdom preferred, and that still applies. Tastes have changed very little, if at all.
As much, and sometimes more, fish of the same kind is still arriving in the United Kingdom from the same sources, but now it is being caught by Icelandic and other foreign vessels. British fishermen's access to fishing grounds for cod has been much reduced, but the fish is still coming in, and that is one of the main reasons why prices at the fish quays have remained low against the background of a slump in the North American market in the past two years. A large quantity of fish which in the past was sold in North America has been seeking a market elsewhere in the world. British fishermen have wondered whether they could even cover their costs, which have been continually rising, however successful they might be in their fishing operations. That is why I suggest the Ministers concerned were completely right to hold up the agreement between the EEC and Canada until
126
related arrangements for the home market had been made. Otherwise there would simply be more fish caught by other people, in this case the Germans, landing at United Kingdom ports, creating difficulties and local gluts.
In the last four years, since the 200-mile fishing limit has been internationally adopted, the United Kingdom has had to conform to the new principle of fishing primarily in home waters. More distant fishing off the shores of other countries can be undertaken now only by special agreements with those countries, and so far there have not been many fish available under those agreements. Ten years and more ago, however, our situation was entirely different. We in the United Kingdom had built up one of the world's principal fleets of large ocean-going vessels carrying out distant fishing, for example off the shores of Iceland and Northern Norway. Those boats supplied most of the fish for the United Kingdom market.
What a change there has been since then! Now, few of those large vessels are operating. Most of the catch landed by our boats today is from smaller vessels fishing in home waters. There are now more of these vessels than 10 years ago. Moreover, the total number of fishing boats has risen. There are now more British fishing boats than before. However, that should not be allowed to mislead; the large distant water trawlers which caught most of the fish for British consumption in the past have almost disappeared, with desolating effects on particular ports, such as Hull and Grimsby. Other causes of the decline, besides the 200-mile limit and reduced world market, are the depletion of fish stocks and the costs of fuel.
None of those four principal causes for the difficulties of the fishing industry is the fault, noble Lords will note, of the EEC. The present negotiations within the EEC arise from the 200-mile fishing limit being shared by all the members. I would remind your Lordships that in 1970, shortly before our negotiations to join the EEC were started, the first common fisheries policy between the then six members was concluded. The result of the negotiations, and before our entry in 1973, was that a 10-year virtual standstill of the position was negotiated, and that lasts until the end of 1982.
As part of that, the historic rights at that time of certain European nations were continued, so that some nations could fish between the six and 12-mile limits round British coasts. Now, I understand, France is unable to agree to a revised common fisheries policy, apparently on the same issue of access. My noble friend Lord Carrington, when answering a Question of mine last week, referred to these historic rights as being one of the difficulties in the negotiations. These historic rights have been recognised by this country, and I have with me the charts and records from 1971 of the historic rights registered as they then were. For example, France could fish for demersal fish (that is, broadly, white fish) along the South and South-West coasts of the United Kingdom, and Belgium could fish for demersal fish in the Moray Firth, up to six miles from the coast. But it now seems that France is expecting much more than those historic rights. Indeed, it is expecting that the rights should be spread from individual countries fishing for particular species to other countries—indeed to all the EEC countries.

127
I do not ask that the Minister comment at this stage, when the Government are clearly in the middle of negotiations; I simply draw attention to the problem.
Ever since early 1970 other members of the EEC—the existing members as they then were—had much more to gain by access to our coastal waters than we could ever gain from access to theirs, because the stocks of fish had virtually disappeared around their shores. Our coastal areas are now the most fruitful and most promising for the future. Conservation is essential for those areas, and it is needed for all European fishermen; otherwise the stocks will diminish and disappear.
Had the United Kingdom not been a member of the European Communities, we would now have for our own fishing area, within our 200-mile fishing limits, about 60 per cent. of the whole EEC pond. That point should be taken into account when these matters of access and quotas are considered within the total allowable catch. Moreover, we still have the largest fishing industry in the EEC. Our Government are rightly insisting on certain sea areas where local British fishermen will have priority and where large vessels will be prohibited or restricted. This Fisheries Bill is required for the new arrangements now in prospect.
Part III of the Bill provides for licensing and control. Wider and more flexible powers are to be granted to British sea-fishery officers. As I have said on previous occasions, I believe that licensing will have to play a part in the new règime within the EEC. Furthermore, entry into the fishing industry, and participation in it, must be controlled. The catching power is too great for a free-for-all. However, there is room for both the modern methods, with their formidable and deadly catching power, provided that they are regulated, and the older, traditional methods. Unless there is control, however, there will be either over-fishing, or frustration when conservation bans require vessels to be kept idle for weeks or months in port.
I am glad that, besides the national fishery officers, for which the Bill provides, the British Government have espoused the idea of a corps of Community inspectors. That was one of the recommendations in the report of your Lordships' Select Committee, which was debated on 22nd October last year, and it now seems that on the initiative of our Government the other members of the EEC have accepted that as a part of the new system.
I welcome the clauses on the transhipment of fish, which I note were strengthened while the Bill was passing through another place. For several years the practice has been to sell to foreign fish cargo vessels fish which have been caught in our own waters. These vessels have been called "Klondikers". They might or might not be "factory" ships. The term "Klondiker" simply covers a ship that does not catch fish, but buys fish caught by British fishermen. Since the 200-mile limit was adopted there is more reason for the East European "Klondikers", which cannot catch fish within the 200-mile European limit, to buy fish from us. Many British fishermen have found "Klondikers" rewarding in the past. "Klondikers" represent an alternative market to that of the quayside,
128
and often provide a better price. Fish caught within the 6-mile and 12-mile limits, where only British fishermen can catch them, are available to the East European vessels. In particular, in the North-West of Scotland, at Ullapool, the practice has been operated for some years.
There are disadvantages to this system. In many cases the fishermen might have liked it, but the first disadvantage is that the quota system could not be strictly observed. There has been no proper check on the quantities which were disappearing after being caught. The second disadvantage is that the United Kingdom fish handlers and processors have been by-passed, and they have been losing the work and added value. Therefore in future we must have a system which licenses and controls the transhipment, and what has been proposed in the Bill should be welcome.
Part II of the Bill puts forward financial arrangements which should cover the restructuring of the industry when the shape of it becomes clearer. In the meantime, I welcome the extension of the support scheme announced yesterday involving a further £25 million. But that can merely continue to cover the gap until a common fisheries policy is concluded.
As regards Part I of the Bill, a single, new authority has certainly been needed to replace the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board. I applaud the work and the achievements of those two bodies. The present chairmen of the bodies, Mr. Charles Meek and Dr. Lyon Dean, have made remarkable contributions to the fishing industry during the recent times of upheaval and momentous change. Some noble Lords will remember the Fleck Report which came out 20 years ago, and I recall taking part in the debate on that report in the Commons. Sir Alexander Fleck was asked to head an inquiry into the future of the fishing industry, and he was able to look ahead about 10 or 12 years; but of course it was impossible for him to look so far ahead as to have been able to predict what has happened in the last six or seven years.
I end with an appeal to the media. I would ask them to take more trouble in reporting the fishing industry. The industry is exceedingly important to our country and the negotiations are very delicate. Simple instances, such as the use of the word "trawler" as if it covered all fishing boats, or the use of the word "trawlermen" as if it covered all fishermen, can be misleading. A trawler is a fishing boat, but every fishing boat is not a trawler. There are other fishing boats: for example, seine net boats, known as "seiners", and drift net boats, known as "drifters". One does not need to mention them all, but serious mistakes can be made due to not knowing the terms. Last night on television, when the £25 million grant was being announced, it was stated that it would be paid to trawler owners. It was clear to me that this was intended to mean all fishing boat owners, but many in the fishing industry who were trying to understand what it was about would have been misled. The first thing such a person would have wondered was: is the grant going to be available to the owners of other fishing boats, too?—for seiners, drifters, shellfish boats. So I ask the media to take more trouble. That may mean arranging for someone with some knowledge of the fishing industry to cast an eye over the texts and the scripts before announcements are made.

GLC: Transfer of Housing Stock
3.49 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Statement is as follows:
"In May 1980 the Greater London Council requested me to make an order under Section 23(3) of the London Government Act 1963 transferring the council's housing stock in the London boroughs of Brent, Camden, Hackney, Haringey, Hounslow, Lambeth, Lewisham and Waltham Forest to the borough councils. These boroughs were unwilling to accept the transfer of the stock. In these circumstances the Act required me to consult the boroughs before reaching a decision.
"There have been intensive consultations. I am now satisfied that it is right for the housing to be managed at borough level. I also believe that terms can be determined which will not only enable the stock to be assimilated smoothly but also lead to more effective housing management in London. My department is today conveying this decision to the borough councils.
"I shall be making an order transferring the stock to the borough councils on 1st April 1982, and intend to lay it before Parliament in the near future. A copy of the decision letter has been placed in the Library together with a draft of the proposed order. The order will take into account the boroughs' views on the GLC's proposals, and in particular will impose an obligation on the GLC to bring the property up to an acceptable standard over 10 years.
"The needs for housing mobility in London have changed considerably. The GLC's own mobility scheme for the transferred stock, together with the Inter-Borough Nomination Scheme, which is now to be part of the National Mobility Scheme, provides an adequate framework for meeting these needs, without the necessity to retain the GLC as a housing management authority. These transfers, together with those taking place by agreement, will largely fulfil the recommendations of the Herbert Commission in 1960 that, to the fullest possible extent, council housing in London should be owned and managed locally by the borough councils".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for repeating to us the Statement which has been made in another place. Having said that, I fear that I must first point out that the Statement contains very few details. I have only just this moment been able to get a copy of the decision letter, which I have not even had a chance to finish reading, but having had a glance through it I see that this also does not cover many of the very important and relevant points. I should first like to ask the Minister this: What is the hurry about this? Having asked him that, I think I can give him the answer. It is the GLC elections coming up next month, when the greater probability is that there will then be a Labour GLC whose hands will be tied by this statutory instrument. That is the reason for this.
130
In the third paragraph of the Statement there is a reference to "intensive consultations". As I understand it, 5,000 units out of 100,000 units of accommodation were costed, and I would not call this intensive consultations. Further down in the same paragraph, the Secretary of State says:
"I also believe that terms can be determined which will not only enable the stock to be assimilated smoothly but will also lead to more effective housing management in London".
The word "can" raises a great many doubts and queries. Certainly it does not appear to us that the Secretary of State has the total understanding and agreement of the boroughs and the GLC.
It has been estimated that it will require £450 million to bring the stock up to standard. I should like to know from the Minister whether the Secretary of State is prepared to make this sum available, and to make it available without any cuts in the HIP. Further, will any increased expenditure that will be required both on housing and on staff, and on other expenses, be exempted from the RSG? As to the equalisation of rents, as I saw from my brief glance at the decision letter there is a reference to it there, but, again, it is rather oblique; and I would point Out that the GLC rents are higher than borough rents, and the borough rents will have to go up. Although there is a reference to it in the decision letter, it still says that something like 15 per cent., I think it is, will not be covered if that goes towards rehabilitation expenses, or something of that nature.
Since 1976 over 16,000 lettings have been made by the GLC to tenants moving across the borough boundaries; and by 1979 the number of moves declined to 10,760. The GLC has been Tory-controlled since 1977, as we know, and part of the decline has been due to cuts and the sale of houses. But what is quite clear is that if there is not a mandatory statutory mobility scheme, then the chances of people from the inner London boroughs having a chance to live in houses or flats in outer London boroughs are going to be nil. In fact, it is true that the number of those which are empty has increased among those boroughs which have already entered into the scheme and have left, so to speak, the GLC. The reason given by people—not only Labour members of council, but Tory members as well—is that under the present GLC scheme this is computerised, and it is far easier to make these changes and to enable mobility to take place, whereas under the new system the whole thing is so much more clumsy and long-winded that the mobility will not work.
The whole purpose behind this scheme, it seems to me, is to take away the powers of the GLC and to take them as far as possible right out of housing. This is going to be a tremendous loss to the tenants in the inner London boroughs, who are going to have precious little chance of being able to move out from the buildings that they are in at the moment and housing conditions which they do not enjoy—they certainly do not enjoy them—into some of the boroughs in outer London.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we welcome this Statement in principle as transferring the control of housing to the boroughs, where it is

131
closer to the people who are meant to be served by it, but that we are concerned that in so far as it is humanly possible to do so the consent of the boroughs should be obtained? There is some ambiguity in the Statement as to that. The noble Lord will recall that it says that the views of the boroughs will be taken into account, but it would appear that the final agreement has yet to be forthcoming. Do the boroughs have any veto under Section 23(3), or in the last resort could the Secretary of State make this transfer against their will?
With regard to the consultations, can the Minister say whether they have also discussed these matters with the tenants concerned and with the associations which represent them, particularly in view of the remarks made by the noble Baroness on the differentials in rent, which could affect some of these tenants who find themselves, after the modernisation which is promised in the Statement, faced with enormous rises? Further, is the figure of £450 million which was mentioned by the noble Baroness anywhere near correct? How is this to be financed? Is there to be a special provision transferred by the GLC to the boroughs, and will they recoup the £450 million, or whatever the sum is, from the savings that they make on their housing administration? Can the noble Lord say whether any calculation has been made on that matter?
What is to be the acceptable standard to which these houses are to be brought, and who is to judge that? Might it not have been better, in fact, to have left these matters to the boroughs, since they are going to be the controlling authorities for housing, and simply to require that the GLC would make available whatever money is required for the boroughs to bring them up to the standard?
Finally, the Statement mentions that housing could be managed more effectively at borough level, and I accept that that is correct in general, but recently the noble Lord has given the House figures of the large number of vacant properties in certain areas; and in particular there were several London boroughs which had more than 1,000 dwellings lying vacant for over 12 months. I am sure that the noble Lord takes this as seriously as do the tenants and the people on the housing waiting lists in these areas. Is he satisfied in making these transfers that the boroughs will pull their socks up and will make sure that these properties, like some of the others that they own, are not kept vacant for long periods of time pending their modernisation?
3.59 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, asked what the hurry was, and she then answered the question herself by saying that it was the GLC elections. I would respectfully suggest that that is not necessarily the case. The fact is that these discussions started about a year ago. A formal request was made by the GLC under Section 23(3) of the Act, and I would not have thought that a year or so later we should be talking about "a hurry". In any case, so far as the GLC elections are concerned, that is not really the point because the Secretary of State in fact has powers and could make such an order if he wished, regardless of the outcome of the GLC elections.
On her point about consultation I would only say
132
that the GLC requested these transfers in May 1980. The boroughs have used as many delaying tactics as they could. They have twice taken the matter of consultation to the courts and have been unsuccessful. My department gave an additional two months' extension of the period of consultation on the principle of transfer from September. In recent consultation on detailed terms, we offered to consider an extension if the period allowed turned out to be too short and, in the event, the boroughs asked for, and we gladly gave, only an extra five days.
As to the important point about the cost of updating the stock, may I say that the proof of the pudding is in the eating? The boroughs have extracted favourable terms on the matter of updating the properties. The order will require the Greater London Council to bring all the properties to acceptable standards over ten years, to deal with all serious design defects and to carry out environmental and external work to the estates concerned. The GLC will be required to cover the boroughs' transitional costs such as new depots, computerisation of records and so on, and the GLC will make adequate financial provision to cover the additional cost to the boroughs of making up for the shortfall in maintenance and management input by the GLC in the price.
On the point of rents, it will be for the receiving authority to determine the appropriate relationship between the rents of existing and transferred stock. The councils will wish to balance carefully the interests of all the tenants and the ratepayers in determining the appropriate rent levels. On the mobility scheme (which is a very important aspect of this) I would say that these transfers will not inhibit mobility. The GLC has the right to nominate tenants to up to half the vacancies arising in all its transferred stock—and by that I mean the 112,000 houses additionally which have been transferred voluntarily, including stock transferred by the other agreement. This arrangement, with the inter-borough nomination scheme, provides an adequate framework for movement within London. I look forward to seeing the GLC scheme and the inter-borough nomination scheme tied in with the new national mobility scheme which is to be announced today. We are anxious on this matter of mobility. It is important, and, with the three aspects covered in that way, we are taking care of it.
I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, welcomed the principle. His party are always anxious that the level of control shall be as near as possible to the people concerned; and in this case we are talking about tenants. I was glad that he welcomed that. He asked whether the boroughs have a veto. They do not. As to the tenants' views, I gather that discussions have taken place with the tenants. The Secretary of State would say that he has had regard to those in reaching his decision. But it would be fair and proper to say that some tenants have expressed doubts about the effect of the transfer. That is very understandable. I am confident that, under the more local management and given the obligations on the GLC to bring properties to acceptable standards, the tenants will benefit from the transfer.
I take the noble Lord's point about vacant dwellings. That is important. Hopefully, this should enable better management. It is true that some ofthe boroughs

133
concerned will, as I said in the Statement that I made yesterday, be getting some of these properties, but they are properties which are occupied. In any case, we are now involved in taking on the whole vacant premises matter, and we hope that will help not only these dwellings but the whole of the lettings of council houses.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that in capital cities there are a number of specialised problems—people coming in for employment, students and people from overseas—and these affect some of the London boroughs much more than others and, consequently, they cannot be dealt with solely on a borough basis? This was the whole point of having a housing authority in the capital city other than in the boroughs. If that is too remote an authority, that was simply because the Herbert Commission created this monstrous GLC instead of the London County Council which was doing the job very well.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, that was precisely why the GLC are retaining the right to make transfers and allocations (if you like) to the extent that I mentioned previously.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the better opinion of those experienced in London government—and by that I mean those who agree with my point of view!—the Statement that he has made today represents a very retrogade step in more ways than one? Is he aware that local government in this country can scareely be deemed to be democratic local government where the Minister has to announce that when the GLC called upon eight local authorities to take a transfer of the housing stock, all eight of them declined to do so; and the Minister has decided, after what is termed, somewhat euphemistically, consultation, to order them to take the stock. Is that what he means by consultation? Is that what he thinks is democratic local government?
I will not refer to the old LCC—and I was going to do so—because my noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham did so in moving terms. I would merely say, God rest its soul!
So far as the GLC, which took over the Herbert Commission recommendation, is concerned, is he aware that the splitting up of staff in the children's department and in various other departments has been catastrophic in spoiling a real specialist department which was in the service of London? Is he aware that that is likely to be the same situation in regard to housing. May I put my last question before the noble Lord loses patience with me? Does he not know—and has he not had sufficient experience to verify the statement that I am now making—that bureaucracy in local government is unfortunately in this day and age a very cumbersome affair? Does he really think that mobility is going to be strengthened, or even equalled, if one has to leave it to the inter-bureaucracy of the local authorities to have the spread of housing which the GLC was able to have?—and, as part of that final question, is he aware that one of the great uses of the GLC—
Lord Denham: My Lords, the noble Lord is stretching the Orders of this House which call for brief questions for elucidation.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sorry if I embarrass the Front Bench opposite by an elasticity that I promise to bring to an end. Is the Minister aware that one of the great advantages in regard to the officers of the great GLC—not as great as the old LCC but still great—was the ability to offer housing to officers who otherwise might not be available in the service of London? Will that not be spoiled by the present order?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that he does not embarrass me in the slightest by the points he raises. He knows that I would not have agreed for a moment that this was a retrograde step. On the contrary, I consider it to be a great step forward. I have never found local authorities in the normal way to be unwilling to take on additional responsibilities. Certainly, if that means managing houses within their own geographical borough area, then I would normally expect they would only be too pleased to do so. The fact that in this instance they are not, I suggest reflects the matter of the discussion on terms and conditions. If the consultation period to which the noble Lord refers has not, he feels, resulted in the answers that the boroughs may have liked and therefore the Government have taken action, I respectfully suggest that there is no shortage of precedent for that. As to the effect of the bureaucracy on the mobility possibilities, that is a matter of opinion. I am not worried about the mobility side in view of what we now have and what we are announcing today regarding a national scheme, the inter-boroughs scheme, plus the right of the GLC to go on making nominations to the extent that I mentioned earlier. It will be much better than it has been in the past.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I have two brief questions for elucidation. When the noble Lord the Minister said that the boroughs did not have a right of veto, surely that is only another way of saying that they had no right of consent, either? This means serious inroads on the democracy of local government. It is one more example of the apparent intention of this Government completely to destroy local democracy.
My second point concerns figures. I am very bad at figures and I was trying to follow the financial implications of the Statement. Am I right that the total cost to the GLC of this exercise is something like £450 million over the years? Is that to come out of the pockets of the ratepayers of London, or are the Treasury going to make this money available over and above the existing finance?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, if I may answer the point on the figures first, it is correct that it will be £450 million spread over 10 years. The funds obviously will come from the GLC which will raise their money in the normal way. They receive grants in one form or another in the normal way. Regarding the extent to which this is, if you like, an impingement on local democracy, an erosion of local democracy, I would only say that when I look around and see all the things

135
that are taking place today in local government I, with my great interest in it, have considerable fears for the future of local autonomy and therefore local democracy. But it is not because of the kind of steps that we are taking today in this matter.

Fisheries Bill
Second Reading debate resumed.
4.13 p.m.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: My Lords, may I first apologise most sincerely to my noble friend that it was not possible for me to get here in time to hear his opening speech. I assure him that I shall read every word tomorrow morning in Hansard. I had an engagement of six months' standing which I could not break. One has sometimes all too little knowledge in advance of debates in which one wishes to take part. So I do apologise most sincerely that I was not here at the opening of the debate.
May I say, however, that I warmly welcome the new Fisheries Bill. As noble Lords have already said in the debate, I believe that it will make a very great contribution to the future of the fishing industry, which has been going through a desperately hard time. I am not wholly certain why we had to get rid of the White Fish Authority and turn it into the new Sea Fish Industry Authority. Speaking for the harbour board of which I am a member, we have had the closest co-operation and help throughout from the White Fish Authority, and we should like to pay a tribute to the excellent work which they have done in the years that they have acted—certainly in our area—in the South-West.
I should like to speak about the composition of the new authority. There are to be four members who are completely independent of the industry. That leaves eight who could be thorough-going, experienced members of the authority. We most sincerely hope that one of those eight will be somebody with very real knowledge and experience of the particular problems of inshore fishing in the Channel Ports and in the South-West.
Over the past three years I think that I have attended nine or 10 conferences, meetings and all-party delegations at which we have met the representatives of the fishing industry. In all but one case there has been no representative from the South-West. In general, the meetings have been dominated by the deep-sea fishermen. I do not complain about that. They have been better organised, and I say quite frankly that the very local independence and perhaps parochialism of the South-Western ports has been the reason why the area as a whole has not been represented. They are passionately proud of their own individual locations. In the past it has been almost "never the twain shall meet", and therefore their case for a long time has very much gone by default.
One good thing that the French, in their monstrous behaviour about fishing, have brought about is the much greater co-operation between the ports in the South-West. They now recognise that the common enemy is the other side of the water and not next door
136
to them. I am sure that there will be much greater co-operation. Possibly the two people who have done most to create that co-operation have been our two European Members. Indeed, because of their much wider constituency with four or five ports within their area, they have broken down the very local attitude of some of the ports. They have done excellent work. I should like to pay tribute to the work that they have done in pursuing the cause of the South-West fishermen and in supporting my right honourable friend the Minister in his efforts at the various committees of the EEC.
That brings me to this question: Will one of those eight come from the South-West? That is extremely important, not least because many of the ships hard hit up North are coming down to the South-West. We do not complain about that: we find berths for them; but with their larger boats they lessen the catches available to the smaller inshore fishermen, who are exclusively tied to those local areas. I passionately hope that one of those eight interested and experienced members will come from the South-West.
I agree with everything that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said about the attitude and the difficulties presented by the "Klondikers". Many members do not realise how numerous they can be. I attended a board meeting a few weeks ago and I asked how many factory ships and "Klondikers" were lying offshore just beyond the 12-mile limit waiting to take catches made by United Kingdom ships in our 12-mile limit. There were 55. Some 45 of them were from Eastern European countries, there were a couple from Portugal, there was one Egyptian and a few others.
That brings me to the question of the levy. We do not complain at all about the new authority being financed by this method, but we think that 1 per cent. of the gross worth of the catch going to it might be a little high, when one compares that with what the local port authorities get. In my own port, we get 2 per cent. of the gross worth of the catch. For that, we have to maintain the quays and docks, pursue and maintain all the safety and health regulations, have a harbour master with his supporting craft and staff, have more staff on the docks and buildings, supply offices, security, lighting, railings, canopies and fish boxes. You name it, my Lords, and we supply it, but for that we get only a 2 per cent. levy! We have to provide the berths and all the services that go with a fishing harbour. We would not mind so much if we had the landing charges, and this brings me back to the "Klondikers".
I am sure it will be readily understood that these small local ports sustain massive losses, due to the growing practice of direct sales to factory ships just outside the 12-mile limit. The other United Kingdom ships, which are quite often from the North and much larger than our local ones, get much greater catches. They then ring a gentleman who sits in an office in Falmouth and say "I have got so many tonnes of this or that fish. Have you a buyer?" Within 10 minutes, that person is told the location of a nearby foreign factory ship waiting three or four miles out, which is prepared to buy. The fish is taken directly there and sold and we lose all the landing charges. For a small South-Western port, this is a very serious loss indeed.

137
I am delighted that the Bill will impose a levy. As I read Clause 4(3)(a)—I hope that I have read it correctly but I am sure that my noble friend can tell me instantly if I have not—
"in respect of the weight of sea fish or sea fish products landed in the United Kingdom or trans-shipped within British fishery limits at a prescribed rate which, in the case of sea fish, shall not exceed …"
and so on, the authority will be able to impose a levy on those landings. But I also understand that a local port, which provides the berths and services, will get nothing. I only hope that I am wrong in my reading.
Also, I do not understand whether "within British fishery limits" means the 50-mile limit or the 12-mile limit. If it is the 12-mile limit, it will not catch the Klondikers who lay just outside that limit, and we shall not get what the fishing industry ask for, which is dues from these direct sales. I believe that that is very important, indeed, to the industry and to the authority, in lessening its dues.
My noble friend Lord Mansfield did not wholly agree with me, and told me that my question yesterday was wholly concerned with the Bill today. As he so told me, I am coming back to something which I asked then, but which he did not answer; that is, the question of fuel costs. We are deeply concerned that our fuel costs are greatly higher than those of our competitors abroad. It is one of the reasons why the deep sea fishermen have been less able to take advantage of the quotas allowed us in the Canadian fishing grounds.
First, the industry has been so run down that many of the great trawlers have been laid up or sold in the shrinkage of the industry, so we do not have the same size of fleet as could go out and take advantage of any quotas that we are allowed in those very distant waters. Secondly, it is far less economic for our trawlers to go these very great distances to the Canadian fishing waters, because of the very substantially greater cost of fuel to our fishermen compared with that operating in Germany. I understand that the fuel costs of German fishermen—this is why it is easier for them to go out to the Canadian waters—are about one-third less than ours. This is very important, when one considers all the hazards of deep sea fishing. Although you may go out and get a magnificent catch, you may on the other hand come back with very little.
Finally, I should like to say a word about the controls. There is still very great anxiety, indeed, in the South-West about the adequacy of the proposed controls of the fishing trawlers of all nationalities in relation to conservation. We believe that, in this sphere, Great Britain is stricter. When it undertakes to impose controls, it imposes them. If your Lordships will forgive me for digressing for one minute to give a very sound example of what we are up against, I have been involved in another sphere with regulations imposed by the EEC, agreed by all nations and imposed in this country by the weights and measures inspectors in every town and city in the country. Eight of the nine countries have no local weights and measures or controlling inspectors at all, and if you want to bring a case, or make a complaint, in Italy you must get it up to Rome before any action is taken. Therefore, in this country these controls are far more seriously and scrupulously imposed than they are in any other country in Europe.
138
To get back to the fisheries, we are equally concerned that the controls imposed by the people operating in the fishing industry in Europe, and particularly in France, will be nowhere near as vigilant as those operating from this side. Although we are told that there will be an EEC control and not a national control, the numbers so far suggested are so pitifully small that we think it quite impossible that proper controls will be imposed on both sides of the Channel. Even if they succeed in being imposed in the ports, we are still desperately anxious about the checks on catches sold at sea to iron curtain countries, which will refuse to allow a controlling officer from a small launch to board a boat and check. The ships will probably be so powerful that they will be miles away before any patrol boat can get to them, to check whether they have 1,000 or 10,000 tonnes of fish. We are deeply concerned about this in relation to conservation and maintaining the stocks which we think it so vital to maintain around our shores. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to give me some reassurance on the points which I have raised.
4.30 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I must apologise to my noble friend the Minister for having arrived too late to hear his opening remarks. However, I shall read them very carefully. I was informed that the Second Reading of the Bill would not begin before 3.15, but I am not blaming anybody for that.
I want to speak chiefly about conservation off the West Coast of Scotland. It is from the West Coast of Scotland that any practical experience of sea fishing which I have comes. I used to have a lobster fishery and I know the coast extremely well. I thoroughly welcome the Bill. It is very wise to amalgamate the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board into the new Sea Fish Industry Authority. It will streamline the operation and I am sure it is the right thing to do.
I should like to say a word or two about conservation and to follow up a point which was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith. I agree with what she said about quotas. As a means of conservation, quotas would be quite useless. People will cheat. If my experience of the French in my estate shop is anything to go by, the French will be the worst cheats. I understand that there are to be only 40 inspectors throughout the whole of the EEC. That is absurd. You need 400. Forty will be quite hopeless.
May I say something about "Klondikers". I have brought up this subject two or three times in your Lordships' House, and I do not like to repeat myself. However, about seven years ago I had "Klondikers" in my sea loch. They were legal "Klondikers". They were Norwegians and were to be found about a mile off the shore. The Government of the day presumably did a deal with them. These Norwegian "Klondikers" were buying herring fry from Scottish boats, sending it to Norway, canning it and re-exporting it to the United Kingdom. I cannot remember what they were sold as because I never bought a can. As a result of that, for years we have not seen a herring. They completely wiped out the herring stock around those

139
shores. It was the most extraordinary thing for the Government to do.
Since our stocks of fish are very depleted, and as yet we have no permanent fisheries policy within the EEC, surely we are bolting the stable door after the horse has gone. We are acting late in the day. But I suppose it is better late than never. Until we have a common fisheries policy, this Bill, which is a very good Bill, is not very practical. Apparently the Government are being quite tough with the Common Market over the common fisheries policy which we hope to have. However, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has said, this country has over 60 per cent. of all the sea fishing in the area of the EEC. Our coastline is longer than the coastline of the rest of the EEC put together.
There are only three methods of conservation, only one of which is 100 per cent. sound. In Part III of the Bill there are regulations governing the size limits for fish. Clause 19(1) says:
"… no person shall land in Great Britain any sea fish of any description, being a fish of a smaller size than such size as may be prescribed in relation to sea fish of that description …".
In English, that means that you cannot land any fish of a certain species which is under a certain size. But that regulation cannot be carried out in practical terms. If a fisherman runs into a shoal of fish of a certain species, he can easily catch fish which are under size for that species. The fish which he is out to catch may require a smaller mesh than the fish which he has caught by mistake. So you cannot blame the fisherman for that. This is a very difficult problem. Under the law as it stands, the fisherman is supposed to dump the fish back into the sea. That is rather wasteful, because most of them will die. He may break the law by selling the fish to a foreign boat. How one gets round that, I do not know. It is extremely difficult to legislate for this kind of thing.
There is another method of conservation but it is not very satisfactory. The problem is that fish know no boundaries. Even if there were a regulation governing the mesh size for what you were going to catch, you could easily catch the wrong fish. I do not see how you can legislate for that. The only true method of conservation is to have a total ban on fishing in certain areas. A temporary ban could be imposed in an area where no fishing would be allowed. The other method would be to limit by licence the number of fishing boats. That would have to be done when we have a new common fisheries policy throughout the EEC. It sounds rather drastic, but I believe that it is the only way in which one can conserve fish.
I should now like to talk for a moment about Part IV of the Bill, which relates to fish farming. Last summer, I started a fish farm on my estate in Mull. We are hoping to rear 200,000 salmon a year. I am rather confused as to whether fish farming is to come under the control of the Sea Fish Industry Authority or the Ministry of Agriculture. I understand that the Sea Fish Industry Authority are to be responsible for fish farming as regards sea fish, but that they are not to be responsible for salmon or for sea trout, brown trout or rainbow trout. If that is so, it seems a little untidy. I should have thought that one authority ought to be responsible for the whole of sea farming,
140
whether it is the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Sea Fish Industry Authority.
Then, there is the question of grants. I understand that fish farmers can only get a grant if the Community gives grants for fish farming in this country. I am not quite sure of that regulation, but I understand that one cannot obtain a grant from the Sea Fish Industry Authority unless it is bound up with a grant from the Community. That does not seem to be very satisfactory. Of course, in Scotland the Highlands and Islands Development Board has given grants to fish farmers, but that is only a small area when compared to the United Kingdom as a whole. I hope that it can be clarified as to who is responsible for sea fish farming, the Sea Fish Industry Authority or the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I should like to say a few words on the question of disease in fish farming. It is imperative to have fish farms—and certainly salmon fish farms—as close to the sea as possible, where the river is very close to the sea. If, after the fresh water has been through the fish tanks, it is pumped back into the river, one is asking for disease in the lower reaches of the river. It is far safer to pump it out into the sea. I quite understand that that is very difficult to do if there is a fish farm miles from the sea.
I should like to say one thing about the Crown Estate Commissioners, my experience being in Edinburgh. I was amazed one day when driving along the shore of my estate to see a lot of buoys out. They were placed on an oyster bed of mine in which we had put down spawn for years. Of course I took the buoys up. Then the police came and saw me, and they I told me that a French Moroccan, who is now a nationalised Briton, had obtained a lease from the Crown Commissioners. This was extraordinary because the estate has had the shore rights down to spring low tide for generations—in fact in perpetuity; not that I stop anyone from taking mussels or anything of that sort on the shore, but we do rather draw the line at oysters. The Crown Commission Office in Edinburgh does not appear to do its homework. The offices appear to be staffed by extremely young people. I do not know where the senior people are—perhaps they are playing golf! This really requires looking into because I am frightened that if they are going to do this to me, they may start granting big companies rights on the seabed which will cause tremendous chaos. All sorts of things will happen: people will have their nets fouled, other people will be anchoring their boats and dragging up somebody else's cages. So I hope that more care will be taken in the future.
In conclusion, I should like to say that I welcome the Bill especially in regard to the organisation of the Sea Fish Industry Authority, which I consider to be a step in the right direction.
4.46 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I must confess an almost total ignorance of deep sea fishing matters, unlike some of my noble friends who have spoken this afternoon. In fact I think my only experience was twenty-four very happy hours that I once spent as—I am looking at my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy—I think the technical term is a "seine netter", out of Wick. So I shall concentrate very much on the fresh-

141
water fish farming aspect of this Bill, and here I must declare an interest as I have recently built and am developing a trout farm.
I give a very warm welcome to this legislation because I think I am right in saying that it is the first piece of legislation to affect fish farming as such, and I would echo what the noble Earl the Minister said when paying tribute to the late Lady Emmet of Amberley. I know that had she been sitting here in her usual corner she would certainly have been speaking this afternoon and she would have shown enormous enthusiasm because there was at last going to be something on the statute book on one of her favourite subjects, fish farming.
I was very pleased to hear the Minister say also that there is a consultation paper and that the Government may take future measures on this if they find it necessary, because I think that the present Bill—although, as I say, I welcome it—is a very humble beginning indeed. After all, there are only four clauses in the Part of the Bill which deals with fish farming and one of those is confined to shellfish in the sea, so I do not think that it has a great bearing on freshwater fish farming.
I became wildly excited when I read through this Bill when I read on page X the title of Clause 33 in Part IV, which is about fish farms, which indicated that the clause dealt with exemption from conservation legislation. As one of those in your Lordships' House who has just spent goodness how many days engaged on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, I was rather fascinated to think that as a trout farmer I might be exempt from the whole lot. But when I read what it actually stood for, it was something quite different. In fact when I turned to Part I of Schedule 4, on page 41, which is the conservation legislation from which we are to be protected, I found myself with rather a guilty conscience and wondering how on earth I was managing to run a trout farm at the moment without infringing a great many Acts. There seem to be a great many which it is necessary to repeal in order to make fish farming legal.
Clause 31 deals with grants, and again I should like to ask the question that was asked by my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard—namely, why is this restricted to EEC grants? Obviously I welcome it, as I am sure fish farmers welcome any grants that are available. Obviously I realise that at the moment the money may not be available for fish farmers but perhaps it will be there one day and I should like to know why that is not being brought into this Bill.
I was also very puzzled by the expression that only fish "for human consumption" was to be eligible for these grants and I wondered how on earth one told the difference between the two. On my trout farm—and I am quite certain that I am not unique in this country—I have trout which go out as regular orders, some for the table and some that go out to stock lakes for fishermen. I suppose that one could say that trout in Pool X are going mostly for table and those in Pool Y are going for fishing. On the other hand, I get people who ring up in the morning and say that they want so many trout either for a restaurant or else for stocking a pool and, until the things go off in the truck, I have no idea whether those fish have been produced for
142
human consumption or not. I wonder how that is to be got around.
I should also like to say something on the clause which deals with grants, Clause 32, which is in regard to the research development and advice. I am sure this is much to be commended. I am very glad we are going to be given some technical help from ADAS and other bodies. But there is an anomaly at present, and I hope my noble friend the Minister will listen sympathetically, because I do not think it is something that will cause a great problem. At the moment the Agricultural Research Council can give grants to universities and in fact it does give them grants for study and research into the development of agriculture. But it is not at the moment allowed to do this for fish farming. There are a number of universities who are doing very valuable work in the field of research into the growth of fish for human consumption; in particular, I would single out Aston university, but there are others.
At the present time the universities—I am sure noble Lords do not need reminding—are under a lot of pressure. I think this is not an enormous piece of legislation. I was hoping that, when my noble friend Lord Mansfield comes to reply, he might be most sympathetic about this and the government might even consider introducing an amendment at Committee Stage; that would stop me having to do so. I think it is very much a technicality. I do not think it will cost much money, because, after all, the Agricultural Research Council need not give money to fish farming if it does not want to and does not think it a worthy cause. It is a small matter, but I think an important one and one which might be much welcomed.
Having said all that. I should like again, with all other noble Lords, to give this Bill a very fair wind. I wish our fishermen, so glowingly described by the noble Lord, Lord Peart—who nearly had me singing, "Fishermen of England", as he was speaking—nothing but good luck, and I must say again how delighted I am to see fish farming recognised in a piece of legislation.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I am sure that the Government must be very pleased indeed by the general welcome that has been given to the Bill; this follows a similar welcome given in another place, and indeed co-operative efforts to improve the Bill, although it is true to say that the Government had second thoughts on one decision that was made in the Committee there. There is no doubt at all of the value of the Bill, but let us please not overestimate it. The trouble at the moment about the fishing industry arises from the changes that have taken place within a relatively short period: the changes in relation to the deep sea fleet, by the dispute with Iceland and the fact that we did not come to any settlement satisfactory to us. I must say that although it was urged on me at that time—I was a fishery Minister at that time—that we should allow the EEC to come in and help us, I am afraid that they did not help us to a very great extent. That was the first thing.
Then there was the EEC itself. I have heard people talk today as though there were no common fisheries policy. I would remind them that we all thought there was no common fisheries policy, but on the very eve

143
of us putting our name to and joining the EEC in 1972, we discovered that there was a fisheries policy, to which we were committed. The only thing was that I think we retained our own rights in respect of conservation, and we were given a 10-year moratorium in respect of changes in fishery limits. Then, of course, there came the world-wide sudden realisation of the value of fish and the shortage of fish and the extension of boundaries all over. We of course found ourselves tied in relation to this; we were not able to conduct bipartisan negotiations with Iceland, with Norway and other places; it was now an EEC matter. This is why, using the power of that now, we have got some influence in relation to the Germans and Canada, because it is now an EEC matter.
All these changes affected people who saw their traditional way of life going. They had to look for other outlets. I think it was Lord Campbell of Croy who drew our attention to the fact that there has been this decline in the industry, this great reduction in the deep sea fleet. I think even in these last three years it has halved; there are only about 52 ships left and they are not all at sea. Some of the middle water men had to find new areas and they started encroaching on what were the preserves of other sections of the industry. So the fact of the matter is that the 70s have been years of change and decline and frustration. People have been saying for years, and I can remember even the right honourable gentlemen telling me at one time, that we needed to restructure the industry. We could not restructure the industry until we saw what the future fishing pattern was going to be, and that depended on a common fisheries policy that was not agreed, and we have not got it yet.
The whole of Part II of the Bill is a prelude—it is not here yet—to what the common fisheries policy will be, to what agreements we will make in relation to where we will fish and how much fish we will be able to take, and also in relation to the whole aspects of conservation. We do not know. We may be enthusiastic and welcome the Bill, but please do not mention singing "Fishermen of England" if you want to keep harmony in the House today. Remember, half the fish is now landed in Scotland. This was a point I wanted to make. Although we have an increased interest and an increased number of vessels in the nearer waters, the deep sea fleet has been decimated. They now only land, I think, about 9 per cent. of the whole catch of all the fish in Britain. I heard the noble Baroness talking quite rightly, about the domination of the industry by the deep sea fleet. Their domination, of course, has changed. They always were able to speak with a much more united voice for their section of the industry than any of the others, because, as she rightly said, there was that element, not just of regionalism but virtually parochialism. Part of that has been eroded by the French threat and the French aggression in pursuit of their particular policies. It may well be that we will get a much more united voice at this moment front the fishermen of the United Kingdom. But once we come to do the restructuring, once the Minister comes to deal with the whole question of who is on the authority and who is not, watch that unity disappear and the demands for parochial or regional representation
144
come again to the surface. But I will come to that later on.
There is no doubt at all about it that the 70s have been declining years for the fishing industry, changing years. I am afraid the 80s have started virtually as despairing years. I was reading something sent to me the other day from a fishing port that has suffered very severe blows indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, will know it well—Buckie—where in the last 20 months they have lost five ships. Even in the last fortnight they have lost eight men in two ships. When one reads the names and sees how the families are all tied up, one appreciates the importance of this from a family point of view, from a community point of view, and one can see why there is that local parochialism and, indeed, pride in their part of the industry. It has been a matter of pride for the industry and it may well be that it robbed them of the unity of voice in respect of interests that have been threatened over much more recent years. I sincerely hope that that unity will be there.
However, what they said was the following:
"There is now more general awareness of the nature of the problems afflicting the industry; central have been the uncertainty over our arrival at a satisfactory CFP "—
common fisheries policy. Let me at this point congratulate the Government on what they are doing. I was glad to see the Secretary of State for Agriculture backing up the sterling work that is being done by the Minister of State, whose father I am happy to see present. The noble Lord can tell him that I approve of all that he has been doing there. Mind you, he has something to live up to because he was the Minister in charge of fisheries in Scotland at the time when we originally went in and he knows all the feeling that was aroused in Scotland at that time. However, the Government are doing well there.
Secondly, the document mentions:
"massive imports of fish at ludicrously low prices".
That point was touched on by the noble Baroness. It goes on to mention spiralling overheads for our own boats. It is not just a question of energy costs, because we must bear in mind the costs of everything else. With all the gear the cost of a new boat is frightening. That all has an effect throughout this varied industry. Headline goes on:
"Despite measures of Government aid, the crisis has had a snowball effect, with orders for new boats drying up and consequent fears for employment in fishing boat building and repair yards around the country".
I think that it was my noble friend Lord Peart who mentioned the fact that this is not one industry, but many industries. For every one person involved in catching, there are six people whose livelihood is involved in repair yards, in supplying nets and engines and in processing, as well as the porters on the fishery harbours. Someone said to me the other day that it is an ironic fact that today Hull, which used to be the great centre of the deep sea industry and the port which was so concerned about the troubles over the Icelandic waters, is now dependent for work for its fish porters on Icelandic trawlers coming in with their fish. That is the nature of the change.
I sincerely hope that what I think is central to the Bill—that is, the provisions in relation to financial aid as well as what is proposed in respect of conserva-

145
tion on a wider sphere when we have power to deal with foreign boats as well as our own—will come from a satisfactory conclusion of the CFP. However, that does not entirely lie in our hands and it will not be done tomorrow. Please remember that, once we get the agreements in principle, we must then work out all the details. We all know that the restructuring has been required for about seven or eight years. It will be hard going. We shall hear phrases like "selling down the river" scrapping and "building". It will be hard for some people and hard for some ports.
That brings us to the importance of what we are now going to do in respect of the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board. I think that I am the fourth fishery officer who has spoken today: we have heard from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, my noble friend Lord Peart and myself. We have known the people who have served in these bodies and we have known them well. They have not been people directly involved in fishing. I remember that when I first became Secretary of State a distinguished ex-colonial civil servant, who was later a director of Fisons, was head of the Herring Industry Board. He was followed by a very distinguished Scottish trade unionist who was one of its most successful chairmen—namely, George Middleton. We have the work in the White Fish Authority of men like Charles Meek and the others who have been mentioned. Within their remit they have done a quite excellent job.
I may say to the noble Earl who spoke last that I have just been reading a report from the White Fish Authority in respect of the visit that it made to China at the request of our embassy in Peking. One of the matters to which it has been paying special attention is the very matter about which the noble Earl was speaking—namely, fish farming. We shall come to the amount of work that the White Fish Authority has done overseas during the Committee stage, because we know that the Government will support them in expenditure along these particular lines.
These were small bodies, but now we are getting one. It is a natural development. In fact the Fleck Committee suggested over 20 years ago that this should be the way. At present, with developments being sponsored by the two authorities, they are both in the same headquarters. They share staff and they have come together. I think that Governments have been hoping and hoping that there will be a common fisheries policy and that they could wrap everything up into one Bill at the right time. We have now decided to go ahead with it. These people are taking on the tasks that were respectively those of the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board. That will be very important because when we come to what aid may be available for restructuring the industry, when we come to the question of licensing, I have not the slightest doubt that use will be made of the new authority and that it will act virtually as agent of the Government.
The question then arises: is it right that we should have a completely independent body—the eight and the 12—or should we have an authority like the White Fish Authority and Herring Industry Board which were completely independent? The Government have
146
tied themselves. The change was made in Committee in another place, and then the Government reversed that decision on Report in the Commons. They have come back to this authority of 12, eight of whom will be representative of the industry and four independent. I think that I am right in saying that the chairman and the vice-chairman must be two of the independent members. We have no information about whether they will be full-time or part-time, or how they will be paid or what they will be paid. Above all, we know very little about how they will be chosen.
This is an industry which is really six or seven industries, and yet we shall choose eight representatives. We know one thing. I think that it was the right honourable gentleman Mr. Enoch Powell who, in another place, as a result of an intervention which I think he made in Committee, got the assurance from the Minister that there will be one representative from Northern Ireland. So now we are left with seven. If the noble Baroness gets her way we shall be left with six, because she demands—and she demanded today—that there will be one from the South-West. I have been reading the reports of another place: Aberdeen wants its representative; the Highlands want their representative and the deep sea men want their representative.
There is not a split of the industry into deep sea, middle water and inshore—and inshore, of course, is now from a landing point of view, from a supply point of view, much more important. There is still a certain measure of voice domination from other parts. But when we take into account the spread and the parochial pride of and demands from the various ports—not just from areas but from actual ports—how are we to deal with the seven? There is not only the fishing industry from a catching point of view to be considered; there are the processors in which the Government have a great deal of money tied up, especially in Scotland with the support that has been given to new ventures in relation to fish processing. I remember the Minister of State himself presenting a new Bill, the Breasclete Harbour Bill, where a great deal of money was to be spent on building a new port in the West of the Islands. I shall not embarrass the noble Earl or expect any reply from him at the moment about the effect of, say, "Klondiking" on that. But this is where the importance lies in relation to these particular problems; we must take into account the interest of the catchers, the processors and the people who work in the harbours.
How will we get direct representation for them all in the seven representatives? I do not think that we will. Although they may all agree that they want direct representation, as soon as they discover that they are not getting direct representation, we shall receive complaints. I think that most Members who have been Ministers—certainly Scottish Ministers—have experienced this. I remember setting up the Highlands and Islands Development Board. We received demands that there must be a representative from Lewis, Shetland, Orkney, this place and that place. We would never have had the successful board that we eventually achieved by having independent people on it.
Decisions will have to be made by the Government, perhaps through their agents, the new Sea-Fish Industry

147
Authority. Let us not shorten that to sea fish authority and start calling it the SFA or we shall really get mixed up in Scotland, because those initials are still retained by the Scottish Football Association, in which I have a certain interest. Noble Lords must not try to sidetrack me on last Wednesday's game! When considering the decisions that will be taken, we must see whether or not all these people who want representation will be satisfied with what they will get. That is one of the difficulties with which we shall deal in Committee. However, I am not very happy about this question of representation.
Then there are the four independent members. From reading the Bill, we discover that as regards matters of finance and matters of levy, which will be of vital importance to the industry, the eight representatives of the fishing industry will not be consulted; those matters are to be left to the four independents. So that is one matter that we shall require to examine.
I am very glad that the Government have taken the opportunity to control, and it may well be to restrict, "Klondiking". I think that all the dangers are present, including the disadvantages of the harbours and the processors. We must bear in mind how much we have tied up in processing and the extent to which local employment is dependent on processing. Processors in the Scottish fishing industry are working at under 20 per cent. capacity; yet where I live I can see fish in the Bay of Ayr, on the West Coast of Scotland, but not a fish comes into the harbour. That suits some of the catchers; of course it does. But in the smaller villages the catchers' families are employed in other branches of the industry. From a long-term point of view we must tackle this problem, and tackle it firmly. As a result of action in another place, the Government took power to license the "Klondikers", but they have not laid down the circumstances under which they will use that power. That is the real biting power. In Canada they use the "Klondikers" when it suits them; when there is a surplus and their processing factories on shore are working at full capacity, they license the "Klondikers". We should do the same. From the point of view of a disciplined and prosperous industry, both offshore and onshore, this is something that we want to do.
I do not want to speak for too long, but I look forward to the Committee stage and I hope that it is conducted in a pleasant spirit. I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene, will forgive me if I do not go into the dire question of Crown Commissioners and what they are doing. I remember introducing a new Bill, a Crown Commissioners Bill, where we dealt with these particular points, so the noble Viscount might get some comfort there. However, I can assure him that many of the lairds of Scotland, who did very well out of the negligence of the Crown Commissioners in the past, by not staking their claim in respect of certain beaches and foreshores over a particular period, then discovered that they had passed, as a result of law, into the hands of the proprietors. I do not have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Viscount, but I wish him well in his battle for a monopoly of oysters beds and so on.
I think that the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, is right. There is confusion over
148
responsibility in respect of fish farming, between the Minister of Agriculture and the new authority, although there is no doubt that the existing White Fish Authority already has certain responsibilities in respect of fish farming for sea fish. It has the establishment at Hunterston for instance, and yet another place.
When we look at the whole Bill we see that some of it is natural development, and that we are only putting the stamp of statute on something that has already happened. In Part II we are anticipating and getting ready for what we all hope will be a satisfactory settlement in respect of the fishery limits, and, indeed, in respect of conservation. I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene, who spoke as to the adequacy or otherwise of the 40 inspectors, but from my reading of the Bill it will not only be the 40 who will be concerned to ensure that people comply with whatever new regulations are produced.
We started on this business of conservation long before the EEC or anyone who is now in the EEC. I think that they have much to learn from us. If, as has been said, we can ensure that conservation is carried out within our own waters, knowing the quality of the people who are presently doing it and, indeed, the co-operation that they receive from the British fishing fleets—for they are seized of the importance of this for the long term, as it affects their livelihood—then I would be satisfied. But, quite frankly, I have some of the suspicions of the local Scottish fishermen, that we are the ones who comply and the foreigners do not. Indeed, I would not put it quite so bluntly as the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene, and limit it to one section, because I have heard things said about the Dutch and the Germans as regards compliance.
Do not let us overestimate the value of the Bill. The Bill is necessary; the Bill is important. But if we want to wish well for the future of our industry we ought to wish well to those who are conducting our negotiations at present in the Common Market, and trust that they get a satisfactory solution to the problems. They know what is expected of them. I am hoping that they will not let the fishing industry down.
5.20 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords and the noble Baroness for the positive and constructive way in which they have taken part in this useful debate, and indeed to congratulate them on the points that have been made. I congratulate particularly those who were lucky enough to be here for my opening remarks. I do not say that in any sense of pique towards those who were not here, but if they had been they would have heard how I justified the Bill in the context of a common fisheries policy, as hopefully, in the words of my right honourable friend, it will become with the passing of spring. It is of course extremely important—and the noble Lord, Lord Ross, put this so well—that as the conditions have changed, and changed for the most part not altogether for the better so far as the fishing industry is concerned, then we must get our tack right so that we can continue to monitor both the fishing industry, and the conditions in which it fishes, and provide the best possible framework for the future.
A great many of the points put to me were matters which no doubt will be raised on Committee. Perhaps

149
May I reply to some of them, particularly the broader ones which really come into a Second Reading debate. The noble Lord, Lord Peart, asked about the financing of the SFIA—the new body—in the future. What I first have to tell him is that, of course, under the Bill the authority is given power to finance its activities basically in two ways. First, it can raise the levy on the industry. I shall come back to this a little later because my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith asked questions about the levy. Secondly, of course, the authority can borrow funds either from the private sector or indeed from the Government. It may use its borrowed funds, for example, to give loans to the fishing industry in a way similar to the WFA now. But I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Peart, that this is quite separate from the arrangements in Part II of the Bill which provide for financial aid from the Government for purposes of restructuring the industry. That is quite separate and apart from the ordinary grant and loan.
Then the noble Lord asked about the training of fishermen. The Bill gives power for the authority to undertake training. What its activities will be in that direction will be for the authority to decide having regard to the priorities which it lays down for the use of its resources. But it will have, as we have heard quite a lot this afternoon, a number of persons who will represent different viewpoints within the industry, and no doubt they will wish to consider carefully the use of the powers which they are going to be given under the Bill.
Then we had quite a lot of debate as to the composition of the new authority. My noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith was adamant that it must include somebody from the South West. If I may quote a little from my own experience in Government, where we have a pre-industry meeting of all the fishing representatives from the United Kingdom before each fishery council I attend, I am bound to say that there is a remarkable unanimity of view among the fishermen's representatives from different parts of the United Kingdom. Although, obviously, they have their different viewpoints because of their very different methods of fishing and different priorities, nevertheless there is not this almost selfish divergence of view which the general public might be led to expect.
In making the appointments to the authority the fisheries Ministers will obviously be concerned to ensure that the members of the authority are representative at least of the main areas of the industry. We shall have to take account too—as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, said—of the different sectors of the industry; there are not only catchers, but also salesmen and processors, and sectors like that, to be taken into account. We want to provide an authority which will have the full support and indeed respect of the fishing industry. Unless we get that, it will not succeed in its task. But I have no doubt that this matter of composition is something to which we shall return in Committee.
My noble friend put the point about a levy on transhipment. I think she was basically concerned to know whether "Klondikers" either outside the 12-mile limit or outside the 50-mile limit would be caught by the transhipment levy. The answer to both her questions is, yes. All "Klondikers" within 200 miles will be caught, because that is our fishery
150
limit. From that she will see, even if she does not agree with it, that it is almost impossible in those circumstances to ascribe a levy to an individual port. It would be an extremely difficult process—indeed, I would go so far as to say it would be impossible—to lay down some kind of equitable way in which the transhipment levy might be applied to a port.
Yesterday my noble friend asked me about fuel costs. I rather brushed her aside, for which I apologise. One always feels that statements in your Lordships' House can take too long. We are conscious, the Government are very conscious, of the fact that the fishing industry is an intensive industry so far as the consumption of fuel is concerned. We are also conscious that, whatever the cost of fuel in other countries may be, that fuel costs represent a large proportion of the costs of a fishing boat putting to sea. It was partly in reflection of this appreciation of the industry's problems that we made available the sum of money that I announced in your Lordships' House yesterday—that is to say, £25 million—and we did take this matter of the cost of fuel into account both in determining the amount of money and how it was to be paid out. Although I know that some sections of the industry at any rate would have liked to have a fuel subsidy, having regard to various well laid down principles to which the Government have adhered during this most unsatisfactory turn of events, economically speaking, that we are going through, we think it was right in this instance to provide the aid that we did and not by means of a fuel subsidy.
Then my noble friend went on to criticise, if that is not too strong a word, the form of the levy which the SFIA might impose. She, having read the Bill, will appreciate that it can be either an ad valorem levy at a maximum rate of 1 per cent., or indeed it can be a levy on weight, as is maintained by the WFA at the moment. That would be on a per kilogram basis. If the authority in the future chooses to apply its levy on an ad valorem basis, it will be for the authority, bearing in mind that the majority of the authority will be representatives from the industry, to set an appropriate levy rate.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Ross, was right to say that the representative members would be excluded from the administration of financial aid schemes, he was not right to say that the representatives would be excluded when the levy was set. Therefore, they will have the opportunity to play their full part at that important juncture when the authority goes about its duties.
I was asked by a number of noble Lords about the control on fishing effort by other countries. Needless to say, we in Britain are always mindful of the fact that we obey all the rules and the foreigners do not ever obey any of them! The Government have given close attention to the need for effective controls. We have to ensure that conservation regulations are respected and once the common fisheries policy is settled and agreed, detailed procedures are being worked out which will regulate fishing activity. It is important to understand and appreciate, as one of my noble friends did not, that each member state will be responsible for enforcing the regulations in its own waters. That is to say, each member state will be responsible for enforcing Community regulations, so there will not

151
be some vague third force which will be responsible for imposing its authority so far as monitoring of the regulations is concerned.
The national legislation which we will need to enforce the law against vessels of all nations fishing within United Kingdom fishery limits has been the subject of much Government thought. That is reflected in Part III of the Bill and we think the powers we have taken in that part of the Bill should be added to our armoury in order to carry out this function in the future. Apart from our responsibilities, all member states must he seen to be enforcing the rules to the same high standards as we do, otherwise there would be allegations of unfairness, I have no doubt. Therefore, my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has obtained the agreement of the Community to the setting up of a monitoring force of inspectors, and they will have the duty of ensuring that member states are carrying out their enforcement responsibilities effectively, fairly and without discrimination between fishermen of different member states. The point has therefore been taken on board and considered very seriously.
I come to the problems of fish farming, on which my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard was the first to comment. Sea fish farming is covered by the new authority as part of its general responsibility for the sea fish industry. Freshwater fish farming poses different questions and it would appear logical that it should have rather different arrangements provided for it. The noble Lord need have no worries for the moment; my department, the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, will look after his fish farm and see he does not spread disease, and it will be responsible in fact for all disease questions of that nature on Scottish fish farms.
I was asked a number of questions which amount to this: Why should the capital grants scheme which at present applies to the agriculture industry, to farms, not be applied to fish farms? The answer is that it is by no means certain at present that a capital grants scheme which is appropriate for agriculture would necessarily be applicable or indeed appropriate to sea fish or any form of fish farming. As I said in my opening remarks, we shall consider the matter. The question of grants of course will be on a United Kingdom basis, but the whole question of fish farming will be considered by both departments because the law of real property is different in Scotland, as is planning law, and therefore it will be necessary to have two consultative documents and two different lines of negotiation and discussion with the industry, and in due course two consultative papers will be produced and published and we shall see how we go from there.
A matter which the noble Lord raised and which will be part of this consultation process is that of the Crown Estate Commissioners, and I wish to answer the point because there has been some quite widespread dismay caused by this new or burgeoning industry, fish farming, which comes up against the rights of the Crown Estate Commissioners. The commissioners, as I have said, have rights on the seabed and they are statutorily charged with seeking to obtain the best return available on the Crown Estate, and it is right that they have
152
regard to that duty when they licence the mooring of sea cages.
The difficulty is that there are public rights in the sea—that is, rights of navigation and fishing—and in Scotland we also have private rights to take salmon, and none of those rights, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, hinted, should be lightly set aside. The fish farmers are of course criticial of the present arrangements because they feel that the first-come-first-served approach of the Crown Estate Commissioners is unhelpful to them and they feel that their lease, once they have got one, should override other rights in the area, which at present it does not, and so there is some controversy in this connection.
On the other hand, the salmon netsmen, who equally have their rights, and others, feel their interests are likely to be adversely affected by a fish farm, when it comes along, about which they have probably not been consulted. Thus, one gets some very different interests, each of whom have well-entrenched rights which they wish to preserve. Nevertheless, that is a matter to which we shall have to address ourselves and it will be part of the consultation process.
Fish disease is another matter of which we shall have to take account—that is, in relation to fish farms—because the present legislation is out of date. As I said, fish farming is an industry which is advancing and expanding very fast. We shall have to consider the question of effluent and no doubt that will be in the consultative document.
My noble friend Lord Swinton asked about the distinction between fish farming for human consumption and food production and other forms of fish farming. The reason for the distinction is that in its grant scheme the European Community rightly distinguishes between the production of fish to eat and the production of fish to throw into a pond and hoik out with a rod and line. It may well be that those who go to my noble friend's fish farm to buy fish do not make it altogether plain what they intend to do with the fish once they have purchased them. That is the reason for the distinction which has been drawn and the reason why the Bill has been drafted in its present form. We cannot therefore, in the context of EEC expenditure, as it were, impose our own thoughts about it as fisheries Ministers. In other words, we cannot, whatever we think, sanction public expenditure on fish farming for the restocking of lakes or sporting purposes. Nevertheless, I take my noble friend's point, which might be considered.
I have not answered every point that has been put to me, but I shall look at the Official Report with considerable interest. In regard to any point with which I have not dealt but with which I should deal before the Committee stage, I hope to write to the noble Lord concerned. As I said in my opening remarks, expect that Notes on Clauses will be available shortly, if not tomorrow, within a matter of days, as is my usual practice. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, in saying that I hope that we have an interesting and fruitful Committee stage before too long.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Mental After-care
5.41 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take urgent steps to provide a more effective system of mental after-care.
The noble Earl said: I shall do no more than scratch the surface of this tremendous subject which has been neglected for far too long in this House and elsewhere. I shall confine myself to speaking about the mentally ill, though other speakers I believe will deal with the mentally handicapped and indeed with any other branches of the subject which occur to them. I have no doubt that the Minister will deal with us all judiciously at the end.
There is one aspect of the subject—apart from that of the mentally handicapped—which is certainly vital and can be rather tragic. I refer to the supervision of people on leaving mental homes, and in particular those people who leave special hospitals. But I shall not deal with that matter, either. I have visited Broadmoor fairly often over the years, and I wrote the introductions to two books about Broadmoor and its aftermath by my friend Peter Thompson, who has done so much work in this field, having himself been a patient in Broadmoor and who, 10 years ago, suggested a system of national after-care for mental patients.
The question is perhaps specially relevant today for two reasons, one immediate and the other long-term and semi-permanent. We are currently in the International Year of Disabled People. Most of us, when we hear of the disabled, think of those who are physically disabled or are suffering from mental handicap, and certainly we can never do enough to provide them with much fairer treatment than they now receive. But when one thinks of the disabled one must surely think also of the mentally ill. This applies all the more when we reflect that one in 12 men and one in eight women, I am informed, will enter hospital because of mental illness at some point in their lives.
It is worth asking ourselves whether there is any long-term issue involved here apart from the fact that this is the year of the disabled. I would submit that there is no area of national policy where the yawning gap between the stated intentions of successive Governments and their implementation in practice is quite so wide as it is here. We might ask ourselves why this should be. It may well be that because we are all aware, consciously or sub-consciously, of our vulnerability in certain circumstances to mental distress or even collapse, we are very reluctant to admit the whole existence of the subject. A natural tendency is to adopt the attitude which says in effect, "If I have coped, why shouldn't someone else?" In other words, we tend to see mental illness as a sign of weakness or inferiority in others, or as a self-imposed infliction, for which the sufferers must bear the consequences. Whether that is, or is not, the explanation, I am sure that your Lordships rise above such weaknesses; but I am afraid that that attitude is very widespread in the community.
Since the 1950s successive Governments have recognised that where appropriate mentally ill persons should be cared for in the community, rather than in hospitals or other instutions. We have all been saying that. Certainly the leaders of the authorities have been
154
saying that for a good 20 years. It would be a mistake to believe that simply closing institutions will solve the problems of the mentally ill in our midst. It would be inappropriate to say that no one should ever be in an institution, and it would be lamentable to refuse people facilities that they are promised when they are returned to the community.
In any just society mentally ill persons should receive the form of care most relevant to their needs. In the vast majority of cases this means either preventative care or, at most, short-term hospitalisation, followed by support in the community from family, friends, doctors, psychiatrists, social workers, and community psychiatric nurses. The trend away from hospitalisation has certainly been quite marked in this country. In 1955 there were 140,000 patients in our mental hospitals. In 1979 the number was down to 64,000, but even the youngest and most innocent Member of the House will not suppose that we are therefore twice as mentally sound as we were a quarter of a century ago.
The policy of taking people out of the hospitals is eminently sensible on all grounds, provided that it is accompanied by provision outside. There is abundant research to indicate that non-institutional care is at least as effective, both therapeutically and in terms of cost, as institutional care, and usually more so. The moral and social grounds for providing community care are self-evident and have been stated again and again. However—this is the first point that I want to stress; it provides the background to what I am saying, and I am sure that it will be said by other speakers who are expert in the subject—despite brave public pronouncements over many years about the need to step up community care provision, and despite the obvious merits of doing so, the implementation has been poor, indeed lamentably feeble.
In 1975 the DHSS published the White Paper Better Services for the Mentally Ill. In that document guidelines were laid down for provision of community facilities. Some progress has been made, but we are light years away from achieving even the modest goals laid down in the document. Let us take the question of hostel care for the mentally ill. In 1975–76 local authorities in England spent £4½ million on residential care for the mentally ill. Admittedly, the figure has doubled since. However, the higher figure is a reflection on more of inflation than of additional provision. If the DHSS guidelines were being adhered to, local authorities would be spending not about £10 million, but about £40 million. I am bound to say that, for a mixture of reasons, at the moment the local authorities are cutting back spending on and provision for the mentally ill. The same applies to day care provision, adult training centres, and facilities for the mentally handicapped.
So on the one hand the country is wisely and humanely choosing not to institutionalise the mentally ill. Well, so far, so good. That is a cheap way of dealing with the problem. But on the other hand we are not offering the mentally ill a viable alternative, and more by accident or negligence than by design we are returning to the pre-asylum attitudes which prevailed about 150 years ago. We are failing to treat many people outside hospitals who ought to be treated, and as a result of the failure to implement a

155
coherent community care policy many thousands of people have remained needlessly in hospital. Had they been liberated from hospital, it would have been found that no provision had been made for them. We have the absurd situation, which noble Lords may not be aware of unless they happen to be deeply versed in this question, that there are many vacancies in hostels but the local authorities cannot, or think they cannot, afford to take them up, so that thousands of people who ought to be in the community are left to decline in the mental hospitals, to their own detriment, of course, and also at much greater cost to the state.
Where do the solutions lie? I am, in a humble way, a pioneer this afternoon, starting up this subject. We shall hear contributions of various kinds, and, as I shall say at the end, I hope the matter will not be left there; so at this point I am speaking only in general terms. But I have consulted with the leading voluntary bodies, and what I am saying, therefore, is based on their wisdom rather than on my unaided genius. Where do the solutions lie? First and foremost, we must strengthen considerably the statutory duties of the local authority services in relation to the mentally ill. I am of course aware that any proposal of this nature will not be popular with the local authorities, certainly in the first place. They believe that it is for them to determine, on the basis of assessed local need, the nature and extent of the social services required.
However, there will always be a conflict of interest between the principle of local government freedom and an acceptable level of local authority provision for the mentally ill. Traditionally, the mentally ill have been politically and publicly unpopular. Although their interests have been effectively articulated by organisations like MIND, the Mental After-care Association and the Richmond Fellowship, the latest figures show that 33 local authorities in England and Wales out of 107—that is, less than one-third—have reached the guideline figure of 19 places per 100,000 for residential provisions laid down in the 1975 White Paper; and, of these 33 local authorities, 20 were in London, so outside London there were only 13. Only two local authorities (again in London) have reached the guideline figure of 60 places per 100,000 for day-care provision.
So that is the actual position; the failure of the system. In the short run, if you like, or in the immediate argument, you could say that it is the local authorities who have failed, but the state, the central Government, cannot absolve themselves of a heavy obligation. Clearly, any increase in the statutory responsibilities of local authorities towards mentally ill people would have to be met by an equivalent increase in central Government funding to those local authorities in order to assist them to provide the necessary expansion of services. I am setting out, if you like, the problem, and others will develop it today and later. I am also advised by some of the voluntary bodies that local authorities should be prevailed on to extend their responsibilities under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which at present can include the mentally ill on a discretionary basis.
The second major solution lies in forging closer
156
strategic planning and operational links between the health services for mentally ill people and the local authority social and housing services. One could go into that in considerable detail, but I will only say this for this afternoon. As the mental hospitals run down, it must be possible to begin a transfer away from the health service to the local authorities, and that means not only joint funding—and some steps have been taken in that direction—but joint planning, so that mentally ill persons may have access to adequate community provision.
Thirdly, we must do much more than we are doing to support the voluntary organisations. The contribution of the voluntary organisations to the provision of our national psychiatric after-care services has been remarkable. Here again, I mention the Richmond Fellowship, the Mental After-care Association and MIND. All of them have done magnificent work, and between them they have created a network of hostels, group homes and sheltered units up and down the country. The present Government—and here I am accounting it to them for righteousness—have made it an article of faith, as I understand it, certainly in words, to promote the cause of voluntary organisations generally. By common consent voluntary organisations have a flexibility, a grass-roots sensitivity and a capacity to pioneer which statutory authorities cannot be expected to match.
The voluntary sector is absolutely crucial to any proper policy of community care for the mentally ill. Indeed, voluntary organisations provide well over a third of all residential places. But far from encouraging them, the Government's present policy is having precisely the opposite effect—and I say that without any party animus; this is a subject which really does take us outside party. The whole voluntary effort appears to be in imminent danger. I do hope that the Minister, whose heart, I know, is in this subject, will be able to say something reassuring this afternoon.
The service rendered by the voluntary bodies is, of course, one may say, intertwined with that provided by the local authorities. As I indicated earlier, the voluntary bodies have a number of vacant places, for example, in hostels, and it is up to the local authorities how many of those places they are ready to pay for and fill. So we come back again to what I said earlier about the need to strengthen the local authorities, to induce them to play a larger part than at present, and if necessary to provide them with the required financial assistance.
There is one point that I have been asked to mention, though it is not one which I would have fully understood without assistance. The most productive partnership, I am assured, does not lie in trying to force the voluntary bodies to take on work now undertaken by the statutory services. It lies rather in encouraging them and in assisting them to pioneer new methods of care, and therefore, in that sense, to complement the statutory service.
I am coming to an end. It is always a sin, as we know—it is, indeed, a sin against the Holy Ghost—to despair, and I see no reason to despair in this field. The fact that we have not really tried very hard as a country is in a sense encouraging, because it shows what could be done, or at any rate it leaves a wider area open to us if we do at last make the effort. I

157
received a letter a day or two ago from someone with whom I have kept in touch for about 20 years and who in that time has been in and out of mental institutions, though now, and for some time, he has been living in the community. He begins his letter:
"God is in his Heaven. I am perfectly happy",
and then he sends me some verses which may not be great poetry but which express a courageous and happy spirit.
Of course, large numbers of people are not as afflicted as this particular man—their period of mental illness may be quite brief—but some people who spend their whole lives afflicted by mental illness, so that they cannot lead a normal life, can still be happy if they receive sufficient kindness and care. That cannot be done entirely by the state, by the local authorities or even by the voluntary bodies; we all come into it. But, still, talking in this place and appealing to the Minister for support, I am asking him to give us a strong lead.
I should just say before I sit down that I hope, when this debate is over, to take steps to initiate a voluntary inquiry into the whole subject. I have already been promised assistance—not financial assistance, but what is more valuable to me, personal assistance—from some of those who work within the voluntary field and who, on personal grounds, are deeply respected. I do not know whether the Minister would feel it possible to say a few kindly words of encouragement. They will not commit him to any expenditure, though we shall be looking for enough money to launch this inquiry. Therefore, I leave the matter there. I am anxious to learn from other speakers. As I said at the beginning, this subject has been neglected for too long, and we must make a start somewhere.
6 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Longford, with his very timely and, if I may say so, very necessary Unstarred Question. I must be mindful of the fact that this is an Unstarred Question and not a major debate, for were it the latter I would have no difficulty in detaining your Lordships for some hours on a subject in which I have been deeply involved for many years. I think the noble Earl will forgive me if I say that we share the same disadvantage in that this is a subject about which we both know rather too much, and therefore we have to be very careful in trying to concentrate our remarks into what is proper for an Unstarred Question. I think that in the main all I would wish to do would be to amplify one or two points in the noble Earl's Unstarred Question and perhaps point to some of the areas in which the Government might care to search for some of the answers.
In the course of his remarks the noble Earl spoke about the very clear and recent trend away from hospitalisation in the field of mental health. I would say that there is no doubt at all that in the public mind there has certainly been a trend away from the idea of hospitalisation. There is a growing number of people who, rightly, have come to terms with the reality of mental illness of one kind or another and have gradually come to an acceptance of the fact that
158
it is much more desirable for the community as a whole and for the patients individually for these people to be cared for at home or in the community wherever possible. As the noble Earl rightly said, there has been that trend. But, to be effective, there has to be another and corresponding trend; and that is a trend towards the greater provision of home-care facilities and provisions.
I am bound to say from my personal experience of many years in National Health Service general practice that the recent trend, so far as domiciliary services are concerned, has been in the reverse direction. If I go back over my years in the National Health Service general practice—and I can go back to a time before the National Health Service started—I recall that we then had a functionary who I think was known as the relieving officer. There are perhaps some noble Lords who are old enough to remember the relieving officer. At least, you knew who he was. He was the chap with whom the buck always stopped. He was always there; he was never away at weekends; he was never off duty. If you had a difficulty with a patient who was mentally disturbed you contacted the relieving officer. With the inception of the National Health Service we had new people. We had somebody called "the duly authorised officer". Rather later than that, he became the "mental health officer" and then, when we had the system of generic social workers (under which we no longer had the children's worker or a mental health officer) every social worker became a universal genius who was required possibly to do everything. I do not want to enter the argument about whether that was advisable or otherwise. I say from my own practical experience as a general practitioner who from time to time has had the job of endeavouring to mobilise the after-care services to which the noble Earl's Unstarred Question refers, that in recent times it has sometimes been very difficult to mobilise those services because you could not find them. It was very difficult to know who was responsible for what.
I would concentrate my remarks on two areas. First of all, substantially the responsibility for providing the kind of services about which the noble Earl is so concerned rests with local authorities. Like the noble Earl, I have no wish, once we establish local authorities, to take all power away from them and say they must do this, that or the other; but it is really very odd that we should have such an extraordinary diversity and disparity of provision as between one area and another. I would not take away the freedom of local authorities. Certainly, there will be different needs, different requirements and different desires in different areas; and local authorities ought to have the autonomy and the ability to provide services of a different kind to suit local needs and desires.
But should local authorities have a right to opt out altogether? It is a fact that at the moment there are 34 local authority areas in which there are no day-care centres or other day-care provision at all. If necessary, I could give the noble Lord a list of those 34 different local authority areas at some stage; but he will be able to find them out for himself. Of course, we also have some areas which do have day-care centres but which are at the moment under financial pressures of cuts of one kind or another, and they are threatening to close

159
certain centres which now exist. I am reliably informed that much of the energy and time of admirable bodies such as MIND, and some of the other voluntary bodies to which the noble Earl referred, are spent fighting off the threatened closures of existing day-care centres—occasionally with some success because they mobilise local public opinion on subjects which are very emotive and on which feelings run very high in local communities. The community health councils are able sometimes to alert local health authorities to the possible consequences of certain closures and it is a fact that, as a result of the work of some of these voluntary bodies, certain of these threats have been removed and some of these day-care centres have been reprieved when, as it were, under sentence of death. But I think it right to mention that there are some local authority areas in which there are no day-care centres at all.
If we are to care for mentally disturbed, mentally handicapped or mentally ill people in the community, we really must be conscious of the potentially damaging effect of (if you like) the psycho-geriatric patient or the mentally-ill child on the family and on the local community unless there is some kind of day-care centre to which the person can occasionally go so that the family can get a bit of a rest and so that other assistance can be brought to bear. I think that without facilities of that kind this trend away from hospitalisation, to which the noble Earl referred, will be reversed. There is already ample evidence that there are many mentally ill patients who could have been cared for in the community and at home but are having to be admitted to hospital or taken into other institutional care, at great cost to public funds, purely because of the inadequacy of services in the community.
Concentrating purely on the services provided by local authorities, I think that when the noble Lord replies he ought to be able to tell us what the Government intend to do about those areas in which local authorities are really failing to provide facilities. My recollection of the Mental Health Act (and I know there have been other Acts since) is that it is said that local authorities "shall provide" these kind of facilities. Some are not providing them, and I should like to know what the Government intend to do about that. Some are providing excellently. If some can do so well, how is that we have to put up with others that do almost nothing?
Going more specifically into what is provided, I personally would believe from my own experience of working in this field that there is a need for a little more integration of the social services provisions (which in some areas are excellent) with the hospital mental health staff. I have had experience of certain hospitals where that works very well (or did work very well at the time I was involved) at Winnick Hospital, for example, in Lancashire, where the local social services mental health officers worked closely in the hospital, assisting sometimes in the occupational therapy departments so that they got to know the patients well; they knew the patients' background and were able to deal with those patients much more effectively when they were eventually discharged to return home. They already knew them, knew about their case and very practical efforts were made to
160
integrate the two. The more that that is done the more effective will be the contributions that both can make.
A very minor point in dealing with hospitals is this. I do wish that hospitals could get away from the very common habit of always discharging patients home on Fridays—the very time when it suddenly becomes impossible to find anybody in the social services department. Sometimes it is not very easy to contact a general practitioner although you can sometimes find the emergency call service or some other body. Very frequently when a patient who has been mentally disturbed is discharged home he can suddenly have acute difficulties over the sudden change of environment. When patients are discharged home on a Friday afternoon it becomes almost impossible to mobilise resources until Monday.
Regarding local authorities and the Government, the Government at the moment, rightly and necessarily, are making certain cuts. But there are cuts in local authority spending which could, at the end of the day, prove very costly indeed. The less that is provided in the way of domiciliary care by local authorities and social services departments, the more will have to be spent by hospitals and other institutions financed in other ways.
Now I should like to refer to what the Government frequently talk about as the private sector but certainly in this field they really mean the voluntary sector. I entirely agree with the noble Earl that there will always be a place for voluntary work. I should like to look forward to the day when the National Health Service—using that term in its fullest possible sense—could provide free at the time of need all the services which are necessary for all the different kinds of patients that there happen to be.
Having said that, I wholly accept that at the moment it is necessary to rely to a considerable extent on voluntary work and various voluntary organisations. In this country we are very happily placed in having a vast potential pool of man and woman power in volunteers who are not thin on the ground at all, and who are not unwilling to come forward to carry out voluntary work in day-care centres with mentally handicapped children and with disturbed elderly people. There are many people willing to volunteer. But there is nothing more inhibiting to potential volunteers, having volunteered, than to find that they have their time wasted because the organisation is not sufficiently structured and developed to mobilise and use their work. It is my experience that for every volunteer in any organisation, be it MIND, the Richmond Fellowship or any other bodies to which the noble Earl referred, one needs about one full-time paid professional worker to every 10 volunteers. It is a little bit disturbing at the moment to find that some of these voluntary bodies, on whom the Government propose to rely so heavily, are themselves in great difficulties—sometimes as a result of Government policy.
For example, the recent increase in petrol prices—which is not altogether unconnected with Government policy—will cost the Spastics Society an additional £30,000 a year. Is the Spastics Society going to get that £30,000 a year from Government? We should bear in mind that it is the Government who require it

161
to pay it. There are other bodies with which I am connected. Let us take MIND. Twenty per cent. of their income comes from the Department of Health and Social Security. MIND's financial year starts tomorrow. For some time now they have been trying to set up a meeting with Ministers in order to find out what will be their grant for the coming year which starts tomorrow. They were told only yesterday that their application has not yet been looked at.
I am not saying for a moment that it will not be looked at with great sympathy and that they will not be given help. But they must be given help if they are to take on the duties which will inevitably fall upon them. MIND at the moment provides 1,470 places for the mentally ill in group homes, hostels and special bed sitter accommodation. The need is for 10 times that number. I am assured that there is no shortage of buildings. They could obtain extra buildings very easily without additional cost or public funds. But they would need additional volunteers to man them. However, they cannot have additional volunteers unless they have the structure that is there to train the volunteers, organise their work and make effective use of their work.
The National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults have branches all over the country and they are in the same kind of difficulties. I have seen over and over again the invaluable work that they do with day-care centres, removing disturbed children so that their families can have a little rest and so that the community can be kept together. They too are in grave difficulties. The Richmond Fellowship provides hospitals and therapeutic communities especially for recently discharged young patients. Unless they get the kind of financial support that they need—and it is all very well the Government talking about leave it to the voluntary sector—they will be in difficulties.
The pump must be primed. If the Government will put in sufficient in grants to these bodies they will find that these bodies will be able to mobilise an enormous amount of work and additional funds themselves. Unless the Richmond Fellowship get the kind of help they need then the young patients will find that they will not be discharged at all. They will have to remain in institutional care at very great public cost. I could go on—and I said that this is a subject that I know too much about. I must exercise a self-denying ordinance and come to some kind of conclusion.
I should like to have talked about the provision of regional secure units as recommended by the Butler Committee many years ago in the excellent report on mentally abnormal offenders. We have not heard much about those and nor has there been much development. I should like to see more provision for psycho-geriatric patients. That is a desperate need in many urban communities. Without adequate domiciliary provisions an intolerable burden is placed on hospital services which are very costly indeed and you block up hospital beds with patients who do not really require costly hospital treatment at all but merely require supervision and the kind of care which could so easily be given by the voluntary sector if the voluntary sector itself was given the kind of help by the Government which they will need if they are to do the job which the Government are going to leave to it.
The noble Earl asked the Government whether they
162
will take urgent steps to provide a more effective system of mental after-care. I hope that we have demonstrated that the present system is not wholly effective and therefore needs to be made more effective. My final point is that this is urgent. From personal practical experience I say that, unless the Government act rapidly, they will find at the end of the day that there will be a very big price to pay indeed. Saving money at the moment in these areas will cost a great deal of money later.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Richardson: My Lords, by a happy chance there was published last year a booklet called Psychiatric Rehabilitation in the 1980s. This was produced by the Royal College of Psychiatrists in response to a request from the Department of Health and Social Security. The committee was chaired by Professor John Wing who heads the Social Psychiatric Unit at the Institute of Psychiatry at the Maudsley Hospital. I have had the benefit of consulting him and the President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Sir Desmond Pond, about the points that seem to them, as practising psychiatrists, of particular importance in this aftercare of mental sickness problem. Both these distinguished professors expressed to me the great gratitude that I personally feel to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for having asked this Question.
I am going to take a different line from the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and talk about matters that are nearer to the hospitals and not so far into the periphery as they have taken as their main subjects. Together with them, I must stress the word urgency and I must stress also the need for local authorities, and for those who vote for them, to recognise the strength of our duty to our fellow citizens in this particular area.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, has pointed out that there are now half the number of patients in mental hospitals who were there in 1954. That, as he has said, is in itself satisfactory. These patients all fall into three groups, according to the length of time they have spent in hospital. The first group is that of patients who have been in hospital for under one year; over that group I can be very brief. It is sad that two-thirds of those in under one year are those who have been in hospital previously, perhaps more than once. This is sad, because it means that although there are outpatient facilities and psychiatric social workers there are not enough of them—or perhaps the time they can give is insufficient—to keep these people from having to return to hospital. The problem is one of numbers and of training—the invariable problem in medical matters of staffing ratios.
The second group is a very important one. It is the group of patients in hospital between one year and five years. Over half the people in that group are over 65 years of age and, unhappily, many of them are demented, and, because of their age, the majority of them are female. It is not those people I wish to speak about, because probably they are destined to spend the rest of their days in hospital. It is the smaller number of patients under 65 years of age who are really important. They are mostly schizophrenic and the treatment of schizophrenia by drugs and psycho-social treatment has been to a great extent responsibly

163
responsible for our ability to reduce the hospital population. With these treatments, and if facilities outside the hospital are available, there is a real chance that the number of patients in that second group, which is at present static, can be further reduced.
The third group is that of patients who are in hospital for five years onwards. Here, surprisingly, there are rather more patients under 65 years of age than over. This group is diminishing in numbers by the natural process of death. How far it will reduce is not yet recognised, but unhappily it is being fed to some extent by those from the second group, many of whom have just given up of any hope of getting back to the community, and have become hopelessly hospitalised in their institutions.
How are these problems being faced? There is a new experiment being undertaken in the unit at Maudsley Hospital which I have mentioned. It is called the bed-hostel, the ward-hostel system. In brief, it amounts to this. Instead of having a hospital facade and a large building, they have developed from an ordinary building with a door, so to speak, facing on to the community—in a private house—what inside amounts to a ward. The back faces on to the type of facilities that will help these people towards the community; the "day care-type" work facility that is well supervised. This experimental unit is staffed by nurses trained in psychiatry and is well supervised. The staff is resident. So far the results have been very satisfactory and, to my knowledge at any rate, the patients have not had to return to psychiatric hospitals. The numbers accommodated are few, with only 14 beds, but according to Professor Wing's calculations for Camberwell, which has a popluation of 130,000 people, they need only 30 such beds backed up with facilities in the community.
In addition to this experiment, there are, and have been for some time, hostels which have resident supervision. Initially these are paid for by the Department of Health and Social Security, as is the "experiment ", but after a seven year period they have to be paid for by the local authority. Here comes the difficulty—the question of willingness, the ability and the motivation for the local authority to do so. There is another useful form of accommodation, which is less sophisticated than the two that I have mentioned, called group homes. These are houses containing bed-sitting rooms, a communal kitchen and sitting room with a television, and so on. From these group homes, the residents can go out to suitable—and I stress, "suitable "—and meaningful protected work or to day centres. The point of these group homes is that the supervision need not be residential and this means that such homes can be set up and looked after by housing associations. In addition, as noble Lords have already heard, there are all the community facilities which are, one hopes, available and used. I need not touch on those at all, but what I want to ask the Minister is this. Can he give some hope that this concept of the ward-hostel may be extended and that the present hostels may be more widely used and set up, because, in view of the difficulties facing local authorities, which we all know about, this will need a strong lead.
Before I sit down, I should like just to tell you about one particular case history from this unit at the
164
Maudsley Hospital that will illustrate to you why it seems so very important that, even in this particular time of difficulty, special consideration should be given to persons such as the young man whom I have in mind. As long ago as 1966, he developed very severe and distressing schizophrenia—hearing voices abusing him and saying terrible things—and the effect on his family was devastating. He was admitted to a mental hospital and there he did not respond to the drug treatment that is often so helpful. He was discharged on three separate occasions and each time he had to go back. Each time there was despair and disappointment. He was allowed out and, with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, I suspect that it was on Fridays. At any rate, he used to go home for short periods but he would come back accompanied by the police, because he had got himself into trouble and had tried to cope with life by drinking. Then despair set in upon him, and for seven years he stayed in a mental hospital with no wish whatsoever to leave it.
Four years ago, he went into this unit of the Maudsley Hospital and things are now quite different. Of his own initiative, he has asked to take part in running this ward hostel. He now goes out to day units and takes an active part in them. It is expected that he will be able to go to a group home where he will live in semi-, and ever-increasing, independence. Now there is hope, and not only for this now middle-aged man, because the effect on his parents is enormous. A burden has been lifted from them. As the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has pointed out, when we are talking about these most unfortunate people, we are also talking of the suffering of the family. So that this is a very wide problem indeed for which there is a solution in many cases, if we have the determination and the will.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Lloyd: My Lords, it is, I am afraid, many years since I last inflicted a speech upon your Lordships. Indeed, so long is it that I almost feel as if I am making my maiden speech all over again. But I feel that I must intervene briefly in this debate, because I happen to be a member of the management committee of the Richmond Fellowship, whose sole purpose in life is to provide the mental after-care which is so desperately needed and which is at present so inadequate.
One hundred years ago, people with mental problems used to be put into a lunatic asylum where they probably languished for the rest of their lives. Happily, those days are past and, with the progress of psychiatry, modern drugs, et cetera, it is possible for many people with mental problems to be cured. Yet to imagine that when a patient is discharged from a mental hostel the whole job is done is really to deceive oneself. There is an important part done, but there is an equally important part which remains to be done.
When a patient is discharged, he is probably lonely and depressed. Certainly, he feels quite incapable of coping with modern life and needs a period of rehabilitation, such as is provided by the Richmond Fellowship. The basis of the Richmond Fellowship's organisation is what we call the "halfway house", of which we have 34 in this country. Each of these halfway houses accommodates a small community of about 20 adults or 16 adolescents. We try, so far as possible, to put patients who suffer from the same kind of trouble—be

165
it alcoholism, schizophrenia, drug addiction, et cetera—into the same houses.
Once a patient is in a halfway house, he does not need to feel lonely, because he finds himself among other people who understand his problem. Each house has a trained staff, who encourage the patient to work on his problem and to share in the running of the community. They also teach the patient to start accepting responsibility, not only for himself but for others, with the ultimate aim of finding a job and keeping it. The Fellowship does its very best to find jobs for people when they are ready to leave. The length of stay varies from three months to three years, an average of eight months.
There is much more that I could say about the work of the halfway houses, but, for the sake of brevity, I have given only an outline picture of what we try to do, a lot of which I think we do quite successfully. What I really want to do now is to turn to the financial aspect of the problem. These halfway houses are expensive to run. We provide not only full board and lodging, but a highly-trained staff. The kind of price that an adult pays is £86 a week and for adolescents that goes up to £150, because they are much more difficult to look after. None of these people can possibly afford that kind of money, unless they get a grant from the local authority.
There is a large amount of legislation dealing with the obligations of local authorities to provide after-care, including residential accommodation, for persons who have been suffering from mental disorder. Again, for the sake of brevity, I propose to refer not to individual Acts but to the effects of those Acts.
Until 1974, the power of a local authority to assist mental patients was, so far as I can make out, purely permissive. In 1974, the Minister concerned directed local authorities to provide accommodation. Yet although the Minister is provided with very strong powers to declare local authorities to be in default in carrying out the functions imposed upon them, and to take steps to enforce the remedying of such default, successive Ministers seem always to have shown a marked reluctance to take such steps. Thus, in March 1977, of 108 local authorities in England—I think that the statistics were mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Longford—only 31, or 29 per cent., had met the guidelines planning ratio for residential places, and 11, or 10 per cent., did not record any residential provision whatsoever. Nor does there appear to be any monitoring machinery by the Government to ensure that local authorities fulfil their obligations. All this is reflected in our own affairs in the Richmond Fellowship. We have a waiting list of applicants which would give us more than 100 per cent. occupancy, yet our present occupancy is only two-thirds of our capacity. This is entirely due to the inability of applicants to obtain local authority grants.
I feel sure that your Lordships will agree with me that this is a penny-wise, pound-foolish policy. Low occupancy increases our costs in the Richmond Fellowship, and therefore the cost to the local authority, and it denies care to many who would otherwise have received it. Such people often relapse and have to return to a mental hospital where all the good work already done has to be done again. This is what we call the "revolving door syndrome".
166
There are no votes in mental health from the point of view of the local authority. In an economic situation where there are strong pressures on local authorities to cut their expenditure, I suppose it is inevitable that mental health should be an obvious target for economy, though in my opinion many other less important targets are available. But from the national point of view it is a false economy. Those who do not receive after-care almost certainly return to mental hospitals. Thus any saving on the rates is more than balanced by an increase in the cost of the National Health Service.
I think the House should be very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for raising this matter. The present situation is extremely unsatisfactory. Urgent and positive action by Her Majesty's Government is, in my opinion, absolutely essential.
6.42 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I, too, thank the noble Earl and say that it is always a pleasure to speak in his debates. He always chooses such important subjects. As I am the speaker who follows the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, who said that he thinks he has just made his maiden speech, it falls to me to congratulate him and to say that as he speaks with such experience on this subject I hope he will be heard more often in your Lordships' House.
The death of a baby at birth is tragic and sad, but what is the reaction of parents when they realise that they have had a severely mentally handicapped baby? There will always be disappointment. There may even be revulsion and rejection. I have heard such varied reports of how the parents are told and of what advice and counsel are given. Some doctors say, "Put it into care". Others say, "Put the parents in touch with supportive agencies", and encouragement to keep the baby at home is given. From parents who keep their mentally handicapped children and bring them up at home I have heard expressions of concern over what will happen if something happens to them. These parents have a terrible fear that their child will be, put into one of the large, impersonal institutions.
For 365 days each year after-care has to go on in some way for these mentally handicapped people, from the day that they are born until they die. Throughout the country, the support and services offered are very varied. Sometimes the best services come from a voluntary source. Is it not time that this country had an acceptable code of practice for local health authorities, social departments and voluntary bodies to work towards so far as mental health is concerned?
I have been appalled by the clinical austerity in some mental hospitals. It seems to be quite unnecessary to have white walls, white beds and empty lockers so that each ward looks as if it is uninhabited. This is what I found at the Clifton Hospital, York. When I remarked upon how colourless and boring I found it, the charge nurse agreed that it had a "touch of the Army" about it. I find that there is no excuse for these unstimulating conditions. At least there could be some coloured walls and bright posters to cheer the place up. Coloured paint is no more expensive than white or grey paint. If our mental hospitals continue to be such large, impersonal places, then getting the patients back

167
into the community will not be made easier, as the contrast is too great.
A helpful asset to after-care in the health district where I live, which has no psychiatric beds, is the employment of some community psychiatric nurses. When I was on the Community Health Council, concern was expressed about the fact that there was no after-care follow-up service for patients who had been admitted to the general hospital as attempted suicides and with other mental problems. The waiting period to see a consultant at an outpatient clinic was, and still is, at least six weeks. We pressed for community nurses, and I am pleased to say that this service has been established. These nurses can visit patients in their homes and give support and advice which is of great benefit, especially in rural areas. A great deal of extreme worry and fear can be alleviated by an effective after-care service which psychiatric community nurses can organise. I hope that they will be employed in all districts.
I should like to tell your Lordships about a splendid project which is giving support to parents who have young, mentally handicapped people at home. This is a short-term family support unit which has been built near to where I live in North Yorkshire. The building of this unit was made possible by joint funding between the health authority and the social services. It is run by the social services, and from what I hear they are doing an excellent job. There are 16 beds, but they can take more, when necessary. There is a 24-hour emergency service.
The unit serves several purposes. It caters approximately for people from the age of three to 16 years, but there is flexibility, which is essential in an emergency service. It gives short-term residential relief, holiday relief, so that a family can go on holiday knowing that their mentally handicapped youngster is being looked after by caring, understanding people. There is an answering and advice service on behaviour modification dealing with psychotic children. There is a baby-sitting service, a day créche, assessment facilities and weekend relief.
When parents look after profoundly handicapped children, this service seems to me to be essential if the family is not to crack up. The normal children in a family need their parents for at least some of the time, otherwise there will be grave problems with them. This unit can relieve the family of the handicapped child for a period of time so that the parents may devote to their normal children the time that they need and can also take them on holiday. Just knowing that this family support unit exists gives parents the encouragement to soldier on. When problems become too great, they know they can ring in and get support. Some handicapped young people spend six weeks at home and two weeks in the unit. This enables the family to cope. It seems also that there is a need for an adult hostel for short breaks. This sort of support is saving resources and preventing mentally handicapped people from going permanently into full-time residential care. This support unit seems to be money well spent.
The last point I should like to mention is that of the tragic and bewildering condition of anorexia nervosa. As noble Lords will probably know, this is a
168
condition which seems mainly to affect teenagers, and most often girls. They start slimming and cannot stop. They go to all ends to make this effective. It is a condition which seems to be on the increase. The girls I know of who are anorexic seem to be attractive and intelligent. This is a very serious problem, as in their conduct they can be infectious to others in their classes at school.
I have discussed this problem with paediatricians and they have told me that the problems are so complex that they are now being dealt with in psychiatric units. But what after-care is there? What advice is given to parents, teachers and class-mates? Are there any guidelines to follow? I know that there are many worried parents, siblings, friends and teachers. These young people with anorexia nervosa seem to be possessed of an uncontrollable wish slowly to waste away. When their weight drops too low they are admitted to hospital for treatment. When they regain weight they will go back to school. What is the risk to other children being attracted to doing the same sort of thing? I hope that there will be a concerted effort by the Government, with co-operation from the health department and the Department of Education, to find out what is the most helpful after-care for the anorexics and those who are closely associated with them.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I am pleased to be associated with the plea made by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, this evening that the Government should take urgent steps to provide more effective support for mental after-care. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, stated that his was almost a maiden speech—and he will forgive me if I do not congratulate him on an "almost maiden" speech, but may I simply add that this debate on an Unstarred Question gives me the opportunity of making a maiden speech from these elevated Benches.
The speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, enables us to pay tribute to her for the impressive and spendid work which she has done in connection with the International Year of the Disabled. That leads me to the point that frequently the care of the mentally ill is not included in that category of disabled because the physically handicapped person's disability is perhaps more apparent than the individual who suffers from mental illness. It is possible of course for a mentally ill person to register as disabled, but on the whole that is not common.
I lack the professional knowledge and experience of some of the noble Lords who have participated in this discussion. My concern in this field arises from an association with the Glasgow Association for Mental Health and a very impressive voluntary organisation associated with it, called Link. If I quote the statistics of the problem in Scotland it is simply as a sample of what is in fact a national problem. We have a civilian male working population of around 1,400,000 and the admissions to mental hospitals and psychiatric units last year numbered 24,500. It is interesting to examine the diagnosis of the cases being treated. In the case of males, 34 per cent. of their mental illness could be attributed to alcoholism and 10 per cent. to depression. In the case of females the figures were 10 per cent. due to alcoholism and 19 per cent. to depression.

169
Alcoholism in my part of the world is a particular problem and these may not be exactly paralleled in national statistics but there is no doubt that alcoholism is a major contributor to mental illness and can be treated by after-care services.
The number of working days lost due to registered mental disorders among men last year was 3 million and the number of residents in hospitals and psychiatric units in 1978 was 24,000 admissions—a 19 per cent. increase on 1965, of which 10,000 were first admissions and 14,000 were readmissions. This was what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, referred to as the "revolving door" in operation. We have not coped with the people who are discharged from psychiatric units and mental hospitals in a way that prevents them from returning again and again, and that in fact is the nub of the problem.
In 1979 the proportion of all National Health Service hospital bed spaces in Scotland occupied by the mentally disordered was 45 per cent., which indicates the impact of this problem on the total expenditure of the National Health Service. The total cost of National Health Service in-patient care for the mentally disordered was £95,373,200. That gives one some idea of the magnitude of the problem and if we can contribute by sensible and well organised after-care we may in fact be able to effect economies in National Health Service expenditure.
The major problem in Scotland generally, as nationally, is the continuing reliance on hospital and medical approaches to care and treatment. No community mental care service exists and there is insufficient joint planning between local authorities and health boards, each preferring to leave the problem to the other.
Reference has been made to the Government White Paper, Better Services for the Mentally Ill, of 1975. It recommended that for the future the main aims must continue to be the development of much more locally based services and a shift in the balance between hospital and social service care. This shift must be accompanied by the co-ordination of local authorities, health boards, voluntary services, not only in terms of the use of resources but also in the pooling of the skills among the variety of professionals currently providing care.
A major requirement of an after-care psychiatric service is therefore to be community based, multidisciplinary in approach, and seeking to design recovery programmes which meet the emerging needs of the ex-patients in a graded and flexible way. Good aftercare reduces relapse and re-hospitalisation and is therefore preventive in the real sense. It requires the attachment of psychiatric social worker counsellors to health centres and GP practices; it requires a continuity of management between hospital and community services, including pre-discharge planning and supportive follow-up. It requires a flexible series of housing accommodation facilities,ranging from short-term hostels, group homes, joint tenancies and longer-term supportive accommodation, and so on. It requires facilities within which social, interpersonal, family and marital problems can be worked on by counselling. It requires in the field of employment, as in housing, a graded system of facilities from industrial
170
therapy to sheltered workshops, such as was described earlier in the discussion this evening.
Work experience schemes, manpower services schemes and quota systems would provide the best chance for individuals to reach their potential level of activity. I have found in this regard that by the establishment of resource centres, such as have been organised in my native city of Glasgow, former patients are brought to after-care and they work on a three-months' contract programme with counsellors who assist them and prepare them for employment. They have worked closely with the Manpower Services Commission, and despite the difficulties of employment at the moment they have been able to secure employment for a large number of these patients. This has brought them back into the community; this has achieved the necessary adjustment, and has avoided the all too frequent vulnerability which might bring them back again into hospital care.
In the activities of Link, with which I have some association, they have worked with one of these resource centres and have had a high success rate. In addition, the voluntary workers associated with the organisation have organised social clubs so that people who are discharged from mental hospitals can find social activity; they can combat the problem of isolation which is a major problem after they are discharged; they can regain some personal and social confidence as a result of being associated with others of similar experience. They can come to terms with having been mentally ill and they can gain access to information about how to use existing services with regard to particular problems of medication, employment, housing, income and so on.
That kind of work has been done successfully frequently by volunteers. The Link organisation, with its resource centre and with its six social clubs, exists on a state-supported budget of £50,000. How much more sensible it would be to spend more on this kind of after-care, rather than have patients return to a hospital bed as a further cost on the National Health Service. For these reasons, I commend the plea of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, to the Minister.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, for many years the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has taken a very practical interest in the subject of mental health and allied causes, and once again this evening we are very grateful to him for raising this extremely important question. There have been in this debate Members of your Lordships' House who are far more clinically and professionally connected with this problem than I, but for nearly 20 years I served on the house committee of a large mental hospital in the Epsom area of Surrey, where, as some of your Lordships may know, there are seven or eight of these hospitals. I should like to say just a few words about the particular hospital in which, until the reorganisation of the National Health Service, I was concerned, because I believe it has an important bearing on this question.
Before doing so, I think we ought to acknowledge that since the Mental Health Act 1959 much progress has been made in the provision of after-care and in the recognition that those who are receiving treatment for

171
mental illness and mental handicap can frequently be returned to society, if not cured altogether. I recall shortly after the last war frequently visiting a hospital in Bedfordshire near where we then lived; the medical superintendent was a family friend. Of course, in those days the patients were classed as lunatics, and in many of these establishments, depending very much on the hospital superintendent, they received little or no treatment; it was simply custodial the whole time. In this particular hospital, even in those days, there was much more emphasis on therapy rather than keeping the patients locked up the whole time. It is really only since 1959, as I understand it, that there has been some kind of progress towards returning many of these handicapped people to society.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, in a characteristically well-informed speech, spoke of a hospital in York which was, to say the least of it, seemingly very regimented in its appearance. There are all too many of these hospitals, and in this kind of règime one cannot really prepare patients for after-care. But the hospital with which I was concerned as a humble committee member is on the villa system. Every Christmas my wife and I still visit the hospital and go round the wards. Many of the patients themselves, helped by the devoted staff, have decorated these wards, not only at Christmas but the whole year round. It is an excellent form of therapy and it enables them to have a high standard of morale.
The real problem of this hospital is the vexed question of the catchment area. I was talking only yesterday to the chief nursing officer. As I understand it, under the present set-up of these hospitals they take patients, particularly in areas where there are a number of hospitals concentrated, from all parts of the country. If they were able to take exclusively people who needed treatment from the local catchment areas, it would save much cost, because parents and other relatives could visit far more frequently; it would give a great local interest in the general work of the League of Friends; it would mean that local people would take much more interest and would have an incentive to take much more interest in these hospitals. If one has a situation where patients from all parts of the country are admitted, there is, I think, a danger of lack of communication between the hospital and particularly those who work in a voluntary capacity concerned with these hospitals.
I have not given my noble friend notice of this question, so I do not expect a reply this evening, but I wonder whether he would look into this situation, particularly where there are these large groups of hospitals, to ensure that the catchment areas are more localised so that the services can be more localised. It also, of course, provides a more important asset to after-care. In many cases at least some of the patients who are able to work can work locally. Of course there are the industrial workshops within these hospitals. This particular hospital has an excellent industrial workshop which is very well staffed.
Some of your Lordships may have seen a very disturbing programme about one of the special hospitals. I fully realise that this question is not specifically directed towards the special hospitals where one has a very different type of patient, many of whom are
172
essentially under custodial care. However, in the hospital which was the subject of this programme, the television crews were allowed to go where they liked and to talk to whom they liked, where they liked. There were instances of youngsters swabbing floors and doing the type of menial tasks which would give no hope whatsoever of their every really contributing to society in later life. Some, I believe, had a modicum of schooling. But my impression of the programme was that custodial care and security were the main guidelines.
As I have said, for many of the inmates of these places such guidelines are essential; but where there are young people in these special hospitals it seems that there is much more needed at least to try rather more emphatically to get them into some kind of hostel training. When listening to some of these youngsters speak on being interviewed, one realised that they were not the sort of people who one would expect to be violent. Of course there are always risks in these hospitals of too early release, with unfortunate consequences. But certainly in some of the cases featured in this programme that was not so. Indeed, the visiting panels who one saw in action were themselves almost deploring the lack of hostel accommodation and the lack of suitable people to run these establishments. One wonders what the Department of Health and Social Security is doing towards this end. This is a very important point.
Often when one mentions special hospitals people say, "Ah yes, these people are being treated inhumanly". The point must be made, as was made in the programme—and one saw it—that the nursing staffs and all those concerned with the welfare of the patients were most human and solicitous, as far as they could be in the terms of reference, for the welfare of their patients.
The Warnock Report had a particularly interesting passage dealing with young mentally handicapped people who could be put into hostels for after-care treatment. I shall not quote the paragraph for reasons of brevity, but in Chapter 10 paragraph 114—and I hope that the Department of Health and Social Security will take note of this in due course—there is a scheme noted which takes place in Denmark, and in which it is generally accepted that, where possible, handicapped young people should leave home at 18 and live independently in flats where they can have the support of a home visitor who can visit them at least twice a week. My point is: how many patients in this category in our hospitals could be similarly treated so that they were able to live in reasonable conditions and conceivably do a proper job of work, and thus probably save the ratepayer and the taxpayer a great deal of money? Of course it may mean more social workers; it may mean more home helps. But it will, I think, help to allow these people, many of whom can work, to do so.
I think that there is much food for thought inherent in this Question and it gives the Government a real opportunity to look closely into a vital social problem.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, this is not the first occasion on which I have been glad to be led by my noble friend Lord Longford in discussion of matters which to me, to him and I take it to this House—even as sparsely

173
as it is now attended—are matters of great import. I am glad to take part in this particular debate. I perhaps ought first to congratulate my erstwhile noble friend on his maiden speech from other benches and perhaps I ought to add that my physical proximity to him tonight is not due to any political shift on my part, but because I am rather hard of hearing and want to get nearer to the sound of the gunfire!
I am grateful to my noble friend because he has introduced into this discussion the word, "alcohol" and I make no apology for inviting your Lordships to consider that the question of alcohol and alcoholism comes very properly into the ambit of this discussion. Certainly no one would doubt that alcoholism needs care and increasing systems of care, and it may be not irrelevant to remark that the problem of alcoholism is endemic and historically endemic. There is apparently as great an alcoholic problem in Soviet Russia as there was in Imperial Russia. There is a continuing and increasing problem of alcoholism in France. No civilisation so far as I remember, except the Islamic one, has dealt with it radically, even if it might be of the persuasion of your Lordships that that particular cure is worse than the disease. Nevertheless, I make no apology for attracting your Lordships attention, if I can, to the proper place that alcoholism occupies within the general circuit of this debate.
There are those who regard addiction to alcohol as a purely moral problem. They are wrong. I would not seek to evacuate it from its moral content and would give you no comfort that it is not a moral issue in many of its aspects. But anyone who has had any experience of trying to be with, as well as to deal with, alcoholics will be in no doubt that some alcoholics are of model behaviour in so many other fields, are thoroughly estimable people, and that it would be an impertinence, an insult, to regard them as sinners greater than the rest. What is more is that if it is a moral problem they are totally incapable of treating it as such and dealing with it as such. Is it, therefore, a moral problem which belongs to the realm of metabolism? I speak with great care because I am not qualified in this regard, but many years ago when I began to take an interest in this matter of alcoholism, I used to hear words like "apomorphine" and "antabuse". I was told that there are chemical reactions in some people's bodies which predispose them to alcoholism, whereas others have no such temptations to meet.
In endeavouring to put that so-called chemistry into practice, my evidence would be that it has been singularly and almost totally unsuccessful. After many years in this field, I am now quite convinced that the question of alcoholism falls very properly into that area of disablement which is mentally, spiritually and psychologically caused, and therefore I shall not delay your Lordships to claim that what I now say about the problem of alcoholism is pertinent to the basic meaning of this debate.
It seems to me that if you once agree that the problem of alcohol is a mysterious problem dealing with areas of our make-up which cannot be heated over Bunsen burners or plotted on graphs and which certainly defy exact definition, it is reasonable and sensible to think of the alcoholic and the perpetual drunkard alike as disabled by certain environmental circumstances and their own pre-disposition to react to them in a
174
particular way. The success that has come to such efforts as I have been able to think about and, to some extent, as I have been able to have something to do with over the past 20 years, has come when the concept of alcoholism has been treated, first, as something which needs a drastic recovery from an obvious effect—that is, the detoxification, the drying out of the alcoholic. Secondly, that there is the requirement for custodial or at least close treatment for a certain amount of time. But, thirdly—and this is the point which seems to me to be relevant to this particular debate—if the man or woman who has been detoxified—dried out—and who has recovered in health and wellbeing in some kind of hostel and who otherwise would have no normal kind of social life to which to return, is thereafter exposed to the world as it is, it is highly unlikely that the third stage of that process of reclamation will be achieved; even if it is temporarily achieved, it will be quickly forgotten.
The point of the argument is that a return to the community—as has already been advertised so often in your Lordships' House this afternoon—the requirement of seeking to recover these disabled people within the framework of the normal society from which they have become estranged, is of the utmost importance. Therefore, I totally agree with those declarations of intent, that community care, or recovery within the community, belongs in particular to this area of disablement which we call alcoholism.
But how do we do it? The community as it stands, or as it exists, is an amorphous body until it is broken up into its constituent parts and it is dealt with in particular categories. That is obviously true in the realm of the alcoholic. He requires some kind of protective housing if he is to be reclaimed. That protective housing must not be within a custodial environment which precludes freedom of activity, but it must be within the kind of environment in which he can quickly seek and find the kind of aid which he needs.
So I come to the practical considerations. I regard it as a major tragedy, all the worse because of increasing unemployment, that there are temptations and predispositions to intemperence in the beginning, drunkenness to go on with, and lastly alcoholism and the spirit drinker. I find this an increasing menace. Once upon a time in the hostels over which I had some charge, you could generally regard an alcoholic as getting a job within six weeks. That day has gone. The temptation—particularly among those who are younger—is an ever-increasing one, promoted or at least accentuated by indolence and inability to contribute anything to the society in which they live.
I would plead with the Government not to curtail the kind of services, in money in particular, which can keep alive voluntary associations—such as I could categorise, but I shall not—for if they do not, then I heartily agree with my noble friend, who spoke so convincingly about the perils that await a Government which, with a short-term concern for the maintenance of a particular monetary policy, fail to see that the long-term emergence of such a policy can not only mean a more costly but an even more dangerous and more desolate society than the one in which we now live.
I believe that there are two areas of concern, and when I have said this I shall sit down. There is the

175
area in which the local authority should accept in greater degree its own responsibility for setting up some of those organisations which can at least give an opportunity to the recovered or semi-recovered alcoholic to take his place again in the normal society from which he has been estranged. But I would make a final plea for that particular contribution which enlightened and sensible organisations can provide as the bell-wether of what later perhaps could be a reformed and totally efficient welfare service.
I include my next remarks because I think that they are due to the Minister. I know how ineffective and sometimes how sentimental local efforts on a voluntary basis can become, but I would commend to the Minister the ever-increasing knowledge in the voluntary sphere about the particular problem of alcoholism and to place it under consideration for a practical solution or for an increased contribution of aid seems to me to be the height of civilised behaviour and, above all, one of the greatest safeguards for some kind of future in which the aid for the disabled will no longer be required, for so few will be disabled.
7.28 p.m.
The Countess of Loudoun: My Lords, when the idea of discharging mental patients into the community was decided on a few years ago, it being a very new idea at that time, not enough thought was given to the follow-through by the community services, with the result that was a near-disaster. Many ex-patients found themselves much worse off in the community than they had been in the long-stay wards of mental institutions. Yes, they were provided with shelter, but that in itself would not solve their difficulties. For a return to normality they needed the availability of good daycare, access to work and the support of friends and neighbours, this latter in an uncaring and often hostile community.
Therefore, the whole subject has had to be thoroughly investigated, which has inevitably caused some delays and disappointments. However, this must be preferable to running the higher risks of relapse and readmission. MIND's "Home from Hospital" campaign was launched at the end of April 1976 with the aim of increasing the amount of accommodation in the community for former psychatric patients. Since the start of this campaign, which was financed by a very welcome grant of £20,000 from the DHSS plus a contribution from MIND itself, MIND's local associations for mental health have opened, or are planning to open, another 70 hostels and group homes providing places for 300 former hospital patients.
Thanks to the two Granada television programmes appealing to the public for offers of accommodation, 1,250 replies were received and a further 123 definite placements have been arranged by social workers, hospitals, and voluntary workers as a direct result. A large number of psychatric hospitals have assessed the numbers of patients who could leave now if they had somewhere to go. There is a marked increase in the number of patients discharged into sheltered accommodation of various kinds, many hospitals having their own well advanced resettlement schemes. But this increase in the discharge rate is likely to slow down, due to the present cutbacks in hospital expenditure.
176
To me the most exciting development has been the co-operation between MIND and the housing corporations, resulting in a sharp increase in the number of projects jointly organised by them. At least eight new schemes are in an advanced state of planning and many more schemes, using rehabilitated property, can be expected this year. With good press coverage, regional television and radio, plus two major conferences, many of those concerned in aspects of rehabilitation have been able to come together and share their knowledge and work out co-ordinated plans. This includes not only accommodation in the community but also work rehabilitation for those considered suitable for training or retraining, as the case may be. There are bound to be some severely handicapped patients for whom any work rehabilitation must, of necessity, be on humanitarian grounds alone; that is, to give them something to do.
Over the years we have had several committees and their reports. The Piercey Report in 1956, which stressed the need for organised rehabilitation, the establishment of regional rehabilitation units, and special training for doctors in the field. These recommendations remain largely unimplemented. Eighteen years later a sub-committee of the Standing Medical Advisory Committee was set up under the chairmanship of Sir Ronald Tunbridge to look into the same question and make recommendations. Having explored available rehabilitation facilities, the committee concluded that insufficient attention was paid to the problems, and this when employment prospects in the 1960s were relatively good, which is clearly no longer the case today. The Tunbridge Report recommendations for an integrated district service, based on every district general hospital, have not materialised, though there are a few rehabilitation units existing, but these are based on psychiatric hospitals.
The Government have set up a number of resettlement services. The Employment Services Agency runs 26 employment rehabilitation centres providing 2,500 places. Each year an average of 13,000 people pass through these centres. There are specially trained disablement resettlement officers to provide a service for people suffering all forms of serious handicap or disability, whether or not they choose to register as disabled. These officers are mostly based at local employment offices, although a few large psychiatric hospitals now have their own. It is the responsibility of these officers to put people forward for sheltered employment, either with Remploy or in schemes run by local authorities or voluntary organisations. So a great deal is being done already, but it is vital that we keep up the momentum.
To sum up, we must learn by our mistakes. Adequate housing in the community is a priority, but it must be with the full co-operation and backing of the social services. But we should make quite sure that any psychiatric patient discharged into the community is ready for his new life, trained for it to the best of our ability, and can look forward to a useful and satisfying life in the future.
7.35 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I apologise for intervening when my name is not on the list. I did in fact put it in but I was rather late. I, with others,

177
should like to congratulate the noble Earl for bringing this matter before your Lordships' House today. Briefly, I should like to talk about whose is the responsibility. Where does the buck lie in the question of after-care of the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped? The Department of Health and Social Security published in February a document called Care in Action. This document is a handbook of policy and priorities for the health and personal social services in England.
The book lays down certain principles. The principles are prevention; cost-effective community care; domiciliary care; planning collaboration and joint funding; the relationship between the statutory and the voluntary bodies; and the use of volunteers. They have laid down priority sectors of the community. Those priority sectors are elderly people, especially the most vulnerable and frail; mentally ill people; mentally handicapped people; physically and sensorially handicapped people; and in the Health Service the maternity services and neo-natal care; primary care services; and services relating to the care of young children at risk and the treatment of juvenile offenders. So the Government have given a lead to local authorities as to where they think their priorities lie. I personally think that there are one or two important sectors left out, but for the purposes of this debate let us take note that mentally ill and mentally handicapped people are considered, and advised to be, a priority.
There are various difficulties here. First, does the responsibility lie at central Government level or at local government level? What is the interaction and the inter-relationship between the two? May I first of all say that I wish to ask the Minister whether there is any possibility of calling a conference of the statutory and voluntary bodies on their relationship one to the other. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, talked about money for the Richmond Fellowship, and many other noble Lords have talked about the need for grants. We are in a dilemma in the relationship between the voluntary sector and the statutory sector.
In Care in Action, the handbook from the Department of Health and Social Security, it is advised that there should be this partnership. But as I understand it, it is not only in the area of mental health but in all areas that local authorities have used voluntary organisations to very good purpose, and have worked in partnership with them. They now find themselves cut back in certain areas by their own local authorities, and therefore although needing services of the voluntary organisations they are not using the services of the voluntary organisations. That means that the partnership is falling because there is not the money being paid to the voluntary organisations. Therefore, there is a dilemma here. I have found it in other fields, and particularly in the field of the care of children. I wonder whether the time has not come for there to be a clearly defined policy concerning the relationship between the local authorities, the voluntary organisations and the central Government departments.
The Government accepted the Jay Report, which was concerned with the care of the mentally handicapped, including of course the after-care of the mentally handicapped if they had been in a custodial setting. Although the recommendations of the Jay Committee
178
have been accepted, so far as I know no practical steps have been taken to implement them, particularly in the sphere of training, although one must pay tribute to the Secretary of State and the Department of Health and Social Security for having set up the Berkeley Committee to look into the training of social workers—this will interest the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley—and to consider the generic or specialist element. I am not sure—the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, will know this better than I—about the training of nurses in the mental health field in the community. Certainly in my area training has been given to nurses who work with families in the community.
As for provision for the mentally ill discharged from hospital, I agree with noble Lords who have pointed out how few local authorities have set up a service in this respect and have not created good safeguards for patients who are discharged. For the mentally ill and, indeed, for the mentally handicapped, there cannot be just one facility; there must be a wide range of facilities to meet the wide range of needs of the mentally ill discharged from hospital. Again, whatever the Government may do and recommend, the responsibility lies at local level. One wonders whether there should be a procedure of joint planning at local level as between the Health Service, the local authority and the voluntary organisations. I appreciate that many local authorities have such a committee and joint planning, but I wonder whether such joint local committes of the three sectors have done enough to make known to the public the needs of the mentally ill and mentally handicapped.
The question of the implementation of the recommendations of the Butler Committee has been mentioned. We are all disturbed by conditions in our prisons, and we are deeply disturbed about the question of patients in prisons who could better be cared for and and helped in secure units attached to hospitals. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, has already spoken about children. I would only add in that context that many parents would be able to help their children coming out of hospital, or perhaps even help to prevent them going in, if they were helped at an early stage and if there were earlier assessment.
I call for a much more practical and structured approach at local level between the Health Service, the social services and the voluntary services—I would also include the volunteers, who are slightly different from the voluntary services—and I call on the Minister to make clear the relationship on a financial basis between the voluntary organisations and the statutory services. At the end of the day it is good practice and sensitivity to the needs of people that will bring about the change we want to see, but there must be a proper structure to achieve that.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I was very glad indeed that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, decided to take part in the debate. When I tell her about the excitement there was behind the scenes when it was discovered that her name was not down among the list of speakers, she will realise how pleased we always are to have her take part in a debate such as this, so much do we appreciate her expertise. The House will not wish me to be too long at this somewhat late hour.

179
I do not pretend to speak as an expert on this subject, because I am not, although I have listened to experts in this debate. The House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Longford for his initiative in tabling such an important Question. He and others have put forward thought-provoking proposals, and while I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, will do so when he speaks, I wish to thank all noble Lords who have taken part, including one noble Lord the elevation of whom I am not sure is material or spiritual.
I must be frank straight away and tell the House that this subject deserves and needs a full-scale debate, for we have the problems of dealing with not only the after-care of the mentally sick but also the needs of the mentally handicapped. I support the call of my noble friend Lord Longford for an inquiry and I support the call of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for greater co-ordination. The trouble with inquiries is that, although they eventually take place and are finalised and issue reports, seldom is action taken on their reports, when action is what we need.
Many years ago the subject of mental illness was brushed under the carpet. With the passage of time there has been a change in the attitude of society to some extent, but more needs to be done to educate the public and secure the co-operation of local and national authorities, a point which has been emphasised by many speakers in this debate. We must face the fact that there are thousands of patients in mental hospitals who could leave if accommodation outside and after-care facilities were available, and I understand the official estimate of such cases is 20,000, but I stand to be corrected.
In the meantime, these people, many of them long-stay patients, have become, or are becoming, institutionalised, and facing the outside world can be a terrifying prospect, however much skilled care and attention they may receive in hospital. It is a fact that some have been released without proper accommodation or after-care, and many are sleeping rough, moving from one night shelter to another, and in some cases finishing up in prison. There is no humanity in releasing people under such circumstances and conditions. True, I am talking about a minority, but such a state of affairs does exist and must not be allowed to exist much longer. Thanks are indeed due to the voluntary bodies and to some understanding local authorities, so that there is a brighter picture for some others.
Some years ago, when I was the Member of Parliament for Norwich North, I visited a road in which the old houses had been restored in a joint effort by the city council and a voluntary organisation. Two of the houses had been diverted as accommodation for discharged female former mental patients. The accommodation was cosy, bright and cheerful. I stopped for tea and had a chat with the residents and their resident companion, a former nurse at their old hospital. All were happy and cheerful. Cinema and theatre visits were organised, as were shopping expeditions, all carefully designed to get them used to the outside world before going their various ways. That sort of preparation is vitally important. That is ideal, provided that there exists a continuing form of aftercare. I shall never forget that experience because it
180
was a practical example of what can be done and is being done in some cases. It is true that such facilities exist elsewhere, but they are far too few to meet the existing need, which is considerable.
There is also the question of delay in the provision of psychiatric units in general hospitals. A psychiatric unit is planned at a general hospital for the building of which I have spent the greater part of my public life fighting. The unit is planned, but when is it to be built?—probably not in my lifetime, because there is always the question of who is to find the money. Such provision has been a casualty of succeeding economy campaigns—and I am not throwing the blame on one side or the other.
The noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, referred to the MIND campaign, which started in April 1976. It was a magnificent effort, and similar efforts by MIND are continuing. The noble Countess also referred to the Granada Television appeal, which attracted 1,250 responses. The media can be a very important factor in tackling this problem, provided that it is properly used. Perhaps we can indulge in a campaign, possibly with the Government's co-operation, to organise programmes to bring home to the people of this country the needs that arise from this problem. One concentrates on MIND because it has sold itself fairly well in regard to its campaign, but of course it is not the only voluntary organisation operating in this field. Although the organisations are doing a fine job, they will be the first to admit that an enormous field has yet to be covered.
The noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, spoke, too, about the co-operation involving the Housing Corporation and the MIND campaign. That is the kind of thing that is needed. Yesterday at Question Time—I see present the noble Baroness who asked the Question—information was given regarding housing accommodation that has been empty for over 12 months. It is estimated that 20,000 units are empty. Will the Government drive home to local authorities the urgent need for some of these units to be adapted for use by patients discharged from psychiatric hospitals? The accommodation is there. I have seen with my own eyes old houses converted to meet the needs to which I have referred. Is it too much to ask for this, even in a period of severe financial restraint?
As has already been said, cut-backs in public expenditure, locally and nationally, are not helping in regard to housing, and grants to voluntary bodies tend to be reduced. It seems to me that the main source of inspiration and action in this vital field comes from the voluntary organisations. It is true that there have been committee reports and recommendations, but so far there has been no positive system of integrated rehabilitation schemes. Perhaps I am cynical, but that seems to be the usual fate of recommendations and reports following inquiries.
There is need for more employment training, but with unemployment at today's levels, even if an adequate system existed, chances of employment would be somewhat remote. I make no party point when I remind your Lordships that unemployment is on a large scale. I had personal experience of unemployment as a youth and again, later, when married. I know of the extreme mental strain that unemployment can cause. It is little wonder that some people, not perhaps morally fortified, and without any idealism

181
behind them, become mentally sick and break down. That, in turn, can lead to alcoholism, if they can afford to drink, and this can be dangerous in the extreme. One need stroll only from here to Charing Cross station to see some of the results of that kind of predicament. This trend must be carefully watched, particularly among young people. We must shake ourselves into reality. I know from personal experience of the dangers that can arise from unemployment.
Finally, I turn to the needs of the mentally handicapped—not much mention has been made of this aspect of the matter—and I shall confine my remarks to children. Very close to my home in Sidcup is a school for mentally-handicapped children. It is a fine, purpose-built building, in beautiful surroundings, and it has a dedicated staff and helpers doing a magnificent job. I often meet the children from the school in groups, carrying out little shopping expeditions, and it is obvious that they are devoted to their teachers and helpers. The school was originally started in temporary premises—the local labour hall, by chance—and it is now doing a fine job, the success of which is, as I know, reflected in a happier and useful home life for some of those involved; and later in some cases employment can be found. The school is well supported by parents and voluntary organisations. That is the ideal situation.
On 20th March, while waiting for Gardeners' World (one of my favourite television programmes, as your Lordships will probably expect) I casually watched the Oxford Road Show. Being an old square, I found most of it beyond my comprehension, but I was jolted into grave concern and alarm when before an audience of young teenagers the subject of the care of mentally-handicapped children was raised during the serious spot in the programme. The item dealt with schools for the mentally-handicapped. It was stated quite categorically that less than 50 per cent. of local authorities were carrying out their responsibilities in this field. It was stated that under the Education Act 1944 such children have the right to stay at special schools until the age of 19, if necessary. It was also stated that some local authorities—Oxford and Hampshire were quoted—are breaking the law, robbing children of their statutory right. Will the Government confirm or deny that that situation exists?
To return to the main theme of the debate, I would say that it appears to me that the bulk of the work in after-care is carried out by voluntary organisations. It is true that grants are made by central Government and local authorities, but in the present economic climate the grants have been cut and will continue to be cut. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, spoke about co-ordination. I would ask: what system of co-ordination exists among Government departments, local authorities and voluntary organisations? I might be wrong, but the present system seems to me to be patchy in the extreme. I hope that the Government spokesman, the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, will be able to put our minds at rest. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, I should like to see the various bodies get together to tackle the problem through co-ordination, frame the guidelines, and get on with the job.
This is not a problem to be ignored after a short debate in your Lordships' House. It is a tremendous
182
social problem, and we must deal with it. It is our responsibility. This is, after all, the International Year of the Disabled. When I was in Hong Kong on a mission with a number of Members of Parliament I was given a tie, on which were the words, "The International Year of the Disabled". I was asked to wear the tie to show that the organisers there intended to put in 100 per cent. effort for the Inter-national Year of the Disabled. I wonder whether we in Britain could do the same? The question of the after-care of the mentally sick and the mentally handicapped is one that is overdue for energetic and positive action. We all agree about that. But is it just talk, or is there to be action? We cannot afford any longer to neglect our responsibilities. This debate, short as it is, is bound to be a challenge to the nation's conscience, and I hope that we shall indeed, in the not too distant future, have a wider debate and some demonstration on all sides that we really mean business in this tremendous problem, to which there can be a solution.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I be permitted to ask him a question? Did I understand him to say that Oxford were not carrying out their legal responsibilities with regard to the mentally handicapped child? This is not my experience.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I am only quoting the statement made in the programme, "The Oxford Road Show". I do not recommend it; it is mainly pop stuff, and, really, my mind does not go as far as that. But it said that two areas were not carrying out their legal responsibilities. This refers, I rather gather, to the facility of remaining until the age of 19 in handicapped schools; but they quoted Oxfordshire and Hampshire. I can only quote what they said, and that is the position so far as I know.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I think we have had a most interesting debate, and I hope the noble Earl is pleased with it. We have heard from so many people with such great knowledge that I think it has been very valuable indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said that he suffered from too much knowledge on this subject. I am afraid I am the reverse, and all I shall be able to do is to give what I have been told by the department is the Government's line, and their views on these matters. I shall not be able to answer all the questions, but as soon as I can I shall certainly see that they are answered.
Before responding to the points which have been raised, some of which I shall try to answer, I wish to say that the Government welcome this opportunity to draw attention to what is a very important question; and I am grateful to the noble Earl for having given me the opportunity to set some comments within the framework of a more general statement of the Government's policies and intentions in relation to the development of services for the mentally ill. I should also like to thank the noble Earl for having postponed the debate from last Thursday, when we would have started at about half-past nine at night. Today has been a great improvement.

183
My Lords, the word "after-care" first appears in the National Health Service Act 1946. Section 28 said:
"A local authority may with the approval of the Minister, and to such extent as the Minister may direct shall, make arrangements for the purpose of the prevention of illness, the care of persons suffering from illness or mental defectiveness, or the after-care of such persons…".
So this was a power, and the Minister could, if he wished, direct that it should be a duty. But no such direction was made until after the passage of the Mental Health Act 1959. This enumerated the purposes for which care and after-care arrangements could be made, including, for example, among such purposes, the provision of residential accommodation and the provision of day centres; and under directions issued by the then Minister in August 1959, the provision of both residential accommodation and day centres became a duty. This statutory duty laid on local health authorities became in 1974, under a new direction, a duty of the local social services authority, and this it still remains, My noble friend Lord Lloyd referred to this in what he called his second maiden speech.
However, the duty is expressed in fairly general terms, and gives local individual authorities discretion to determine the needs of their own localities for the amount of such provision that is necessary. This is a sensible arrangement, since the needs of individual localities are bound to differ, as many noble Lords have said today, and to be affected by other forms of provision which are available.
Paralleling the development of legislation between 1946 and 1981 there has been a revolution in the practice of psychiatry and in therapeutic and rehabilitative techniques. There has been the "open door" movement, the new psychotropic drugs, the therapeutic community and an emphasis on the hospital as one component part of a wider community mental health service. There has also been a reversal of institutional attitudes, linked to a positive stress on the restoration of social skills. All these developments have led to a transformation of both the size and character of the in-patient population. This has led in consequence to major changes in the pattern of discharges and in the practice of after-care.
My Lords, 35 years ago many patients would have been detained under compulsory powers and would have spent many months or years in hospitals before returning, if returning at all, to the community. Today, the average patient enters hospital voluntarily on an informal basis and returns far more rapidly to life in the community outside hospital. I should like to quote two figures to illustrate the magnitude of the change. First, about 90 per cent. of first admissions in 1979 were discharged within three months of admission; secondly, at the end of December 1979 there were, as has already been mentioned, 76,000 patients in mental hospitals and units in England, compared with 143,000 on the same date in 1954. That factor was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Richardson.
These changes have a direct bearing on the task of after-care. It has expanded from a voluntary activity of the old local health authorities to become an important part of the work of both health and social service
184
authorities. Together they have to plan and provide a whole range of specialised services and facilities on behalf of the discharged patient. To the skills of the medical profession are allied those of psychologists, occupational therapists, social workers, community psychiatric nurses, the staff of industrial therapy units, disablement resettlement officers and many others—not forgetting the members of the primary health team.
My Lords, what is the task? Before going on to describe particular elements in that task and to reply to some of the points which have been made, I should like to suggest to your Lordships very briefly the extended nature of the task itself. This will make clear why we share the view of the noble Earl that what he calls "mental after-care" and what we would prefer to call more generally "community psychiatric care", is crucial to our mental health services.
In 1946, when the National Health Service Act was passed, after-care for mental illness seemed like an optional extra for the local health authorities of that time. Not only were many fewer people discharged annually, but the assumption then was that if they were discharged it was because they had recovered. People who still needed care would stay in hospital. In addition, people who had no home, or no home that would take them, often stayed in hospital. So it is not surprising that the number of in-patients continued to rise.
But the new philosophy, symbolised by the Mental Health Act 1959, implied three new major and very long-term tasks for us. The first, which rightly received much attention in the 1960s and 1970s, is to meet the needs of those who have recovered but who have no home: patients who have been described as being trapped in hospital. This task has been tackled in one mental illness hospital after another, and today we can say that we have nearly dealt with the backlog. Most of the non-patients responsibility for whom we inherited from the past have now left the mental illness hospitals. Many factors have helped. Nearly all patients were changed to an informal status after the passage of the 1959 Act and in the favourable employment situation of the 'sixties many in-patients were able to make an initial trial of the outside world in employment.
Later the position on employment declined, but there was an improvement of the housing situation. And let us not forget the benefits of our social security system which ensures that no patient is now trapped in hospital merely because of lack of a personal income. So now there are only a few people in this position to be dealt with each year. These recovered patients who need a new home may need considerable help to get them started, but once they have found their place they may need no further help.
But there is a second task, for a group which today makes greater demands on community services. These are the people who have a home, but are still suffering from some degree of mental illness. Today we appreciate that for many such people care in the community will be better for their mental health than continuing in-patient care. And almost everybody who spoke today underlined this. But this depends on their receiving the right care. And I think we also see, better than even 10 years ago, that this care may be

185
needed for many years. Few people now believe that mental illness will go away if we stop locking people up. There is evidence, both from this country and from other countries, to disprove that. So this group are going to need not only transitional care in picking up life again, but continuing care from both health and social services, just as they would once have received continuous support in hospital. But in the community they can receive it in a more flexible way, so that they resume control of their own lives to the fullest possible extent.
Many of these people with some continuing disablement are living in family homes, and so a large part of the burden of continuing care will fall on relatives. So our third task is supporting both the patients and relatives of this group of people—people who have returned to their ordinary lives, but continue to have special needs.
Fourthly, a fairly small group numerically have continuing psychiatric needs and also have no homes. The fourth task for health and social services is, therefore, a double task of providing for members of this group both the homes and the support they need to live in them.
For completeness perhaps I should mention two more groups. First, we must not let our concern for after-care obscure the fact that there are a few for whom continuing care can best be provided within the hospital. They will, therefore, remain as long-stay in-patients. Another much larger group will not require "after-care" in the traditional sense, because they never become in-patients, as psychiatrists are finding ways to treat more people without in-patient care. These people form an important part of the demand for the range of community care services which we try to make available.
I turn to some of the points made by noble Lords. Some of them I shall answer in general form and others more particularly. On the subject of residential accommodation, the 1975 White Paper recognised the need for a range of accommodation which could cater for short-term and longer-term needs. The White Paper guidelines on "desirable provision" were flexible. They differentiated between areas of high and more average need. For an area of average need the minimum suggested is 19 places per 100,000 population in long- and short-term accommodation taken together. Applying this to England, the possible need is approximately 8,830 places. Taking account of additional requirements in some of the "high need" areas, a figure of 10,000 places might be a reasonable "round figure" target.
The Department has figures for accommodation in local authorities' own premises, both staffed and un-staffed. There are also figures for places made available to local authorities by voluntary organisations and by private organisations. Adding these together, the total number of available places has risen from 3,322 in 1973 to 5,604 in 1980. We can add to these the number of adults known to be in private lodgings arranged and supervised by social services departments. These have risen from 551 in 1975 to about 800 in 1980. Altogether, the figures for residential places and supervised lodgings in 1980 totalled about 6,400.
To some extent those figures underestimate the total available accommodation. There has been an un-
186
quantified but significant growth in the provision of group homes. Voluntary organisations, we know, have been particularly active in promoting their development. One of the particular merits of group homes is that they merge imperceptibly into normal residence in the community and statistical returns do not necessarily "pick them up". Indeed, some former hospital patients originally classified as "group home residents" change over to having their own direct tenancies with the housing authority. Of course, national figures will conceal substantial local variations, and needs will be much higher in some areas than in others. Nevertheless, it is clear that there has been steady progress in the development of a wide range of residential accommodation for the after-care of the mentally-ill. According to the latest figures progress has been maintained. In 1979–80 expenditure on residential care increased by about 10 per cent. in real terms.
To turn to day care, the total number of day hospital places has increased rapidly from 10,206 in 1975 to 12,947 in 1978. Although this is still far short of the White Paper target of 35 places per 100,000 population for in-patients attending day hospital plus a further 30 places per 100,000 population for day-patients, at the present rate of growth the target should be reached by the mid 1990s. The growth in day centres provided by local authorities in England has been slower than hoped for, but places in day centres specifically for the mentally ill, together with places made available by voluntary and other organisations and including a proportion of places for the mentally ill in so-called "mixed centres", have risen from 5,374 in 1973 to 7,740 in 1980. This is still far short of the White Paper guideline of 27,810. There are, however, currently some doubts about the validity of the White Paper figures, and I will turn to this in a moment.
Not only is it evident that the figures conceal considerable local variations, but it is clear that the practice of day care varies widely. There is a fairly general view that not all clients require day-care on a five-day week basis. Some clients, depending on the degree of disability, may be supported on a one-plus day-a-week basis, or by even less frequent contact. There is, therefore, no exact correspondence between the number of places in day centres and the number of clients receiving active support and help from the centres. Much depends on local policies and on the way in which day care is integrated into the overall network of health and personal social services in any given area.
It may be that the fixed White Paper guideline should be replaced by a range of guidelines which discriminate between high need and low need localities—as the White Paper did for residential accommodation. It may also be better to think in terms of combined total for day hospital and day centre places. This does not imply that the two are interchangeable. There are some functions that seem clearly more appropriate to a day hospital, and some that seem clearly more appropriate to a day centre. But there is a fairly large intermediate area of tasks which it seems likely can equally be undertaken by a day centre or by a suitable peripheral day hospital. There is also some evidence to suggest that the combined guidelines for day hospital and day centre places may be too high. The guideline

187
figure perhaps more nearly represents the number of people to be supported at any one time rather than the number of places required. There have been many references to the voluntary sector. There have been suggestions—I think, not in the House today—that the Government are inclined to rely too much on the voluntary sector.
The Government do not see this as a question of "either/or" but of "both/and". There has long been a vigorous tradition of voluntary service in this country and the major voluntary organisations in the field of mental health. The Mental After-care Association, MIND, the Guidepost Trust, the Richmond Fellowship and many others, provide important services which contribute significantly to the range of facilities available for the care in the community of those disabled by or recovering from mental illness. We also recognise the great value of the voluntary sector's ability to use its freedom to innovate and pioneer. Voluntary organisations can direct their attention to the margins more easily than statutory bodies. They can identify needs which are not easily categorised and which do not fit into neat compartments. They can pioneer and innovate new methods of help and new patterns of service. This is why the Government believe in partnership and close co-ordination between the voluntary a statutory sectors.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked about the position of the co-ordination between the voluntary and the statutory sectors. I shall write to her about that. It is certainly the earnest wish of the Government that the maximum amount of co-ordination should develop. There are one or two points that I should make clear. First, despite all the economies that local authorities have had to make, Care in Action shows in England total grants by local authorities to voluntary organisations in the personal social services sector rose between 1978–79 and 1979–80 by 8 per cent. in real terms.
Secondly, between 1975–76 and 1979–80 the mentally ill fared relatively better than other client groups. Local authority grants increased by no fewer than 58 per cent. in real terms. Thirdly, the amount allocated by the DHSS for grants to voluntary bodies has increased by approximately 75 per cent. in real terms between 1975–76 and 1979–80 to almost £6 million at 1979–80 out-turn prices. Not only has the total increased but the share of the total allocation to voluntary organisations concerned with mental health has risen to almost 10 per cent.
The Government's intention is that grants for voluntary bodies will continue to be maintained in real terms. On the question of fees paid by local authorities to voluntary organisations for places taken up in facilities provided by voluntary organisations there is in the available figures no evidence that these have been declining either in cash terms or real terms. The most recent years for which figures are available are 1978–79 and 1979–80. Between these two years payments by local authorities to voluntary organisations actually rose in real terms by 5 per cent. So the figures do not show any downward trend in the total of local authority grants to voluntary bodies or any reluctance to make use of the facilities that they have developed.
Regarding the future, Care in Action commends the
188
closest possible collaboration between the voluntary and statutory sectors. I note with pleasure the local authority associations and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations have established a joint working party to prepare guidelines on working relationships between social services authorities and voluntary organisations. This is, I think, a useful and constructive initiative.
I have left until last the question of joint finance which is a particularly relevant source of funding for mental after-care enabling as it does transfer of resources between health and local authorities. At constant prices (November 1979) joint finance has grown from £30 million in 1977–78 to £54 million in 1980–81. Further real term growth is planned; £56 million in 1981–82 and £58 million in 1982–83. The rules governing the application of joint finance have already been significantly relaxed; but the suggestion of transferring cash with patients to local authority personal social services is currently under consideration by the DHSS in a wider context.
Various methods have been suggested, including attaching grants to patients or places in residential accommodation or centres. As to the meeting of the cost of such grants, it has been suggested that the cash might be found by the consequential closure of hospital wards. As announced in Care in Action, the Secretary of State for Social Services hopes to issue a consultative document later this year and views will be canvassed on a wide range of options.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, asked me about the grant for MIND. This was only submitted to the DHSS Ministers and officials a few weeks ago. The sum involved last year was £275,000. MIND is seeking a major increase. There are standing arrangements for continuing payment of the grant while the new level of grant is under consideration. These were exercised last year when the grant took 21 weeks in negotiation. But I am happy to say the outcome was an increase of £25,000 for MIND on that occasion. I am happy to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Richardson, that the experimental hostel wards and hospital hostels (as they are sometimes called) are seen by the department as important initiatives and their development is being very carefully studied and evaluated.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, mentioned the subject of anorexia nervosa. The Government are aware that there is evidence that this distressing condition may have become more common in the past decade, especially among adolescent girls and young women. Treatment is normally regarded as best provided within the comprehensive range of mental health services. Some recent comparative research on a variety of treatment methods may yield useful results in identifying improved methods of treatment. I shall be writing further to the noble Baroness.
In conclusion, I believe the debate has illustrated that we need a wide range of residential accommodation and a variety of other supporting services. Some people need only brief help in re-establishing their ordinary lives. Some will need a permanent helping hand in coping with their ordinary lives, while others will need to build a new life, with which they will need continuing support. If this last group are to achieve a quality of life better than that of the traditional long-stay patient, much skill will be needed. The

189
supporting and care services and facilities will need to be carefully deployed so that each individual is rehabilitated to the highest possible level.
It is the most severely disabled patient who represents the greatest coallenge to the new pattern of services set out in the 1975 White Paper. There is little doubt that the average short-stay patient benefits from the new, district-based psychiatric services; he or she benefits from the developing multi-disciplinary therapeutic teams and from the flexible network of services, which enable him to get the treatment he needs with the minimum of disruption to his ordinary life. On the face of it, it is good that the number of chronic long-stay in-patients has fallen, but we must satisfy ourselves that we are meeting the needs of the patient who is now remaining in the community but who has chronic disabilities; this point has been made very strongly by several noble Lords today.
The challenge as we abandon old patterns of care is to be sure that the new network of services which the patient needs is fully established and readily accessible—otherwise there is an unacceptable dilemma: the patient may be discharbed or may discharge himself into the community although nobody has arranged suitable facilities for his continuing care and support; or he may stay in hospital, not because he needs in-patient treatment but simply because there are no suitable facilities for him outside. Both are unacceptable and the Government policy is to ensure that the National Heatlh Service, and local authorities in partnership with voluntary organisations, plan and develop networks of community care which are comprehensive yet flexible and responsive to the needs of the individual patient.
In particular we must concentrate more care on those with long-term needs. I commend to the noble Lords the recently published report by the Multi-Disciplinary Working Party on Rehabilitation set up by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, under the title Psychiatric Rehabilitation in the 1980s, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Richardson. This report makes very clear that rehabilitation is for everyone and not just for those who are obliging enough to get better. Every patient with chronic disabilities needs the help of a district rehabilitation team.
I have already suggested that as a generic term community psychiatric care may be better than mental after-care. It brings out more clearly that this is a task in its own right and not just something which is tacked on to in-patient treatment, which not everybody
190
needs. Looking at this slightly wider spectrum, how is our network of community care growing? I will conclude by bringing together a few of the most significant figures. Residential places are up from 3,332 in 1973 to 5,604 in 1980; day hospital places are up from 10,200 in 1975 to 13,000 in 1978; local authority day centre places are up in number from 5,374 in 1973 to 7,740 in 1980.
The number of nurses in community psychiatric services is up to 2,000 and a service is provided in nearly every health district. The total of local authority grants to voluntary organisations is up by 8 per cent. in real terms in 1979–80, and grants specifically for the mentally ill are up by 58 per cent. in real terms over the five years to 1979–80. In the light of these figures and although I know that your Lordships would like us to be going much faster than we are, as we would ourselves, I can give the noble Lord some measure of reassurance. Despite present difficulties the network is growing—unevenly but quite widely. With regard to the importance of the sort of care provided, I agree with what the noble Earl and noble Lords have said. We welcome the inquiry that the noble Lord is about to undertake and hope that we shall be returning to this subject after he has made his investigation.
I would thank the noble Earl for having raised this subject today, and I hope that this Question has done something to increase general understanding of the importance of this subject and that it has all been worthwhile.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, has of course spoken on behalf of the Department of Health and Social Security, whose responsibilities are for England and Wales. May I suggest to him that the concern that has been expressed this afternoon is equally applicable to Scotland? can I have the noble Lord's assurance that the content of this excellent debate will be conveyed to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: Certainly, I guarantee to do that.

Charterhouse Japhet Bill
The order made on 30th March last discharged, and Bill committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.