Lords Sitting of 14 December 1983

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle.

Scotch Whisky: Tax
Lord Boothby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what possible justification there is for continuing to tax Scotch whisky much more heavily than imported fortified wines.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Cockfield): Tradition, my Lords—and the needs of the Revenue.
Lord Boothby: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that courteous but rather uninformative reply, may I ask him whether Her Majesty's Government realise that in the modern world Scotch whisky is about the only thing left that brings guaranteed and sustained comfort to mankind, and is also a much better medicine than the deluge of drugs which pour upon us every day? In these circumstances, may I ask the noble Lord what is the purpose of pursuing a policy which, by means of penal taxation on a particular commodity, deprives of this comfort all except the comparatively well-to-do and simultaneously reduces the revenue to the Exchequer, damages our export trade, and constitutes a serious threat to the economy of Scotland, where many distilleries are facing the possibility of closure?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I entirely appreciate the sentiments uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. Perhaps I may make a number of points in reply. First of all, the taxation on Scotch whisky raises approximately £1,200 million per annum, which is not an insignificant sum of money.
Lord Boothby: Too much!
Lord Cockfield: Secondly, my Lords, during the lifetime of this Government the taxation on Scotch whisky—the excise duty—has increased by 45.5 per cent., while the duty on fortified wines, with which the noble Lord makes a comparison, has increased by 76.9 per cent. The Government have, therefore, significantly shifted the burden of taxation away from whisky. Thirdly, as this is the season of goodwill, perhaps I may mention that since 1970, under four successive Governments of different political complexions, the taxation of whisky, the total tax on whisky has declined in real terms by 45 per cent.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that some time ago I asked a similar question and received an unfavourable response? I suggested that the Government might
234
consider including whisky in National Health Service prescriptions, but they rejected my proposition. As the Government will not reduce the tax on whisky—because it is excessive; I accept what the noble Lord has said—and will not include it in National Health Service prescriptions, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware of the suggestion that, since there is general consumption of this liquid by noble Lords in your Lordships' House, and since many of them cannot do without it because it is in the nature of a medicine—I am quite serious—the matter should be referred to the committee that deals with Peers' expenses, with a view to an assessment being made in connection with expenses?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, fortunately, I have no responsibility for the committee on Lords' expenses. Nevertheless, I greatly sympathise with the noble Lord's objectives, and I entirely agree with him that, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said, whisky is a drink favoured by a very wide range of people, and not entirely by those in the upper income groups.
So far as the burden of taxation is concerned, there has in fact in real terms been a significant reduction in the burden of taxation on whisky, and I would only wish we could say the same of other sectors in our economy. The Government have also taken a number of special measures to assist the whisky industry; for example, a substantial measure of duty deferment for wines and spirits has been introduced, and this has improved the cash flow, rather than the liquid flow, of the whisky industry by some £200 million. Furthermore, the Government have secured a refund worth about £100 million from the European Community on cereals used by distillers.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, would my noble friend think it a proper idea that old-age pensioners should be able to claim a refund of tax?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, that is a most interesting suggestion, and I shall draw it, together with the other remarks which have been made by your Lordships, to the attention of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware, especially in view of the reply that he has given to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, that on every standard bottle of whisky purchased over the counter 80 per cent. of the retail price, or £5.36, goes to the Exchequer? Can the Minister identify any other consumer product on sale during this festive season on which more tax is paid? Will he therefore agree that surely the time has come for Her Majesty's Government to reconsider their taxation policies, which discriminate against the Scotch whisky industry and employment in rural Scotland?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the tax structure does not discriminate against Scotch whisky as opposed to other spirits. Nevertheless, the position is—and this has been the case for very many years—that spirits are taxed more heavily than either wines or beers.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the noble Lord give any indication of the set off against the public expenditure of £1,200 million which has to be incurred in respect of road accidents, admissions to hospital of people suffering from alcoholic psychoses and cirrhosis of the liver, death from accidents in the home, industrial accidents, and other adverse consequences, not forgetting that 50 per cent. of the total number of murders are committed through the influence of alcohol?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the points raised by the noble Lord are clearly matters of interest, but they fall outside the scope of the Question on the Order Paper.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, will the noble Lord consider a suggestion from these Benches—I speak as a non-whisky-drinking Prelate—that, with the goodwill of the Government, we might have a tax-free day to celebrate the 100th birthday of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, when it falls? I might even attempt it myself on that day.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, that is a most interesting suggestion.

NHS Redundancy Payment Levels
2.45 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the levels of redundancy payments in the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, the level of redundancy payments in the National Health Service depends upon the age and length of reckonable service of the officer concerned. Those under 40 years of age may claim up to a maximum of 30 weeks' pay, and this limit applies to those over the age of 50 who have at least five years' service. The maximum for others is 66 weeks' pay.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this agreement which was hammered out by both sides of the negotiating table—the staff side and the official side—reflects great credit on the principle of joint negotiation and on the Whitley system in particular? Is the noble Lord further aware that there is a sad element? The increasing levels of redundancy in the National Health Service are now reflecting the same situation as in decaying industries where redundancy payments rose dramatically as their services dropped and unemployment increased. Will the noble Lord take account of that as a signal to the Government to look very carefully at their policies in future on the NHS?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am certainly grateful to the noble Lord for the first part of his supplementary question when he referred to the efforts of
236
both sides of the Whitley Councils. As regards the number of redundancies, which I believe is the line he was following, details were collected centrally only until March 1981. In each of the last two full years numbers were around 330 to 340, which is not as excessive as the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, can the noble Lord advise the House of the total amount of redundancy payments and increased retirement pension payments involved as a result of the two reorganisations carried out by the present Government and their predecessors under Mr. Heath?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not think that I can give all the information for which the noble Lord asks without notice; but I shall find out what the figures are and advise him. As regards any excessive cost on the premature retirement scheme, this figure is about £45 million. The report from the comptroller and auditor general says that the original estimates were understated and this is not, in fact, in dispute.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the percentage figure which he quoted does not seem to be too high but when translated into the number of doctors, nurses and midwives in the National Health Service, it produces a figure of thousands? Would it not be possible, in so far as we have this good negotiating machinery which established the levels of the redundancy pay, for the same machinery to be used in seeking to bring some form of co-ordination in building the National Health Service rather than running it down?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I indicated in my answer to the noble Lord's earlier supplementary question, there is a difference between redundancies and premature retirements. The figures I gave him earlier were for redundancies. There were of course rather more for premature retirements. The number is 2,580. That greatly exceeds earlier estimates. But the regional health authorities, who were responsible for administering the premature retirement scheme. were the only bodies in a position to judge how many were needed.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned the figure of £45 million. I can hardly credit this. Is this the cost of reducing the National Health Service? The figure is astonishing because that amount would build about three hospitals, apart from extending services. It seems to be a staggering figure. Can the noble Lord confirm it?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, if the figure which I gave to the noble Lord is wrong I shall of course let him know; but I understand that that was the approximate cost of the reorganisation to which he refers.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the figure of 2,580 redundancies that he mentioned falls within the 4,839 cuts which I believe the Government have agreed as their target?
Lord Glenarthur: No, my Lords, the figure of 2,580 is for premature retirements, and that followed reorganisation so it is not part of the figure to which the noble Lord referred.

Namibia: UN Resolution No. 435
2.49 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will call a meeting of the Western Five to seek means of implementing United Nations Resolution No. 435 relating to Namibia, and to try to release Namibia from South African occupation and permit free elections.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, we have no plans at present to call a formal meeting of the Contact Group. However, we remain committed to early implementation of the United Nations plan and we are ready to take whatever action we consider would contribute to this objective.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the latter part of her reply will give encouragement to many people inside and outside the British Commonwealth who regard the United Nations as being somewhat laggardly in bringing about the independence of Namibia, and that the latter part of her statement is also very welcome indeed? Anyone who believes in the principle of democracy must acknowledge that the South West African People's Organisation exists, that it might well win the general election in Namibia and that, because of that democratic element, the South African Government keep a stranglehold illegally on Namibia.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I welcome the first part of the noble Lord's statement—perhaps that would be the correct way to describe it. But on the point about progress of the talks, may I say that all major issues related to the United Nations plan are now resolved. Further progress depends on meeting the essential security concerns of the parties. An accommodation on Cubans satisfactory to the United States and South Africa is an important element in this.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in view of the fact that France has now withdrawn from the Contact Group (a group which unquestionably has done very useful work), does the noble Baroness see a future for the group? Secondly, can she indicate the nature of the Portuguese initiative which has now been started? Are Her Majesty's Government in favour of that initiative? Thirdly, is it the case that Ministers from Angola and South Africa are shortly to meet the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary? Could she say what is the purpose of those meetings?
Baroness Young: My Lords, to answer the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, in fact the French have not withdrawn from the Contact Group. The position could perhaps best be described by saying that they believe that the Contact Group should be put into cold storage for the time being until it has something useful to do. On the other hand, we believe that the Contact Group has contributed much in the
238
past and could do so again in the future and that it is important to keep it in being. On the other two points, we welcome anything which will contribute towards a settlement, but, as I said in answer to the first supplementary question, this is now very much a matter of the security of the states involved.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Baroness say a word about the Portuguese initiative to which I referred? Can she tell the House what is the nature of the initiative and what is the purpose of the meeting of the Foreign Secretary and the Angolan and South African Ministers?
Baroness Young: My Lords, it is perfectly true that the South African Foreign Minister saw my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and of course Namibia was one of the matters that was discussed. I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that in these circumstances the discussions are confidential at this stage.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that owing to the heavy Soviet penetration of SWAPO it might be very dangerous at this stage to permit free elections in Namibia? Does my noble friend not also agree that if there were to be a one-party communist state in Namibia, it would be very dangerous for industry and technology in this country and the EEC generally, as the Soviets might then get control of the mineral resources in South Africa on which we are so dependent?
Baroness Young: My Lords, in answer to the first part of my noble friend's question, I may say that of course we have supported the settlement plan for Namibia and we should like to see it come into effect. I think his second question about natural resources is somewhat wide of the main Question. If the cares to put down a Question on that point, I shall be happy to answer it.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, can the noble Baroness answer two questions? First, is it not the case that the Commonwealth communiqué mentioned the issue of other countries accepting as important the linkage between the freeing of Namibia and the removal of Cuban troops, which the noble Baroness has also mentioned this afternoon? Does that indicate that the British Government have changed their opposition to the linkage element in the Namibian settlement? Secondly, as the noble Baroness says that the British Government are open to take any initiative to complete the freedom of Namibia, and in view of the fact that they have rejected the call for economic sanctions against South Africa, what initiatives do they now intend to take to conclude this long story of providing Namibia with independence?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I can confirm that our position on linkage is that we do not believe that the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola is part of the United Nations plan, nor should it be a precondition for its implementation. This is a practical issue. I would draw to the noble Lord's attention what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in another place in answering questions on the statement

239
on the Commonwealth conference communiqué. She made it plain that we should have preferred an injunction about the withdrawal of all foreign troops, which would have seemed to be fair. On the noble Lord's second point, about whether we should have another initiative, as far as the Contact Group is concerned if circumstances change we and our partners would of course reconsider the question. Indeed, any member of the group can call a meeting at any time.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, as the question of the release of the British mercenaries who have been held so long in prison in Angola has been linked with the settlement in Namibia, will the noble Baroness be kind enough to tell the House what efforts are being made to secure the release of these unfortunate men?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think that this point, too, is a bit wide of the Question. If the noble Lord will put down a Question I shall try to answer it.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, notwithstanding the situation in Angola, unless action is taken soon by the contact five—who after all are five of the most eminent members of the United Nations—the situation can only get worse and, even more important, yet more dangerous? As we all five independently say that we adhere to the principle of the resolution and want to see it made a reality, why can we not get together, begin work on that task and avoid what could possibly be an extremely dangerous situation in Southern Africa?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think we should all like to see progress on this matter, but we do not think there is a need for an early meeting of the Contact Group because at the moment there are no new major developments affecting Namibia. As I indicated in answer to an earlier supplementary question, further progress on Namibia depends on meeting the essential security concerns of all the parties.

The Public Library Service
2.58 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take on the decline in the Public Library Service over the past five years.
The Minister of State, Privy Council Office, and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, over the last five-year period for which actual figures are available, the book stock in public libraries in England increased by about 4 million volumes, the number of service points increased by 2,000 and the number of staff in post by over 500. Annual book issues increased by some 19 million. The Government will continue to support the provision by local authorities of a vigorous and efficient public library system within the limit of available resources.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that the number of books issued and the amount of stock does not bear any relation to the number of new books bought? Does he also agree that individual authorities have made cuts of over 30 per cent., over 40 per cent. and over 50 per cent. in their book funds over the past five years? Is he aware that 97 of 119 library authorities have made some cut back? The books that have been in the library for some time of course will be more tatty and not really of very good quality.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I should not for a moment seek to deny that libraries have had to make—as indeed they should make—their fair share of economies, and that the service has had increased pressure on it in recent years. Nevertheless, I deplore the habit—which is not restricted across this section of the economy in recent years—of describing increases as cuts.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, am I to understand from what the noble Earl said that he does not accept that there has been a serious diminution in the supply of books available to the public through public libraries? My information is entirely contrary to his.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, as I said, the pressure on book funds is there as, indeed, pressure on all public funding is there. But that does not mean to say that there has not been very creditable and good management within resources by the library service, which continues to be an admirable service to the public.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, nobody criticises the management of the libraries. What we are criticising is the management of the Government. I wish the noble Earl would get that clear in his mind.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl what the position is concerning the new British Library project and building? Is this to be the subject of Government cuts?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, that is rather wide of the present Question. As the noble Lord is aware, however, the Government have a manifesto commitment to the British Library, and I hope to be able to announce figures in terms of the next tranche of spending within the next few days.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware of the deteriorating condition of the library services in Northern Ireland? Is he aware that the library committee of the area board of Belfast has a dilemma: either to leave the 21 local libraries in being with greatly reduced services, or to cut by half the number of those local libraries, mainly in the central areas? Would it not be a tragedy if those areas which were suffering from the present conditions had that kind of cut, particularly as one-third of the book issues are to young people? Could the Government possibly help by taking over the cost of the reference library which acts as a regional service and has 1,000 users a day?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I was not aware of what the noble Lord told me. But as someone with a great interest in Northern Ireland, I am quite happy to take that up with my colleagues.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, is it not a fact that the price of books, journals and newspapers has actually gone up faster than the price of other things and that of course has made a big difference? Will my noble friend inquire whether the inter-library lending is as good as it might be and will he also consider whether more newspapers could he put on to microfilm and therefore not have the cost of storing and buying them?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right in that there has been pressure of course on the library service as a result of the above-average rate of inflation of book prices in recent years. I shall look into the interesting suggestion he makes about putting newspapers on microfilm. This is of course done by the British Library and by others, but it may be that we could expedite the process somewhat.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that although book prices have gone up faster than the retail price index in the past five years, this is partly because they were held down below the retail price index in the previous five years; and that of course when fewer new books are being bought that is a contributory factor to the price—particularly of hardbacks and monographs—going up?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, what I think the noble Baroness is saying is that we all, whether as individuals or as industries, have to reckon with the problems of inflation, and this is why it is so wise of the Government to try to establish control over inflation.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, will the Minister agree that this is not only a problem of maintaining an effective library service—important though that is for educational and cultural purposes—but that there are also serious consequences for authors, for the publishing industry, and for those aspects of distribution and retail which are concerned in the business of books, including a very important element of export? I wonder whether the Minister will recall (and I am sure he will) that in the recent debate on the Arts he said:
"At home and abroad, British people are writing books and plays, and winning Nobel prizes for them…"—[Official Report, 30/11/83; col. 764].
Will he not agree that if this standard of excellence is to be maintained, then it does to a very large extent depend upon the effectiveness of the British market which, in turn, relies to a very large degree on the library services?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Baroness has said and, as a result, in my original Answer—if I may remind her and the House—I said:
"The Government will continue to support the provision by local authorities of a vigorous and efficient public library system within the limit of available resources."
Baroness David: My Lords, may I finally ask the Minister to take seriously this decline in public library services, and particularly in the school library service? Will he take note of recent HMI reports? There is a constant emphasis in them of the difficulty experienced by schools from the shortage of books. They have to cope with that. The school library service, which is part of the public library service, very often needs to be maintained in the way that it has not been in the past few years.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I shall of course take the noble Baroness's point seriously, though she will appreciate that within the remit of my own ministerial resonsibilities it is the public library service with which I am concerned.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Bellwin, with the leave of the House, will repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the rate support grant in England.
With the leave of the House, I should like in the normal way to say a brief word about the timing of the two short debates this afternoon standing in the names of my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford and the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale.
Following the principle that the mover shall be entitled to approximately 15 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply not later than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, may I suggest that other speakers in today's first debate in the name of my noble friend Lord Nugent should limit their speeches to a maximum of eight minutes. If any noble Lord who should be skilled in instant mathematics would question my figures, I must say that the name of my noble friend Lord Beloff, who asked for his name to be included, was left off the list. It is an omission for which I apologise to my noble friend and to the House. With regard to the debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, the limit is as high as 15 minutes.
Perhaps I should point out that if any noble Lord in either of these debates should speak at greater length than the scheduled time, he will do so at the expense of later speakers in that particular debate.

BBC Annual Report and Handbook
3.8 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford rose to call attention to the BBC Annual Report and Handbook 1983; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, about 12 months ago I asked an Unstarred Question about the annual reports of the BBC and the IBA, and in particular called attention to their failure to fulfil the undertakings which they had given in 1980 with regard to recording the complaints which they had received on obscenity and violence and the action which they had taken to meet them. In the event, the IBA had given some attention to it and the BBC none. My noble friend Lord Elton, who was answering the debate with his customary skill and diplomacy, did not

243
take direct responsibility for this, but said no doubt both the corporation and the authority would take note of what noble Lords had said. As usual, his assurance has been justified. In the event, the annual reports of both the corporation and the authority, published this year, have given the numbers of complaints received and have analysed them into various categories, the IBA rather more fully than the BBC: and the IBA has also described its complaints review committee and its working. I should therefore like to start by thanking both the corporation and the authority, on behalf of your Lordships, for this response to our complaint.
It is noticeable from the figures of both the corporation and the authority that the numbers of complaints are very small compared with the huge numbers of viewers. I think it is reasonable to assume that most dissatisfiedviewers—and there are dissatisfied or, rather, offended viewers—regard a letter of complaint as unproductive, and simply switch off. In this connection I have to thank Mrs. Mary Whitehouse for providing me with a voluminous dossier of correspondence from the National Viewers and Listeners Association, of which she is the indefatigable president.
There is not time in this Short Debate to give details of offensive programmes, but I shall just give two instances. One was a BBC schools broadcasting programme for teenagers. It presented a choice of three relationships for their future lives. The first was a couple engaged to be conventionally married; the second was a couple not married but "shacked up", in modern parlance: the third was a couple of homosexuals. To teach youngsters that promiscuous and perverted relationships are a serious alternative to marriage as a way of life is both dangerous and irresponsible. It is treating them as bodies without souls, and cannot but deform the future spiritual balance of their lives. The BBC defended the programme as being educational.
The other example that I should like to give, to be fair, was broadcast by IBA's Channel 4, which showed a picture of the Crucifixion with the Christ figure hanging on the Cross with a cigar in his mouth, as a parody of an advertisement for cigars. I am glad to say that the IBA had the grace to apologise. Those are two particularly bad examples of what comes over on the television screen, but it is true to say that the worst of these examples are very rough. I must also say, from seeing a number of them, that the replies from the corporation give very little encouragement to those who go to the trouble of writing in.
On the credit side—and there are credits—last summer the BBC published a guidance handbook to their staff on violence in programmes. The impression recorded in recent months is that there has been less violence in programmes before nine o'clock. This is very much to be welcomed, but we have to note that, nowadays, youngsters watch until late hours, and with video recording it is possible for programmes to be seen at any time. I would express the hope that both the BBC and the IBA may be encouraged to publish similar guidance on obscenity, had language and blasphemy, because I believe that the trend is still steadily downwards.
Like most noble Lords, my deep concern is at the erosion of standards in our national life today. Noble Lords will remember, I am sure, the recent debate initiated by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the belief of many noble Lords (and, I think, many outside) that the trend of TV programmes to show more sex and violence influences young minds to contribute to the national scene of violence and immorality. A recent schools report which I referred to in the House tells us that the average viewing by schoolchildren is 23 to 24 hours a week—more hours than they actually spend in the classroom. So there is no doubt that television is the most powerful influence in our lives today.
On the other hand, one cannot read the reports of the BBC and the IBA without recognising that the authorities are trying to discharge their great responsibilities fairly by the nation as a whole. Their basic problem, I believe, is that violence and sex are both of them dramatic, and the public like them up to a point. But judgment of what is excessive is inevitably subjective. In making a judgment, the television authorities are continuously reminded of the standards that are acceptable on the live stage. The playwrights and directors, who produce their huge flow of programmes, are the same people who produce the programmes for the live theatre. I am sure that the BBC and the IBA are conscious of their obligation to educate and inform as well as to entertain, but reviewing the record of the past 20 years it is evident to all of us that they can do no more than slow up the downward trend. They cannot stop it.
It is a fact that throughout its history, not only in our country but throughout the world, the live stage has had a decisive influence on the standards, the life and the morality of a nation. Few instances would be as dramatic as the contribution that the great composer Verdi made to the Italian Risorgimento in the last century, hut I think that it would be true to say that Garibaldi, with all his marvellous courage, could not have succeeded in uniting the nation to follow him without the wonderful songs and music of Verdi to support him and warm the hearts of his supporters.
All playwrights and composers, to some extent, exert a critical influence on the customs and standards of their people. There will always be some who seek to cause shock or sensation by carrying the trend downwards. The reason for the lack of restraint on the live theatre today, as we all well know, is that the statute law of the Obscene Publications Acts of 1959 and 1964 has proved to be a broken reed where a conviction before a jury has become almost impossible. Its effectiveness is limited to the magistrates' courts. But Her Majesty's Government, I do not need to remind my noble friend Lord Elton, continue to take a stand on these Acts, even to relying on them next week, as noble Lords will know, in the cable television Bill, to provide safeguards for maintaining standards in regard to the vast range of new material shortly to he discharged upon an expectant public.
In the meantime, it is evident that the Government stance on these Acts undermines the position of both the corporation and the authority. Neither the Normanbrook undertaking for the BBC nor the 1973 Act for the IBA are strong enough to insulate them.

245
Inevitably, the live theatre gives the lead that the television programmes follow. The logic of my argument is that Her Majesty's Government have a compelling obligation to reform and strengthen the obscene publications legislation as the first step to the BBC and the IBA restraining offensive material from television programmes. I beg to move for Papers.
3.18 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, blessed is the person who in a short debate avoids repeating what previous speakers have said and manages to speak rapidly. I intend to abide by that opening maxim. However, in doing so I must say that those of us in this House who hold the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, in affectionate regard—there are such noble Lords in all parts of the Chamber—will first be grateful to him for having put down this Motion. Furthermore, we will not have been surprised by the content of his speech, attacking, as it did, violence and sex in the theatre, in other places of entertainment generally and, today in particular, in broadcasting. Many of us—and here I include myself and my noble friends—admire the noble Lord's campaign and think that it is justified. Having said that, I need not repeat what he has said so eloquently.
It would be ungracious—would it not?—if, in looking at a report that covers the 60th anniversary of broadcasting in the United Kingdom and the 50th anniversary of external services, we did not, as a House, say how grateful we are for the general standards of our broadcasting, which are really an example to the world. There are many nations who are jealous of us, whether they be over the Atlantic or nearer home.
It is a fact that over the past year there have been two great events that have allowed our broadcasting system to show all the virtues and powers that it possesses. First, there was the Falklands battle. Without any doubt at all that campaign was shown to many viewers in a way that was exemplary. In other ways the manner in which that campaign was handled in broadcasting, and especially on television, was questioned. To some extent the broadcasting authorities were exonerated by the committee which sat upon this matter, but I must confess that I shall wonder until the end of my life how it came about that, in the course of a campaign in which our country was involved and in which our servicemen were in jeopardy, our broadcasting authorities called to the television camera former admirals and former generals in order to discuss with them how the future of this campaign would, from their point of view, be organised. I shall never understand that; but there it is. Generally, as I have said, the broadcasting authorities earned credit for the way in which they dealt with the Falklands.
There was also the visit of the Pope—a great historic event which brought joy not just to the Roman Catholic citizens of our country, but to those of all denominations and no denomination at all. For all of us it was indeed a great national, spiritual event and we are deeply grateful to the broadcasting authorities for what they did in regard to that programme. We have also seen, for the first time, "Breakfast Television". Some of us find that it increases our appetite for
246
breakfast, others that it increases our appetite for television, and others still, that it does not have any effect except a deleterious one on our appetites generally. Nevertheless, it is a welcome innovation and most of us think that it has been handled extremely well.
I pass rapidly to deal with some of the programmes in which I believe your Lordships are particularly interested, and "Today in Parliament" is one of them. With great ability those who organise that programme manage both to quote and, indeed, to summarise the deliberations of Parliament in both Houses with great skill. That programme is of great interest to the public. Some of us regret the time at which it is broadcast, but we realise that it has to be at a fairly late hour at all events in order to deal with the late debates in both Houses.
I turn to "Yesterday in Parliament". I am not very original in raising this matter but I must raise it in regard to this debate which has been initiated so well by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. When it comes to "Yesterday in Parliament" I really wonder whether those who represent that programme do us the honour of spending more than a fleeting minute, if that, in this your Lordships' House. So many debates of great interest to the ordinary citizen go completely unannounced, not even summarised and not even mentioned. Many is the day when we are not even mentioned at all—it is as though we had not sat. I remember well one particular debate, and I do so not just because the Opposition happened to win it. I am thinking of the debate on equal pay, which is of so much interest to so many of our citizens, especially our women citizens. It was a fact that the Government were defeated, and that is exciting enough because it occurs all too rarely from the point of view of my noble friends and myself. However, it did occur and it was an exciting event. But apart from that it was not even mentioned. The Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Bill is of great interest, not only because of what it says but also in order that people should know that what the media had said about it was not quite accurate. It was very briefly referred to in regard to the first Committee day, but not referred to at all, so far as I remember, on the second Committee day, and that is bad.
In order to keep the balance, let me talk about some programmes that really are good. If we are thinking as parliamentarians—and I suppose we are allowed to give ourselves that description—I am sure we all agree that "Yes, Minister" is a brilliant programme. How enjoyable it is to all of us who know and respect civil servants and who know and respect Ministers. The relationship between them is depicted on that programme with such skill, amusement and expertise that I believe that it does merit praise. Another programme (especially from the point of view of those of us sitting here) is the recent film of "The Palace of Westminster". My noble friend the Leader of the Opposition was good enough to whisper in my ear before I rose, "Do not forget the programme called 'The Palace of Westminster' ". I have not forgotten it. I am sure your Lordships think that your Lordships' House was very well depicted, with such dignity and with such love of tradition, in that programme.

247
Those of us who are interested in ensuring that the public are safeguarded—and I suppose that applies to noble Lords on every side of the House—appreciate very much, on behalf of the consumer, the courageous programme entitled "Checkpoint". It must be the most intricate task, for any lawyer advising the BBC on the law of defamation, to pass the various programmes that take place, but one notes that few, if any, writs for defamation seem to follow and therefore the situation must be very well handled and much, if not all, of what is said must be true.
In my last minute before the No. 9 goes up on the clock I must pay tribute to two other services: the language services and local radio. I was going to read to your Lordships the portion of the report that tells us what is happening in Eastern Europe, but I will leave your Lordships to read it for yourselves. For my part I should like to offer to a very great service my congratulations on their anniversary.
3.28 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for introducing this debate. I hope that this precedent will be followed by debating the annual reports of other large institutions that affect our daily life. In pursuit of our parliamentary duties we are compelled from time to time to read reports—annual reports, Government reports, and so on. In anticipation of this debate I read the annual report which we are now discussing. I found it easy to read, most impressive and an excellent record of good work done in our name. I would add my congratulations to the BBC for the contents of that report on the discharge of their immense public responsibility.
I should like to discuss not programme content—that will be covered by many Members of your Lordships' House—but the balance in broadcasting. I am a little disturbed about the present balance between the commercial sector and the BBC. This emerges in many aspects of the report, particularly in the field of new technology, DBS, satellite broadcasting and so on. We are fortunate in Britain to have established the right balance with on one side a commercial venture and on the other side a fee-funded broadcasting system. It is important that those two separate broadcasting systems should not regard themselves as all the time in strict competition, and that we should encourage a degree of co-existence between the two broadcasting systems, rather than have them feel all the time that they are competing in the race for ratings. It is important to the commercial sector that they have high ratings as a measurement of their success for their advertising clients.
But I do not think that the same pressure need necessarily exist on the BBC. They have, of course, to obtain consumer acceptance of their programmes, and in that respect they do remarkably well. But it does not necessarily mean that they have to be two weeks ahead of ITV in starting up breakfast television, having already established a first-class radio network, comprising Radio 1, with several million listeners, the pop radio system, with 6 million, the light entertain system, with 2 million, the cultural channel, Channel 3, with 100,000 and Radio 4, which is a great
248
programme, with 2½million listeners. Having spent money in order to create this excellent radio network, there is no necessity to spread local radio BBC with 50 or 60 stations to supplement or compete with the local radio which is supported by advertising revenue.
In their ambitions I think that the BBC are determined to beat the IBA, and this seems to have become an obsession. The BBC must recognise that they operate within the limits of a £46 annual licence fee per person. While that is relatively cheap for the viewer—indeed, according to the London Business School survey, it works out that ITV costs the viewer 1½p per hour's viewing and the BBC costs 2p per hour per viewer—the BBC will need to recognise that £46 per annum is a considerable burden on old-age pensioners who enjoy the advantages of television, which is an important element in keeping them reasonably happy at home. So in examining their ambitions. in my view the BBC must not pursue the independent stations in every area with a consequent increasing burden on their resources. This applies not only in the multiplication of local radio, but in the introduction of the breakfast television system, because I am quite satisfied that we do not require two breakfast television stations, and there is no need always to introduce competition in every area of broadcasting and television.
I now turn to the matter of the direct broadcasting satellite system. I should be interested if the Minister could tell us a little about where the BBC now stands in relation to the DBS system. At the weekend the press told us that the BBC was going ahead with the direct broadcasting satellite system, and a few days later, in yesterday's Financial Times, there was an article expressing the view that there is some doubt whether the BBC will pursue its ambitions in this direction. This is a very expensive business. It is a very expensive system. We all want to see Britain in the high technology communications field, but this is another area in which there could be complete collaboration between the independent broadcasting system and the BBC in order to use the same satellite systems. We are already co-operating in terrestrial broadcasting systems, and there is no reason why that should not continue in relation to the DBS system.
I have looked at the accounts of the BBC, and though the annual report is very informative, it is not as informative on the breakdown of its expenditure. It does not tell us how much the BBC is spending on research and development. The BBC has great experts, who are very good. The work that they are doing is impressive. But I wonder whether this is an area which could be shared between independent television and the BBC, so imposing a lesser burden in relation to the fees required to maintain the BBC, I should very much like to see a greater degree of collaboration between the two systems.
I should like the Minister to tell us a little about the BBC's ventures into commercial enterprises. I am not referring simply to the success of the computer, but I notice that the BBC is pressing Thorn EMI for a 50 per cent. partnership in relation to the satellite system. In so far as Thorn EMI has a 50 per cent. holding in Thames Television, I wonder whether there is any danger of blurring the edges between the fee-funding system and the commercial system, which I believe

249
should be kept quite separate. Whenever one becomes involved with commercial ventures, there is always an element of risk, and I wonder whether the BBC should be in this field.
There are many questions that I should like to ask, and in particular one relating to the structure of the BBC, I have always believed that the chairman of the BBC—and we are fortunate to have had many good chairmen—should be in a position to exercise a great deal of authority in the BBC, I notice from the annual accounts that he is paid £23,500 a year, and that there are 24 executives in the BBC who receive anything between £30,000 and £50.000 a year. I believe that the chairman is the key to bringing the outside view to the corporation and its technocrats, and that he should be up-graded so that he can exercise the degree of authority which is commensurate with his responsibilities.
3.37 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, naturally I am very predisposed towards this magnificent glossy report for 1984, although, according to our Order Paper, we are discussing the report for 1983. However, because bishops are always well ahead of everybody else, I am presuming that this is the document before us. I am predisposed to it because it starts with a most magnificent picture of our lovely Norwich cathedral during "Songs of Praise", and when we are on television as well as the air I hope they will come close up to the cathedral and once again we shall enjoy seeing that noble and magnificent cathedral which my predecessor started to build in 1096. Therefore, I am predisposed to the report.
I believe that although this report emphasises well the regional work of the BBC, both in sound and on screen, it needs to obtain a better balance of the use of the money from the licence fees paid by people throughout the country. I was surprised to hear that £10 million is being spent by the corporation on its Christmas programmes. I was delighted and imagined that there would be a tremendous number of new church programmes of all sorts being broadcast throughout the Christmas period, but the Foreword suggests that it is to be spent more on entertainment programmes. However, there is money to spend and I believe the report shows us that if more of it could be spent in the regions than at the centre, great and good things would come, We were encouraged to find that one of our small programmes on job hunting, which went out from our studios at Norwich, on "Look East" and "BBC East", in fact, produced a number of new jobs for people. This is a very strong social concern of the corporation and shows how well it works in relation to the regions. So I would stress that the corporation should consider whether it has the right balance between the money it spends at the centre and the amount it spends in the regions.
I now come to the question of language, and even the bad language in the home, which the corporation brings to us. I make no criticisms of the corporation as against the authority, because our debate is specifically on the corporation's report. Therefore, what I say could relate also to the authority but is specifically here, by our debate, to do with the corporation. I wonder, in the sacred name of freedom, whether we need to have so much bad language, for the sake, I
250
gather, of verisimilitude. If the argument is that as people swear in other parts of the country they had better swear on the screen, so that we really feel comfortably at home, it is a rather weak argument. It comes under the same heading as we give in our sermons, when we have a little note in the margin: "Argument weak. Shout a bit here".
We stand in debt to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, for both instituting and initiating this debate and speaking so straitly and courteously about the need of standards. I would follow him in saying how grateful I suppose nearly all of us in the House must be to Mary Whitehouse and NVALA for the unpopular but resolute way in which she keeps going on this question of standards. However, sometimes this question of standards is sheerly a matter of self-control. For instance. I happened to switch on and find myself watching, for a few brief moments, a bridge game. I am such a simple Prelate that I do not really understand how bridge works, but clearly there was a bitter argument between one bridge expert and a lady bridge expert opposite him. Quite gratuitously, she used the sacred name angrily and grumpily. I saw no reason for that. As the sacred name is precious to millions of people in the British Isles it would have been the simplest of things to edit that out. I do not believe that the sacred name of liberty would have been harmed if the precious name of the Saviour had not been used as lightly as that.
Therefore, I believe that there should be constant vigilance on behalf of the corporation in the matter of terms of blasphemy and of obscenity. I am interested in pages 52 and 53 of the report where the corporation honestly and openly has its chapter on the complaints it receives. They let us know that there were 132 complaints about particular "bedroom scenes", as it rather coyly describes this particular action on the screen. But its way of answering it is to say on page 53:
"Many [complaints] were from people who would clearly prefer BBC drama to present a moralistic view of the world".
Why the BBC should consider that it ought to present a licentious view of the world rather than a moralistic view is not clear. It is probably a good thing for us sometimes to ask, "Why not be brave enough to present a moralistic view because of the influence sound and vision have upon people?"
A word, therefore, about the religious programmes. I congratulate the departments concerned on their volume, their output, their balance and their sensitivity. Here, again, locally we find that the opportunities are immense. But I have again to say that we have to pay the clergyman who acts as our representative at Radio Norfolk, because the BBC cannot afford to offer any money at all, even towards his petrol. He does tremendous work on local Radio Norfolk as our religious representative for all the churches in Norfolk.
Having said that, I would say that the department is a good one, it works very hard indeed, and I believe that the corporation should put more money into it, especially with Christian Heritage Year coming up next year and with the visit of Dr. Billy Graham, which will be news indeed. Therefore, let the corporation's religious department not fear the danger of proselytising but accept the opportunity of

251
proclaiming the Christian gospel in a Christian nation, especially in a year called Christian Heritage Year and in Mission England and the visit of Dr. Graham. It is worth remembering that more people watch "Songs of Praise" on BBC than watch "Match of the Day"—even when Norwich City are carrying on their winning ways, and are marching from strength to strength.

The Rate Support Grant—England
3.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to repeat a statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The statement reads as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the rate support grant settlement in England for 1984–85. The necessary order is being laid today, and there will be a debate early in the new year.
"Local authority current spending forms part of the total of public expenditure. For next year, the House endorsed that total in the debate following the publication of the Autumn Statement by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The rate support grant report which is published today (and copies of which will be in the Library) deals with three elements which bear on the level of local authority current spending. These are, first, the targets for individual authorities which, in aggregate, relate to the total figure in the Autumn Statement: second, the amount of, and method of distributing, rate support grant to local authorities; and third, the arrangements for grant holdback for authorities who spend above target. There is of course a fourth element—namely, the level of rates and precepts; these are fixed by each local authority in the light of its own spending decisions and of the impact of the other three elements.
"In each of the last four years. local authority current spending has far exceeded the provision made in the public expenditure white papers. In each RSG settlement, therefore, my predecessors have had to take account of this by increasing the provision for the following year. For instance, for the current year, 1983–84, the provision was increased this time last year by about £1.1 billion, or around 6 per cent. Despite that, local authorities have still budgeted to overspend by a further £770 million or 3.8 per cent. In the context of our policy of holding public spending in check—a policy repeatedly endorsed by this House—such substantial overspending cannot be ignored. In order to keep total public spending under control, other spending programmes have to be cut, including local authorities' own capital spending. Those who complain loudest about restrictions on capital spending are often those who have forced them on us by excessive current spending.
"Of course, not all local authorities are equally to blame. On the contrary, around 80 per cent. of all authorities are budgeting this year to spend at or
252
within 2 per cent. above target. The great bulk of the overspend arises from the decisions of the remaining 20 per cent. of authorities to spend above those levels—some of them by tens of millions of pounds. Indeed, no more than sixteen authorities are responsible for around three-quarters of the total overspend. As the House knows, it is the Government's intention to deal directly with that problem of the highest overspenders in the Bill which I hope to introduce before Christmas. But that must be for another day. This Statement relates to 1984–85 which of course cannot be affected by the proposed legislation.
"For next year, therefore, we must sustain pressure for real reductions in local authority current spending across the board. At the same time, we must make a greater distinction between the majority of local authorities who have made efforts to find economies and the minority of high spenders who have not.
"Since August I have been consulting local authorities on the main proposals for next year's settlement. There have been two meetings of the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance; my honourable friends and I have met a great many deputations from individual councils; and we have received written representations from many more. As the House will see, we have taken account of some of the points raised with us in the settlement which I am announcing today. The main features are as follows.
"Provision for local authority current spending for 1984–85 is £20.4 billion—an increase of over half a billion pounds on the provision made in last February's public expenditure White Paper. The aggregate of targets comes to just over this figure, £20.5 billion. This is about 3 per cent. higher than the total of targets for the current year. The basis of fixing targets remains broadly as I proposed in August. The distinction between low spending and high spending authorities will be much more marked next year than hitherto. The targets for most low spending authorities represent a cash increase of 3 per cent. over their budget this year. The targets for most high spenders represent a cash cut of up to 6 per cent. In the light of the representations since August, I am proposing three minor changes which will have the effect of increasing targets for some 107 authorities. The three changes, which all operate to reduce the budget baseline and so increase the headroom for next year, cover budgeted transfers from housing revenue account; budgeted interest receipts representing more than 10 per cent. of expenditure; and expenditure more than 2 per cent. below target for 1983–84. The third change will give those authorities like Birmingham who budget well below target an incentive to continue to do so.
"Even with these changes, the targets are tough for everyone, but they are much tougher on the minority of high spending authorities where the biggest scope for economy lies.
"I now come to grant. Aggregate Exchequer grant for next year will be £11.9 billion, £90 million more than in the current year. It is 51.9 per cent. of total relevant expenditure compared with 52.8 per cent.

253
for this year. Although there are a number of technical changes in the method of distributing the grant to local authorities, these should have only a limited effect on the individual ratepayer.
"The third element in the settlement is the grant holdback. As the House knows, the system is intended to reinforce the pressure of block grant by making sure that the impact of overspending falls on ratepayers to whom local authorities are accountable and not on the general body of taxpayers. For authorities which exceed their target, I confirm the pattern of hold back proposed in October. At ratepayer level, holdback will be at the rate of two pence in rate poundage terms for the first one percentage point of overspend; four pence for the second; eight pence for the third; and nine pence for each percentage point above that.
"Next, disregards: certain spending is disregarded, that is, it does not count against an authority's spending for the purposes of the target and holdback regime. As this year, we shall disregard increased urban programme expenditure by partnership and programme authorities, and increased expenditure on civil defence. For next year, there will be an additional disregard. I propose to disregard increased expenditure on those community care schemes which are jointly financed with health authorities. I hope that this relaxation will be widely welcomed by local authorities.
"The House will wish to know the impact of all this on the level of rates. If local authorities budget to spend in line with the targets I have set, the average increases facing ratepayers next year should be very low. For some ratepayers, there could be rate reductions. High rates are unfair to ratepayers, damaging to industry's competitiveness and destructive of jobs. It is now up to each local authority to take its spending decisions in the light of the announcements I have made and with a clear view of the impact of those decisions upon their ratepayers."
My Lords, that completes the Statement.
3.54 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. It makes extremely gloomy news, gloomy listening, and it will make very gloomy reading. The Minister started by talking about local authority current spending exceeding the provisions made in the public expenditure White Paper. I should like to know what are the comparable figures for Government overspending. Is it not true that local government spending has been kept in far greater control and check than Government spending? Is it not also true that the increased amount of overspend is a half per cent. of public expenditure and a quarter per cent. of the GDP—that is £770 million? Talking in the global terms of the budget we are considering for this country, that is just a drop in the ocean.
The Minister then said that other spending programmes have to be cut. I wonder whether he would tell me which of the other spending programmes of central Government are being cut and
254
which are being increased? He went on to say that those who complain loudest about restrictionson capital spending are often those who have forced them on us by excessive current spending. If the Minister had been with a number of industrialists as I was last night—I regret to say that I do not think they are very firm supporters of my party—he would have heard what they had to say about the Government's lack of investment in infrastructure in this country and the need to increase the capital spending.
When the Minister said that 80 per cent. of all authorities are budgeting this year to spend at or within 2 per cent. above target because of the changes that the Government have made on penalties—to which I shall come in a moment—it still means that they will be forced to make very real cuts. He went on to say that for nextyear we must sustain pressure for real reductions in local authority counter-spending across the board. There is no indication in this Statement, apart from the figures and the jargon which I agree cannot be avoided, about what the effect will be on the community and on people to whom this will make a great difference.
The cash increase over the 1983–84 level which the Statement sets out is, in real terms, a cash decrease; it is not an increase at all. It is a decrease for 1984–85 because once provision for inflation at 5 per cent. is taken into account, plus the 1 per cent. cash decrease in real terms, there is a cutback of 6 per cent.
At about this time last year I remember speaking from the Dispatch Box and referring to the 53 per cent. grant which I reminded noble Lords had dropped from 61 per cent. when the Government first came to power. Now we are talking about a decrease to 52 per cent. This means that for 1984–85, rates will go up 7 per cent. without penalties. With penalties many authorities will have to increase rates by over 20 per cent. just to stand still.
I wonder what the Minister would say to the Conservative leader of the Association of County Councils who described these ceilings as unachievable and entailing severe cuts in budgets and services. This is not just a one-sided or one-party question of how people will be affected. It will affect everybody everywhere. What it means in human and real terms, based on an assessment made by civil servants and officials on expenditure, is that there will be about 12,000 fewer teachers; over 8,000 day care places in day nurseries and elderly day care centres and other day care places will be closed; over 46,000 fewer homes will be able to receive home help services. There will be over 3,000 fewer firemen, and reductions in concessionary fares for the elderly. These are just a few of the examples.
Recently the Minister for the Arts put out a consultation paper in which he said that the Government might look favourably on local authorities being able to increase the two pence rate that they could spend on the Arts. I ask your Lordships how on earth can they spend that when they will not even be able to get the money to deal with the basic, most needed human services? These targets mean that the poorest inner city boroughs will be treated badly. For example, Hackney is at the top of the Department of the Environment's own deprivation list and it will have a cut of 1.9 per

255
cent. Haringey, which is one of the most highly deprived areas in the country and one with the highest number of ethnic groups, will also be cut in that way.
If local democracy is to be treated in this way, it means that people will not be able to deal with local government as they have in the past. It seems to me that what the Government are aiming at is really to do away with local government altogether, to run everything from the centre and to have local authorities merely as agencies.
4 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords. I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. Like the noble Baroness, I think it makes extremely dismal reading and is another very severe hit below the belt for the long-suffering ratepayer. I think that once the effects of this have been borne home to the ratepayers and the local authorities, the Conservative Government will not be able to pose as the champions of value for money in local government since they seem to be so determined to drive up the rates and to slash the quality of local government services.
Is it not a fact that the Government are putting forward the most severe grant penalties for local council spending over targets—targets which have been fixed arbitrarily for them by central Government? Is the Minister aware that informed sources in local authority circles believe that if all the 410 local authorities in England spend the same in real terms in 1984–85 as they have spent in previous years, only 29 of them will be able to have rate increases of 10 per cent. or less, while many councils will need much more substantial rate rises? This is merely to maintain the present level of services, and not for any improvement. I believe that most members of local authorities will not accept the Minister's assurance that rate increases will be low.
The increase offered is 3 per cent. higher than in the current year. This means that once again the Government are understating the rates of inflation. Is the Minister aware that the Association of County Councils criticised this understatement of the rate of inflation last year? They maintain that if the £600 million which was lost by that underestimation last year had been made good, then the overspend of expenditure over target of 3.8 per cent. would have been cut to £171 million, or just 0.8 per cent. overspend. I suspect that the Government have got their sums wrong again. If so, will the Minister be bold enough to say that they will make good this year's underestimate in due course?
Does the Minister recall assuring some of us on this side of the House during the passage of the 1980 Bill that the grant-related expenditure assessment would he used only as a benchmark for grant distribution, and not as a prescriptive target? Yet it has become a major element of settlement over the last four years. Can the Minister not see that the effects of the targeting policy have been to undermine the basic principle of the block grant system, the idea of rate poundage equalisation for similar levels of services provided?
The Government have set unrealistic targets for local authorities, and on the basis of those targets the
256
local authorities are facing devastating penalties. Do the Government realise that these decisions affect not only the high spenders—mainly the bigger Labour-controlled authorities—buttheir own supporters in the shire counties. where Buckinghamshire expects to face an overspend of £ 10 million, which will attract a hold-hack of £32 million, while Northumberland must reduce its expenditure by £6 million to attract a £12 million hold-back? These are only two examples of many counties which will be caught by Government action.
The Ministers sit in glasshouses throwing stones at the local authorities, and they are seemingly still quite oblivious to the overspending of Government departments. Will the Minister acknowledge that he is not in the front line, that it is the local councillors who are, and that the Government are expecting them and their officers to produce miracles? Does the Minister agree that local councils must be directly accountable to their electors for their spending decisions, and that this might well be better achieved if we introduce proportional representation into local elections and the reform of local government finances?
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, may I ask the House whether this is a time to make speeches, or whether it is customary purely to ask questions?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I will read from the Companion to the Standing Orders:
"Ministerial statements are made for the information of the House, and, although brief comments and questions for clarification are allowed, such statements should not be made the occasion for an immediate debate, unless the House so order".
At the same time, I think I ought to tell my noble friend that it is customary to allow the spokesmen of the two Front Benches a certain amount of latitude in this respect. I do not think that the noble Baroness has exceeded that.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords will the Minister, when replying, be able to tell the House what percentage of the £770 million overspend that he is talking about is due to the actions of the GLC and the other metropolitan counties which are due to be removed?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, if I may respond to the comments which were made by the noble Baronesses, it seems to be my fate always to be having to respond to the ladies in the House—far more difficult a task than had it been the other way round. First of all, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, referred to the comparable figures for Government overspending, as she put it. We always get this when it runs round year after year. The fact is that you cannot compare apples with pears. Local authorities do not have social security and other such demand-led expenditure with which to deal: and they do not have to deal with defence, although many of them seem to be running their own nuclear programmes, and so on. But that really is not the same thing.
The noble Baroness referred to the £770 million as a drop in the ocean. Last year it was £1.1 billion. I do not know the figures for the previous years. For each figure the ratchet goes up and comes into effect: and I am one of those old-fashioned guys who still think that £770 million is £770 million, any way you look at it.

257
I do not consider it a drop in the ocean—quite the contrary. I would even think that it was less of a drop in the ocean if I was one of those—and I am—providing only a small percentage (in my case, a very tiny percentage) of the money.
The noble Baroness asked which other spending programmes will be cut—a perfectly proper question to put, as, indeed, were the rest of her questions. The Statement, when referring to that, says in effect that, with a finite sum of money to distribute, if you spend it on one thing you cannot spend it on another. That is the reality—which programme you then decide to cut because you have to validate (as we have validated year by year) the totality of spending. That is for the Government to decide. The fact is that if they do not have the £770 million, or whatever, they have taken away from them the opportunity to choose which programmes will receive more and which less. That is what the Statement means.
The noble Baroness asked whether I knew that the industrialists were concerned and were anxious that there should be an increase in capital spending. On that, I entirely agree with her. I have spoken many times in your Lordships' House deploring the fact that the totality of capital spending in local government has fallen as dramatically as it has. It is really astonishing; but I would simply say that a major factor in that respect is that the spending on current account has been at the expense of capital spending.
The noble Baronesswill well recall that when Circular 45 came out in 1976 and local government was told to reduce its expenditure by 3 per cent. in one year, it did so: and it did so mainly by reducing capital spending. That seems to have been a pattern which has gone on ever since. So, yes, I agree with the noble Baroness in saying that we need more capital spending; but one has to look at what is happening with local government current spending to put that into perspective.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, asked whether I appreciated the effect on people. It is all about spending on people, but the fact is that over 80 per cent. of local authorities have managed, and are managing, to work within the parameters set down. The whole issue is about spending what we can afford, when for so many years we went on doing the opposite.
The noble Baroness referred to the annual Exchequer grant of 52 per cent. this year and said that the rates would go up by 20 per cent. Might I just say to her that last year we had the same horror stories from her and her right honourable and honourable friends in another place; and the fact is that when the annual Exchequer grant was reduced last year—not by 1 per cent., as this time, but by 3 per cent. in the year—the average rate increases in the country were 64 per cent., the lowest for many years. The reality is that in the majority of cases local government was starting to face up to what has to be done.
Then we got also from the noble Baroness other horror stories: the 12,000 fewer this or that, the aged persons' homes, and the usual panoply that is trotted out. Of course, it is nothing of the kind. I am second to none in my respect for the noble Baroness and her knowledge of local government matters, but it really will not do for her to trot out the annual retinue. She
258
knows as well as I do that if there do have to be cuts—and she also knows that I am a staunch advocate of cutting what it costs before you start cutting what you provide—each authority has the choice and can decide its own priorities; and of course the horror stories that she mentions are rarely anyone's priorities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, referred to "hitting below the belt" of the ratepayers, driving up rates. I have said many times here that what drives up rates is not the level of grant but the level of spending. That is even more the case when grant is related, as it is now, to spending in a way, with holdbacks and so on, that was not the case in the past. So I definitely do not accept that. The record does not show it, and it will not be shown in the future, in my view.
The noble Baroness, I am sure, will excuse me if I do not cover every point that she made because she did make quite a speech, in which I was very interested. She said that the 3 per cent. increase understates inflation. The experience of those who had to cope with the forecasts of Governments, of which I was one on the other side, year after year was that the estimates of inflation were never anywhere near the actual figure. They were a joke in relation to what inflation became. In the event, last year was the first time that we had inflation which was in fact below what had been allowed for. I am hoping that, if local government can get its pay settlements right—andthat is the key, as the noble Baroness will know, because of the fact that 70 per cent. of expenditure goes on pay—and if they can be kept at levels below the inflation level, that figure can be more than easily contained. No, I should not say "easily", but it can be contained if the will is there. She asked whether the Government would make good at the end of the day. That is, of course, what validation is, as she knows. Each year it goes up, and I referred to the "ratchet effect", because that is what it is.
Finally, can I just say, to make the point as strongly as I know how, that we have to look at the settlement this time in the context of the fact that here we are talking about a 1984–85 figure when the spending so far in the totality of local government has been 12 per cent.—I repeat, 12 per cent.—more than the figure the Government had in its 1980 White Paper forecast. In fact, it is 4 per cent. more in real terms, when the Government tried so hard to get the spending reduced by several percentage points.
Lord Raglan: My Lords, the noble Lord gave figures for estimated local authority current expenditure. Can he give us the estimate for local authority capital expenditure and say how the balance between capital and current expenditure has changed in, let us say, the last decade?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, if I can try the second half first off the top of my head, it goes something like this. In 1974–75 at the time of the reorganisation—and if I get any of these figures wrong the noble Lord will make allowances, but I think I have them in my mind—capital spending, taking a level figure of 260 (never mind 260 what, for the moment), had become 100 by 1978–79, and by last year that figure had become 46. In the current year it is expected to be some 66 and I think, if nothing else, that gives an

259
indication of the enormity of what has happened to capital spending within local government. Actually it very much makes the case put by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk; but that is what has happened. I will write to the noble Lord giving actual numbers, but those are the figures. I am sure that my officials who are listening are listening either slightly mesmerised or in some horror, but I can assure them, as I do the noble Lord, that those figures are not pulled out of the air but are based on facts carried somewhere in my mind. As for the other figure, I have probably covered the noble Lord's point, but, if not, I am sure he will ask me again. But I will write to him with details.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to answer just one brief question? He pushed aside any talk of the cuts in social services, of which I gave just a few examples. Can he tell me how those authorities which are not spending on what we might call "municipal frivolities", and who are being as careful as they can be, are going to be able not only to reinstate the social services but keep up their really basic and most important services under the sort of cuts we have heard about today?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the noble Baroness knows that the priorities for spending are always for the authority itself to decide. But I would say that if I were in the position of an authority which was having its grant cut, for whichever reason, the first thing I would do is look at what it costs to provide the services. The fact is that those authorities which concern the noble Baroness so much, as I well know, happen to be authorities which in many instances are not willing to look at the cost of provision.
For example, as regards opportunities for cost saving by contracting out services, why should Birmingham be able to save £3 million a year not by contracting out but by going to tender, whereas other authorities (who need that money every bit as much) are unwilling even to consider providing services in that way? I would have thought that that was so relevant to the ability to have money to be able to provide services. I will not take advantage of some examples of what I call "loony" spending and reel them off, which I could do, and make points; that is not my intention, nor, I am sure, is it the noble Baroness's intention either. But the fact is that one really does wonder sometimes, because there is one authority—I will not mention names—which in the year ended June 1983 had taken on 676 staff, and is still adding to its staff, yet claims that it cannot afford even to maintain its current level of services. I just do not understand that at all.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of the smaller shire counties, like Warwickshire, which have continuously budgeted prudently, have low rateable values and have cut expenditure to the bone, find year after year that they seem to come off proportionately worse than the larger spenders, and in fact the more economical they are the worse they do? Can the Minister give us any hope that there will be some sort of reward and incentive for these low spenders in the future?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, my noble friend raises a very interesting point on exactly the opposite side of the fence. He highlights the problem of having to take a finite sum of money and distribute it on the principle of equalisation, and yet having to take care of the very important point that he makes, although, as he will have heard in another place and again here today, concern has been expressed in the opposite direction. I know the position, because I went to Warwickshire and spent two hours talking to the members of the council about their particular situation. It is very true that they have tried very hard to work within the parameters, and in many ways they have been successful. Their concern is: where do they go from here?
All that my noble friend's question brings out is the great difficulty which exists in trying to do this whole complex settlement in a way which fits all the situations that arise. If my answer to him today is less than clear, it is because the situation is less than clear. But I assure him on this very important point that it is something which we are considering carefully, in the same way as we are considering the points which the noble Baroness has raised. There is no absolute black and white—I had better be careful what I say in thatsense—and there is no clear-cut basis which is so simple that the solution is easy. It is a very difficult matter, and my noble friend's point is, by itself, very valid. I assure him that we have it very clearly in mind.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I have a very brief question. Can the Minister inform the House whether the Government intend to make a similar statement in respect of Wales?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I do not recall having made a separate statement for Wales before in the past when this matter has arisen. But may I ask whether the noble Lord will allow me to come back to him on this, which I gladly undertake to do.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, is my noble friend able to answer the question which I asked him?
Lord Bellwin: Yes, my Lords. The reason why I did not take up my noble friend's question before was that I was trying to cover the points raised by the Front Benches. In fact of the £770 million overspend, the figure for the GLC is round about £500 million—
Lord Diamond: My Lords—
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to continue, I am able to say to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that I am informed that a statement on Wales will he made in another place very shortly.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, if my recollection is correct, the original Statement that he read out included on two occasions differences in cash terms which led to a certain conclusion, without at the same time giving the figures in real terms which would have led to an opposite conclusion? Will he please take the greatest care in any Statement that he reads out in future to make quite sure that he is giving the House information and not misleading the House, as inevitably happens if the cash figures alone are given? The second question that I would ask him is: what is the justification—
Lord Denham: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me for intervening? We have been a very long time on this Statement. It is a very important Statement and I do not want to deprive noble Lords of the ability to ask brief questions for elucidation. But I ask whether from now on they would be brief and ask for elucidation.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, before I put the second question which I wanted to ask the noble Lord, may I say, in relation to the interruption which the noble Lord has just made, that every time the Government make a misleading statement based on cash terms without giving the real terms in addition, I shall get up and seek the leave of the House to draw attention to that practice of misleading the House until it is corrected, as it has been broadly corrected in the other House—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Diamond: My Lords, may I ask a second question—
Lord Denham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is really going a little far with the length of his question. His noble friend has spoken for the Alliance and had the customary leeway in making quite long comments on the Statement, and I ask the noble Lord whether he would keep his question brief.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, the second question which I wanted to ask—and on which I have been stopped twice—is a very short and simple question. What is the justification of the Government for reducing the proportion of the grant—not merely the amount, but the proportion of the grant—yet again?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, as to the reference to statements being made in cash terms and the necessity for them to be made in real terms, I will certainly discuss with my right honourable friend the point which the noble Lord has made. But I remind the noble Lord of two things. First, I am repeating a Statement that is being made in another place by my right honourable friend. I am sure that the noble Lord did not mean to imply that I was trying to mislead the House as such. What he meant, I think—and if he does not agree I am sure he will say so—was that by presenting it only in cash terms it is itself not clear. But I personally dislike the word "mislead" very much indeed. It implies something which is not the case and I hope that the noble Lord will accept that from me.
Secondly, on his other point about the 1 per cent. reduction in the aggregate Exchequer figure, I see nothing particularly sinister in that—quite the contrary. I remember only too well that I referred to 3 per cent. last year. We have seen this come down from 66 per cent. in the time when I was in local government. I have seen it come down from 66 per cent. to 56 per cent., go back up again to 61 per cent. and come down again now. I am sure the noble Lord knows that there are many people in local government who believe that it will be healthier for local government, as such, when the percentage is a lower figure rather than a higher figure, provided that there are other alternative options and sources for funds to be raised.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think I should inform the House that this short debate is now due to end at 6.20 p.m., which means that my noble friend Lord Elton, who is to reply for the Government, should be enabled to get up as of right at 6 o'clock.

BBC Annual Report and Handbook
4.27 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, as a relatively new "gel", though not quite so new as I was before the Statement and the ensuing debate, may I say that this is far from the first time—even in my time—that this House has had reason to be grateful to my noble friend Lord Nugent. In initiating this debate, he has told us all to sit up and take notice of the publication of the BBC's annual report, and if there is anything that niggles us now is the moment to speak up.
Like all people who are not agile enough to fight their way to places of entertainment, information and education, on most counts I am deeply grateful for the services of the BBC. It was their radio programmes that stimulated my interest in current affairs way back in 1930, when polio had wreaked its vengeance on me as a child, and it was invaluable, through the wireless, to be interested in wider events than just the dreariest prospect of splints, pain and endless exercises.
With television, these horizons have grown almost beyond comprehension. Even in the field of disability, there have been so many helpful items. Just two of these that are really of specially active use are the appeals for charities and the Ceefax sub-titling for the deaf and hard of hearing. These are tiny illustrations of how the BBC plays its part within the disability area. There are the superb productions of the classic works of Jane Austen, the Brontes and Dickens, and most documentaries, plus excellent sports programmes for us to enjoy.
But despite all these huge points in favour, even captivated television fanatics like myself are worried—dead worried—today. For long, we have tried to stand up for the BBC, saying that we like to be in with the new thinkers and writers. But—alas!—now we find that these grounds are eroded by unsavoury scenes and incidents that reach the screen. Sometimes they are just piffle and boring, and that really does not matter. But when there is an underlying message which condones and accepts episodes of violence, cruelty and sacrilege, denigrates the value of family life and makes over-explicit bedroom scenes, then it is a question of evil influence on the minds of youngsters. The news reports too often highlight the worst aspects of life, as though to add to everybody's burdens, and throw cold water, by giving them scant coverage, on the more praiseworthy episodes. I believe that a large part of the blame for this lowering of standards lies with the scriptwriters and playwrights.
I am probably not alone among your Lordships in having at one time fancied scriptwriting as a career. I enrolled with a school for such aspiring scribblers and was increasingly amazed to find that the use of four

263
letter words was advised. It seemed as though they felt this would make the script more natural. This was surely a very sad reflection on society and an ugly reminder of unfortunate lapses into the use of unattractive language. I was wrong not to question this at the time but I was so blinded then by ambition that I swallowed the lot. Other instructions were that situations should be kept simple and plain, if possible of the kitchen sink variety.
The reason given for this advice was that it would make the stuff more saleable. Would not the model of an arresting, intriguing and enduring story such as "The 39 Steps" have been much better for tomorrow's scriptwriters? They would have had much more hope of sustaining interest and empathy without appealing to the lowest instincts. It cannot be right to discourage attempts to write amusing, interesting situations, even if they do happen to be set higher up the ladder. This method discriminated against any wish to portray the middle and professional classes, if you like to say the word, and instead forced us to search for some contrived piece, heavy with unfamiliar dialect. Needless to say, it was soon clear that I had not got the required talent. The more successful students of those days are probably the scriptwriters of today. My hope is that both the scripwriters and the buyers of scripts are going to find themselves outdated in their beliefs. The many viewers who write to local radio and complain and who ring in about BBC programmes make it clear that there is a crisper, less grubby appetite. I wonder how detailed is the attention given by the BBC to the complaints made to them.
It is because I have such a high regard and affection for the BBC and the invaluable part it plays for those who are immobilised, whether in hospitals or at home, and who are often lonely and dependent upon this link with the outside world, that I adjure all in authority not to burke the issue of trying to dismiss from the screen second rate and lower quality material. The BBC is a most powerful means of disseminating information and of raising our sights. It belongs to us all, so it is right that we should be deeply concerned with its performance. I support the campaign of my noble friend Lord Nugent.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, upon introducing this short debate. However, in contradistinction to the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, who has just spoken, I find myself not in total disagreement, but in substantial disagreement, with the noble Lord. Lord Nugent. I believe that at present the standards of the BBC, in respect, for example, of the depiction of sexual relationships, are about right. I should be horrified at further Government-imposed restriction. The corporation—indeed, all television authorities and all playwrights—must be allowed to hold up a mirror to reality, even when that reality may be distasteful to some viewers. On another point, I believe that there is no justification at all for Lord Nugent's fears about the theatre. The abolition of the censorship powers of the Lord Chamberlain has been beneficial and has removed what had become a total absurdity.
264
I am, on the other hand, rather concerned about two other points. First, the casual depiction of violence—violence of language and violence of action—is becoming altogether too customary. I do not regard it as the depiction of reality. I do not believe that it is customary and general in any stratum of society for violence of language and action to reach the degree which is quite wrongly displayed in some programmes, both on the BBC and on ITV. The corporation needs to keep its eye on that aspect of its activities. There may be some truth in the fears of those who believe that the decline in the standards of the police which has been reported widely recently, particularly in the case of the metropolitan police, has been modelled on television examples. There is some evidence to this effect. I believe this to be unfortunate. The BBC ought to keep its eye on all such points as this.
The second point which concerns me is the probable impact of cable television. I shall have more to say about it next week; for now, I shall content myself by saying that it is vital that a legislative maximum of 14 per cent. of foreign imports be imposed. I hope that the noble Lord. Lord Nugent of Guildford, and I will be in the same Lobby if it should prove to be necessary to vote on this issue.
Finally. I have noted recently—and I am not alone—an increase in what I would describe as the pro-Government slant of the BBC. I know that there have been some complaints to the contrary. It seems to me, however, that in recent weeks and months the BBC has been over-correcting (if, indeed, it was ever necessary; I myself did not perceive it) the slant in the other direction. However, noble Lords on the Government side thought it was necessary to correct this slant. If it was ever there, it seems to me to have been grossly over-corrected.
I fully understand that the "Beeb" is an establishment body. One expects it to reflect the accepted mores of society, but its subservience towards Ministers has reached a somewhat embarrassing point. In contrast, the hectoring of shadow ministers has become quite noticeable. Employers are buttered-up while trade unionists are insulted. I feel that the BBC has gone too far in that direction, and the attitude of some interviewers towards those who advocate the cause of peace sometimes leaves something to be desired.
Having said that, I would add that my own verdict on the BBC generally is nevertheless good to excellent, with some lapses. The BBC should watch out on one or two points and could do better here and there. I believe that in particular the BBC must join others in a fight to prevent a decline in their present standards which is likely to be brought about by the impact of cable television and satellite broadcasting. In that struggle it could well be that some of us who see differently on certain points may find ourselves in alliance.
4.40 p.m.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, first, I must apologise to the noble Lords, Lord Nugent and Lord Elton, that due to the lengthy debate on the Ministerial Statement, I may have to leave for a previous engage-

265
ment before the winding-up speeches. I shall, of course, read them with great care in Hansard.
Both the BBC and ITV produce some wonderful programmes, and I should like to add my congratulations on them to those expressed by other noble Lords. But I am concerned at the content of some of the programmes. As the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has indicated, television has now replaced books, games, conversation, newspapers, and the cinema as the principal source of entertainment for the vast majority of families in this country. If a child reads something or hears something, he has to provide the picture from his own imagination, and this is limited by his experience. So when, regrettably, he gets hold of an unsuitable book or newspaper article, or hears something undesirable on the radio, it may not—I say only "may", as of course much depends on his age and how adults handle the questions that he may ask—do much harm because it may mean very little to him. But where he sees these things in pictures on the screen, his own experience is being widened, and in a most undesirable way. There is another point. When one first sees or hears something which shocks one very much, one can be greatly affected and one may feel sick or have nightmares, but if one suffers the experience repeatedly, one tends to become immune; one is no longer shocked by what ought to shock one. That is a defence mechanism to keep one sane. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an illustration. Many years ago, when I was very young, I read in a newspaper that some boys had poured petrol over a cat and set it on fire. I felt sick with horror. Now I read of similar or worse horrors and I just think "Oh dear, how dreadful", and turn the page. It is rather awful to think that children should be developing that kind of callousness.
Now, on top of everything else, we have video, and the programmes shown late at night can be taped and watched at any time of day. Far too many young children stay up well after nine o'clock at night and many parents exercise no control over their children's viewing. In view of all that there is only one answer, which is to get the sex, the violence, the tortures and the horrors off the screen, out of the home, and back into cinemas from which under-eighteens are rigorously excluded by law. Only the Government can do that. In conclusion, I should like to remind your Lordships that one of the worst crimes in the Christian calendar is the corruption of innocent children.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I join with those noble Lords who have thanked my noble friend Lord Nugent for enabling us to debate this very important report. I should like, as I know all your Lordships will, especially to thank those responsible for producing the report. As has already been said, it is readable, it is well illustrated, and it covers a very wide field of activities. Compared to some of the previous reports, I think that it is an admirable document.
I should like to pay a tribute to a group of people who have not yet been mentioned in this debate, but who are referred to in the report. These are the BBC correspondents, in particular those who went out to the Falkland Islands, and those in the Lebanon, and elsewhere. I have in mind people such as Brian
266
Hanrahan and others, who daily, hourly, are risking their lives to bring, I believe, very factual, and very calm reports of what is happening in the dreadful conditions of those unhappy countries.
In that connection I should like to pay a particular tribute to the Overseas Service of the BBC. Many admirable programmes which I think must give a great deal of pleasure, but which one is not able to hear on Radio 3 or Radio 4, are repeated on the Overseas Service, sometimes at an early hour of the morning. I should in particular like to pay tribute to Margaret Howard's "Pick of the Week". I believe that this is a particularly outstanding programme. It is an example of really good editing. I try to listen to this programme every Saturday morning and I really get the gist of a great deal of news, some of it serious, some of it humorous; and it is always beautifully and charmingly presented.
Talking about presentation, I think that as an object lesson in brevity and absolute professionalism Alastair Cooke's "Letter from America" really takes the cake. It is an absolutely first-class programme. It has wit, no word is ever wasted, and so far as I am aware, offence is never given. It is a programme which I for one wish would last more than 15 minutes; I sometimes think that 30 minutes would be better, though that would probably detract from its value.
We also have the series of nature programmes, "The World About Us". We have, quite rightly, heard much about the nasty programmes, the unpleasant programmes, the programmes with sexual and violent content, and it is quite fitting that we should discuss them in a debate of this kind. But in items such as David Attenborough's nature programmes we really have television at its best. It is educational, it is immediately fascinating. I would agree with those noble Lords who have said that there are occasions when children watch too much television. I think that that is absolutely true. In fact there have been reports from various parts of the country of children falling asleep over their desks through having watched television too late the previous night. Nevertheless, these nature programmes are basically exceptionally valuable. They are also exceptionally valuable in another sense, in that they teach the young to have respect for animals.
I conclude by paying a tribute to the BBC announcers. I listened this morning to the radio tribute to the late, lamented Stuart Hibberd. What a marvellous voice, what an intensely moving voice, and how beautifully John Snagge read the lesson! Here were two great personalities of the BBC. I think that while one might make criticisms of the British Broadcasting Corporation—and there are many which can be made, but in a short debate of this kind it would be counter-productive to mention them—when one has gentlemen of that calibre, who made the news readily understandable and who caught the feel of any incident that they were describing, the BBC has much to commend it.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Howard of Henderskelfe: My Lords, I sail tonight in what I believe are largely uncharted waters. I first heard of the dreaded Addison Rules when I was

267
serving under the chairmanship of a Member of your Lordships' House—the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger. It was a chairmanship which I found at all times enjoyable and highly instructive. As it happened, she had herself previously been a governor of the BBC. However, it was not in relation to the BBC that I served with her, nor, indeed, that she felt the compulsion to speak in this House. It was in connection with what was then known as the National Parks Commission and which later became known as the Countryside Commission.
I give this preamble only because I am fully aware that there are these conventions, and last night I took the trouble to look up the rules relating to what might or might not be done by members of boards. The rules themselves are silent as to what happens when you cease to be a member of a board, as I have ceased to be of the BBC Board of Governors. I do not, however, regard this as giving me any licence to behave in a way which I would not have been able to do if I had still been a governor or chairman of the BBC, as I was, cumulatively, for 11½ years. So I will not usurp the noble Lord's privilege of replying to any of the questions raised in this debate as to the standards of the BBC. I shall confine myself strictly to the report itself. This relates to that to which I attach, and have always attached throughout my governorship and chairmanship, the most immense importance: the accountability of the BBC.
First, in its charter the BBC is accountable to Parliament and not to individual Ministers. This is an accountability which it does not share with many other organisations. The nationalised industries have a different form of accountability. They report to Ministers. We do not preface our annual report with the kind of statement which I have seen on other documents, beginning, "Sir, We have the honour" to do this, that and the other. We are reporting to Parliament as a whole, and it is, therefore, entirely appropriate that we should have a debate about this annual report to Parliament. So we fulfil our duty in this way. In the past we have been conscious that the structure, the format and the appearance of the report has not always found favour. Every year since I have been a governor we have striven to improve it. We have endeavoured, against all the odds, to compile some of the statistics about which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, was speaking. I hope the noble Lord is now more satisfied as to the way in which those statistics are presented in the reports.
But we have another form of accountability. It is an accountability to the public at large; to our viewers and listeners, to our licence payers. That includes viewers and listeners, licence payers, everywhere. There are not many licence payers in Northern Ireland, but there are large numbers elsewhere in this country, in Scotland and in Wales, where we have an equal duty which we recognise especially by the constitutional arrangements which apply in those countries. During the time I was on the board we endeavoured—I say "we", but I should not say that because I no longer have anything to do with the BBC: I should say the BBC endeavoured while I was connected with it—to improve that accountability. In the limited time that is available to me perhaps I can speak of some of the
268
ways in which the BBC try to exercise that accountability.
First, let me refer to the letters. We receive a vast number of unsolicited letters. I cannot remember how many came in to what is called the programme correspondence section addressed to, "The BBC". I believe there were about 150,000 a year. These were not solicited letters and postcards of the kind which disc jockeys invite, asking for requests for records to be played. I do not include those. In addition, there are letters, probably equal in number, addressed to the producers, directors, presenters, actors and the many other people connected with programmes which the writers of the letters watch or to which they have listened. All these are answered so far as is possible. Probably the letters which it is most difficult to answer are those in the programme areas, because the producers, and so on, are all very busy making new programmes. In fact, sometimes it is so long before a programme is broadcast after it has been made that the producer has forgotten what happened in a programme which was made a year or two beforehand.
Then there are the letters to the centralised staff, if I may call them that: the director-general, the secretariat and the chairman. When I was chairman I read every single letter addressed to me—including some 3,000 letters during the Falklands affair. It is true that I did not myself dictate an answer to every single one of those letters, and your Lordships would hardly have expected me to have done so. Many answers needed information from elsewhere, and many replies were prepared in the secretariat. But all the answers were presented to me in draft form so that I could, if necessary, correct them or send them back if I thought that they did not represent a true view of what had happened.
I think it is true that during the past 10 years—I do not take any particular credit for this other than as a member of a board of 12 governors—the BBC has been more willing than previously to admit to error. Nobody can pretend that the BBC does not commit errors from time to time. It would be quite ridiculous to make any such pretence. So I hope that we have accepted more often that we make errors, and that, in future, when the BBC makes an error it will admit it.
There are various other methods by which the BBC can be accountable to the public. Public meetings are not unimportant. It is true that one cannot see a great many people during the course of a year, but many of them are influential. But, above all, holding these meetings, as the BBC does, all round the country, gives people the opportunity to air their grievances to quite high-up people among the programme staff—directors of programmes, and so on.
There are advisory councils on which some of your Lordships will have served. There are general advisory councils and about 60 other advisory bodies. If anything, the BBC has far too many, but there it is. The BBC does pay considerable regard to what they have to say. So the BBC takes its responsibility for accountability extremely seriously, and is constantly thinking about how that accountability and its relationships with its listeners, its viewers and with Parliament can be improved.

269
May I conclude by saying that I believe that that includes its relationship with ITV. The great and accidental merit of television, and the reason why we have the least worst television in the world, is that there is a different financial basis for ITV from that for the BBC. We are in competition at the sharp end in respect of the programmes, but not for the money to make them, although that will of course change when cable television comes about.
I have lost no opportunity, in almost every speech I have made, to say that there is more that unites than divides broadcasters. I shall continue to maintain that to my dying day. We have good television and radio. Let us try to keep it.
5 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken today, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford for initiating this debate. I sincerely hope that it becomes an annual event for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, explained. I was grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for raising the very important question of parliamentary broadcasting and the policy surrounding the decisions as to what to broadcast and what not to broadcast. At the time I could not help wondering what the odds were of the BBC remaining silent in this debate when the heady subject of itself was being debated.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich watched the bridge programme in which a lady was frustrated into using a short sharp prayer. I, too, watched the programme. I think that the right reverend Prelate was extremely lucky. In the heyday of contract bridge, when it was accelerating in popularity, one man in America got so angry with his partner, who also happened to be his wife, that he stood up at the table and shot her. Bridge players among your Lordships will have a great deal of sympathy with what happened and may believe that that is perhaps the best possible example of justifiable homicide that one could have.
I wish to speak only on the External Services. It is worth recalling that it was in this House in July 1981 that your Lordships voted against the proposed swingeing cuts in the External Services of the BBC. It was owing in part to that decision that almost half those services were restored. I believe that half a loaf is better than no bread at all, but the decision still meant that much nourishing protein has been denied to many people who had hitherto looked to the BBC, and the BBC alone, for cultural and intellectual sustenance. I am talking about the services in the vernacular in particular. I find it astonishing—and it still to this very day hurts terribly—that, although the Government have increased the services to Latin America, the BBC still does not broadcast in the vernacular to Spain. We should consider the considerable influence that Spain has on its partners in Latin America. As in other walks of life, if one man wants to influence another, he should speak to that man's wife. It is that sort of relationship which Spain has with Latin America.
In that debate in July 1981 my noble friend Lord Carrington—poor man—had to answer for the
270
Government. It is typical of the man—he is a man of immense courage—that on 11th August of this year, on Channel 4 News, he said that he regretted making those savings in the BBC External Services, that they were counter-productive and that,
"the money saved was trivial compared to the damage done".
That is precisely the point that the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, made in his admirable foreword to the report, when he wrote:
"I cannot refrain from adding that the Falklands War demonstrated the folly of cutting our External Services, for the sake of minuscule savings".
The importance of the External Services cannot be overestimated. That importance is particularly apparent when one travels abroad. Not so long ago I was in Peking. In a factory I watched a very young man filing a piece of metal set in a vice. He turned to me and said in perfect English, "Where are you from?". I replied, "London", and he said, "Excellent". That idiom made it clear that he certainly did not learn his English from "Voice of America". I asked him where he had learned it and his reply was, "The BBC of course". In particular, he referred to the brilliantly successful programme in China, "Follow Me".
With your deep knowledge of history, your Lordships will know that the very first thing that a successful conqueror will do is to impinge on the conquered his language. I have always believed that far and away our most important export is our language. Those who follow the work of the External Services, and indeed of the World Service, will know that the language programmes are a vital and highly successful part of the endeavour.
I do not think that we should look so much to the past but to the future. I apologise for not giving my noble friend the Minister notice of this question, but bearing in mind the 50 years' experience of broadcasting to countries abroad of the External Services, I ask him whether Her Majesty's Government will consider consultations with the External Services on the subject of direct broadcasting by satellite. As your Lordships are aware, the concept that the heard word can also be seen through satellite broadcasting in those countries that are closed societies is startling and an exciting opportunity for the future.
I do not wish to quote extensively from what the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, said in the foreword to the report, but the closing sentence states:
"Britain should be proud of a public service broadcasting system which is the envy of the rest of the world".
Your Lordships will recall that, year in and year out, Time magazine invariably comes out with the phrase, "Britain rules the air waves". It is not talking only of the domestic services but also the External Services—the Overseas Service and the World Service.
5.8 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, it may reasonably be asked whether it was necessary for me to inflict myself on the House at this stage of the afternoon. For various reasons it is impossible for me not to speak in the next debate being initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and I have an Unstarred Question on parole following that. However, it is impossible for

271
me to draw back from saying a few words in support of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, who in the eyes of many of us supplies a moral leadership of a Christian character in your Lordships' House.
The last words of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, send me back to the last words of the foreword to the report by the former chairman of the BBC. Lord Howard Henderskelfe, who has addressed us in a most interesting way. The words were:
"Britain should be proud of a public service broadcasting system which is the envy of the rest of the world".
It is questionable how much good it does beating our breasts and saying that we are the envy of the rest of the world. I do not say that it does any particular harm, although it may be a little dangerous if it is overdone. But this spirit of complacency must not be allowed unduly to affect us.
Your Lordships may recall that in a recent debate the Lord Chief Justice and other speakers laid great stress on the moral decline of this country, which has led to an increase in violent crime. One is hound to say that those who occupy high places in politics, the BBC or even in the arts have a considerable responsibility for what happens in our country, for good or for ill. It is not an isolated responsibility. The BBC—and I echo the words about their being the envy of the world—are far from perfect, and I think it is highly desirable on these occasions to point the way to improvement on the part of the BBC. It may be asked, "In what connection is this improvement to lie?" I would say that it lies in directions which have been indicated quite often by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and others in this House.
Some years ago, Mary Whitehouse, who was treated with great contempt by a former director-general of the BBC, was described by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, as "speaking for millions", and though the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, is perhaps not so well known to the general public, I should think that he speaks for millions in the general line that he has taken today and on other occasions.
The question I put—and I put it in the most respectful way to the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and other high people in the BBC—is: are we going to accept any responsibility for the moral decline in the country, if that decline is accepted as a fact? They may say: "We just reflect opinion. We are just there to please the public, and we seem to be pleasing them quite sufficiently". On the other hand, it might be thought that they are also there to improve the moral standards of the country and to give some kind of moral leadership.
With two other speeches to come, I assure your Lordships that I shall not detain the House for more than another moment, but I think that we must look for progress along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. I think it is impossible to expect any chairman of the governors, however distinguished and admirable he may be. to set out on his own to introduce or impose his own moral standards on a reluctant nation. More has to he done on various levels and of course I am not exempting the politicians.
I am sure that we must look in the direction indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. We must
272
look for changes in the laws in the way that he suggests. I hope that I shall be forgiven for using up four minutes to back up the noble Lord, Lord Nugent.
5.12 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, like other speakers, I am greateful to the noble Lord. Lord Nugent, for giving us the opportunity to debate this report. It is now nearly a quarter of a century since I put in a two-year stint as a governor of the BBC, and it may be that my knowledge of its affairs is a little rusty by this time. But there are one or two peculiarities about it which have to be noted.
The director-general is a long-term career appointment which is made by the board of governors. He is not appointed by a Minister—or he was not in my time. He is selected by the governors. His salary is paid by them, his terms of appointment are fixed, and he is their creature. The members of the boards are themselves short-term appointments, made by a Minister. The consequence of that is that the director-general only has to wait for a few years before the composition of the board has so changed that collectively it has quite forgotten that he is its creature, and increasingly he becomes an institution, and the board members become birds of passage. In my day there were enough hawks on the board to reinforce good taste. That was not difficult because the BBC and its director-general were on their best behaviour. The Pilkington Committee was sitting, and it was extremely important for the future of the corporation that Pilkington should come up with a good report—and he did, in most glowing terms. As soon as it was published, the director-general immediately took the bit between his teeth and launched the BBC into its permissive age, starting with "That Was The Week That Was".
There are one or two points which need to be understood here. The BBC is incorporated by a succession of nominally Royal Charters which are, in fact, parliamentary charters beginning with the charter in 1926, which gave it its terms of reference; namely,
"to be a means of education and entertainment".
Subsequent charters from 1936 onwards added information to education and entertainment.
On the whole, I think it is true that the public prefers entertainment to education and information, and as a result, education and information tend to be distorted by imposing on them a flavour of entertainment. Of course, information and education can be naturally entertaining on occasions. We have all listened to coronations, state occasions and papal visits, and the BBC are nonpareil in this respect; they do it very well. But without natural entertainment, its artificial imposition as a flavour on information and education distorts them and plays down to the audience, which as a result can be relatively misinformed.
Like every bureaucracy—and the BBC is a bureaucracy—whose members are concerned with their self-perpetuation, programme directors and their subordinates, of course, want to give the public what it likes. Where naturally entertaining spectacles are available, they do very well; but remembering that within every 24 hours there are roughly 34 hours of television time and some 48 hours of radio time, the

273
really are almost perpetually short of naturally occurring spectaculars. After they have scraped the bottom of the barrel for the genuine article, they have to make up the deficiency with low-grade entertainment, and with the exploitation of sex, violence, and what appeals to the worst rather than the best in human nature. What has failed us—and I must be frank about this—is leadership at the top.
I recall Reith, a friend of mine: a tough, driving, chief executive if ever there was one. He was a man of conviction rather than of doubt; of principle rather than of expediency; and a servant of the light as he had been brought up to worship it. The type of complaint that Mary Whitehouse and the National VALA continuously address to the BBC would have been unthinkable in Reith's day. In contrast to Reith, Carleton Greene, who initiated the permissive age, liked bawdy jokes, made no secret of it and did not see what was wrong with it. He used to say, "Why not?" Why not, my Lords? Simply because bawdiness predictably always degenerates, as of course it has.
Pursuing the argument of the right reverend Prelate, which was to some extent reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, I do not believe that bad language is ubiquitous. I do not encounter it in your Lordships' House or in the bar; I do not encounter it on the way here or on the way back; I do not encounter it when I go shopping or go about any other business on which I am engaged. I only get it on "the box", which is quite unrepresentative of the cross-section of the way that people behave. In fact, it is right that nearly everyone does not use bad language nearly all the time: it is a relief to feelings from time to time if you hit your thumb, instead of the nail, with the hammer. You may say a bad word, and that is better than throwing the hammer through the window, breaking the glass and letting it all fall on to the head of some innocent passer-by. So swearing does have a social function, hut it can be overdone.
It is claimed, of course, that the permissive revolution exorcised the public image of "Auntie BBC". It did nothing of the kind. Reith, as the architect of "Auntie BBC", had left donkey's years before then. "Auntie BBC" was merely a complacent bureaucracy: bureaucracies always are. The BBC still is, as witness the remarkable self-confidence in the noble Lord, Lord Howard, that he has improved on the number of mistakes to which the BBC admits publicly compared to when he took over 11½ years ago. I am not concerned with whether they admit mistakes but with whether they correct mistakes. Going back to Reith's time, they did not make mistakes; but one looks now to see that they correct them.
The report which is the subject of the debate, in so far as it deals with complaints, is not nearly as good as the IBA report; but we are not debating the IBA report, so I will make only a brief reference to it. Forget, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, invited your Lordships to, the relatively small number of people who, it is claimed, complain: concentrate instead on the number of programmes complained of. People do not complain as frequently as they might because experience has told them that it gets them nowhere. Mrs. Whitehouse tells me that in the period covered by this report there were complaints about some 80 programmes. That is a much more significant figure. It
274
means that between one and two programmes a week are the subject of complaints, and I can only say to the successor of the noble Lord, Lord Howard, that the sooner they get on with correcting those mistakes the better. If there was a Reith there, we know quite well that he would do it immediately. There would be a tough, driving chief executive's directive forthwith, and anyone who did not comply with it would be out on his ear. So let the governing body remember that, and see to it accordingly.
Earl de la Warr: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he help the House by telling us how much he personally watches television in view of the devastating comments that he has just been making?
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I am not quite sure that I understood the noble Earl's question. Did he ask how much I wanted television?
Noble Lords: Watched television.
Earl de la Warr: My Lords, I asked the noble Earl how much he watched television, in view of the impression he had given that he did not watch it very much.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I watch it regularly.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships for the fact that I have only just arrived from the Crown Court at Taunton where I was giving character evidence in respect of an individual suffering a charge of shoplifting. My remarks must therefore he tempered and made short because I have not heard the tenor of the arguments. I shall therefore develop only the points that I wish to make myself. I hope that they have not already been made.
I have the greatest admiration for the BBC and a certain amount of sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Howard, the former chairman of the BBC, who is present to hear the comments made in this debate. I hope that anything that I say will not be taken too much to heart. The points that I intend to put before your Lordships are made in all sincerity. I should like to deal with two issues: first, hostile questioning; and the other is the investigative television that goes out sometimes from the BBC. The hostile question, I notice, is often used against someone possibly holding high office under the Crown and who has a great deal of responsibility for the office that he holds. It is an office that should have a certain amount of respect.
We are at present suffering, I feel, from a certain amount of indiscipline and a lack of respect for authority. I feel sometimes in my bones—I say this in all sincerity to the noble Lord, LordHoward—that this is not a good example to set to our young who are sometimes difficult to discipline and who are encouraged, as I know only too well, to challenge authority in some of our schools. This is an accepted fact. It has gone on for some years.
When remarks of this kind have been made previously in your Lordships' House, the answer generally coming from the Minister who replies is that

275
the BBC will no doubt note carefully what has been stated in your Lordships' House but that the Government see no reason why they should interfere in any circumstances.
My second point deals with the investigative type of television that goes out sometimes from the BBC. At the end of the programme, following this investigative form of television, the announcer invites the public in general to write, if they have any complaints, to the BBC, who will investigate. I do not know on what grounds the BBC justifies making such a statement or how it justifies saying that it is capable of making an investigation. Often, when that happens, people seeing themselves on television will find that much of what they said has been cut out of the tape and that the programme transmitted to the public was what the BBC decided should go out.
I know that when letters have sometimes been sent to the BBC requiring a fuller transcript of the questioning of the individual in this investigative form of television, such access has been denied. I hope that my remarks will be regarded as a constructive contribution. I believe that the hostile questioning and the investigative type of television on our screens does harm to the BBC. I have a great affection personally for the BBC. I hope that their programme directors will perhaps examine the two points that I have made. I make them in all sincerity and I hope in a constructive sense.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I share the general gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, for introducing this important debate. I would not venture to dissent on the main thrust of his remarks if only because the time of screening of the programmes about which he complains is a time when, unless I am detained in the House by the Whips' Office, I am normally in bed. My only regret is that the noble Lord did not perhaps focus and nor, I think have other noble Lords focused, on another aspect of the problem of children or young people and television. That is the general effect of a largely passive hobby replacing activity. This is something that educationists are worried about: and, although it is hardly the fault of the BBC if mothers prefer to keep their children quiet in this way, it is something that we should always bear in mind.
In rising to make one particular criticism of the BBC, I am conscious of my own tremendous debt to that institution. Music on sound radio has been one of the great sustaining forces in my life. I would almost be prepared to say that I would not have minded if television had never been invented were it not for the fact, as the late Lord Clark and others have shown, some aspects of the visual arts and of archaeology can derive presentation from television that is very difficult in any other way.
I should perhaps add that I owe a different debt of gratitude to the BBC. In my younger days, when I had more acceptable opinions, I was a fairly frequent broadcaster and the money that this brought in was a valuable addition to the exiguous income of a don. I want however to expand briefly on a remark that I made in the course of the debate last week on the televising of your Lordships' debates when I suggested
276
that, although there was confidence in the BBC and the IBA as institutions, there was not general and universal confidence in all aspects of their operations or in all members of their staff. I was referring of course to political broadcasting, partly of the kind to which the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, and also the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, referred. I note that this is a consideration in the minds of the authors of the report because the new chairman says that "the maintenance of editorial freedom" is one of his first priorities.
The maintenance of editorial freedom means something quite different in the case of the BBC to what it means in the case of a newspaper. In a newspaper, the scope is usually limited enough for an editor to be responsible for what appears in its columns. The director-general of the BBC cannot possibly be responsible for the hours of broadcasting that go out. Indeed, he could only himself sample the tiniest portion of it.
I find myself in a curious mirror alliance with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, in saying that one gets a feeling that political programmes are to some extent biased. The noble Lord believes that they are biased in one direction. I believe that they are biased in another, and this is something that ought to concern the BBC.
When one talks of striking a balance people tend to get the image of a pendulum. We take the pendulum at dead centre and we say, "We will allow it to go so much in one direction and so much in another, and as long as those two swings are roughly proportional we are covering the spectrum fairly". The point is, of course, that it depends at what point the pendulum is resting.
Let me give a concrete example. One might say that one general attitude to social and political problems in this country is represented by the writers in, and particularly the letter writers to, the Guardian newspaper. Another general attitude is represented by the writers in, and the letter writers to, the Daily Telegraph. If we say that we will regard the Guardian as the central position around which we will build a balance, we will get one type of political and social balance. If we took the Daily Telegraph as our example we would, with the same degree of fairness, have quite a different coverage in our choice of speakers, choice of topics and the way in which they are treated.
My impression—and I do not think that it is surprising—is that the young people who now make up a large proportion of those who are responsible for interviewing and presenting programmes on topical issues, are closer to the Guardian than to the Daily Telegraph. As a result, there is an inevitable pull in that direction to which, perhaps, the BBC might be alert. After all, many of them are of the same generation and, indeed, come from the same academic setting and educational setting, as the students in the National Union of Students who are on record as favouring the PLO, the IRA, the NGA and various other causes. It is not surprising that they favour the causes that their contemporaries favour.
Therefore, I am bound to say that even if the balance were to be corrected in my direction as perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, would say, and the Daily Telegraph were regarded as the central point,

277
I would still be unhappy. I am not certain that it is for a public corporation, responsible to Parliament, to be itself responsible for a large amount of what is done in the field of public discussion. I personally think that the BBC deal with many things admirably—not only those that I have mentioned, but also news and various other matters, including of course the overseas services. But one ought to try to find a different framework for the discussion of contemporary events either by having newspapers, magazines or other bodies responsible for such programmes or by finding some mechanism by which the BBC could say, "We provide the time; we do not provide the service". Otherwise there will be criticism of the BBC.
In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, has said—and I listened to him with great attention—I must say that many people feel that in these respects and in relation to the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, there is, as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said, a degree of complacency which is inevitable in a bureaucracy.
One must not forget that Reith and the other originators of broadcasting came inevitably from another world, because broadcasting had only just been invented. But now there is a ladder of promotion. The people who rise to the high positions have worked their way up, often from early youth, within this single institution. All bureaucracies breed complacency and the BBC should not regard itself as an exception.
5.35 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for making such good time and to my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford for giving us this opportunity to debate once again matters arising from a BBC annual report. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, rightly reminded us, in the year under review the British Broadcasting Corporation celebrated the 60th anniversary of broadcasting in the United Kingdom and the 50th anniversary of the BBC External Services. It marked them with a service of thanksgiving in St. Paul's Cathedral and a jubilee concert in the Royal Albert Hall. It also gave a deep and detailed account of the first ever visit by a Pope to the United Kingdom and had the technically daunting task of covering a war fought by British troops on the other side of the world. In the same year roughly 100,000 BBC computers were sold in the United Kingdom and plans were laid to start selling them abroad. Breakfast-time television was successfully launched. Five new local radio stations were opened. The Ceefax service was expanded to transmit computer programmes in a form intelligible to human beings but intended primarily to be passed straight into listening computers and an architect was selected by competition to design a new building for the headquarters from which all this activity is directed. Those are just a few items culled from a report of which the table of contents alone contains roughly 45 subject headings and 13 appendices.
I must say that it was a year of formidable activity, a year in which the corporation continued, as my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox reminded us, to provide enormous solace for those who are disabled or who are
278
in pain. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, and his erstwhile colleagues did quite a remarkable job in it. Moreover, the reputation of the corporation overseas—where people are generally less well served in these matters—remains a credit to them and continues to reflect credit on our country. I am sure that your Lordships will not wish to lose sight of these achievements whatever your views of, or anxieties about, particular areas of activity may be.
I should like to pass to a particular point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and I go straight into the future from the technical achievements of the present. I have, indeed, seen the press reports concerning the re-examination by the corporation of its plans for the direct broadcasting by satellite. I have to stress that decisions whether to undertake DBS services are for the BBC to take. The Government's role is to create opportunities rather than to press anyone to take risks against their better judgment.
I can, however, confirm that the chairman and director-general of the BBC have been to see my right honourable and learned friend this week to tell him of the current state of their thinking on DBS. They are pursuing various possibilities which would enable the direct broadcasting by satellite project to come to fruition, although perhaps not on the timetable that had originally been planned. This would involve discussions with UNISAT and with other interested parties. I am sure that the House will understand that there is little more that I can properly say while those discussions are in progress.
One area of particular anxiety that has been expressed is over the question of violence in broadcast programmes. My noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford believes it to be objectionable in itself and a possible source of positive harm to some children and other impressionable viewers and he is by no means on his own in taking that view. He believes that extra safeguards are needed in order to protect the public.
Your Lordships will know what the existing arrangements are. They have been upheld by successive Governments and place full responsibility for maintaining programme standards on the broadcasting authorities. The 1BA's obligations are imposed by Act of Parliament; but those of the corporation are a product of its charter and licence and agreement. They have a general obligation to provide programmes which inform, educate and entertain and to maintain in them a high general standard and a wide range and balance. In that context, I refer your Lordships to the list of awards won by BBC programmes which appears in condensed form on page 2 of the report.
Under the charter the corporation is to exclude so far as possible anything which offends against good taste and decency, which is likely to encourage or incite to crime or lead to disorder, or which is likely to be offensive to public feeling. It is bound by a general obligation to avoid putting out unsuitable material when children are likely to be in the audience, although the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, who I am glad to see has been able to stay for the end of the debate, reminded us that children do not always go to bed when they are expected to do so. Indeed. I think it was

279
my noble friend Lord Auckland who pointed out that as a result they sometimes fall asleep in front of the blackboard, whereas their parents, who work rather harder, tend to go to sleep in front of the screen, and this perhaps means that the wrong audience is present on both occasions. The corporation also maintains a code giving guidance on the rules to be observed in regard to the presentation of violence in sound and television programmes.
Like the other mass media, broadcasting is subject to the general law on such matters as defamation and contempt of court. But the view has consistently—and in our view rightly—been held that it would not be sufficient for programme standards to be left to the law of the land. A more stringent regulation is called for because broadcasting goes straight into the family living room and is a uniquely powerful medium. At the same time, however, successive Governments have taken the view that broadcasting should not be subject to political control. I do not need to spell out to your Lordships—indeed. I hope that I do not need to spell out to my noble friend Lord Gridley—the dangers of a system under which the Government took decisions on what should or should not be broadcast or in which some other system of censorship was imposed.
We avoid these dangers by placing responsibility for broadcasting standards in the hands of broadcasting authorities which are independent of Government and are appointed to act in the general public interest. They handle very sensitive matters on which strong and conflicting views are held by members of the public—your Lordships have proved both how strong and how conflicting this very afternoon. I look at my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford and the noble Lord. Lord Jenkins of Putney, as examplars of that opposition.
On issues such as the coverage of sex and violence, the authorities have to make judgments themselves on what will be acceptable to most members of the public taking account of such things as the time when programmes are shown, the way in which subjects are treated and ever-changing public attitudes and tastes. These are difficult matters and their judgments will always be challenged. The preservation of standards is a very proper matter for public concern and debate, and I think we all agree that the broadcasting authorities should be fully responsive to public reactions to their programmes: reaction that may be expressed directly to them by individual viewers and listeners and more publicly, as in your Lordships' House today. In this debate I have heard very clear echoes of the late Lord Reith's dictum that the corporation should give the public something a little better than it wants. I ought to add an acknowledgment of the work of voluntary regional advisory councils and also of some members of the public, such as Mrs. Mary Whitehouse, who are as persistent in their critical and improving analysis of what is broadcast as is my noble friend himself.
It was good and appropriate of my noble friend to welcome the corporation's decision to include in its report the section dealing with public reactions to its programmes, both critical and favourable. It states that of 148,385 letters dealt with centrally by the BBC, only 402 related to such things as sex, violence and bad
280
language. I hope that one of the more trenchant ones came from the right reverend Prelate. So far as specific complaints about violence are concerned, the corporation says that most of them related to feature films. They accounted for 235 letters received centrally: 20 were received about violence in the BBC's own television productions and three in radio programmes. The treatment of sex in the BBC's productions led to a total of 145 complaints for television and radio combined. The number of complaints made to the authority is an indicator of the public's view of the programmes they see and hear. Judged on that basis, the relatively small number of complaints made to the BBC and the IBA about violence in their programmes does not suggest a high level of audience dissatisfaction on that count. Even if people are dissuaded from complaining by the thought that complaints make no difference, that dissuasion presumably acts equally on all correspondents and not merely on some of them. Therefore, the small proportion of complaints of that sort seems to be surprising but nonetheless revealing.
However, complaints are not a measure of the possible harmful effects which the showing of violence in programmes may have. It is this question which has most concerned speakers in our debate today. This is an important and a serious question. For a number of years it has been the subject of a good deal of research in both this country and the United States. Much of this research has been inconclusive and even contradictory. There is, at least as yet, no clearly demonstrated link between violence in the media and violence in society, whatever our subjective views may be. But this is an area where we need not wait for scientific proof before we insist on the greatest caution being exercised in the portrayal of violence on television. Just as it has not been proved that media violence exercises a socially harmful effect, it has not been shown that it does not. The possible consequences, let alone the need to avoid giving offence to viewers, justify a very careful approach.
It is, therefore, important that the BBC and the IBA maintain guidelines on the portrayal of violence in television programmes. The BBC has recently devoted much effort to reviewing its guidelines, last published jointly with those of the IBA in February 1980. Its new version was published in September this year, and my noble friend was kind enough to welcome it. I understand that the IBA is also undertaking a review of its present guidelines. The corporation's guidelines are little changed. but in the foreword to them the revision committee which undertook the review surveyed the general climate in which programme decisions are taken and the factors which should influence decisions on the showing of violent items. It draws attention to the possible dangers of the cumulative effects of violence spread over a single day or period—and, again, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, referred to the influence this can have—and maintains as a guiding principle that gratuitous violence should be avoided. It recommends that an internal check should continue to be kept on public reaction to perceived amounts of violence in programmes. It also recommends, as a new initiative, that the television service should keep a weekly tally of moments of violence in its programmes and report them to the Board of Governors on a half-yearly basis.

281
I hope that it is not incongruous if I interject here a note on the reporting of parliamentary proceedings, which was first alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. The BBC has a duty, under Clause 13(2) of its licence and agreement, to broadcast an impartial account day-by-day, prepared by professional reporters, of the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament. However, it has the same editorial responsibility for its programmes covering parliamentary proceedings as it has for all its other programmes. Its introduction of the new style "Yesterday in Parliament" last year was, therefore, a matter within its discretion. I have to say—and it may vex my noble friend—that the corporation will no doubt take note of the views expressed in this debate in any future decisions concerning its reporting of parliamentary proceedings; it would be beyond my brief to express a view on what that should be.
To return to the subject of violence, pornography and obscenity, and particularly to an interest of my noble friend Lord Nugent on the subject of the Obscene Publications Act, we accept that the existing Act may not be entirely satisfactory and may give rise to certain difficulties of interpretation. But this is an extremely complex area in which there is room for views which are deeply held but which, as I have already said, are diametrically opposed. We cannot, therefore, proceed as if there were sufficient agreement to make wholesale reform of the law in this area a practicable proposition. Therefore, while not standing still we prefer to make progress on those more limited fronts where there is a clearly defined problem which can sensibly be tackled in advance of such agreement as the opportunities occur. That is why provisions were included in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 dealing with sex shops and why we have supported measures introduced in another place by private Members dealing with indecent displays and the licensing of bogus cinema clubs. We can make useful progress in this way, and this is relevant to this debate because the latest example is the help we are giving to my honourable friend Mr. Graham Bright in dealing with the problem of objectionable video recordings. I should add that my right honourable and learned friend is keeping the legislation on obscenity under very close review.
No one can read the BBC's new guidelines without realising the great care and concern which has gone into drawing them up and keeping them under regular review, and without appreciating the complexity and sensitivity of the issues which have to be addressed. That is encouraging and it justifies our confidence in the ability of the corporation to exercise this kind of control over broadcast programmes responsibly. The Government believe that the corporation must continue to have full responsibility for its programme decisions and that it should not be subject to any form of external control. It is for them to respond to public sentiment, but I am sure they will, as I have said before, give careful attention to all that has been said by noble Lords today. In passing, I would add that I very much hope that anyone concerned with training scriptwriters will also note this debate, and particularly the trenchant comments of my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox.
There is another area of considerable concern which
282
your Lordships have visited before, and that is the question of the BBC external services. The external services are a comparatively small part of the corporation. Their staff makes up only 8 per cent. of the total and they account for a small proportion of total BBC spending, but they are an important part. Their world-wide reputation for fast, honest news and balanced commentary is unmatched. Their estimated audience is more than 100 million listeners worldwide. I hope that your Lordships will take particular interest, therefore, in what I have to say about this. The BBC are required to have regard to the national interest in planning external broadcasts, and the Government have a right to proscribe services, but it is not always easy to get the balance right. The pattern of external broadcasting in terms of languages and regional effort must reflect our foreign policy objectives and priorities. For 24 hours a day the BBC world service is broadcast to the world in English, and has attracted many listeners in this country. It is perhaps unfortunate that audibility should have been reduced here, but the new medium wave transmitters at Orford Ness have done much to improve its audibility in Europe.
Perhaps the most important single development in recent years has been the commencement of work to improve the audibility of the BBC around the world. This is on the basis of a programme drawn up between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the corporation and approved by the Government in 1981. It provides for a substantial investment in new and replacement equipment during the 1980s, and many of the projects are now well advanced and we are already seeing the benefits. New medium wave transmitters at Orford Ness, in Suffolk, I have already mentioned. New transmitters at Rampisham in Dorset should greatly strengthen the signal to the countries of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. We hope that, as a result, listeners to the BBC's Russian service will suffer less from the effects of Soviet jamming.
New satellite links have been introduced between Britain and the BBC's overseas relay station. These have much improved the quality of the relay signal, and I do not doubt that my noble friend Lord Morris's Chinese friend benefits from that. New aerials are being erected in Cyprus which should enhance the BBC's audibility in the Middle East and in the southern part of the Soviet Union. We are also taking positive steps by the provision of brand new relay stations to remedy the situation in the Far East and East and Southern Africa where reception is particularly poor. The Hong Kong Government has agreed to a relay station being built there which will serve China, Korea, and Japan, and negotiations are well advanced for a similar facility for East Africa. Financial provision has been made for both projects, and we expect the construction work to begin in 1985.
On the subject of external services, one other important facet is the BBC monitoring service, which provides an important service to businesses and Government users both in the United Kingdom and abroad in monitoring the output of international broadcasters and media organisations, and this is to modernise and upgrade its facilities at a cost of some £12½ million, starting in 1985. This new capital programme will enable the BBC to keep pace with the

283
rapid changes in communication technology, particularly the trend towards satellite broadcasting, and would enable the monitoring service to handle much more material.
I cannot handle much more material because I am under constraint of time. I can, therefore, only apologise for leaving so many major themes untouched: for instance, the theme of balance introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. His balance was between commercial and public broadcasting. The right reverend Prelate was concerned about the balance between central and regional inputs. These are proper matters for concern. I can only acknowledge them. In conclusion, therefore, if it is not improper so to do I should like to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Howard, to your Lordships' House and wish success to those who follow him. I should like once more to thank my noble friend for providing the opportunity for what has been for me an instructive and interesting debate, which I hope tomorrow will prove to be an interesting and instructive debate for the corporation.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, it only remains for me to thank my noble friend for his comprehensive answer, in which he picked up pretty well every point that was mentioned. With regard to the major points which I made to him about the defects, as I see them, in the Obscene Publications Act, I should like to read his passages rather carefully tomorrow in Hansard. I am certainly happy to know that the problem, which I recognise is an extremely difficult one politically, is being thought about at the highest level. May I also thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and helped us to make an interesting debate on one of the most important subjects in the life of the nation. My thanks to the BBC are not less because I am critical. I enjoy so much so many of their programmes that I am permanently in their debt. I just want to make sure that the defects are removed. With those words, my Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
5.57 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale rose to call attention to the need to put the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme on a statutory basis; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Contrary to what is sometimes said, a good deal of thought has been given in this country to what can be done to help victims of crime as well as to cope with the perpetrators of crime. Our record compares well with what is done in other countries around the world. Whether enough is done is of course a matter for argument. Anyway, it seemed to me that it was perhaps time to invite your Lordships to have a look at the operation of the main instrument of government in this context, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, after 19 years of its existence. I should like to
284
thank noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate—who will no doubt be returning—for putting down their names to speak in the debate, and the Chief Whip for giving us such a generous allocation.
I begin by going back to 1964. In that year, following initiatives by Margery Fry and the Howard League, the Home Secretary, Mr. Henry Brooke, as he then was, with the Secretary of State for Scotland, announced in a White Paper a scheme for compensating victims of crimes of violence. It explained that the Government thought it right that the sense of responsibility felt by the public for the innocent victim should find practical expression in the provision of compensation on behalf of the community, but as the scheme was breaking new ground—only New Zealand had anything comparable—it would be experimental, and payments would be made ex gratia. A board of part-time lawyers would be set up. The initial decision on an application would be taken by one member, but a dissatisfied applicant could ask for a hearing before three members. Awards would follow the procedures of the civil courts, but with some important modifications. Applications could be made by anyone injured in a crime of violence, or when helping the police to make an arrest.
Your Lordships will be glad to know that I can now rapidly skip 15 years and come to 1979. By this time the Pearson Commission had reported. It commended the scheme in general—and I ought to make it clear at the outset that I think that the board has carried out the duties entrusted to it with considerable success—but urged that the scheme should be made statutory. The then Home Secretary, happily now the Leader of this House, said that he accepted this recommendation, but he went on to say that some changes were being made, notably that the scheme was being extended to cover victims of family violence, and so a still further period of experiment was needed.
When I spoke in the debate on the Address at the beginning of this Session. I asked about the prospects of legislation. In due course I had a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Elton, saying, in effect, that the Government would introduce a Bill when a suitable niche could be found, but not this Session, and no indication of timing could be given. I mean not the slightest disrespect to the noble Lord, as I am sure he will appreciate, but the formula he used is one that is apt to be used when a department feels over-burdened and sees little attraction in pressing for a place in the legislative programme for something which is carrying on without too much trouble. I know, for I have used the formula often enough myself.
Today I am talking about a non-statutory body which records in its 19th annual report just published that it has so far paid out in ex gratia awards rather more than £150 million. Last year its awards came to nearly £30 million and its administrative costs amounted to £3.7 million. During the year it received nearly 30,00 applications. It has a board of about 18 part-time eminent lawyers whose fees are not derisory. Last year most of them received more than £25,000 each. It has a staff of 185 and would like more because delays are piling up. Its own forecast is that the number of applications and the awards paid out will both increase. It looks to me like an open-ended commitment of a kind which I should have thought

285
might not be altogether attractive to the present Government. My first question must be whether the Government have any plans to check this steady increase.
There are some other rather odd features about the operation of the board and I should like to pick out three. First, although the board has no statutory basis and there is no entitlement to its awards, ever since 1967 the courts have been prepared to take delivery of applications for prerogative writs against the board. In their judgments, as I read them, they sometimes tend to construe the scheme under which it operates as though it were an Act of Parliament; although it is no more than a working document issued by Ministers and can be altered by them by a stroke of the pen overnight. There are mysteries here which the layman finds rather hard to understand. I hope that my noble and learned friend, Lord Bridge of Harwich—who I was pleased to see in the list of speakers—will be able to enlighten us about them when he speaks later in the debate.
Secondly, there are the police. I was not in the Home Office when the scheme started, but I cannot help feeling a shade doubtful whether the founding fathers ever contemplated that the police would go ahead and apply to the board for compensation for injuries received in the course of duty. But last year there were nearly 1,500 cases. One is bound to pause and wonder whether it is entirely appropriate for the board to operate a kind of industrial injuries scheme for the police, rather than that they should be covered by an occupational scheme of their own. I am not suggesting that compensation should he withheld from an injured policeman. I am suggesting that how this is best to be achieved is something which is appropriate for parliamentary scrutiny.
Thirdly, there is the provision in the scheme telling the board that, unlike the courts, it must reduce compensation by the full value of any present or future entitlement to social security benefits. Unfortunately, the scheme does not explain how this is to be achieved. Full deduction of social security benefits is entirely in line with what Pearson urged for the courts, but it is a complicated matter and the scheme does not suggest how the board can carry out this policy with any accuracy in the absence of other Pearson reforms. I am sure the board does its best, but this provision in the scheme needs considering again when one realises that it means that the board, when awarding a lump sum, has to deduct something to take account of future periodical payments which, as the years go by, will be increased by amounts which at the time of the award cannot possibly be known.
I shall not delay your Lordships by discussing the quite numerous other respects in which the scheme requires the board to depart from the practices of the courts. I shall pick out one or two for mention. There is the restriction on the amount of earnings to be taken into the calculation or the fact that no award can be given unless the amount reaches a certain minimum or the exclusion of the victims of road traffic offences. All these differences from the ordinary practices of the courts may be perfectly sensible, but they ought to be subject to some kind of parliamentary scrutiny.
At this stage I should say that I do not see any need for a long Bill. It would seem right that in view of the changes needed from time to time the details could be left to subordinate instruments. But I see the need for an enabling measure and that pretty soon. If the board were made statutory it would still be for consideration whether anything more needed to be done to look after the victims of crime. But I will pass lightly over any function of the criminal courts in awarding compensation against persons convicted of crime and also over the scope for voluntary help in aiding and advising victims, although I cannot help remarking that the increased grant, which I understand is to be paid to the National Association of Victims Support Schemes, will still come out at rather less than one-half of the award made last year by the board in an individual case.
There is one issue to which I must advert before I sit down. It was put to Pearson in evidence that it was not easy to find any social principle to justify selecting one particular group of unfortunates for special treatment. Pearson rejected this argument, but it is one which seems to weigh with the Government in other contexts, such as their rebuttal of suggestions for a "no fault" system for the victims of road accidents or for a new measure of compensation for vaccine damage. I trust that when the noble Baroness replies she will not tell us that the Government have resiled from their earlier position and are now thinking about scrapping the criminal injuries scheme altogether. If she does not, it will be of considerable interest to those of us concerned with these other issues if she can explain how her Government's philosophy enables them to accept in principle the need to make this scheme a permanent feature of the landscape but leads them to reject other proposals for special treatment for equally specially deserving members of the community.
Finally and briefly, one or two additional questions. Are the operations of the board open to scrutiny by the ombudsman? Do the staff count against the Home Office manpower ceiling? Is the board subject de facto to the supervision of the Council on Tribunals, as I imagine it would be if it were made statutory? Can an applicant to the board look for legal aid; and, if so, is this a significant feature of the cost? It would seem a bit hard if he cannot when the perpetrators would not have much difficulty in getting legal aid when they appear in court in their turn. Is there any move within the EEC to try to get a common policy in this context? Nearer home, is the noble Baroness content that the Northern Ireland scheme, which oddly enough is statutory, should continue to be run on rather different principles from those of the Great Britain scheme? I am conscious that for a period I had some responsibility for the operation of this scheme but this was quite a long time ago.
To sum up, I would say that while I think that the board has met in large measure the expectations of those who set it up, I hope that I have said enough to explain why I think that 19 years is long enough for an experiment and that the time has come to bring the scheme—involving as it does substantial expenditure, the employment of substantial numbers of staff and its own legal code—under the authority and scrutiny of Parliament. I beg to move for Papers.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for raising this very important subject. He brings to its consideration great experience in the Home Office, his own expertise in the field and, of course, the fact that, as he has indicated although hehas put it with his customary modesty, he was a member of the Royal Commission which was presided over by the late Lord Pearson whose death we lament. I think that it may well be common ground in this debate that the need for a Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme is undoubted and was undoubted when the scheme was introduced. Its introduction, I think, reflected the public sense of responsibility for and sympathy with the innocent victims of crime, and it was inspired by the feeling that it was right that there should be reasonable provision for victims of crime, as indeed for the victims of accident and disease. It was an appropriate part of the provisions of the welfare state.
Theoretically, the victim of criminal assault or other criminal action causing personal injury to him has a claim in tort against the criminal. But, unhappily, the criminal is very rarely worth powder and shot. Indeed, the Seventh Report of the Criminal Injuries Board found that the number of cases in which offenders would be worth suing was six in nearly 6,000 cases, a proportion of about 0.1 per cent. Therefore, the need for a Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme was undoubted, and until the scheme was set up most victims of criminal attack received little compensation for personal injuries other than the remedies available through the social security system. Since then we have had not only the scheme itself, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, but the legislative provisions which now enable the magistrates' courts and the crown courts to award sums of compensation for personal injury.
My noble friend Lord Longford has time and again emphasised that in looking at the picture of crime we have to examine carefully what can be done for the victims of crime; and with that, I think, there will probably be agreement in the House. The question that has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, is whether the present extraordinary provisions of the scheme should be placed on a statutory basis. I say "extraordinary" because, as the noble Lord has pointed out, here is a scheme whereby there was paid out of the public purse in the last year the sum of £29 million with what can only be described as a minimum of parliamentary supervision. There is an annual report; and I shall be interested in learning the answers to the questions that the noble Lord put towards the end of his speech.
Among them were the questions of whether the board is subject to the possibility of investigation by the ombudsman, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—which was recommended by a working party in I 978—and also whether the board is under the supervision of the Council on Tribunals. I am glad to receive a positive affirmative nod that that is so. Perhaps I can also receive now a nod that it is subject to the work of the ombudsman; but I see a doubtful look upon the face of the noble Baroness in response to that; so that we shall want to press that before the conclusion of our deliberations.
288
It must be said—and there was a modest tribute to the board and its work by the noble Lord at the end of his speech—that a great deal has been achieved by the board and its members. It is interesting that the report of the working party of civil servants in 1978 upon the board was complimentary in many very important aspects. It found, for instance, that the present financial arrangements worked well and that, so far as the awards of the hoard were concerned, they were in line with the levels of damages awarded in the courts for similar injuries; and that the speed with which the board does its work has also been highly commendable—far, far quicker than the processes of taking cases through the courts, as the record of the work done by the board indicates. Last year, for instance, 26,098 cases were resolved, more than half of them within nine months of the application being made. Since the scheme was introduced there have been as many as 263,000-plus applications, of which all but 30,000 were resolved. Therefore, although this is a constitutional anomaly in a great many ways, as is sometimes the case with these institutions that, like Topsy, "just growed", they have worked better than some had feared might be the case.
But now we have the continuing situation that this body, which operates by executive, not legislative, action, has responsibilities in a field of great importance to the subject. As the noble Lord has indicated, it has not been enacted into law. Whether enacting it into law would create new legal rights I am not sure; nor am I sure about the consequence that might have for the work of the courts; and I suppose the giving of new legal rights is not something that we should be too excessively worried about.
The scheme is ex gratia, but not in a real sense at present. In reality denial of a right to sue is somewhat meaningless. In a sense, the board has no discretion to refuse claims except within the terms of the scheme itself. Payment of compensation which it may award is not legally enforceable but in practice, of course, payment follows automatically once the board is determined that payment should be made. So although the scheme is somewhat "naked" in a legal sense, in practice the way it works has not proved to be too unsatisfactory.
Nevertheless, as the noble Lord has indicated, there are aspects of its work which I think call for overall parliamentary supervision through legislation, but we should not expect any great changes to emerge from what is proposed. As, indeed, the noble Lord has indicated, the legislation required ought not to consume too much parliamentary time, because there is a good deal of common ground as to the value of many features of the existing scheme. It is interesting that the working party—and I read its report with interest—in 1978 recommended no change in the type of board administration on the scheme or the method of making appointments to the board or the qualifications of the members of the board. I suppose I may be suspected of merely looking after the interests of lawyers when I remind the House that the working party did comment that this was work essentially to be performed by lawyers with experience in the consideration of damages and personal injuries cases. Therefore the value of what has been achieved in practice in that way should not be overlooked.

289
Nevertheless, in the face of the importance of this provision within our welfare provisions in the community, and in view of the importance of Parliament's maintaining the power to overlook the work of the hoard, I myself would support the view put forward by the noble Lord in introducing the Motion. I think it is not merely constitutional and legal tidiness that calls for it; but in view of its growing importance and, alas, because of the growing prevalence of crime in the community, I think the time has come to legislate, as the noble Lord said.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Foot: My Lords, nobody will disagree with what the noble and learned Lord said in opening, that nobody could introduce a Motion of this kind with greater authority and experience than the noble Lord who has done so. He referred to what had been done by Margery Fry, whose work laid the foundation of this report. I do not think he would want it to be forgotten that another contribution was made, and that was a report prepared by a committee of the Society of Justice, which was published in 1962 and which I think it is fair to say was the framework upon which this scheme was based. I am sorry to see that the noble Lord has just left the Chamber for a moment or two, but I wanted to put that on record and to remind the House that the chairman of that committee was the noble Earl, Lord Longford. As long ago as 1962 he had already made himself the champion of victims of violent crime. I take some pleasure in reminding the House of that report from Justice because at the moment, by a curious set of chances, I am temporarily the chairman of the council of Justice, although I played no part whatever in the preparation of the report to which I have referred.
I want tonight to address myself to only two particular matters. In one sense the Motion moved by the noble Lord is of rather a restricted character, because it raises the question simply as to whether it would be desirable and right to put this scheme now upon a statutory basis. I should like to say a word or two about that and then go on to say a word or two about one particular aspect of the scheme and about some changes which were made during the earlier part of this year.
Referring to the noble Lord's arguments for putting this scheme upon a satisfactory basis, I find them overwhelmingly persuasive. I think we have left it far too long before we take that step. I say that for some of the reasons which the noble Lord himself advanced. It was clearly indicated at the beginning when this scheme was embarked upon that it was to be of an experimental character. Ever since then successive Governments have repeatedly said that it was their intention to put it upon a statutory basis. However, 19 years have gone by and that has not been achieved.
During that period there have been a succession of changes, amendments and alterations, and one would have supposed that after 19 years of experience we should be sufficiently competent to ensure that the scheme was all right and good enough to be put upon the statute book. Therefore, I should have thought that the argument for putting it on the statute book and making it statutory was indeed overwhelming. Indeed,
290
as the noble Lord has said, while there has been this controversy and argument in the Pearson Commission about whether it was philosophically right to make special provision for victims of violence as opposed to other people who are in a situation of—"pressure" is not the right word—deprivation, as a result of the 19 years' experience we have had, it is now part of the common thinking in this country that there should be, in any civilised community, some special provision for these people, on the philosophical principle that where somebody suffers from an act of criminal violence, to that extent society has let the injured person down and has failed to give him the protection to which he is entitled. Therefore, I hope that we can get an indication that at an early date the Government will be prepared to move along the lines that the noble Lord has recommended.
Having said that, may I say that I share to some extent the feelings of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, that if this is made statutory we cannot expect any dramatic changes. I say that for two reasons, both of which are matters of congratulation. One of them is that it is pretty evident that, although the board have, as it were, complete discretion and any awards they make are ex gratia, they have over the years behaved as if they were a statutory body. The other matter which I say is one for congratulation is that it has been almost universally recognised that the scheme has worked particularly well.
It is all the more encouraging when one finds, for example, that in a report which was prepared and issued by a compensation working party of the National Association of Victims Support Schemes, when they were considering the provision for compensation for victims under this head by the Cirminal Injuries Compensation Board, they went out of their way to say:
"Members"—
that is, their members throughout the country—
"generally report that most victims they have dealt with are very satisfied with their awards and greatly reassured by this expression of public concern".
That is a fairly remarkable tribute from people who are engaged in this business in the voluntary field, and it is an acknowledgement of the value of the work which is done by the board.
The last point that I want to make about this issue of the statutory basis is this. It may be said—I do not know what the noble Baroness will tell us—that if you were to put this scheme upon a statutory basis you would be introducing an unnecessary element of rigidity, and it would be more difficult to amend the scheme in the light of experience as you went along. If that is an argument that is likely to be advanced, there is one fairly simple answer to it. You could enact this scheme by a very short statute making provision enabling the Home Secretary to promote a scheme by way of statutory instrument. If you did that it would be a very simple matter, if you wanted to make some change, to make the change by means of another statutory instrument.
Perhaps I may now turn to the other matter about which I should like to say a few words, which arises from some changes that were made in the scheme in the earlier part of this year. They are dealt with in the

291
19th report of the board, which recorded, quite rightly, that,
"On 1st February, 1983, the Home Secretary announced in a Written Reply to a Parliamentary Question that he and the Secretary of State for Scotland had made two changes in the scheme. The first of them was in consequence of the Aministration of Justice Act 1982 and he announced that the introduction of bereavement awards was being made."
Previously of course it had not been possible for the board to make any provision by way of bereavement award. But that was introduced in February of this year. The second change which he made was described by the board in this way:
"Second, to reduce the overall cost of the scheme, whilst allowing for the additional expenditure in connection with bereavement awards, he"—
that is, the Home Secretary—
"said 'We have decided that when an injury is sustained on or after 1st February, 1983, compensation will be payable under the scheme only if the injury is one for which compensation of not less than £400 would be awarded"'.
When the scheme was first initiated, a limit was set below which no award could be made, and the original limit was the sum of £50. I well understand, and entirely agree, that you must have some minimum below which it would be impracticable for the board to consider a claim. I think that is right, because if it were not so, and if the board had to consider claims of £5, £10 or £15, they would be overwhelmed and the whole scheme would be likely to break down. So the first minimum limit that was put on awards was £50. Subsequently it was raised to £150, and subsequently again to £250.
The reason given for those additions was simply the fall in the value of money, and they were to maintain the minimum at a real figure. But this change is not in order to keep pace with inflation. It is, as the Home Secretary himself has said, in order to reduce the overall cost of the scheme. What does that mean? It means, first, that in 1982–83 the total number of awards was in the region of 20,000, and of those no less than 6,000 were awards of less than £400. So the claims which are now to be defeated and not allowed were some 28 per cent. of all the awards that were made by the board. Therefore, approximately 6,000 people, who, if they had been the victims of violence before 1st February this year, would have been entitled to make a claim above the limit of £250, will now be deprived of the right to make any claim at all.
The other result that follows from that decision on these two changes is that less money will be paid out to the victims of violence than before. I say that for the reason that some figures were given by The Times newspaper as early as 17th February this year, which must have been shortly after this change was announced. The Times reported to this effect:
"The Home Office estimates given to The Times show that about £16 million was paid out to the victims who received compensation of less than £400 last year. Estimates"—
that is, Home Office estimates—
"also indicate that about 180 people would have been eligible last year for the new bereavement award, involving a total sum of £630,000".
So as a result of these changes, the net amount that is paid out to victims of violence will be less, by decree of the Home Secretary, than it was in the previous year, and for no better reason than that, having
292
decided to make bereavement awards available, the Home Secretary then decided that those awards should be paid for by the people who were no longer entitled to an award of under £400. So one section of the community, the recipients of bereavement awards, are benefiting from this decision, not at the expense of the taxpayer but at the expense of the poor people who are now to be deprived of the benefit which they previously enjoyed. I cannot regard that as a proper step for the Government to take.
In conclusion, the £400 limit is not entirely irrelevant to the subject of the noble Lord's Motion. If this had been a statutory scheme at the beginning of the year and if it had been the wish of the Home Secretary or the Government to make the two changes which they then made in respect of bereavement benefit, and so on, they would have had to lay before Parliament a statutory instrument. There would then have been the opportunity to discuss the matter and debate it both in this House and in another place. If the proposal had come before this House in the form which emerged according to the say-so of the Home Secretary, it is, I suggest, doubtful whether the House would have assented to it. The great advantage which is to be gained, I believe, from making this a statutory matter is that before we can tamper and tinker with the scheme we must obtain the assent of both Houses of Parliament. The House will be very grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for raising this matter.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I wish to follow in the steps of those noble Lords who have already spoken in the debate and to lend my support from these Benches to what has now truly become an extraordinary situation—extraordinary in the sense in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, used the term, and used it advisedly.
Why should this scheme be put on a statutory basis? Surely it is because a scheme of quasi ex gratia payments, awarded on a discretionary basis—on the basis of a ministerial document which can be altered within the four walls of the Ministry, without appeal to the courts, and which is not even subject to ministerial review—is not appropriate. As I understand it (I speak, of course, subject to correction by my noble friend the Minister who is to reply) there is no jurisdiction in the council of tribunals; there is no jurisdiction in the ombudsman: there is no review whatever. I am comforted to see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hams of Greenwich—I do apologise: Lord Bridge of Harwich, is in his place. From his experience he will be able to confirm, or perhaps refute, my understanding that even a prerogative writ in practice would not lie. Whether or not this be so, the scope for a prerogative writ is small indeed.
In so saying, there is no hint of criticism of any member of the board who is concerned with these awards—quite the reverse. There is no criticism of any particular decision. There is no criticism of the efficient manner of the despatch of business. The criticism is with the system, for the experiment surely has now run its course. As the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, reminded us, the system was introduced in 1964. It was revised in 1969. Under it, a claim is

293
normally decided by one member. If the claimant is dissatisfied, the claim can then be decided by three members—but on an wholly discretionary basis, without review. The hearings are in private. The procedure is informal. In 1982–83, about £30 million was awarded to those who qualified to claim. They included those who suffered injury as a result of crimes of violence, including arson and poisoning; those who sought to arrest offenders; those who sought to prevent the commission of criminal offences; and those who assisted constables.
By and large, the board is obliged to apply the principles of common law, but as there is no regulatory machinery for this type of discretionary justice, there being no review by the courts, the assessment of damage tends to become disparate. The assessment of damage for injuries is one of the most difficult problems with which your Lordships' Appellate Committee has had to deal on more than one occasion. Indeed, there was a case in the High Court today in which a new dimension of damage was afforded.
Furthermore, there are limitations which do not obtain at common law, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, observed. The incidence of these limitations lies within the unfettered and unappealable discretion of the members of the board. These limitations warrant stating in a debate, for they are concerned with reporting without delay to the police, with giving the board reasonable assistance and with the conduct, character and way of life of the claimant which may reduce or defeat the claim. And they are subject to Home Office practice. On 20th July there was a House of Commons official report which said that one does not exclude a person with criminal habits. A further limitation is that the loss of earnings is limited to twice the average industrial earnings when the injury was sustained. There is a reduction for pension rights and social security benefits, and there is a reduction for compensation received under the powers of the criminal courts Act of 1973, to which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has already referred in some detail.
It would, when my noble friend the Minister replies, be of interest to know how many claims have been rejected for delay, how many claims have been rejected for not giving assistance, how many claims have been rejected on the ground of conduct, character or way of life. It would also be of interest to know, in the reply, the statistics of awards for compensation under the Act of 1973 as, for reasons there is not time to develop, this can only apply in a relatively simple case, and the magistrates in any event are limited to £400.
Surely this system of private justice, administered behind closed doors, under which £30 million a year is awarded on a discretionary basis, without appeal, warrants review and a measure of reappraisal, as has been suggested already by all noble Lords who have spoken before me, at least so that justice may not only be done but be seen to be done. Is it not essential that a statutory basis should be introduced so that the courts can ensure that such awards are in conformity with common law and that the limitations which do not apply at common law and to which I have referred should be removed. What is the point of arguing the
294
case for any type of no-fault compensation scheme on the merits, even this one, which is a hybrid no-fault in the sense that there often is fault, and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, pointed out, the problem is not fault but want of powder and shot.
The Pearson Report of 1979 lies buried, really and truly, in the dust of oblivion. Her Majesty's Government will not take, cannot take, cannot afford to take a step towards a general comprehensive scheme which embraces all sections of society. Yet any plea to improve or amend any particular scheme, such as vaccine damage, for example, is met by Her Majesty's Government with the reply that it would be wrong to legislate further for any particular section and that a general comprehensive scheme, which we all know will not be introduced, is the only answer. As the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has pointed out, the position of specially deserving sections of society was expressly reserved in the Pearson Report. The stand of Her Majesty's Government remains equivocal in this matter, so we can but tread this wheel of compassion and justice, and hope. And what is the hope?—that each particular scheme for each section of society may be considered by Her Majesty's Government on its merits with a view to amendment, with a view to improvement, within the financial constraints applicable. It remains to be seen whether those who tread that wheel in this instance labour in vain.
Furthermore, and finally, it is much to be doubted whether my noble friend the Minister would be briefed to deal with the additional costs to the Legal Aid Fund of appeals to the courts, if such, as is suggested, were allowed—another noble Lord who preceded me put that point—and if the restraints under the scheme which do not obtain at common law were to be removed. But if we are concerned with expense and expense alone, which is often the way in which Her Majesty's Government meets a case for reform, then this question is a relevant question. Surely, on any showing, is it not plain that this scheme, set up as an experiment some 19 years ago, has now run its course and warrants review and reappraisal in context with embodiment in statutory form? Indeed, as has been pointed out, this need was recognised as long ago as 1979 and this is the need to which reference is made in this Motion for Papers. May I also be allowed to express my own gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for having introduced this important subject.
6.57 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, it is a privilege to take part in this debate, which is, I believe, seminal, concerning change in this vital area which touches a good deal of compassionate matters in our nation. And although each of us from these Bishops' Benches speaks alone and personally, except when he is sharing with your Lordships some statement or other which may have received general support in one of the Church's discussion areas, I do know that today I can in one sense represent very many of the right reverend Prelates who are engaged in work in these areas. Because of our own professional hazards all of us Prelates are awash at the moment with carol services in our cathedrals. That is where most of us are

295
who would like to be here engaged in this debate. My programme tomorrow is one in which your Lordships might have been engaged 60 or 70 years ago. The whole cathedral will be full of what used to be called "mixed infants" tomorrow afternoon. When we have got our little "St. Trinians" out, then we get the whole of the Norfolk and Norwich police forces crammed into the cathedral. I hope I can give a word of cheer from your Lordships to those who seek to support law and order in the perilous bypaths of Norfolk and Norwich. Therefore I am encouraged to feel, having spoken to one or two of my brothers, that I speak for others too.
I should like to say a word about legislation, a word about publicity and a word about voluntary help in this matter. Lord Allen of Abbeydale—and we stand in his debt for initiating this most important debate—used the phrase at the beginning "carrying on without too much trouble, therefore let this very good sleeping dog lie, because it is doing very good work". I am putting my gloss on it—though, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, reminded us, they are now nudging £30 million, which is quite a lot of money. I could think of quite a number of things in my diocese I could do with £30 million. I have 550 mediaeval churches, the largest concentration of mediaeval churches in the whole of christendom, and if I could see some way of having some of that money coming towards … well, that is another issue: but it is a lot of money.
I therefore turn to the question of legislation. The graph on page 5 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board Nineteenth Report is, of course, an alarming graph. It is rising sharply right through to this moment and nudging the 30,000 claimants mark, which is anenormous number. It seems to me that the question of legislation touches this rather practical issue. If this work was on a more formal and firm statutory basis it might be that those concerned with the implementation of this work of mercy, which it is, on a national scale would be more powerful in getting hold of facts and would be able not only to implement policy but, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, reminded us—he made the point of the £400 scheme—bring it before your Lordships' House and the other place before such decisions were made. The noble Lord explained that these issues are very grave and touched not only the personal care of individuals but a large amount of money.
The question of legislation is, therefore, one which I hope the Government will take seriously, and I hope that the noble Baroness will take the general tenor of this debate firmly back to the Minister concerned, because there seems to be very much a consensus feeling that after 19 years action is needed concerning legislation. In that way the board may be not only strengthened and sharpened with statutory power hut controlled and guided by such power and made even more responsible concerning the large sums of money and the large number of applications that it deals with. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said, this matter is of growing importance.
So I think it might be possible for us to do what I believe Cicero said at the end of every speech—
"Curthaga delende est."
which he put in on and on and on—dripping on the
296
stone—in rather the way adopted by my youngest daughter, who your Lordships will know gave birth to her second daughter on Saturday night and all is well, as with my wife, her mother. We used to say to her, "Why do you go on and on and on at your mother, Jane?". And Jane said. "Because if I go on long enough, she does what I say". I leave that touching point with your Lordships because I thought it might appeal to the kindly and motherly heart of the noble Baroness.
I now turn to the question of publicity. Let us search our hearts. Would every one of your Lordships, spread across the Chamber, have read the 19th Report of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board from cover to cover if it had not been for this debate? I think this business of publicity is important. It is not that any of us has the slightest shadow of doubt concerning the board. It is a magnificent board. Some of its members are personal friends of mine. Most of them seem to he very distinguished lawyers. Until December 1982 the deputy chariman was Sir William Carter, former chairman of the Law Society, one of our most distinguished lawyers in Norfolk and a friend of mine. We know that the board is magnificent and there is no question of showing any disrespect or doubt about it.
But if publicity was on a statutory basis I believe that more people would know about the board's work. I refer to one human instance. It seems to me that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board cannot help but touch people who are shocked, injured, distressed and disheveled, at the point of violence. Possibly without good publicity the victims simply may not know that this help is open to them. As I say, the question of publicity is one that needs balancing and may even need reappraising.
Thirdly, there is the question of voluntary help. Reference has already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, to those who have been voluntarily engaged in this matter. I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is in his place, because he is well known to those of us who are concerned with matters of prisons. He is about to initiate a debate on the parole system. Perhaps it is not quite so well known that he has been, and is, deeply involved in the matter of victims of violence. I shall quote from his book, recently published, in which he talks about the conference concerning victims sponsored by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, at Windsor, which he attended. I pay tribute to his work among victims. He says that the,
"effort would be impossible without Michael Whitaker, who was the inspiration behind our report in 1978 and my Private Member's Bill in 1979".
Your Lordships will remember that that was very much concerned with this area and sought to alert the conscience not just of this House but of the nation to the compassionate care of victims of violence. He speaks of Michael Whitaker, who had so much to do with the victims of violence movement. Michael Whitaker's daughter was brutally murdered some years ago. We were aware of this in our family because I was, in fact, that little girl's godfather.
The noble Earl continues that Michael was,
"the life and soul of our committee on victims which reported in 1978 and the inspiration behind my Private Member's Bill which got a Second Reading and a Committee Stage in 1979. Michael is

297
now pushing ahead under his own steam in Yorkshire, the best outlet for his articulate passion … But nothing will stop him and in my small way I shall never desert him".
The noble Earl speaks of someone who has since died from heart trouble, having given the last years of his life to victims of violence.
I use that story not to wring your Lordships' hearts but to sharpen up the compassionate factor in this debate. We are dealing with human situations and we are seeking to deal with them after 19 years of experiments, roughly speaking, through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. The question that appears to underlie this debate is whether from all sides of the House we should press the Government to build upon the good work done in the last 19 years and, in furtherance of this word "compassion"—which the Government have been particularly sensitive to work to and to take on board in recent months—to take another step in the care of individuals, to encourage voluntary work in this area, to widen the publicity which the nation offers and, by seeking to study the question of legislation, to see whether there is more than is already done that can be done for those in these distressed conditions.
7.9 p.m.
Lord Bridge of Harwich: My Lords, I enthusiastically welcome the initiative of my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale in introducing this very important debate. I concur in what has been said by him and other noble Lords in support of the general proposition that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme should now be put on a statutory basis without further delay. In particular I agree that all that is required is an enabling Act and the scheme itself can safely be left to delegated legislation.
The aspect of the matter to which I want to draw attention is, if I may borrow a phrase from my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, the really remarkable constitutional anomaly inherent under present arrangements in the relationship between the board, the courts and the executive.
I do not know how far I can respond effectively to the invitation extended by my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale to elucidate the mysteries of the courts' supervisory jurisdiction over the decisions of the board. At least I can disabuse the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, not only of the belief that I am Lord Hams of Greenwich, but also of his mistaken belief that there is no such supervisory jurisdiction. It has been exercised by the courts over the board for the past 16 years. Indeed, I can go a step further. I can tell your Lordships how that jurisdiction originated.
In 1966 a policeman was killed and his widow claimed compensation from the board. Her claim was disallowed. She promptly instituted proceedings before the Divisional Court, claiming an order of certiorari on the ground that the board's decision disclosed an error of law on its face. Those are proceedings of a nature which we should now call an application for judicial review. If my noble friend Lord Allen of Alloway wants to check the accuracy of what I am saying, the case was R v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Lian, reported in 1967 2 Queen's Bench, though I cannot tell him the page.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, has got his own back. I am not Lord Allen; I am Lord Campbell.
Lord Bridge of Harwich: My Lords, the case of ex parte Lian—that was the widow's name—came before a very strong court: the late Lord Parker of Waddington, Chief Justice, with my noble and learned friend Lord Diplock, then Lord Justice Diplock, on his right, and the late Mr. Justice Ashworth on his left. Junior counsel to the Treasury appeared for the board. He had better remain nameless. He argued vigorously, though I fear incompetently, that since this was a purely administrative scheme, the court could not possibly have jurisdiction to review the board's decision. The court would have none of it. It decided that it clearly had jurisdiction, though it also went on to decide that there was no error of law on the face of the decision; so there was no opportunity to carry the challenge to jurisdiction further, up to the Court of Appeal. All that goes to show that where there is the judicial will, there is a jurisdictional way.
As a matter of strict jurisprudence, I have never been able to understand how a payment described in the scheme as being ex gratia can become enforceable as of right, pursuant to an order of the court, nor how a board interpreting a scheme which consists of a series of administrative instructions can make an error of law, since the instructions do not form any part of the law of the land.
But having said that, if I may say so with respect, I recognise that the judicial ingenuity exercised by the court in Lian's case was exercised in response to a sound judicial instinct, appreciating, as the court did, that decisions of a body such as the compensation board are essentially decisions of a kind which ought to be subject to review in the courts. I believe that that view is now widely shared. At all events, it is the fact that since Lian's case the challenge to jurisdiction has never been renewed, though there have been ample opportunities to do so if anyone had wished. There have been many cases—some successful—which claimants seeking compensation have carried up to the Court of Appeal. I know that successive chairmen of the board, so far from being hostile to the courts' supervisory jurisdiction, have welcomed such guidance as the courts have been able to give them on the many obscurely drafted provisions of the scheme in its various manifestations from time to time.
But all that said, under present arrangements there remains an inherent possibility—and here is the constitutional anomaly—of a conflict between the Judiciary and the Executive. As my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale said, the Secretary of State can amend the scheme at a stroke of the pen. If the court reaches a decision which interprets the scheme in a way which the Secretary of State does not like, he can effectively overrule that decision by amendment of the scheme. No doubt he will in practice tell Parliament he has done so, but he needs no assistance from Parliament to achieve such an amendment. That surely in itself is constitutionally undesirable. In theory the Secretary of State could make a much more drastic amendment of the scheme at a stroke of the pen. If he can amend one provision, he can amend another in just that way.

299
It has always been provided in the scheme, ever since it first appeared in the 1964 White paper—and I shall quote from the current version of the scheme—that,
"The Board will be entirely responsible for deciding what compensation should be paid in individual cases, and their decisions will not be subject to appeal or to Ministerial review".
In theory at least, if the Secretary of State were so minded, he could amend that provision. He could rewrite it to say:
"The Board will normally be responsible for deciding what compensation should be paid in individual cases, but the Secretary of State may in any particular case reduce or disallow the compensation proposed to be paid",
adding for good measure, if one wishes, the words,
"whether or not the case has been the subject of a decision by any court".
That really would be to set the executive cat among the judicial pigeons. I am not suggesting for one moment that the present Government would take such a drastic course, but so long as the scheme remains an administrative scheme, who can say that another Government, egged on perhaps by officials in the Treasury anxious to exercise a tighter and more direct control over the administration of the scheme, might not do so?
Perhaps I may make one further point. So far as I know, neither the Secretary of State, nor anyone on his behalf, has ever invoked the supervisory jurisdiction which the courts exercise, inviting the court to quash a decision made by the board—it may be by a single member—in favour of an applicant. I am not at all sure whether in theory it would be possible to do so, or how the courts would receive such an application. I have a feeling that in practice, so long as the scheme remains purely an administrative one with no legislative basis, that kind of challenge is unlikely to be made. Yet if it is right, as I think and as I hope all your Lordships agree, that the courts should have power to correct errors made by the board—and single members of the board, excellent lawyers as they are, will make errors from time to time—it is just as right in the public interest—perhaps more so—that an award of compensation to which an applicant was not in truth entitled should he susceptible to quashing by the courts, as that an unsuccessful applicant should have the courts come to his assistance. That is something for which a statutory scheme could readily make provision. It could be drafted in such a way that decisions of the board under the scheme were subject to the courts' super advisory jurisdiction by way of judicial review, or it could provide directly—and the effect would be very little different—for an appeal on a point of law only, as very many other analogous statutory schemes have done.
In conclusion, I sincerely urge the noble Baroness to accept on behalf of the Government that it is now high time to legitimise the active and healthy brainchild to which the court gave birth in 1967, taking the opportunity on the way to make the courts' jurisdiction bilateral instead of unilateral, by giving the board a proper legislative framework within which to operate.
7.22 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, we have all
300
benefited from the highly expert speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, which has clarified these matters. I hope that he will take it as a compliment if I say that I shall need to read what he has had to say before I can be quite sure that I have taken it all in. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, and all the speakers, led by my noble and learned leader Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Foot—who were kind about me—as well as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, I support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Allen.
If I say that I do not do so for what may be the same reason, I do not mean that I am necessarily disagreening with the noble Lord, but there have been two strands of thought in the House today. One was summed up in the phrase to the effect that the present arrangement is a constitutional anomaly. The other, which was put before us by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, was the desire to show more compassion for the victims. That, of course, animated me, as it did that wonderful person, Michael Whitaker, when we made some efforts a number of years ago. We were then animated by the desire as I still am, to see more justice come to the victims. That is a slightly different angle from wondering whether the money is being properly expended. I do not say the implication is that some of it might be wasted but, at any rate, it is a different angle.
As the right reverend Prelate mentioned, in 1979 I brought before this House a Bill which received an unopposed second Reading. It was strongly supportded by, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who had earlier made a fine maiden speech on this very subject. Of course, other noble Lords have shown an immense interest in trying to help victims. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, I know has done a great deal personally and professionally for victims, but I shall not go into those matters now. The Bill which I brought before the House did not receive in all respects the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Allen. Indeed, by some Freudian process he has managed to avoid mentioning it, as though it were a kind of unmentionable activity. At any rate, it was given an unopposed Second Reading in this House. It got through the Committee stage, and it was withdrawn only because at that time the Government seemed to be doing more for victims than they had done in the past.
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, is quite right in saying that my own interest goes back a long way before that. I was chairman of the committee of Justice: I believe that Lord Foot mentioned this, but I am sorry I was not present. In paying tribute to everyone who is involved in this matter, including ourselves, the Howard League, or Dame Margery Fry, I recollect that at that time Justice took a strong initiative.
We all took an interest in these questions for a long time. I am not going to go into this subject in detail, partly because the House will hear me yet again tonight, but I feel that between them the noble Lord, Lord Allen, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, have clarified the whole matter. I make no bones about it; whether or not I agree with everything they say I understand it better now than I did before they spoke.

301
It is worth remembering that when the scheme was introduced in 1964 it was always assumed that it would be placed on a statutory basis when the new plans had had time to work. When we debated these matters in 1979, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, who was then the Home Office Minister answering in this House, appeared to accept the view which the Labour Government had expressed a few months earlier while they were still in office, that there would be legislation after what was called a trial period. So in 1979 it was understood that there would be legislation after a trial period; that was the ministerial attitude. Now four-and-a-half years have passed. Without going into any great detail, I do not think anybody can seriously argue that we must allow more time to pass before we know how the scheme, which has been slightly amended, is working.
I therefore come back to the fairly simple support of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Allen. I was following the noble Lord, Lord Foot, very closely and for one moment I waivered in my allegiance to the idea. I thought he was going to say that the last state might be worse than the first, but he ended up on the right side. I feel that that would be an additional reason for putting the scheme on a statutory basis. It would be much more difficult for an ill-intentioned Minister to tamper with the scheme in a sense adverse to the victim, so I am not worried any more; I am encouraged by what the noble Lord told us.
I think that the reasons have been stated. They may have been overstated by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, but they have been clearly stated by him. I think they are the same reasons as I stated before in 1979. One of the reasons is that there will be a recourse to the courts, which at the present time—how shall I put it after listening to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge?—in the case of an individual victim is a very difficult affair.
I recall that when I was trying to help a few victims I went with a victim as a prisoner's friend before one of the tribunals. There was never any idea that the matter could go to the courts. That was four years ago. It may be that today the options would be slightly more open, but in a great many cases the victim does not have legal advice; that is a matter one could go into on another occasion. In the case to which I refer it was simply assumed that the decision of the tribunal was final. Perhaps the law is a little more open than it then was; but that, I believe, is how it is still widely understood by the victims. A great deal of confidence would be given if it was put on a statutory basis.
I shall close in a moment or two, but I should like to ask whether any noble Lord still has any doubts as to why the scheme should be placed on a statutory basis. What is the reason? What is so special about victims that leaves them without a statutory basis? All the other disadvantaged in our society have statutory schemes of one kind or another, plus voluntary aid to help them. Is there something second class about victims? Do we think that victims, in some mysterious way, are lucky to get anything at all and ought not to complain if they are not on the same footing as others who need help? One must ask oneself why it is. I think that it is an historical accident of inertia. The intention was that it should be put on a statutory basis but no
302
one has ever quite got round to it. The time has come when we should get round to it without further delay.
7.31 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for this short debate on a subject of such importance in the lives of those hostages to misfortune in this violent age. I intend to pursue only one aspect of compensation in general about which I feel deeply and believe is relevant in dealing with this subject. My views are about assessment of awards. It seems immodest to refer to my own contribution to an earlier debate, but it was in a short debate about a year ago on vaccine damage payments that I spoke of compensation. I said then that it is not the cause of disability but the extent of the resulting disablement and handicap which should govern the calculation of what financial help should be awarded. Such help should be through a national disability income. I should hardly have had the temerity today to repeat this theme if my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor had not shown interest and expressed an encouraging measure of approval for it, even referring to it again in answering a Question from the Woolsack on 29th November.
That this is a complex matter is obvious, but it is also very urgent. I am sure that this is evident to noble Lords. There are families and others who care for severely mentally and physically handicapped people who cannot claim more than the basic invalidity pension, attendance allowance, et cetera, while others, no more severely disabled, can obtain much more through industrial injury allowances, and yet others again who receive huge awards from the courts for damages sustained in accidents for which there is no apparent yardstick. Your Lordships have shown understanding of how expensive it is to live when disabled and therefore will not expect me to suggest that these awards are over-generous. But they serve to highlight the paucity of provision for those physically and mentally handicapped cases whose condition requires keepers both night and day. Alas, this can too easily be the result of crimes of violence. What is unchanging is the inability to equate such physical and/or mental disaster in terms of cash.
It seems to me necessary to examine the subject on account of the lack of support for some disabled people in the community who perforce depend on dollops of loyal and sustaining care and effort from family and friends just to get by. The surprising inequality in the finances of one clobbered fellow compared to another surely needs thought. Awards from the board can widen the gap.
Of course, court awards are salubrious in that they add finance to insurance for some disability needs. In these days of closer collaboration between public and private endeavour, would it not be possible to look for bridges between state funding and private insurance provision? In order to discover what exists already to quantify impairment, I studied the table used by the industrial injuries benefits scheme and found it alarmingly couched, mainly in terms of amputations—points gained for loss of a hand or leg and extra for both hands or both legs. That all seems pretty bald, although no doubt in action many refinements are used.

303
Wishing to see tables showing wider measurements of the permutations involved in disability, including neurological and psychological, plus other effects in the countless conditions that prevail, I was much encouraged by the manual published by the World Health Organisation in Geneva in 1980, called International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps, which I feel sure is well known to some noble Lords. It was published for trial purposes in accordance with Resolution WHA 29.35 of the 29th World Health Assembly in May 1976 and it contains a wealth of information. I am told by the Royal Association of Disability and Rehabilitation that it would also be glad to know how soon it can expect this trial stage to be reported upon. The sooner the better, for it seems possible to me that it could form the basis of a categorisation and definition method without which we, who support a more rational method of financial aid for those I am discussing than exists at present, are just whistling in the wind.
Classification and categorisation, it seems to me, should not be irretrievably fixed but under constant review. Then it would be possible to have an invaluable way of providing better social provision, both more economic and more humane. Without categorisation local authority and other lists of cases are too mixed for their number to carry really authentic weight. In order to be prepared for speedy remedy, and if possible action, I consulted an eminent legal practitioner, a Member of your Lordships' House. I am impressed by his suggestion that to set up such a possible way of providing would need a separate division of the High Court presided over by a High Court judge and supported by two distinguished medical men. I believe that the daunting subject under discussion today should be considered in the context of such a scheme.
7.37 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I should like to join with everyone in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for providing the opportunity today for this debate. The subject, concerning compensation to the victims of violent crime, is one to which the public and the Government attach considerable importance, and to which the noble Lord brings special knowledge and expertise. We have heard some fascinating speeches. I hope that they will not be insulted if I say that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich made me feel quite broody and nostalgic when he spoke of mixed infants. On the other hand, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, made me feel like an unmarried mother when he begged me to legitimise the scheme. I am happy to say that, in many respects, we are all in agreement.
In the Government's view, the main argument for placing the scheme on a statutory footing is to provide explicit statutory authority for the existence and operations of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, in view of the considerable amount of public money for which the board is responsible. In 1982–83 it paid out nearly £29.5 million in compensation and incurred administration costs, already spoken of,
304
amounting to nearly £3.75 million. It is right that Parliament should have the opportunity to consider in detail and approve in formal legislation the general composition, functions and procedures of a board in which is placed such trust and responsibility. It was good to hear the noble Lord, Lord Foot, praising the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for his pioneering activities in the early days—pioneering activities which, with his efforts and those of others, resulted in the introduction of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme in 1964, after several years of public debate, with the aim of ensuring that the innocent victims of criminal violence were able to receive appropriate compensation from public funds. We have come a long way since then.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said that this was a novel scheme at the beginning involving newly devised and untested quasi-judicial and administrative procedures. It was entirely appropriate and sensible that initially it should be in a form that could be amended or modified quickly and easily, if necessary, should its provisions in practice be found wanting or in need of refinement. A statutory format would not of course have afforded as much flexibility. Indeed, time and practice have led to various changes in the scheme about which your Lordships know. The most extensive changes were made in 1979 when the scheme was revised following recommendations of an interdepartmental working party which reported the previous year. Generally speaking, the working party found a high degree of satisfaction with the scheme.
The revised scheme accordingly did not alter the main judicial and administrative procedures of the board which had proved their effectiveness over the past years. It contained however a number of changes aimed at improving the efficiency of the board's operations, such as the introduction of time limits for initial applications and for applications for hearings. The most significant changes however were those which widened the scope of the scheme for the benefit of certain categories of applicant. The hoard were given discretion to re-open cases in certain circumstances and to pay compensation in cases of violence within the family, the latter being experimental, subject to certain special conditions.
Most recently, as your Lordships know, a number of the recommendations of the Pearson Commission regarding compensation for personal injury or death were implemented in the Administration of Justice Act 1982 and the relevant changes in the civil law came into effect for the most part on 1st January 1983. These changes were adopted automatically for the most part in the operation of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.
When announcing the revised scheme in July 1979 the Home Secretary at that time, my noble friend Lord Whitelaw, confirmed the Government's acceptance of the recommendations concerning the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme which had been made in 1978 by the Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury (the Pearson Commission). These were that the scheme should be put on a statutory basis, that compensation under the scheme should continue to be based on tort damages and that consideration should be given to applying to the scheme the commission's recommendations for

305
changes in the assessment of tort damages. He added however that the Government did not intend to introduce legislation to make the scheme statutory until there had been sufficient experience of the revised scheme to enable any problems to be identified and solved.
I should perhaps stress however that the absence of statutory cover hitherto has in no way affected the ability of the victims of violent crime to benefit from the scheme. Legislation would formalise and put on a statutory footing the arrangements that have been developed since 1964, but this would not make much difference in practice to the victims concerned. We must not forget that. The scheme is administered by an independent board of very experienced barristers and eminent solicitors with vast experience in the assessment of damages in the civil courts. Their duty is to consider applications and award compensation in accordance with the terms of the scheme and the practice of the civil courts in assessing damages for personal injury and death. The board reach their decisions and award compensation on their own authority and their decisions are not subject to Ministerial review. The Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland have responsibility for general oversight of the scheme and of the board's operations, but they play no part in the resolution of individual applications. The board's functions under the terms of the scheme require them to award appropriate compensation to all who are eligible under the provisions of the scheme. In practice therefore a right to compensation already exists, as compensation cannot be refused by the board outside the terms of the scheme, and no victim or dependant suffers any disadvantage through lack of formal statutory recognition of this right.
At this point I should like to pay tribute to the members and staff of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. The processing of some 30,000 applications a year is a formidable undertaking. The generally high level of satisfaction with the operation of the scheme is entirely due to the thoroughness and fairness with which applications have been dealt. Both staff and board members have approached the ever-increasing workload with a high degree of professionalism and with commendable dedication.
I turn to a number of matters which have been referred to in the course of today's debate. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has been good enough to suggest that I may reply by letter to some of the points he made. If I fail to answer the comments made by any other noble Lords, I hope that they will let me know so that I can make good my omissions in the same way. For example, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway referred to some statistics. I am afraid that I do not have those statistics at my fingertips, but I believe that most of them are to be found in the board's annual report.
I shall go through the points raised as I have noted them. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox raised the question of the deduction of social security benefits, occupational pensions, et cetera. Reference has been made to the deductions which the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board are required to make from compensation
306
awards. First, there are the circumstances where the victim has received compensation from the person responsible for his injuries through action in the civil courts, or an out of court settlement, or as a result of a compensation order made by a criminal court. I imagine that no one would dispute that it is right that the hoard should take account of such payments. The scheme exists, after all, because it is not often possible for the victim to obtain full compensation from those responsible in view of their lack of means. Where however those responsible have the means to pay all or part of the appropriate compensation, it is clearly proper that they should do so and that only the balance due should be payable from public funds.
Similarly, as regards social security benefits, where general rights exist to payments from public funds as a result of injuries incurred—such as sickness, disability and other social security benefits—it is proper that the board should take these into account. Duplication of payments from public funds cannot be justified. In this respect it is entirely appropriate that the scheme should depart from the practice of the civil courts.
The civil law provides that in assessing damages for injury there should be deducted only half the amount of any sickness, injury or disability benefit received in respect of the injury during the first five years after the injury. In the assessment of damages in fatal cases, the civil law provides that social security benefits, payable as a result of the death, will not be taken into account. The state cannot be expected to provide compensation according to the full civil liability of the offender, especially where this would involve duplication of payment from more than one source of public funds in respect of the same injury.
The Government do not propose therefore to alter in legislation on the scheme the present requirement that the full value of social security benefits should be taken into account by the board in the assessment of compensation. In the case of occupational pensions, the practice of the civil courts is to ignore these in assessing the civil liability of the defendant on the grounds that he should not benefit from any prudence, foresight or contractual arrangement on the part of the victim. The Government agree with the views of the working party which reviewed the scheme that there is a strong case for restoring the purchasing power of the applicant, but little justification for going further.
The approach of the civil courts is related to the liability of the wrongdoer and is not appropriate to a Government compensation scheme which seeks only to restore the victim's or, in fatal cases, his dependants financial loss. It is of course appropriate to take account of the income tax liability and pension contributions, where appropriate. The Government consider that the scheme does this in a fair way at present by providing for deduction of only one half of the amount of pensions which are taxable.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and my noble friend Lord Campbell referred to the right of appeal. The Government are well aware of the feeling that there should be a right of appeal to the courts against a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. To some extent the absence of a formal channel of appeal under the scheme has been

307
catered for in England and Wales by the decision of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court in 1967, that that court had jurisdiction by way of prerogative orders to review and quash a decision of the board where an error of law had occurred. However, this procedure for judicial review is not available in Scotland.
The interdepartmental working party, whose report and review of the scheme led to its revision in 1979, recommended that when the scheme was made statutory, provision should be made for a formal avenue of appeal to the High Court in England and Wales and to the Court of Session in Scotland on points of law only. The Government propose seriously to examine this recommendation when the time comes to prepare the relevant legislation. With regard to vaccine damage, this scheme is confined to compensation for criminal injury and, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said, was introduced as an expression of public sympathy and feeling of responsibility for victims of crimes of violence, not as an acceptance of state liability. I have just received a note—which has appeared out of a clear bluesky!—about vaccine damage. I fully sympathise with all that the noble Baroness said about vaccine damage; but I regret that I can say no more than that I shall bring her remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend. I have no detailed information about the question of vaccine damage, but I assume that the pressures have not been as strong.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, asked a question about Northern Ireland. The situation in Northern Ireland is quite exceptional and calls for the special provisions which exist in the Northern Ireland statutory arrangements. These statutory arrangements arise as a result of the history of the Province where state compensation has been necessary in this and other fields for many years. The police are on the same footing as the general public and the Government see no reason why they should not be.
I turn to supervision by the Council on Tribunals. The Government accept the recommendation of the working party which reviewed the scheme that the judicial processes of the board should come under the supervision of the Council on Tribunals. This will be pursued with the council in the course of preparing the legislation to place the scheme on a statutory footing.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, does that mean that it is not currently de facto subject to the council?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I take it that currently it is not, but that it will be. A question was raised about the ombudsman. In its review of the scheme, the working party recommended that allegations of maladministration on the part of the board's staff should be capable of examination by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Unfortunately the working party overlooked the fact that the Parliamentary Commissioner's remit does not extend to non-Crown bodies, such as the board. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to act on this recommendation until such time as the PCA's remit may be extended to such bodies.
I should like to have dealt with the question of publicity, and I appreciate the anxieties of the right
308
reverend Prelate on this score. I should be very happy to give him this copy of this leaflet, which is simply written and which is available in all those places where people are most likely to go. I do not think that by making the scheme statutory it would help people in any way to learn more about where they could obtain help. All the relevant bodies know and they all have these leaflets.
In a short debate I do not think that I can deal with any more questions. I hope that I have picked up the main points and, as I have said, I shall certainly write to noble Lords. I conclude by repeating that it is the Government's intention to introduce this legislation. It is important that any such legislation should take into account our most recent experience in the operation of the scheme and, in the light of other demands on parliamentary time, time would be needed to prepare legislation. It is also very important that the legislation should afford the utmost flexibility consistent with parliamentary accountability to enable amendments to the scheme to be made quickly in response to relevant developments; for example, in relation to the practice of the civil courts. The House will understand that I cannot give a commitment to legislation in any particular Session but—and I would be most grateful if the Front Bench opposite would listen because this is a tiny message of hope—it is the hope of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary that provisions putting the scheme on a statutory basis can be included in a Bill in the course of the present Parliament.
The Government are most grateful for the helpful advice and guidance of noble Lords and the noble Baroness who have taken part in this debate. The views expressed in your Lordships' House today will of course be fully taken into account when the Government introduce legislation to place the scheme on a statutory footing. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that it is most important to ensure that when the Bill comes before Parliament it is right. A little more time with this aim in view is surely worthwhile—and those words were not written by any Minister!
7.58 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords. I have a little time but I do not propose to exhaust it. I should just like to thank the noble Lords, the noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate, for the contributions that they have made to what I thought was an extremely interesting debate. I was comforted by the support for urgent action which seemed to be felt on all sides of the House, irrespective of party lines. I do not have time to comment on individual contributions—it would not be appropriate for me to do so—but I should like to say how illuminating I found the examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and by my noble and learned friend Lord Bridge of Harwich, in what I think we should all agree was an authoritative and fascinating speech, showing why urgent legislation is desirable.
As I think the noble Lord, Lord Foot, knows, the enthusiasm of the National Association of Victims Support Schemes for the working of the scheme as it has been in the past, is a little tempered by their disappointment about the raising of the limit to £400. I am bound to say that until the last moment I found

309
the reply of the noble Baroness somewhat disappointing. I am afraid that she just did not begin to answer the point that I raised—perhaps I did not make it clear—about the problems of deducting the whole of future social security awards. What happens if, five years after the board has made a lump sum award, the individual has to become subject to a constant attendance allowance? I know that this is not an area in which the Home Office claim any expertise—I certainly did not when I was there—and I hope that the noble Baroness's advisers may be encouraged to consult some of those who know more about it.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I did the best I could with the question about social security benefits and pensions and I promised that I would write. If any noble Lord would like a copy of the letter that I shall write to the noble Lord, I shall be glad to send him one.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness very much. I also hope that we shall receive a letter, or perhaps a Question can be arranged, on the very important point made by the noble and learned Lord about the possibility of there being some procedure for quashing an excessive award by a single member or by the three members of the board. I do not want to detain your Lordships any further. May I just say to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that I did not mention his earlier Bill because what I was concerned about was legislation legitimising the board. Whatever other merits his Bill had, it did not do that.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? It would have put it on a statutory basis; there is no doubt about that. The noble Lord misunderstood it at the time, as a matter of fact.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, it would have put something on a statutory basis but, as I read it, it was not the board. However, the record is there. I would certainly be the first to pay tribute to the work which the noble Earl has done over the years in this context. I am sorry that in the time at my disposal I did not have the opportunity of going into more detail about the origins of this whole idea, in which I know that the noble Earl played a prominent part.
I shall not say any more, except to conclude that there is general agreement that the board has done the best it can. However, there is also general agreement on the really narrow point raised in this Motion that the time has come to legislate. After 19 years—19 years in which the statute book has been littered with legislation about the perpetrators of crime from various aspects—the time surely has come to find a place for just a teeny-weeny little Bill about the victims. I hope the words that fell from the lips of the noble Baroness at the end mean that we shall not have to wait too long. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion in my name.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

The Parole System
8.2 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they agree that the operation of the parole system and the system for the release of life prisoners on licence needs to be much improved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Question standing in my name. The House may recall with, or without, pleasure that I have opened more than one debate on parole and spoken on the subject many times here. The last debate I initiated in this House was in July 1980. I used on that occasion some fairly sharp language about the working of the parole system, under which I always included, though I shall be told that I must be careful in my language, the licensing system, and I insisted then, as always, that I remained an unrepentant believer in the principle of parole.
I said that my objection then, in 1980, to the present system was twofold. I said:
"I am horrified by its callousness and also by its ignorance." [Official Report, 24/7/1980, col. 631]
I said that if,
"I wanted to bring in a third point, [it would be] the sluggishness with which [this scheme] is conducted;". [col. 631]
I have no reason to revise the opinions I expressed at that time.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is sitting there and I gather cannot take part in this debate, and I should perhaps say that I have special confidence in him. If I say that, I hope that I shall not seem to be reflecting on the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who I am glad is going to follow me. He made a magnificent speech in the Archbishop's debate. I hope the House will forgive me if I leave over what one might call the general situation in the area of parole to another occasion, and concentrate on the recent pronouncements of the Home Secretary. I think that that would be the general wish. When I express criticisms of these pronouncements I hope that I shall be speaking on behalf of a high proportion of penal reformers, though some of them might not agree with my other thoughts about parole. They may think that I am far too radical or offensive, or something unsatisfactory; but so far as the recent pronouncements of the Home Secretary are concerned I should hope, and believe, that a large number of people will agree with me.
As the years have passed, our parole system has become more liberal and humane, though by no means as liberal or humane as some of us could wish. Now the Home Secretary is seeking to put the clock back with a vengeance. That is what, in a sense, my speech amounts to saying: that the Home Secretary is putting the clock back. It is the first really backward step in the area of penal matters that I can recall since I became involved with these things. He is making a new approach to the subject—that is hardly a matter of dispute. It is an approach quite different from that of the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, who I am sorry cannot be with us tonight. One can, of course, sympathise with the present Home Secretary. He was confronted soon after his appointment by a visit to the Conservative Party Conference. That same party conference two years earlier had given the present

311
Leader of the House, the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, then Home Secretary, a proper roasting, so that it was asking too much of the new Home Secretary that he should follow the same lines as the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw. But nothing, as I see it, can excuse his capitulation to the ignorant passions of that occasion.
I cannot see any of his great Conservative predecessors pandering in this way; certainly not Sir Winston Churchill (though he was a Liberal at the time of his great period as Home Secretary before the First World War) and not Sir Samuel Hoare (later Lord Templewood, whom many of us remember in this House at the time that he was president of the Howard League); not Lord Butler, who gave the whole penal reform movement a big push forward, as the noble Lord sitting on the Woolsack at the moment will remember well, and, for that matter, not the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, who had the best possible intentions.
I may say that I have never had the pleasure of meeting the Home Secretary, so this does not arise from some sort of unpleasant personal relationship —far from it. When the present Home Secretary took office I wrote to him about a prisoner, and I congratulated him on being the youngest Home Secretary since Winston Churchill before the First World War. He wrote me a very nice letter back. Therefore, while there is youth—and there is youth in this case—there is hope, and it would he premature to despair of him.
I must turn briefly to the main changes proposed by the Home Secretary in the system of releasing life sentence prisoners on licence, and releasing other long-term prisoners on parole. I am sure that those who have pressed such changes on him sincerely believe that they will do something to reduce violent crime. I am sure that the Conservative Party Conference expected some strong language and some appearance, at any rate, of strong action, not out of viciousness but because they really believe that that is how violent crime should be reduced. But the Home Secretary, who was a former Home Office Minister and has all the Home Office wisdom available to him, really ought to know better. It is hard to believe that this is his considered opinion. Certainly he ought to know better, after reading the debate on the Archbishop's Motion a month ago. All the evidence to date points in the opposite direction to that in which the Home Secretary is appearing to move.
The changes made by the Home Secretary in the system of releasing life sentence prisoners on licence, and releasing other long-term prisoners on parole, will do nothing to reduce violent crime. I cannot believe that anybody who has studied these matters for more than five minutes believes that they will in fact do anything to reduce violent crime. They are much more likely to produce violence in the prison system. The Home Secretary has put forward these changes as part of what he calls, I believe, a "balanced package". He has accompanied them with an extension of the parole system for less serious shorter-term prisoners who were not previously eligible for it. As I said a month ago when we discussed these matters on the Archbishop's Motion, I unreservedly welcome that part of the package. I do not want to seem ungenerous
312
in that regard. But I welcome these beneficial moves with caution.
It has been suggested—not by the Home Secretary, so far as I know, but by some people on his behalf —that these tougher policies towards serious offenders are part of the political price which must be paid by an enlightened Home Secretary in order to carry out liberal policies towards the petty criminals. I do not think the Home Secretary said that, so I do not want to imply that he has; but many people would see the matter in that light and I should think that that is anybody's point of view. I would describe it as not only unjust but inhuman and I would regard it as making a kind of human sacrifice for political rather than penalogical reasons.
The Home Secretary has announced that he will normally turn down recommendations for the release on licence of prisoners for certain categories of murder until they have served at least 20 years in prison. It may well be that regrettably some prisoners in these categories have to be detained in prison for very long periods. It is likely that they must be detained for long periods to protect the public. But everyone concerned with penal reform will agree with me that it must be absolutely wrong for the Home Secretary to announce a blanket policy for whole categories of offenders in advance, rather than to consider each life prisoner's case for release on its individual merits. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will speak on that point and I expect him to speak very forcefully about it. It would undermine the whole principle of parole scrutiny. Prisoners in any category, whatever they have done, can change their attitudes for reasons which include ageing, remorse, the influence of prison staff, families, friends and responding to opportunities provided in prison. Sometimes there will be a genuine religious conversion.
Yet under the new policy, no matter how deep and genuine the remorse an offender may feel, no matter how well he may behave in prison, no matter how positive are the reports on him and how good the prognosis, if he is in one of the categories mentioned by the Home Secretary he cannot expect to be released on licence for at least 20 years. I submit that to establish a system which refuses to accept that prisoners can repent and change is a throwback to the penal dark ages.
A further objection to this policy is the devastating effect it already has had on the atmosphere in those prisons which contain a high proportion of inmates in the categories affected by the changes. It is all too likely to increase violence—I must be careful because if I say anything injudicious it is likely to stir violence up. It is likely to increase violence by prisoners deprived of hope. These men in all cases have committed serious crimes, even horrible crimes; but they are human beings. Hope is about the only thing left to them and the Home Secretary is setting out to take away that hope.
The second change affects those sentenced to more than five years' imprisonment for offences of violence or trafficking in drugs. They will not he granted parole, except for short periods towards the end of their sentences, other than in cirucmstances which are wholly exceptional. It seems quite incredible that the

313
Home Secretary should have discarded in this way such an important means of controlling offenders' future behaviour. Home Office research has discovered that release on parole, which combines supervision by a probation officer with the possibility of recall to prison for misbehaviour on licence, reduces released prisoners' chances of reconviction. Moreover, I am informed that the effect is particularly striking for offenders serving longer terms of imprisonment—exactly the group affected by the new policy. These changes, therefore, ironically made in the name of combating serious crime, have involved throwing away one of the few penal measures which has proved effective in reducing these serious crimes. In short, these measures are not only unjust and inhumane; they are likely to prove counter-productive.
I must touch on another point which is perhaps a specialist point, but it means a lot to a number of human beings. The Home Secretary, in a Parliamentary Answer since the debate on the Archbishop's Motion, has announced that the Home Office committee will he abolished. That committee decides when life prisoners are to be allowed to enter the parole process. Until now the committee has consisted of three members of the Parole Board—I presume that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is still chairman of it—and two Home Office officials. I never thought the day would come when I should bewail the disappearance of this particular committee, about which I have said some harsh things in the past. But there is the old saying that if you get rid of nurse you are likely to have something worse. If we have tears we should prepare to shed them now for this committee. We have seen its limitations, but it is better than the absence of any such arrangements. The existing committee, under the wise chairmanship of Lord Windlesham, represents some element of impartial justice in the consideration of life prisoners. I have criticised the committee rather bluntly on occasions because I felt it had allowed itself to be too much governed by political considerations. But it was some check on the handling of life prisoners along purely political lines.
The Home Secretary has announced with pride that none of the life prisoners will be released on licence without his permission. We shall soon have about 2,000 of them. But how on earth he will give personal consideration to these 2,000 people or provide any sort of justice I do not know. The difficulty of securing justice for individual prisoners, was severe enough, but in future it will be very much more awkward.
Incidentally, in passing, if any noble Lord studies what the Home Secretary has said on this matter he may conclude, as I do, that the arguments for the change are one prolonged non sequitur. I do not intend to go into the legal aspects of this tonight and I do not know whether anyone else will, but the Home Secretary is being challenged on his policy in a number of cases and in one case a High Court judge has allowed an appeal. That is another difficulty. He may be trying to do things that he is not able to do under the law unless he wants to change that law.
A colleague of the Home Secretary said to me recently, "You must realise that Leon is a very kind man". The colleague in question is himself a very kind man, and that may or may not make him a good judge
314
of kindness. The Home Secretary is obviously a very intelligent man. I am sure that he wishes to make a success of his great office. But the changes I have been discussing are not kind, they are not intelligent, they are unlikely to be successful. They are brutal, foolish and, as I think, doomed to failure. I must beg the Home Secretary to remember that just for a few years he has under his control and at his mercy a large number of his fellow citizens. Some of them have done terrible things. As individuals they do not arouse much public sympathy. But one day he, like the rest of us, will need to be forgiven.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for having initiated this evening this debate which raises issues of considerable public importance. Quite apart from anything else, it provides an opportunity for the noble Lord, Lord Henniker, to make his maiden speech. Before he does so, I should say that I do not think there is a more appropriate matter on which he could speak, as he was a most valued colleague of mine on the Parole Board for some years. We look forward very much to hearing what he will have to say later.
As a former chairman of the board I particularly welcome the opportunity provided by the noble Earl's Question to raise some of the more important issues which now arise on parole policy, but before coming to some of these issues I should like to say something about those who now serve, or who have served, on the Parole Board. As the House will be aware, they come from a number of very different backgrounds. There are High Court judges, there are Crown Court judges, there are trade union leaders, psychiatrists, chief probation officers, retired police officers, magistrates, criminologists and educationists; and, in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Henniker, a distinguished former member of the diplomatic service. I believe that most of them—indeed, I think all of them—find the experience of working together as colleagues one of the most rewarding features of their jobs as members of the board. The workload carried is a heavy one. They often have to consider up to 30 cases at a time, and on a number of these cases the arguments are obviously very finely balanced.
As chairman, I was impressed by two features of our discussions. First, I cannot remember a single case where a member had clearly not read his papers before the meeting. I wish that we could always say that about all the Ministers of the Crown—those, possibly, in this Government and those in other Governments. Secondly, I was impressed not only by the care and the sense of fairness displayed by the members in considering even some of the most hopeless cases but also by their willingness on most occasions to consider diametrically opposed opinions and to change their own views on the merits of a case when they regarded that as appropriate. In the overwhelming majority of cases, we have been fortunate in the quality of the people chosen by successive Home Secretaries to serve on the board. I think that on an occasion such as this we should indicate our gratitude to all those who are carrying out this important public work on behalf of the entire community; and while I am saying that I think there should be added our gratitude to those

315
present and past members of the staff who served the board.
I want to discuss two matters. The first, which may appear to some to be rather technical, are the circumstances in which some cases are referred to the board, and some are not; and the, second, the matter already raised by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, the announcement by the Home Secretary that he proposes to make radical changes in policy relating to life-sentence prisoners and also to a number of prisoners serving sentences of more than five years who have been convicted of offences of violence or of trafficking in drugs. I turn first to the question of cases that, for one reason or another, are not referred to the Parole Board at all.
There are, of course, many cases that are not referred to the board for (in my view) entirely sensible reasons. As part of the process of expanding the parole system, it was decided some years ago that the board need not be troubled with the cases of many shorter-sentence prisoners where the local review committee was unanimously in favour of recommending parole. Again, the new categories of cases which will become eligible for parole for the first time next year will also not be referred to the board at all. Again, I personally support that decision. However, there is another and entirely different category of cases that have not in the past and will not in the future be considered by the board; and I am far from certain that this is right.
Until a few years ago, any prisoner with a computer-based prediction score of 35 per cent. or more—that is, an entirely statistically-based assumption that he had a 35 per cent. chance of re-offending within a period of two years—and where the local review committee was unanimously against recommending parole, did not go to the hoard at all. As a Minister at the Home Office I did not like that policy and I succeeded, albeit with some difficulty, in raising the prediction score from 35 per cent. to 50 per cent., thus ensuring that far more cases were referred to the board for a second opinion. This change of policy did not come into force until shortly after I became chairman of the board.
As chairman, I became progressively more unhappy about this whole approach. The calculations on which that prediction score was based themselves had been made many years before, even before the introduction of the parole scheme. Some of those criteria were of doubtful value. The pluses or the minuses which potential parolees received for factors—just to take two examples such as marriage and employment; very important factors—were I believe arbitrary. The consequences which arose from that plus or minus were in some cases both harsh and unjust. The difference of a single percentage point in the prediction score between 50 and 51 per cent. made the difference as to whether a case was or was not referred to a panel of the Parole Board. Consequently, some prisoners received a second consideration of their case because they fell just on the right side of the dividing line, and some got parole as a result of that second consideration; whereas others who were just on the wrong side of the dividing line did not have their cases considered by the Parole Board at all.
The policy was—and I fear is—even more unfair than this. First, there are immense differences of
316
attitude between local review committees at different prisons; and that is almost inevitable, given the different type of offenders who are held in custody. The great advantage of the Parole Board is that it is able, by examining cases from right across the entire prison system, to apply common standards of judgment to the cases it considers. Obviously, if some of the longer-sentence cases are not referred to it because of the prediction score, it is not able to do this at all. Secondly, women prisoners are treated entirely differently. There are no prediction scores for women; so, consequently, all those cases are referred automatically to the Parole Board.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, just out of interest perhaps the noble Lord will tell us why there are no scores for women.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I look forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Elton, reply on behalf of the Home Office. I am sure that he will do it far more adequately than I; but my recollection is that statisticians are quite unable to work out any prediction scores so far as women prisoners are concerned. It is as simple as that.
Thirdly—and this is in some respect a particularly difficult issue—there is the question of association. Quite rightly, the Home Office attempts to put to the board the cases of prisoners tried and convicted at the same time. But in such cases the prediction-score rule does not apply. If a prisoner with a high prediction-score of, say, 90 per cent. or more, gets turned down unanimously by a local review committee (and in normal circumstances therefore his case would not go to the Parole Board) he can still get it considered by the Parole Board is he is lucky enough to have an associate who has a prediction score of less than 50 per cent.
I believe that this demonstrates—or I hope that it demonstrates—the unfairness of the system. I hope to hear tonight that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is prepared at least to re-examine this situation. I am well aware of the implications of scrapping the prediction-score system: more cases would have to go to the Parole Board as a whole. But the working party of the board headed by Mrs. Susan Baring of which the noble Lord, Lord Henniker, was a member, made a number of recommendations to deal with the problem and I have still not heard any satisfactory answer given by the Home Office as to why there has been no action on these recommendations.
I turn now to the issue which was central to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Longford. That is the announcement made by the Home Secretary of his new policy on life-sentence prisoners and to some serving sentences of more than five years. I am asked by my noble friend, Lord Hunt, to say that he very much regrets that he is not able to be present tonight but that what I am saying represents his own view on this matter. First, I should say that this new policy applies only to England and Wales. That appears to be clear from an Answer which I have only just received from the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, when I asked whether the Secretary of State for Scotland intended to apply the new rules to the Scottish Parole Board. Perhaps I might quote the appropriate passage of the reply, which is that the Secretary of State for Scotland:

317
"keeps continuously under review life sentence and parole policy in consultation with the Parole Board for Scotland, in the context that the safety of the public is a paramount consideration and that the deterrent effect of sentences of life imprisonment must he emphasised".
Indeed; and that has been the approach in the past to the parole policy in England and Wales. But it is quite clear from that reply that the Secretary of State for Scotland, in making, in my view, an entirely sensible decision, has decided not to apply the new policy to cases in Scotland. Certainly, as I put the matter very directly to him, I do not think there is any other possible interpretation of the Answer I have just quoted.
I must say at the outset that there is absolutely no doubt that this is the most profound change in parole policy since the parole system was introduced in 1968. It was announced by the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary at the Conservative Party conference in terms which made it absolutely clear that he recognised the full significance of what he was announcing. Nothing, I fear, has been less persuasive than the efforts which have been made since that speech by some of the Home Secretary's friends to pretend that what he is suggesting is only a relatively limited modification of the existing scheme or that it developed perfectly naturally from some of the changes made by his predecessors. Neither of the arguments has substance.
None of the right honourable gentleman's predecessors, Conservative or Labour, ever suggested that there was to be an overwhelming presumption against giving parole or granting a prisoner a life sentence licence solely on the precise type of offence committed and irrespective of all other factors. If that view is challenged—and I cannot frankly see how it can be—I should like to quote from the last annual report of the Parole Board, Appendix 4, concerning the criteria for selection for parole. It is a substantial appendix and indicates the view of the then Home Secretary Mr. Jenkins who made this announcement in 1975. In paragraph 20 the view is set out in, I think the clearest terms:
"Commonsense and general experience will best guide committee members in identifying cases where the danger is grave. The following are no more than fairly obvious examples"—
and then there is, in my view, a wholly sensible list—of course I would say that, because I happened to be a Home Office Minister at the time—of the types of person who came into that category. They included some of the cases which have been dealt with by the present Home Secretary in his announcement, but they included among others—and I quote—
"A person convicted of more than one sophisticated crime intended to produce a large reward, committed on different occasions, even if violence has not been used or contemplated".
It is quite clear from that paragraph that the Home Secretary of the day believed that it was right to leave it—I quote again—
"to the commonsense and general experience",
of members of the Parole Board as to what their view of such cases should be. He did that in the knowledge that if he disagreed with their views he could overrule them because when the board makes a positive recommendation that view is entirely advisory,
318
whereas if the Parole Board says, "No", that is the end of the matter.
Then, in paragraph 24, the appendix reads as follows:
"It can, however, be said that, just as the graver the criminal record (and hence the graver risk to the public of granting parole), the stronger need to be the reasons for granting it early in the parolable period.
"However, as the Home Secretary said, it should not be ruled out, conversely, if there is just, but only just, a good enough case for granting parole to a prisoner with a grave record, only a fairly short period of parole should be granted. This seems right both as a matter of equity, and of course the danger to the public will be reduced if the period is short".
That was the situation as set out in 1974, and I think it indicates the very substantial gap between that policy and the one set out by the Home Secretary at the Conservative Party Conference. So I hope we shall hear no more about the suggestion that the present policy is simply a logical development of past policies. It is clearly no such thing.
What the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary has announced is that there are to be two clearly defined categories of life sentence prisoners: one which will serve a minimum of 20 years in prison and one which will not. There will be two parole systems: one in which cases can be examined on their merits and the other in which parole will be refused save in the most exceptional circumstances.
I endeavoured to point out some of the difficulties of this approach during the debate which was initiated last month by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, no doubt because he had many speakers to reply to on that occasion, did not deal with my arguments in his reply. I am sorry to say that neither have I received the letter which he indicated he would send to those speakers whose points he was not able to deal with that evening. I hope, therefore, that I may be a little more successful this evening.
Let me put the problem again in the most direct terms to the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Why is it right, clearly and demonstrably right, to insist that the driver of a getaway car after a robbery, during which someone was shot dead, who was as a result sentenced to life imprisonment, should serve at least 20 years in prison, whereas the robber who bursts into the home of an elderly couple and bludgeons them to death comes into the less serious category and can serve in many cases an appreciably shorter sentence? As this is the second time that I have put this point, I very much hope that I shall get this question directly answered this evening.
Let me now deal with the question of the determinate sentence prisoner—those sentenced to more than five years. We have already had pointed out, and I intend to do so again this evening, some of the extraordinary results of this policy. Why is it right that a man sentenced—and I give the same example that I gave on the last occasion—to five years three months should serve a longer sentence than a man sentenced to seven years' imprisonment, solely because the former was convicted of robbery, whereas the seven-year man had perhaps stolen the life savings

319
of many elderly people? At present, unless there have been the most exceptional circumstances, the man who is serving five years three months for the offence of robbery will be rejected for parole by the Home Secretary whatever the board recommends, whereas the seven-year man will just as certainly get parole if the Parole Board makes a favourable recommendation.
I hope we shall not be told by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that, in the Home Secretary's view, one case is clearly more serious than the other because violence was involved. If it is argued in those terms I should like to make two replies in advance. First, in the case that I have cited, it is nonsense to suggest that a single act of violence which leads to the kind of sentence I have given as an example is more reprehensible than the theft of the life savings of a substantial number of elderly people. That is just as much an act of violence as the robber who coshes his victim in order to steal his money. Its effects on the elderly people concerned can be even more devastating.
But there is a second argument, and it is this. It may be that, on the day in question, the same judge sentenced both defendants, one to five years three months, and the other to seven years. He did so because, in his view, one deserved a significantly longer sentence than the other. Until the announcement of the Home Secretary's new policy, the judge would have known that at some stage in the future the cases of both would have come up for consideration before a panel of the Parole Board, and that both would have been considered on the basis of precisely the same approach. The character of the offence would, of course, have been considered, as would the previous convictions, the prison reports, the home circumstances reports and the possibilities of employment and of suitable housing. In short, the cases would have been considered on the basis of equality.
In either case, the Home Secretary of the day could have overruled a favourable recommendation of the Parole Board, but as he has done this on average for about 12 cases a year, the board's view is decisive in the overwhelming majority of cases. In my own experience as a Minister, I had very few cases which fell into that category referred by officials for consideration.
That whole approach has now been scrapped. The Home Secretary has decided that henceforth, in an admittedly limited category of cases, the views of the sentencing judge and the Parole Board are to be disregarded. The right honourable gentlemen is saying, not only to the Parole Board, but also to the sentencing judge, "It may be that you think that a sentence of five years three months is appropriate in one type of case and seven years in another, but I, as Home Secretary, consider that if the five years three months man has committed a particulr type of offence, and the seven years man has not, then I will ensure that the seven years man will have the chance of leaving prison first".
I believe that such an approach is entirely wrong. If the Home Secretary believes that he, rather than the judiciary, should finally determine the length of a sentence—and, I repeat, exclusively because of the character of the offence—then the right honourable
320
gentleman should come to Parliament and introduce legislation authorising him to make that fundamental change in policy. To make these changes entirely on the basis of his discretionary power to overrule the Parole Board in individual cases is a serious error of judgment.
It is that, just as much as the new policy itself, which has caused so much public concern and has led to the resignation from the Parole Board of a most valued colleague, Dr. Julian Candy, and to the deepening anxiety of so many present and past members of the Parole Board. They fear that the new policy, which, as it is non-statutory, may be changed decisively by any future Home Secretary, will be seen to be both unjust and capricious, will cause serious tensions within the prison system, and will undermine the reputation of the parole system as a whole as well as the independence of the Parole Board. I believe that the Home Secretary has made a most serious mistake.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Henniker: My Lords, may I first apologise for having been silent so long since I joined your Lordships' House, but I found it very hard to convince myself that, among other things, I had enough special or up-to-date knowledge to enable me to make a useful contribution. I am therefore all the more grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for having initiated this debate, because until the beginning of this year I served on the Parole Board, both under the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and for a longer time under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I thank him very much for his verygenerous—undeservedly generous—tribute to me tonight. Before that, I served on the board of visitors and the local review committee of a local prison. I have also been on the mental health review tribunal at Broadmoor and elsewhere and now on the board of a community home for boys at risk and in trouble. So I think I know something of the outlines of this problem; hut, as in all human problems, the more I know the outlines the less idea do I have of the proper solution.
I realise that in making a maiden speech I must not be controversial, but it is a very difficult subject on which to agree with everybody. So I hope that I shall be forgiven if I appear to transgress a little. My main concern, with which I shall deal tonight, is the criticism of the Parole Board—and perhaps, especially, the inference which can be drawn from the recent changes in the parole system—that the Parole Board is somehow failing in its duty to protect public safety. I should like to break a lance on their behalf.
I must say that my blood ran cold when I saw that the noble Lord, Lord Hams, was speaking before me, because everything that I can say he knows much better than I, and can say it better. But I can truthfully and simply say that I have never served on a board on which I was so proud to serve and which I admired so much as the Parole Board. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has said, it has an enormously wide membership—professional members, judges, senior probation officers, psychiatrists and people drawn from every walk of life. That makes it very well informed from a variety of angles. I think all my colleagues were struck by the way in which everybody did the voluminous homework which was required

321
before each board, and we could go straight into each matter and discuss it in an informed way. The board is very far from monolithic; it has every sort of view. Yet it was extraordinary how, when you got down to cases, you reached agreement on what was fair in those cases.
Always—I should like to emphasise this, especially where violence is involved—the overriding consideration must be, and is, public safety. When one looks at the obvious failure rate, the Parole Board comes off well. When I last remember it, the number of recalls was about 10 per cent. and that covered the cases of minor, but persistent, offenders for whom a period of parole under supervision was the least of two pretty forlorn alternatives.
Whatever is true of normal parole cases in respect of meticulousness and care for public safety can be said with redoubled emphasis for lifers. I always felt that the procedure in the case of lifers was very impressive. One had a consecutive history over many years of what had happened to the prisoner, and the presence on the board, always, of a High Court judge, and the fact that the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge were asked for their opinion, meant that the punishment was in line with prevailing standards of punishment in this country. Add to that the fact that in every case the Home Secretary has always been able to turn down the board's recommendation and has done so in the few cases when he thought that there might be justifiable public concern, and I do not believe anybody can contend that any decision can be taken without absolutely full concern for public safety.
When I left the board at the beginning of this year it seemed to me that, after initial hesitations, it had become generally accepted, both by prison staff and by prisoners, as part of the control system of prison life. Parole provided for the inmates a reasonable incentive for good behaviour, and the prospect of its forfeiture for bad behaviour was a great help to prison staff. Of course I realise the extent and justification for public alarm about the spread of violence. Indeed, many people—I am among them—will know of cases in which the damage to the health and happiness of victims has gone far beyond the criminal act itself. But I do not believe that the existence or use of parole has anything to do with this problem of violence. What I fear is that the virtual removal of all real prospect of parole from some, and those probably the most difficult categories of prisoner, will make control even harder than it has been.
One of the Parole Board's greatest strengths, too, has lain in its measure of independence, and a reduction in its competence and freedom, as well as its continued involvement in considering cases which have no chance of parole, might reduce its standing, cast more doubt on its independence and make it harder to attract good people to serve on it. And it may strengthen the views of those, of whom there is quite a number, who believe that consistency and certainty are the paramount needs and that if they are not maintained the Parole Board should be abolished and an automatic system of parole substituted instead. I hope and expect that my fears are groundless, that I am Don Quixote, tilting at a non-existent windmill, but in matters of this kind I always remember Ernest
322
Bevin, the wisest man I ever served, who, when asked for the umpteenth review of the British Council after the war, turned down the idea with the advice not to muck about with it or start digging around its roots, or it would never grow.
It would be foolish to pretend that any system cannot be improved. It was my hope that the Parole Board, like many things in British life, had evolved and was constantly evolving through experience and case law to a position where it was established in public confidence. The board is constantly critical of its own performance and limitations. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has spoken graphically about it. Soon after I joined the board I served on the working party to which the noble Lord referred. We examined ways of trying to improve the board. We were chiefly concerned with its cumbrousness, with streamlining its procedures, eliminating delays and helping the board to devote proper attention to its more important tasks and to include within its scope those people with the wrong prediction scores (whom the noble Lord has mentioned) who get left out. To take one example, we thought that in straightforward cases, with short sentences for non-violent crimes, the local review committees should be able to recommend release without the delay of several months which reference to the Parole Board means.
This would have had excellent effects, but one in particular interests me. There are, I believe from my personal observation, some prisoners, especially young ones, who, having landed themselves in prison for the first time, are appalled by what they see: men wasting their whole lives and the awful problems they have themselves brought on their wives and families. When the lessons have sunk in, a quick decision on parole, with the support of supervision, could provide the best chance of their becoming useful citizens. From experience, too, I thought it would help the local review committee by giving it more real responsibility. The idea was turned down, and in that form perhaps it was unworkable. But there have been other important and, I believe, valuable improvements in terms of devolving responsibility. More, I believe, are still needed to speed up the processes and simplify them.
I fear that for a maiden speech I have spoken for too long. I did, however, want to say that I see the Parole Board, warts and all, as having developed into an institution which is a feather in our national cap. It is, I believe, flexible and realistic as well as sensitive and responsive to public opinion. I have spent most of my working life in such bodies, first on overseas affairs and lately the Parole Board. They receive more brickbats than praise. Criticism, of course, is healthy, but its too constant drip can undermine or erode. Perhaps I am too sensitive. I have been in fields where the news is not always what the nation wants to hear. I hope that we shall not, in frustration, begin to think of shooting the herald who brings the news. I hope, too, that there is general confidence in the Parole Board as an institution which is both necessary and valuable.
8.56 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, may I, as another old Trinity man, be the first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Henniker, on his most attractive,

323
informed, succinct and, from the point of view of these Benches, entirely non-controversial speech. We are lucky to have him. The noble Lord had a distinguished and gallant career in the Army and a distinguished career in diplomacy. In later years he has been much involved in that curious world of the social services: Toynbee Hall, the City Parochial Foundation and, as he told us himself, the Broadmoor mental health tribunal. And since 1979 he has been a member of the Parole Board. I welcome the noble Lord, not only to this House but to the very limited group of Peers who are always the same, and never more than about 10, who meet about four times a year to discuss matters of this kind. If he prefers, as most of us do, to speak to crowded Benches, the noble Lord had better use some of his other information to make speeches; but in the small, not uncosy arguments which we have here the noble Lord is a very valuable and welcome recruit.
First let me say that today is a gala day. I should like the archives to be examined to find out how long ago it was that a 78-year-old Earl spoke on the only three Motions of the day. I congratulate the noble Earl not only on that score but also for putting down this Motion for debate. The Motion is concerned with improving the parole system. I wish to begin by congratulating the Home Secretary, and the noble Lord who represents him here, on the announcement which was made the night before last, I believe, about extending eligibility for parole to prisoners serving short term sentences of six months. This is extremely important. We have been urging it for two years. We welcome it. Let us not be curmudgeonly on that score. We wish to attack the Home Secretary on other fronts, but we appreciate what he has done about this.
The noble Earl's Motion also asks us to consider the position of life prisoners and the Home Secretary's new proposals relating to prisoners serving sentences of over five years. This is a very different matter. We have complained very bitterly since 1979 about many sins of omission relating to penal affairs. This is the first time that I, speaking as President of NACRO, have found it necessary roundly to condemn an act of omission. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, said something of the same kind. We have succeeded in NACRO, over 16 years, in working with, and not against, the Home Office to improve prospects for prisoners, whether convicted or on remand, and prevent crime. We have often disagreed with and criticised the authorities but almost always for their doing too little too late. Now we are confronted with some changes which, as has been said by every speaker except the maiden speaker, are undeniably retrograde. I am reminded of Evelyn Waugh's bitter comment on the Tory Government during their famous 13 wasted years: "They haven't put the clock back one minute". Now they have.
We are proud in my Party to have two ex-chairmen of the Parole Board. My noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich has already spoken, pursuing his formidable attack on the new regulations which he made in the Archbishop's debate. This allows me to do what I always do better than other things, which is to avoid any detailed criticisms. My noble friend Lord Hunt cannot be here. As chairman of the Intermediate Treatment Committee, he is looking at intermediate
324
treatment centres in the West of England. So I thought it as well to talk to him fairly thoroughly about his views and to represent them here; and each of them is a view which I entirely share. As we all remember, he was the first chairman of the Parole Board. He gave a most distinguished lead to both Government and board members on how the board should develop; he has left his mark on it and it can still be seen. In my noble friend's opinion, and in mine, neither the Home Secretary's Blackpool statement, nor his Written Answer to a Commons Question last week, does anything to improve the parole system. On the contrary, the statement can be read as implying, quite wrongly, that the Parole Board and the Probation Service, which supervises paroled offenders, are soft on certain serious categories of crime.
We have not yet seen the new guidelines for the Parole Board regarding implementing the policy, but my noble friend and I are both very much concerned about the restriction which they seem certain to impose on the freedom of the board. This point has already been referred and I shall go into it in a little detail because I think it is very important. It seems to us that the present intention is to provide guidelines which have regard to political policy as distinct from public interest. I do not suggest that members of the Parole Board would act politically, but if in effect they refrained from recommending for parole a prisoner in the categories virtually excluded by the Home Secretary's statement, notwithstanding their opinion that save for political policy it would serve the public interest to grant parole in that case, that would amount to a distortion which to my mind would be quite unacceptable.
Let us look at what the Home Secretary actually said about the public interest. He said:
"What I intend is that no one sentenced to more than five years imprisonment for an offence of violence to the person shall be released on parole, except where release under supervision for just a few months immediately before the end of the sentence is likely to reduce the long-term risk to the public, or in circumstances which are wholly exceptional".
There the Home Secretary accepts that release on supervision can be in the public interest in some cases. Yet he is virtually preventing the board from granting parole in cases earlier than a few months before the end of the sentence, even though the board believes that it would be in the public interest to do so. That I find unacceptable, and I am surprised that members of the board have not felt the same. I have a suspicion that some of them have.
The board was created as an independent and politically neutral body. It ought not to be called on to take account of political considerations; these are the proper concern of the Home Secretary of the day. Nobody can dispute that at least one of the motives—I shall not say that it is the only one, but it is at least one of the motives—for this policy is to satisfy the political unrest from people who are sorry to lose the capital sentence. There can really be no doubt about that. I shall not say that it is the only reason, but it is certainly one of the reasons.
Undoubtedly the Home Secretary has always succeeded in crossing the board only a handful of times in a year. In my opinion, the present rules can maintain this position of only a handful of differences, but only at the cost of some of the board's indepen-

325
dence. I absolutely agree with the previous speakers that we shall miss the committee that the noble Earl spoke about. It was not merely better than nothing; I think that it was generally fairly good. The noble Earl had a little more trouble with it than I had.
As laid down by the 1976 Act, the Home Secretary will now continue to consult the Lord Chief Justice, and the trial judge, if available, and they will be his sole source of advice in regard to the minimum time to be served as retribution for the most heinous form of murder which we are talking about in relation to "lifers". We do not really quarrel with that, but we think it is an awful pity that the joint committee should disappear. It has been useful. It has at least ensured that exceptional cases were brought forward for formal review at a relatively early stage in the sentence; and in the early days of the parole scheme there were serving life sentences too many forgotten men whose case dossiers were piled up in the office of a certain Home Office official.
I should like to take this opportunity to defend the parole scheme, as did the noble Lord, Lord Henniker, against those such as the National Association of Probation Officers, who speak as though they want to abolish it. Despite its well-known shortcomings, it is absolutely undeniable that statutory supervision and support during conditional release on licence has proved of immense benefit to both the public and the paroled offenders alike. In his maiden speech the noble Lord gave a very clear example of this, and I think that all of us who have dealt with prisoners could quote others. In particular, there are a number of cases where it has worked extremely well with sentences up to five years, and even over five years. I can recall quite a number of such cases.
There is absolutely no case for abolishing parole unless it is replaced by something more constructive than a pious hope for shorter sentences. During the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill, on 28th June 1982, my noble friend Lord Hunt put forward a proposition which makes real sense and which would retain the advantages without the disadvantages of the present system, at least for short-term prisoners. I shall not go into details now, but, roughly speaking it proposed that as a first stage all sentences of less than three years should be in two parts, the first half in prison, the second under a supervision release licence in the community. The courts could refuse this in special circumstances. The Lord Chief Justice seemed to agree with this in principle. I think that we shall have to put it forward again in the new year, since I believe that the only way we can redress the undermining of the parole system now contemplated would be by scrapping it and starting something new. That would require, as the new parole scheme which was announced the day before yesterday will require, more probation officers. But is not that a very good thing? We have appalling unemployment. We have a number of people who have had elaborate training as probation officers and do not have jobs. If we could save their dole money and employ them at the same time in this effective way, that would seem to be money which even this Government might be able to find. I hope that will he thought about. However, I must not discuss that
326
tonight; but it is a point which I fully intend to bring up again in due course.
Meanwhile, I am glad that my old colleague and friend, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has once again given us the chance to discuss these frustrating and depressing topics. He and I have been doing this for the past 30—or is it 40?—years. In spite of some few minor improvements here and there—and I repeat my welcome to the one mentioned recently—it is discouraging to see the slow but steady deterioration of our treatment of those kept in our prisons, whether accused of or convicted of offences. Let us keep up the pressure and we may get some more concessions later.
9.10 p.m.
Lord Kagan: My Lords, I shall be very brief at this late hour. If prison is a stick, parole is the carrot in the judicial system. As in so many other fields, to leave the stick and take away the carrot produces very undesirable consequences. Parole gives the prisoner choice, and choice gives hope. After all, in most cases, particularly with young people, the time a man spends in prison is rather less than the time we hope he will spend in society afterwards, so that preparation for the future should take precedence over what one does for him during his stay in prison.
Parole helps to rebuild bridges. It acts as a decompression chamber of the soul, as it were, for re-entry into society. It is supported, and must be supported, by a very effective probation system. Recommendations for parole should be supported right from the start with assessment by probation officers, which should start from entry into prison, not when the prisoner leaves. It should be possible to assess at that time whether a particular person is capable of improvement, a change of heart, and so on.
As my noble friend Lord Longford said, there is no provision for doubts, repentance or remorse. There is hardly a person who at some point or other has not doubted what he has done and why he got into conflict. Unfortunately, at that point there is nobody to catch that mood, because in our prison system once a man has entered prison he is abandoned to the influence of other prisoners and not to the influence of prison officers. I believe that in Holland—I have spoken on this subject previously—before a prison officer is given an opportunity to take up a job in prison he undertakes an examination which proves him to be a good probation officer. If he cannot pass that examination he is not accepted. It is an upgrading of the quality of the staff which would make a success of the probation service and, subsequently, enable people to be put on parole usefully.
In other countries the churches play a much more important part in the prison service. It is difficult to assume that if a person is under total control for a number of years, and subject to a budget of between £10,000 and £20,000 a year, he cannot be influenced and reformed. One interesting aspect of the Korean war was that American prisoners, in a short period of two years, were indoctrinated to such an extent that when they returned to freedom later the United States authorities could not undo the results. It was perhaps a case where the better advocate won over the better course. Interestingly enough, the people they

327
used—the North Koreans—were highly educated and sophisticated politruks. If one can re-educate a person to a bad purpose, surely we should be able to do better than that to a good purpose. It needs faith and it needs application.
I shall stop at that, but may I just ask one question? On the previous occasion the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said that a study of the Dutch system was in progress and was expected to be ready by the end of the year. The Dutch seem to have a much better way of dealing with the problems that we are discussing. Is the study likely to be ready soon?
9.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, when addressing the House during a short debate (which was attended by even more of your Lordships than are at present here) I said that it was a lesson that one learned not to repeat what others had said perfectly eloquently and clearly. In having the privilege of winding up the debate on behalf of the Opposition, I intend to follow that maxim at this late hour. Like the other noble Lords who have spoken, I am most grateful to my stalwart noble friend Lord Longford for having returned to the fray. He will never give up the battle for the improvement of the parole system. As a non-Trinity man, and therefore with a much more objective view, may I congratulate the maiden speaker in the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Henniker. If I may say so, he spoke most attractively to the House and showed an expertise that we hope to experience again in future debates.
The case has been made very fully not only for the need for improvements in the parole system but for condemning—and I put it in those express terms—the Home Secretary's recent announcement. In saying that, I too want to pay tribute to what happened in the early hours of the morning before last in another place. It seems that all prison debates in both Houses occur either late at night or in the early hours of the morning, which is very wrong. There was an improvement, to which attention has already been drawn by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, so there is no need for me to repeat what he said. As I think he implied, it means that there will have to be an addition to the number of probation officers, which we should all welcome. I shall merely summarise what has been said already. But one felt that the Home Secretary's statement was a terribly retrograde and wrong step.
Item No. 1, if one is going to take away a discretion from the Parole Board, it is due to the Parole Board and to the whole nation that the Secretary of State expressly states why his experience of the Parole Board—because of its inaction, wrong action or whatever else it may be—has led him to introduce that reform. I ask the noble Lord the Minister to say in his reply what experience he can bring before the House to show that the Parole Board has acted without proper regard to the public interest and to public safety in the past which has made the withdrawal of that discretion necessary.
Item No. 2 has been mentioned and I therefore summarise it in this way. To some extent it is a repetition of the first point. It is wrong for the discretion and independence of the Parole Board to he taken from it.
328
As has also been said, if that step is taken, I believe that it is an offensive thing to do to the judges and the other members of the Parole Board who have fulfilled their duties to it with such eminence and satisfaction in the past.
I again merely summarise the third point. It is hopelessly wrong to remove hope. I know a little hit about the experience of prison officers and about their views. Quite apart from removing hope, it is the view of the prison officers that their task will be made so much more difficult by the fact that they will have to deal now with prisoners who were there already for violence and who will be told that whatever their conduct, and however much the prison officers influence them to behave well, there is no point in it, because they will not be considered unless they can put themselves in a category of a very exceptional case. I should love the Minister to say in his reply what "exceptional cases" is intended to cover. Could he kindly define the term for the benefit of the House? I too should love to see improvements. I thought that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, if I may say so—always giving, as he does, an expert view, both as a previous Minister at the Home Office and a previous chairman of the Parole Board, and therefore always listened to with great attention—was a very fine speech tonight. I thought the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Donaldson and Lord Longford also brought great credit. I have already referred to the noble Lord who has delivered his maiden speech. In those speeches there were suggestions of how we could improve the situation, and I hope we shall come back to those matters.
I was delighted to hear in Lord Harris's speech, a reference to two eccentricities which appear to exist: one was that the Secretary of State who looks after Scottish affairs did not appear to like the activities and policy of his colleague who looks after England and Wales. I was also bemused by the information which was not previously in my mind at all, namely: I had always recognised the view—which is I think generally accepted by the male population—that males are guided by logic and women are guided by instinct. I did not know, until I heard the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that presumably there are crimes of logic which are committed by men and therefore can be measured in a computer, but there are crimes presumably of instinct committed by women, and their liability to commit crimes in the future cannot be measured by computer, because computers do not measure instinct.
I promised that I was going to be brief and therefore, as I have said, I am not going to repeat the speeches which have been made. I merely try to summarise the points and we shall all look forward to hearing the response from the noble Lord the Minister.
9.22 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Earl. Lord Longford, asked Her Majesty's Government whether the parole system and the system for the release of life sentence prisoners on licence needs to be much improved. He does so in the wake of the announcement of my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary about two important aspects of the system. The first is the way in which he intends to

329
exercise the discretion given to him by the law in discharging his own part in the system. The second is the significant extension of the system to embrace large numbers of extra prisoners by the reduction of the period they must serve before they qualify for parole. This has, therefore, been a timely debate, and I am sure the House is grateful to him for providing the occasion for it and of showing the remarkable stamina, if I may say so, of participating in three consecutive debates, whereas I, a much younger man, did not have the temerity to take all three on the trot and got help on the intervening one. I bow to his greater resilience and his greater persistence.
I am also grateful to him for making the opportunity available for the admirable maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Henniker, in which he did not so much break his lance, if I may say so, as burnish it. If he thinks he has been in bodies which attract brickbats and scorn, however brilliant their work, he should just try a few months in the Home Office.
As a preliminary, I ought, I think, to remind your Lordships of the way in which the parole system has developed, but I do so with a fitting sense of humility in view of the immense weight of experience and, indeed, contribution to that development by those at present in your Lordships' House and which has been quoted from outside it.
Your Lordships will recall that the system was introduced in 1968 and that it gave rise to a good deal of anxiety when it was first started. Both the then Home Secretary and the Parole Board approached the scheme with caution, therefore, and only 1,800 prisioners were granted parole. That was 27 per cent. of those eligible. By 1974 the figure had risen to 3,500, which was 35 per cent. of those eligible. By then it was clear that the fears expressed at its introduction had little justification. In 1975 the then Home Secretary, the right honourable Roy Jenkins, felt able, in consultation with the Parole Board, to promulgate new and more liberal cirteria for the granting of parole. During the late 1970s and early 1980s releases on parole rose significantly as a result.
Last year, 5,180 prisoners, 56.3 per cent. of those eligible, were released on parole. The average length of parole licence in 1982 was nearly nine months and there were over 3,800 prisoners on parole in the community. The safeguard built into the system is that conditions can he attached to the licence and if the parolee breaks the conditions, including doing so by committing a further offence, he can be recalled to prison.
Your Lordships will notice from what I have said so far that the parole system was launched very cautiously and the increases in the use of parole were careful and slow. It ran for six years before the less stringent criteria were brought in. Up to then, the rate of recall had hovered steadily at about 8 per cent. in spite of the gradual increase in their number. About 92 per cent. of those paroled, in other words, served their licences successfully. The relaxation of the criteria meant a further increase in the number of prisoners paroled and an increase in their proportion of the prison population as a whole. A change in the quality of those paroled could be seen as a consequence, and the 593 parolees recalled last year represented 11.4 per
330
cent. of those paroled in that year. Recalls in one year may, of course, relate to releases made in a previous year but that is the nearest yardstick that I can give your Lordships.
Some of your Lordships may think that 11.4 per cent. is too high a figure. I dare say that more of their Lordships who are not in the House at the moment might think that than those sitting in the Chamber now, but I have to address all your Lordships. Your Lordships might therefore think this rather too high a figure, that it represents an unacceptable level of risk to the public and that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is right to question whether the system should not be altered in order to reduce it. That, I hasten to add, is not the deduction that the noble Earl himself would make, but it is a deduction that can and sometimes is made, and I ought therefore to comment on it.
Parole conditions are not mere gestures. They are a strict requirement. If a parolee is required to keep in regular touch with his probation officer and fails to do so, he is recalled. Over half the recalls were for breach of conditions that did not include the commission of a new offence. Less than half were for further offences. That, I hope, will put the figure of recalls into a clearer and more reassuring light. I do not think that it calls for a reversal of policy or even a major overhaul. My right honourable and learned friend has made clear recently that the trend towards more parole accords with his own broad strategy for dealing with crime and offenders. Indeed, he is in the process of extending the scheme to many thousands of shorter sentence prisoners who have hitherto been excluded from its benefit.
I now return to the statement on the parole system made by my right honourable and learned friend to which I have already referred. Noble Lords will be aware that an order has been laid before this House under Section 33 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982. If it is approved, it will reduce the minimum qualifying period for parole from 12 months to six. The requirement that a prisoner must serve at least one third of his sentence if it is longer than six months remains unchanged. We have no intention of anticipating parliamentary sanction of what is proposed, but in view of the urgency and the considerable increase in the number of cases to be processed and the amount of work involved, if the order is approved, an instruction—No. 75 of 1983—has been sent to all Prison Department establishments in preparation for what must be done if approval is given. As is customary, a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.
I do not want to anticipate our debate on this order, but I must I think at least outline its intentions, although briefly. The present minimum qualifying period is 12 months and the minimum qualifying sentence for parole is about 19½ months. A reduction in the minimum qualifying period to six months would reduce the minimum qualifying sentence to about l0½ months. We estimate that this would increase the number of prisoners qualifying for parole each year from 10,000 to 19,000. To this can be added, a possible 4,000 more when the new young offenders' sentencing arrangements take full effect. Of these 13,000 additional candidates, about 7,500 adults and about 2,700 young offenders might be

331
paroled each year. This would increase the parole population from the present level of just under 4,000 to over 6,000. This would have the beneficial extra effect of decreasing the prison population by a like amount.
These changes will involve extra work for the local review committees. Indeed, we see a need to recruit some 200 additional independent members at prisons and youth custody centres throughout the country. The committees perform a valuable public service and are an essential part of the parole system. I hope very much that many public spirited people will come forward for consideration for this important work. I should add that anybody who is interested should get in touch with the governor of the prison or youth custody centre nearest their home.
I have set out the steady growth of the parole scheme under successive Administrations, and pointed to a further very substantial extension which the Government now propose. These improvements and extensions have been possible only because public confidence has been maintained. They would not have been possible without that confidence. Winning it has been the aim of all those responsible for the operation of the parole scheme since its inception.
In that context I now come to the decision which my right honourable friend has come to about the parole cases of certain serious offenders, which has attracted so much unfavourable attention this evening. I gave the details of this decision in full in answer to a parliamentary Question by my noble friend Lord Morris on 30th November. In short, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary intends to ensure that prisoners serving sentences of over five years for offences of violence or drug trafficking will be granted parole only when release under supervision for a few months before the end of a sentence is likely to reduce the long-term risk to the public, or in circumstances which are genuinely exceptional.
He has adopted this policy in order to take account of the general public concern about the increase in violent crime and the growing public criticism of the gap between the length of sentence passed and the length of sentence actually served in certain cases. His objective is to maintain public confidence in the parole scheme. As I say, that confidence has always been essential to the success of the system. It has always been jealously guarded, and I am sure that your Lordships will agree that we cannot afford to neglect it now. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, may regard this as a step backwards. I do not agree with him. What matters is that it was a step that was necessary if further progress was to be made.
Let me put the policy in perspective. Last year, in round figures, about 10,000 prisoners were reviewed for parole and about 5,000 were granted it. If the minimum qualifying period for parole is reduced to six months, as I have said, we estimate that taking the new youth custody sentence into account, an additional 13,000 prisoners will be reviewed each year, and a further 10,000 might be released on licence. Even in the language of the noble Earl, that surely, is a step forward. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, for his frank and generous recognition that it is.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but I must put him right about this matter. In the previous debate, and again today, I welcomed that part of the arrangement which means that more people will obtain parole. I am afraid that the noble Lord did not have it written in his brief, but if he had been listening to me with a modicum of care, he would have heard me say that.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I did not wish to paint the noble Earl in ungrateful colours. I quickly own that what I was reading at that time was in my own handwriting. I am glad that he accepts that it is a step forward. I fear that I shall not convince him that the step which he regards as being backwards was necessary. I would have thought that, in his view, it seems to be a case of reculer pour mieux saltier, but we must not dwell too long on this.
Under the parole scheme as the Government intend to extend it, there are likely to be some 23,000 prisoners a year considered for parole, and about 15,000 granted it. These are large figures. The figures for the categories to which my right honourable friend referred are somewhat smaller. Last year only about 1,000 prisoners in those categories were reviewed for parole. Of them, 360 were recommended for parole, and of those 360 only about 240 were recommended for parole before their final reviews and, therefore, for other than the short period now contemplated.
There is another important aspect to this question. It has frequently been alleged—and I was going to say that it was most recently alleged in a letter to the Guardian newspaper yesterday from a justice of the peace, but I rather think that I heard it alleged again this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who will correct me if I am wrong—that in cases that fall into this serious category judges will have had the prospect of parole in mind when setting the sentence that an offender is to serve. The noble Lord indicates that he has not said that, and so I apologise for misrepresenting him, and I reinstate the justice of the peace as the last person to put this myth into currency. I have to say categorically that it is not so. The judges themselves have been at pains to say that it is not so. In a judgment reported in the press on the very same day as the letter appeared—though it was not, I notice, reported in the Guardian—the Lord Chief Justice himself again refuted this heresy. The passage in The Times report could not make this clearer. Perhaps I may quote merely two sentences:
"Questions of parole were not for the Court of Appeal. Their Lordships had repeatedly said that sentences were imposed by trial judges and reviewed by the Court of Appeal without regard to the impact or lack of impact of possible release on parole".
That could not be a clearer refutation of the view that has been frequently repeated that judges give long sentences in the expectation that parole will shorten them. Only about one in three of the cases with which we are concerned received any parole at all last year: and fewer than one in four received more than the absolute minimum available at the last review. In all conscience the judges therefore could not spot the likely beneficiaries, even if they wanted to, and they have made it abundantly and frequently clear that they do not even try to.

333
If there is any residual doubt in this, if people feel that judges say they do not take the possibility of parole into consideration but actually do it subconsciously, there would have been an increase in the length of sentences when parole was introduced. But the statistics were analysed by Professor Nigel Walker in 1981. He found no sign of an upward shift in sentence lengths in the two years after 1968, and our own research has since confirmed his findings.
May I now return to these cases. I do not for a moment suggest that for those who make up that number of 240 this is not a very serious matter. It is a very serious matter. We should not forget that their crimes were also a serious matter. You do not get sent down for over five years for a violent crime when you have committed a pecadillo, and if you are given more than a five-year sentence for a sexual or sadistic assault on a child, you have not been merely philandering. There are victims in these cases and there is a need to protect society. If the victims in these cases are tragic, how much more numerous and sometimes how much more tragic are the eventual victims of the trafficker in illicit drugs?
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but the noble Lord is speaking as though the stronger sentence had any effect whatever. He must have read all the information which exists. There is not one criminologist who thinks that it has any effect. Surely the Home Office do not think this. It is almost unbelievable.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord does not strain my patience; I hope that I do not strain his credulity. I am seeking to make it abundantly clear that the British people regard the criminal law as their protection against the criminal, and the punishment of criminals as the only way in which the law can be enforced. We cannot proceed without the broad support of the British people. Therefore it is necessary to respond to that view. The noble Lord rightly exercises an educative role, and very often I try to join him in this; but the fact is that we must recognise public perceptions. I think that the public see the nature of a crime as being in one hand and the sentence in the other of a not always blindfolded justice. That is the scenario.
There is no question of either my right honourable friend or of his officials sifting cases in these categories out of the system and denying local review committees or the Parole Board itself the chance to consider them. Far from it. All will be considered in exactly the same way as at present. They will of course be considered in light of the Statement that the Home Secretary has made and your Lordships will recall that that Statement includes provision for release on licence earlier than otherwise for exceptional cases.
Noble Lords have asked what such exceptional cases might be. I can only reply that, by their very nature, they cannot be specified in advance. As I have said, all these cases will continue to be reviewed by the local review committees and the Parole Board. They will have in mind the declared intentions of my right honourable friend with regard to the final exercise of his discretion. Each case will be considered on its
334
merits. Those which are recommended for parole by the Parole Board—andwho better so to recommend?—will be referred, first, to me and then to my right honourable friend for consideration. We shall look carefully at each case, as we do at those cases which are referred to us now. My right honourable friend will be responsible to Parliament—as he now is and always has been—for all decisions to release on parole licence. Exceptional circumstances will be different—even unique—in every case, and it is not possible to predict how many of them there will be.
The noble Earl has also asked me about the system for the release on licence of life sentence prisoners. As he recognises, although the Parole Board are involved in giving advice on the release of life sentence prisoners, release on life licence is not part of the parole system itself. It is misleading to refer to a life sentence prisoner being granted parole or even being considered for parole—although I must confess that in conversation I find myself doing it—because he is not. The Parole Board are involved because the law provides that the Secretary of State cannot order the release of a life sentence prisoner unless he is recommended by the board so to do—and he is also required by law to consult the Lord Chief Justice, and, if he is available, the trial judge. But the final decision rests squarely with my right honourable friend. He is not obliged to accept the recommendation by the board for the release of a life sentence prisoner; nor is he bound by the views of the judiciary although he attaches a great deal of weight to them.
There are important differences between the review by the Parole Board of the case of a life sentence prisoner and of other prisoners. One is that a life sentence prisoner has no right to have his case reviewed after a specified time or at specified intervals thereafter. The times at which this is done are entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State. My right honourable friend looks particularly to the Parole Board for advice on risk to the public, and to the judiciary for advice on the time to be served to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence.
Unlike a prisoner serving a determinate sentence who is eligible for consideration for parole, a life sentence prisoner has no statutory right to have his case reviewed after a specific time. Originally it was the practice for all cases of life sentence prisoners to be formally reviewed by the Parole Board after seven years, but this proved to be unsatisfactory because it often raised prisoners' hopes falsely or caused unnecessary public concern. Accordingly, largely at the instigation of the Parole Board, the joint Parole Board-Home Office committee lamented by the noble Earl and other noble Lords was set up in 1973 to give initial consideration to the likely progress of a life sentence prisoner towards release and to recommend a date for the first formal review of his case.
Because of the Parole Board's special concern about risk the joint committee did not always find it easy to decide on a date for the first formal review, and in about half the cases referred to it the committee asked to see the case again. When the joint committee did decide upon a formal review date it was often shown to be unrealistically early, with the result that some cases

335
could be considered several times by the Parole Board before release was authorised. This is not only wasteful of resources but unsettling to prisoners and to prison staff and prisoners' families alike, as indeed is the uncertainty about the future in those cases where the joint committee have not felt able to fix a formal review date.
The Parole Board members of the joint committee were very concerned about this situation, and indeed on his retirement from the Parole Board the then vice-chairman wrote to the Home Secretary, my noble friend Lord Whitelaw, suggesting that the problem could be overcome to a large extent by the early involvement of the judiciary in the review process.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I ask a question on that? The then vice-chairman, the High Court judge, did not recommend the abolition of the joint committee.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it sounds more like a statement to me than a question, but the noble Lord is right to put it on the record. The new arrangements which my right honourable friend has announced will enable the board to concentrate on their primary role of advising on the risk without getting involved in considerations of retribution and deterrence which are the primary concern of the judiciary. Moreover, every life sentence prisoner will in future know his position and how long he is likely to serve, subject to the assessment of the risk in his case. In future at an early date in each case the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge, if he is available, will be asked for a judicial view on the period of detention necessary to meet the requirements of retribution and deterrence.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, may I ask a question on that for clarification? Does that mean that the judge will be asked how he feels about this case in view of the original crime and sentence passed, or that the judge would be equipped with any fresh information about the prisoner?
Lord Elton: My Lords, subject to correction, the judicial members of this review are looking at the crime and the need for deterrence, not at the progress of the prisoner and the element of risk, which is a matter for the Parole Board. If I find I am wrong on that point I shall return to it. I believe I am right.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, that is awful.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Earl interjects that this is awful; but he did ask for an element of impartial justice and it is the judiciary that is concerned with retribution; it is the Parole Board that is concerned with mercy and progress. In the light of the views of the judiciary my right honourable and learned friend has to fix a date for the first reference of a case to the local review committee and this arrangement will apply in every case without exception. I apologise for speaking for so long, but at the end of the day your Lordships like answers to your questions. I shall nevertheless have to write to some of your Lordships with more promptitude than I have to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in the past.
336
It is not the case that life sentence prisoners are left in a sort of limbo for many years without their cases ever being considered. This has been suggested in the past. Under the previous procedure the cases of all life sentence prisoners were kept under review by the Home Office, so that if reports suggested that there might be grounds for advancing the date fixed for the next review by the Parole Board or the joint committee that would be considered.
As the Home Secretary has announced that these regular reviews will be an essential feature of the new arrangements where a date for a first or subsequent formal review is set for several years ahead, full reports will be obtained from the prison at no longer than three-year intervals and prison governors will be free to report at any time any special circumstances or exceptional progress made by a prisoner. Noble Lords, may find that more reassuring. If reports suggest at any time that there might he grounds for advancing the next stage, this is to be considered. When a prisoner has been detained for 10 years these reports will always be considered by a Minister. The prisoner, or those interested in him, can make representations at any time, and these too are considered.
I might add that the judiciary will consider a case, as I mentioned a moment ago, and the prisoner's first three years or so in custody. That is an important point for the noble Earl.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, this will be my last question. What is the position of prisoners who have already been promised a date at which the committee, about to become defunct, is to undertake their examination? When the committee disappears, how will this promise that cases will be reviewed be kept?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I do not want to commit myself unwittingly to a commitment and I will return to this in a moment, if the noble Earl will forgive me. The noble Earl is talking about the review date not about the release date, which he knows is inviolate.
My right honourable friend's announcement of the minimum period he would expect certain categories of life sentence prisoners to serve does not mean a departure from the fundamental principles governing the consideration of individual cases. Before releasing a life sentence prisoner the Secretary of State receives, and will continue to receive, advice from the Parole Board on each individual case on the risk to the public of releasing the prisoner and from the judiciary on the appropriate length of time to be served in prison. But final decisions on the release of life sentence prisoners will rest entirely with him and he is directly accountable to Parliament for the exercise of that statutory executive discretion. What he has done is to enunciate openly the policy that he will be following in considering each case that comes before him.
It is entirely appropriate that he should set out his policy clearly for the benefit of the public, and he intends to carry out his statutory responsibility on the basis of a clearly stated policy which he believes will increase public confidence in the way in which the criminal justice system deals with the most serious and violent offenders sentenced by the courts.

337
The noble Earl asked about life sentence prisoners whose cases the joint committee asked to see again before giving a date for the first formal advice. The future handling of the cases of these prisoners was covered in my honourable friend's statement. At the time when the joint committee would have considered the case again, the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge, if he is available, will be asked for a judicial view on the period of detention necessary to meet the requirements of retribution and deterrence. In the light of the views of the judiciary, my right honourable and learned friend will fix a date for the first reference of the case to the local review committee, and this arrangement will apply in every case without exception.
I must deal with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, having been unwittingly discourteous to him in the past. He wished to draw attention to the reconviction prediction score and, in particular, the report of the committee chaired by Mrs. Baring. I think that the material that the noble Lord wants is in paragraph 3 of the report of the Parole Board for 1982; but I can also tell him that the score is at present being revalidated and preliminary reports suggest that it is probably still valid.
It cannot be extended to women, not for reasons of instinct or difference—well, it is a profound difference actually because women do not offend frequently enough to provide a statistical base from which to produce a reliable prediction score. That is why we are not doing it. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, drew as an example to which he wanted me to reply, the driver of a getaway car in a shooting incident and compared him to the person who bludgeons an old couple to death. Surely, the latter deserves as much punishment as the former or more, he said. Indeed, my Lords, he may so deserve.
I am sorry not to have written to the noble Lord already, but I now refer him to column 788 of the Hansard of 30th November, and my right honourable friend has made almost exactly the same point as the noble Lord, Lord Harris. He lists the categories in an Answer that I repeated there, and continues:
"Other murders outside these categories may merit no less punishment to mark the seriousness of the offence".
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the point that I was endeavouring to make on the last occasion and today is this—and this is the point 1 should like to put to the noble Lord. Does not what he is now saying make it absolutely clear how unwise it is to fix rigid categories of different types of murderer? There are so many exceptions—and there are other equally compelling cases I can put to him—that it brings considerable doubt on to whether a new approach has a great deal of sense to commend it.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for the courtesy with which he puts his view. It is contrary to ours. What my right honourable and learned friend has done is to state the criteria he will be applying. Had he kept them to himself and merely allowed them to become apparent over the years, it appears that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, would have
338
been satisfied. I think it is better for him to let the public, whom he is protecting, know what he is about.
As to the second example, I certainly agree that indirect violence often can be as damaging as violence to the person; but if it is as terrible as the noble Lord suggests in the cases we are considering, then, surely the Parole Board itself would be likely to mark that in its decision. The noble Lord could leap to his feet and make the same interjection and I would give the same reply; so perhaps we should pass on to my overdue conclusion. I hear the Whips behind me saying, "Hear, hear". When that happens, I get rather worried.
I now return to the noble Earl's Question. I have spoken in more detail about the most recent developments in the system than the earlier ones; but, taken as a whole, I believe that what I have described is a process of steady evolution with a few periods of accelerated change. The process I think has been, generally speaking, a process of improvement. My right honourable friend's announcement has done much both to increase the numbers paroled and to ensure public support for the scheme, without which it cannot survive. Some will now have to wait longer for it and perhaps get very little.
It is not, let me remind the noble Lord, Lord Kagan, the only carrot. One-third of a sentence can be avoided altogether by a prisoner who behaves himself well, simply by remission. I must remind the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that that is a very important control factor. I hope that those who read the dire predictions of disorder of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, will not forget it. I spoke of a process of improvement. I do not doubt that further improvements lie ahead. Whether they will be large or small, I cannot say, but at least, I do not think that they can come very soon because what we have already done in trying to extend the parole system cannot start for another six months. Then it must be tried and proved, and the public be convinced of its safety, before we move again. I hope that when that time comes we shall again have the enlightened and compassionate advice of the noble Earl and of the rest of your Lordships to assist us.
Lord Morris: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, the noble Lord, Lord Kagan, asked a question about comparative studies of the Dutch penal system.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend and so is the noble Lord, Lord Kagan—but nobody else, because they want to go home. I await the report as eagerly as the noble Lord does. I expect it about now, but when he asked me for a precise date I found that the office which could have given me that date had closed. Once again I must promise a letter.
House adjourned at five minutes before ten o'clock.