Lords Sitting of 8 February 1984

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

Lord McAlpine of West Green
Robert Alistair McAlpine, Esquire (commonly called the Honourable Robert Alistair McAlpine), having been created Baron McAlpine of West Green, of West Green in the County of Hampshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord McAlpine of Moffat and the Lord Bruce-Gardyne.

Sizewell Inquiry Costs
2.47 p.m.
The Duke of Portland: 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 has been the cost of the Sizewell inquiry so far, and what proportion of these costs was legal fees; and whether the Government consider that these costs have been fully justified.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, costs up to 31st December 1983 falling to my department were some £218,000. Other costs incurred to the same date in running the inquiry and recoverable from CEGB under an agreement with the board totalled some £077,000. This latter figure includes legal fees for the retention of counsel to act on behalf of the inspector, but it is not the Treasury Solicitor's practice to disclose fees paid to individual counsel. Costs incurred by parties to the inquiry including the CEGB are a matter for them and are not included in this total.
The Duke of Portland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Apart from the question of cost, is my noble friend the Minister satisfied that the setting up of an inquiry of this nature serves a worthwhile purpose? If so, what purpose is envisaged?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the Government accepted the need for a full and wide-ranging inquiry into the important issues raised by this consent application.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl can answer one or two questions. First, bearing in mind that there is a spare capacity in electricity supply in England of 30 per cent., and in the south of Scotland of 100 per cent., is it really necessary to build a PWR and to have this inquiry at all? Can he say that the reports that it will cost the CEGB £10 million and more for the inquiry are correct? Thirdly, could he comment on the
1138
apparent view of the CEGB that the result of the inquiry is a foregone conclusion since the board has already ordered parts from France and elsewhere to build a PWR?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the question of capacity is being considered by the inquiry at the moment and it is not for me to comment upon that. The costs for the CEGB are a matter for the board, and no doubt at the end of the inquiry we shall be able to find out what they are. As to the expenses of £12 million to which the noble Lord referred, and which was announced by the CEGB over the last weekend, this is at their own risk. The CEGB's commercial judgment is that the cost of delay outweighed the financial risk of consent not being given. In no way does this affect the outcome of the inquiry or the CEGB's judgment.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend not agree that whatever the surplus of capacity available now, unless it is replaced (since it is ageing) by the end of the century, we shall run into blackouts of the 1947 scale by the year 2000?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I do not want to be drawn into this argument as it is part of the inquiry.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, in so important a quasi-judicial proceeding of such magnitude, is it any cause for surprise that legal fees should constitute an appreciable proportion of the total cost? Is there not compensating benefit to the inquiry from the increased clarity and cogency which it is hoped will come from the presentation by trained advocates? Would my noble friend undertake to turn a deaf ear to any siren voices which may in the future urge him to deny or curtail the right of the parties to invoke such presentation?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, indeed, it is the Government's wish that the parties should state their case. I take the noble Lord's point on board.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, are not the individual objectors at a great disadvantage in these inquiries? With all due deference to what has been said, would not the inquiry be shortened, cheapened—and very often the result be much better—if lawyers were forbidden to take part in them?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, one always appreciates in this House both sides of the view.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is it not the case that when planning law was first introduced in this country, nobody in either House of Parliament dreamed that there would ever be lawyers at inquiries?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I was not around at that moment and I do not wish to comment.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl whether his attention has been drawn to a recent article in Time magazine which stated that experience in the United States has shown that in many cases the cost of light water reactors has exceeded by a factor of

1139
10 the originally estimated cost, and whether he is satisfied that, if we were to embark on such projects in the United Kingdom, we would not have a similar experience?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, whereas I have not looked at the magazine article to which the noble Lord referred—I never seem to get past the cover—on the other hand, I am sure that the CEGB have taken into account all the problems which were suffered in the United States.
The Duke of Portland: My Lords, on average, how many members of the public attend the Sizewell inquiry each day?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, my understanding is that it is very small, but I have not been there to count.

Medicinal Products: Advertising
2.54 p.m.
Lord Molloy: 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 whether they will issue new guidelines for drug advertisements.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Government do not consider it necessary at present to issue new guidelines on advertisements for medicinal products. As recently as September of last year all product licence holders were reminded of their obligations under existing statutory and code of practice controls.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. I am sure that she is aware that with regard to drug advertising Great Brtiain has by and large a very good record, if not the best record in the world. But that record is deteriorating. Of course, we owe a great deal to the Committee on Safety in Medicine, but is the noble Baroness aware that, despite these endeavours, and despite the endeavours of the industry itself, there is now grave concern about the advertising of drugs? Would she not take this particularly on board as being serious: that general practitioners have to carry with them magnifying glasses to read the small print of an advert. which shows a drug's dangerous side effects? Also, some of the drugs prescribed for elderly people have resulted (because of GPs not properly knowing the side effects) in no fewer than 20 deaths?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not accept the premise that advertising standards are declining. There are plans for proposals to amend the regulations on advertising to the public. These are relatively minor and are still under consideration. With regard to his supplementary question, I saw the recent article to which he referred. This information is designed to remind and assist prescribers that by law the information must be clear and legible. We can and do take measures to enforce this requirement. Furthermore, the pharmaceutical industry's own code of practice has a similar provision.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, as far as drug advertisements directed at doctors are concerned, is not the answer the encouragement of doctors to adopt generic prescribing which would itself have a dramatic effect on drug advertisements?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am sorry but I do not know what "generic" is in this particular context. The code of practice of the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry lays down in considerable detail the standards of conduct to be used in drug marketing. Much of the code, which is to be observed in the spirit as well as the letter, covers matters impossible or extremely difficult for legislation—for instance, good taste—and it is well put together and extremely comprehensive.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, generic prescribing is prescribing by the pharmacological name rather than the brand name. If doctors prescribe in the pharmacological name, there will be less incentive on the drug industry to advertise brand name products.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that the subject of Lord Molloy's Question relates in part to the responsibility of the Advertising Standards Authority, and that the Advertising Standards Authority is in the very good hands of my noble friend Lord McGregor of Durris?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord's remarks, and I am grateful for them.
Lord Constantine of Stanmore: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware—I am sure she is—that the drug companies issue a very comprehensive Compendium which not only describes the drugs but their side effects and those drugs which should be taken with great care?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his statement. With regard to what the noble Lord has just said, all drug companies which advertise to practitioners must provide each with a data sheet in a standard format specifically designed to give prescribers an objective statement of essential particulars about the product. It would be quite wrong to conclude that practitioners are having to prescribe medicine without proper access to prescribing information.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, do I understand from what the noble Baroness has said that the Government are satisfied that the industry is complying with the code of conduct which was accepted at the time when the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme was introduced in 1977? Furthermore, is the noble Baroness able to say what progress is being made in the review which the Government are undertaking of the PPRS with which the guidelines were originally associated?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord's first supplementary question, the Government are satisfied with existing controls on the advertising of medicinal products. The standards generally are high. With regard to the question of

1141
profits, there is a non-statutory agreement between the Government and the pharmaceutical industry which seeks to cover the industry's profits from National Health sales of ethical products. Companies are allowed to earn a reasonable profit which varies according to contributions made individually to the United Kingdom economy in terms of investment, research, exports, et cetera. The average target rate of profit for the industry has been reduced by four percentage points to 21 per cent.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness could apply herself to the question. I know the PPRS, because I negotiated it with the industry, but since the Government have decided that there is to be a review of the PPRS I wonder whether the noble Baroness could say whether it has started and, if so, what progress is being made and when your Lordships will receive a report?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it has started but I am not able to give any information as to when a report is likely to be received.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the PPRS has been referred to three times? Can she tell us what it stands for?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, despite the code of conduct of the APBI, many drug companies are sometimes completely ignoring those calls and that £130 million is spent on drug advertising, of which £106 million is allowed as an expense? With all the points that have been raised in this Chamber today, would the noble Baroness be prepared to speak to her right honourable friend in another place to see whether there ought to be an improvement made to the legislation to prevent the cheating and do away with the threat to people and doctors in our National Health Service?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am always willing to speak to my right honourable friend in another place. I would remind the noble Lord that one man's meat is another man's poison.

British Oxygen Company: Prices
3.2 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington: 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 are taking to deal with the monopolistic practices of the British Oxygen Company as a supplier to the National Health Service in the light of the Government's commitment to extend competition.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, in recognition of BOC's position as a major supplier of medical gases to the
1142
National Health Service, any price increases for medical gases must be approved by the Department of Health and Social Security. Prices are controlled by a formula based on the recommendations of the Review Board for Government Contracts. The Director General of Fair Trading has received representations about the supply of medical gases by BOC and is considering whether to take action.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Minister for that reply, but may I press him a little further about it? I take it he is aware that not only are BOC a major supplier but they in fact supply nearly 100 per cent. of the medical gases which are supplied to the National Health Service. In view of that, and in view of the information which has come to light recently, would the noble Lord be prepared to go further and actively encourage the Office of Fair Trading to make sure that the undertakings given by the British Oxygen Company after the 1956 Monopolies Commission inquiry are taken up? Does he agree that every care should in fact be taken to ensure that those undertakings are being honoured? Further to that, would it not be better to encourage active competition with the British Oxygen Company?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I understand that the Director General of Fair Trading has received representations alleging anti-competitive behavour by the British Oxygen Company. Details of such representations are confidential, but if there have been breaches of any undertakings which were given in 1958 that would be a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading to determine.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I have no special interest, and certainly no shares, in the British Oxygen Company? Are we to understand from the Minister's reply to my noble friend's Question that there is a definitive and established principle associated with this subject; namely, that the Government rely on competition, although apparently not in this instance? Are we to accept this definitive, final and established principle of competition even when a monopoly is satisfactory? Surely the central principle should be that, whether it is a monopoly or whether it is based on competition, the supply should be satisfactory?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, certainly we believe that the supply is satisfactory. This is the message that the Department of Health receives from the hospitals. As regards competition, this Government are in favour of it; but any breaches, or any anti-competitive policy, are matters for the Director General of Fair Trading, and this Government believe in allowing a referee to take the decision.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that, regardless of the supplies they may provide to industry, in their supplies to the National Health Service the British Oxygen Company are dealing with life and death and it is therefore essential that supplies should be regular, available, correct and of the highest quality? Although I am a great advocate of competition, as my noble friend may

1143
be aware, in a service where the supply of oxygen is a matter of life and death is it not vital that we should be assured of supplies? I speak now from six years' experience in the Ministry—
Noble Lords: Question!
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I was involved in the aftermath of certain disasters, that the result of such disasters were such that it was vital that we should get supplies 24 hours a day, and that they were provided by the company concerned?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, of course we are grateful for the support and the experience of my noble friend in this matter. She is quite right; of course the supply of oxygen is a matter of life, and occasionally death, to the patients. Care of the patients comes first, and the whole of this Question arises from improvements in technology which have arisen. These have been carried out by the British Oxygen Company.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord three questions? First, what is the profit margin accepted as appropriate for the British Oxygen Company in the light of the fact that the National Health Service pays about £35 million a year to BOC? Secondly, will the Minister confirm that the company charge the National Health Service an even higher price for medical gases than the guidelines set out by the Review Board for Government Contracts? Thirdly, is it not deplorable that last year the executive director of the British Oxygen Company, who is the highest-paid executive in the country, received a £579,000 bonus because of the company's financial success very substantially at the expense of the National Health Service? Is the noble Lord satisfied with that?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, so far as the noble Lord's third question is concerned, this is, as he will know, a matter for the British Oxygen Company itself. So far as his second question is concerned, I am sure he will be aware, and that your Lordships will also be aware, that all prices charged by the BOC to the Department of Health are controlled by the formulae based upon the recommendations of the Review Board for Government Contracts.
As regards the profit which the British Oxygen Company hope to achieve on plant and on the cost of production, I am afraid I do not have those figures ready to hand but they are in the region of 16 to 18 per cent. I shall endeavour to find the precise figures to the nearest decimal point and write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that we are glad the Government approve of a referee in these matters? Arising from that, may I ask him when the Director General of Fair Trading received these complaints? Secondly, can he give us any idea as to when we may have a reply from the Director General of Fair Trading as to whether or not he is conducting an inquiry? Also, could the noble Lord possibly write to me on that matter? He is usually good at writing letters.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am afraid I did not hear the noble Baroness's third supplementary question, or little sally. I am afraid I am not aware when the Director General received these complaints. I shall find out when they arrived in his office. I shall write to the noble Baroness and, if I can obtain any estimate as to when a report might be forthcoming, I shall let her know. But I am afraid that I am unable to give her much hope on her second supplementary question, since I understand that these will be fairly detailed inquiries which may take quite a long time.

Teacher Training
3.11 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: 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 are their plans for improving the quality of teachers entering the profession.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the Government set out their plans for improving the quality of newly-trained teachers in England and Wales in the White Paper Teaching Quality of March 1983. Following advice from the Advisory Committee on the Supply and Education of Teachers on how those plans might be developed, a draft circular was sent out in December, which sought comments on a proposal to establish a Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. It is our intention that this council should assess initial teacher training courses against certain criteria set out in the draft circular, and should subsequently advise the Secretary of State on whether these courses have procedures to select students of appropriate quality and offer a suitable professional preparation for intending teachers. In Scotland and Northern Ireland, there is equal concern for improving the quality of teachers and separate consideration is being given to the needs of those systems.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. May I ask him whether, when principals of teacher training colleges interview students, they take into account the will, the capacity and the commitment of any student to teach multiracial classes? Secondly, do they take into account the capacity of a student to be aware of those children with problems in school which are indicative of problems in the home, so that those children can be helped to benefit by education?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am aware of my noble friend's keen interest in the ethnic minorities from her membership of the Swann Committee. She will know that some newly trained teachers are well prepared for teaching in a multi-ethnic community—others are less so. The draft criteria stressed that potential students should be selected on the basis of personal as well as intellectual qualifications, and that courses should prepare them to teach the full range of pupils with their diversity of ethnic and cultural origins.
So far as children with special educational needs and those coming from adverse home conditions are

1145
concerned, as I have said the criteria stressed the importance of candidates' personal qualities and encouraged the selection of students with previous experience of work within the community or with children. We have also proposed that all students should be introduced during their initial training to ways of identifying children with special needs. Their training should help them appreciate what the ordinary school can and cannot do for such children, and give them some knowledge of the specialist help available and how it could be enlisted.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, can the Minister give us some indication of the timing before the advisory committee makes a recommendation, and when the Secretary of State will present some statute before us?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, it is hoped that advice back from the various bodies concerned will be received by the middle of this month. It is also hoped that the new advisory committee will be established as soon as possible after April this year.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, in addition to what he has said about the need for training teachers of children with special needs, there is a great need for more teachers specially and fully trained for teaching the mentally handicapped? Will he bear in mind that at the Stockport College of Technology there is an excellent two-year course—I think the only one of its kind now going on—and will he, having made those inquiries, do what he can to see that there are more of such courses introduced elsewhere?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for drawing my attention to that fact. I shall, indeed, take special note of what he has said and see what I can learn from it.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: My Lords, does the Minister think it worthwhile making some inquiries as to why, when teachers received two years' training, the standards of teaching were higher than they now seem to be when they receive four years' training?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think that this is very much the reason for these proposals and consultations. The Government are determined that the standards shall improve greatly in the future.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether in the training of students it would be a great help to them if the respective roles of the education welfare services and the social services were defined more clearly, so that when they begin teaching in schools, teaching mixed ethnic races as well as children with home deprivation, they will know where they can apply for help?
The Earl of Swinton: Yes, my Lords. In fact, my right honourable friend mentioned this in his much-quoted speech at Sheffield in January. Indeed, my right honourable friend intends to ask local authorities in the near future to review the priorities and approaches of their education welfare services. These
1146
services are developed in different ways and the emphasis placed on their primary function, relating to school attendance, varies between authorities. The proposed review should do much to clarify the role of education welfare services, not least in relation to social service departments.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, in view of the growing importance of foreign languages, there has been an increase in the number of such teachers?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I cannot give a detailed answer on whether there are more or fewer foreign language teachers. I shall have to write to my noble friend with that information.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can tell us how it is, if the Government claim to be sincere about the importance of teaching ethnic minorities, and indeed teaching British children about ethnic minorities, that they wound up the Development Education Committeee which was set up partly for this specific purpose and was destroyed by this Government? Can he add—and if he does not have the details perhaps he will write to me—how many teacher training colleges and institutes of education are teaching specifically the cultures of the ethnic minorities? I am thinking of places like Balls Park in Hertfordshire and Jordanhill in Scotland. How many are there in the country?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I shall be delighted to write to the noble Lord with that information.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Earl answer my first question?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, it was so long ago that I cannot remember what it was.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the question was simply: If the Government are sincere about the teaching of the ethnic minorities, and about teaching British children the cultures of ethnic minorities, why did they wind up the Development Education Committee which was set up under a Labour Government in the Ministry of Overseas Development and was specifically designed for this purpose?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the Government are sincere, but I am afraid that I have absolutely no answer whatsoever to the noble Lord's question. I shall answer him in the same letter.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, it is my duty to the whole House to point out that we have now taken 30 minutes on Questions. I have had many representations from noble Lords in all parts of the House about the fact that we are now taking too long on Questions and it is my duty to point that out. Of course, I rely on the good sense of noble Lords to achieve some shortening of the period that we are now taking.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Lebanon.
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 standing in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, this afternoon. 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 debates should limit their speeches to a maximum of nine minutes as regards the debate of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and 12 minutes as regards the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead. Perhaps I should point out that, if any noble Lords should speak at greater length than the suggested times in either of these debates, they will do so only at the expense of later speakers in that debate.

Homelessness
3.20 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs rose to call attention to the steady increase of homeless people in the country; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in rising to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, I should like, first, to thank all those noble Lords who are to take part in the debate. I should like most especially to say how much I am looking forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Mulley. I know that I speak for all your Lordships when I say that we are all looking forward to what he will have to say.
In view of the time restriction, I believe it would be best if, for my part, I merely gave some background facts and figures regarding homelessness, leaving other noble Lords, from their own experience and knowledge, to fill in the gaps.
There is no doubt that the subject of housing is often debated in your Lordships' House in general terms, but it is less usual to do so in terms of a house being a home, reflecting, as it does, a basic human need, something which we all have a right to expect the state to make available. Therefore the purpose of the debate is to examine the circumstances which give rise to so many people in Britain today being deprived of this basic human need, people who have been put into a situation which is universally regarded as intolerable. First, therefore, let me try to assess the true size of the problem: how many homeless people there are, who are the homeless and why they are suffering this fundamental deprivation.
As noble Lords will know, the official homeless are those whom the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 places local authorities under an obligation to house. The categories are defined as follows: first, those families with dependent children; secondly, pregnant women; thirdly, those who are homeless
1148
arising from a housing emergency such as fire or flood; and, fourth, a group described as vulnerable—those with mental or physical disability, the old, et cetera. In addition, people in these priority groups must also have a local connection and must not have made themselves homeless intentionally.
Last year, as your Lordshisps will recall, the Government reviewed the Act but they did not, as many had hoped, strengthen its code of guidance, which in its present form is open to punitive use by some of the more recalcitrant authorities. Nor did the review deal with the loopholes in the Act itself; namely, the sections relating to the intentionally homeless and the limits of priority groups.
The latest figures available for the official homeless—namely, those within these categories whom local authorities cannot house—date from 1982 and are as follows: in the country as a whole, they stand at 73,600 households, with over one-quarter concentrated in London itself. These figures are steadily increasing, but I must make it clear that it is generally thought that these numbers represent only the tip of the iceberg, the reason being that those families who apply for accommodation to local authorities but who are turned down are not included; nor are those who, for some reason or other, do not approach their authority at all. In fact, organisations dealing with homeless people estimate that the figure has most probably reached three times the one I have given and that it is nearing one-quarter of a million.
What is the reason for this increase? In my view, there can be little doubt that it is largely brought on by the fact that on the one hand the rise in the proportion of elderly people and a higher divorce rate has brought on a requirement for more low rent, small accommodation, while on the other hand, and concurrently, the Government have already made cuts in their public spending programme, with a further cut of £300 million anticipated for 1984–85. The difficulties of acquiring low rent accommodation have, therefore, increased. According to the last housing condition survey, 4.3 million houses are also in need of large amounts of money to be spent upon them in order to make them fit to live in. To add further to the shortage, there are now in London alone, according to the housing emergency office, nearly 136,000 empty houses.
Who are the homeless and what made them so? In the London boroughs, the GLC estimate that as many as 70 per cent. of the homeless adults are women. There is a growing number of single parent families, many of them unmarried and very young, with small, dependent children. The circumstances which give rise to homelessness are various. Some people are without homes because relatives or friends are no longer able or willing to continue to accommodate them; others because of marital violence; others through losing their private rented dwellings; and others because of mortgage defaults and rent arrears.
But the statistic which I find the most poignant is the one showing that among the official homeless as many as one-third have never in their lives had a secure home of their own. This must surely prove the difficulties which so many people experience in even getting on to the bottom rung of the housing ladder and the subsequent impossibility of ever getting houses

1149
from a diminishing pool of council accommodation. It is indeed a fact that over recent years the major reasons for homelessness have remained consistent, with the only change being the rise in the numbers in each group. This is a trend which can only accelerate while recession and unemployment continue. So there is no secret, there is no mystery, about why certain people are without homes. It is because the only accommodation available is just too expensive for them. They cannot afford the prices, and there is an insufficiency of low rent accommodation and hostel accommodation at prices which they can afford.
Next, what happens to those households which are registered as homeless? In the metropolitan districts outside London where the situation is less critical, the majority are rehoused into permanent accommodation without very much delay, while the remainder are placed in hostels run by local authorities or voluntary organisations. But in London the latest figures show that as many as 73 per cent. of those accepted by the authorities were placed in temporary accommodation. Half of them were placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, the type of accommodation which a SHAC study found to be the least popular among the homeless themselves.
Before I come to the comments and suggestions which I should like to put to the Minister, perhaps I may very briefly describe one particular bed-and-breakfast establishment which I visited last week. A very attractive 22-year-old Jamaican girl called Yvonne was good enough to show me round the one in Earl's Court where she and her husband and their six-month-old baby have already spent eight months. The couple had been obliged to leave their private rented home in Camden when the baby was due, since their contract there disallowed young children.
The Camden authority, who were responsible for finding them a two-bedroomed flat but who were unable to do so, placed them as far away as Earl's Court in this accommodation for which they, the council, pay over £100 a week, with Yvonne and her husband, who is in work, contributing £16. The room was obviously designed for a very short-term occupancy. It was only just big enough to hold the baby's cot, one chair, a small table, a small cupboard and a single bed. The couple had removed the other single bed to provide a minuscule amount of space. There were washing facilities, but if Yvonne wished to do any cooking she had to share the single gas cooker in the basement with anywhere between 17 and 25 other families, all with children of under five years of age. She said that occasionally she cooked very early in the morning but that usually they lived off take-away food, which they ate sitting on the bed and the one chair. There were no communal laundry facilities or fridges in the cellar.
Yvonne said that there were places worse than this, and I believed her. She said also—admirably uncomplainingly—that it was worse for parents and, in many cases, for single parents with older children. Cooped up in the restricted areas having previously lost friends and homes, and with their education disrupted, children often showed signs of either serious withdrawal or disruptive behaviour. She described how many of these lone mothers spent months and months in temporary accommodation, as some were
1150
awaiting the result of divorce proceedings and others, having left their homes because of domestic violence, were in a state of limbo.
She told me of the women with children in care who found themselves trapped in a Catch-22 situation whereby they were unable to get permanent accommodation through having no dependent childen with them—and were equally unable to get the care order lifted because they had no decent place to live. She spoke of the nervous strain that many of the adults were under, how their health was often affected, and how so many family relationships suffered.
This was Yvonne's story, and there must be many other stories like hers—or worse. But what to me appeared to be the final irony was the cost to local authorities of keeping households in such miserable conditions. It is estimated that in 1981–82, London boroughs spent £4.3 million on bed-and-breakfast accommodation, which by 1982–83 had risen to £6 million. If that money had been spent instead on financing a housebuilding loan, it would have provided not only decent, secure accommodation for the majority of those previously in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, but also a long term asset for the people of the boroughs concerned.
I will end by putting a few brief points to the noble Lord who is to reply. First and foremost, as the cost factor is a major reason for the increasing number of homeless—that is to say, there is not enough accommodation at prices the worse off can afford—then does the Minister not agree that a rational and equitable method of housing finance must be found, with a building and renovating plan that meets the true needs of all Britain's people?
There is little doubt that present Government policies are geared to helping the better off. In 1982–83, as much as £6,400 million was paid in subsidies for mortgage tax relief, exemption of owner-occupied housing from capital gains tax and discounts to council tenants buying their homes; whereas only £1,000 million was paid in subsidies to council tenants. Were the Government to restore a much-needed balance to their housing policy then homelessness might well disappear overnight.
Finally, there is an urgent need for a revision of the 1977 Act and its code of guidance. First, the clause on intentional homelessness should be repealed as it gives rise to so much injustice. It can be applied to those who have rent arrears, and to those who leave home to find work elsewhere but fail to do so and lose their homes, and who are then declared to have rendered themselves homeless.
Secondly, there should be a phased extension of priority groups to include the childless. At present, the young single find it difficult to move to another part of the country to seek work as they know that on arrival they will be excluded from any priority group for housing. Thirdly, there is a need for a carefully laid down appeal procedure for use by the homeless against local authorities' decisions. Finally, there is a need for tighter definitions and more sensitive assessments of the priority group defined as "the vulnerable".
I hope that the noble Lord will respond positively to these suggestions. I am sure he will agree that something must be done to remove this fundamental

1151
injustice of deprivation which is being suffered by a growing number of people in our modern state. Indeed, it might well be the case that a tribesman from one of the most primitive African tribes may find fewer obstacles in his way to achieving a home for himself and his family than do some of the citizens of Britain's capital city. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

The Lebanon
3.35 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister told the House yesterday, we have been considering closely and urgently the situation in Lebanon, where conditions and the prospects for achieving reconciliation have deteriorated sharply in the past few days. The Lebanese Government has resigned and factional fighting has broken out again on a large scale.
"The British contingent to the multi-national force has been performing two important tasks: carrying out street patrols in Beirut and, at the request of all the parties, providing an impartial guard for the ceasefire talks. With the recent deterioration in the situation, it has become impossible for it to fulfil this role, and the danger to the contingent has been greatly heightened.
"In these difficult circumstances, we have been in close touch with our MNF partners. And the Government have decided that our troops should be moved to the Royal Fleet Auxilliary 'Reliant' which is stationed off the Lebanese coast and remain there until the situation becomes clearer. The House will be glad to know that the major part of this redeployment has already been successfully completed.
"The British contingent have earned a high reputation among all Lebanese as an impartial force. I am sure I speak for the whole House when I say that they have carried out their tasks in Beirut with exemplary courage and efficiency. They have played an important part in contributing to stability in the Beirut area and in providing an opportunity for political reconciliation. It is a tragedy that this opportunity has not been seized.
"We continue to have very prominently in our minds the safety of British residents in the Beirut area. I am glad to be able to report that I have received no reports of any casualties. For those British residents who wish to leave, appropriate arrangements are being put in hand. British Embassy staff are safe and well and their position is being kept under close review. I would like to pay tribute to the British Ambassador in Beirut, Mr. David Miers, and his staff who have been performing their duties under very difficult circumstances.
1152
"The need for the restoration of stability, sovereignty and independence to Lebanon remains of the highest importance. We shall stay in close touch with our MNF partners, with the Lebanese Government and with all those who can help in this process. If needless bloodshed is to be avoided, a supreme effort must now be made by all the parties to settle their differences by compromise".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating that Statement. We welcome the decision to withdraw the British contingent, and we are relieved that no casualties have been suffered—although we deeply commiserate with those countries which suffered serious losses. We endorse the tribute to the British contingent, repeated by the noble Lord, for its courage and efficiency.
This decision, which we have been urging on the Government for some time, is surely right in view of the gravely worsening position in Lebanon and of the fact that it would be disastrous for a small British force to be exposed in the midst of a full-scale civil war. We support also the comments made about our ambassador and his staff. Can the noble Lord tell the House how many British citizens there are at present in Beirut and in the Lebanon, respectively?
In this dark and menacing scene, do Her Majesty's Government see any prospect of improvement? What negotiations are being planned to alleviate tension in the Middle East? Do the four powers engaged in the multi-national force propose any new initiative now that the force has withdrawn? May I return to my question of Monday and ask whether there are plans for a reference of this matter to the Security Council, especially in view of the United Nations force in Lebanon?
Finally, may I say how deeply we all sympathise with the ordinary people of Lebanon in the terrible suffering which has been inflicted upon them.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, we, too, should like to thank the Minister for repeating this rather sad Statement. The United States decision gradually to withdraw their Marines from Beirut, followed by the withdrawal from the town of the British contingent and, no doubt, shortly, of the other participants in the MNF, however necessary, is clearly a serious blow to Western influence in the Middle East. Without indulging in any kind of Schadenfreude, I may say that from the moment the Israelis took the fatal decision to invade the South Lebanon we on these Benches were pretty certain that it was likely to end in tears. But, of course, the question now is how to pick up the bits.
May I ask the Government this question: Assuming the early resignation of President Gemayel, which I suppose is probable, might not the best thing be to encourage agreement on the part of the Lebanese Moslems generally to accept some non-controversial, non-Falange Maronite character as a temporary president who would try to form a government in which there might be a definite Moslem majority? The only alternative seems to be a continuation and even an intensification of the civil war, resulting, presumably, in the creation of a number of statelets,

1153
for the most part under Syrian domination, and no end to Israeli/Syrian tension.
Would the Government not further agree that any long-term pacification of the area surely now depends on some kind of super-power understanding or agreement? Supposing, for instance, that the United States, more especially after the probable denunciation of the Israeli-Lebanese agreement, took the initiative in inviting the Soviet Union to take part, along with Syria, Israel and others concerned, in resumed talks at Geneva, might it not be possible to establish some really effective United Nations force in Southern Lebanon, thus enabling, or even obliging, Syria to withdraw her troops? Perhaps the Government would like to reflect on such a possibility.
For the rest, I would simply join with the Government and the Leader of the Opposition in expressing our deep appreciation of the conduct in very difficult circumstances of our own small contingent in Beirut. Their efficiency and their dignity have been universally admired, and we, too, should like to take this opportunity of offering our warm congratulations to them.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, there are, we believe, about 300, or perhaps 400, British nationals in or around Beirut, and doubtless more outside Beirut; but, of course, they are not in the same dangerous circumstances as those in the city itself. As for the future possibility of engaging the attention of the United Nations on this matter, as I think I said when I repeated an earlier Statement in your Lordships' House on Monday of this week, it is for the Lebanese themselves to initiate any formal approach to the Security Council. But I can tell the noble Lord that we are in touch with the Secretariat of the United Nations to see how it may be possible to take this forward. We believe, as again I think I said earlier this week, that a United Nations effort in this area would be desirable, and we shall support any realistic proposals that may come forward. That really is in essence how we sec the future.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, in the first instance clearly we must ensure that we complete the redeployment of our troops back to the RFA "Reliant" and then see what assistance we can give to the civilians, as I mentioned a moment ago.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in view of the courage and determination, to which noble Lords in all quarters of the House have paid tribute, shown by the British contingent in singularly unpleasant and dangerous circumstances, may I ask my noble friend whether, as a Ministry of Defence Minister, he will arrange for urgent consideration to be given to the award of a special decoration to members of this contingent, who, in the opinion of most of us, have very fully earned it? Perhaps also they could have a little leave.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, they will doubtless get the latter in due course. As for the former, I am aware that consideration is being given to that already.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister realise the vast difference between the
1154
Statement he made a few moments ago and the statements he made in reply to my questions on Monday? When I asked him the simple question whether he could guarantee that there would be no further turbulence, less civil war if possible, in the area, he dismissed it just like that, as if it was of no consequence. When I asked him whether the Government would come to a decision to remove our troops from that area, recognising that they had rendered very useful service, which of course the noble Lord endorsed, he also shelved it on one side. Obviously, I am not suggesting that he was misleading the House on Monday. He probably was not aware of the facts, or probably the Government had not made up their mind. But there is no reason why he should have refused my suggestion of possible further turbulence in the area. Probably I knew more about it than he did himself. It does sometimes happen that those outside are better acquainted with the situation than are those associated in particular with the Foreign Office.
I endorse entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has said about the award of some special decoration to our troops who were there. Of course they were engaged in a very useful occupation, otherwise doing little or nothing, fearsome of possible casualties, which overcame many other peace-loving people in the area. Of course something should be done. I think the whole story might be told sometime, not at present but later on, about what our contingent suffered in that area. I think that is the very least the Government can do. At any rate, it might relieve us of the necessity of indicting the Government fur their particular failure in this connection.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord suggested that he knew more than I did about this matter; the noble Lord knows more than I do about practically every matter, so that that is hardly surprising. As for the comparison between what I have said today and what I said earlier this week, I can only tell the noble Lord that circumstances have been changing very swiftly indeed in this matter, and the answers I gave to the noble Lord earlier this week reflected the situation in the Government's view at that time.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, would the noble Lord give us an assurance that if public communication breaks down the Foreign Office will keep the relatives of members of the Embassy very closely informed? Mr. David Miers and his wife are close friends of mine and they have three young children at school in England. I know that sometimes in the heat of the moment it is forgotten to pass on much-wanted information about relatives in places of danger.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can happily give that assurance, and I can also assure the noble Baroness that we remain in full communication with our mission in Beirut.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, is it not a fact that any member of the United Nations can bring any situation to the Security Council if it so desires, and therefore there is no need, necessarily, for us to wait for the

1155
Lebanese to bring it to the attention of the Security Council if we thought it would be a good thing to do it ourselves?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord is of course the greatest expert in United Nations procedures; indeed, I believe he himself drafted many of them. It may well be that he has stolen a march on me in that matter. Clearly it would be right in these circumstances, if not in all, for us to know the views of the Lebanese themselves before this matter was initiated.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, there has been a remarkable degree of unanimity in the welcome given to the Statement repeated by the noble Lord. He emphasised that what has been done has been done in consultation with other members of the multi-national force. Would that consultation extend to the possible use of warships off the coast of Lebanon? Would the noble Lord not agree that if any one of the members of the multi-national force start using their war power off the coast, it is not going to help the situation in the future?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the different contributors to the multi-national force, as it was, in Beirut of course have to look after their own forces in their own way; but I can assure the noble Lord that we are in close consultation with all the other members.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I think it best that when an Opposition has been urging the Government to do something, and the Government do it, then the Opposition should make their remarks as brief as possible. This is such an occasion. Is there any news of what France and Italy plan to do?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we understand that both France and Italy are considering their position, but I also understand that no announcement has yet been made by either country.

Homelessness
3.50 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we now return to our debate. We on these Benches are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for having introduced this important subject. At the outset, I should like to say that we, the Alliance Parties, can claim a proud record in this field. It was a Liberal Member of Parliament, the honourable Member for the Isle of Wight, who promoted the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 which made it obligatory for local authorities to assist homeless families. It was a Liberal-controlled council in Liverpool which was singled out for praise by the Campaign for the Homeless and Rootless for its actions in that field. Only yesterday, the honourable Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, Mr. Hughes, introduced a Bill in another place to reduce the scandalous number of homes standing empty in Britain.
1156
The noble Baroness has already given us some of the facts and figures, and our ration of nine minutes' speaking time will not allow me to go any further into them. But there can be no doubt that there is one particular group in our society among whom there has been a startling and alarming increase in homelessness. I refer to young people. I think we are all aware of this visually in central London but the phenomenon is a national one. For example, last year in Bedford police reports suggested that about 100 young people slept rough every night. If Bedford is typical—and we have no reason to believe otherwise—up to 50,000 young people may be itinerant or semi-itinerant in the United Kingdom. Regardless of that figure, there is no doubt that the increase in homelessness among young people is extremely alarming.
Another factor here of course is that there is no chance for many young people to get accommodation unless they get married and/or have children—and this is what many of them do. I was recently told by a social worker in Berkshire that nine out of 10 of the girls leaving council care aged 18 in the county get pregnant within a year, largely because that is the only means of getting somewhere to live. Pregnancy becomes a passport to accommodation.
What is the present position under the Act? The noble Baroness has already sketched in the position. The Act gives local authorities a tripartite responsibility. They have to investigate if applicants are homeless and, if so, whether intentionally or not; to provide permanent accommodation in priority cases; to provide temporary accommodation for families responsible for their own homelessness; and give temporary accommodation or other help where possible to the non-priority homeless. The DoE issues a code of guidance and has recently brought out a second edition following consultation with local authorities. It undertook a review of the Act in 1982. The then Secretary of State decided there was no case for amending the legislation as this was adequate if implemented in the spirit of the code of guidance. That is the present position.
But is the present position adequate? I suggest that there are two groups which are specially worthy of our attention. The first group is described officially as the single homeless without disability, and the second group is the homeless with mental disorder. The single homeless without disability is not a priority category under the 1977 Act and therefore not likely to be offered accommodation, although such people should receive advice. When they are consulted or asked about their preferences, they evidence a preference for singles housing which of course is very low on current local authority development lists. My first question therefore is: what is the Government's attitude to the DoE publication, Housing Initiatives for Single People of Working Age?
I will not go in any great detail into the next group—the homeless with mental disorders—because it was mentioned in a very impressive debate on the report of the Richmond Fellowship in your Lordships' House not long ago. But it is worth noting in passing that in a very interesting report on homelessness among women, published by the Women's National Commission—an advisory committee to Her

1157
Majesty's Government—under the imprimatur of the Cabinet Office, it is stated that:
"Professor Wing stressed the need for intensive efforts by trained personnel to help put the ex-patient 'through the paces of life'. He believed 'we need to think of an enormous amount of care'.".
Have the Government taken on board the real implications of care in the community and the enormous cost that this care will involve? Incidentally, the report recommends:
"There will be a very large shortfall in the resources necessary to achieve effective care in the community. We therefore consider interim Government finance is needed to create the necessary community facilities".
That particularly refers to the mentally infirm and I should like to know the Government's attitude to that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, has already mentioned the scandalous situation of bed-and-breakfast hotels so I shall not go into that. I now pass on to a positive suggestion in the housing field. The Housing Act 1980 created the concept of assured tenancies which enabled bodies approved by the Secretary of State for the Environment to build new homes for letting at a rent agreed between landlord and tenant. The housing benefits legislation allows rents of up to about £55 a week to be afforded by virtually anyone. The Finance Act 1982 provided also a tax advantage. The relevance of assured tenancies for people on low incomes depends on the operation of the housing benefit system and in particular on the high rent schemes. Clearly, without the operation of a high rent scheme a household on a low income could not afford an assured tenancy without great and possibly crippling sacrifices; although with a high rent scheme the sacrifice is seldom more than the cost of two or three pints of beer or a couple of packets of cigarettes.
However, there is a snag. The high rent provisions of the housing benefit scheme operate only in areas of generally high rents, which we understand the Government are about to review. They only refer to particular classes of dwelling. Although these are not defined in the regulations, it is current DHSS policy to grant consent for class applications, as they are called, only for dwellings catering for special needs, such as sheltered housing for the elderly. If the assured tenancy legislation can be changed to allow projects for acquisition and rehabilitation of existing housing in poor condition, assured tenancies could help in tackling the very serious problems of disrepair that afflict our national housing stock.
Homelessness, as we have seen, is once again on the increase. Councils are returning to the use of extremely expensive bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I suggest that the most economic way to meet the demand from people on low incomes who require rented accommodation would be to build for renting at economic rents and subsidise people through the housing benefit system, rather than through building, so that the subsidy is concentrated where it is needed. It would certainly be a great deal cheaper than the bed-and-breakfast accommodation to which the noble Baroness referred. Would the Government please give us their comments on that?
Finally, the policy of my party is an extension of the priority groups under the 1977 Act. We believe that they should be extended to cover single people aged
1158
over 40 in the first instance and then the age should be further reduced. We believe in an immediate change for young people between the ages of 16 and 18, who should be given priority when leaving care or when particular reasons exist as to why they cannot continue living at home. That is undoubtedly a particularly vulnerable age group. It is important to stress that planning for these people in housing strategy would provide the proper alternatives to prison and institutional care which are much more expensive than long-term, independent and permanent housing.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I should perhaps inform the House that, the Statement having taken 15 minutes, I expect my noble friend the Minister to rise to reply at 5.45 p.m. and the debate to end at five minutes past six o'clock.
4 p.m.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, in rising to address the House for the first time, I crave the generous and courteous indulgence which your Lordships invariably give to maiden speakers. I think that I should also apologise for venturing to address the House so soon after my Introduction, which was only a week ago. However, it was on the subject now before the House—and which was presented so well by my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs—that I made my maiden speech in another place 34 years ago. Indeed, it was in this very Chamber, when through the generosity of your Lordships an acute problem of homelessness was resolved.
It may nevertheless be of some relief to your Lordships to know that, for reasons with which I do not need to trouble the House, in the last Session in which I served in another place, I did not trouble the Hansard writers at all. The surprising fact was that by not making a speech I received more publicity in the columns of The Times than I ever did for any speech that I made in my 33 years in the other place, from the Back or Front Benches or from the Government or Opposition side of the House.
In 1950, I described housing as the greatest single problem of domestic policy. I believe that it is still extremely serious, although in that position it has been overtaken by unemployment, and the two interact to make each more serious. Of course, in 1950, no one imagined that we should ever again see unemployment at the level it has now reached. Certainly while in another place I had more constituency problems concerning housing than any other subject—despite the efforts of successive Governments and the outstanding record as a housing authority of Sheffield, the city that I was proud to represent.
I quote from a statement of the city council issued on a recent visit of the Minister for Housing:
"Sheffield considers that its present range of housing requirements is the most daunting it has faced since the period of massive slum clearance in the 1950s and 1960s.
Problems are emerging now of such scale that new initiative and effort is called for, and for which a policy of continuing previous practices will not solve. Sheffield feels greatly disadvantaged with the resources it has available to tackle the need".
Indeed, the allocation of resources to Sheffield over the past years had been very disturbing and sad. In fact, it has been less than half that which it was allocated in 1977–78. I understand that the allocation for 1984–85

1159
is only some 25 per cent. of what the city council—I think, unanimously—agrees would be proper provision to face the many problems with which it has to contend.
Sheffield has a waiting list of 15,000. Indeed, in many ways the council is a victim of its success as a housing authority. It built over 30,000 council houses before 1939, and over 80 per cent. now require modernisation. Over 8,500 council houses suffer from wall-tie failure, over 7,000 are affected by spalling concrete and 3,000 post-war dwellings made by nontraditional construction methods are in need of remedial works. In addition to the council's own problems, of the 46,800 private dwellings which were built before 1919 practically all need major repairs.
Indeed, I think that we have more than the short-term problem of homelessness to contend with. We really have to face the problem of the decline of our social infrastructure, in other fields as well as housing, but particularly in housing. I greatly regret that we are not using the unemployed resources of the construction industry to remedy these defects. I should welcome the greater use of the results of our North Sea oil resources for these purposes, and of course for industrial investment, so as to reduce the burden that our generation is placing on generations to come.
Since I have just a moment or so left, I will bring your Lordships to consider the problem in the city in which we are now located—the City of Westminster. In the 1981 Census it was disclosed that even here, in the centre of our capital city, there were over 6,000 households which were sharing a bath or an inside lavatory; about 1,900 households lacked even a bath or a shower. Even in the 1980s, there were 600-odd households lacking an inside lavatory. When the city additionally has a waiting list of 9,600, of which 7,000 are hardship cases by the city council's pretty stringent definition, it seems to me that we have a problem of a most serious magnitude. My noble friend Lady Ewan-Biggs referred to the problem of bed-and-breakfast accommodation and serious homeless cases. I understand that over 2,000 were referred to the council's homeless committee during 1983. I have no doubt that these instances could be multiplied many times throughout the nation.
I conclude quite simply by asking Her Majesty's Government to consider the excellent case presented by my noble friend, which I am sure will be added to in the course of our debate. We really should begin now to try to develop a policy not only to cure or to mitigate homelessness but, in addition, to remedy the deplorable decline in our social infrastructure, particularly in the provision, repair and building of housing.
4.7 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I am very happy to use a little of my nine minutes to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, on his very interesting and informative maiden speech. I always enjoy listening to someone who speaks from considerable parliamentary experience and who also can bring knowledge and information to us from the regions, because that is something that we do not get so often.
1160
Your Lordships may be amused to know that in recent years there has been something of a reaction against the 10-minute sermon, so I am a little out of practice; but I have firmly thrown away the first half of what I wanted to say. I want to speak particularly from my experience now as a bishop in south London and to draw further attention to the position of the single homeless, which is becoming steadily worse in London, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, made clear in her opening speech.
When I knew that I was to speak in this debate, I asked a number of people what the phrase "single homeless" immediately suggested to them. Almost all of them replied, in effect, "Dossers"—that is, those who sleep rough, some of whom gathered in their hundreds for a few days' warmth and food last Christmas at Vauxhall, thanks to the dedication of the group called Crisis at Christmas and the generosity of those who support it.
Along with that instant classification there often goes a feeling that all homeless people are feckless or worse and so it is really rather pointless spending time or money on their needs—which is a convenient way of side-stepping the whole issue. But, as we have already heard, the truth, as might be expected, is rather different. While among the single homeless there are some who never pay their rent and some who behave in violent and anti-social ways, there are very many more who will respond to the right kind of support and care and who, above all, need to get one foot on the ladder of social stability before they attempt to go further.
All the evidence of organisations such as CHAR, Catholic Housing Aid, the Board for Social Responsibility of my own Church, and my own diocesan single homeless research worker, and many Church housing associations, too, is that behind the "dosser" stands an army of single homeless whose existence is still only partly visible. As we have heard, there are a large number, and a growing number, of young people—30 per cent. of the sample 7,000 in the Department of Environment single and homeless study—who have been in care or who have left home, and sometimes they have no home to which to return. There are people in need of rehabilitation in society, and there are people whose marriages have broken up and one of the partners leaves home.
In a book by Tony Parker entitled, People and Providence, which some of your Lordships will know, based on a south London housing estate, there is a fascinating description of an elderly man who has a wide circle of friends all over the estate, who always seems busy, yet who turns out to be sleeping in various boiler-rooms and cleaning cupboards around the blocks. Here was an intelligent, versatile man, whose marriage had broken up, who was then for a spell in a mental hospital, and who when he came out had nowhere to go. The story is all too familiar.
Some of the large group of single homeless are in hostel accommodation. In London there is a lot of this kind of accommodation and in a sense it is the last stop before the streets. Much of it is substandard, and there is general agreement that hostels will be needed in the future, but they will certainly have to be smaller and must provide more trained care. Yet much of the limited and paltry accommodation that we now have

1161
in London is under threat, as, for instance, in the case of three boroughs which are taking over former Rowton hotels but which lack the large sums that are needed to modernise or replace them.
Anxiety about this problem is now compounded by the threat to the GLC. It may not be widely known that the GLC has played a major role in developing provision for single homeless people—provision which is not available through other legislation—in London in the past few years. The GLC has been able to do this by providing research and co-ordination of public policy and by grants to voluntary bodies.
Housing associations, for instance, can play—and already play—a significant part in providing new accommodation for the single and homeless, but they cannot be expected to provide a wide range of support services and special care as well without some additional financial aid. Voluntary giving may be enough to provide a little, but clearly only local and central government can provide the quite substantial help which is now needed to get some more schemes off the drawing boards and into operation to meet the growing need. That in some measure the GLC has been able to provide, and therefore I should like to ask the Minister what will take its place, and whether there will be any statutory requirements to ensure that adequate provision of hostel accommodation for the single homeless is made for London as a whole. In asking that question I do not mean to preclude the other kinds of resource that are needed. I simply want to draw attention to this one particular aspect of the problem in London, which is now so acute, and this may be one of the best ways of meeting it for quite a significant proportion of those most in need.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am sure that all who are concerned with the homeless as well as the homeless themselves will very much appreciate what has been said by the right reverend Prelate. He has defended the homeless briefly, but eloquently, against the charge of fecklessness which, in my opinion, is used as a rather wicked alibi for our own failure to do anything constructive for them, and I am sure that what he said should be underlined very often. Like the right reverend Prelate, I must use up a moment of my time—no doubt it should be more—to pay tribute to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mulley. Now that he has become so eminent, he may have forgotten that for a while I was his tutor. He came back from the war, he had been a prisoner, and he obtained a first-class degree. There was no kind of connection between that and my tuition because I was followed in the role by, I imagine, the noble Lord, Lord Blake, who taught the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, a different kind of politics. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, owes much more to the noble Lord, Lord Blake, but in fact he followed the same line of politics that he always intended to follow, that of socialist idealism.
While I am talking about old pupils—there are one or two knocking about the House—I must refer to another old pupil, Lord Byers, who has already been commemorated here. He was a man of the utmost integrity and distinction, and if I say that the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, and Lord Byers stand out in my
1162
own mind as equally dedicated men, I am sure that the House will understand what I have in mind.
The noble Baroness has opened, indeed covered, the subject so effectively—and in such a short time—that I shall not attempt to go over the general ground. She has saved me that task. Rather more than a year ago I opened a debate in your Lordships' House on the homeless young in which, in a modest kind of way, I hope, I dwelt on the achievements of the New Horizon youth centre, which I helped to found, and which now caters for more than 3,000 young people a year. So I shall not speak on all those matters at any length.
In the few minutes available to me I should like to turn to the second point that struck me about the speech of the right reverend Prelate; namely, the grave threat to the homeless constituted by the likely abolition of the GLC. This is not party politics. The noble Lord the Minister may feel that he has heard this before, that this is the Labour party versus the Conservative party; and certainly there have been bitter discussions in this House on this kind of topic. Well do I remember the days before most of the present activists here were performing when we did what we could to defeat the introduction of the GLC. At that time it was regarded as a Tory ramp, and we sat up all night to try to make our point. However, it turned out to be not such a Tory ramp after all; at any rate not sufficiently a Tory ramp to suit the Tories. So now they have to think of something else. They have left a kind of vacuum, so far as we can understand it. They cannot think of any new organisation in which they would obtain the requisite majority.
I am not speaking in party terms, not at all; I do not want to be misunderstood. But I am speaking from the point of view of the homeless in the same non-party way as the right reverend Prelate addressed the House. I do not expect that the noble Lord should particularly know the circumstances of the organisation of which I am chairman. It is a large organisation, and in a sense it is representative of other agencies which are trying to help the homeless in London. Here I should like to mention a few facts. The abolition of the GLC would mean the loss of a third of our organisation's statutory funding, and about 75 per cent. of our total funding is statutory. Abolition of the GLC would mean a loss of about 25 per cent. of our income, and the planned cuts in ILEA spending would probably mean the loss of another 25 per cent. Rate capping would lose us a good deal more one way or another.
So, on the face of it, the young people concerned could be ruined—pitched into the street by the policy pursued by the Government. This has nothing to do with the old argument about the GLC, the LCC and other bodies. We are talking now of the homeless. I hope that the noble Lord will appreciate that.
The noble Lord, who certainly means very well and who often speaks very well when he is properly advised, may not be in a position today to say what alternative provision will be made. The right reverend Prelate also drew attention to this matter. What is to happen? Either the Government know or they do not know. If they know, they will no doubt tell us. One has the impression that they do not know. I speak on behalf of those who started the centre—it looks after several thousand people a year—and who have been

1163
running it for 14 years. We have no idea what is going to happen and no confidence whatever in anything so far suggested. I have been speaking for only six minutes but I shall leave matters there because I wish to lay the utmost emphasis on the alarm and despondency that Government policy is creating.
4.21 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, may I join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, on his maiden speech, and also the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for introducing the debate. Homelessness, it seems to me, falls into two categories: the first, bricks and mortar; and the second, people. It is people that one has to consider, as many noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the right reverend Prelate have already done. As the noble Earl, Lord Longford, will know, it was shown in Professor Wing's report that one-third of the homeless in hostels are mental patients.
I should like to refer to a few groups where the problem of bricks and mortar arises. First, as the noble Baroness said, there is the bed-and-breakfast accommodation. This is uneconomic in terms of happiness and money. A great deal of money is spent on "bed and breakfasts" that are degrading and bad for children and families. There should be some alternative. We need more low rent accommodation for single people as well as families. It is the low paid and those out of work who are in great trouble.
As the time available for speeches is brief, I shall not deal with a number of points that I would have liked to make. I wish, however, to make a constructive suggestion. I believe that in every local authority there should be a housing council. Among those serving on it should be representatives of the housing department, the social services department, the voluntary organisations, the district health authority and the mental hospitals. The council should be chaired by a person independent of local government.
The council should be structured. It should be well run and well serviced. I have had this idea for a long time. It is based upon what is being done in the city of Oxford where I live, a city with a population of 110,000. However, it has a very great homeless problem. Many people who are homeless come to Oxford, Cambridge or London. For single homeless men, a committee has been set up by the warden of the Oxford Cyrenian Community involving all those who give service to homeless single men. The committee is established on two bases, one to provide accommodation—the bricks and mortar—and the other to meet the needs of people who are homeless and who require care, rehabilitation and resettlement.
A proportion of the homeless who are given accommodation—the bricks and mortar—still need care, support and help. They are mainly those who have been in mental hospitals, who have had mental illness or who are mentally handicapped. If such a council were set up in each area—I was going to say by law—it would be possible first to assess the needs of each area. This has been done in my own city by the group that set itself up to deal with the needs of homeless single men. It has calculated that 12 different
1164
types of accommodation are required. Of those constituting the 12 types of homeless person, several need the support of voluntary or statutory social services, the support of mental hospitals on an out-patient basis or the help of voluntary workers in some form or another.
Once it had assessed the needs of the area, the council would apply to various organisations that could help—the Oxford Cyrenian Society, the Church Army, the Salvation Army, and so on. By the same token, it would act as a clearing house for those voluntary organisations that are prepared to help in this area.
I speak with deep feeling because I know of one area where the social services department established a centre for homeless families which, by some quirk and, I imagine, bad administration, came under the housing department. Under legislation approved in 1970, the centre was passed over to the housing department which immediately disbanded it. Now the local authority realises that it made a mistake. It is having to set up exactly what was disbanded. If there was a housing council in each area to which reference could be made, it would not have been possible for that place to be closed. It was badly needed and proved a severe loss.
We talk a great deal about the problems of homelessness. We talk a great deal about those in need of particular support and help, such as the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped. Surely, the time has come for us to have a structure to deal with this. I believe that the structure must be locally based. It could be achieved through the formation of a housing council that included all the departments, and particularly representatives of mental hospitals and the health services as well as the social services and the housing department. There is much else that I could say. I have already spoken for seven minutes. I shall therefore simply reiterate my plea for a proper structure to assess the need for scarce resources and to help those who are homeless.
4.29 p.m.
Lord Rhodes: My Lords, may I, at the outset, congratulate my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs who opened the debate, and my noble friend Lord Mulley on his maiden speech. I hope that he will be heard often in the House. I speak as the active head of an organisation in Manchester that has been trying to deal with this question for many years. In Manchester city, the population has shrunk by nearly 20 per cent. in the last 10 years. People have moved to overspill areas leaving behind those who are less well able to cope with the pressures of inner city living. We have probably more hostel accommodation in the inner city of Manchester than most other cities of the same size.
About three years ago a local group called the "Campaign for the Homeless and Rootless" did a survey of the hostels in the Greater Manchester area and they were appalled by what they saw. They even campaigned for the closure of nine hostels, seven of which were within the city limits—that is the area where there are many empty cotton mills, and it is an area which is not populated, except by hostels. The larger hostels in the city centre can accommodate, on

1165
average, 1,000 people per night, and on average 90 per cent. of the beds are taken up. It is also estimated that a further 750 beds, again within the City of Manchester, are occupied by people who come within the definition of "homelessness".
Together with the people sleeping rough, it is estimated that the total number of homeless people in the Greater Manchester area lies somewhere between 2,000 and 2,500. I agree with every word that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has said. She has indicated the lines upon which we must proceed. I would like those noble Lords who heard what the noble Baroness said, to remember her remarks.
A proportion of the people who sleep in these hostels every night are young people, and I contend that they should not be there at all. Recent research has suggested that there is a correlation between homelessness and offending. We have proof that that is true. I should like to quote from the report entitled, The Homeless Young Offender which says:
"Research shows that homeless offenders have high reconviction rates and that among homeless young offenders the chances of reconviction (which are one in two) are twice as likely as for those living at home".
That same report referred to the pattern of offending which takes place once a person becomes homeless, having been attracted to the city centre. The situation runs something like as follows. A young person becomes homeless. If he or she is not already unemployed he or she soon will be. As that person has no fixed abode he has to sign on every day. The queues are long, it takes a long time and, therefore, he or she is unable to go and look for accommodation or even for a job. Financial necessity or boredom leads such a person to commit a crime. He is then caught and comes before the court, and because he is of no fixed abode he very often receives a custodial sentence. He faces accommodation problems again on his discharge. And so the situation repeats itself.
If we can get hold of a young offender after his first conviction we have a chance to help him; but that is not such a possibility after his second or third conviction, because then we really present ourselves with a challenge. Once a person becomes part of the "revolving door syndrome", as the judiciary call it, deprivation intensifies unless some incisive action is taken to prod individuals to action. We all know of people who have been on the homelessness circle for many years and who insulate themselves against society in overwhelming apathy.
The organisation to which I belong is called Selcare, and we have been trying for the past 13 years to provide accommodation which is now considered by everybody to be appropriate. It is a fine example of co-operation between a professional body—Crown court judges and magistrates—and volunteers who assist in the acquisition and running of various hostels in the Greater Manchester area. If the job is not tackled soon it will be ungovernable.
When we came to Parliament in 1945 we said that we would get rid of the workhouses. Everybody said at that time, "It can't be done; there isn't the money", and so on. Yet that magnificent government of 1945 got rid of the workhouses and all that they entailed, within two years. If the people have the will to do it,
1166
they can get rid of these hostels which are a blot on the landscape of our inner cities.
Your Lordships may ask what we do. We started 13 years ago with one house. We now have 17 properties. The number of people who are in them varies from one to another. But the project is succeeding, and where we have the opportunity to tackle a youngster after one conviction, I reckon that we have a 50:50 chance of saving him. If we save one person, we are only doing something which the Bible has been telling us to do all our lives.
We also do other things besides. We are able to achieve things with the help of the probation service. At this juncture I should like to say that I have never worked with such a wonderful body of people as the probation service who are prepared to give of their time and money to achieve what they believe in.
What we need in the Manchester area is a little more attention from the Housing Corporation inside the Department of the Environment. We should never look at volunteers as though they are wasting money. On average we have embarked upon two major projects each year since we came into being. We have six projects awaiting money and we hope that we shall be able to carry them through before the end of 1984. We only need money for bricks and mortar; we are coping with the revenue side of the matter by effort. We have six projects on the table now and it looks as though we will get the money for only two. I point out to the department that this is a good investment—there could not be a better one; and I appeal to the Government to be more understanding about the request that we are making.
4.39 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, in rising this afternoon I would like to associate myself with the congratulations expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, for making a very interesting maiden speech. I am sure that we shall all be glad to hear him many times again in future.
I am sure that anyone interested in trying to do his duty to his neighbour will be grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing this subject to your Lordships' attention this afternoon. It is not always easy to identify one's neighbour's needs, and one can only too easily hand the matter over to somebody else accompanied by a little conscience money, and then forget it until some film like "Cathy Come Home" or a speech like that made by the noble Baroness, gives one a jolt. I expect that most of your Lordships will remember the beginning to Tolstoy's famous masterpiece, Anna Karenina, which said:
"All happy families resemble one another, but each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way".
If for one reason or another 1 per cent. of the 12 million families in this land are unhappy, then there are 120,000 individual cases to be dealt with and to be rectified.
Edgar Allen Poe coined a phrase which I remember from my schooldays because of its prose rhythm and alliteration:
"Misery is manifold. The wretchedness of the earth is multiform".

1167
He must have written that at about the time when the young Disraeli was formulating those thoughts later expressed as the "Two Englands" in Sybil. The "Two Englands": nowadays the sociologists would call them sub-cultures. The first sub-culture is that of happy families. It does not matter whether it is the Duke of Domesday's or Mr. Bones the Butcher's. They perpetuate their kind. Happy parents bring up happy children to become happy parents and grandparents in due course. But if the tradition is broken by whatever mischance or misbehaviour it may be, then the next generation will never provide their children with what they have never known themselves, and they will be sucked into that second sub-culture.
I often ask myself whether the run-of-the-mill democracy and democratic machinery to which we are accustomed here and in local government has the capacity for mounting rescue operations of this kind. If you accept that we are mounting a rescue operation, then a statistically-minded bureaucracy which deals in percentages and proportions and not in individuals may not be the right tool in the kit. The principles embodied in what we are accustomed to frequently fossilise until they seem to be unique, though they need not be. It seems to me that rescue operations in a democracy need the sort of authority possessed by the captain of a lifeboat. I do not quite know what that is, but I am sure that in the middle of a rescue operation nobody has to look at the book of rules or take up points of order, or put matters to a vote.
A new thought, my Lords, is rather like a new Bill. It needs to be read a number of times and turned over as if it were being debated in Committee while people get familiar with its ramifications. I do not expect that you will immediately set the seal of your approval to what I have been thinking of in this context. I searched for something analogous to the power that the American President has of declaring a "disaster area". In the case of a social mischief, I have in mind the appointment of some sort of parliamentary commissioner with quite exceptionally wide-ranging powers over, say, the rehousing of the homeless.
He would be answerable to a Select Committee of both Houses in the exercise of those powers granted to him. He would have an advisory committee of responsible local people very' much on the lines suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful'. There would also have to be a sort of hybrid between an ombudsman and the auditor general keeping his activities under review and taking the burden of detail off the Select Committee.
In the sort of case which the noble Baroness is bringing to your Lordships' attention he would of course have powers to override bureaucratic inadequacy by the possession of his own budget. The sort of inadequacy when, for example, as we have heard discussed before, the laws of taxation and the laws of public assistance collide wth one another and, instead of assisting people, produce impoverishment leading to homelessness as the noble Baroness has described. The homelessness produces unhappiness, just as unhappiness can produce the kinds of behaviour that can lead to homelessness.
1168
Of one thing I am quite clear: we cannot just ignore the cases brought to your attention by the noble Baroness. We cannot just sit tight and hope that the problem will go away. We have created part of the problem by our own legislative laxity. We have emancipated from control all those forms of misbehaviour which have brought under attack that first sub-culture I referred to and allowed it to deteriorate into the second, illustrated by the homeless single-parent family. It is our responsibility under heaven to repair the mischief we have wrought.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Mulley on his maiden speech this afternoon. I agree with almost everything he said. I certainly know of his interest in this subject; I certainly know of the tremendous record which Sheffield has in the field of housing and of the homeless generally; and I endorse everything that my noble friend said about that city. I should like to say how grateful I am to the noble Baroness for giving us the opportunity today to discuss this crucial matter. The problems of homelessness, as has been said, have been with us for many years. As chairman of the all-party group of CHAR—that is, the Campaign for the Homeless and Rootless—for many years I have participated in a number of debates in the other place and have raised this question on many occasions.
Government reports, local authority surveys and reports, and reports from all the voluntary organisations, such as Shelter, SHAC, CHAR and others, have described the problem and produced recommendations over a long period designed to improve the situation. Yet, as the noble Baroness's Motion rightly says, the problem is worsening, homelessness is on the increase, and more single people are becoming homeless and at a younger age. I am grateful to all previous speakers who have mentioned those problems in detail.
London local authorities, housing associations and voluntary organisations, struggling with inadequate resources, now have another problem to contend with. This was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark and my noble friend Lord Longford. They now have the uncertainty of the future of the GLC. The abolition proposals in respect of the GLC would completely wipe out the role that that authority plays at the moment as strategic housing authority in London.
At present the GLC has a London-wide role in respect of housing problems which spreads over the boundaries of individual boroughs; for example, the problems of the single homeless. They, too, spend substantial sums on financing schemes such as Arlington House—the biggest hostel in London for single men—where they are currently spending £470,000 on renovations. Who would shoulder this crucial task if the GLC were abolished? Are the proposed successor bodies capable of understanding the GLC's housing activities? What guarantee is there that they would be carried out effectively, efficiently and economically? We are entitled to ask for, and to be given, detailed assurances on these points. I hope that the Minister will be able to comment when he replies to this debate.

1169
As has been said, the problems of the capital city form a substantial part of the whole country's problems. The Department of the Environment's inner cities directorate has recently completed a study of urban deprivation using census indicators. The 10 local authorities in England with the highest scores on the index of housing deprivation were all London boroughs; half the boroughs come within the first 20. Therefore, it is right that the problems of London should be mentioned.
A recent survey carried out by the GLC pointed out that bed-and-breakfast accommodation for homeless families, as my noble friend said, cost the London boroughs over £6 million in 1982–83, a rise of 37 per cent. over the previous year. Indeed, local authorities, as well as individuals, are in a Catch-22 situation. They are obliged by law to provide accommodation for homeless families, yet the Government are cutting the capital funding which would provide permanent homes and at the same time penalising boroughs for revenue spending on temporary accommodation under the absurd rating legislation.
A GLC report also pointed out that only 27 per cent. of the homeless households accepted by the boroughs are housed directly into permanent accommodation. The rest, 73 per cent., have to go into hostels or bed-and-breakfast, or unimproved empty property. Nearly 3,000 families live in temporary accommodation at any one time, and the average length of stay for families in temporary accommodation is growing. In one borough families accepted this year will have to wait five years before they are considered for a home of their own. We know from recent reports, and certainly from a recent independent television documentary, that conditions in bed-and-breakfast establishments are appalling. They are often overcrowded, unhealthy, and most certainly distressing.
What has been done so far? With all these reports and all the demands and everything else that has gone on, unfortunately very little. The Government recently reviewed the workings of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 already referred to by a noble Lord, and decided to make no amendments, although there had been many calls for a widening of the provisions of the Act to help more single homeless, for a tightening up of some of the non-mandatory provisions in the Act, and for a redefinition of homelessness. The Government decided to tighten up the code of guidance to local authorities and simply commented on other areas of concern. I was particularly disappointed that the Government do not intend to expand the category of priority to include childless single people and couples, because this is where the greatest need probably arises. This was spelt out in detail by my noble friend in her opening speech.
If part of the price of zero inflation is the worsening of conditions and prospects for the homeless and—as the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said during Monday's proceedings on the housing benefits scheme—a reduction in housing benefits of the elderly and disabled, then we surely have our priorities all wrong. The longer present policies continue, the more difficult and expensive it will be to tackle the problems. All the homeless and other vulnerable groups in my opinion deserve better treatment from a Christian society and we must inject more urgency into our
1170
approach to these problems. These problems exist in all our major cities.
Before I sit down I should like to say a few words about another problem area which has interested me for many years, having been an active member of the Northern Ireland group. I refer to Northern Ireland and particularly, to Belfast where voluntary organisations such as CHAR and Shelter and others are becoming increasingly alarmed about the scale of the problem in Northern Ireland. I have learnt in the short period that I have been here that many Members of this House share my desire to assist in the creation of an atmosphere there in which both communities can be reconciled and where political initiatives could then have some chance of success. The alleviation of problems such as homelessness must form a part of that process. A report of the activities of the Ormeau Centre in Belfast probably sums it up:
"About 4,000 single people in Northern Ireland did not have a home to live in during the past 12–18 months …
Every night about 500 people were forced to live in hostels, and many more slept rough.
And an increasing number of young people—aged under 25—were either sleeping rough or staying in hostels.
The figures were revealed in a report of the activities of the Ormeau Centre in Belfast which caters for the single homeless.
It opened in 1978 on the Ormeau Road to provide shelter, companionship and cheap meals for the homeless.
In 1981 the centre transferrred to the Grosvenor Road when the original premises were reclaimed by the Housing Executive to make way for a road building programme".
The report goes on to say:
"that while voluntary organisations have a major role to play in alleviating the immediate problems, the resolution of the major problem of homelessness must come from new Government legislation.
This would give the Housing Executive a statutory obligation to house all people who require it in the province.
And it would mean a greater priority given to the single homeless in the Executive's and Housing Association's building programmes. This would require the Government to provide the necessary finance".
My time is up, but I hope I have said enough to persuade the Minister and the Government to agree about the urgency of this problem, to listen to the views of the various voluntary organisations that have been involved for very many years and are still struggling with the problems, to ensure that adequate resources are made available to those people doing the job, but generally to lift the degree of priority that has been given to this problem for many years.
4.55 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I should also like, not only to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for an excellent speech, but to congratulate her on being so clever, on being lucky in the ballot, to choose this Motion, coming as it does so close behind the matrimonial Bill and during the discussions on the housing Bill. That is particulary apt. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mulley. I listened, as did the whole House, to all that he had to say to us this afternoon. I hope we shall hear a great deal more from him.
Unemployment and housing are the main worries in all sectors of our society. The homeless, in my view—and other noble Lords have given us other

1171
categories—fall into four main categories: those who are unemployed; those coming to London to find work, including the young; those who prefer to be homeless—and there are many of those—and those, as we discovered in the case of the marriage Bill that we were discussing recently, whose marriages have broken down. We heard during the discussion of that Bill that one in three marriages break down, and it is obvious that one in three families need another unit of accommodation.
I am deeply grateful for the completely unsolicited testimonial that I received from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, who sits in front of me. I do not think he quite realised that in his kind words about Crisis at Christmas he was speaking from a position in front of the present president and, indeed, the founder member of Crisis at Christmas. Having declared that interest, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I talk exclusively about the single homeless in London.
It seems from the figures we have had today that no one has accurate figures, but it is acknowledged that far more must be done to meet the needs in all sectors than is being done at present. It is estimated by CHAR—and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, as chairman of CHAR—that in London alone 14,000 single people are forced to stay temporarily in hostels, night shelters and DHSS resettlement units. Many thousands more are living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, living temporarily with friends, squatting or sleeping on the streets. Three London boroughs have contributed considerably by buying the three Rowntree houses that came up for sale recently. Those hostels, which were to be closed, were bought by Camden, Tower Hamlets and Lambeth, and they total 2,200-bed accommodation. But these very antiquated buildings give only temporary shelter. Because of their age and overcrowding they will have to close in the foreseeable future. It is estimated that a total of 13,599 bed spaces exist, but that includes the common lodging houses, the DHSS resettlement units and the small-group houses in the London boroughs under the GLC.
There are many wonderful voluntary organisations which try to cater for the single homeless. It is quite invidious to mention any, but I feel that I must mention the Salvation Army, St. Mungo's Charing Cross Hostel, the West London Mission (which is synonymous with the name of the noble Lord, Lord Soper), New Horizon (also synonymous with the name of the noble Earl, Lord Longford), and very many others. They try to cater in their different ways for those in need of a roof and in need of support, and they also include trying to cater for mental patients.
Although we are a caring and humane society it seems that some of the boroughs turn a blind eye to their responsibility in this field. How often, driving round London, does one see a whole terrace of solid houses with boards up in the window spaces? If the local authorities really cared they would use to the limit the resources which are allocated for housing. At the present time many do not, and past homes which could be repaired for future homes are allowed to decay.
The future for these people is bleak unless more
1172
money is found to build more units and to replace old ones. The GLC have funded projects to the tune of over £2 million a year. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us how, when this authority ceases to exist, the funding will be organised. Those who work in this field are deeply worried, but if they can have an assurance that their dependent clients will be looked after adequately in the future, they will be able to cope with the present. My time is nearly up, but before I close, I would pay tribute to the idea of my noble friend Lady Faithfull, with her wide experience: the idea of a local council—very local; in my view, a national council would not do. I hope that this idea will be taken up. I personally would wish it well. This is a vast problem, caring for deeply unhappy people, but one that must be tackled.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I want to confine myself to one aspect alone of the problem which the noble Baroness raised this afternoon and it gives me great pleasure to pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, because at one time I was one of his constituents. I want to take up the last point that he made about Northern Ireland and to confine myself entirely to that. Northern Ireland suffers the worst housing conditions of anywhere in the United Kingdom; 15 per cent. of the housing stock is unfit for human habitation; 20 per cent. of the houses in the Province lack the five basic amenities, and there are around 30,000 households on the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's waiting list. What is more, this situation is getting worse, and it is getting worse because a quarter of the houses were built before 1919.
These appalling conditions of housing in Northern Ireland are closely connected with the question of the homeless in Northern Ireland. As houses fall into decay there are far fewer units of accommodation to go round. There is a certain degree of either hypocrisy or ignorance or both in the Government's attitude towards the shocking conditions of housing in Northern Ireland. And equally so in relation to the figures they give for the homeless. It was estimated that in the 18 months to August 1982, 4,000 homeless (out of a population of no more than 1.5 million) could be identified. As recently as December 1983, there were approximately 2,000 a year homeless; 500 a night use hostel type accommodation or sleep rough outside.
What do the Government say? What do the Department of Health and Social Security say? They say there are 142. What does that mean? It simply means that they have 142 in their hostels and they do not bother to count those outside. The 142 that the Government admit is, in fact, at least 500 a night and, as I say, something like 2,000 a year.
This is bad enough as a condition; but how are the Government intending to tackle it? How is it that the 1977 Act which, as I understand it, applies to the rest of the United Kingdom, does not apply to Northern Ireland? How is it therefore that there appears to be no public acceptance of responsibility for homelessness in Northern Ireland? How is it that if an individual has no address, he cannot register as one of the homeless and he is not placed in the emergency category? The Government are not taking responsibility for this dreadful social evil and the consequence is that what

1173
palliative measures can be taken rest almost entirely on the voluntary organisations. We all pay tribute to the voluntary organisations, but that is not enough. Surely, the Government must admit a responsibility and must accept responsibility alongside the voluntary organisations.
I hope that the noble Lord who is to wind up for the Government will address himself specifically to why the 1977 Act does not apply to Northern Ireland and to whether the Government have any intention of making sure that it does and of taking responsibility for the homeless of the Province. I would suggest that there are a number of other things that need to be done by the Government as far as both the poor housing and the homelessness of the people of Northern Ireland are concerned.
In the first place, there must be an increase in public sector house building and there must be at least a reduction in, if not an end to, the sale of public sector houses which is reducing the supply open to those who are in greater need. Secondly, I suggest that there must be a determined policy to improve the very poor housing conditions in the rural areas of Northern Ireland. A comprehensive policy should be developed to tackle the appalling conditions that one finds in travelling around the rural areas of Northern Ireland. Efforts must be made to prevent the decay of the existing stock of houses that is to be found in the Province. This stock is calculated to be depleted at the rate of 2,500 a year, simply through lack of the resources to maintain and restore it. Finally, there must be a determined attack on what is the scandal of the private rented sector, with rents raised without any demand that the landlords must provide adequate housing as a consequence.
If concerned about the violence in Northern Ireland, can we have a more flagrant example of the effect of social conditions on a political conflict? Can we have a more blatant example of how lives are lost, conflict is provoked, tensions are raised as a result of decades of neglect of basic social amenities? I ask the noble Lord who is to answer for the Government to address himself to what is one of the most urgent and dangerous of the problems connected with both housing and homelessness which we face in this Parliament.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I should like first to comment on the fact that today we have a new Member of this House in my noble friend Lord Mulley. I have particular reason to notice his coming here because I was his junior for a period at the Ministry of Transport. He would remember very well, as I did, about three weeks ago when the new part of the M.25 was opened, that we went out to look over Epping Forest to see how we could get that road through and cause as little disruption as possible to a very attractive part of the country. It is perhaps an indication of how fast we move in transport that it must be all of 10 or 12 years since we looked at that piece of road, and the road has just newly been opened. I hope that the housing situation does not take quite so long before we see some improvement. I certainly enjoyed the speech of my noble friend and I look forward to re-making his acquaintance in this
1174
House. I should also like to congratulate my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs for choosing this subject for a short debate. I think the response she has had in the number of Members who have put their names down to speak is an indication of how important this subject is.
I should like to speak primarily of the Scottish position as regards homelessness and to give some idea of how the situation differs although, as I listened to other speakers, it seemed to me that it might not perhaps differ as much as I had once thought. I should like to speak about homelessness in general and to talk briefly about the problems of the single homeless.
I should like to pay tribute to two groups who are doing a very important job in Scotland and who have been good enough to send me some up-to-date material on the subject. The first is Shelter-Scotland and the second is the Scottish Council for the Single Homeless. They, and many other organisations in Scotland and outside it, are doing a very important job to get something done about housing. First, they are making the public conscience much more aware of the terrible problem of homelessness. Secondly—and this reinforces the first part of their mission—they are acting personally with many people at the sharp end, at the difficult point, who are homeless: these are people who are in dire need. Shelter and the Scottish Council for the Single Homeless frequently deal with these cases of people in desperate need; so one side of their work reinforces the other. When Shelter or the single homeless people speak, they almost always speak from very great and deep experience.
No one that I have spoken to is in any doubt as to the increase in the numbers of single homeless. Figures for the three housing aid shelters run by Shelter-Scotland, for instance, make it quite clear that there is an increase in the single homeless and in general homelessness. Official statistics tend to show a different picture, but I believe that we should be cautious of official statistics. They only indentify a proportion of the homeless and they record only those who present themselves as homeless to a local authority housing department.
I have with me the latest available figures of people applying to housing departments as homeless under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. The figures demonstrate that there has been very little change over the past four years in homelessness; but the main flaw in the recorded statistics is that they take no account at all of what has been described by many speakers already today as the "hidden homeless". That phrase includes people who approach councils to make inquiries but who get no satisfaction and are not recorded as a statistic of application. It also includes a great many people who do not apply because they believe themselves as not in a priority group and so would not qualify under the Act.
The rest of the homeless consists of those sharing accommodation, often over-crowded, with relatives and friends; those living in damp or substandard housing; people living in insecure accommodation and those staying in institutions and lodging-houses because there is no other suitable accommodation for them. And of course there are the people who have been described many times in the course of this debate—those people who are forced, for a whole lot of reasons, to sleep rough.

1175
Official statistics can be valuable, I believe. They are a valuable source of information about how the homeless persons Act is working. One of the main concerns in this connection surrounds the limitations on the existing groups classed as having a priority need. A vital flaw, I believe, in the 1977 Act is the whole concept of the "intentionally homeless". As regards this category of "intentionally homeless", certain Scottish authorities have made abundant use of this, and I have the figures for them. If we look at the Scottish housing statistics for the third quarter of 1982 we see that the Scottish average of what the jargon calls "intentionality" is that 731 cases out of 8,324 applications were considered to be people who had intentionally made themselves homeless: that is, 8.8 per cent. But the figure for Edinburgh was 39 per cent., while the figure for Glasgow was 2.3 per cent. This is not an Edinburgh-Glasgow thing although it is something that we all kid about in Scotland: it is that Glasgow have gone slightly ahead of Edinburgh. I hope that Edinburgh will catch up very quickly and will look much more sympathetically at the whole question of the intentionally homeless. Edinburgh has been applying the figures much more strictly than Glasgow. As I say, I hope that Edinburgh will take a leaf from Glasgow because their needs are just as great and I hope they will start looking a great deal more sympathetically on what "intentional homelessness" really means.
The code of guidance which came out after the 1977 Act stipulated that a great deal of investigation should be made of any cases suspected of being intentionally homeless so that a proper case-study could be made and it could be decided whether in fact it was intentional homelessness or somthing quite different. In any case, I believe that someone who is homeless is someone in need.
I realise that I have almost reached the end of my time, but I should like to say that many people who are homeless and who are offered accommodation by the local authority are in fact offered accommodation that is quite unsuitable—for example, poor-standard housing, housing in remote areas or inappropriate housing. As an example of that, I have heard of people being rehoused in former barracks. Sometimes people are left in temporary accommodation for far too long, and sometimes far too frequent use is made of bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
I hope I have been able to give some slight indication of the Scottish picture to prove that it is not greatly different from that of England, and I would join with all my noble friends and others who have spoken in saying that what we really need is a major housing programme which I believe would pay us, as a nation, not only in terms of a better standard of living and a better quality of life for people, but would also perhaps reduce pressure that is forced on other social services because of the terrible problem of homelessness.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I join the whole House in both welcoming and congratulating my very good friend and comrade Lord Mulley, who comes to this House with a fine record of service not only to his party but to the people whom he represented in another place. From what he has said
1176
here today, I am absolutely certain that the whole House will look forward to hearing him time and time again in the future.
We can never debate housing too often in this House or in the other place. There are millions of people outside who are looking for some hope, some comfort, some guidance and some relief from their problems, and the message of those of us who are not in government is that we believe that the words that we speak, and the arguments and the passion that we display in this debate and in other debates on housing, will be heard by those who have a major contribution to make to the relief of those outside who are in housing need.
Together with a great many others, I am specially indebted to my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs, who made a very deeply moving speech based not only upon her own compassion, but also upon her personal inquiries. She demonstrated her care and concern in this field. I can certainly say, remembering my consitituency surgery as a Member of Parliament, that the story she told was all too familiar.
We may very often feel helpless, but we in this House ought not to feel that we are powerless. We must believe that we can move the Government marginally in the direction in which I believe the whole House wants them to move. After the speech of my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs, never let this or any other Housing Minister tell the House that there are no solutions; that there are only problems. My noble friend was constructive and gave us a lead, for which I am very grateful indeed.
May I echo the tribute from the Liberal Benches to the Member of Parliament for the Isle of Wight. Stephen Ross was, and still is, a dear friend and colleague of mine and we were in many fights. I was the Whip on the Government side when the then Labour Government, together with the Member for the Isle of Wight, struggled valiantly to save what we could of what was a much broader and more generous concept, which finally had to be reshaped in the light of the clear intention that that Bill would not make any progress at all. Many of the wrongs in the Act are a result of the way in which it had to be born. But, certainly, the Member for the Isle of Wight worked tirelessly and made himself very ill later on. He has now recovered from that illness, and the whole House and those who are looking to legislation owe a great debt to him, which I want to acknowledge from this Front Bench here in this debate.
I make a plea for parity of concern by this Government for a group in our society who lead wretched lives, who are often inarticulate, who are often exploited and who deserve a better fate. I refer to the homeless, and not just those who are accepted by councils as priority cases under the 1977 Act, but the many who are excluded from registration and who are real, alive and far from well. We know the housing priorities of this Government. If you are securely housed in a public authority home, you can buy it with up to 60 per cent. off. If you are a secure tenant with a good landlord, such as a charitable housing association, you will be given up to 60 per cent. of the purchase price of a house bought on the open market. If you are a tenant in a council house, you will share in

1177
subsidies in excess of £2 billion. If you are buying your house, you will share in mortgage relief of more than £2 billion.
But if you are not on any list, not in any mortgage queue, not a priority, and if you are either officially or unofficially homeless in Britain in 1984, your prospects are bleak. The word "bleak" was used earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, when she was describing circumstances that she knows. Your welcome at the council office or refuge will be less than jolly. It is not always the fault of the council or the association, nor is it all down to the Government. I shall not spare the Government from deserved strictures, but I shall withdraw them all if the Minister can tell us that he cares—and I know he can do that—and will join us in waging a ceaseless campaign until this battle is won.
I must mention the plan to replace the Rowton House hostels in London. The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, took up a great deal of her speech in pointing out the great difficulties which have fallen upon local authorities in facing up to their responsibilities. In a fine gesture of municipalisation, the Government aided and abetted three authorities, as well as voluntary bodies and the GLC, in taking over the difficult task of putting the three Rowton House hostels into some kind of shape. Yet what do we find? A joint initiative by the councils concerned, the GLC and the Housing Corporation, with the support of CHAR and Shelter, to put on a more efficient footing the housing of the single homeless, has been torpedoed by Government action, because the HIP allocation for Camden has been cut from £35 million to £32 million, which is a cut of 7 per cent., and in Lambeth there has been a cut of 10 per cent. from £43 million to £38 million. I do not know how the Government can expect councils, the Housing Corporation and voluntary bodies to help the homeless in the face of such action.
A special group which has been mentioned, and which I want to mention again, are homeless women, and the Women's National Commission has rendered a service in publishing a report Homelessness Amongst Women. I read with great concern about the particular problems of women. There are far more homeless women than are officially recorded. Many women with young children are caught in the "intentionally homeless" trap. The homeless mentally ill woman requires urgent housing and the quality of housing available in hostels for women is poor. There is a deep concern that cuts in funding voluntary organisations will diminish adequate housing for women in need of it.
The Minister will have been told by his officials that the position is desperate and for none more so than the single homeless. I have statistics with which I shall not bore the House, because they have been given here more than once. But may I raise a particular point; and I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, who knows the area that I served, and still serve, will prick up her ears when I mention Claybury and Friern Barnet hospitals. Bearing in mind the current initiatives to close several large psychiatric hospitals—and I have mentioned Claybury and Friern Barnet—and return the patients to the care of the community, who will care for them then? Who is "the community" in that context? We are asking the
1178
Minister questions which he may not be able to answer tonight, but we need to have answers. Where will those people live when they come out of hospital? Is the Minister making all the arrangements that he can? Will councils which may have to fund get special allowances so to do? I believe that we need answers to those questions, if not tonight at some other time.
I have spent a great deal of time in making notes about the intention of the Government to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties and this is a dimension of great significance. It was first brought to your Lordships' attention by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, and was referred to later by my noble friends Lord Longford and Lord Stallard—who speaks from his great experience in these matters—as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod. I am not even asking the Minister to spell out at length what the Government have in mind. Will he only tell the House that the Government understand the nature of the problem? If and when the GLC disappears, what will happen to the homeless?
CHAR has been mentioned. It represents 400 organisations which are working to house the homeless. These are voluntary bodies, almost all of which are under-funded and understaffed. Certainly all of them are under great stress and facing daunting challenges. These bodies work with the GLC and receive grants from the GLC amounting, as the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, has said, to more than £2 million. The GLC provides a crucial dimension, not merely by means of funding but by providing co-ordination, et cetera.
Let us look at the other side of the all too familiar public argument about bodies which are given grants by the GLC. CHAR gets £26,000, the Housing Advisory Switchboard £33,000, the Central London Advisory Service £14,000, No Fixed Abode £10,000. The Piccadilly Advice Centre, Centrepoint and New Horizon are all trying to help the London homeless. There are many other voluntary bodies and many other ways in which the homeless receive assistance: from day centres and advice agencies and from the specialist services which are provided for people with alcohol and drug-related problems. Before the Minister tells us that the London boroughs are eager, waiting and cheerful about doing in the future that which the GLC and the voluntary bodies have done in the past, I would suggest that he should ask the 32 London boroughs what they are doing now, without having to take on board additional burdens. These bodies already have a difficult task indeed.
In this context let me deal with the London dimension. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, pointed to the disparity between the total of registered homeless and those whom we know are homeless. In Brent, last year, 135 families were registered in a certain period as homeless. A survey indicated that there were 278 homeless families in the borough at that time. In Lewisham there were 43 families registered as homeless. The survey showed that there were 206 homeless families—in reality, five times as many homeless families compared with those registered. My noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove indicated a similar kind of situation in Scotland: the disparity between the number of registered and unregistered homeless families.

1179
Last week, my noble friend Lord Underhill and I visited Hackney—not for the first time. The scale of Hackney's problems is daunting. The task facing Hackney council and Hackney councillors is enough to frighten most men and women, but not those we met when we visited Hackney. Despite rebuff after rebuff from the Government, they have rolled up their sleeves and are fighting to give their people a decent and fair chance in life. And what a fight they have on their hands, with 15,000 families on their waiting list and 200 of those families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation! Adult male unemployment is over 25 per cent. I repeat, adult male unemployment is over 25 per cent. There is environmental deprivation on every side. My noble friend Lady Jeger received a Written Answer today from the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, in which he pointed out that no direct Government assistance is given to councils with families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, but that these costs are reflected in the rate support grant. When, therefore, we speak about capping the rates and stopping profligate overspending we have to remember the reality of the situation in a place like Hackney.
In conclusion, let me examine what we want. Recently, the joint charities group published a document entitled Homelessness: the Mounting Crisis. It concluded a stark appraisal of the plight of Britain's homeless by referring to "the dangerous rising tide of homelessness in Britain". We want a Government who are committed not only to stopping but to turning that tide. We want a Government who will get their feet wet in the cause of making life worth living for some of life's unfortunates. Therefore I invite the Minister and his colleagues to treat the homeless—families or single people—as an urgent priority. Resources will be needed and battles for those resources will have to be fought. I believe that everybody who has spoken in the debate will be behind the Government if they battle for those resources in order to improve life for the homeless. I believe that your Lordships' House is telling the Government that it wants action in this area and that it wants it now.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the subject which the noble Baroness has chosen for debate today is important and, rightly, one of public concern. I have listened with interest to the points which have been made. As has been pointed out, the debate is also most timely. Inevitably, large numbers of persons, large amounts of money and percentages have and will be referred to in this context. But the debate today is about people. It is as well to remember that fact.
When I was studying economics I had a wise young tutor who taught me not only that economics is an historical science but, more important in today's context, that before entering into any discussion you ought to define your terms. So, who are "the homeless"? People are, or become, homeless for all sorts of reasons. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark reminded us, only a very few people prefer to sleep rough. And good luck to them! This is a free country and I would defend their right to do so. They are homeless by choice, and I would
1180
discount them from my calculations. However, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has said, they are a small part of the problem. I am sure that most homeless people do not become homeless by choice, or at least not by such a clear-cut choice. They are the people we are concerned with in this debate.
They may have decided to head for the bright lights without thinking where they would stay when they got there. Despite housing benefits and housing supplementary benefits, they may have got behind with their rent or mortgage payments. They may have moved from an unemployment black spot in order to take up a job and then found that they could not get a place to live. They may have been thrown out of a job and, in consequence, lost the accommodation that went with it. They may have had a final break with their husband or wife and moved out, or their parents or the friends they were staying with may have decided that they could not put them up any longer.
In his excellent maiden speech the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, reminded us of the problems which face the old industrialised cities, and he made special reference to Sheffield and London. Regretfully, as the noble Lord knows, they are not unique. None the less, I hope that we shall again hear from him both soon and often. He has much to contribute and I hope that his arrival here will, in the words of the old song, be a transport of delight.
It is difficult in this situation to say who, or indeed if, anyone was at fault. I defy anyone, for example, to say which partner was to blame in the case of a family breakdown, which could well account for about half of those for whom housing has to be found. My noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve raised this matter. The number of people accepted by local authorities in England as homeless and for whom they should find accommodation rose by 41 per cent. between 1978 and 1982, but the proportion of those who were homeless because of marital breakdown rose only from 15 to 17 per cent. Marital breakdown does not, therefore, seem to be a major cause of the increase in homelessness. None the less, obviously it is a cause. It would be as facile for me to blame local authorities (to whom Parliament has given the duty of housing the homeless under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977) for the homelessness problem as it was for the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, during the Second Reading of the Housing and Building Control Bill on 30th January 1984 to say, at col. 465:
"The only, area where the Government have unfortunately achieved a record is in homelessness".
That is not what the House would expect from me, nor should it. I see the Government's job as encouraging local authorities to perform this very difficult duty and giving them every help in doing so. I shall come later to exactly what help they should receive.
Just put yourselves in local authorities' shoes. They have to think about what they should do for those they have identified as genuinely homeless. Can the homeless man afford and find private rented accommodation? Can the ill-treated wife reasonably be expected to go back to her parents or to fend for herself? Or if she is battered, the victim of domestic violence, should she not, as we have recommended, be treated as having a priority need? Is there a young lad at risk of sexual or financial exploitation? If so, as we

1181
have recommended, the local authority should find accommodation for him but, if not, their only duty under the Act is to give him advice. These are difficult decisions and I do not envy local authorities their task.
How many homeless are there? The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, answered that question for us, but her figures and mine—which, incidentally, agree—are not the only estimates which have been made. In England, we feel that it is not safe to base any action on trends in the numbers reported by local authorities as applying to them. Local authority practice varies. What is to count as an application? A formal interview with the housing department would probably count; a conversation with someone in reception at the town hall would probably not. We tend therefore to look at local authority figures for those people they have accepted as being homeless and for whom they have found accommodation.
The increase in the number of homeless has been referred to, and part of that increase is the result of a change in the statistical systems, which has led to more complete reporting by authorities. Certainly the England 1982 figure represents only 0.4 per cent. of the households recorded in the 1981 census. But, by definition, people who have been housed are no longer homeless. At best, the figures can only be an indication of the problem—and only part of the problem at that, because they exclude those homeless people outside priority need categories for whom authorities did not find accommodation. They exclude also those people who, for one reason or another, were too proud to seek the help which can be provided by local authorities. There is no denying, however, that whatever may be the scale of the figures, they are serious.
The Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, which is at the core of the legislation in this field, was reviewed by the Government fairly recently, as was our code of guidance to authorities. I must tell the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, that it would be premature to undertake another review in the way she suggested. In the course of our review we consulted widely and received a large number of comments from local authorities, from voluntary bodies concerned with homelessness, and from others. Not all of them were on the same side. Some wanted the duties and guidance to be more restrictive. Others asked for their coverage to be increased, particularly in relation to the single homeless.
The noble Baroness criticised the Government for not extending the provisions of the Act. It was, however, clear to us that to extend the priority need categories would be counter-productive. It would mean in effect that everybody's priorities were reduced. We decided to leave the Act as it stood but to revise the code of guidance. The revised code was issued last July.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull suggested that that was not good enough and proposed an independent housing council in each local authority area. I find that idea tempting, but I fail to see how the homeless will get a better deal from local authorities. Perhaps my noble friend will explain that point to me later. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, whose ideas, too, (as so often) need kicking around for some considerable time, interested me. But I do not see that in a federal state, such as that which we have in this country, the
1182
idea of a Select Committee of the kind I understood him to suggest would be the right way of dealing with what is essentially a local problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, mentioned the problems of the special category embracing ex-mentally ill patients. I can tell the noble Lord that a duty has been placed on local authorities since 1959—before the 1977 Act—to provide after-care for mentally ill people. The Mental Health Act 1983 also repeated that point in respect of some formerly detained patients. These unfortunate people are already a priority category, under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act. If the noble Lord has any particular cases in mind where the Act is not being properly applied, I shall be very grateful if he will tell me of them, so that I may take them up.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, referred to the false economy of providing homeless families with bed-and-breakfast accommodation. How right she is! It is of course a very expensive solution to the problem, but it is up to local authorities to decide how they spend their housing money.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government's advice in the code of guidance is that such accommodation should be used as a last resort. Not only is it expensive but, as we have heard this afternoon, it is very unsuitable for families—especially those including young or even older children—although it can be useful in meeting a short-term emergency. Money can often be much better spent in making empty council accommodation habitable. Better still, improved housing management can often reduce the number of empty properties. It can prevent them being vandalised and incurring still greater cost.
Sometimes when reading and listening to the media, one gets the impression that this is the only option open to local authorities. There are of course many others. Finding accommodation for someone does not mean that a local authority has to provide council housing in every case. It may do that, but it may turn instead to a housing association. Housing associations play a valuable role, and I will say more about them in a moment. About half the lettings of most housing associations result from local authority nominations. Or the authority may turn to private rented accommodation in the same way. When an authority's duty is to find a temporary accommodation only, there are a number of other options open to it. One possibility would be to take a short-term lease on an empty house from the private sector. And when an authority's duty is only to give advice, it may again enlist the help of voluntary bodies running local housing aid centres. That is another area in which the voluntary sector has been performing valuable work.
Local authorities' assistance to the homeless forms a part—in most cases a relatively small part—of their overall approach to housing in their particular areas, which must embrace not only the stock and resources directly under their control but also what housing associations and other voluntary bodies are doing in their area; and the extent of the accommodation available to rent and to buy in the private sector. So far as the resources available to local authorities are concerned, these are inevitably limited by what the

1183
nation can afford. Nevertheless, the total local authority allocation for England in 1984–85 will be some £2½ billion. The generalised needs index is used to help divide that global sum, and the importance of homelessness as a weighting factor in the index has been increased.
The greater emphasis on homelessness will, with due allowance for other factors, be reflected in individual local authorities' housing investment programme allocations. Decisions on how they use those and the prescribed proportion of capital receipts are, however, a matter for the individual authority concerned in the light of its assessment of its area's overall needs. I hope that I will not hear more scoffing on that remark from the Benches opposite.
If local authorities do not spend all that money, or do not spend it all on housing, that is their decision. But I concur with my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve that allocations are there to be used. Local authorities will receive no criticism from me when they spend to their limits, provided they do not spend unwisely—for instance, as I have just said, by putting too many people in overnight accommodation, which is unsuitable to fit the problem. Nor will it bring local authorities into the area of rates penalties, as the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, suggested.
It is vital that local authorities make best use of their existing stock. Returns made by local authorities show that in England 107,000 council houses were empty on 1st April 1983. Of these, 23,000 had been empty for more than a year. In my book, that latter figure is disgraceful. For London, the comparable 1983 figures were 32,000 or 3.9 per cent., of which 10,000 were empty for more than a year. Again, that is far too high. We sent all authorities the Housing Services Advisory Group's report suggesting ways of reducing the number of empty dwellings. This is a help, but is quite useless when the will is lacking. I hope that, from now on, it will not be lacking.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, there are two points, if I may intervene. Would the Minister confirm that the authorities with housing unlet are disparate; they include councils of all political views? Therefore, it is not a political initiative which is required but a management initiative. Secondly, when councils are urged to maximise their use of housing receipts, that is the monies they get from the sale of council houses, does the noble Lord not appreciate that that is a wasting asset, that it is getting less and less? How do the Government square the fact that they want councils to use their resources to the best advantage while forcing them to sell some of their stock in order to maintain their housing programme?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, on the first point, yes, of course, it is a management problem and not a political one. There are councils up and down the country of any or no political persuasion who are at fault; there are equally councils up and down the country of any or no political persuasion who perform, in the Government's view, and I think the noble Lord's view, very well in this respect. It is not a political argument.
1184
With regard to the point I am just making about spending allocations to the limit, the allocations are not only from the housing revenue account from the sales of council houses or whatever. These include, of course, the grants which have been provided by central Government, and my remarks apply equally.
I have dealt at some length with the local authority aspect because they have the statutory duties to the homeless and the lion's share of the public sector resources available for housing. The Government's responsibility as we see it is to allocate these resources, to set the legislative and regulatory framework, to disseminate information and advice, and to assist financially in limited spheres where some additional provision appears desirable.
Much of the debate—and I think possibly the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, was the first to introduce the subject—has revolved around the subject of the single homeless. Information on the characteristics, needs and preferences of the single homeless is contained in a recent research report, Single and Homeless by the Care for Environmental Studies which was commissioned by my department. The report concluded that two-thirds of the single homeless required ordinary mainstream accommodation with little more than sensitive help and advice from housing management. The main cause of homelessness was concerned with personal, financial and social crises. I would agree with the report in this respect. The results of a DOE research project to identify good initiatives to provide housing for single people which could be promoted by all sectors of the housing market were published in the report, Housing Initiatives for Single People of Working Age. Further research on the rehousing of hostel residents has just been published entitled, A Home of their Own.
This brings me very nicely to the subject of hostels. Very naturally, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, my noble friend Lady Macleod and others, referred to the three hostels in London formerly owned by Rowton Hotels. The Government agreed last year that the local authorities should purchase the hostels. I might point out to noble Lords opposite that this was not a GLC initiative but joint action between the Government and the boroughs. I will, of course, refer to the GLC in a few minutes.
To help meet the cost of running Arlington House as an exceptional measure we have offered to pay hostel deficit grant and the present estimate is £450,000 a year for the first two years. Three proposals to allow urgent refurbishment work have also been agreed, and additional HIP resources of over £3 million have been made available for use in the current financial year. The HIP allocation for next year for the authorities concerned has also taken the hostels into account. The breakdown of the Housing Corporation's approved development programme for 1984–85 is yet to be announced, but there is provision in it to enable them to finance new hostel schemes in inner London. I do not accept the criticism of some noble Lords who feel that the Government have not done enough towards the financing of this. The Government are extremely proud of their hostel initiative, of which this is merely a very small part.
If this debate has taught me nothing else it has taught me that the problems are not unique in the

1185
inner cities of this country. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, spoke of the problems of Northern Ireland; the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, spoke of the problems in Scotland.
Lord Rhodes: And in Manchester, which I spoke of.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I accept the implied criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, but Manchester is neither a province nor a country.
The Government are aware of the need in Northern Ireland to review the system for co-operation between the two agencies responsible for dealing with the problems of homeless people. I am advised that there is no need for the homeless persons Act 1977 to extend to Northern Ireland as the same provisions are included in Article 15 of the Health and Personal Social Services Order (Northern Ireland) 1972 and the Housing Selection Scheme approved under Article 22 of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1981.
As far as Scotland goes, there is a separate Scottish code of guidance on the homeless persons Act. Since it was issued in September 1980 there has been no pressure from Scottish local authorities for amendment of the code or for a review of the Act. There have been few direct approaches from individuals or from voluntary organisations. The Scottish code has generally been well received and the indications are that it has been of real assistance to local authorities and to the homeless. But I will take up with my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, in his speech.
This has not been a debate on the demise of the GLC, although the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, sought, I thought, to make it so at various points in their speeches. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and my noble friend Lady Macleod asked about what would happen if and when the Government's plan to abolish the Greater London Council went ahead. The general view in the Government's White Paper is that borough and district councils are fully capable of undertaking the GLC and metropolitan boroughs housing activities either individually or by voluntary agreement among themselves. The recent history of the Rowton hostels which I have just mentioned leads me to support this view.
A housing consultation paper was issued by the DOE; a Home Office consultation paper on grants to voluntary bodies sought views on the need for any new statutory means of reinforcing collective grant giving and asked for information about the extent of grants being given. The deadline for comments on these consultation papers was 31st January. Many comments have been received and these are now being analysed.
Another thing this debate has taught me is the great wealth of personal knowledge that noble Lords have about charities in this area. My noble friend Lady Macleod—Crisis at Christmas; the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes—president of the Selcare Trust; the noble Earl, Lord Longford, spoke about this trust: all doing things which for one reason or another the local authorities do not do or it is sometimes felt are doing inadequately. I am the first to praise them. The
1186
Government give quite large grants to them. But I am equally the first to say that this is not necessarily a satisfactory state of affairs. I believe that local authorities should be doing rather more so that the pressure on the voluntary bodies is not quite so extreme.
I have run out of time, but I hope I have said enough to make clear the Government's approach to solving the problem of homelessness. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, asked for my own commitment. I will do all I can to ease this shameful problem which is one of great concern to all of us. However, apart from such special interventions as our hostels initiative and the encouragement we are giving to the increasing investment of capital from the private sector, it must largely fall to the local authorities to act within the context of their overall housing policies for their areas. Our job as Government is to ensure that they have the best practical framework within which to operate, and this we will continue to do.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, will the Minister write to me about my proposal to extend the high rents scheme to assured tenancies?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, most certainly I will.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I should first like to thank, as I did before, all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. Of one thing I am convinced: that all aspects of the subject, from the geographic, legal and human points of view, have been covered this afternoon. I agree with the Minister that one aspect that has emerged from this debate is the very great depth of knowledge and experience that so many of your Lordships have and how so many have such a deep commitment and involvement in the life of the community. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Rhodes who told us what is happening in Manchester and to my noble friend Lord Longford who told of his experience and his commitment to this particular area of the community. I am also extremely grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, not only for his characteristically elegant speech but also for putting forward very practical ideas, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve.
I am grateful to the Minister for his answer, although there was not as much in it as I had foolishly hoped for. Nevertheless, I am grateful to him for having gone very carefully over the whole terrain. Although he said he would tell us how the work of the GLC would be replaced after the GLC no longer existed I think that, in the end, he did not tell us. Possibly, he will be writing to us all. I was sorry also that the Minister felt that the review of the Act and the code of guidance had been sufficient, because from my knowledge a great number of people who are involved with the homeless feel that it is entirely deficient. I also think he was a little optimistic about the options open to the homeless. I think it is agreed that for the vast majority there is no question of taking private rented accommodation. Again, the Minister said that this was a human problem, and indeed it is, but the Government have a responsibility that I very strongly put forward in my speech. It is their responsibility to see that there is a balance, with subsidies to create a

1187
range of accommodation which meets the true needs of all people in this country. I do not think the Minister answered that.
We have discussed a very emotive subject this afternoon. Anyone who saw that marvellous film "ET" and heard that extraordinary extra-terrestrial being moaning about going home will realise just how emotive it can be. Of one thing I am sure: that is, the concern which has been expressed this afternoon from all sides of the House will mean that this unfortunate group of people who, so often through no possible fault of their own, have become homeless will not become a forgotten community. So. I wish your Lordships a safe journey home, rejoicing in the fact that you have one, and beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Drug Addiction
6.5 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead Lord Pitt of Hampstead rose to call attention to the increase in the amount of drug addiction and the need for improved treatment for drug addicts by the National Health Service; and to move for papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this debate is timely as there is at present a great deal of concern at the increase in drug addition and what should be done about it. The number of new drug addicts notified to the Home Office has increased five-fold in the past 10 years. The amount of drugs seized has also increased 10 times and there is a large amount of heroin readily available on the street. The Customs officers are doing a magnificent job against fearful odds, and I think we should pay tribute to them. The recently announced drive by the Home Secretary against drug trafficking is also to be applauded. My intention tonight, however, is to invite your Lordships to look at the victims of this traffic—the drug addicts—and to consider whether enough is being done to help them. I will try to suggest ways in which I think they can be better helped.
At present, specialist hospital treatment centres are supposed to provide the services required for the treatment of drug addiction. This is supplemented by the work of non-statutory voluntary organisations, which provide drug-free residential rehabilitation and a number of day-care counselling and advisory services. A few of them employ full-time staff. The rest are manned by volunteers. Last year, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs reported to the Secretary of State with recommendations for improving the services. The Secretary of State, in response to that report, promised a grant of £6 million over three years to be spent on improving those services. I am afraid that it is my view that the recommendations of the advisory council will not meet the problem and that the £6 million over three years will prove to be grossly inadequate.
The bulk of the new addicts are addicted to heroin. Moreover, the number notified represents only a small proportion of the actual number of addicts. This is borne out by many surveys and most of those who are active in this field, and is confirmed by my own observations, in that many of the addicts who I notify
1188
are not previously known to the Home Office, even though they admit to me that they have been taking drugs for several years. Their veins are often thrombosed, and they sometimes have a history of septicaémia and sometimes hepatitis. The majority of drug addicts seem to avoid the clinics and seek treatment elsewhere.
Some of the explanation for this lies in the fact that there are not enough clinics. They are often inadequately staffed, unable to cope with the influx and have long waiting lists. Most drug addicts go through a phase of wanting to give up their drug-taking. At that stage they tend to seek help. If they are told to wait for weeks they merely return to the street or wherever else they were getting their drugs. Within four weeks they are probably once more integrated into their group and will not seek help again unless forced to so so. It is therefore essential that when a drug addict seeks help it is given immediately. Treatment centres should be like the VD clinics and addicts should be able to get treatment immediately.
Moreover, the treatment centres concern themselves mainly with patients addicted to opiates; thus the amphetamine addicts and those addicted to barbiturates tend not to be accepted. It is for this reason that I suggest that the approach of the advisory council will not work. It will perpetuate the present system. What is required is an acceptance that drug addiction is an illness like any other and should be treated like other illnesses—on the National Health Service.
That means that the general practitioners should be the persons responsible for treating the drug addicts on their lists. GPs have no training in treating drug addicts. Therefore, the first essential is a training programme aimed at equipping GPs to do this job. They should have access to laboratory facilities to assess the drug-taking, and should have full support and advice from the specialist services which are hospital-based, and from the social and other services, both statutory and non-statutory, which are available in this field. The treatment centres should exist and be adequately staffed. They should serve as the specialist service to which the GP can refer for help and advice and to which he can refer patients who are better fitted for treatment at such a centre than by him.
GPs should be paid an extra fee for doing this work. This should be conditional on their receiving adequate training and also meeting regularly with their colleagues and the other workers in the field in order to pool their expertise. There should be regular meetings at district level of all those engaged in this work so that the situation in the area can be surveyed and the many forms of treatment discussed and compared, and perhaps some agreed treatment may emerge. Doctors should be free to undertake or not to undertake the work as they wish. It should not be part of their conditions of service.
I think that my suggestions could enable us to have a reasonable number of GPs working in this field; but GPs should be discouraged from undertaking to treat too many addicts. There should be a number above which they should not be allowed to go. The treatment of drug addicts is very demanding and time-consuming. Drug addicts are selfish, self-centred, difficult to control and very persuasive. An addict will need to be seen at least two or three times a week, and

1189
perhaps every day. They need time spent on them. A rapport with them needs to be established. They need to be motivated to stabilise their lives and abandon the drug. This requires time, patience and a great deal of understanding. If they are not to take over the whole practice, the doctor should take on only a very limited number of drug addicts.
What I have said so far refers to out-patient treatment, but in many instances what will be required will be immediate admission to hospital for detoxification and other treatment. Of course, this will have to be followed by counselling, psychotherapy, occupational therapy and other forms of treatment to keep the patient interested and active, and, of course, followed by job-hunting and retraining. These are all the things that would have been done if they were being treated as out-patients. There is therefore a need for more beds to be available for treating drug addicts. I think that this can be at regional level. This must, however, be part of the support and specialist facilities that should be available to the GP. In this way I think that we can provide a comprehensive drug addiction treatment service.
But education is also of the utmost importance if we are to be successful in preventing drug dependence as well as treating those affected by it. Training the educators will be as important as training the practitioners. There is therefore need for a full programme of education in this field. This will need as much attention as the programme of treatment which I have outlined.
Funding will have to be central and a lot more than £6 million over three years will be required. However, in assessing this expenditure it is worthwhile remembering the cost to the state and the community of dealing with drug addicts in other ways. Many drug addicts commit crime in order to finance their drug-taking. The cost of dealing with them through the machinery of the law can be quite high, and the social consequences of their actions can also be very damaging. The objective of my approach is to stabilise them and to motivate them to return to the community and make their contribution to its wellbeing. An investment to bring that about will certainly be worthwhile.
I am glad that this debate on drug addiction is following a debate on homelessness, as the two problems are frequently intertwined. There was a period when the area around my surgery was "squatted" and a large number of drug addicts registered with me as National Health Service patients. Moreover, it is often necessary to secure a change of environment for a drug addict in order to get him to change his habits. I heard the Minister say earlier that the Government do not intend to review the homeless persons Act again very soon, but I personally believe that the Act should be amended to include drug addicts among those to be given priority for rehousing under the Act. In the case of these people a certificate from their doctor indicating the necessity for such action should be a prerequisite to their being considered for rehousing. I believe that that would be an additional weapon in the armoury of those dealing with people who are affected in this way, because many drug addicts live in communities which are either squats or bed-and-breakfast hotels peopled by
1190
other addicts. So if we want to get them away from such groups, we must provide them with a home somewhere else.
My suggested programme is community-based rather than hospital-based, but it involves careful control of those who are treating drug addicts. However, I am convinced that a positive approach involving inducements and help to those willing to undertake the work is more likely to be successful than a negative approach bolstered by prohibitions. I hope that the Government will take this proposal on board.
However, I must point out that no amount of treatment will suffice to deal with the problem unless the preventative services are also effective. Thus, the activities of the Customs officers, police, and other agents of prevention should be co-ordinated. I gather that Hong Kong has been very successful in dealing with the problem, and I hope that the Government will consider the Hong Kong approach and the success that there has been there. I hope, too, that the Government will give the most serious consideration to the programme that I have outlined. I believe that it is a programme which could enable us to combat drug addiction with a fair degree of success. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.24 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, for introducing this debate and for the opportunity to make a contribution from these Benches on this desperately important subject. Behind what I have to say are some notable pieces of work for drug addicts and their families being undertaken in the county of Hampshire. I can speak in particular about the work of Dr. Philip Fleming, the consultant in charge of the excellent drug clinic in Portsmouth—though it might be even better if it were based more evidently in the community rather than in the somewhat isolated setting of a psychiatric hospital. I can speak, too, of the work of Mr. John East, a senior social work adviser for addiction within the county—a post which, I believe, is still unique in England—and of the work of Mr. Brian Hadden in directing the very interesting Alpha House project, where some three dozen addicts can be accommodated and where they are helped by means that are entirely non-medical and, in particular, through a training in relationships.
Those in charge of these pieces of work are unanimous in their conviction that drug addiction is on the increase to a horrific extent in this part of the country, as it clearly is elsewhere. The evidence lies not only in the number of referrals to various treatment centres and in convictions following police prosecutions, but also in what skilled workers are able to observe in the field; for example, at the recent pop festivals at Glastonbury and Stonehenge, where new trends in the drug scene were noted, as was the fact that at these festivals hard drugs were openly on sale.
Nor is there any doubt, surely, of the need for improved treatment by the National Health Service. As the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, reminded us, some clinics are no longer coping. The waiting time extends into weeks, which is a hopeless situation. In any case the provision of specialist clinics is distinctly patchy. To take an instance from my own diocese, I would

1191
point out that there is no clinic to which an addict on the Isle of Wight could be referred, though here it must be said that the Isle of Wight Health Authority favours the use exclusively of psychological treatment and has at present no practitioners licensed to prescribe controlled drugs. That, I suppose, illustrates the debate going on within the Health Service, in which I do not feel competent to take sides but wish only to express the layman's hunch that both physical and psychological treatment needs to be available.
But whatever means are favoured in any particular place, the treatment given by the NHS needs to be improved, and one step which would certainly encourage the dedicated people now working in the field would be a statement that the grant of £6 million announced by the Government in December 1982 as being available for work in the area will be renewed and, it is to be hoped, increased. Projects which are going well deserve an assurance of continuing funding, and additional finance is urgently needed, not least for research, to support other promising projects in both the Health Service and the voluntary sector. I believe that this particularly needs to be said when, as we all know, what we are discussing is not a popular cause, and drug addicts, who are often arch manipulators, are not always the most attractive of people. Proper support of this kind would surely be cheaper than keeping people in prison.
If I may say so, I hope, too, that as a token of the seriousness with which they view the whole problem it may be considered desirous for the Government to repeat the assurance give to us in this House on their behalf nearly two years ago; namely, that they do not plan to introduce or support legislation to alter the existing law concerning cannabis.
But improved treatment offered by the Health Service is not only a matter of additional funding, important though this is. It is also a matter of communication and of co-ordination of existing resources and facilities. Last week I heard from a consultant surgeon whose own expertise is in a different branch of medicine but who, one might have supposed, would know his way around the Health Service. Nevertheless, his experience, when help was urgently needed at a time of crisis by a member of his own family, was of general ignorance as to where immediate medical and social help could be found—help of the kind that is so marvellously available in the case, let us say, of' a road accident.
There is a need for improved treatment within the Health Service. But this is not a matter, surely, for the Health Service alone. To put it crudely, the problem of drug abuse is fundamentally a people problem. No matter how much we learn about substances and patterns of usage, in the end it is the person who uses and abuses: the evil and avaricious person involved in organised crime; the thoughtless person canvassing the advantages of this or that tranquilliser and writing up in a newspaper some pop star's experiments with drugs as if he was a hero, or failing to teach the children in his class the facts of life; the weak person unable to say, "No".
A multi-disciplinary approach is needed in which preventive work, including sound moral teaching, will be no less important than remedial, and which will
1192
have a place also for job-hunting and retraining towards the end of the course. In all these areas, I trust that the church will be ready to play its part, as I believe that it does already through its members in many of the kinds of ventures to which I have referred. This is a sombre topic to be discussing on the first occasion that I have had the privilage of addressing this House. There cannnot be many aspects of our social welfare more in need of urgent attention at the present time, or where there is greater need of a positive lead from both church and state.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, has introduced the debate on this sombre subject in a most valuable and authoritative speech. We thank him for it. We assumed, naturally, that there would be a contribution from the Bishops' Benches on such an important social question and we have not been disappointed. Only at the last moment did the right reverend Prelate let us into the secret that this was his maiden speech. I am sure that your Lordships will join me in congratulating him very much on his most helpful contribution. I wish that I could go on in the conventional manner and say that we hope to hear from him frequently in the future. Alas, in vain. I understand that he leaves us in only two or three months' time to become chief of staff to the Archbishop of Canterbury. In the unlikely event of my ever having to wait upon the Archbishop of Canterbury, I hope that at least I shall have a friend, or perhaps just an acquaintance at court. I know that I shall have a most persuasive one if ever I should need him.
This is a dual problem, cause and effect. I cannot help but cast my mind back 30 years, almost to the day, when, as Under-Secretary of State at the Home Department, I tried to persuade your Lordships to agree to the banning of heroin. All the Government's professional and legal advisers had said that this was the correct thing to do—but not Dr. Dowthwaite of Guy's hospital. He maintained firmly that there was no alternative to heroin in cases of terminal cancer and grave damage to the lungs. He lobbied most effectively. He lobbied your Lordships' House and your Lordships agreed and would have none of it. That is why heroin has never been banned.
Whether this has any relation to the fact that there are 200,000 drug addicts in this country, I would not know. As the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, says, there are so many unregistered addicts we do not know about. The drug is too easy to come by. That is the long and the short of it.
If I concentrate my few remarks on the effects of drug addiction it does not mean that I am not most appreciative of what the Government have done in the matter of prevention. They have been very sincere and hard working. I join in congratulating the Government servants—the police and Interpol, customs officers, coastguards and all the others who have had such marked success in their attempts to bring those responsible to book. I am also grateful to the courts for taking the matter much more seriously than they did previously. Only today, three serious cases were reported in which servants of the Crown had done their best and had had great success.

1193
I should therefore like to know from the noble Baroness who is to reply whether any further action is contemplated by the Government in prevention. Money is available, although admittedly not a lot. We are lucky to have had the amount that has been devoted to prevention. However, we should like to know whether the Government have more plans in mind. I should also like to know whether the Government have any further suggestions for treatment.
I wish to make a few suggestions. I commend to the House the proposals carried out in America at the Hazelden clinic in the state of Minnesota. It is called the Minnesota method. The system has been in practice there for nearly 40 years with remarkable success. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, if he does not already know, will be glad to hear that it is available on what is the equivalent in America of the National Health Service. It is a remarkable record of success.
I do not declare an interest in the standard parliamentary way, but I think that I am in duty bound to declare a personal interest for the sake of the record. I have only time to mention a few features of the Minnesota method. First, drug addiction is regarded as an illness and only secondarily as a moral issue. They regard it as an entity in itself and not simply the result of emotional and material deprivation. They say that we should concentrate on the illness itself. They regard it as tractable and recoverable. They never use the word curable. That is a fatally dangerous thing to do. They say, as already mentioned in the debate, that treatment is much more effective and cheaper than jail. But treatment must also involve families. Drug addiction is not, alas, a personal illness or personal interest. It has hideously wide repecussions. It involves families, friendships, livelihoods and lives. It can wreck the lot.
I wish, therefore, to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will be good enough, if they have not already done so, to examine the Minnesota method and its offshoots in this country in Plymouth and a hospital at Weston-super-Mare. It would not cost a great deal. The Government might even send a team to Minnesota to study the work at first hand. They would also, I hope, see fit to study the work of Narcotics Anonymous, which does a great deal of good work, where families meet—I speak from personal experience—and exchange lessons and experiences.
What other practical help can be given? I take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, on the training of general practitioners and specialists. What happens far too often is that a drug addict goes to his well-intentioned, friendly and helpful GP who takes the case seriously. He does not regard this, as so many people do, as a self-inflicted wound. That is a terrible thing. It is not a self-inflicted wound.. He says, "No, I understand the nature of your disease. I shall try and help you. I shall not send you to a psychiatric ward. That is the easy way out". Freud, many years ago, disconnected this terrible drug addiction from psychiatric wards entirely. The GP will go on to say, "I will not pretend I can cure you. I will not take your money, or the state's money, under false pretences. I do not know enough. I will send you to a specialist". Are there enough specialists who know enough? The
1194
noble Lord, Lord Pitt, thinks not. I agree with him. The next question, therefore, that I wish to put to the noble Baroness is the problem of training GPs and specialists in dealing with this dreadful addiction.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, talked about the community relationship. I agree entirely. The noble Lord will have seen today in the newspapers mention of a scheme at Exmouth which combines the work of church, state, local government, press and doctors to mount a counter-attack against drug addiction. The whole of Exmouth is combined in this work. We want more of it. We want more encouragement given to this type of scheme. I ask Her Majesty's Government to look into the matter to see if they can encourage this attitude in any way. I hope very much that they will, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth suggested, stamp on any suggestion like, "Have a sniff of this, old boy" or, "Take a pull on this cigarette, old chap. It won't do you any harm". My Lords, it will do harm. It leads straightaway down:
"The primrose way to the everlasting bonfire".
This is a gloomy and horrible subject, but I think that I now see a little light at the end of the tunnel. However, it is still a very long tunnel and a very dark one.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, let me first add my congratulations and best wishes to my prelatorial friend on his maiden speech, which, if he will allow me to say so, was as cogent and as relevant as I would have expected.
My noble friend the mover of this Motion has limited the parameters of the discussion to one form of addiction. If I presume to widen the argument somewhat, I do so on two grounds: first, it is permissible within the frame of the Motion on the Order Paper; and, secondly—as I hope to say before I sit down—I believe that, to see this particular problem of addiction to hard and soft drugs in its true light and with any sense of competence as to the way in which it can be treated, it must be seen against a much wider background.
It was an Anglican clergyman in the 19th century—none other than Charles Kingsley—who first intimated that religion could be the opium of the people, which would of course make me a pusher. It was Karl Marx who borrowed that tag (without acknowledging the borrowing) and said that religion was inseparable from such an opiate. Whatever may be the particular truth that lies within that attack upon religion, it cannot be denied that the element of addiction is not separable from some forms of religious exercise, and, indeed, it is a form of addiction which bears upon the problem more central to your Lordships' debate tonight of the addiction to drugs such as heroin, morphine and so on.
Obviously tea-drinking is an addiction, but a more or less harmless one, although I think no one in your Lordships' House should underrate the cathartic effects of a Methodist tea meeting. At the same time there can be no doubt that the two monster addictions are in the framework and general realm either of alcohol or of the drugs to which reference has already been made this evening, or both. I believe that, had

1195
alcohol appeared upon the public scene with the comparative suddenness with which these other drugs have come, it would have been immediately regarded as a far greater evil, demanding far more drastic curbing and discipline than has yet been accorded to it, very largely on the basis that familiarity has bred contempt for its worst and most dangerous aspects.
I would therefore couple what I have to say with the ways in which I believe this problem, so eloquently set forth by my noble friend Lord Pitt, can be seen against a wider backcloth. I would not be fair to myself unless I were to make reference to the fact that, in the whole question of alcohol, we have a parallel problem to that which now afflicts us with regard to the drugs to which reference has been made. The advertising of many of these drugs is abominable. The interest in making a profit out of what may be a curse to one's fellow man is highly reprehensible. I take as an example the outlet, in the case of alcohol, of the beer can. It was generally regarded in other times that the infrequent or (shall we say?) spasmodic intake of alcohol was on the whole desirable. The beer can makes it a permanent and continuous process.
But above all I would share with my noble friend, who has already adverted to this, the view that there is a need for education in this field—education which is sadly lacking and which is the more imperative because there can be no doubt that the problem has increased in its severity not only as regards alcohol but as regards the drugs to which reference is now being made. No one who has had any experience in this matter—and I have had a long one, if not a very deep one—can doubt that the problem has become more acute, more dangerous and more widespread. The number of youngsters who are more or less intoxicated after lunch at school is no inconsiderable comment. A number of those who play about with drugs in the first case do so on the comfortable assumption that they can drop them whenever they so desire, but that is an assumption to which my postbag gives an absolute and uncompromising, no.
I want to suggest that, within the framework of education, we may indeed be able to do something about the increasing problem of how to interpret the 1848 Act, which prescribes, as the one imperative lesson in school, religious education. I believe that if we can transfer the emphasis, particularly for youngsters, away from the more metaphysical concepts of the Christian faith and towards a sense of responsibility of living in a community and the moral principles that belong to an intelligent and worthwhile society, we may do a very great deal to prepare youngsters—and I am particularly concerned with youngsters at the moment—for the tests that they will have to undertake and the temptations which will assail them.
But pre-eminently—and my time is almost gone—I want to draw attention to that over-arching problem of addiction to drugs of one kind or another. Religion has been described as what a man does with his loneliness—he either cossets it by drugs or he invests it in the community in which he lives. Today I saw only a few yards from your Lordships' House a youngster wearing headphones and with a beer can in his hand: an example—I hope I am not mistaken, and I would
1196
apologise to him if I were—of the kind of masturbatory Träumerei with which Aldous Huxley described the behaviour patterns of people to whom he had objections morally. It is an ugly phrase but, my word!, it is very true.
It is the sense that we belong to a privatised society in which community takes second place to individual effort and individual desire which I believe to be one of the underlying and, indeed, over-arching problems with which we have to confront ourselves if we are to remedy this addiction in the first instance, which is not so much to a particular drug as to a form and a pattern of life which I believe to be anaemic at its best and selfish at its worst. It is not necessarily the fault of those who fall victim to this particular addictive process; it is much more due to the lack of the opportunity and the suggestiveness of a society in which they could invest their loneliness and not merely spend their time cosseting it.
This, of course, is part of a religious programme so far as I am concerned, and I make no apology for it. Education must be related, if it is to be effective, to principles which ultimately can be acceptable and permanent. The permanent and progressive kind of education that belongs to this field as regards the kind of remedies that my noble friend demands, and so rightly, is one in which we provide the incentive in the society in which we live for community rather than privatisation and encourage people to find the fulfilment of their lives not in cosseting their particular, personal and private emotions and feelings but in contributing to a society in which the more they forget themselves the more likely are they to fulfil themselves.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, for suggesting this debate. He and I had a sound medical education in the same school, and I congratulate him on the way he has introduced it. Fifty years ago when he and I were medical students, teaching in therapeutics and drug therapy was, to say the least of it, meagre. At that time the doctor was a sympathetic attendant at the bedside of the sick. A bottle of medicine was the usual prescription.
In fact, there were ony half-a-dozen drugs that were of proved value and capable of altering the course of illness, and the outstanding branch of therapeutics was surgery. Surgery was often carried out in a determined effort to treat the patient and to relieve suffering. The intelligent layman had no illusions about the doctor's limited powers, and yet his authority with the sick and their relatives had never been higher. At that time there were a modest number of heroin and cocaine addicts, often resulting from medical treatment. Marijuana was not fashionable. Some became dependent on chloral hydrate and other hypnotic substances, and on alcohol, which has been referred to.
It is perhaps desirable to describe the various changes that have taken place as a background to the present situation. I believe it is necessary to understand this to understand the problem. Until we do, it cannot be dealt with. Treatment centres for drug and alcohol addiction are often ineffective, anyway.

1197
Insulin, used in the treatment of diabetes, was discovered in 1922 by Banting and Best, and this directed medical research attention to the possibilities of preparing the normal secretions of the body for therapeutic purposes. The next advance was the introduction of sulphonamide drugs in the treatment of infections, and this stimulated the search for chemical substances to act against infectious disease. Penicillin then became available in 1942, and the optimism and drive of the researchers was redoubled. New pain relieving drugs, new hypnotics, drugs effective in heart disease, kidney disease, and many others began to be available.
Then in 1948 the introduction of the National Health Service meant that any drug, no matter how expensive, could be prescribed by a doctor under that service. The problem that arose, and is relevant background to this debate, is well illustrated by a report by Sir Douglas Black and a Royal College of Physicians' committee about the administration of drugs to the elderly. Elderly people, as some of us know, often suffer from a number of complaints: not sleeping; rheumatism; a bronchial infection, and so on. Consequently the busy doctor might prescribe three or four or more remedies. The problem that arises is compounded by the fact that almost every potent drug has side effects, some interfering with the body's handling of other drugs and producing further toxic effects. Age has an effect.
The consequence of all this is that drug treatment itself can cause illness. The situation is further compounded by the bathroom cupboard: the hoarding of previous drugs prescribed by the doctor, and often taken by patients on their own initiative. So one consequence of the chemical and medical revolution occurring in the context of free drugs for all has resulted in this new problem.
Properly conducted clinical trials often do not pick up toxic effects, or drug interaction effects, and the use of new drugs, even under the best possible conditions, is still an experiment. I was chairman of the Clinical Trials Committee when the Committee on the Safety of Drugs was set up in 1963. We got the fullest co-operation from the pharmaceutical industry in the steps taken to safeguard the patients, and I believe that the Medicines Commission, as it became, is as good a safeguard as that anywhere in the world.
You might say, what has all this to do with drug addiction? Well, the drug taking habit has become widespread, and generous prescribing by doctors makes it possible for people to have access to hypnotics and pain relieving drugs quite legally, and deliberate self-poisoning is made easier. As Sir Douglas Black's report says:
"The whole business needs tightening up".
But this does not give rise to the marijuana, heroin and cocaine addiction and glue-sniffing. Or does it? Or does it create a fertile background?
There are other factors at work. Communication is much better than it was 50 years ago—communication by sea and air transport, for example, but also communication by the media. There is the combination of publicity about dangerous drug taking and the argument that in a free society everybody should be free to do their own thing and make their own decisions.
1198
The problem has become more acute in recent years by arguments used in the case of marijuana. Why should anyone not be allowed to take it? It seems so reasonable, because marijuana rarely produces antisocial behaviour. It has much more subtle ways of rendering people apathetic and pathetic. In a recent case, given much publicity in the media, the person was also carrying LSD, a hallucinogenic drug of terrible power. Many people who become psychologically dependent on one drug are candidates for the next. This can also result, of course, from the too liberal prescribing by doctors creating opportunity.
I believe that there is no argument for the legalisation of cannabis, though it has to be recognised that it is hardly controlled at the present time. The wide use of cannabis is related to its ease of access through the ports. The arguments against legalisation are on health grounds. There are some possible links with cancer; there are links with eventual psychoses; it produces a state of lethargy and inertia; and, as I have mentioned, an escalation to other drugs such as LSD and heroin.
I have briefly tried to sketch the background to drug taking in the community. It is obvious that more must be done to control it. Every effort must be made to ensure that dangerous drugs are not left lying about. How relevant is this background to the increase in hard narcotic addicts? That means, of course, heroin and probably deconal.
The problem is that drug addiction is increasing by about 30 per cent. annually. There is obviously an increase of the importation of heroin, and this is the result of the limited ability of Customs and Excise officers and other agencies to control it at ports of entry. This in turn is related to the insufficient number of officers and personnel to discover contraband. But at the other end of the scale—and this also has been referred to—there is the provision of treatment facilities.
The ability to treat patients is not keeping pace with the size of the problem. There are 28 treatment centres in this country, but relatively few have whole-time doctors and others in the health service dealing with this problem. In the West Midlands, with a population of 5.2 million, the medical staff of the regional unit comprise a total of one whole-time equivalent consultant. This, in practice, is divided among three consultants each taking sessions. They now tend to give more time to this than to what they were originally contracted to do, that is to look after other mentally ill patients.
The West Midlands addiction unit was one of the first in the country. It began 15 years ago when the problem we are discussing was relatively small. It has not developed substantially since. Surely in a large industrial complex there should be one consultant with sessional commitments to deal with drug addiction within each district health authority. Will the Minister please tell us if any district health authorities have doctors appointed for this purpose? The problem is so serious that it cannot be continued as a sideline to psychiatric practice.
As has already been mentioned, in 1983 the Government made a grant of £6 million to improve

1199
the services. This does not begin to match the problem. Moreover, the medical advisory system in the health service does not give high priority to this, for some reason which I cannot understand. Local authorities and local health authorities give it a low priority when it comes to budgeting. If the Government do not have an up-to-date asessment of this problem, then I feel that it is urgent that a full investigation is carried out.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, may I start by extending my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate on the occasion of his maiden speech, which we heard with much interest. I am sorry to hear that probably we shall not be hearing from him again. I should also like to express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, for giving us the opportunity to debate this subject. As I was sitting here listening to his speech, I found myself agreeing with almost everything he said. If some of the things I say reiterate that, I think the corroboration and agreement will do no harm.
In my opinion there are three aspects to the problem, which are: what causes young people to get involved in the drug scene in the first place; how best to treat them once they are involved and, thirdly, how to encourage them and help them to disentangle themselves once they are involved.
The main factors contributing to young people's involvement with drugs are: deprivation during their childhood; the availability of the drugs themselves, which is all too prevalent at the moment; and the peer pressure groups they come into contact with as a result of which, either through boredom or bravado, they drift into the drug scene.
It is evident that if we could stop people becoming involved in the first place the problem would go away. But that is easier said than done. The pressures of everyday life and the social structures regrettably lead to increased deprivation of children. Certainly the Customs and Excise and the police have their successes in intercepting the importation and distribution of drugs, but where there is a market there will always be a ready supply, and again the peer pressure groups will always find naive followers ready to follow down the road to drug taking.
So, although we should never give up the fight to stop people getting entangled in the first place, it is regrettably a fact that there will always be new entrants into the drug scene and, sad to say, they are on the increase at present.
However, there is one aspect that could be given more attention. That is the area of education and information—this is something that most noble Lords have already mentioned: education for those closely associated with potential drug users and information for the general public. Drug takers are often considered as social outcasts and ostracised from society, which has the effect of driving them in on themselves and to associating only with other drug users. There is a considerable lack of knowledge among the general public about drug users, and what there is derives for the most part from the more sensational elements of the popular press. The impression is that they are all drop-outs. Certainly
1200
some of them conform to that image, but many try to live a reasonable life, holding down jobs and having families of their own, but they have found it hard to cope with the pressures of life and thus had recourse to drugs.
Regrettably, for the most part, drug takers are treated as pariahs. On conviction the usual solution is to lock them up. It might be more sensible, at least for first offenders, and cheaper in the long run, to send them to rehabilitation centres rather than to prison where they may be subjected to the influence of hardened criminals.
I believe that an information programme to bring out into the open the true facts about drug users, dispelling the myths which have grown up around the whole problem and presenting the situation in its true colours, would be one action that could be undertaken at a reasonable price and which would go a long way towards bridging the gap between the drug user and the general public.
As I have said, unfortunately there will always be drug users, and certainly their problems are self-inflicted. But so are many others. As a responsible, caring society we have to help these unfortunates wherever and whenever possible. At the present time there are only some 25 effective statutory clinics in the United Kingdom—there seems to be some divergence of opinion on the exact statistics, but there are not many—14 of which are in London. All the hospitals where detoxification can take place have long waiting lists. The 12 rehabilitation centres, none of which, incidentally, is statutory, can accommodate only about 150 patients at any one time.
It is true that there was a population of only about 10,000 registered addicts in 1983, but it must be remembered that by no means all drug takers are addicted. Among those who are, many, for one reason or another, do not register.
Here I diverge from the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, but the conservative estimate that I have is some 40,000 to 50,000 against his 200,000 drug users. If his figure is right, the situation is even worse than we think. I have a figure of 40,000 to 50,000 drug users at present in this country. What can be done here? Certainly more funds and facilities are needed urgently, but the existing facilities could be put to better use in a number of ways. First, if all the different agencies, clinics and centres could be co-ordinated under one authority, this would lead to greater efficiency in the use of the present limited resources. Perhaps it could be organised along the lines of the probation service. I understand that funding used to take place under the auspices of the Department of Health and Social Services, but now each clinic is attached to a hospital and funded partially out of its central funds and partially from other sources, which again leads to a lack of co-ordination.
Another possible way the existing limited resources could be put to better use relates to the involvement of the GP. This again was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt. The tendency at the moment is for doctors to refer their drug-using patients to a clinic and leave it up to them. This puts an enormous strain on the limited number of clinics that exist and, in many cases, instead of concentrating their expertise on drug users

1201
who need special attention or who are prepared to try to come off and need counselling, a high proportion of their time is taken up in dealing with cases which are reasonably stabilised and could be dealt with quite satisfactorily by the GPs, if they were better informed and had received some instruction from the experts in the clinics. Incidentally, the experts are willing to give this instruction since, in the long run, this would leave them freer to concentrate on those areas of work where they can be more effective.
I mentioned at the beginning of my speech the third element of this problem, which is how best to help and encourage drug users to disentangle themselves when they have come to realise that it is just not worth all the hassle. One social worker said to me that by the age of 30 most of them are either bored by the whole scene or they are dead. Once a drug user has decided definitely to come off it is quite possible to do so. They do not always succeed the first time, but if they persevere they will succeed. This is the time they need all the help and encouragement they can get from friends, relations and the specialist organisations.
We must remember that even when they are free, they are not yet free of the psychological reason which started them off in the first place. In such cases, the availability of rehabilitation facilities is paramount. Yet these seem to have been almost completely ignored. Certainly, there are such organisations as the parole release scheme which tries to break the gap between a user's release from prison and his re-entry into normal life by introducing him to the relevant helping services. This does not really cater for those drug users, many of whom may not have had a prison sentence and who need psychological rehabilitation.
My Lords, to sum up, it seems to me that those areas which can be improved without a mammoth injection of additional funds are these: by increasing and improving the distribution of factual information to the public at large and to the young people who are at risk of becoming drug users; by ensuring that GPs are better informed on this subject and thus can play a fuller part in the handling of those of their patients who have a drug problem. Finally, that the whole drug agency system in its broadest sense should be handled by one co-ordinating authority, so that the funding may be handled rationally and existing facilities used to their optimum advantage.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank my noble friend Lord Pitt for bringing this subject forward for debate. It concerns me professionally, just as it does him, since I, too, work in an inner city practice. Also I am pleased to discover that I agree with practically everything that he said and my approach will be very similar. First, I think that I should like to try to describe what it is that makes drug taking so attractive to a certain section of the population, and why it is such a problem for them to break the habit. I shall be referring mainly to heroin addiction—which is the most worrying problem, as noble Lords have said—but many of my remarks could be applied to other drugs, some also to the problem of drinking and some can even apply to that most addictive of habits, the inhalation of tobacco.
1202
The drugs that we are talking about relieve pain; not only physical pain but also emotional pain. Experienced doctors know that the dividing line between the two is hard to draw. All pain, in fact, can be regarded as an unpleasant emotional experience. Opiates not only relieve pain but replace it with a feeling of wellbeing amounting to elation, a transitory but very real sensation of peace and happiness which obliterates awareness of internal and external discomfort. Most of all our lives are fairly dull and routine but, if we are lucky, relatively free from pain. Feelings of happiness come in bursts, as do episodes of misery. But, for some, the daily reality feels painful most of the time; and if this group discovers a means of escaping, even in short bursts, from their pain they are very unwilling to give it up to return to a situation which feels emotionally uncomfortable or painful.
Drug takers have additional gains, apart from the "buzz" or "high" that they get each time they inhale or inject drugs. Because drugs are expensive and illegal, drug users have to be pretty ingenious to get them. A meaning to life appears—that is to procure drugs—and this becomes a central driving force in their lives. An illicit, rather desperate, but exciting camaraderie develops between users, a "we against them (the Establishment)" situation. Three birds are thus killed with one stone: the emotional pain, the rejection and hopelessness and the feeling of isolation. The penalties, apart from the possibility of ending up in prison for criminal activities, include abcesses, cellulitis, septicaemia from injection sites, hepatitis B, poor response to infection (with, for example, resultant pneumonia), malnutrition and physical neglect which also predispose to disease.
Drug addicts often live in squalid surroundings—"squats", as the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, described them—because of their diminished awareness of discomfort and also lack of money because every penny that they have got is spent on their habit. It is not surprising that in one series followed for ten years, 16 per cent. of long-term users died. One group of users in my practice were able to name 47 of their circle who had died over a period of some years. There is no doubt that the more easily available "seed" at present—that is the illicit heroin, poppyseed, if you like, mainly from South West Asia—has fallen upon fertile soil at the moment in Britain. There is a ready clientele of disillusioned young people who feel rejected by society. These are to be found now in almost every country with the present economic climate.
Government policies have not helped in Britain, to say the least. TOPS is not enough to satisfy hundreds of thousands of school-leavers who do not find jobs. They feel disillusioned, hurt and unwanted. No wonder the age group of drug users has dropped dramatically in the last five years. Those who get stuck on drugs often have personal feelings of inadequacy, but lack of a job may be one of the most critical factors tipping the balance to drug dependence.
To turn to some of the measures needed to cope with the problem: many have been described but I should like to add a few points. First, there are the organic medical needs which I have described. Every GP needs to be alerted to them. Drug users are more vulnerable to physical illness than the general

1203
population. But the difficult question of whether or how to supply the controlled drugs which users want on prescription in certain circumstances remains controversial and unanswered. Official drug clinics now mainly do this as part of a "contract" agreed with the user while steady withdrawal of the drug is taking place by reducing the dose prescribed gradually over a period of six to eight weeks. Some doctors, mainly in private practice, supply drugs on a maintenance basis. I disagree with this, even though the drugs given are "clean" and pure, since if the doctor concedes that some addicts are hopeless and will never be cured, the word gets around. There is (if you like) a knock-on effect and further addicts are attracted. But the doctor's chances of working constructively with them are progressively reduced.
If general practitioners are to be involved—and I think there is a strong case for making use of general practitioners, at least initially, to cope with the present crisis—they should receive, as many noble Lords have said, special training and be part of a team with full support. This team should include specially experienced social workers, should include liaison with the probation service and the nearest official drug clinics or rehabilitation units in the district or region; and they should work only on withdrawal contracts with patients.
My Lords, I hope that I have said enough to demonstrate that we are dealing with a problem with at least as great a social component as a medical component. The social needs of addicts are nearly always prodigious, although there are a few who just manage (as the noble Lord has said) to keep their jobs, homes and families together. Housing, employment, financial, legal and family problems will all often be present together and will be severe. Addicts must be offered help to solve them if they are to have any hope of staying off drugs once they have come round to choosing to be withdrawn. But what chance is there of extra social workers being allocated to work with general practitioners, or the voluntary or statutory helping agencies, with the current Government policies which will severely restrict the ability of local authorities to employ more social workers?
Special funds will need to be found in addition to the £6 million—that is, £2 million per annum. As has been said, facilities for withdrawal are woefully inadequate throughout the country and especially in many of the areas where the habit is increasing. There are, for instance, no clinics and no withdrawal facilities between Glasgow and Manchester in the North West. The social worker who runs the information centre in the West End called "Piccadilly Advice"—who is the daughter of a very active Member of your Lordships' House—tells me that she receives telephone calls from all over the country asking for help for addicts. They are seeking assistance in withdrawing. A recent case came from Swansea, where there is a severe drug problem but no facilities at all. Incidentally, this information centre is funded largely by the Greater London Council. Its future is thus uncertain.
There is an urgent need for rapid expansion of facilities in all the new areas which the epidemic has reached. There is a need for central Government
1204
support for a variety of different approaches because none can yet claim high success rates. Above all, there is a great need for the collection of more information both at local and central level.
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs produced a very valuable report in 1982, called Treatment and Rehabilitation. It is well known to the Department of Health and Social Security, as they commissioned it. The authors proposed a number of realistic recommendations as to how the present situation should be approached. In particular, they say that every region should establish a multi-disciplinary drug problem team to monitor the extent of the problem, to assess and support the existing services and to initiate new services where they are required. There are also a number of other specific recommendations for action, and one important suggestion is that every type of approach should be evaluated. Research is essential, but should initially be concerned with establishing which type of care is most effective.
Last year, as has been discussed, the DHSS invited local initiatives for new projects to be funded by the extra grant of £2 million per annum. I gather that so many suggestions came in that the fund was greatly over-subscribed. I hope that the noble Baroness who is to reply will say what is to happen to the proposals which came in perhaps too late to be allocated funds, and how many of them there were. I very much hope that all deserving projects will eventually be funded. In addition, I think that the proposals of the advisory council which I have mentioned should be instituted as a matter of urgency, quite apart from the additional £6 million, which after all represents only a rather derisory £50 per annum per addict.
My Lords, in the interests of the noble Baroness who is to wind up, I will stop at this stage. I have a number of other matters that I intended to mention but they have been covered already by other speakers.
7.23 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, for calling attention to this frightening and tragic situation. Some people are now saying that the narcotics habit in Britain has reached epidemic proportions. It is certainly not only a problem of the inner cities; it can be anywhere in the country. I feel uneasy that we are having only a short debate today. I think it should have been a major debate with two senior Government Ministers, one from the Home Office and one from the DHSS. This is no trivial matter, and I hope that this debate, short though it may be, will help to stir the Government into a state of urgency.
Britain has proved itself rather successful in fighting wars, but, then, the people rally to the sound of, "Land of Hope and Glory". With so much heroin on the streets, for those who try it and are hooked there is no hope and there is no glory. I pray that the Government will realise that they must do much more, and quickly, if we are to win the war against the pushers and the drugs.
All our young people are at risk. It is no good saying it will never happen to them. Young people like to experiment. They insist that there is nothing wrong

1205
with cannabis. Some of your Lordships have tried to get it legalised, but cannabis can lead people on to other things. All over Britain, in most towns, it is becoming fashionable, if you are under 25, to smoke, "snort" or inject yourself for kicks—so says the Guardian newspaper.
Young people know far more about drugs and modern life than do their parents. I feel it is most necessary that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, or the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse, should with the Government's backing stage a concerted educational programme throughout the country on the dangers of trying drugs and of addiction, the signs to look for and what parents should do if they suspect involvement by their children. If parents suspect that heroin is being used and they go to their doctor, many doctors do nothing as they do not want to lose the confidence of the young person. Also, parents do not want to involve their own children with the police. So the parents are in a Catch-22 situation.
So little is talked about prevention, and even the title of this debate suggests that by the time a person is found to be on drugs they are addicted. Surely we should be warning everyone that they are at risk from the Devil, who, with his potions, tempts at parties, at bars and on street corners—and he may even be a friend. Television, popular magazines, Radio 1 and other channels, and public places such as lavatories and post offices, should all give warnings. The last people children listen to are so often their parents.
The other week I was on the interview panel for one of the categories of the Winston Churchill Fellowships. One of the applicants was a probation officer from Northern Ireland. He wanted to visit the National Standing Committee on Drugs of Dependence in Australia to learn about their educational programme. Northern Ireland has become most vulnerable because of the explosion of drug trafficking in Southern Ireland, and it has become at risk because of the land borders. I am told that Northern Ireland is not organised to combat or deal with this evil invasion.
May I ask the Minister: do our Government send people to learn from the National Institute on Drug Abuse in America? This body co-ordinates and makes reports on all the agencies concerned with drug abuse in America. They seem to have more experience than we have, and perhaps some of our National Health Service workers could benefit greatly by learning from them what is the most effective and long-lasting of the treatments.
The Customs and the police are seriously overstretched. What about the National Health Service? We hear that the junior doctors are writing to the Prime Minister about the risks to patient care. This ever-increasing drug addiction need for treatment is yet another agony for an over-stretched service which does so much for so many, but which is being drained of energy with so many vital priorities. Hepatitis is an added danger which the drug addict often brings with him or her to a hospital or clinic.
The DHSS report in 1982 of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, entitled Treatment and Rehabilitation, has 45 recommendations. May I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, how many of those have been implemented and by which health
1206
regions and districts? Perhaps she would write to me if she cannot give the information today. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, has already mentioned the report, and I should like to refer to some of the recommendations because I am myself a member of a health region and I have found that they do not know about these recommendations. If I may give some examples—
"5. Each regional health authority should ensure that the extent of problem drug taking in its region is monitored, assess the extent of the services provided and develop a policy for meeting local needs."
"6. Each regional health authority should establish a multidisciplinary regional drug problem team."
"8. Apart from providing a specialist service, the regional drug problem teams should have a peripatetic role within the region, giving support and advice to, and liaising with, specialist and non-specialist agencies, and encouraging the development of new services."
"11. In the long term each health district should establish a team similar to, but broader in composition than, the regional drug problem teams."
"13. Relevant statistical data held by central government should be made available to drug advisory committees and regional drug problem teams while preserving confidentiality."
"24. As a matter of urgency the ability to prescribe dipipanone, and therefore diconal, to addicts should be restricted to doctors licensed by the Secretary of State."
"34. The health departments should consider ways in which the need for multi-disciplinary expertise and training might be met, including the possible establishment of a national training facility."
"43. There should be increased funding direct from central government, possibly by way of pump-priming grants, normally for a minimum period of five years."
There are many other recommendations. It would be well worth your Lordships' while reading them.
I do not think that the statutory bodies can cope alone. The Government should encourage more helpers to protect the weak, the foolish and the curious who try to gamble with life. There should be easily available advice centres for all who need them, which would be advertised in the telephone hooks and would be confidential, unlike the citizens' advice bureaux, which have to take a name and monitor it. My Lords,
"Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom."
7.31 p.m.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I also am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, for initiating this evening's debate. We have been very fortunate to hear from, among other noble Lords, three renowned doctors with a wealth of experience in the field of drug addiction. How can we prevent the young from sliding to disaster, which is the end of so many when they get involved with drugs? A number of noble Lords have spoken about this, but should not the education of youngsters to make them aware of the danger start when they are much younger than is the case at the moment—perhaps, when they are about nine or ten?
Also, is it not imperative, as other noble Lords have said, that co-operation is sought between parents, schools, churches, doctors, police and customs officers, and that this should be done all over the country? I believe that children understand when the picture is painted simply. The statistics speak for themselves and the misery and pain of the victims and their families are often publicised.
What appals me more than anything is the wealth which the unscrupulous can amass from drug trafficking. The figures that I have seen defy belief and

1207
organised crime is now involved on an increasing scale. As your Lordships are very well aware, there are ready-made networks to distribute these drugs all the way down the chain, resulting in enormous profits for many people. Surely, with the co-operation of other countries which also are affected by this growing horror, the assets of these criminals could be seized when sentence is passed. We would obviously need co-operation from other countries, because in many cases money from these villains goes outside this country.
Sadly, as others have said, it is perhaps inevitable that to finance their craving for drugs—I believe that it costs £14,000 a year for each individual to satisfy his needs—addicts will steal. The crime figures published today by the Metropolitan Police are encouraging, as other noble Lords have said, but will these figures be maintained? If, as many people suggest, the number of drug addicts is increasing and perhaps accelerating, I only pray that our confidence will be maintained. As many noble Lords have said, the police and customs officers do a wonderful job and the courts now pass sentences on "pushers" which we would expect.
We must not become the main reception country for drugs, with re-exporting rife. This is a very real danger. As my noble friend Lady Masham said, it is not only in London and the big cities where the drug problem exists. Drugs officers throughout the country have their worries and, in the part of the country where I live, LSD is their main problem. Wealth accumulated out of the misery and degradation of these young addicts is the most revolting aspect of a very unhappy period in our history; but we must hope. There are new treatments for these addicts and perhaps we should seek more advice from America. I hope that my noble friend will have something to tell us about these new treatments.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, may I first congratulate my noble friend Lord Pitt on enabling the House to consider today this crucially important issue. May I, as a very new Member of your Lordships' House, say how moved I am by the quality of the contributions, the degree of expertise that has been presented to us from all sides of the House, and, at the same time, the degree of human understanding in the approach to the problems that we are facing. I was personally glad that my noble friend Lord Soper referred to alcohol as being an addiction, and that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, referred to cigarette smoking. I think that if we started afresh but knew all the social consequences that flowed from alcohol and cigarette smoking, we might find that circumstances would be different.
I was also glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, referred to the problem of drugs for the elderly. One might add that roughly 4 million people today are taking tablets prescribed by their doctors, mainly tranquillisers, which in some cases have withdrawal effects that are no less serious and no less difficult to face than those of heroin addicts. I should very much like to congratulate and thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and to say, too, that I hope he will get a few more speeches in before he goes to the important post that he is taking up.
1208
I must come on to the main subject of the debate and I suppose that I should declare an interest as I am a member of the board of Phoenix House. That is a rehabilitation centre for drug addicts, and I was delighted to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, visited the Lewisham centre last week. I am certain that that has added to her own knowledge of the problems that we are facing.
It has not been a new problem for me. In the late '60s, as a Minister in the Home Office, we were extremely worried because there were 2,000 or 3,000 known addicts. We are now seeing a dramatic increase of roughly 40 per cent. a year. The Home Office admit to 40,000 or 50,000 registered addicts, but most researchers and voluntary organisations involved in the field believe that the figure is nearer 100,000. I have not heard a figure as high as 200,000, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rodney, but it could be. It was the noble Lord, Lord Rodney, who expressed doubt about the figure that had been given earlier. But there has been a massive growth.
We have to recognise, the House has to recognise and the country has to recognise, that we are facing a massive human tragedy, a growth of frightening proportions. We are talking about drugs which not only degrade but, as has been said by noble Lords on both sides of the House, kill. We cannot, we dare not, face this growth with any sort of complacency. We cannot do so if we know not just of the hardship faced by those who have become addicted, but of the tragedy for the families of those who have become addicted. Nevertheless, we have not made much progress. As Paul Brown wrote in the Guardian on 3rd January 1984 as part of a series of very well researched articles which were referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham:
"The National Health Service, which is supposed to deal with the addicts who finally seek treatment"—
I would emphasise that many of them never bring themselves to receive treatment—
"is still using a structure set up in the 1960s to deal with the so-called explosion of drugs in that decade.
"Since then the problem has become more than 10 times as serious. Yet the resources devoted to it are roughly the same.".
I recognise, as has already been mentioned, that the Secretary of State announced in December 1982 an injection of£6 billion—no, £6 million over a three-year period. I wish that it had been £6 billion, because £6 million is a drop in the ocean compared with the size of the problem we face and the inadequacy of the existing facilities, which have been referred to by so many noble Lords. I am thinking of the speeches made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, the noble Lord, Lord Rodney, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea. All of them referred to the inadequacy of the existing treatment facilities. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give us some good news, because £6 million does not go very far. It is not even inflation proofed and we are almost halfway through the period for which that sum was allocated. I believe, therefore, that it is a totally inadequate response to a problem which has now grown to epidemic proportions. I cannot use less strong words. Not only in the Government but in the

1209
country at large there is still an extraordinary degree of complacency about the problem, against which we have to do battle in one way or another.
Why has there been this dramatic growth in drug addiction? We know that there has been a flood of drugs into the country from Pakistan and Iran which has inevitably made them cheaper. It is now easier to get hold of drugs than it has been for many years, but we cannot escape from the fact that usually social problems face those who embark upon the dangerous and sometimes suicidal course of taking drugs. They may be facing the problem of homelessness, which we debated earlier today, family breakdown, children going into care, or unemployment. These problems can seriously affect people's ability to cope with life and increase their willingness to find something which will relieve them of what they believe to be a life without dignity.
I mentioned unemployment. Nobody can say that there is a direct link, but I have looked at the regions in which there has been the biggest increase in heroin addiction. At one time heroin addiction was just a London problem. Certainly in my Home Office days it was largely a London problem. However, between 1978 and 1982 there has been a 480 per cent. increase in addiction in the Midlands, a 437 per cent. increase in addiction in Scotland, a 386 per cent. increase in addiction in North-West England, a 148 per cent. increase in addiction in Wales and a 135 per cent. increase in addiction in the North-East. All of them are areas of high unemployment and deprivation. Therefore, the pattern of drug abuse is a sign of the malaise in our national life, for which all of us must bear a degree of responsibility but for which the Government must hear a heavy responsibility, not just for the causes but for the consequences.
As has been stated by a number of speakers, the outline of a national policy to deal with drug abuse was contained in the report of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs which was made to the Home Secretary about 18 months ago. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, referred to some of the recommendations. Many recommendations were made. However, although the Secretary of State announced very quickly the provision of £6 million, there has been no coherent statement since then about how the Government plan to deal with the problem. Several departments have an interest in the control of drug misuse and the provision of services, yet the interdepartmental committee which existed to provide a formal mechanism for the discussion of cross-departmental issues no longer exists. In his Statement on 1st December 1982 the Secretary of State said:
"The Government recognise the challenge posed by the growth of drug misuse to which the council has drawn attention and are determined to respond. The field has not received the attention that either the advisory committee or the nature of the problem itself demands".
I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to tell us when the Government are to make a valid statement of their policy. They put the advisory council's document out for consultation and asked organisations to reply by March of last year. Even though the organisations sought to reply by March of last year, nearly a year has passed without an authoritative statement from the Government. If it is
1210
not possible for that statement to be made tonight, I hope that the Secretary of State will decide to make it in another place.
I do not intend to go through the report. It would be absurd to do so at the end of such a well-informed debate. A recommendation has been made about the specialist drug dependency treatment centres which exist on a regional basis. However, there are not nearly enough of them. It is recommended that liaison bodies should be set up to co-ordinate action between the various professions and interests, on the grounds that a broad network of services is required to combat the drugs problem. I am sure that is right. This is not just a problem for psychiatrists. It is a problem for general practitioners, social workers, parents and community workers. It is a problem for a team of people who have to face up to some of the causes as well as the consequences of drug addiction.
A further recommendation was that structured hostel provision should be made available and that other services such as day care should be developed by non-statutory organisations. But the problem is money. One recognises that the Government have to face the problem of finance, but I believe that the consequences of not putting more money now into treatment and rehabilitation facilities will cost the Government and the country much more than the additional funds which ought now to be provided. It will cost the Government more in terms of National Health Service treatment. It will also cost them more in terms of crime. There is no doubt that those who have no money, because they have lost their jobs or because they have never had a job, and who are unable to get the stuff they need will steal and become pushers. The majority of pushers are in fact pushers because they want to get money to buy the drug which sustains them. Therefore, we face a very serious problem.
I am not talking about throwing masses of money at the problem. I am, however, saying that the Government are not facing up to the size of the problem. And so much of the problem falls on the voluntary organisations. I am not going to run them down; I believe in the closest co-operation between the Government and the voluntary organisations. However, I know that Phoenix House and the other bodies with which I am associated, which offer two-thirds of all their resident beds to addicts—that is, 260 out of the 360 rehabilitation beds in the United Kingdom—need additional assistance. Some of us have been involved in this difficult task. One speaker said that this is not a popular subject—that people do not leap up, wanting to give large sums of money to help to deal with this problem. It is, in fact, a difficult subject.
I want to put in a word for general practitioners, particularly since I have a couple of them seated behind me. The Association of Independent Doctors in Addiction—AIDA—insist that GPs should be coping with 95 per cent. of addicts and urge that some of the £6 million should go on rudimentary training for GPs in the problems of addiction. That matter was referred to by my noble friends Lord Pitt of Hampstead and Lord Rea, and by the noble Lord, Lord Rodney; all of them agree that the training of GPs in the handling of this problem is a crucial issue.

1211
I wish to make two final points and will then sit down in order that the noble Baroness will have the maximum time with which to deal with the important points that have been raised. First, I believe there is a need for a massive education campaign. It is a campaign that needs to be run through the press and through the schools. We need to involve families also in an intensive way, as was said by my noble friend Lord Soper and the noble Lords, Lord Mancroft and Lord Rodney. Families themselves are hardly aware of the behaviour of their children, of what their children are up to, and of the dangers which their children face when they become involved in drug addiction.
My last point has been previously touched upon. As I said, the non-statutory sector has had the main task of rehabilitation—and, after all, treatment is largely a matter of rehabilitation—in complementing the medical treatment service, such as it is. Most of the money for the voluntary drug centres has come from local authorities. The GLC and other metropolitan authorities have been crucial in terms of funding those hostels. Many of them would be gravely at risk if the recommendations in Streamlining the Cities were to be implemented. That is a fact we cannot ignore if we are to confront the problem which faces us today.
I will end with a quotation from the Guardian of 5th January. I congratulate the Guardian on the way in which they have concentrated the nation's attention, as I hope this debate will do in a small way. The Guardian stated:
"…there is no political will to tackle the problem because middle-class parents, whose sharp elbows wield political power, don't realise that their own children are in this danger. There is almost total ignorance among such parents of the prevailing drug-oriented ethos at their children's schools, an ingrained belief that such things couldn't happen to nice children".
That is the belief of too many people, and that is why the Government need to initiate, with the support of local authorities and parents, a massive campaign if we are to tackle what has become a problem of epidemic proportions in our nation.
7.35 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, may I congratulate not only the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, on raising this most important and difficult issue, but also the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth on his most compassionate speech. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, has quite naturally spoken from a medical viewpoint on a matter which has caused great concern over the past few years because of the substantial rise in the extent of drug misuse in this country. But it is inevitable that Home Office involvement must also be taken into account. Obviously—and noble Lords have said this—prevention is better than cure. It is for that reason that I emphasise the following facts and figures, some of which the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, mentioned at the start of his speech.
Between 1980 and 1982 the quantities of heroin seized by police and Customs increased no less than five-fold; and the quantities of cocaine increased by a similar amount in 1983 alone. Street prices for these drugs have remained static, and in some instances have actually dropped. This tends to confirm the
1212
anecdotal evidence that drugs are readily available on the streets. Equally, the number of addicts who seek treatment from doctors for their addiction is increasing at a rate of between 25 and 40 per cent. a year. Over 4,000 such addicts were notified to the Home Office in 1982, as compared with around 1,600 in 1972. I wonder what the figures were when the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, held office. The figures for 1983, when available, are likely to show a further substantial increase. As noble Lords have said, this takes no account of unregistered drug addicts.
I agree entirely with my noble friend Lady Sharpies that the indications are that more determined and more expert thieves are being attracted by the large profits that can be made from illicit drug sales. Premises on which drugs are stored present attractive targets because, in contrast to most other stolen goods, the street value of drugs on the black market is much greater than their normal commercial value.
The Government's response to the drug problem calls for action on the part of a number of departments, and in a recent speech the Home Secretary sought to bring together the various strands of Government policy. We are stepping up our efforts to stem the flow of drugs from aboard by increasing the amount of aid we make available to United Nations for drug abuse control in producer countries, particularly Pakistan, and by posting law enforcement liaison officers to Pakistan and the Netherlands. Customs activities in the country are being more selectively targeted. Since 1979, the number of officers specialising in drugs investigations has increased substantially, and the number concentrating on the detection of heroin trafficking has doubled. The Association of Chief Police Officers have given assurances of the very high priority they will continue to give to measures directed against drug traffickers. I am sure that those concerned—police officers, Customs officers, et cetera—will welcome the kind words of my noble friend Lord Mancroft; I share his feelings of gratitude.
We are also strengthening the control of drugs produced and prescribed in this country, and are actively considering further changes. Controls on barbiturates under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 are to be introduced later this year. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, will be interested to learn that dipipanone, which has recently proved very popular with addicts, will, from 1st April, be added to heroin and cocaine as drugs for which doctors require a special licence to prescribe to addicts.
The Home Secretary also announced that he intends to make full use of his powers under the Misuse of Drugs Act to take action against doctors who are prescribing controlled drugs in an irresponsible manner. The arrangements for the security of controlled drugs at all stages from manufacture to dispensing are being examined in the light of a report of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs published last November. Comments from interested bodies on that report are expected by the end of this month.
We must take firm action against criminals who profit from the misery of drug addiction and we must find more effective ways of dissuading people, particulary the young, from experimenting with drugs. We

1213
will be giving urgent consideration to the prevention report recently completed by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs as soon as we receive it—which we expect to be within the next two to three weeks. I am sure that the report will make a useful contribution to the development of policy and practice in this most difficult area, but clearly I cannot comment in detail until we have received the report and had a chance to study it. Prevention is, as I have said, of prime importance, but we must face the fact that a number of individuals will experiment with dangerous drugs and consequently become addicted.
Moving on, then, to the subject of the treatment facilities available within the NHS, it cannot be denied that provision varies widely from area to area. Currently there are 14 treatment centres, the majority of them in London. The reason for that is that, historically, London was the first major problem area. Outside the metropolitan area, therefore, drug misusers are mainly referred to general psychiatric services. Precise information is not available centrally about hospital facilities, but the DHSS is aware of approximately 100 psychiatric hospitals where some provision for treatment of drug misusers is available.
In most drug treatment units, and within general psychiatric services, there are no specific in-patient facilities, and the provision of staff, such as nurses, social workers and psychologists, is often very limited. Full multi-disciplinary drug treatment teams are very much in the minority. Outside London, the service is generally provided by a single-handed general psychiatrist providing an out-patient service. Drug screening facilities are limited and patchy; and social work support, where it is available, is rarely full time.
My Lords, it is no pleasure for me to state these unpalatable facts, but I would add that Government health Ministers are fully conscious of the situation and are taking steps to improve the state of affairs. As the noble Lord, Lord Rodney, said, drug misusers attract little public sympathy compared with other groups and have often had low priority in the allocation of resources, something they themselves are well aware of. But it is increasingly being acknowledged that there must be an adequate response to the needs of these people if a permanent change is to be made in their behaviour.
Before I move on to what the Government are doing, I must acknowledge the valuable contribution made to drug misuers by those outside the National Health Service.
Currently there are over 200 places provided in rehabilitation houses in England, though it must be said that most of them are in London and the South East. Financial help for these residential establishments, and for three London street agencies which provide equally valuable help for drug misusers but on a non-residential basis, has come from the London Boroughs Association and the Greater London Council and some health authorities. Some voluntary counselling and advice services are becoming available outside London. The Home Office provides grants to residential hostels which accept ex-offenders. Some national organisations in this field are grant-aided by Government.
As the right reverend Prelate said, people need to be helped, and I would say that people who have already
1214
begun to use drugs can be helped. The evidence suggests that the earlier help is sought the more promising the outcome. Parents apprehensive of their children's behaviour, as the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, pointed out, would be well advised to approach the wide range of statutory and voluntary agencies which exist for advice in confidence. Incidentally, I am certainly not a trivial Minister.
I listened, as usual, with the greatest respect, to the noble Lord, Lord Soper, who raised the question of education. My reply to him must be that it is for schools themselves to decide whether, and if so how, to include education about alcohol and drugs in their curricula. I hope that current attention being given to healthy lifestyles will go some way to meet his point. Educational material is available to schools from the Health Education Council and TACADE, the Teachers' Advisory Council on Alcohol and Drug Education.
Your Lordships will be aware that a little over a year ago the Government published a report on treatment and rehabilitation by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Immediately upon receipt of the report in 1982 the Government accepted the council's recommendation that responsibility for provision and development of services for drug misusers should remain at local level. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services in an initial response to the report, announced in another place that consultations with statutory professional and voluntary organisations would be undertaken, and this exercise has since been completed. As part of that consultation he convened in January 1983 a conference of representatives of the medical profession to enable them to consider recommendations of particular relevance to doctors. He also made available the £6 million, which has been mentioned, over three years, to encourage health and local authorities and voluntary bodies to develop schemes for helping people with drug-related problems.
The response to this central funding initiative has been most encouraging. The guidelines giving detailed information about the initiatives which were issued to those wishing to hid for grants made clear that the department will aim to ensure that there is a reasonable geographical spread of projects and a reasonably equitable distribution of funds between different organisations and different types of projects. The noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, and I am sure other noble Lords, will agree that these guidelines will ensure that at least some of the imbalance between the level of services in the South East and those elsewhere in the country will be rectified.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, may I——
Baroness Trumpington: We have very little time. If the noble Lord does not mind, I would rather answer questions which have been put to me. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, the Government are aware of debate among doctors about prescribing practices and indeed some public anxiety and sympathy, and more consideration needs to be given to the role of general practitioners in

1215
the treatment of drug misusers. Following the medical conference the Secretary of State has convened a small working group of medical practitioners under the chairmanship of Dr. Phillip Connell, consultant psychiatrist at the Bethlem and Maudsley hospital and chairman of the advisory council, to prepare guidelines on good clinical practice in the treatment of drug misuse and to consider the report's recommendation for the extension of licensing restrictions to include all the opioid drugs. This report, which will be dealing with most complex issues, is expected to be received in about six months' time. For your Lordships' information, I have arranged for copies of the terms of reference and membership of the medical working group to be placed in the Library.
My Lords, I shall now attempt, somewhat at random, to answer some of the questions which I have not yet covered. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, and the right reverend Prelate, indeed most noble Lords, including Lord Mancroft, Lord Rea and Lord Ennals, queried whether the £6 million is enough. Everybody wants more money, but Government policy for the health and personal social services generally is that prime responsibility for the provision and development of services should remain at local level. It is for each health authority and local authority jointly to plan services to meet local needs in this field, as in others, in the light of their priorities and the resources available. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services hopes very shortly to announce decisions and actions following his consideration of the comments of health and local authorities, professional and voluntary bodies on the report of the Advisory Council on Treatment and Rehabilitation.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, on what is to happen to projects which exceed the £6 million allocated, consideration is still being given to a number of projects within the total of the £6 million available. It is hoped that projects which do not receive a grant from within this sum will receive consideration and local support when health and local authorities are planning services.
In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, with regard to awareness of ACMD's recommendation, copies of the ACMD treatment and rehabilitation report, including the list of their recommendations, were sent to all health and local authorities and professional and voluntary bodies concerned, as part of the Secretary of State's consultation exercise. Concerning her question about whether the recommendations had been followed up, I will have to write to the noble Baroness.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and my noble friend Lady Sharpies asked whether the Government send people to the National Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence in Australia. I would reply that experts from the DHSS and professions in the United Kingdom take suitable opportunities to exchange information about treatment with delegates from other countries at international conferences.
With regard to Lord Mancroft's remarks, which were very interesting, about the Hazelden Clinic in Minnesota, further information on the statistics and research on which the Hazelden success rates are based
1216
has been sought from America for study by the DHSS. As to his other point about Narcotics Anonymous, self-help movements are generally to be welcomed. By their very nature the impetus to create local groups must come from individuals themselves. I am told that there are so far only about eight Narcotics Anonymous groups in the United Kingdom, mainly based in the South East. Our policy is to encourage the development of a wide range of services to which the individual can be referred, according to his or her needs.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, mentioned the Hong Kong way. This programme of method, maintenance and detoxification, allied to a major rehabilitation programme which is work based, has been well documented. That experience is available to doctors and others in the United Kingdom. As regards cannabis, the Government remain true to their original intentions. On the need for more research, a matter raised by the right reverend Prelate, the DHSS has funded the relevant research and, in addition, I can announce that it is to fund research projects to start in 1984–85 which will throw more light on the way services are organised and on reasons why addicts relapse.
My noble friend Lord Mancroft referred to the Exmouth doctors' initiative announced today. Decisions by doctors on ways of exercising care and discretion when prescribing for addicts are to be welcomed. Suitable alternative provision is a matter for local links between family doctors and the health authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, referred to district health authorities specifically appointing consultants with a responsibility for drug addiction. I can tell him that within some districts general psychiatrists have been appointed with the contractual responsibility to provide services to drug users. The majority of full-time specialists work in regional drug treatment units. It is the responsibility of health authorities to relate services to local needs and the Secretary of State has indicated that he is improving the accountability of the NHS.
My noble friend Lord Rodney referred to drug misuse being funded by one national co-ordinating agency. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs looked at this but concluded that the co-ordination and, therefore, the decisions about resources should be at local level. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, attacked the Government for their complacency in the face of growth, although DHSS research does not support the noble Lord's assertion. The Government are not in the least complacent. We are looking to regional health authorities to review the scale of the problem in their areas and also to other bodies so that we can make plans to respond.
It was good of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, to refer to my recent visit to Phoenix House. That same day I also visited St. Clement's day centre in Tower Hamlets. I should like to pay tribute to the band of very special people who work in those and other excellent establishments. Both visits added greatly to my slim store of knowledge on the subject we have been debating today. Had this not been a short debate I should have liked to speak at greater length on what I learned. I so agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rea, when he spoke about pain.

1217
Noble Lords who have spoken this evening have lived with this sad subject for a much longer time than I have. I have tried to answer some of your Lordships' questions and to reassure your Lordships, and other interested parties, that the Government are far from complacent. They are taking a number of positive and practical steps to prevent drug addiction at its source and to improve the service that is available to drug misusers. Naturally, I will write to any noble Lords who may feel that I have not replied to their questions.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I am lucky in terms of time but I shall not inflict another speech on your Lordships. I merely thank all noble Lords who have taken part and supported me in this Motion. I want to congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his maiden speech and say how sorry I am to hear that we shall not be hearing him as often as we would like. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I hope we shall hear a few more speeches from him before he takes up his new appointment.
I was very interested in what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. Of course, we can ban heroin. In fact, I think that we should not only ban heroin but also try to destroy its production, which I think we can also do. But I do not know whether that will solve the problem because addicts will find other things to which they become addicted. The Government are now going to make diconal more difficult to obtain. I do not think that will make much difference. Addicts will then be chasing palfium, DF. 118, or one of the other opiates. Therefore, although I agree that international action should be taken against heroin to get rid of it, because that can be done and there is no need for it, I should not like anyone to think that once that is done we shall have saved ourselves from the headaches that we now have. I suspect we will get headaches from other sources.
I am grateful to my two colleagues, my noble friend Lord Rea and the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, who told your Lordships that he was a fellow student of mine in Edinburgh. Of course, he became a distinguished vice-chancellor while I continued to be a humble GP. I was very glad to have his support here this afternoon and also the support of fellow GP, my noble friend Lord Rea.
I was interested in the historical analysis given by the noble Lord,Lord Hunter, because it is quite relevant to what I was saying just now about the destruction of heroin and that drugs will be created to which people will then become addicted. That is why I come back to the point at which I started. Although I am grateful to the Minister for the fullness of her reply, I am unhappy that she has not been able to take on board the difference between what I am suggesting and what the advisory council suggested. The advisory council is still basing its recommendations on the existing facilities but, I agree, broadened and adding more local antennae. But it is still based on the hospitals. I suggest that the Government should give serious consideration to having a community-based service, and that it should be centrally funded. Those were the two elements of my proposal and I do not think the Minister dealt with them. However, I hope that she will get her colleagues and her officers to study what I
1218
have said because it is my view that that is a better approach than the one we have followed heretofore.
I was very grateful that my noble friends Lord Soper and Lord Ennals took part in the debate because they form part of the non-statutory agencies which are very active in this field. We are very grateful to them for what they do. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rodney, for his support. I agree with much of what he said, just as he agreed with much of what I said. It is interesting to remember that all drug addicts are not drop-outs. In fact, there are many who are performing normal duties all over the place. Some of them are making decisions which are of great importance to us all and one would not know it. Therefore, the idea that drug addicts are merely people who have dropped out is a fallacy.
It is also a fallacy if the middle classes think that their children are not drug addicts. A lot of drug addicts are the children of middle-class parents. We need to look at this problem with the seriousness that it deserves. I again repeat that I hope that the Government will take on board the things that have been said.
I welcome the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton. I like to see her at war, and I am always pleased when she is at war on my side. I thank her very much for her support. I think that we have had an interesting and useful debate. I repeat again that I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to the type of approach that I have suggested. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Education (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
8.21 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The sole purpose of this very short Bill is to empower the Secretary of State to control the use in educational establishments in Scotland of specified materials or apparatus which might be a potential serious risk to health. The power would be exercisable by regulations subject to the negative resolution procedure.
The present situation is that in the terms of a circular issued to education authorities in 1968 the Secretary of State's prior approval has to be sought before certain radioactive materials or types of apparatus may be used in an educational establishment. This system has operated for many years without giving rise to any difficulties. However, in the course of a recent examination of the detailed arrangements laid down in the 1968 circular some doubt was cast on the legal position. This Bill is intended to remove that doubt by giving the Secretary of State a specific power in this regard. In other words, the Bill is designed simply to give statutory cover to what is already the practice. I should add that the proposed power is parallel to one already contained in Section 27(1)(c) of the Education Act 1980 in respect of educational establishments in England and Wales.
The core of the Bill is in Clause 1, which introduces a new Section 19A into the Education (Scotland) Act

1219
1980. Subsection (1) of the new Section 19A empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations:
"requiring his approval to be obtained for the use in…educational establishments…of…materials or apparatus which could or might involve a serious risk to health".
This provision is so drafted as to enable the Secretary of State to specify in the regulations, first, the materials or apparatus for the use of which his approval has to be obtained; and, secondly, the educational establishments to which the requirements apply.
Subsection (2) of the new Section 19A makes it clear that the power to make regulations includes a power to differentiate among educational establishments. Thus, for example, the regulations might require the Secretary of State's approval for the use of specified materials in some educational establishments but not in others.
I know that we shall all be at one in wishing to ensure that there are adequate powers of control over the use in establishments where our young people are being educated of materials or apparatus that might involve a serious health hazard. I therefore commend this Bill to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. (The Earl of Caithness.)
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I think we are all grateful to the noble Earl for taking on the task of seeing the Bill through this House. I must say that it puzzled me a bit whether we required this Bill, bearing in mind that it is not all that long ago since we had a consolidation of all the statutes, following the consolidation that took place in England, to which the noble Earl referred. We had the 1980 Act, which is referred to in the Bill, and we are now adding to it a new Section 19A. If I remember correctly, Section 19 gave the Secretary of State the power to regulate the premises, and the equipment in the premises, of educational establishments in Scotland. But quite apart from that, what has happened to the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, and, following therefrom, the Radioactive Substances (Schools, etc.) Exemption (Scotland) Order, which I presume comes under that Act? It seemed to me to be perfectly clear there that the Secretary of State had power to regulate, first of all, the purchase—and purchase is not mentioned in this Bill—of dangerous substances for schools, and then to regulate their use.
The noble Earl mentioned a circular of 1968. I thought that the definitive circular was in 1963. I have a copy here which was provided by the Scottish Office. If I have been misled, the House will know who to blame. It is Circular No. 689, which I was promised faithfully was the circular that mattered. Let us not make a secret of it: I received considerable help from the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, in respect of this. However, I must say that I am surprised that he is here, bearing in mind that from our papers today we all expected to see the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin. I know that he is busy studying the Roads (Scotland) Bill, the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Bill, the Tourism (Overseas Promotion) (Scotland) Bill and all the rest of it, so we appreciate why he is not here. I have never regarded the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, as an expert on education, anyway.
1220
The position is that we have been working away, but now we are told that there is a certain amount of doubt about it. What has happened to these particular pieces of legislation? I know that there have been changes in education and changes in the local authorities which are in control of some of the establishments concerned. There has also been a growing emphasis on technological education. Probably we are developing a greater knowledge of the substances and the dangers involved. It has always been clear from the circulars that we were deeply concerned, particularly about young people under the age of 16 and the possible effect on them of perhaps coming into contact, either in open or closed conditions, with dangerous substances. The circular was very strict indeed in respect of that, and in respect of possible contact with the dangerous substances listed. It was concerned not just with that but with the accumulation over a year. It laid down a very safe limit in respect of that.
The circular also dealt with exemptions, where substances could be used in certain establishments. It was again fairly clear in respect of the limitations upon the risks and the hazards. We probably know more about the hazards now, but I still do not know why the Bill is necessary, bearing in mind these other factors. It may well be that we shall get a little more information on this when we come to the Committee stage. I do not blame the noble Earl for this kind of thing, and nor do I expect the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, to clear up the whole thing right away.
The code of practice under which we are working is non-statutory. It says so in the circular to which I refer if not in the one to which the noble Earl referred. It states:
"The code of practice was issued by the Minister of Labour".
By the way, the 1960 Act made it clear that as far as Scotland is concerned "Minister" meant the Secretary of State. It goes on:
"It gives authoritative guidance on the subject of radiological safety, and while it carries no statutory authority"—
and the important words are "carries no statutory authority". It may well be that at this stage we do require to have statutory authority.
However, we must bear in mind what is said about the financial effects of the Bill—we are not going to spend any more money on it. There does not seem to be any great importance placed upon it. The only change that I can see is that under this enabling Bill the regulations will be published and issued by the Secretary of State, and therefore they will have statutory backing. If the statutory backing means that there is an offence created, there ought to be penalties, but there is no indication of that within the Bill—unless that aspect, too, is to be provided for in some other powers. One of the weaknesses of an enabling Bill such as this, which is fairly blank, is that we just do not know, and I should like to ask the Government whether before the Bill leaves us we shall be given any indication of what the orders will contain, and the extent to which they will depart from, say, the guidance given in the present non-statutory code of practice.
What we want to look at is the question of the definition of "educational establishment". We are told that it is in Section 135 of the 1980 Act. Well, we are

1221
all familiar with that. I can remember when the previous Act went through. It made clear that an "educational establishment" meant a school, a junior college, or certain further education establishments. But then one has to go to the definition of "school". This is where the original Act was much simpler because a school is there defined as a public school, a grant-aided school, or an independent school. What is clearly not included is a university, or, believe it or not, a theological establishment. So I think that this point could be simplified by going direct to the real definition of "educational establishment".
I do not think that there would be anyone on this side of the House, or indeed anywhere in the Chamber, who would object to what is proposed. We are conscious of the dangers, and we want to ensure that those who are involved in educational establishments and laboratories—the teachers, the pupils, the laboratory assistants and the students—should be protected, and we shall be grateful to hear from the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government why it should now he considered necessary to depart from the present position. It may well be that in bringing together all the education statutes something was left out and some eager beaver in the Scottish Office—and there are plenty of them these days—discovered it. I certainly welcome the Bill and I express our thanks to the noble Earl for introducing it.
8.33 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, certainly I, too, wish to express my thanks, and I believe that of the whole House, to my noble friend who has moved the Second Reading of this short, but we hope very useful, Bill. The glory of introducing the Bill is indeed my noble friend's, and I hope that he will forgive me if I briefly amplify one or two points. The purpose of the Bill is simply to make it possible to regularise an arrangement which has existed for a good many years—since 1968, when the circular was issued—albeit on an extra-statutory basis. This involved the Secretary of State's specific approval being required for the use in educational establishments in Scotland of certain—not all—particularly hazardous materials and apparatus.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, made some particularly kind references, and I owe him a number of apologies. First, he mentioned that I had tried to give him some help, while it is clear that I did not give him enough help, and I must apologise to him and indeed to your Lordships. I am appalled that the noble Lord does not have the relevant circular—oh, he now says that he has. I thought that the noble Lord made mention of 1963. Perhaps I misheard, because——
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I apologise; my eyesight is not as good as it was.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I would certainly sympathise with the noble Lord; my eyesight is weakening. The copy that I have is slightly dogeared, but I think that the date 23rd September 1968 lies upon it, and I believe that it is Circular No. 689. It was this circular which gave rise to the difficulty.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, was quite right to point out—and again I must apologise to your
1222
Lordships—that the name of my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin appears on the list of speakers, and I am trying on his behalf to explain the Government position and to give some assistance to my noble friend Lord Caithness. I shall certainly be glad to pass on the good wishes of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, to my noble friend Lord Gray in regard to his preparation of the increasingly important and interesting tasks which await us later this week and early next week.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, raised one or two points, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Caithness will permit me to try to give a brief explanation of why we believe that the Bill is needed. The Bill is designed to give statutory cover to the existing practice which is set out in the circular, and this is aimed at safeguarding the health and safety of pupils of all ages—young and not so young—and, let us not forget, the staff of schools and colleges, and indeed the establishments which are detailed under the definition in, according to my notes, Section 135 of the 1980 Act.
Circular No. 689 indicated that the prior approval of the Secretary of State was required before certain radioactive substances or types of x-ray apparatus, which are detailed in the circular—I am afraid that my scientific knowledge certainly would not bear much examination tonight, but if the noble Lord has any queries I shall attempt to answer them, though probably tomorrow—may be used in the educational establishments. The arrangements have operated since 1968 without, so far as we are aware, giving rise to any difficulty at all.
In concluding his welcome to the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Ross, suggested that a little oversight might have been found and he gave rightful praise to the Scottish Office. A number of eager beavers expressed doubt about the Secretary of State's legal powers in this particular regard—the powers that are detailed in Circular No. 689. The Bill that has been so ably introduced by my noble friend Lord Caithness is intended to remedy the position by inserting in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980—which the noble Lord, Lord Ross, recalled so clearly and so succinctly—a specific power for the Secretary of State to provide by regulation for his approval to be obtained for the use in educational establishments of materials or apparatus which are dangerous to health. I would add to the comments that I have made that, as was spelled out by my noble friend, the proposed power is parallel to one which is already contained in Section 27(1)(c) of the Education Act 1980 in respect of educational establishments in England and Wales.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, raised I think one other query about Section 19 of the 1980 Act, and I shall attempt to give an explanation of why we believe that the powers that we are seeking in the Bill are not covered by what is provided for under Section 19. Section 19 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations that prescribe standards and general requirements for the premises and equipment of educational establishments under the management of education authorities. Such regulations may prescribe different standards for requirements for different classes of educational establishment.
In this way, Section 19 to which we seek to add the requirements of Section 19A by the Bill enables the

1223
Secretary of State by regulation to exercise a general control over the use of materials and apparatus in educational establishments or, indeed, in any particular class of educational establishment. But what it does not do is empower the Secretary of State to grant or refuse approval after due assessment for the use of particular materials or apparatus in a particular establishment. If we take a small example, this might refer to a particular class of research in one or perhaps more than one educational establishment, possibly a college or school.
The proposed new Section 19A spelled out in the Bill which we hope will be inserted in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 would enable the Secretary of State to exercise a more detailed and specific control of the sort that has been exercised for the last 15½ years in practice on an extra-statutory basis. I am able to stress to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that there has not been any difficulty at all in this respect. The noble Lord in his concluding remarks suggested that there had been a legal loophole. I thank him for that suggestion. It is a legal loophole that I understand was found by a very eager beaver and competent solicitor. It is that lacuna that we seek to rectify.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, before the noble Lord concludes, it is not an oversight. Circular 689 states clearly:
"while it carries no statutory authority".
That has been known for a long time. What I really want to know is the present standing, in view of what the noble Lord says over this, that and the next thing, of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 which specifically mentions the Secretary of State and also the Radioactive Substances (Schools, etc.) Exemption (Scotland) Order which applied to educational establishments under that Act. Can the noble Lord give me some information so that we can have a sensible Committee stage of the Bill?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I shall willingly obtain the information succinctly requested by the noble Lord, Lord Ross. I can perhaps communicate with him in writing and I shall, of course, be in touch with my noble friend.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, for his kind words on this Bill and for the help that he has given, and also for the support that I have received from my noble friend Lord Lyell. My noble friend covered most of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and the other points that we shall be dealing with. There was one matter which my noble friend did not pick up. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, suggested that there might be penalties for the Secretary of State who abused the powers with non-statutory backing. I think that I am right in saying that it was the noble Lord himself who introduced Circular No. 689 and I would hate to see him suffer any penalties.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, it was non-statutory.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that applies to all Secretaries of State. It is right that we give it the
1224
necessary statutory backing. I believe that the Bill is positive. It will be a help to our educational establishments in Scotland, and I ask the House to give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

GCHQ and Employment Protection Acts
8.44 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to reconsider the proposals contained in the statement of Wednesday 25th January regarding the GCHQ at Cheltenham.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the second occasion within weeks that there has been a debate in this Chamber on an industrial dispute that is currently taking place. During the previous debate I proffered the point of view that only the employer and the employees and their trade union representatives could reach a final settlement acceptable to all concerned. My purpose in raising this debate today is because the employer involved is the Government of the day. Their action on any subject is, or should be, the concern of all of us. Let me say at the outset that not for one moment do I challenge the Government's right to make the final decisions regarding the security of the nation. They are charged with that responsibility and, of course, must carry it out to the best of their ability. But it is the method that is being used on this occasion against a group of employees to achieve that objective which I, and many other people, believe is wrong. We believe that those objectives are attainable without the use of such draconian measures.
Being present in the Chamber when the noble Baroness, Lady Young, repeated the Statement made in another place on the Cheltenham GCHQ—it came like a bolt from the blue in this place, as it did elsewhere—I predicted, as did other noble Lords from this side of the Chamber of various minority parties, that the manner in which these proposals had been reached and announced would be received with deep anger and concern, and that the people involved would be dismayed and distressed by the fact that in their view their loyalty could be called in question by the manner in which this exercise was carried out. Not only was it seen as such by them, but also by other grades and categories of civil servants employed in other Government departments. Events have shown, I think, that a wider section of the population beyond the people directly involved is deeply concerned about the method of this operation. My prediction has proved more than correct. My objective in initiating this debate is to try to point a way out of our present difficulty.
These proposals, I am afraid, are not seen in isolation. They are seen by most civil servants and their representatives as an extension of the Government's action in 1980, when the previous Conservative Government, which is de facto almost the present Government, broke unilaterally and without any negotiations, the Civil Service pay agreement and conditions of employment with Civil Service unions. These agreements had stood for years.

1225
They had been honoured by both Labour and Conservative Governments. I would be the last to want to personalise events in a debate; it does not give any credence to the case. However, it has to be said that the Minister mainly responsible for the conveying of this decision—I am talking about the Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe—has not got a good track record in his implementation or his understanding of industrial relations.
One must have regard to the fact that in a previous Conservative Administration, he was responsible for setting up the Industrial Relations Court that was no use to anyone and, almost at everyone's behest, finally had to be aborted and reduced to complete ineffectuality and destroyed. That is the kernel of one of the misunderstandings that have occurred. It is a lack of knowledge by a very senior Minister in Her Majesty's Government who has been found wanting before in his understanding of people in employment and how they will react to particular situations.
Let us look at the reasons being given by the Government for this decision. It is said that, in order to operate in a complete and efficient manner in the interests of national security—and, as I have said, no one would cavil at that—the Cheltenham GCHQ and other similar establishments must be strike free. I do not suppose that, in the final analysis, anybody would argue with that. But such evidence as there is at present does not indicate conclusively that previous industrial action taken there had any adverse effect on the efficiency of the establishment. That is completely underwritten by an Answer given in another place by a previous Secretary of State for Defence, Sir John Nott, who, on 14th April 1981 at col. 136, said:
"I assure my hon. Friend that there are no circumstances whatsoever under which we would allow the defence, including the deterrent capacities, of this country to be adversely affected in any way by such an industrial dispute. I do not wish to discuss the difficulties surrounding the dispute, but up to now they have not in any way affected operational capability in any area. I can assure my hon. Friend on that point.".
I understand from the questions that were raised on that particular dispute that he did pay full tribute to the loyalty of the people involved. It is on record that, in the more recent dispute, the people engaged at Cheltenham also did not respond to industrial action, but were completely loyal and patriotic to the situation as they saw it.
So why have the Government decided suddenly to take the big stick to them? It is almost like whipping the child for behaving itself. It is a puzzle to most fairminded people. Perhaps to use the word "sinister" is to over-emphasise the case. But from what he said in the interview given to the press by Sir Brian Tovey, the previous Head of Establishment at Cheltenham, one could only draw the conclusion that certainly the Americans, or the American Administration, had been leaning quite heavily for some time on the Government of this country to take such action. It is very unwise for any Government of this country to base their policy regarding industrial relations on the recommendation of a nation when one of the first acts of its President, when obtaining office, was to clap in chains the trade unionists who happened to disagree with him.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. This is one of the vital issues that the House must examine tonight. When one thinks of security one thinks of someone giving information or succumbing to some form of blackmail by another nation. Here we have an eminent civil servant saying that a foreign Government——
Lord Denham: My Lords, the noble Lord may of course intervene in his noble friend's speech but merely, please, to ask a question or to raise a point for elucidation.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I want to be quite clear that my noble friend is saying, in quoting as he did, that our Government succumbed to pressure from a foreign Government and that therefore this is just——
Lord Denham: My Lords, I am sorry, we are getting a little beyond the rules of the House. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Dean, would continue?
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the point that I am trying to make is that I do not think that the intervention—if it was intervention—by the American Government, or by some of its agencies, is the deciding factor, but I think that it is part of the parcel that brought about this misguided decision.
The issue is now being discussed in a blaze of publicity, which certainly brings us no benefit as a nation and which certainly does not help in settling this particular dispute. The publicity is being increased by conflicting statements made by various Ministers of the Crown, including the Foreign Secretary, the Minister for the Civil Service, and the Prime Minister herself, even to the point where there is confusion as to whether redundancy payments will be paid or people dismissed out of hand if they do not accept the new enforced conditions.
I submit that the issue can be solved to the satisfaction of all concerned and to the satisfaction of the nation. I know that the Prime Minister has said that she is ready to meet the trade unions again, and I urge her to convene a meeting of the parties concerned as quickly as possible and to discuss as a basis for settlement the proposals put to her by the Civil Service unions when they met her last week. These would, in the opinion of the trade unions involved, meet the Government's objectives. This course of action also has the full backing of the TUC. I make that point because it is not only members of the Civil Service unions who work at the establishment; there are also members of other trade unions, such as my own, the AUEW, the engineering union, the plumbers' union and so on. I certainly hope that this further meeting can take place because it would satisfy the Government's objectives. There may be a difference of emphasis but I am sure that a settlement could be reached which would be accepted and supported by all, and which would also retain for the workers involved the historical rights to which they have become accustomed and which are being arbitrarily removed by the Government of what we proudly boast is "the cradle of democracy". I believe that that is a totally wrong way to go about solving the situation.
I do not intend to delay your Lordships for long, but in the few remaining minutes available to me I should

1227
like to examine the effects in the area of Cheltenham where this dispute is taking place. I ask noble Lords who have not already done so, to take time to read a letter which appears in today's edition of The Times, written by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. No one could put the case more profoundly from the point of view of someone completely removed from the political spectrum, and the letter contains a complete and total denunciation of the action that the Government propose to take. I shall not read the letter because it is available to your Lordships to read. However, it refers to the fact that if a family does not accept the diktat the children will be uprooted as regards their education and that wives who go out to work to sustain the family will also experience difficulty. Nobody—certainly no trade union leader and no person involved at the establishment—could put the case more eloquently than the right reverend Prelate.
I should like to reflect for one moment on the views of another person in the area of Gloucester who has made his views widely known on this issue. I am referring to a former colleague in another place. He is not of my party, but he is a man for whom I have the highest regard in the conduct of his policital affairs and his stewardship on behalf of the people whom he represents. I am referring to Mr Charles Irving, the Member of Parliament for Cheltenham, who has had a lifetime of service in that area—and very distinguished service—as a city councillor and as a Member of Parliament, and who has a reputation for speaking out. Charles Irving is the last man that anyone—in his own party, in this Chamber or indeed any other Chamber—could accuse of disloyalty. He was so aggrieved about the way in which it was being carried out. He does not cavil for one moment about the objectives—he accepts the objectives. But when two prominent people from an area such as Gloucester—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and the Member of Parliament, with his deep-seated experience in the area—are profoundly disturbed. I think it is time that the Government reconsidered their position.
I make no comment on the decision taken by the Ministers involved to ban certain individuals in the case from appearing before a Select Committee today in another place. I have no doubt that the Members in another place will raise this matter in an appropriate manner. But it seems a strange way of gaining public support to ban witnesses who may, or may not, give evidence to support the Government's case.
I understand that today at the hearing by the Select Committee concerning this dispute, a Government Back-Bencher who is not renowned for his support of the trade union movement—I am talking about Mr. John Gorst—complained bitterly that Government Whips had been at work instructing, or providing information to Conservative Members of Parliament on the Select Committee, on the type of questions they ought to ask the Ministers who were appearing before them. This is the cradle of democracy, and such practices do no good whatsoever to that cause.
Finally, my Lords, I put the Question to the Minister, which I hope he can answer. This action of the Government has not only caused widespread
1228
dismay and concern at Cheltenham, it has caused it among civil servants in various establishments wherever they work. I know that there is an agreement at Faslane, to which some of the engineering workers are party, for a non-disruptive agreement, but it has set in mind for workers involved in all Government establishments a train of thought that this may be the first step along a dangerous road.
I also ask the Question on behalf of public workers employed in other essential service industries in the public sector, because they are greatly worried. I am the first to admit that the Prime Minister and her party had a resounding victory at the last general election. I was one of its rather less notable casualties. But I do not believe that the electorate of this country, when they elected the present Government, thought that it would take arbitrary action of this nature. I hope that in raising this subject that I have perhaps done a service that may make a contribution to ending this unfortunate dispute.
9.3 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I can agree with one expression used by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, and that is that this matter has been conducted in, as he rightly put it, a blaze of publicity. It also appears to me to have been conducted in a mood, in certain quarters, of almost hysteria. I should like first of all to nail one or two of the exaggerations which there have been in this area.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, referred, as though it were taken for granted, to the suggestion that the loyalty of the employees, the staff, at Cheltenham was being impugned. So far as I know, no-one has questioned their loyalty. They are perfectly loyal public servants, and this issue has absolutely nothing to do with the decision that the Government have recently taken.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am not suggesting that anybody else thinks, or has said, that their loyalty has been impugned. But some of the workers themselves have drawn the conclusion that their loyalty is being impugned, not other people.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, frankly, they have no reason whatever so to do. I was glad to hear the noble Lord say that no-one else was suggesting it. If anybody has imagined this, it is a fantasy. They are loyal, trusted and very important parts of the defence system of this country. The fact that the Government have decided that representation by the ordinary trade unions is not appropriate in their case no more reflects on their loyalty than does the fact that similar provisions apply in the case of the security services—MI5, MI6—or, indeed, of the Army, the Navy or the Air Force. Let us therefore get this out of the way.
The exaggeration which has been applied here was admirably exemplified by the noble Lord's reference to the letter in The Times today from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester—I think almost certainly the silliest letter that I have seen in The Times for a long time. The right reverend Prelate

1229
there says that a basic human freedom is being removed from the staff of Cheltenham.
Lord Dean of Beswick: That is right.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord says, "That is right", but I notice he says it in a quiet little voice; because, of course, it is the most arrant nonsense. If membership of a trade union is a basic human freedom, then equally it is a basic human freedom not to be a member of a trade union, and the Labour Party, in their defence of the closed shop, and the TUC, in their defence of the closed shop, deny that absolutely.
Equally, the fact is that although trade union membership is not, as I have already reminded your Lordships, permitted in areas where the defence of the realm is involved, such as the security services, no-one has suggested that the staff of the security services, or of the Armed Forces, are denied basic human freedom. I say to the noble Lord, as I would say to the right reverend Prelate if he were here, that emotional exaggerations of this sort do no good whatever towards a sensible solution of a practical matter.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: No, my Lords. The noble Lord is going to speak later, and he has already intervened once. I hope he will permit me not to accept an invitation from him at this stage. The fact is that the Government, in my view, have really no option in this area apart from preventing trade union representation for exactly and identically the same reasons as those for which it is not allowed, and does not exist, in other areas vital to national defence.
I do not want to rake up past troubles, but it is simply no use the noble Lord, or the House, seeking to evade, as the noble Lord did evade by not mentioning it, the events of 1981. Your Lordships will remember that at that time the Civil Service unions were in dispute with Her Majesty's Government because the Civil Service unions, to put it briefly, wanted more money. They organised a series of disruptive actions in which they specifically included GCHQ at Cheltenham. To refresh the memory of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, I will quote from the statement issued by the Council of Civil Service Unions on 8th March 1981:
"There will be a range of selective and disruptive action which will affect Britain's secret communications surveillance network. There will be both national and international repercussions".
In other words, the Civil Service unions were saying openly that to pursue their campaign to obtain more money from the taxpayer they were quite prepared to endanger the operations of an establishment vital to national security. In the face of that, how could any Government of any colour, of any political view, simply acquiesce in the continuance of a system in which that could be done again? It would be irresponsible for any Government so to acquiesce.
The only question that I have in my mind—it may be the question that is in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick—is why this action was not taken earlier? I should like to hear from my noble
1230
friend Lord Trefgarne when he replies why the Government showed so much solicitude for trade union sensitivities and sensibilities that they allowed all this time to elapse before taking action which that statement, dated 8th March 1981, made, in my submission to your Lordships, absolutely inevitable. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene? I am not sure whether he is signalling.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, just briefly, I did refer to that particular dispute, though I did not put a date to it. I said that subseqently when the trade unionists at that establishment were called to become involved in a later dispute it is to their credit that they refused to do so. I said that it looked as though the child is being whipped for behaving itself. That was the dispute I referred to.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord with his usual tactical skill was not referring. But this is not merely the action taken. This is the statement of the deliberate intention of the Council of the Civil Service Unions to use a threat to national security as a means of extracting out of the Government more money for their members generally. Faced with that kind of irresponsibility, how could any responsible Government allow this situation to continue?
I know that now that they are faced with this action there is a kind of death-bed repentance and they offer now, as apparently they did not offer years back, a no-strike agreement. They offer that industrial tribunal hearings should take place in secret regardless of the question that they would be informing the members of those tribunals of matters of which there is no necessity for them to be aware. All these things are being offered, but with the greatest of respect to them and to the death-bed repentance atmosphere in which these offers are made, that is not enough. There is no distinction in principle—this is a matter on which I suggest the noble Lord should take another view—that they have to face. There is no distinction in principle between GCHQ and the security services or the Armed Forces generally. They are all bodies operating for the defence of this country and, let your Lordships remember, of the free world. The GCHQ operates in an international sphere in co-operation with our allies. These are bodies whose security is a vital matter for the free world, and, your Lordships must record it, therefore, for the peace of the world.
What is being proposed for them is a treatment no different from that granted and applied in all the other major areas of activities essential to national defence. I think much the worse of the Civil Service unions that they should be agitating in the way in which they are now doing.
The noble Lord did not refer to the £1,000 offer. I think he was wise because it may have occurred to some people in the trade union movement that, were that kind of thing to be applied elsewhere, there might be an embarrassingly large number of trade unionists who might wish to accept it. In the narrow area of this installation, the Civil Service unions have shown themselves utterly irresponsible.
In the last few days they have published as part of their agitation over this matter the locations of the Cheltenham outstations which have always been

1231
treated in the past as secret. And the fact that because they are in dispute with the Government they are prepared to take action of that sort I think confirms, if confirmation were needed, the action of Her Majesty's Government in excluding them in the future from this particularly vital station. I hope, therefore, that the Government, who are doing the right thing, in my own view somewhat belatedly, will stand absolutely firm.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, the basic question in this debate is whether at GCHQ the freedom to belong to a trade union—and let me say that I disagree with the noble Lord. Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in that I do regard that as a basic right and liberty—can be reconciled with the need to safeguard national security. It is a matter of judgment and the Government have reached the conclusion that such a reconciliation is not possible. Moreover, it must be acknowledged that, with the exception, perhaps, of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgame, those of us who are speaking cannot be privy to all the factors which led the Government to take their decision. We can speak only on the basis of the exchanges that have occurred in Parliament during the last two weeks and such other information as we have been able to glean for ourselves. I wish that in a matter having such serious implications for our country there could be more objectivity than has been shown by some of those who have already written and spoken on the subject.
Let me therefore concede at the outset that in 1980 a suggestion concerning the establishment of a no-strike agreement at GCHQ was apparently canvassed locally and rejected by the unions. That is my understanding. Similarly, I understand that Mr. Bill McCall, chairman of the Civil Service Unions' Policy Committee, has frankly acknowledged that there has been in the past some deliberate disruption of work at Cheltenham.
The question, however, remains whether, if the unions had been faced more recently with the threat of certificates of exception under the 1975 and 1978 Employment Protection Acts, they might have been willing to enter into negotiations aimed at establishing a no-strike agreement. I would certainly favour one in this instance and, indeed. I am on record on a number of occasions in the past in having expressed the personal view that there is a strong case for introducing agreed, binding, independent arbitration as a last resort in disputes involving those employed in certain key occupations that are vital to the support of life or the security of the state. Clearly GCHQ employees come into that category, and recent events have, in my view, strengthened still further the case for such agreements. Then there is the question of whether some mutually acceptable way of exempting GCHQ employees from the protection of industrial tribunals could have been devised earlier.
On the third issue of substance between the Government and the unions, I understand that classified information is already withheld from full-time union officials and that any such information is dealt with by lay union officers employed at GCHQ, all of whom are subject to strict positive vetting. However, the question arises of whether, in addition,
1232
the national officials who are involved should not themselves be subject to positive vetting; and I think that perhaps they should. Ministers seem to have taken the view that it would prove ineffective to consult with the unions on these matters in advance of the announcement of their decision at a few minutes' notice two weeks ago.
But even if the Government's thinking on this score had eventually been validated, might they not now be in a stronger position if they could have demonstrated that, before taking their decision, they had sought to involve the trade unions and had been rebuffed? As it is, I can only say, on the basis of such information as is available to me, that in handling the problem as they did the Government could hardly have done more to offend not only Liberal opinion but large numbers of the general public who have recently shown no great sympathy for either trade unions or civil servants.
In debates in this House on the 1980 and 1982 employment Bills my noble friends and I gave broad support to the Government's legislative proposals, including those concerning the closed shop. But let there be no doubt that we believe very strongly in the right of employees to associate together in unions of their choice. We are therefore deeply concerned about the withdrawal of that right from people who, unlike those employed in areas such as MI5 and MI6, were recruited on the understanding that they might join a union.
Where precisely in all this is the line going to be drawn? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, when he comes to reply, will be good enough to say. We are all the more concerned because, whatever the unions actually did or might have done before the Government took action two weeks ago, they now appear to be willing to find ways of meeting all the points that seem to have been troubling the Government.
Next, there are the questions surrounding the payment of £1,000—and this is a matter on which I do wish to express a view—to every member of GCHQ staff in compensation for the withdrawal of individual rights, and the increases in pay which it seems are simultaneously to be offered to certain key employees. There is also the controversial matter concerning staff who decline to exercise either of the two options extended to them or to accept a suitable alternative posting, and who are therefore liable to dismissal, with the loss of their entitlement to both the £1,000 and the redundancy pay.
I have only two points to make now on those particular matters. First, in my view, the Government might have been wiser openly to have made more reference to them in their initial Statement to Parliament on 25th January—they were certainly given every encouragement by me and others to do so—rather than confining specific information about them to the letters distributed to members of the GCHQ staff on the same day. I say this because the effect of handling matters as the Government did has been to produce further widespread confusion and criticism as, one after the other, these matters have come to public attention.
Secondly, there is something about the arbitrarily fixed financial inducement of £1,000 which, to put it

1233
bluntly, sticks in my gullet. Whatever it may be called by the Government, in my view the purchase for money of the individual liberty involved is somehow unsavoury. I do not believe that a price can be set on such a loss, and the Government's offer to enter into individual contracts of this kind has left a bad taste in my mouth.
I do not usually speak as strongly as that, and of course this is a personal feeling; but what should concern us all, I suggest, is that in a matter which affects our national security so closely, instead of being able to stand together as compatriots we look like being deeply divided in the views that we express this evening. My fear is that if the Government continue their present rigid attitude and prove unwilling in the next three weeks to reach an accommodation with union representatives that safeguards both our defence capability and the freedom to belong to a trade union, the morale of civil servants will be damaged, the standing of responsible union leaders diminished and the security of the state thus placed more, not less, at risk.
In that case the Government may come to regret their action, but it will be too late, for they will have achieved precisely what they set out to prevent. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, has my support and, I believe, that of my noble friends in asking the Government whether they are prepared to reconsider their proposals.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, it seems as if, so far, there is not violent disagreement with the Government's proposal to do something about the so-called divided loyalties of civil servants, especially in this area—very sensitive, responsible and confidential. It is probably the manner of doing it that has excited so much resentment and objection. In particular, it has been very difficult to accept the idea that loyalty has a price and if the price is big enough then you can buy it. That has left a very unpleasant taste in the mouths of many respectable citizens.
But there are one or two points which we have to get into proper perspective, and one is that the Civil Service is not one single entity. It is not of the mass. It is a large body with great variations in responsibilities, in duties and in authority. It is very difficult to talk about a senior inspector of taxes as being a Government employee. He is dressed in statutory authority and many civil servants have the right of entry, the right of seizure and the right of prosecution. They are public officials and they have responsibilities, duties and powers which no private citizen possesses. So that to classify them as employees, having perhaps the same basic rights as all other employees, can be to simplify the problem unduly.
Another point is that we must be careful in talking about basic human rights in this context. If trade union membership is a basic human right in the Civil Service, they have not enjoyed it for very long. It has been interrupted and modified on occasion and, of course, there are other directions in which the civil rights of civil servants are curtailed; for example, in political activity, in candidature for local and central Government services, in financial transactions and in business dealings. They are public servants having to
1234
present to the public a status of impartiality and justice in exercising their functions, and they have always accepted some curb on their freedom in order to enable them to do their job properly.
But if we talk about the question of loyalty we ought to get that straight, too. It is a mistake to think of this in terms of loyalty to the state; I do not think that that was ever in question. What is involved here are divided loyalties, as between loyalty to a union and its call, and loyalty to the job that they have to do in the Civil Service. That is really where the loyalty lies. One has loyalty to one's position and loyalty to one's sense of duty, which is not the same as loyalty to the state in the way in which it is often presented.
In my experience, this is the second time that this problem of divided loyalties has occupied the attention of the public and Parliament. I am very surprised indeed that, so far as I know, practically no mention has been made of the events of 1926 when, after the General Strike, the Government of the day—and Mr. Winston Churchill was Chancellor of the Exchequer—took it upon themselves to reflect public concern on this matter by introducing and passing the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act. That arose not because civil servants were involved in a dispute, because they were not, but because unions affiliated to the Trades Union Congress—my own was one—were confronted with the request to give pledges to the General Council of the TUC which seemed to be inconsistent with the duties and loyalties of our members. One pledge we were asked to fulfil was to hand over complete authority to the General Council of the TUC—to be asked to do whatever they wished, including withdrawal of labour, if they saw fit. That was a pledge which they could not extract from me and which they certainly could not extract from representatives of other public service organisations at the time. Only a few officials in an Admirality dockyard got involved in the strike. But it was the claim upon affiliation to outside bodies that concerned the Government most then, and it was that which the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1927 abolished.
Civil Service unions had to be approved for membership of civil servants. To be an approved union, it had to be confined to civil servants. It had to have no affiliation to the TUC, no political objects, no political fund, no contact with any body outside which was concerned with negotiations or activities on pay and conditions. We were completely isolated from the general trade union and political movement. Those who had members outside the Civil Service had to get rid of them—and so on. At the same time, the closed shop was abolished in local authorities, and contracting in for the political levy generally instead of contracting out. All that was provided for in the 1927 Act, which lasted for 20 years. Not even during the war could we get it removed. Not even when Bevin was in the War Cabinet could we get it removed, although we tried hard. A number of us saw Winston Churchill. We had to endure that Act for 20 long years, until in 1946 the Labour Government repealed it in its entirety.
Looking back, it is a mistake to promise to repeal Acts of Parliament without consideration of when it may happen and what change in events may take place in the meantime. To go back 20 years in industrial

1235
relations proved to be a mistake. The world was changing; the composition of the Civil Service was changing; the mood of many people in it was changing. To have nothing at all in place of the 1927 Act was, I believe, unfortunate. We have here the same problem, basically, as we had in 1926. There is concern about whether civil servants will do what their unions tell them instead of having regard to the responsibilities of their office.
We should have had much more difficulty over the years in the Civil Service had it not been for the tremendous work which was done in getting settlements under three very important headings for the Civil Service in 1955: the agreement on the principles of fixing pay, equal pay for women and a wide extension of the Civil Service superannuation scheme. If one is to acknowledge the authorship of those three measures, all three were the product of the chancellorship of R. A. Butler, strongly supported by the recommendations of the Priestley Commission which he set up. And, probably alone among Chancellors who set up Royal Commissions, R. A. Butler was there to deal with the report when they had finished it. It made an enormous difference to peace in industrial relations with the Civil Service. I may, modestly, say in passing that I was chairman of the Civil Service unions at the time, and may have contributed something to the settlement of 1955. At any rate, it kept the peace for 25 years.
It was only when the pay agreement began to crumble in the latter part of the Labour Government, under economic pressures, followed by the complete abrogation of the agreement by the Conservative Government in 1980, that the whole edifice of peace, tranquillity and mutual confidence was dispelled in the Civil Service.
What should be done to secure what the Government want? Can it be got by negotiation, or will it require enforcement in any sense? If so, who should do it? I certainly believe that an act of this kind should be the subject of an Act of Parliament rather than a decision by Ministers taken under executive powers bestowed upon them by an Act of Parliament for exercise, probably, in very different conditions and with a very different set of people from those covered by the establishment at Cheltenham.
If the machinery for settling Civil Service grievances is there; if it is in place; if it is genuinely used and the Government will support the use of it; if the Government will provide arbitration as a matter of right, if there is a serious difference of opinion between the staff's interests and the Government's own attitudes and policies; if there is access to Parliament in the event of policy decisions being taken by the
1236
Government which might be regarded as overriding other considerations—if all those are in place, there is no real reason why the Civil Service should think of striking at all, because it will have a complete network of conciliation, arbitration and appeal to the sovereign power of Parliament, which ought to satisfy all reasonable demands.
There is no confidence that those elements are in place at the present time. There has not yet been a pay settlement arising from recent discussions which have been taking place—and so all this occurs at a very unhappy time so far as the Civil Service is concerned. I believe that the Civil Service should in certain circumstances submit to the need for staff in identified, sensitive positions vital to the maintenance of essential services and the national security to be asked to renounce the right to strike. I believe also that unions with members in such positions should be asked to renounce their right, if they have it, to make a strike call to those members. I would hope that those conditions can be negotiable, although I do not rule out legislation to achieve them if need be. The public are entitled to an uninterrupted service and it is Parliament's responsibility to see that the conditions exist under which that can be done freely and with goodwill.
Parliament has taken little interest in the Civil Service in recent years and the Civil Service has not troubled to understand Parliament on these matters, either. But if the machinery is right, the right to arbitration is there, parliamentary interest is also there, and free access to them all is available to the Civil Service, then there is a possibility that there could start a new era of peace, efficiency and goodwill in the Civil Service.
I hope that we can lift the prestige of the Civil Service out of this somehow. It has been downgraded in recent years. The Civil Service feels that it is a victim of bias on the part of the Government. It is remarkable how many people seem to have rallied around the Civil Service in this particular controversy. I only hope that it is real concern for the Civil Service and that it is not a devil's brew. The Civil Service is, I believe, looking for a rather more civilised outcome to this controversy than seems possible at the present time, with the rumpus in another place over Select Committees, and other trade unions getting excited. Sometimes, I think that the more the drums and the tom-toms are beaten, the less chance the Civil Service has of getting a good deal at the end of the day. I think it is about time that all this was cut through dramatically and swiftly by the Government to try and establish the relationship which we all want.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, I have three brief and unoriginal points. First, I am not equipped to make a judgment on the precise objectives which the Government had in mind in taking this action with GCHQ. To the extent that they were to safeguard our national security, they must have all our sympathy and support. It is the handling that is my concern. To the extent that this was insensitive and ill-thought through, it attracts and deserves criticism, certainly on management grounds and conceivably on wider grounds. But that is not my area of concern tonight.
No one in his senses would believe that the Government's objectives included turning the Civil Service into a pawn with which some people from more than one political party would, entirely predictably, play games. This has meant that my old service has acquired some political friends and political foes who are emphatically unwanted and unlooked for. As I have said before, who wants friends like the Morning Star or enemies like worried and concerned Government supporters? If, as I am sure was the case, this outcome was not foreseen, let alone deliberately planned, then the handling has been seriously at fault. Neither the public service nor, more importantly, the nation's security will benefit from the continuance of the present sad position. In essence, it is really a question of treating staff fairly, firmly but humanely.
My second point is this. Words have been used in sonic quarters, no doubt inspired by different motives, to the effect that the official side at GCHQ are authoritarian and incompetent, and the staff side unruly and ungovernable. I have to say that in my experience, such as it was, neither charge has any foundation.
My third and last point is a wider one. It concerns the division of central ministerial responsibility for the Civil Service, the Government's own workforce—well over half a million very disparate men and women. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible, in his spare time, for Civil Service pay, pensions and manpower; the Minister for Arts and Libraries, in his spare time, for management and personnel; the Prime Minister, in her spare time, for efficiency; and now, apparently, the Foreign Secretary appears to have a central role. Naturally, I accept that the Ministers concerned report to the Prime Minister. But then we all, Prime Ministers included, report finally to God. It is not an efficient terrestrial structure. Managing well over half a million people is not a spare time occupation split between three or four busy Ministers, outstandingly able though they are.
It is not appropriate for an outsider to offer advice on the machinery of government at ministerial—I repeat, ministerial—level, but I think the time may have come to consider returning to the ministerial system which operated for all 36 years of my Whitehall life; namely, a single senior Minister having unambiguous day-to-day responsibility for the Civil Service. Until 1968 it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, one of my old political chiefs at the Treasury, "Rab" Butler; he was one of them.
Then, from 1968 to 1981 the post was held with, may I say, distinction, success and efficiency by seven consecutive Leaders of your Lordships' House.
1238
However that may be, I beg the Government to get into quick and quiet conversations with the staff and their representatives in order to bring the present unhappy state of affairs to a prompt end. The present state is not good for anyone. If it were to end I would not exclude that end being ratified by Parliament. It is not a good state, least of all for the non-political health of the public service and for the nation's security.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, speaks with all the authority of a distinguished ex-civil servant. I speak as a politician. I am sure the Government will heed the words that have been spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft. However, as an old politician I must say that the handling of this affair by the Government has been disgraceful and insulting. I have looked at the words of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, reported in Hansard on 25th January 1984 at col. 917. Having spelled out what was to happen at GCHQ he said:
"GCHQ staff are being informed of these measures this afternoon. Those who decide to remain at GCHQ will each receive a payment of £1,000 in recognition of the fact that certain rights that they have hitherto enjoyed are being withdrawn from them in the interests of national security."—[Official Report, Commons, 25/1/84; col. 917.]
Those were the words he used. There was no debate and no consultation. It was simply announced.
The people who are employed at Cheltenham—I believe about 7,000 in all—all entered the Civil Service on a different basis, not on the basis that has since been spelled out to them. But here they were being offered £1,000 for a withdrawl of their rights. What kind of people did the Government think were serving at GCHQ in Cheltenham? What kind of people are we? The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, twitted the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, by using words teasingly to him—I am not quoting his exact words—"Well, if many other people were paid £1,000 there might well be a different aspect to the trade union movement." If the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, reflects on what he said—this year £1,000, but what about next year, the year after or the year after that?—he will realise the ludicrous gesture that has been made.
My noble friend Lord Rochester is one of the most restrained and moderate of men but he said, although I may not be quoting his exact words, that the words stuck in his gullet. We all understand what he means. I agree with every word which he uttered.
I want to concentrate on one aspect of the matter. This is setting a dreadful precedent. It is disgraceful. There may well be a case for withdrawing union rights, as it were, from the staff at GCHQ. If there is such a case, the Government have not made it out. I say that for this reason. The Employment Protection Act was passed in the other place in 1974. The consolidation Act was in 1978. There were wide-ranging debates at that time, when I happened to be a Member of the other place, as was the noble Lord. There was a great deal of debate over a whole range of subjects. I remember the question was raised concerning the status of the Armed Forces and whether they should be entitled to trade union representation. I, with many

1239
others, thought they should not. Nevertheless, the general feeling in the other place was that they had a special position. The same applied to the police, and the same must apply to such services as MI5 and MI6 which, after all, are very small bodies of professional people.
I do not recollect any debate—I hope that I shall be corrected if I am wrong—about the position of civil servants at such places as GCHQ at Cheltenham. I do not think that there were any debates. This has sprung suddenly out of the dark in 1984. We have had very distinguished foreign and defence Ministers since the 1970s. Have they not raised the question? What kind of Government hint darkly about these matters and tell the public that they do not really know what goes on? I do not accept that kind of case. I think that there may very well be a case for giving the employees at Cheltenham a special status and for this House and the other place to have special regard to their position. If that is to come about, the Government must make out the case. There is no use in passing dark hints. That can be done about anything.
I think that it is Section 138(4) of the consolidation Act that really removes from this category of employee the rights that would othewise be extended to Crown employees. It is so clumsy. The fact that these people are offered £1,000 each is absolutely disgraceful. They are civil servants who have taken an oath of loyalty to this country. They are employed and have given excellent service. If there is a case to be made out for the withdrawal of, as it were, union protection at Cheltenham, their hearts and minds must be won—and not by giving a sweetener of £1,000. What kind of precedent does that create? It is a very sorry and sad state of affairs that we have come to here.
I think that there was a great deal in what the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, said in outlining the way that this situation could be dealt with in the future. I shall not follow that, save to put on record that I think this matter has been handled in a clumsy way. I think that people were shocked and dismayed, not at the decision itself, although it is very important as it affects not a small number of people but many thousands of people employed at Cheltenham. They were shocked and dismayed at the way in which it was done and because of the implications involved.
9.52 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I find myself very reluctant to address your Lordships on this subject. Over the years one trains oneself not to talk about things which are deeply confidential. Some 20 years ago I was very closely involved in the affairs of GCHQ. It gives me both an advantage and a disadvantage over your Lordships in that perhaps I know a little bit more about the background to this, but some of it I just cannot convey to your Lordships. I hope you will forgive me if I do not put my point as clearly as I should like.
At the end of the war in 1945 we had built up this kind of service in uniform with all three services. When peace came, in the ordinary course of events the
1240
fighting forces of this country put those people who served in them but who were not required for operational service in peace-time into plain clothes. The Navy does it with its Royal Fleet Auxiliary. The Army and the Air Force do similar things. It is a normal practice that we always follow. In addition, of course, when this happens, as a matter of course, the people concerned join a trade union; and it works very well, or used to, certainly in 1945.
It is perhaps worth mentioning—because people have mentioned it—that the practice is not carried out to the same extent by the United States armed forces. They tend more to leave people in uniform. For example, the equivalent of their Royal Fleet Auxiliary—the oilers who fuel the ships at sea and that sort of thing—remain members of the United States Navy in combat uniform, as it were.
In the period with which I was particularly concerned up to the 1960s, there were no problems over questions of divided loyalty. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said, that is what we are talking about: where the man's loyalty lies. Is it to his job or is it to his trade union? There was no problem over that, in part because the services ran their own elements of the force separately and they had come in the main, almost entirely, out of the uniformed Navy (in the case with which I was connected) and automatically the trade union officials all understood their task as fully as was needed; and there were no great troubles.
As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, reminded us, it could well be that the Civil Service pay and conditions decisions in the mid 'fifties helped to bring about the strengthening of attitude. I am quite sure that it had a lot to do with it. But I remember in the early 'sixties, when the late Lord Mountbatten had under way his plans to amalgamate the administration of the services, talking to friends about whether the, happy relationship with the people we are talking about would continue. I just say that in passing. It was never anything terribly official; it never got anywhere. But we were concerned to watch the situation because in this area it is so important to preserve what I think has publicly been called continuity. It is this that matters above all things, as well as of course the loyalty to the job, which in the services comes naturally, and which comes naturally to the people who do this work because 90 per cent. of them come from the services.
We thought that the situation as it applied in the mid 'sixties would continue, because it was really only a question of amalgamating people from the other services and we did not see that there would be any real problems. We hoped that in the ordinary course good sense would prevail. But there was a question mark. I left the Navy at about the time I am talking about, in protest against Mr. Healey's defence policy. Therefore, I can speak to your Lordships because I have no continuity of knowledge of the subject since that date.
I must tell your Lordships that hack in the 1980–81 period when I read in the papers that GCHQ had been subjected to the very cleverly devised selective strike process that the Civil Service unions were introducing in order to try to convince the Government when I saw that that place was involved and I thought: it is intolerable; it is quite impossible. I thought that it must not

1241
happen because it is one of the areas—and my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have mentioned that there are the other security services—in which one cannot do that kind of thing.
It was also tragic. As I am sure your Lordships are aware, I have sympathy for trade unions, in the right places, and in the right way. But it was tragic that the clever people running the trade unions in the Civil Service—and they were exceptionally clever in the way in which they handled this particular interruption of Government service—were unwise enough to extend the action to GCHQ. If only they had not, it would have been so much better.
However they did, and there was only one thing that we could do. There is no question of whether or not there was American pressure. I expect that there was. In view of the way in which we have worked with the Americans over the years, if the situation had been reversed, if they had done the same kind of thing, we should have been just as concerned. There is absolutely no doubt that the Americans have every right to complain—or had a right three or four years ago. But we need to make sure ourselves that this kind of interruption does not happen—we really do.
I underline my point one step further. It just so happens that I have a childhood friend whom I knew in my own village in the Isle of Wight before I had even joined the Navy and before, at a later stage, he also joined the Navy during the war. He became a naval telegraphist and in due course, in the post-war period, went on into the service we are talking about. I was talking to him last weekend. I said, "What do you think about it?" He said, "Well, we think the Government are absolutely right". I asked, "What do you mean by 'we'?" He said, "The vast majority of my colleagues would agree with this. Of course, there are some who would not, but the vast majority would". Of 1979, when certain actions were taken, he said, "It was highly embarrassing to us and we felt gravely concerned at the fact that our loyalty was being challenged, not loyalty of the state but loyalty to the job".
This underpins what I am trying to say from the level of people who are involved. This whole picture then leads us to ask what the Government should have done. We do not know enough. In the area we are talking about, I hope that we are never told enough. It is terribly important not to go a step too far because clever people can deduce things frightfully quickly. In the first instance, the Government had to do something. They had to take steps to make sure that the situation was never repeated. Whether they have done precisely the right thing, I do not know.
I think that a lot of people have gone out of their way to try to wrong-foot the Government. That is fair enough for the Opposition. I am not sure that it is fair enough for all the media as well. The Government may have made some mistakes. I take the point that has been made about giving a sum of money which makes it appear simply frightful. I understand, however, from what I have read that there have been negotiations over the past couple of years. It could be that in the first instance the suggestion of money came
1242
from some source other than the Government. We do not know. I do not necessarily think that we should be told.
The question really is whether a staff association is a satisfactory alternative to a trade association. Not nearly enough publicity has been given to this. Having had the high privilege of acting as a servant to a group of trade unionists when I was director of an industrial training board, I know that senior trade union officials hate staff associations more than they hate no unions at all. One can well see why, but the fact is that if you are setting up a staff association for several thousand people—there are examples of this—it really can be, in practical terms, just as effective as a so-called independent trade union. I say "so-called" because that is what noble Lords opposite called it in their relevant legislation. The question of independence, is sometimes a little in doubt.
I would have thought that the solution of a staff association is not one that should be decried. There is a great deal to be said for it. If, after it has been given a run for a year or two, it is felt genuinely by the people concerned within the system, who understand what they are dealing with, that it should be re-examined, then perhaps that can be done.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, suggested that trade union officials might be positively vetted. It is important to remember in the area we are talking about that this cannot be done effectively for people who are not part of the system. So you can forget that one. This is what we are left with. I am sure that the Government have done their best to see if they can come to a conclusion. They seem to have come to the conclusion that a no-strike clause will not do. In my view, what they have done so far has been excellent. I trust and hope that they will not go back on what they have so far committed themselves to.
10.5 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. It is quite normal practice within the Civil Service to refer to the Civil Service unions—for example, the Institute of Professional Civil Servants and all the many organisations within the Civil Service which represent the people who are employed by the Government at certain levels—as the "staff" side, and to refer to those employed by the Government at a much higher level as the "official" side, including all permanent secretaries and all top level civil servants of that character.
It would be distressing if, for example, the gravamen of Lord Boyd-Carpenter's argument was really a fact. It would be distressing if tonight we were astounded and shocked because a number of civil servants in GCHQ had behaved like some civil servants behaved just after the war and were putting our nation in grave distress. Nothing like that has happened at all. I do not know what the noble Lord the Minister is growling about, because I cannot hear him.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, when I speak later I will have to disclaim what the noble Lord says.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the noble Lord can make that point. I am saying that I know of, and have read of, no incident where civil servants have been arrested or where there has been any serious behaviour, which we would deplore, by a group or mass of people like those who work at GCHQ.
There is another absurdity, a crass absurdity. The Government's proposal does not apply to all those who work in GCHQ. The Government's proposals will not apply to contractors, craftsmen and officials working within GCHQ. I am sure that, with his nimble mind, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, would agree that, to be logical, they must apply to all. If we leave 1 per cent. free inside, it is no good bothering with the other 99 per cent. As I understood the essence of his argument, in the name of freedom, the right of association must be restricted and denied. Of course, the noble Lord quite rightly interrupted my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick when he quoted the closed shop. I have on many occasions in this Chamber, in the other place and elsewhere, always stated where I stood vis-à-vis the closed shop, with which I do not agree. I do not agree with it for lawyers, for doctors or for anyone else. They ought to be so imbued with the aspirations of what is hoped to be achieved by their trade union that they would wish, quite voluntarily, to join it. But this proposal would prevent that. I am one who happens to believe that freedom is strengthened by adding further freedoms rather than by taking any away.
What I also found remarkable was the statement made by the Foreign Secretary in another place, to the effect that the Security Commission had not been in any way consulted about what the Government intended to do because there had been no security issue at risk. That was said by the Foreign Secretary. Indeed, Sir Geoffrey went on to say further that he had no intention of referring any of this to the Security Commission because there had been no breaches of security. What on earth are we talking about? It was also clear that, as is customary in such matters, key sectors of the Civil Service were not consulted. We all know that the unions were certainly not consulted. We all know that senior Ministers were not consulted.
What a democratic set-up this Government really is! They cannot even be democratic to one another. They do not even trust one another. This was not even discussed at Cabinet. The Cabinet was not informed, and therefore the Cabinet could not endorse what has been done. Who is left? Who is left? Where, under this Conservative Government, does almighty power in the end rest? It certainly does not rest with the Cabinet. Senior Ministers are not even consulted. No one was consulted. This was an action taken solely, as it seems to me, by the Prime Minister, and then, with all the robust courage that he possesses, supported by the Foreign Secretary, who I am bound to say seemed to be more like a tame hamster than a senior Minister of the Crown.
It is bound to cause distress when one reads in foreign newspapers, "Has Britain degenerated into a banana republic?" It makes me very angry to have to read that sort of thing, and to realise that there was no foundation whatsoever for this action. I think it fair to say—as it has been said, and I have heard it, and the
1244
noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has heard it, from time to time in another place from Ministers of Conservative Governments and of Labour Governments, and of Labour Governments beefed out by the Liberal party—that we are proud that in this country we have probably the finest Civil Service in the world. I think they meant that.
My noble friend Lord Dean quoted Sir John Nott after the incident of 1981. Was that just a blandishment? Was that an untruth? Was he cheating, or did he mean it? I think—and I know—that he meant it. His words are only unacceptable to the Prime Minister. You cannot say they were unacceptable to any other senior Minister because there was no discussion at Cabinet level. This probably is the most unique instance of Prime Ministerial power that we have known this century. That is how serious this House has to understand it. Or are we going to wait, as Orwell indicated in his book 1984, for perhaps some Winston Smith to arise from GCHQ to do the work that either the other place or this place has not got the courage to do?
It is no good the noble Lord, Lord, Mottistone, saying "No, no", because he is not going to do it. He has applauded what has been done.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I said, "Oh, God". I did not say, "Oh, no".
Lord Molloy: Well, take it step by step. We will appeal to the Bishops' Bench first. There is a view in this country that what the Government have done has been done in a most ham-fisted way, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and other noble Lords have said. Of course we would applaud any Government which has had to take what might first of all appear to be an unpopular action when the safety of our nation is as stake. But I do not believe that any Minister of the Crown has made such a statement à propos this particular issue.
These rights were valiantly fought for over the 20-odd years that my noble friend Lord Houghton mentioned—and so far as I am concerned it is more like 25 years—and there was hardly any serious issue that required to be put down by force in this island. One recalls—and I recall with great pride—that the rights of my party in this island race of ours were achieved certainly in the face of the most obstinate and tough opposition, but hardly a single soul had his life deliberately taken away from him. Numbers gave their lives for the Labour movement and died for a variety of reasons, but no one was set on by either Liberal or Conservative Government and liquidated. Much can be said for the Civil Service of those days in the way they behaved.
Have the people at GCHQ any rights whatsoever left? Will the Minister please tell us whether there is now any code for dealing with grievances of these—I use the term advisedly—honourable civil servants? Is the Equal Pay Act 1970 to apply to them? We take away their rights, but at the same time we could say: "Your rights are to protest, but we shall not give you any need to protest". Will the Minister state categorically that the Equal Pay Act 1970 still applies; that the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 will still apply;

1245
that the Employment Protection Act of that year will still apply and that the Race Relations Act 1978 will still apply? These people, the nation, and I hope this House, will want an answer to those questions.
What has happened has distressed our admirers in many parts of the world. People, not only in our country but in all parts of the Commonwealth, are distressed that the image of this island has been tarnished. On the other hand, for Britain to behave like this on one edict from one person, the Prime Minister, with no Cabinet consultation, is an activity which encourages anti-democrats everywhere. But we have to ask ourselves whether any other civil rights are in danger.
In conclusion, I should say that I really believe that the Government should think again. The good name of our nation is at stake and that, I submit, is above all parties. All I hope and pray is that our Government will have the courage to acknowledge their failure and will do their best to rectify the grievous error they have made.
10.17 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I find it hard to believe that some of the most loyal supporters of the party Oppposite can doubt that the Government have seriously mishandled this issue of the GCHQ. On one issue I think there is general agreement: that is, that crucially important issues of national security are involved. No one has seriously challenged that proposition. I should make it clear, if that is at all necessary, that my noble friends and I do not regard it as acceptable that trade unions should be allowed to call strikes or organise disruption at an intelligence monitoring agency which is of vital importance to the security of this country, to the United States and to the whole of the North Atlantic Alliance. In these circumstances, I believe that the Government—indeed, any Government—would deserve support when they said that such conduct would not be accepted. I think that that would be the view of the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens.
That being so the Foreign Secretary's achievement in the past two weeks has been truly remarkable. He has succeeded in provoking a major public uproar, in gaining the severe criticism of many of his senior colleagues (as we have all had the benefit of reading in the newspapers) and the censure of some of his most devoted allies in Fleet Street. He has succeeded in making GCHQ and its associated stations possibly the most highly publicised intelligence centre in the western world. On an issue which is of the highest importance to the security of this country, the Foreign Secretary and the few of his colleagues who were involved have established a pattern of muddle, confusion and ineptitude which has few recent parallels.
Let me say at the outset what I believe should have been done in the situation. First, they should have spoken to the leaders of the Civil Service trade unions; they should have attempted to do this on a confidential basis at general secretary level; they should have said that the problems which had arisen in the past at Cheltenham were unacceptable; and they should have insisted on a no-strike and no-disruption agreement.
1246
They should have added that they were not prepared to have industrial tribunal cases arising from any disputes at Cheltenham heard in public. In those circumstances, I do not doubt that at that stage the unions would not have liked it, but, as we know from what has happened subsequently, they have indeed conceded on just these issues.
Secondly, I believe the Government should have told the leaders of the Opposition parties in Parliament on a Privy Counsellor basis what was happening. Issues of national security are not the private property of any one Government, and, in the past, that view has been accepted by both sides in another place. We all know perfectly well that in the days of the then Mr. Attlee, Sir Winston Churchill and Sir Anthony Eden there would have been confidential discussions; but today, of course, it is regarded as unfashionable to give even the slightest hint that issues of high national importance can be discussed on such a basis. It has to be confrontation, confrontation, confrontation, all the time!
So as we now know, what the Government did was to make their decision to prohibit trade union membership at Cheltenham and to give the Civil Service unions about ten minutes' notice of their intending pronouncement. Because they were fearful of leaks, few Ministers were consulted and, as a result, some of the most basic issues involved were not subjected to critical examination. So in the days following the Foreign Secretary's announcement we have witnessed some remarkable developments. We have had that offer of £1,000 which was announced on 25th January, and to which my noble friends Lord Hooson and Lord Rochester have referred. I agree with everything that they said. It was a nasty idea, and it has not improved as the matter has been argued out in public since then. The £1,000, we will recall, was to be offered to those who accepted the Government's new terms of employment at Cheltenham. Then, a few days later came the admission from the Inland Revenue—who, of course, had never been consulted on the matter—that such monies would be subject to taxation.
We had then the Foreign Secretary's remarkable appearance on independent television last week during which he disagreed, or appeared to disagree, with the terms of a Written Answer given in another place by the Minister of State at the Treasury on the essential issue of redundancy. On the 26th January, the Foreign Secretary said that every effort would be made to transfer to other departments those GCHQ staff who were unwilling to remain there under the new conditions. Staff for whom it was impossible to arrange transfer would, he said, be eligible for premature retirement on redundancy terms. As we now know, eight days later Mr. Hayhoe said that staff of executive officer grade and above—that is, the mobile grade of the Civil Service—who refused to move would not be treated as redundant and would not be entitled to compensation.
When Sir Alistair Burnet put these very different interpretations of the new policy to the Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey at first distanced himself from what Mr. Hayhoe had said. Then, when the inevitable row broke out, the Government's response was to attack Sir Alistair Burnet. He apparently had asked the

1247
wrong question—a very unusual complaint, I should have thought, coming from any politician. To make matters even worse, he went on to say that Thames Television had offered him an apology, and within minutes Thames Television made it quite clear that they had done no such thing.
I would add just this: I am quite sure that Sir Alistair Burnet can look after himself but I must declare an interest of a sort, in that he is an old friend and colleague of mine; but I would hope that the Foreign Secretary was rather above the practice of attacking journalists who ask inconvenient questions, particularly when the journalist is recognised by all who know him as a man of the highest ability and integrity.
It only required the latest development, that is the one we read about in our newspapers today—the Government's order to a union official from Cheltenham who had been invited to give evidence to the Select Committee on Employment in another place, that he should not attend the proceedings of that committee—to round off a fortnight which I am sure all the Ministers concerned will be extremely anxious to forget.
Before that can happen I believe that two things must take place. First, the Government really must think again on the question of banning trade union membership at Cheltenham. I can see absolutely no justification for such a decision. The Civil Service unions have now made so many concessions, particularly on the central issue of a no-disruption agreement, that the Government, I believe, should now respond with some measure of generosity. Nothing would be worse than, having had what has been a painful drubbing, that the Government should persist in an entirely mistaken policy in an attempt to prove that they were right all the time.
Secondly, I hope that some of the wiser members of the Government will encourage some of their colleagues to adopt a rather different attitude to the Civil Service as a whole. Many, I am sure, recognise the deep resentment caused throughout the public service about the treatment of the workers at GCHQ and the national officers of the Civil Service trade unions.
However, there is—and I think it is right to say so in a debate of this character—a far wider issue involved as well. That is the attitude of a number of Ministers that those who work in the public service, as distinct from those who work in the private sector, are in some respects less worthy people. Some Ministers—not Ministers, I may say in his absence, like the noble Viscount the Leader of the House—appear almost to have welcomed the development of a climate of suspicion between some Ministers and the Civil Service and to have encouraged the belief that the members of the Civil Service are in some respects doctrinaire opponents of many of the policies of the Government. I believe that view is absolute nonsense. With all its imperfections, I believe that we possess an admirable Civil Service, containing many people who have served successive governments with energy and with devotion. I hope that as result of this lamentable episode the Government will make a serious effort to establish a more generous-spirited relationship with those who work for them.
1248
I would say this in conclusion, if I may. I very much hope that the Prime Minister, when she next meets the Civil Service trade unions—and I understand she has offered such a meeting—will demonstrate some imagination and some flexibility and withdraw from the quite impossible position that her Government have now got themselves into.
10.30 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for initiating what has been one of the most interesting debates that we have had in this House for a very long time on one of the most important subjects that we have discussed in this House for a very long time. I feel it can be said of almost everything that has been said—not everything—that those who have spoken have chosen, quite rightly, to see the issues in this debate as very fundamental; as moral issues, as issues of freedom, as issues of security and, in the end, as issues going to the good faith of the Government themselves. Although we on this side have very little hope at this stage of the debate, and particularly after listening to the Foreign Secretary in what he said this morning to the Select Committee, that this obstinate Government are going to change their mind on this critical issue, we feel that we must try. We feel also—and this is what I want to do in the short time that I shall speak—that we must try to get the record straight on a number of issues, and we must ask once again whether the Government and the Minister will try to clarify some of the contradictions in the various explanations of the things which the Government have done.
To that end, as the Minister will be aware, I gave to the Government a day or so ago a list of questions to which I want to tease out answers tonight. Some of those questions have already been asked by other people, and I do not intend to bore the House with them, but some of them have not been asked, and they require answers. I want to ask questions about the precedents for the acts which the Government have taken, about the reasons which the Government have given for those acts, and about the consequences which have followed from those decisions, and one or two very important questions about what they intend to do in the future, about which they have been extremely vague.
My first question relates to precedents. What is the precedent for demanding new conditions of service, which involve established civil servants resigning from recognised trade unions, unless they accept a transfer to other work? I suggest that there is no precedent, but I ask whether there is one. What is the precedent for taking such a decision and announcing such new conditions of service without first consulting the recognised trade unions? Indeed, as has been said by many people who have spoken in this debate, without consulting almost anyone, including many senior members of the Cabinet, but, in particular, without consulting recognised trade unions. I suggest that there is no precedent, but I ask.
Much has been made by Ministers of the Crown of the so-called precedents. The Foreign Secretary said at

1249
column 923 of the Official Report for the other place of 25th January:
"the provision we are invoking has been invoked by previous Governments".
I suggest that that is not so. The Prime Minister said at column 1047 of the Official Report of 26th January:
"This has been the practice under all Governments."
I suggest that that is misleading, and intentionally so. The Minister of State, the Member for Brentford and Isleworth, said at column 18 of the Official Report of 30th January:
"The action taken…was absolutely in tune with, and based on, the Employment Protection Act 1975 and the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, which were introduced by the then Labour Government".
The fact is that the 1975 and 1978 Acts, which go back to the 1971 Act, are a smokescreen. They set aside certain rights to compensation. They enable the Government to say that if certain acts are done there is no compensation. In any case, these powers were established at the Committee stage in this House in 1971.
It is clear from the speeches which were made at that time by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for the Government, that what was being taken was a power to enforce the status quo. The Government were applying to the existing intelligence services what normally applied to the existing Armed Forces. Indeed, it was made clear at the time by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, on 10th June, at col. 444 of the Official Report, that what was being imposed, what was being introduced, what was being suggested was that the existing intelligence services should be placed on the same footing as members of the Crown who are excluded under subsection (2) of the section. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, made clear what this meant at col. 432:
"This Amendment provides an opportunity to emphasise that members of the Armed Forces are not forbidden to belong to a trade union. In fact, the Ministry of Defence have made arrangements with a number of craft unions whereby these unions recognise the training and experience gained in the Services.…"
So far as the House was aware, we were placing the existing intelligence services on the same basis as the existing Armed Forces which, we were told at that time, had the right to belong to a trade union. This is the authority by which men and women are being denied the right to belong to any trade union.
There is no complete parallel with what the Government have done, even with MI5 and MI6, as has been forced out of the Government successively. There has been no statement by the Government that there is a formal commitment in contracts of service for the existing intelligence services of the kind which the Government have introduced in GCHQ. The unions say that though they never particularly seek to recruit in MI5 and MI6, they may very well have members there. Some people say that the doctors who operate in MI5 and MI6 are members of the BMA. They may or they may not be; nobody knows: and on the whole most people do not ask. The fact is that what this Government are doing for the employees in GCHQ has no precedent. This is something which cannot be authorised by what any previous Government ever did. They are extending legislation which was intended simply to codify the status quo to
1250
new groups of workers, and they are doing it by changing their contracts of employment unilaterally. There is no precedent for any of that. I ask the Government to deny it.
Therefore my next question is: do the Government deny that the agreements covering the redeployment of both mobile and non-mobile staff in the Civil Service were not intended to be used in the way in which the Government are now using them? Those collective agreements were not intended to be used to force people, if they are mobile, to move anywhere in the country if they do not want to drop their union cards, or to move to a less attractive job, if they are non-mobile, or to accept dismissal, possibly without redundancy pay. This is all without precedent. Such agreements as were agreed to by the Civil Service trade unions were agreed to in totally different circumstances. Whatever the legal basis, it is a fundamental breach of contract for the Government to use those understandings and agreements in order to impose their will upon civil servants.
Those are the questions I want to ask in regard to precedent. Now I want to ask one or two questions about reasons. The Government have given many different reasons. I do not want to discuss now the reasons which others have suggested that they might have had—the covert reasons. Let me deal with the overt reasons. Let me ask what is the basic reason for the announcement of new conditions of service.
In other words, there are two choices facing the Government. Is it because it is now acknowledged that staff at GCHQ are engaged on highly secret work involving national security? Is it essentially a national security argument? Or is it not just a national security argument—or, as the Prime Minister seems to say when she talks about it, not so much a national security argument but an argument about industrial action? What is it about? Is it about security, or is it about industrial action?
Many different issues and questions flow from the answers which the Government give to that question. If it is basically a question of national security, and if it is a question of the quality, degree of secrecy, confidentiality and importance of the work these people do, then there are many other groups of workers in the Foreign Office, Ministry of Defence and Private Office at Downing Street who ought reasonably to fall under the same ban. If such levels of security are incompatible with trade union membership, the ban should not stop at GCHQ.
On the other hand, if it is not so much a matter of security but also a matter of strike action, then there are a number of different questions we can ask. If it has to be a matter both of high security and strike action, then I should like to ask the Government what percentage of the staff at GCHQ, subject to their new conditions of service, were involved in industrial action of any kind since 1979. If it be the case that 30 per cent., 40 per cent., 50 per cent., or even 60 per cent. of the staff subject to the new conditions of service have not been involved in any industrial action at all, and if it be the case that this is not just a matter of security and confidentiality, but of security and confidentiality combined with industrial action, then in God's name, how can the Government justify seeking to impose new conditions of service on staff

1251
who have not been involved in any kind of industrial action since 1979?
In fact, there is no justification to impose, even upon those who have engaged in industrial action, the kind of penalties which the Government seek to impose because, as has been said by many speakers in this debate, the unions have now agreed to meet the Government on three out of four of their central demands. I will come to the fourth demand in a moment.
The unions are prepared to accept an effective non-disruption, non-strike agreement. They are prepared to accept what one might call the "domestication" of the disputes procedure, so that any issue of confidentiality and any classified matter can be dealt with by members of GCHQ staff who may be members of the unions, without in any way involving a trade union official.
On the other issues, the unions are prepared to accept what the Government want. They are prepared to accept no access to industrial tribunals. There is one issue which the Government still stand out on, and I will come to it in a moment. But on all the other issues, even with those who have engaged in industrial action, as other speakers have said, the Government have had everything they could conceivably ask for.
I know what the Government will say, because they have said it already. They will say, "The unions should have made these offers before. They should have made them in 1980"—or in 1981, because there is some confusion in the record, as to when the request was made. Or the Government will say, "It is not just that they should have made these offers before—we cannot believe them now".
Several speakers have touched on these points. On the first point, I would say that what one has to appreciate is that the trade unions in the Civil Service at that time, between 1979 and 1981, were engaged in what they thought was a fundamental dispute over the unilateral cancellation by the Government of an agreement on pay and arbitration which had stood the test of 24 or 25 years. The Government were unilaterally winding up that agreement, and that was the basis on which those disputes took place.
Secondly, the Government, for reasons of their own which I must say I have never completely understood, believed that it was not in their interest to avow that GCHQ did what everybody has known it did since the mid-1940s. For some reason, which is totally inexplicable, it was thought that if we did not say what was going on at GCHQ the Russians would not know about it. In fact, of course, they had been there for years. Therefore, GCHQ was not avowed, whatever that meant, and so far as its formal position was concerned, industrial action was permitted there in the same way as anywhere else in the Civil Service. From 1979 up to the present time, at any time—nothing to do with the recent decision to avow—at any time from 1979, if the Government did not like that, they should have told the trade unions about it; and the moment they did, they found that the unions were prepared to negotiate the kind of agreements that have been mentioned tonight.
1252
So I come to my final questions about the consequences of what the Government have done. First, do the Government know and can they tell us what percentage of staff affected by the new conditions of service are (a) mobile officers and (b) non-mobile officers who can be offered alternative employment? We are told there will be very little redundancy; we are not given any figures. Can the Government tell us what proportion of these people, if they do not give in their union card, will be either made redundant or offered jobs which they will not find acceptable and therefore will be declared not redundant but dismissed with no compensation?
Next I want to ask about the ex gratia payment of £1,000. How did the Government arrive at the figure? Let me say I have little hope that I shall be told, because the Foreign Secretary was asked this on four separate occasions this morning and each time he said it was the best judgment available. The Minister may have other words but I suspect it will come to the same. How did the Government arrive at £1,000, and how does this figure relate to the much higher sums which are available in industrial tribunals in cases of discrimination against trade unionists outside GCHQ?
I hope the Minister will not say, as was said this morning, "Of course, that is only paid"—figures between £7,500 and £30,000—"if people are dismissed". That is not so; that money is available for action short of dismissal, and what is being done to these people is that action is being taken against them short of dismissal, although in some eases it will involve dismissal, and the maximum compensation is £1,000. It does not relate to individual circumstances, as it would do in industrial tribunals, and it does not reach even the minimum special award of £7,500. I ask again where does the figure come from?
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I have been following the noble Lord's argument carefully. Does he suggest that the amount should be increased? Is he in favour of this?
Lord McCarthy: No, my Lords, I am not in favour. I do not think people should be bought in this way, but if people pick figures out of the air, particularly if they are rather small, mean figures, they are entitled to be asked where they got them from. If they are asked four times and they do not answer I intend to ask a fifth time. Where did they get the figure of £1,000 from? They must have got it from somewhere. Even the thirty pieces of silver must have been calculated on some basis. Therefore, I ask them what the basis is.
I have two final questions. One is about the legality of what the Government have done. Are they happy about the legality? Some people say that the Government are in breach of the implied terms of contract, and that arises from the fact that in the management notes to new employees at GCHQ the staff are encouraged to join recognised staff unions. Common law lawyers say that is a breach of contract. Many say that the Government are in breach of ILO Convention 87. Many say that they are in breach of Article 22 of the International Convention on Civil Rights; and others say they are in breach of Article 11(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

1253
If they are, considerable sums of money—as in the case of the three railwaymen—will have to be found by the British taxpayer.
My final question relates to the future, and to the future of consultation. The Government have said, and Sir Geoffrey has repeatedly said, that they have no further territorial claims to make on the British trade union movement, and that they do not intend that any further groups of workers will be deprived of their union cards by the threat of removal or the sack. Nevertheless, nobody can tell or know what the womb of time will reveal. Therefore, I ask a rather more limited question. I do not ask whether the Government will do it again, but will the Government state that, should they decide at some future date that reasons of national security require similar changes in conditions of service, they will first inform the unions involved of their change of view and will seek to consult them fully?
If the Government cannot say that, I come to their final condition which they state the unions cannot meet. The Government have said that they want no disruption, no disclosure, no intrusion and no conflict of loyalty. It has been suggested by almost every speaker in this debate that on no disruption, no disclosure and no intrusion the Government have been met, and more than met. Therefore, it is "no conflict of loyalty" that stops them, and it is not industrial action, in the end, which is the problem. It is that they believe there are certain, as yet unspecified, groups of employees in the public sector whose level of work and confidentiality is just too high for it to be compatible with their being trade unionists.
Again and again this morning Sir Geoffrey fell into the use of phrases of this sort. When forced against the ropes by being asked why he wanted still to say that he could not make any move, he said that the Government must go for what he called a freestanding staff association, or that they must put a ring fence round this group of trade unionists, or that they must have them unlinked with other groups so that there is no conflict of loyalty. I suggest to the Government that to say that while at the same time saying, as Sir Geoffrey said,
"I have no doubt of the loyalty and professional dedication of the staff of GCHQ. They have for many years displayed a high degree of devotion to duty".
is to say that the source of disloyalty is the fact of trade union membership. That is what is found fundamentally offensive on this side of the House. What is being said is that at certain levels trade union membership is unreliable and unpatriotic. Unless the Government deny that, they can change their mind.
10.54 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, has raised a subject today which commands considerable interest at the present time. I hope I may therefore explain again to your Lordships why the Government found it necessary to take the decision that they did in this matter, as well as answering some of the specific questions put to me by noble Lords tonight. As some of your Lordships will be aware, and as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, reminded us, my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary this morning appeared
1254
before the Select Committee on Employment in another place, and I make no apology for the fact that much of what I say will reflect the statement made by my right honourable friend.
The Government Communication Headquarters plays a unique and vital role in the security of the United Kingdom, by providing signals intelligence and ensuring the security of military and official communications. Its work must be conducted in secret, and it must provide an absolutely reliable and uninterrupted service, 24 hours a day and 365 days a year.
Let me say very clearly at the outset that I have no doubt of the loyalty and professional dedication of the staff at GCHQ. They have for many years displayed a high degree of devotion to duty. This was particularly highlighted, for example, during the Falklands campaign, during which their contribution was invaluable. But the fact remains that between February 1979 and April 1981 the continuity of GCHQ operation was disrupted seven times. Over 10,000 working days were lost. Over 25 per cent. of the staff were at one stage involved, and on one so-called day of action, on 9th March 1981, parts of GCHQ were virtually shut down because of industrial disruption.
On some of these occasions national unions, in the course of a general dispute with the Government not specifically related to GCHQ, deliberately chose to direct action against what they correctly saw as a very sensitive and vital agency of the Government, with the avowed intent of causing both national and international repercussions; and this in spite of a specific appeal to them not to involve GCHQ. Staff at GCHQ were thus placed in a position where their national unions were pressing them to place their loyalty to their union above their loyalty to the service. The Government have accordingly decided that it is right to place GCHQ on the same basis as the other security and intelligence agencies. This means requiring GCHQ staff to accept the loss of their rights under the Employment Protection Acts and a diminution of their freedom to associate, in the sense that the revised conditions of service allow them to belong to a departmental staff association approved by the Director of GCHQ but not to continue in membership of any other trade union.
This action could not have been decided upon at a time when the intelligence role of GCHQ had not been publicly acknowledged or avowed. This role was for the first time avowed when my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made a statement in another place on 12th May last year. The decision which my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary announced on 25th January was taken by Ministers after very careful consideration in the light of these new circumstances.
The overall objective is of course to ensure that staff at GCHQ are not in future subject to the kind of pressures put upon them in the past. This implies four detailed objectives: first, that staff at GCHQ must be deprived of the right to access to industrial tribunals, for security reasons; secondly, that it needs to be part of the conditions of service of GCHQ staff that there will be no interference in GCHQ's activities and operations by industrial disruption, whether in pursuit

1255
of national or of local disputes; thirdly, that negotiations on departmental issues, including questions of structure must, for security reasons, be carried out by departmental staff representatives answerable to the staff of GCHQ and to no one else; fourthly, that the maintenance of GCHQ's service must not be put at risk by any conflict of loyalty of the staff. These remain our objectives. They are of the highest importance, and I think will be generally recognised as such.
There is nothing new in principle in this. Successive Employment Protection Acts, repeating the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act 1971, have provided for the need to except certain categories of employment on grounds of national security. These categories are designated by the issue of ministerial certificates like the ones my right honourable friend has recently signed. Such certificates have been in force since 1971 for the other intelligence and security agencies. They have been signed by the responsible Ministers of previous Governments of both parties.
The main result of the certificates is to remove from employees rights arising from the unfair dismissal provisions of the 1978 Act, including the right to complain to an industrial tribunal and also the right of recourse to such a tribunal in connection with restrictions on their union membership or activities. Many of the statutory rights thus removed continue to be provided for all civil servants, including members of GCHQ, by the Civil Service pay and conditions code and the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. For example, these guarantee time off for public duties, maternity pay, the right to return to work and redundancy provisions.
Further if an appeal needs to be made against dismissal, that can be taken to the Civil Service Appeals Board. This procedure, as with the medical appeal boards, will continue to apply to GCHQ staff. So does other relevant legislation, including that on health and safety, equal pay, and sex and race discrimination; and that point was in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, when he spoke. GCHQ staff will remain members of the home Civil Service. Conditions of service, other than those relating to union membership or activities, are unchanged. Thus GCHQ staff will, for example, continue to receive the benefits of national pay settlements.
The issue of certificates does not of itself remove the right to be a member of a trade union. That right is removed as a result of the changes in conditions of service now being introduced at GCHQ. These changes will ensure, first, that discussion of local and departmental issues at GCHQ is dealt with not by officials of national trade unions, but by departmental staff representatives, answerable only to GCHQ staff through the departmental staff association; and, secondly, that GCHQ staff cannot be instructed by, or in the name of, national unions to interfere in or interrupt GCHQ's operations and activities in pursuit of an industrial dispute. The proposed staff association will be able to represent all members of GCHQ, industrial and non-industrial, and will be able, if so desired, to have sections for the different disciplines; for example, radio, science and technology, administration and support. Staff experienced in Whitley and
1256
industrial trade union affairs have already been invited to help in forming the association, but all members of GCHQ will be eligible. Within the new arrangements, the association will be encouraged to negotiate on the departmental issues covered by previous trade union arrangements; for instance, pay, allowances, conditions of service, procedures, equipment and individual cases.
The Government's decision on these changes was an important one, which needed first to be announced in Parliament. Moreover, given the large numbers of staff involved, it would have been very difficult to ensure confidentiality on a matter of this kind if members of GCHQ had been informed beforehand. As soon as my right honourable friend had made his Statement in another place—which was repeated in your Lordships' House by my noble friend Lady Young—every member of GCHQ individually received a detailed explanation.
Staff have thus been given the choice between continuing to be employed at GCHQ under the new conditions or requesting a transfer to suitable alternative employment elsewhere in the Civil Service. If it proves impossible to arrange such a transfer, they will be eligible for premature retirement on redundancy terms. In accordance with rules which apply generally throughout the Civil Service, anyone who refused an offer of a suitable alternative post would not be eligible for redundancy terms——
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question on that point. Why did his right honourable friend not make that clear on 25th January?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I did not hear the broadcast to which the noble Lord refers, but I think——
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am talking about the Statement which was made on 25th January. Why was the latter point—the one which the noble Lord has just mentioned—not made absolutely clear in the Statement made in both Houses?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is always a matter of choice as to how much detail on these particular kind of issues it is right to put into a Statement. My right honourable friend was certainly willing to clarify that point when he was subsequently asked.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is fundamental. It is one of the main issues we are arguing about. The Government, over the last few years, in 1980 and now, have broken two agreements——
Lord Denham: Question!
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am going to ask a question. They have broken two agreements with civil servants. What guarantees can the Minister give, even if these proposals go through, that the Government will not break them?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that the Government have broken no agreements with the Civil Service as he suggests.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Nonsense.
Lord Trefgarne: The issue put by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is one that I have answered.
Anyone who refused an offer of a suitable alternative post would not be eligible for redundancy terms. I hope that it will not come to that and that staff will accept the offer that has been made to them. But if it did come to that, the person concerned would be liable, as I say, to have his employment terminated. It has been suggested that the Government could have achieved the objectives I have stated by other means. The Government did not take their decision lightly, and the offer of an ex gratia payment in recognition of loss of statutory rights to staff choosing to remain at GCHQ is only one indication of the importance we attach to the principles at stake.
We concluded, however, that the way to ensure freedom from disruption at GCHQ, and that staff would not be subject to the kind of problems which had been apparent in the past, was to treat them in the same way as other intelligence agencies, by excluding national trade unions. We remain ready to listen to any proposals the unions may have, but we continue to believe that the measures announced on 25th January are the surest and safest way of ensuring our national security.
May I now turn to some of the specific points raised by your Lordships tonight. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, posed a large number of questions and I hope I have already managed to answer a high proportion of these. Of those that I have not covered so far, the noble Lord asked me about the agreements covering the redeployment of staff. The agreements were negotiated with the Council of Civil Service Unions representing the trade union side of the National Whitley Council, and were, of course, intended to cover all circumstances involving redeployment of staff.
The noble Lord asked me about any United States pressure in this matter.
Lord McCarthy: No, I did not.
Lord Trefgarne: Perhaps I have identified the wrong noble Lord. Perhaps it was the noble Lord, Lord Dean. These measures have been taken solely at the Government's initiative. Like us, the United States authorities were naturally concerned about industrial action at GCHQ. But at no time did they apply any sort of pressure on us to take any action. When told of the Government's action on 26th January they regarded it as sensible but saw it as our own affair. I can also confirm that the Security Commission report on the Prime case did not propose the recent changes in condition of service at GCHQ.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain? He has just stated that the United States Government were upset over what had happened at Cheltenham. How do we know that they were upset? Who, in the British Government, was told by the
1258
United States Government that they, as the Minister says, were upset?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the United States is, I suppose, our closest ally. I am afraid that it would take me more than a few moments to explain to the noble Lord the channels of communication that we have with the United States.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked for some figures relating to the staff at GCHQ. I understand that something over three-quarters of the staff are mobile officers, and one quarter non-mobile. But, of course, until we know how many have signed the option form, we will not know how many will require alternative employment. In reply to another question from the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, in cases of compulsory redundancy we will, indeed, serve at least the minimum period of notice required under the 1978 Employment Protection Act.
Turning to other points, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked me about the precedents for imposing arrangements such as this. I have to say that the circumstances at GCHQ are unique. GCHQ was the only intelligence and security agency where there has been a tradition of trade union membership.
The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, during the course of his remarks asked about whether the arrangements are to apply to the other Government employees who enter GCHQ to do maintenance work. A number of PSA, CISCO and contractor personnel work in support roles at GCHQ on a full-time or a part-time basis. They are covered by the conditions of service and management arrangements of their parent organisations, which have wider responsibilities. It would be impracticable to extend to those individuals the exclusion from the Employment Protection Acts or the conditions of service now applicable to GCHQ as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris—and I think the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, took up this theme as well—asked me why it was not better to have a guarantee of no disruption than to ban union membership at GCHQ. There are doubts about the future strength and interpretation of a "no disruption" agreement in the light of the four objectives to which I referred in my speech. In particular, there is a conflict of loyalties in national Civil Service disputes which would still be likely to arise. Union influence would remain. It would be difficult to define departmental issues from which national unions are to be excluded, and the force of the provisions of the Employment Protection Acts against restrictions on trade union activities would remain. It is not better, therefore, to have a guarantee of no disruption because unions have never, not before 25th January anyway, indicated willingness to give such a guarantee—quite the contrary in fact. Even if they are now willing, they might find it difficult to convince us that they would be able to honour it in future in what might well be different circumstances.
Past experience is that GCHQ has been singled out as an attractive target for disruptive action. Enforcement of a "no disruption" agreement would be very difficult as the source of disruption, whether it was union or individual, might not be easy to identify. Union action has clearly led to deliberate and undesirable publicity for GCHQ.

1259
I was also asked whether, given the fact that unions have been recognised at GCHQ for such a long time and that in the book about "Notes for new Employees" the staff are encouraged to join trade unions, the Government did not consider this to be a right or an implied term of contract. In introducing the new conditions of service at GCHQ my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has acted by virtue of the Civil Service Order in Council 1982 which authorises her from time to time to make regulations or give instructions for controlling the conduct of the service and for the conditions of service of those employed in it. Staff at GCHQ are being offered the choice either of agreeing to accept the new conditions of service or of seeking a transfer elsewhere in the Civil Service.
On one very important point I should like to repeat what my right honourable friend said in another place on 25th January: The Government fully respect the right of civil servants to be members of a trade union. It is only the critical importance and the special nature of the work of GCHQ which has led us to take the measures that I have announced.
This is no part of any wider campaign. It is emphatically not the Government's intention to introduce similar measures outside the field of security and intelligence.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to ask him whether he would not agree that I have in fact asked him a whole series of questions which he has not even begun to answer? Will he answer them subsequently, or will he not answer them at all?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have endeavoured to answer quite a number of points during the speech I have made. I will cull the words of the noble Lord, and if there is anything I can add I will write to him.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past eleven o'clock.